Prof Chirwa can't succeed me, says Levy
Prof Chirwa can't succeed me, says LevyBy Amos Malupenga in Mfuwe
Monday December 31, 2007 [03:00]
PROFESSOR Clive Chirwa cannot succeed me, President Levy Mwanawasa has said. In an exclusive interview last Wednesday at South Luangwa National Park where he is on holiday, President Mwanawasa said he was against Professor Chirwa succeeding him pointing out that Zambia did not have a shortage of leaders.
“Now, let me give a timely warning to people who have been outside. They have been outside living in a foreign environment. They come back to the country and think that we are all foolish; we are all incapable of providing leadership and now they are God-sent people,” President Mwanawasa said. “I am against Professor Chirwa and I command a lot of support in the MMD and my supporters will not support him.”
Professor Chirwa has been continuously living in England close to twenty years. He is now lecturing at Boston University as a Professor of Crashworthiness. He intends to come back to settle in Zambia in 2009 in readiness to initially contest the MMD and later the Republican presidency.
But President Mwanawasa said Professor Chirwa is not among those he is considering to succeed him. He said although Prof Chirwa can qualify to contest the MMD presidency if the convention will be in 2010, going by the party constitution he still felt that there were more issues to look at in anyone wishing to succeed him. He said from last year, he has changed three preferred candidates and right now he is considering someone. He said he would soon be making an announcement to the MMD’s national executive committte as to who he prefers to be his successor.
Below is President Mwanawasa’s interview in full.
Question: Thank you Your Excellency for allowing me to disturb your holiday by giving me this opportunity to talk to you on issues that ordinarily I should discuss with you when you are in a working mood and not holiday making. Since I have found you relaxing here in Mfuwe, I would like to start the interview by asking you to tell me how you are spending time with your family…
Answer: It’s a fantastic period. I have never had quality time such as this ever since I became President. In the past I have taken four to seven days working leave. But this has been different in the sense that I have come with my wife, my children, my nephews and my grand son.
We have never been so close together. During the morning, we go out to watch game, during daytime I chat with the two ministers who are with me – the Minister of Health and the Minister of Tourism. In the evening around 19:30, the children and I all troop to the swimming pool and swim together. It’s nice, it’s as if I have been long lost with the family and I feel very refreshed. I wish this could continue.
Q: Can I come and witness your swimming?
A: You are welcome, that is if you will be here in the evening.
Q: Can I come with a lifesaver?
A: Laughter All the children know how to swim. I am the only one who is being taught and I have to rely on them to save me.
Q: Who is teaching you how to swim?
A: The children. The First Lady sits on the side and watch us play.
Q: Oh, she can’t swim?
A: No.
Q: You should learn quickly so you can teach her in return…
Now, in a few days time, we will be closing the year 2007. Could Your Excellency briefly tell me how this year has been for you, both as Head of State and head of the family?
A: This year has been very challenging but I am glad that most of the challenges we faced, we have been able to surmount them. I am particularly impressed at the fact that we passed the National Constitutional Conference Bill into law and the National Constitutional Conference has started sitting. I was able to open it and everybody is anxious, everybody is hopeful that this institution will draft the final draft, which will be presented to Parliament for enactment.
Q: You talked about the year being challenging without elaborating, what has been especially challenging?
A: The issue of poverty reduction has continued to haunt this nation. We have been busy trying to woo investors to come and develop this country. You have seen major industries being set up, providing employment to our people. The economy has been improving; we have reached single digit inflation, which is now standing at 8.2 per cent. We have been growing at the rate of 5.8 per cent. We are hoping to perform even better.
You have seen that we are no longer dependent on imported foods. We are eating from our own food, the food that we have grown. I do hope that this is going to be a permanent feature.
Q: Talking about economic achievements so far in the year ending; two weeks ago finance minister Ng’andu Magande complained that these achievements being recorded are not trickling down to an ordinary Zambia because those who are charged with the responsibility to ensure that this is done are not doing so. Basically, as I understood that statement, the minister meant that some people in the system – be it ministers or technocrats – are incompetent and consequently the results of this economic growth are not seen. What’s your comment on that?
A: The statement by Mr Magande has, to a large extent, been misunderstood. We have made tremendous achievements. We were gripped with mass poverty. We had so many of our people who did not have employment, who did not have shelter. The roads were in very bad shape. Our agriculture was doing very badly.
Now that things have started to improve, the micro-economic fundamentals have improved. I don’t expect any reasonable thinking member of society to expect an overnight change.
The achievements which we have made have not all translated to the ordinary Zambian. The ordinary Zambian has not felt the achievements but a good start has been made, the fundamentals are right; the prices have become stable and reasonable. But for the ordinary man to feel that ‘yes, I am now benefiting’, we must put money in his pockets and then he can access his readily available commodities.
Q: Do you feel that there are some ministers who are not performing or are incompetent, so to say? I ask this question because I hear a lot of members of society complain or suggest that most of your ministers are not performing.
