FODEP condemns opposition's unmerited criticism of govt
By Moses Kuwema
Wed 08 May 2013, 14:00 CAT
FOUNDATION for Democratic Process (FODEP) president Alex Ng'oma says the opposition political parties must avoid creating a permanent state of conflict as a way of discrediting the government.
Commenting on justice minister Wynter Kabimba's statement that those who remain in opposition after losing an election must accept defeat and should not pretend that they won the elections, Ng'oma said it was unacceptable for the opposition to constantly discredit the government even when they do positive things.
"It is important for all the people to understand that in any electoral cycle, there can only be one winner, either in the name of a political candidate or in the name of the party. Those that come out victorious must be congratulated and given an opportunity to function as winners since they have the mandate in their hands to serve the people of Zambia. On the other hand, those who lose elections and go into the opposition must also accept the reality that they have lost the elections," said Ng'oma.
Ng'oma said the opposition must learn to support those that have been given the mandate by the people of Zambia to function properly.
He said the tendency of undermining the government of the day by discrediting everything they do was detrimental to democracy.
"It does not work to the best interest of the people that are being represented. There has to be, after elections, what I would call unity of purpose to support those that have won and give them the chance to function to serve the people of Zambia," he said.
Ng'oma said the opposition in the country appeared to believe that for a person to get to State House, they should constantly attack the party in government by discrediting everything they do without being objective or realistic.
"That is the kind of political game being played in this country.
Zambian opposition should take a leaf from American politics, where if a candidate loses an election, he appeals to his supporters to support the person who has won," said Ng'oma.
Responding to a presentation by South Africa-based Professor Michelo Hansungule during the Law Association of Zambia second annual law conference at Zambezi Sun Hotel in Livingstone on Thursday, in which Hansungule was advising the ruling PF against fighting the opposition, saying that would hinder the development agenda, Kabimba, who is justice minister, said leaders should not steep into the spirit of impunity but ought to be cautious and break it.
"The impunity of trying to intimidate others can revisit you or can grow into a culture. We ought to tame that as leaders. We also have to ensure that those who remain in the opposition after losing must also accept defeat. Don't pretend that you have won. We must ensure that the losers accept that they have lost and the winners must not oppress the losers but include them in the governance system," said Kabimba.
Labels: ALEX NG'OMA, FODEP, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, OPPOSITION, WYNTER KABIMBA
Read more...
Coat of Arms, National Anthem outdated - Prof Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Wed 29 Aug. 2012, 10:30 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule has proposed that the Coat of Arms and National Anthem be changed because they were outdated and gender insensitive respectively. "It (Coat of Arms) is outdated. The man in short trousers and woman in apron represent the colonial era man and woman which is clearly antiquated.
Similarly, in the national flag, the Coat of Arms needs change particularly in view of the cosmopolitan nature of the emerging Zambian population," stated Prof Hansungule in a paper he submitted to the Technical Committee drafting a new constitution.
"The colour 'black' on the flag could collide with the principle of equal, non-racial and non-discriminatory society the country is building. These features were relevant at the time of independence. Reference to 'free men' in the National Anthem even if read to include women may be interpreted to be patriarchal and gender insensitive.
Second and most important, the Zambian National Anthem is the same as the South African National Anthem which raises serious questions of sovereignty and related intellectual property issues."
Hansungule, who is a South African-based Professor of law, submitted that though not specifically mentioned in the draft constitution, the Coat of Arms needed to be changed.
He observed that there was also no civic education on critical issues before the constitution-making process was started and no clear information on the role of the Executive and the legislature in the process.
"I strongly feel the procedure being used is wrong, totally wrong. You don't go to the people who are not in a constitutional law classroom without prior civic education on key issues like separation of powers, why a judiciary should be independent and from whom," he stated.
"They should have made summaries in local languages of Mung'omba, Mwanakatwe, current constitution, and other instruments as part of civic education. Second, there is no procedure on what happens next, the role (s) of key players like the President, Cabinet, Parliament, and the time frame, etc."
He stated that since the terms of reference reflected the wishes of the people, they should not have been drawn by the government.
Prof Hansungule stated that government should have just facilitated the process by mobilising resources.
"Given this, it is a great pity that the terms of reference and the Technical Team were appointed, in fact 'singlehandedly' picked by the Executive," Prof Hansungule stated.
"Normally, government should merely have facilitated the process by mobilising the resources and stakeholders to meet, draw the terms and appoint the team. This is what would have given legitimacy to the process, a pre-condition for a successful outcome.
Unfortunately, both the process of setting the terms of reference and the selection of members of the technical team, including their chairperson and vice chairperson was a matter for State House or for the Executive which echoes past steps under which constitutional reviews were a matter of the Executive through the colonially-instituted Inquiries Act."
