FORMER defence minister Richwell Siamunene says he does not feel betrayed by President Edgar Lungu when the Head of State kept ministers in office after the dissolution of parliament in May 2016.
Recently, the Constitutional Court maintained that such ministers stayed in office illegally and ordered them to pay back all allowances and salaries they received during that period.
But Siamunene feels that President Lungu acted in good faith, blaming the situation on what he termed an ambiguous Constitution.
“There is no feeling of betrayal from what the President guided because we were all convinced that the piece of legislation is not clear. The judgment has come out like that because the court looked at the money spent and not the work done. If for example we had stayed in the office without being paid they would have not ruled in that manner they have ruled, but it’s just because of the issue of money that we were paid” he said.
“We are not here to punish each other, so there must be some reluctance in the modality of payment because when this money came it was not paid in lumpsum. But it come in instalments of maybe K15,000 per month, maybe K20,000 per month and how many months? Now to say you pay in 30 days as though the money was kept somewhere when it was spent! In fact, it went into circulation, everyone benefited because we may have gone to Shoprite and buy bread and maybe one of the persons who made a ruling has a relative who is working in Shoprite.”
Siamunene said it would have been better if the victims were told to pay back in instalments.
“We would have loved to be told to pay the money according to the way it was paid. How much were we getting per month and that money could have been spread for a period of time because we are not a country that should be only interested to punish people when it’s our own laws that are not clear,” he said. “Otherwise, Bill 10 should have not just been looked in a negative aspect but its positives could have been considered too.”
And Siamunene said there were lessons to be learnt from the judgment.
“This is a lesson worth remembering that there was a time when this thing happened and this is how it happened. Basically, the feeling of negativity must not be entertained because in life it’s not possible for one that only positive things must happen to them,” he said. “For us to remain in office there was an understanding which was in us, which the Constitution does not clarify. It’s those things that we need to clear as a people of this Republic because our Constitution should be a straightforward document.”
Siamunene said the Constitution should be a document that could be understood by an ordinary person.
“A good Constitution is one which a common man in the compound is able to understand and not only those who are learned, no. For us to remain it means there was an understanding that was not clear and that is why Bill 10 should have been allowed to pass or those people who were against it should have proposed something so that at least we have a document that is non-disputable whereby you cannot dispute everything,” he said. “Now in our Constitution we dispute everything. The term of office disputed, the term to remain in office is disputed – so it’s everything that is disputed because it’s not clear.”
He said the country now needed people with sober minds to help address lacunas in the Constitution without being suspected of championing a partisan interest.
“We now need people that will say this country belongs to us. What do we do because we need to be guided by this Constitution and it must be clear without any ambiguities or grey areas that require interpretation of the court,” Siamunene said. “As it is now we are going to pay, it’s a court judgment. There is nothing we can do. If people read the Constitution over that issue, there are so many ambiguities which we needed to sort out through Bill 10.”
Asked if he and other legislators did not see that the law they made would later affect them, Siamunene responded, “Yes, we made that Constitution but it does not mean that when you make something it is not changeable, no. You have to change if you see that you did not do a good job. Even when you are constructing a house if you see the structure does not conform to the standard that you wanted you can demolish it. Maybe you erred somewhere and then you do it in a straightforward manner.’’
He justified the introduction of the failed National Assembly (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019, saying it would have cured some of the lacunas.
“So, this is why we are saying okay, we didn’t do a good job that time but here is the issue; we are still in government. And you realise you didn’t do a good job; you go back to the people to explain that you didn’t do a good job and now this is how you propose to do it. Then concerned people will look at it from positive mindset, not negative no, because in this country we are too much negative,” said Siamunene.