A: If I were to say that every minister is performing 80 or 100 percent, I will be cheating you. But equally, I wouldn’t accept the suggestion that every minister has not performed. Munda nimuchabu. Some of the ministers who have not performed, we continue to prod them. But by and large, I am satisfied with the performance of all the ministers. There is a lot of room for improvement but generally, as President; I am satisfied with their output.
Q: And what have been your challenges this year as head of the family?
A: As President, it means that I am away from the family most of the time. Even when I am in Lusaka, I find that I am in the office until quite late. When I go home, I am so tired. But the children have been very good. Out of sympathy, they allow me to rest.
This is why when occasion allows, when there is a function at school, I go there to attend. This provides me with an opportunity to be with the children. But some people wonder why I am behaving like a small boy, engaging in childish things.
But you see, I am a family man. I enjoy being a family man. The only problem is that there is a greater duty out there to work for the nation. The family has been very understanding. I have a very hardworking and able wife who has been a tremendous assistant to me; both when I practiced as a lawyer, she was a wonderful assistant and later junior partner and now she is running the Maureen Mwanawasa Community Initiative which is very useful to the community and is an important compliment to my effort in the service of the nation as President.
Q: What do you foresee as your challenges for the coming year and how do you hope to overcome those challenges?
A: The biggest challenge in the coming year will be to sustain and even improve on our achievements. The biggest challenge will be to woo the investors, to continue promoting investor confidence so that we can have many more big companies coming to set up plants so that our people can get employed.
I see our challenge through our Economic Empowerment Commission to ensure that our people are not spectators and see our natural resources being exploited by foreign investors. We want them to participate so the Economic Empowerment Commission will be instructed to ensure that they empower the indigenous people to participate in the exploitation of the nation’s wealth because if it is all owned by foreign interests, I don’t think we can regard that as development.
But the moment our people become owners, multi-billionaires of businesses, then we will be a rich nation.
Q: Last week, we, as The Post, carried an opinion poll which sought to establish whether or not the fight against corruption is yielding the desired results in Zambia. Eighty-two (82) per cent of the respondents were of the view that this fight is not yielding the desired results. What is your comment on that?
A: In the first instance, I do not want to be persuaded either way by the opinion polls because opinion polls can be very misleading. It all depends on who is asking the question, and who is answering the question, what incentives are at play and how the government is viewed at a particular time.
But let me discuss the issue of corruption crusade. When I came into office, I told this nation that governance under my rule will be one of laws rather than of men; laws will govern our behaviour. So if a former leader or any important person transgresses the law, the law will visit him.
So we introduced the Task Force on Corruption. The Task Force on Corruption was my innovation based on my interpretation of the law as I knew it, that a Task Force could be established for any purpose and at any time, it will have the force of law.
We had opposition to the establishment of the Task Force, mainly from those who feared that the law would finally visit them. The Task Force, although it was called the Task Force, it was simply a collection of various law enforcement agencies put together under the leadership of an executive chairman. The Task Force was targeted at a specific period, that is the period ten years before we came into power because a lot of things had happened then.
The Task Force has made a number of investigations and discoveries and a number of cases have been taken to the courts of law. If you ask me, I would say that I am rather disappointed at the small number of cases which have gone to court because there are many more which have been handled.
I understand the slow nature of this process. What has been happening is that as they investigate one case, another case comes in. They try to investigate that case, another one comes in. So it has been difficult at certain times to pursue all these cases or a particular case because going to court at a later stage might be prejudicial, might be premature. So in the process, there has been some delay.
Cases have gone to court. There again, I am disappointed that not much progress has been made. Many reasons have been given for this, that defence lawyers have been asking for unnecessary adjournments which the courts have given; that the prosecutors have not been ready with their witnesses at given times resulting in adjournments. And also the courts themselves have not been able to sit when they have been expected to.
Sometimes because they are attending funerals or are seeing sick relatives or because they have gone for a course. All these problems, added with the insufficient of the infrastructure. You will find that one courtroom is shared among four magistrates. It means that in a day, a court will hear one or two witnesses and then adjourn. Some adjournments have been lengthy, sometimes even six months or more. Finally, preliminary issues raised in thr course of the trials mostly by the defence counsel and interim appeals to higher courts have caused further delay.
Q: In the recent past, your predecessor Dr Frederick Chiluba has been insisting that corruption has reached unprecedented levels during your rule and yet you are championing the fight against corruption. Isn’t that a contradiction?
A: Dr Chiluba is not speaking the truth. And the sad thing is that he knows that he is not speaking the truth. The only difference between my administration and his is the fact that we are transparent. When somebody is corrupt or is suspected to be corrupt, he will be exposed.
