Rupiah’s ‘ubufi bwakunya’

Rupiah’s ‘ubufi bwakunya’
Written by Editor

AT no time has The Post called for the impeachment of Rupiah Banda. The only thing The Post has done is to publish stories from those calling for Rupiah's impeachment. Similarly, The Post has also published stories from those denouncing the calls or moves to impeach Rupiah. This is all The Post has done on this issue. And we challenge Rupiah to prove otherwise; to show where we have published opinions calling for his impeachment.

As a rule, we don't comment on processes or things we don't fully understand. We only talk about things we know. We don't know the reasons and the facts for the calls to impeach Rupiah. We never try to explain - and we cannot explain - that which is not perfectly clear to us. And moreover, we are not participants in Parliament; The Post has no members of parliament to push for the impeachment of Rupiah. Yes, we sincerely believe he is an incompetent, inept, useless and dangerous man to be president of our country. But that is where it ends. Whatever moves to impeach him are there or were there, we are not part of them and they are beyond us.

If Rupiah expected us to black out or censor stories calling for his impeachment, he is mistaken. We don't indulge in such things. Wrong or right, the Zambian people have a right to know that someone somewhere is calling for Rupiah's impeachment. If we don't report this, how are the Zambian people going to know that someone wrongly or rightly was calling for Rupiah's impeachment?

Anyway Rupiah can't end a day without telling lies about us. And this is why he could not avoid telling the people of Kafinda area lies that a certain newspaper had been calling for his impeachment and accused us of writing lies, "ubufi bwakunya". It is clear who is peddling ubufi bwakunya. Ubufi bwakunya don't belong to us but to Rupiah. It is Rupiah who is engaged mubufi bwakunya because he will not be able to bring any piece of evidence where we have called for his impeachment. In fact, we have never told any lies about Rupiah. We might have gotten a fact here or there wrong, but never lies about Rupiah. Everything we have accused Rupiah of, we can prove. If Rupiah can today or tomorrow show us anything we have directly accused him of that is not true, that is a lie, we will not hesitate to retract it and unreservedly apologise to him. We will have no difficulty whatsoever doing so because we believe in truth and we hate lies. We therefore challenge Rupiah to show us any lie that we ourselves have expressed about him. But we can show so many lies, ubufi bwakunya - to borrow from Rupiah's presidential vocabulary - that Rupiah has told about us. For instance, Rupiah has lied about us to the whole nation, to the whole world that we have pocketed US $30 million from state institutions, and we have used that money to own mansions, to build mansions, to buy strange cars and aeroplanes. To this very day, Rupiah and his law enforcement agencies - the police, the Drug Enforcement Commission and the Anti Corruption Commission - have not been able to come up with any evidence of our theft. Rupiah has also gone further to publicly accuse us of being morbid, queer and so on and so forth. But to date Rupiah has not come up with any evidence to prove his claims against us. And he will never be able to do so because his is a lie, and a lie can never be proved with evidence. It is a lie because there is no evidence to it. We can go on endlessly cataloguing the lies Rupiah has told about us. And there will be no end to that because Rupiah doesn't seem to be inclined to stop his lies against us; he can't live without lies about us. If he does so, how is going to justify all the wrong things he is doing, all his deceit and treachery if not with lies and calumny?

It is clear to every honest person in this country that it is Rupiah himself who has been telling ubufi bwakunya about us and that is probably why even the monkeys at State House got fed up of his stinking lies and urinated on him in the hope that one day he will stop telling ubufi bwakunya, stinking lies that are even polluting the air the monkeys breathe. There is no lie we have told about Rupiah. If there is any lie we have told about Rupiah, let him show it to us and we will apologise for it and pay our penance.

Lying, deceit is not something that is going to earn Rupiah respect. A liar is a person who has no respect for himself and others. A self-respecting person, a person who respects others does not engage in lies endlessly. And "...no one respects a person who has no respect for himself" (Sirach 10:29). We are all also advised: "Before you start criticising, get your facts straight and think the matter through" (Sirach 11:7).

It is not false accusations of us calling for his impeachment that Rupiah should worry about. It is his own lies and deceit that should give him sleepless nights because they are a danger to his continued hold on power as they erode public confidence in him. It is said that "a skilled craftsman is admired for the things he makes, and a leader's wisdom is proved by his words. Someone who speaks rashly and recklessly is feared and hated by everyone in town" (Sirach 9:17-18).

