USING STATE HOUSE GROUNDS TO FIGHT A POLITICAL OPPONENT
Yesterday, Patriotic Front (PF) cadres, disguised as students, youths and leaders of civil society organisations, matched to State House, without Zambia Police hindrances, to present a petition to President Edgar Lungu for him to appoint a commission of inquiry into the privatization of state-owned companies in the 1990s.
In response, Mr Lungu said he would soon appoint the said inquiry to put the privatization matter to rest and subject those who allegedly abused the process to justice.
He added that it was clear that some people allegedly took advantage of the process to loot, plunder and enrich themselves.
Was I surprised by yesterday’s charade?
No, I wasn’t.
I had already read the entire script.
Yesterday’s petition came just days after Mr Lungu had told a PF campaign rally in Luapula Province that he might consider heeding the demands of the “Zambian people” to appoint a commission of inquiry to probe the privatization process.
I had found Mr Lungu’s statement very interesting.
The only question I have for him is: Which people?
Yes, which people have asked him to appoint a commission of inquiry targeted at his arch political opponent Hakainde Hichilema?
To the politically naïve, it is, indeed, the Zambian people pressuring Mr Lungu to appoint a probe team to put to rest unanswered questions about the privatization process.
Chief government spokesperson Dora Siliya recently told us that government was closely following “the reaction by the citizens” to allegations that Mr Hichilema allegedly never declared interest in the sale of some public assets.
Who are these “citizens” and what do they stand for?
Here is another unanswered question.
Where did this privatization debate emanate from?
Did it really begin with Forum for Democracy and Development president Edith Nawakwi?
Let’s go down memory lane to check how this game has been unfolding.
DECEMBER 26, 2018
President Lungu’s spokesperson Amos Chanda begins the debate by calling for a judge-led inquiry into the privatization of state owned companies.
“Unlike Mr Hichilema who sold the companies to friends or relatives and himself, President Lungu’s participation was confined to being chairman in the sale of Zambia Cold Storage Limited to foreigners.
“President Lungu did not sell the Keembe storage to himself, relatives or friends.”
*******************************************************
As presidential spokesperson, Chanda uttered these words on behalf of President Lungu. *******************************************************
DECEMBER 26, 2018
Patriotic Front media director Sunday Chanda says the following:
“Compare and contrast with all the sales in which the UPND president was involved. They are all tainted with criminality.”
*************************************************
DECEMBER 26, 2018
PF media committee member Chanoda Ngwira tells ZNBC that he welcomes the State House suggestion that there should be a judge-led inquiry into the privatization of companies.
Ngwira adds that the inquiry will not be a political witch-hunt but merely give an opportunity for a named opposition politician to tell Zambians his side of the story.
************************************************
DECEMBER 27, 2018
PF-aligned Zambian DNA spokesperson Spuki Mulemwa tells ZNBC he welcomes calls by State House for an inquiry into the privatization of parastatal companies
********************************************************
27 AUGUST, 2020
A supposed PF-backed Edith Nawakwi goes on radio to re-launch PF accusations against Hichilema.
****************************************************
A few days later, PF-inclined Young African Leaders Initiative calls on Mr Lungu to appoint a commission of inquiry into the privatization process.
****************************************************
1 SEPTEMBER, 2020
PF member of the central committee and chief government spokesperson Dora Siliya issues a statement saying the government finds Hichilema’s alleged conduct in the privatization process, if true, to be “a clear case of corrupt practices, bordering on non-declaration of interest in winning a bid”.
“Government is, therefore, studying the matter and is following closely the reaction by the citizens who are the true owners of the property in question.
“The nation will at an appropriate time be informed on the steps that government will take should it become necessary to act on behalf of the citizens of Zambia.”
4 SEPTEMBER, 2020
Siliya tweets that government is surprised by “unfounded” allegations by Hichilema that government and the PF party want to imprison and/or kill him.
“That is a cheap attempt as usual to invoke sympathy. Zambians are simply asking him to account for his wealth and his role in privatization”.
*******************************************************
1 OCTOBER, 2020
PF-aligned students and youths match to State House to present a petition to PF and Zambian President Lungu to appoint a commission of inquiry into the privatization programme.
Mr Lungu says he will appoint the commission of inquiry as he has already received numerous representations from “people” across all walks of life.
Now, you can see the “people” Mr Lungu has been referring to; user-friendly characters with the sole aim of ensuring that Hichilema does not appear on the ballot next year.
In essence, it is not the “people” but Mr Lungu and his PF party who are victimizing Mr Hichilema.
Why should we be wasting our very meagre resources on a compromised commission of inquiry with a pre-determined outcome?
Are we a serious country?
Just look at our priorities. When it is not privatization, it is Bill 10.
When it is not Bill 10, it is something that does not help our country in any way.
Really?
Is this all that we deserved from Mr Lungu?
Why is he so scared of Mr Hichilema that he can go all the way to find ways of forcing a conviction and prevent him from running for the presidency of this country?
Do genuine Zambian citizens conduct themselves in the manner Mr Lungu is doing?
Yesterday, he even bragged that the Inquiries Act gives him the latitude to appoint a commission of inquiry without consulting anyone.
Why should he abuse the Zambian law to fight his political opponents?
In the past, Mr Lungu has used the law to fix people he has had differences with.
This is what retired Supreme Court for Zambia judge Philip Musonda refers to as lawfare.
In an academic paper titled “Lawfare: Undermining constitutional democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the post-colonial state”, Dr Musonda defines lawfare as “a form of war consisting of the legal system against an enemy, like damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory”.
Dr Musonda adds: “Don’t use the law to victimize your political enemies and “eliminate the opposition from the political scene”.
Mr Lungu has had the notoriety of using lawfare to fight people he perceives as his enemies.
Let me demonstrate.
When President Michael Sata died in October 2014, The Post newspaper made it clear they were not going to support Mr Lungu’s candidature for either PF presidential candidate or, indeed, Zambian president.
Mr Lungu had learnt a lesson.
Come the 2016 elections, Mr Lungu made it a point to have The Post newspaper closed before the country went to vote lest they swayed the thinking of the electorate.
How did he do it?
He used a state institution, the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), to settle his political scores with Post Newspapers proprietor Fred M’membe over unpaid taxes.
Even after M’membe had taken the matter to the Tax Tribunal which ruled that The Post continue to run and pay the debt in installments, the ZRA ignored the ruling and went ahead to close the newspaper in accordance with Mr Lungu’s wish.
That was not the only matter in which Mr Lungu had used a state institution to fight personal battles.
In 2015, Mr Lungu had had personal issues with Director of Public Prosecutions Mutembo Nchito and wanted him dismissed.
Since Nchito had security of tenure, Mr Lungu had to use lawfare to get rid of his enemy.
He appointed a tribunal to probe and establish a case against Nchito so that he could dismiss him.
The tribunal comprised three former chief justices led by Justice Annel Silungwe.
But two of the former chief justices on the tribunal- Ernest Sakala and Mathew Ngulube- were conflicted.
When Nchito asked Sakala and Ngulube to recuse themselves as they had had personal differences with him, they refused to do so.
In the end, they delivered a report in accordance with Mr Lungu’s wish which recommended Nchito’s dismissal.
How differently will Mr Lungu’s commission of inquiry against Mr Hichilema be?
State House should be an honourable place that belongs to all of us and not one for fixing perceived enemies or blocking political opponents from seeking public office.