During Mr Chiluba’s time, there was a law for the leaders and a law for ordinary people. Ask Mr Chiluba to refuse if he did not blast me for handing over Michael Sata to the Anti-Corruption Commission because I had received a report containing four charges of corrupt practices against Sata. I was acting president at the time. Mr Chiluba was out of the country for two weeks. When he came back, he told me, ‘I go out of the country for only two weeks and you send to the law enforcement agencies my top most minister. Are you not aware that in this country, there are two types of laws; laws for the ordinary people and laws for the leaders?’
Ask Mr Chiluba if I didn’t tell him that, ‘then I am in the wrong camp!’ Now, that sort of tendency where things are swept under the carpet…Yes, Mr Chiluba can say there was little corruption during his time because only cases like a secondary school headmaster who demanded K50,000 from a parent who wanted a school place for his child, was charged for corrupt practices. But the big time corruption was hidden. Yes, there is corruption today in the country, I agree. But what existed before I came into office was excessive and left this country poor.
Q: Your government’s reconciliation with DRC’s Katanga Province governor, Mr Moses Katumbi, has attracted mixed feelings from members of the public. Some people are saying that if your government could pardon or reconcile with Mr. Katumbi, it can equally pardon or reconcile with Dr Chiluba because it is assumed that Mr. Katumbi and Dr Chiluba both committed crimes against Zambia or plundered our national resources through their dubious dealings. What do you have to say on this issue, especially that a lot of people strongly feel that your government’s reconciliation with Mr Katumbi will, or, has undermined the fight against corruption?
A: There is no question of reconciliation with Mr Katumbi. There is a settlement of a legal case or cases. Mr Katumbi was suspected of committing a number of cases. This is why the Task Force was saying ‘Katumbi will be arrested when he comes into this country’. But when he suggested to the Task Force that we should resolve this case amicably, it was something which was relieving to me.
President Kabila himself spoke to me about the need to resolve the issue. I gave it a blessing. There were discussions held outside Zambia and outside Congo, in Togo. That is where the Task Force chairman and other officials went to moot out the settlement.
There is nothing wrong in negotiating a settlement of a criminal case. This always has been done. You go to the sessions of High Court at the beginning of the session, a plea will be taken. Sometimes a defence lawyer will say ‘I am prepared to advise my client to plead guilty to a lesser offence and thereby saves the court’s time’. The prosecutor will consider the circumstances and the evidence which he has and he will agree so that instead of being charged with murder, the accused will be charged with manslaughter and the plea of guilty is entered.
In this particular case, if the man had said ‘yes, I am prepared to plead that so many offences had been committed by me or my companies and I am prepared to pay back’, why should I insist or why should anybody insist that ‘no, we should go for a prosecution?’ We have spent a lot of money on these prosecutions. Almost all of the trials are still continuing but we are all the time spending money.
Now, if I could explain, the settlement in the Katumbi case is about the biggest settlement that we have ever had from the time the Task Force was started. Mr Katumbi is governor of Katanga. He is a government official in the Democratic Republic of Congo and as such he enjoys diplomatic immunity. He cannot be prosecuted, even if he came here he cannot be prosecuted.
Q: But those government and Task Force officials who called for the arrest of Mr Katumbi, were they not aware or alive to this fact that Mr Katumbi was insulated from prosecution by his diplomatic immunities?
A: Ask them that question, not me. You know very well that anyone who enjoys immunity cannot be arrested. It’s like the British High Commissioner, you cannot arrest him.
So the options we had were either to accept his offer or wait for a foreseeable future when the immunity will be removed from Mr Katumbi. But that foreseeable future may never come.
Q: Earlier, I used the word “reconciliation” but you said there was no reconciliation between Mr Katumbi and your government, that what was there was a settlement. If I heard you correctly, you said Mr Katumbi proposed that you settle this matter amicably. Doesn’t that amount to some form of reconciliation?
A: No. You see, reconciliation means that you give up your respective higher rights. It means if we didn’t accept the settlement, we would have received something higher. What is the higher thing we would have received? There was a possibility that we would not prosecute him because of those immunities, there was a possibility that witnesses could have fumbled and he would have been acquitted. There was a possibility that the case could have dragged on for years thereby incurring further expenses.
In any case, the whole purpose of this anti-corruption crusade is not about vengeance. It’s about recovery, it’s about deterrence and it’s about restitution. Deterrence is to prevent others from doing a wrong, restitution is to pay back to society that which was taken away.
If we only go for vengeance, you will find that this whole corruption crusade will be savage and vindictive. We will further incur more expenses than what has been taken away.
Q: Your Excellency, you said this Katumbi settlement has been the biggest recovery or settlement the Task Force has ever recorded. What makes this settlement the biggest case?
A: I haven’t got the copy of the agreement with me but the Task Force chairman recently released a list of properties and items and money which has been paid. I can’t think of any other recovery which is as high as that one. Yesterday, you reported about a recovery of over US $200,000. But that is nothing compared to what was recovered from Mr Katumbi. There is Mansa Milling, there are motor vehicles, etc.