As for Frederick Chiluba, he desperately needs Rupiah's support. But being a crook and a liar, he has no other decent way of doing so. Chiluba cannot teach anyone in this country about respect for elders, about the need not to call old men names, not to insult elders. We say this because this same Chiluba, this same liar insulted Dr Kenneth Kaunda when he was president of this country. Chiluba called Dr Kaunda a mad man. If this was a fact, one would be sympathetic with Chiluba. But to date there is no record anywhere in the world where Dr Kaunda has been treated for madness or mental disorder or illness.

But Chiluba and his friends should know that it will not be possible for them to shield themselves from honest and piercing criticism using the shield of respect for elders or their present or previous high offices. For Chiluba to suggest in any way that the presidency of a nation is metaphorically equivalent to fatherhood in the family, and that citizens are equivalent to children of whoever is president, is a dangerous form of paternalism fundamentally in conflict with the possibility of democracy in a modern political system. Chiluba's characterisation and application of our legitimate tradition of respecting elders is anachronistic and false and yet they have continued to use it to hide their iniquities and shield themselves from legitimate criticism and accountability. Using this, Chiluba engaged in all sorts of abuses of public funds. And evidence of his abuses is there for everyone to read in the findings of the London High Court where he was sued by the Zambian government.

And Chiluba shouldn't try to be clever for nothing and value himself far beyond his worth: "Value yourself at your true worth" (Sirach 10:28).

The nonsense Chiluba is peddling about Israel clearly demonstrates that he doesn't understand what the Israeli state is about or what it stands for. The religion of the Israeli state is not Christianity; it is Judaism. That is not a state of Christians; it is a state of people who don't believe in Christianity, who don't believe in Jesus Christ as a son of God and a messiah. Out of ignorance, Chiluba thinks that the Jewish state is a Christian state simply because Jesus was born there.

A sober comparison of Judaism and Christianity provides many interesting perspectives on the issues of faith that characterise and separate them.

What makes the contrast between Judaism and Christianity so fascinating is that, in spite of the much later origin of Christianity, the two faiths were in essence separated at birth, because Christianity arose out of Judaism. An exploration of them both highlights where they have remained the same and where they have grown apart.

The similarities between Judaism and Christianity are easy to identify. Both faiths believe in one god - the very same God.

The Jews and the Christians, figuratively separated at birth, worshiped the same God, travelled the same path, and looked for the same Messiah; the Christians recognised Him at His coming, but the Jews did not. In comparing these two faiths today, we can see how intricately they are interwoven with each other and yet how in spite of that shared heritage, they have become remarkably different. This disparity between the two lies simply in the answer to the question: "Is Jesus the Messiah?" One fork in the road is for those who answer this "Yes", and the other for those who answer it "No" - a simple question with only two options. The option chosen, however, sets the two worlds apart from each other.

The last point is the pivotal difference between Judaism and Christianity, and as such deserves a closer look. For thousands of years, the Jews awaited a Messiah who would lead their people to freedom. Many prophetic scriptures point to the coming of Jesus as that Messiah, a number of them in the prophetic past tense - Isaiah 53:5, for example, which says, "But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed". The Jews anticipated that their Messiah would be a king, bedecked with jewels and finery, and a commanding presence who would lead them from captivity and restore their land to them; they did not expect a humble king born in a manger, who would lead them.

Although Christianity and Judaism share historical roots, these two religions diverge in fundamental ways. Judaism places emphasis on actions, focusing primary questions on how to respond to the eternal covenant God made with Israelites and Proselytes, as recorded in the Torah. Ever since the first council of Nicaea, Christianity places emphasis on correct belief.

Clearly, there was nothing wrong with Dr Kaunda's government, like those of most of the world, severing ties with the Zionist state of Israel. And it is crass ignorance for anyone to think that the problems we faced then were as a result of that stand. There is nothing mystical about Israel. This only goes to show the low calibre of a man we had in State House for ten years. That is why one of his first acts was to go to Israel at a high cost to the Zambian taxpayer to just go and wash his feet in its waters.

And Chiluba's linking of United States' progress to its relationship with Israel is equally foolish; it is a failure to understand and appreciate the history of that country and how it got where it is today. We will not delve into this because the history of that country is well documented. Chiluba's desperation is driving him too far; it's making him senseless.