On the technical team, Prof Hansungule said some of the people included did not deserve to be there.
"Though the word 'technical' was used, most of those selected had no visible technical expertise to bring in the team. What technical expertise did the headman or chief bring? It was utterly wrong to include chairpersons of past constitutional reviews in the team instead of independent professionals and the past chairpersons to supply information when relevant," he stated.
He stated that the worst part was the appointment of the minister of justice as a member of the team.
"This created the perception that the Executive would like to control the process and would not stand a fiercely independent process. The team should have been free of the Executive members.
Similarly, the chairperson and his vice should either have been chosen by stakeholders in a sovereign conference or by the team selected by stakeholders. As it is, the impression is that the technical team had the support of the government that appointed it but not of the public to whom the Constitution belongs."
He stated that it was a gross mistake for the government not to have legislated the process.
Prof Hansungule said legislation should have determined issues at large concerning adoption, role of the National Assembly, role of the President and Cabinet, and many others.
"Given our past where 'White Papers' frustrated what people wanted, it would have been important to set the record straight on these key issues.
For example, the law would provide that the government and Parliament cannot change the draft constitution even though 'draft' and that the National Assembly would merely enact it into law once adopted by the sovereign conference," Prof Hansungule stated.
On the referendum, Prof Hansungule stated that it was necessary to hold it because, according to him, the current bill of rights had failed the citizenry.
He emphasised the inclusion of a 50 per cent plus one threshold for a winning presidential candidate to enhance legitimacy.
"The present President is a minority winner and so were the previous presidents. This explains why once in office, the President due to insecurity, spends most of his time 'stealing' the opposition to his side rather than delivering on his mandate. Having experienced the negative effect of a minority president the past 50 years, Zambia has no option but to adopt the 50 + 1 per cent massively recommended by the broad masses of citizens," he stated.
"This, unlike the bill of rights, has no technical problems requiring referendum as it falls outside the entrenched clauses. The Patriotic Front government has a duty to respect this in order to show its good faith."
On the size of the draft constitution, Prof Hansungule said it was too long.
He stated that the constitution should be reasonably short and user-friendly.
" What the draftspersons did was simply to include everything and in some cases repetitively. It is clumsy. It should be possible to 'carry it around 'in a pocket which is not possible given the current oversized length. A 'huge forest of wood of legal jargon' is most certainly not what the Zambian public expect," stated Prof Hansungule.
Labels: MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
Our hybrid system of government has failed
By The Post
Thu 29 Dec. 2011, 14:00 CAT
THE call by Professor Michelo Hansungule for serious reforms in our Judiciary and Parliament is timely. We say this because political accountability is key to our democratic consolidation. We have to increase our focus on building and strengthening institutions that can create the required accountability structures.
It is thus important to look more closely into what enables our Judiciary and Parliament to fulfil such functions, and also to understand the limits to their roles under the current conditions.
We need to increase the capacity of our Judiciary and Parliament to contribute in processes of democratic consolidation and social transformation. We need to critically look at the important questions regarding the accountability function of our courts vis-a-vis the political authorities, their role in promoting socioeconomic development, and their capacity to provide access to justice to marginalised groups.
We also need to critically look at the important questions regarding the accountability function of our Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive, its role in promoting socioeconomic development, and its capacity to protect and promote the interests of the poor and the disadvantaged.
Our institutional setup is a hybrid between the Westminster parliamentary system and the United States presidential system. We have a President who has more or less the powers of the President of the United States but without strong institutions like the American Congress and Senate to provide the required effective checks on the extensive powers of the president.
We have a Westminster-type of parliament in which the president, who is the head of government in addition to being head of state, does not sit to answer questions from, and give explanations to, members of parliament like the Prime Minister does in the British Parliament.
Further, in our system, Parliament is weakened by appointments of its members to the executive. More than a third of our members of parliament are cabinet ministers and deputy ministers. This makes parliament more or less an extension of the executive rather than an independent arm of the state.
Most parliamentarians, especially in the ruling party, cannot act independently in relation to the Executive because they either have presidential appointments or are looking forward to being appointed to this or that position by the Executive. And this includes even members of the opposition because some of them sometimes look for favours or even appointments from the executive.
It is either we go totally the Westminster way and have a titular president as head of state and a prime minister who sits in parliament as head of government or we go completely the American way and have a congress and senate that is totally independent of the executive. This hybrid has failed to work.
But what is frightening is the fact that all the constitutional reforms we have had since independence have failed to bring about meaningful independence and power balance between Parliament and the Executive.
Even our Judiciary cannot be said to be independent in the way we would like it to be. Our Judiciary is still very dependent on the Executive for literally everything. No wonder some of our very senior judges believe that the Judiciary should only in the rarest circumstances rule against the Executive.