Now, did I hear you say that we have reconciled with Mr Katumbi so you cannot see any reason why we cannot do the same thing with Mr Chiluba?
Q: Yes, Your Excellency, I did say that.
A: You and the nation will recall that I gave out an olive branch to Dr Chiluba. I said if he brings back 75 percent of what he took, I am prepared to accept that on behalf of the people and give instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions that the case be settled on this basis.
You have a record of what Dr Chiluba retorted. He was not prepared to settle and in fact accused the Task Force to have failed to have him convicted. Up to today, he is not prepared to settle. He claims to be innocent. Now, what would be the basis of our settlement with Mr Chiluba? Mr Katumbi showed me what he was prepared to surrender to government. Has Mr Chiluba offered that?
Q: That gesture by Mr Katumbi, can one say it amounted to admission of guilt, in a way?
A: I don’t want to talk in those terms because it would prejudice the basis of the negotiations. But it is pleasing to note that what we were alleging he had done, he has been prepared to show restitution.
Q: What has the government given Mr Katumbi considering that there were claims and counter-claims? I remember Mr. Katumbi claimed that he was owed about US $7 million by the government of Zambia for the maize or mealie-meal that he supplied in 2001…
A: In our discussions with Mr Katumbi, we did not admit that the government owed him any money. In the settlement that he signed with us, Mr Katumbi dropped those claims against the government, which is a vindication of what the government stood for in the first place.
Q: In fact, that was going to be my next question because a lot of people are saying that this development vindicates VJ Vernon Mwaanga in the sense that VJ did state that the government owed Mr Katumbi US $7 million but the government disputed this statement; and now there is this apparent reconciliation over the same disputed matter…
A: You see, if there was an agreement for the government to pay Mr Katumbi any money, Vernon Mwaanga was going to be vindicated. But there is nothing in that agreement to show that we have undertaken to pay Mr Katumbi any money. If anything, it is Mr Katumbi who is paying us.
Q: Well, I will leave this issue here for now. I may return to it should the need arise. Let me now turn to the issue of the CEC (Copperbelt Energy Corporation).
Before you left for the UN summit recently, you told me, in an interview, that you did not sanction the sale of CEC majority shares to a consortium of Zambian businessmen and promised to elaborate on this issue at a press conference on your return from New York. On your return, you held a press conference at State House as promised although you did not address this CEC question. Would you mind expanding on the answer that you gave me before you left for the UN summit?
A: I told you, Amos, that I would answer more on that issue. But at the press conference, you did not ask and you did not even attend it. So I am not going to volunteer information. I assume that you are content with what you have.
But I repeat that I did not sanction the sale of CEC shares to the Zambian consortium. I had rejected but subsequently, the Honourable Minister of Commerce and Industry now (Felix Mutati), gave the consent for the majority shareholders to sale shares to a Zambian consortium to buy. Now, Mr Mutati is a government minister so he has what in law we would call “ostensible authority” to bind the government. So it became difficult for me at that stage to rescind what the minister had done or else it was going to land us into a very big liability involving colossal amounts of money. At that stage we said ‘let what has been done, be done’.
Now, there is a big accusation which was made that Sisala Zesco managing director Rhodnie Sisala owns the shares in CEC as my front, he holds them on my behalf. My answer is that, that is not true. Sisala was one of the managers who were offered shares in CEC. Sisala got 0.6 per cent of the shares. That was before he became managing director of Zesco.
When he became managing director two or three years later, the same managers made an approach to CEC to say we want to buy shares. Sisala was not among that consortium of Zambians who wanted to buy shares in CEC. It was agreed that shares be sold to them. There was going to be a conflict of interest if Sisala bought shares at that stage. He didn’t. Whether there were any interests or whatever schemes in those or by those buying shares on behalf of other people, I don’t know.
But the important point I wish to make is that Sisala could not hold shares for me because at the time he bought them, I was a free man practicing as a lawyer. I therefore don’t see any reason why I could not have held the shares in my name if I was interested.
There was another question you gave me that Sisala also holds shares on behalf of the first lady. That first lady is as innocent as I am. Whatever she owns, if it is shares, we own them together. For example, in Mipachima Farms she is a shareholder, in the farm properties and other properties we hold them together. The bank accounts, most of them are held jointly together. I know what she owns and she knows what I own. We don’t hide things. I made a public disclosure.
I have never hidden the fact that I am quite comfortable, income wise. But I am not so selfish. God has blessed me with what I have. I am able to feed and clothe my family. That’s more than what I need.
Q: Just to go back slightly to the question of your press conference, I didn’t attend it because I was watching you live on TV in my office, and of course there was a reporter from The Post present at the conference…
A: But you didn’t instruct him to ask that question!
Q: Well, I thought you didn’t need to be prompted because you promised to deal with that issue at the press conference…
A: No, no. And if you noticed, I spent a long time answering questions. I stopped talking when reporters ran out of questions.
