Maravi

Impose travel ban on Rupiah over corruption - Hansungule

COMMENT - I know professor Hansungule is being sarcastic, because of course there are no 'travel restrictions' against President Mugabe because of 'corruption'. There are economic sanctions against Zimbabwe to make Fast Track land reform fail. Those sanctions are a matter of public record in the United States, and are in the process of being repealed by a law literally titled the Zimbabwe Sanctions Repeal Act of 2010. The UK and US only talk about 'targeted sanctions' and 'travel restrictions', because they want to pretend that those are the only sanctions that exist. They are liars and hypocrites. They are also accountable for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths in Zimbabwe, let alone hundreds of thousands of dead children in Iraq because of the effect of economic sanctions against that country. Because Zambia complies with the western neocolonial model, which allows the expatriation of billions of dollars of raw materials from the Zambian economy every year, there will never be economic sanctions or travel restrictions against whichever neoliberal politician is in charge and keeps this daylight robbery going.

Impose travel ban on Rupiah over corruption - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sun 29 Aug. 2010, 04:02 CAT

PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule has called on Britain and other developed countries to impose travel sanctions against President Rupiah Banda’s family and Cabinet over the government’s mishandling of the fight against corruption.

Commenting on the government’s refusal to appeal against Lusaka High Court Judge Evans Hamaundu’s decision not to register the 2007 London High Court Judgment in which former president Frederick Chiluba was found liable to defrauding Zambians of about US$46 million, the Pretoria-based human rights law professor said this would be in the spirit of the UN Convention against Corruption.

“Developed countries should seriously consider imposing selected sanctions including travel restrictions against the person of President Rupiah Banda and company to express their disappointment over the ‘corruption fight’ in Zambia. Britain, Zambia’s biggest donor of some of the money that was pocketed by the former president, has both a moral and legal duty to mobilise international opinion (not against Zambians) against President Rupiah Banda, his family and cronies,” Prof Hansungule contended.

He said President Banda’s government had openly embraced corruption, hence the need for donors to take preventive action. “If courts begin to fail to decide in obvious cases, it is time to take serious count of the situation as preventive action. By so openly embracing corruption even to the extent of saying government will not appeal, rather than leave this to legal authorities, President Banda is saying he does not care about the poor people in the country whose money is subject of judge Smith’s judgment. There is no way former president Chiluba could have come to be in possession of such wealth in just ten years on a position which does not pay,” Prof Hansungule argued. “Before being president, Chiluba was a trade unionist. We all know what trade unionists get. He was a worker. Though they commit their whole lives to their work, Zambian workers get peanuts. If he won a jackpot, why did he not surprise the judge with it? President Banda must face sanctions. This is the spirit, if not the letter of the UN Convention against Corruption of which Zambia is signatory.”

He said President Banda was playing with people’s lives by refusing to recover their money from Chiluba. Prof Hansungule wondered why Chiluba chose to stay away when he was given chance to defend himself in the London High Court.

“Rupiah Banda is playing dangerous games with the lives of millions of Zambians and it is not clear why? Frederick Chiluba was given every opportunity to defend himself before the London Court that found him guilty,” he said. “He was accused of massively depriving poor Zambians of billions of Zambian Kwacha during his tenure. In one of the most unprecedented trials, the Court even moved jurisdiction to Lusaka at great cost literally ‘looking’ for the accused so that whatever it is worth, it could give him his right to be heard – the right to explain his side of the story regarding whether he knew of the money and property he was alleged to have stolen or he had a credible explanation to offer?”

He questioned the morality in refusing to appeal against judge Hamaundu’s judgment, which had also been discredited by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ).

“Prominent Lusaka lawyer, Rodger Chongwe, at the time publicly stated that if he was his lawyer, he would advise Chiluba to take advantage and appear before the court to defend his interests. Of course he Chiluba did not heed this or other advice. Professor Muna Ndulo, Rodger Chongwe and the Law Association of Zambia have already put the case against judge Hamaundu’s discredited judgment there is no need to belabour it,” Prof Hansungule said. “The other day, outspoken judge Philip Musonda had lectured us, albeit inappropriately, how the public (especially students and businessmen whom the learned judge for whatever reason is convinced do not know law) should stay clear of the judiciary. The question simply is ‘how does the public stay clear of the judiciary with such manifestly questionable judgments like that of judge Hamaundu’? In fact, judge Musonda was himself wrong in addressing the public on a case he was presiding at the time.

It is a long settled practice in developed judiciaries that a judge does not address the public on a pending or impending case. How does a judge do this and not expect a response?” Prof Hansungule contended that judge Hamaundu’s judgment offends basic sense. “Like the Chiluba acquittal judgment at the magistrates courts, judge Hamaundu’s judgment clearly offends basic sense.

Among the Tonga (and I am sure among other tribes), there is a saying to the effect that ‘Suntwe moowa nguungola’ literally ‘a coward hyena lives long’. Of course this is nonsense. The truth is a coward hyena has a very short life expectancy than an aggressive bold lion,” said Prof Hansungule. “Who can easily approach a lion? But some people still believe in such nonsense so that when approached to discharge their functions professionally as expected of them, they invoke such ancient ‘wisdom’ and fail to decide. Other than this, some of these judgments clearly demonstrate political influence from above. Ronnie Shikapwasha’s quick statement completes the story.” On August 13, judge Hamaundu dismissed the government’s application to register the London judgment and both Attorney General Abyudi Shonga and chief government spokesperson Lieutenant General Ronnie Shikapwasha indicated that the government would not appeal the matter.

Labels: MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA, SANCTIONS

posted by MrK @ 7:02 AM