We are not joking about this or being malicious in saying this. One of our presidents has been told this by one of our country's most senior judges. If this is the belief among our judges, where does it leave the accountability function of our courts? This means that there is need for reforms in our Judiciary that will help redefine the role of our judges and what they should aim for, given the constraints of their political and economic context.
We need to increase the capacity of our courts to hold political power holders, particularly the Executive, to account. We say this because the courts are the main guardians of our Constitution and the rule of law.
The Zambian people want to see increased levels of political accountability, that is a situation where political power holders and organs exercise their powers in a way that is transparent, in the sense that it enables other institutions and the public to see whether it is done in accordance with the rules, where the power holders are answerable in the sense of being obliged to provide reasons for their decisions in public, and where there are institutional checks or control mechanisms in place to prevent abuse of power and ensure that corrective measures are taken in cases where the rules are violated.
We also have to acknowledge the fact that our change from a one party system to a more democratic form of government has not been followed by significant changes in the social and economic structure of our society to improve the plight of the poor majority.
On the contrary, the twin processes of political and economic liberalisation, while bringing an increase in people's formal constitutional rights, have led to a downscaling of social services - which for many is a downscaling in the value of their new-found liberty. In this context, it might seem that the political opening, paradoxically, has made marginalised groups more dependent on the judiciary to defend their rights.
The question is whether our judges are able and willing to take up such a role. In a democratic system, judges should fulfil two main tasks, namely, to clear the channels of political change and to ensure protection of disadvantaged groups. Our judges are the guardians of our democratic process. They are the referees in the democratic game.
And given the state of the political, economic and social environment in our country, reform ing our parliamentary system has been found necessary with a view to addressing some of the limitations which exist in the institution.
This is so in order to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Executive and also to allow for increased people's participation in the affairs of their country. Furthermore, this will help increase accountability, transparency and good governance in the government system.
We need reforms that will substantially improve the role, the processes and accountability of our Parliament to the extent that it is not only deliberating, but anticipating, and leading. As a representative institution, our National Assembly should not only want to have public confidence in its motives and actions, but should want to genuinely deserve that confidence.
It is therefore very important that we pay a lot of attention to the reform of our institutions of the state because without that, we will continue to have more and more unending constitution review programmes.
We should not run away from addressing the key issues that seriously affect the governance of our country and that make constitution review programmes necessary at all times and that is, the distribution of power and its management among the three arms or branches of the state.
Again, we emphasise the fact that our hybrid system of government has failed to deliver and calls for serious review and reforms.
Labels: JUDICIARY, MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
Sata has chance to do better than Rupiah - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sat 01 Oct. 2011, 11:20 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule says immediate past president Rupiah Banda lost the election because he did not listen to the people. And Prof Hansungule said President Michael Sata has a chance to do better than his predecessor.
Reflecting on Banda's loss in the just-ended presidential election to President Sata, the Pretoria-based law professor said the former head of state chose to be arrogant to everyone.
"One of the biggest lessons from Rupiah Banda's short-lived presidency is the importance, especially to political leaders, of listening to citizens. It is ironical that the outgoing president said during his concession statement that ‘Zambian people had spoken'. Why could he not say this to himself a long time ago? Had he listened to citizens, president Banda would have no problem reclaiming the presidency for the second term," Prof Hansungule said.
"With his self-inflicted loss, president Banda has broken a record in the SADC as the elected head of state to have been in office the shortest period. President Mandela served a full term before he voluntarily exited from office and in any case left his party the African National Congress firmly in office. Political arrogance is what cost President Banda his chance to have a full term."
Prof Hansungule said there were many wrong things Banda did which offended the voters. He said the people advised him on many wrong decisions he made but he would not listen.
"President Banda would not listen when people told him they did not like his constitution and the way he went about dictating how it should be written; they wanted the London judgment against (late Frederick Chiluba) to be registered and enforced in Zambia.
They wanted an appeal against Chiluba's acquittal from corruption. They did not like his comments alongside the magistrate Jones Chinyama who acquitted Chiluba because they suggested the magistrate's hand was twisted into doing something else on the case than the law dictated," he said.
"They told him they did not like the way his administration was going about abusing the judiciary. They did not like the president's decision to dissolve the Task Force on Corruption.
They told him they did not like his decision to stop tampering with a good law on corruption by public officers. They did not like the way he handled the Dora Siliya-led sale of ZAMTEL and that she suffered no sanction even when she clearly treated the Attorney General's legal advice with contempt."
Prof Hansungule said even when people told Banda to reintroduce the windfall tax on the mines, he did not listen.