Q: I thought we had already agreed that you would expand on that issue during your press conference…
A: No, I didn’t say I was going to hold a press conference specifically for that issue. Anyway, at the end of the day, I didn’t withdraw the consent that was given by Mr Mutati. I didn’t withdraw it because it had been given.
I can only hope that that company is going to succeed. It is owned by Zambians after all, I wish them well.
Q: Since ministers act on your behalf, can’t it be assumed that you authorised the sale of those shares in CEC?
A: That’s what I mean that a minister has ostensible authority. He is clothed with authority to speak on my behalf. And therefore it was difficult at that stage to say I did not authorise, because that correspondence (objecting the sale of shares) was internal between myself and my minister. The public was not entitled or privy to that correspondence.
Q: And connected to that issue, CEC recently offloaded part of its shares to members of the public. I hear that NAPSA has since invested US $30 million in CEC shares without the approval of the board. Is this true?
A: I haven’t received any such instructions. There was a rumour which I received that NAPSA was investing in CEC. I told the Minister of Labour and Social Security Hon. Mukuma that I didn’t think it would be wise for NAPSA to purchase those shares, particularly having regard to the nature of the allegations which were made about CEC.
I understood that my advice was accepted and indeed the board of trustees of NAPSA decided to withdraw.
However, the investment committee of NAPSA made investment guidelines under which they provided that if NAPSA has to acquire any shareholding in any company, it should not exceed 15 percent. Now, somehow after those guidelines were given to NAPSA, I understand that some shares worth 10 percent of the share capital of CEC and costing something like US $11 million were purchased. Beyond that, I haven’t got the details.
I have tried, where possible, not to interfere in the management of any company. I leave that to the board of directors who are appointed to do the necessary policy decision and for management to implement. I think that is a better arrangement. It insulates you from allegations of corruption. Now, as I have said earlier, CEC is currently owned by indigenous Zambians.
It has done very well as a company and one hopes that it will continue to prosper.
The money which NAPSA has used to invest in CEC is workers’ contributions. NAPSA owes the public a duty to ensure that it doesn’t misuse the money. There is always public expectation that whenever NAPSA invests, it should invest prudently for the benefit of the people. I am hoping that this duty has been observed and indeed the contributors will benefit. I can’t say anything more than that.
Q: Let me now come to the question of your successor. This question of your successor has been heavily discussed of late, especially after Professor Clive Chirwa announced his intention to succeed you both as party and Republican President. What do you have to say about this question in general and Prof Chirwa in particular?
A: I wished the presidency was a monarchy so I could nominate my successor. But even in a monarchy, you don’t nominate a successor.
However, the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) national executive committee (NEC) will consider the candidate. Although it is not provided for in the party constitution, they NEC make a decision among those candidates which may or may not be conveyed to the national convention as to their preferences.
During a meeting with the NEC, of which I am the chairman, I will indicate my preferences. I think it will be irresponsible on my part to leave it to democratic forces and hope that the democratic forces will produce a right candidate.
You see, if we are not careful we might end up with a very rich man, a man who throws away money to party officials for him to be elected as a leader of the party. Or we might elect somebody who does not follow the policies and values of the party, who – because of monetary or tribal considerations – is a favoured candidate. So as a sitting President, I feel it is in the interest of the nation for me to play a role in the party coming to a right decision in selecting leadership. I would like to think that MMD under my leadership has achieved tremendous progress. Its government has performed very well and I would be a sad person if all that was to be buried and we were to go back twenty years.
Q: Have you already identified any man or woman to succeed you?
A: You know, Amos, over the past one and half years I have changed my preferences three times. I am still considering them; nobody knows. I am glad that most of the officials, including those who want to participate as presidential candidates except for Professor Chirwa who I have only met once, respect my right to contribute to the decision of who becomes the next leader. And I get the impression that at the end of the day when the party has chosen, they will all rally behind that man and give him the same support which I have enjoyed from them.
Q: Is Professor Chirwa among the people you are considering to succeed you?
A: Professor Chirwa, you see, our constitution has regulations. The regulations are that you must be a member of the party for three years before you can aspire to high political office in the party. Professor Chirwa bought his membership card a few months ago. On that score, he fails, at least for now.
Now, let me give a timely warning to people who have been outside. They have been outside living in a foreign environment. They come back to the country and think that we are all foolish; we are all incapable of providing leadership and now they are God sent people. I am against Professor Chirwa and I command a lot of support in the MMD and my supporters will not support him.
Q: I am sure Prof Chirwa has done some calculations so that by the time you are going for the convention by 2010, he will have qualified to stand…
A: I am told he is already meeting Sata and Hichilema. What’s the purpose of their meetings? I have never met Hichilema since April in the year Mazoka died. The only time I met Mr Sata is when we went for the inter-party (presidents’ summit) dialogue as presidents. And the nation knew the reasons why we met.
Now, is it his (Prof Chirwa) intention that when he becomes president he would want MMD to merge with UPND or the Patriotic Front? That’s not the type of president we want in MMD!
Q: You said you have changed your preferences three times over the last one and half years. Since you have already changed your mind about these people, would I be favoured with their names?
A: No, I won’t tell you because although I have changed them, they are still in contention.
Q: Any woman among those you are considering?
A: That I can tell you. I wish there was a woman. But there are women whom I am considering but I haven’t decided at any time that one of them could succeed me.
Q: There is a bit of some concern from some MMD members, at least those I have interacted with, who say that you shouldn’t delay in announcing your successor, even quietly, because they think that the country is vast and it would require a lot of time to sell this person to the whole country…
A: Those of our members who are advising against delay, I want them to understand that if this man whom I will endorse is announced early, our opponents will destroy him so that by the time we will go to the convention he will be a former shell of himself. So there is a danger involved in early announcement. Let him not come on the firing line. Let me do it for him. But very soon, I will be announcing. Don’t worry, it will be very soon.
Q: Well, we shall wait to hear who your successor will be. But let me now ask you about the just ended ANC congress in South Africa. What lessons, either negative or positive, do you have to learn from the results of the congress? Is there anything that political parties in Zambia and the country in general should learn and emulate or not emulate from what transpired at the 52nd ANC congress in Polokwane, South Africa?
A: The big lesson to be learnt is that we must be careful particularly when you are in government; a ruling political party, to ensure that the party and the government have the same views on issues of national development and their implementation. This is because you will have a situation where a national President is different from the party president and they will be attacking each other. This one says ‘I am going to do this and that’ and the other one says ‘it will be done this way’. At the end of the day, it is the party unity which suffers.
Q: There are some people who are accused of having been involved in some corrupt activities and some of these people are said to be aspiring to contest the MMD presidency. Mr Jacob Zuma of the ANC was accused of corruption but he scooped the party presidency, don’t you see this happening in the MMD where those accused of corruption can carry the day?
A: That unfortunate situation is unfortunately emerging in this country. You will find that people against whom there are serious allegations of corruption, rape, defilement etc, are heroes. People will even sing songs about them. Sometimes good people are condemned. Given that scenario, you can elect a bad leader. Once you elect, it’s too late to change. You are stuck with him when he is elected as a presidential candidate.
Now, if you do that then you are making it difficult for people like myself who have been at the head of anti-corruption crusade to campaign for him, for such a person. How? How would you write about me? You will say ‘Mr Mwanawasa you have been speaking against corruption, against sexual abuse, but you are now campaigning for the same man’. That’s a big challenge which they are setting for me. It’s a challenge which I can only hope they will assist me to resolve.
Q: I have got two more questions, Your Excellency. We are almost finishing the interview. Before I ask the remaining questions, I would like to get your views on Mr Sata’s pending dismissal of his MPs and councillors participating in the NCC.
A: I can’t comment on that issue because it’s in court. Even if it were not in court, I am not a member of the Patriotic Front. I have not even seen the party constitution. If their party constitution provides that members can be fired for expressing their constitutional rights, I don’t know. The courts will say. But anyway, I am not a member of that outfit.
Q: In conclusion, there are growing perceptions that Your Excellency is favouring your personal friend Dr Rajan Mahtani with a lot of government business to the exclusion of many other players in the industry or market. Would you like to say something on this?
A: Rajan Mahtani is indeed a personal friend of mine, very close to me. We knew each other when I was transferred to Ndola; from Jacques & Partners in Lusaka to Jacques & Partners in Ndola, many years ago. I was then an assistant. Rajan then became one of my clients and he immediately developed a liking and confidence in me. So I was acting for him and in the process we became like brothers.
Even during the campaign, I have asked him to assist me with some money for use in my campaigns and he has helped me. But when you say I have been giving government jobs to Rajan Mahtani, I don’t give government jobs. Maybe other presidents before me had the habit of giving that way.
Q: Maybe the word is not “giving” but you are “directing” government officials to offer or award contracts to Dr Mahtani’s companies…
A: State House does not award contracts. Rajan Mahtani is a Zambian. He is running a successful bank and he has the freedom and liberty to bid for any business he wants. If he is selected, the fact that he is a very close friend of the President does not make any difference.
Q: There are specific allegations coming from Dr Chiluba and many others that there are rumours that there are instructions from government to withdraw business from Zanaco to Finance Bank and from Zambia State Insurance to Professional Insurance…
A: You tell me, how are government instructions given, especially under my governance? You will find that anything important or significant is in writing. I do more writing in State House. About 98 per cent of letters are personally written by myself. So where are those instructions recorded?
Q: Maybe these particular instructions are unwritten for obvious reasons, I don’t know, I am just speculating.
A: But Mr Chiluba came to know that I have given instructions. I don’t stay with Mr Chiluba.
Q: In fact, he has been quite plain about it. He says there is corruption in your government perpetrated by yourself through to junior officers. He has repeatedly referred to Dr Mahtani as your collaborator in these criminal activities and he says these crimes will not go unpunished…
A: I read, as an indication, that he is coming back as president and so he will punish Dr Mahtani.
Q: That Dr Chiluba will come back as President?
A: Yes, and that he will punish. But I can tell you that I have not directed anything to Dr Mahtani. The Ministry of Finance issued a statement explaining the position. That was the first time I was hearing about it. But Dr Chiluba has not come up with the response to negative that statement. If he has any evidence, by all means let him provide that evidence.
He shouldn’t assume that because he was behaving in a particular way then his successor is also behaving in the same way. I don’t do that.
Q: Are you suggesting that Dr Chiluba awarded contracts or gave government business to his friends or colleagues?
A: He has been president and if he is saying that I am giving friends contracts, it can only mean that, that is what he was himself doing.
Now, I do know that Dr Mahtani and Dr Chiluba were also great friends. In fact, they used to worship together. He was just a friend as I am. Maybe I can say that I was more close to Rajan than he was.
I don’t know what transpired between the two of them. But I acted on behalf of Mahtani when he was detained on charges of treason and I am satisfied, on the basis of the evidence which I sifted through, that he was not guilty or was not associated with treason. He was accused of being connected to Captain Solo. But now today, it is something else that is being said. So we wasted all our time defending a case of treason when it is something else?
Q: Since this story is running, I will keep coming back to you whenever there are new allegations. For now, I will leave it here although I would like to let you know that perceptions out there are strong that Dr Mahtani is being favoured.
A: I don’t know, Amos, how I can convince you that the question of favouring does not arise. We have mature ministers in the transactions which he has handled. The only time I made use of my friendship with Dr Mahtani is when the nation faced imminent shortage of fuel recently. I arranged for Dr Mahtani to purchase one shipment of crude. There was an outcry. People said why did Mr Mwanawasa do this? That outcry was raised by your paper, The Post newspapers.
Now, if I didn’t make use of my friendship to assist my government, the consequences to this nation could have been far great and they are too ghastly to contemplate. But there it was, Dr Mahtani imported that crude. What followed next was that Dr Mahtani intended to pay for the second shipment. The Minister of Finance told me there were banks that were prepared to syndicate themselves and pay for the shipment. I said ‘that is even better having regard to the rumours which are flying around I would rather they did that’.
But at the end of the day, the bottom line is that the nation should have fuel. I even announced at the last press conference that banks have promised to syndicate on the next cargo. But two days later, I was told the time was too short for them (banks) to organise themselves, for them to sign a contract so they are unable to do it.
When I approached Rajan Mahtani the first time, time was not the issue. The issue was the national interest. Now, the banks and anybody else who has the resources will be supported by me not because he is a friend or what. I am not going to hide the fact that Rajan is a friend of mine. He is a friend of mine. If I had not come into politics, he would still have continued to be my client.
Q: Finally, in conclusion, Your Excellency, is there any issue you would like to address other than what we have discussed so far?
A: The only issue which I would like to address is the National Constitution Conference (NCC) Act and the conference itself. I said it is a challenge which we have overcome. The conference has started sitting. I am only hoping that the national interest rather than politics will prevail.
Unfortunately, some of our people have come to look at NCC as MMD versus civil society, the Church and one or two political parties and Levy Patrick Mwanawasa. That is not so. My usefulness or relevance to the Constitution will come to an end in 2011. In 2011, I will not be affected by the new constitution. I will not be operating under the new constitution. So it is necessary that we should give ourselves a constitution which is not partisan, which will make us all proud. A constitution which, if an opposition political party came into office, they will find user friendly. It’s a very costly affair but I do hope that they act with all due speed instead of prolonging it into months and years because then the national interest would not have been resolved.
Now, it is being suggested that MMD or the government has bribed delegates with hefty allowances. Now, gentlemen of The Post, you are being unfair. You sound as if we took everybody by surprise. I gave statements and figures, trillions, in fact. I said that’s how much it would cost if we had gone the constituent assembly way. And even the constitutional conference way, I said it was still very expensive but we will do it since the people want to get involved.
It is not our wish that we should spend so much money. I agree to some extent with the chairman of the constitutional conference that the amount being spent is intended for food, transport and accommodation, in some cases. But all the same, we could have spared ourselves with such expenditure if we had not been so greedy.
The way I read the constitution is that the areas of disagreements are very few. But otherwise on the greater issues which the Church, civil society and the opposition parties are worried about, we are almost agreed. But why have we given ourselves an expensive exercise?
Q: I think people generally are not against the allowances. But they think that these allowances are unnecessarily high, that the delegates could have received even half of what they are receiving…
A: But didn’t I tell them that this is the amount that they should expect? How much did we pay to the CRC (Constitution Review Commission)? K500,000 which they said was too low. It was increased to K600,000. We had the chairman who was being paid K19 million per month. And for us to pay NCC delegates lower than these figures, we would have an uproar.
So if you ask me whether I consider these figures to be small, I will say they are not small. But they are necessary for the type of task we have given ourselves.
Q: Well, it now remains for me to thank you, Your Excellency, so much for this opportunity.
A: Thank you, you are welcome.
Labels: CLIVE CHIRWA, MMD, MWANAWASA
posted by MrK @ 4:38 AM
3 Comments:
Levy Mwanawasa contradicts himself all the time. From this interview, you get the picture of an individual who is both petty and shallow.
For all his protestations on people in 'the diaspora' to come over and 'suffer with us', he isn't very keen on professor Chirwa. Why? Because 'he comes from outside'.
“Now, let me give a timely warning to people who have been outside. They have been outside living in a foreign environment. They come back to the country and think that we are all foolish; we are all incapable of providing leadership and now they are God-sent people,” President Mwanawasa said. “I am against Professor Chirwa and I command a lot of support in the MMD and my supporters will not support him.”
Actually, I think that only Mwanawasa is 'foolish'. Hakainde Hichilema, Sakwiba Sikota, Clive Chirwa, I think they are all pretty darn smart - smarter than me, certainly.
However, there is a certain benefit to exposure to different ways of doing things that prepares one for, for instance, negotiations with the IMF and World Bank. Or makes one understand the possibilities of the financial markets when it comes to protecting against adverse price movements in the country's main commodity.
The thing is that in this information age, no one knows everything, and it is more important than ever, to collaborate on an intellectual level. Knowledge is no longer something that can be contained in one individual. Instead, it is our collective knowledge and life experiences that should be harnassed and used to make truly informed and forward looking policies. I like to call it the 'Cybermind' - thousands of people commenting on an issue from their personal knowledge and life experience, acting like the thousands of neurons in a single brain. Just using a metaphore.
A: The biggest challenge in the coming year will be to sustain and even improve on our achievements. The biggest challenge will be to woo the investors, to continue promoting investor confidence so that we can have many more big companies coming to set up plants so that our people can get employed.
In other words, more of the same. One definition of intelligence, is the ability to learn from experience.
Experience should have taught the MMD that having single digit inflation, or having the country owned by foreign companies that do not pay taxes, does not bring wealth to the majority of the people. So how does he look at his fellow countrymen?
But the moment our people become owners, multi-billionaires of businesses, then we will be a rich nation.
So that is the MMD's economic end game. To end up with the country's wealth owned by a tiny, wealthy elite (regardless whether he is talking in dollars or kwachas).
No mr. President. The nation will be rich, when everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the economy. When everyone owns a house, a piece of land, an education, and has access to universal healthcare and education.
This cannot happen if there is an emphasis on creating wealthy business owners. Either the wealth is spread around, or it is concentrated in the hands of few. And I am not talking about making sure everyone is equally poor. I am talking about everyone having access to the basic means of economic production - money, land, a house, education.
We have seen the MMD shift the tax burden from the corporations to the workers. That is how they think.
I think that it is now a matter of record as the MMD's official policy. I don't think it is suprising that they are so coy about it, because it goes directly against the interest if the majority of the population, who not at all surprisingly, have seen no benefit from foreign investment, in fact, their lives have become worse.
It is also clear that a commission like the EEC, is going to be able to replace actual policies that put the economic interests of the majority front and center.
So that is what the MMD has become. The party of rich business owners, and corrupt politicians.
We had opposition to the establishment of the Task Force, mainly from those who feared that the law would finally visit them.
Maybe my memory is failing me, but wasn't Mwanawasa himself opposed to the creation of the Task Force?
I have never hidden the fact that I am quite comfortable, income wise. But I am not so selfish. God has blessed me with what I have. I am able to feed and clothe my family. That’s more than what I need.
But did the people of the country really elect him so he could clothe his own family?
On the NCC...
We are doing the people’s will, the so-called people’s will. Now, for doing the people’s will, it is wrong for us to be called names.
Uh, no. The people didn't call for an NCC. They called for a Constituent Assembly. And calling the people's will 'the so-called people's will' shows how much he regards democracy, or the people.
That also leaves no doubt why the MMD shows so little respect for the people's money as well. What did Margaret Thatcher say? "There is no such thing as society."
Happy new year!
Interesting interview...especially now that we know the President has natural inclinations for Monarchical rule. In LPM's own words "I wished the presidency was a monarchy so I could nominate my successor."
When one's heart is not inclined towards democratic tenets, its very difficult for them to oversee developments of institutions geared towards open governance.
Cho,
A happy New Year to you too.
"I wished the presidency was a monarchy so I could nominate my successor."
'If this was a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier. Just so long as I am the dictator'.
- George W. Bush
Workers of the world unite, against the scourge of neoliberlism. :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home