He said people wanted Banda to be tough on investors who treated their workers miserably, but he ignored them.
"They did not like the way he handled the take-over of Finance Bank and its hasty sale to the South African Bank a few days before the elections. They told him to avoid abusing public resources for his political gain," Prof Hansungule said.
"They told him he should not abuse the public media to promote only his agenda and completely shut out opponents. They told him to cage his vice-president and minister of justice George Kunda and to be careful with the ‘advice' he gave on the media and governance in general.
People told him to stop rearing ‘dogs' to set out against perceived political opponents through vitreous attacks in the public media. They told him he was wrong paying from public resources for his opinion polls (in fact Rupiah Banda's opinions) which always returned a ‘win' only for him because besides being abuse of public resources, this offended the public trust."
He said even when people told Banda to stop using his wife in MMD errands paid for by the taxpayer, he remained arrogant. Prof Hansungule said Banda had also abused traditional leaders to the extent that it offended their subjects.
"They told him not to open fire on unarmed youths in Mongu but to dialogue with them on their demands and not to charge their leaders with treason. They even warned him that he cheated on affidavit that both his parents were Zambian by birth and descent," Prof Hansungule said.
"They told him everything a good president would want to hear to improve on his governance but he would have none of it. They told him to enact into the constitution the 50+1 result for the winner and if he had, we would be going for the next round of election for the presidency. But of course he chose to listen to Kunda. The result is that except probably himself and his cronies, everyone knew that in a free and fair contest, he would lose this or any election."
And Prof Hansugnule said people expected a lot from President Sata because they knew him as an action-oriented person.
"The good thing about President Sata is that we all know him. No Zambian would say ‘Michael who?' Due to his accomplishments, particularly his well-known tag as a hands-on man; his name is household in all Zambia. All he must do, however, is to develop capacity to listen to citizens," said Prof Hansungule.
"I had read about a powerful leader who was so popular and likable across the political spectrum not because he went round giving sweets to his people but because of his ‘power to listen'.
In fact, listening to citizens is the meaning of good governance. Your very good excellently crafted policy may not be good to people. While leading does not mean taking into account every advice from people, it means listening to them. I would rather citizens mislead me and not officials. President Michael Sata has a chance to make a real governance difference."
Labels: MICHAEL SATA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
Hansungule condemns Rupiah's threats on Nkomeshya
By Ernest Chanda
Fri 09 Sep. 2011, 14:00 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule says President Rupiah Banda's threats on senior chieftainess Nkomeshya Mukamambo II are unpresidential. President Banda's threat to retire chieftainess Nkomeshya if he wins this year's presidential election, the Pretoria University law lecturer said the President displayed a complete lack of simple judgement.
"It is unfortunate the President has chosen to use a hammer to hit a fly. Even if you are panicking, it is never done that way. I don't know who advises him but whoever it is clearly does not want him to win re-election, hence the distastefully poor advice. In making the uncouth tantrums he did against Nkomeshya Mukamambo ll, the President displayed the worst in him - a complete lack of simple basic judgement," Prof Hansungule said.
"Both decent women and men of goodwill have a duty to publicly condemn President Banda for going so public against a simple village defenceless woman only trying to be what she is, which is to fight for what is right for her people. Freedom of expression is the hallmark of democracy and not criminal activities of terrorists like William Banda which the President seems, with his utterances against the chietainship, to be blessing."
He said chieftainess Nkomeshya had a right to associate with people of her choice.
Prof Hansungule said the constitution also provided for freedom of association, which meant choosing whether to associate with MMD members and officials including the President or not.
"It must be understood that President Banda's visit to Chongwe the seat of chieftainess Mukamaambo II was political, not government. The President was going to the area to campaign for his bid to political office and for those of his party's contenders to the National Assembly and local councils. In these circumstances, it is unbefitting of the President to insist on paying a courtesy call on the chieftainess who by law is banned from taking part in partisan politics. The Constitution is very clear that chiefs must stay clear of partisan politics so what was the President trying to do to encourage the chief to break the law?" he said.
Prof Hansungule said chieftainess Nkomeshya was one of the few chiefs in the country who understood the law and role of traditional leaders, especially their involvement in politics.
He said chieftainess Nkomeshya had been very consistent in defending her throne from cheap politics and she must be commanded for that.
"Zambia badly needs chiefs of such courage. Chiefs that are as courageous as chieftainess Nkomeshya are becoming scarce. Due to high levels of poverty, many chiefs have sold their souls to the greatest bidder and it is a shame how they are forced to praise the ruling party by the day. Several chiefs have been driven long kilometres to Lusaka to praise the ‘king' yet chieftainess Nkomesha who lives in Lusaka has made sure she has nothing to do with such nonsense," he said.
"Throughout the democratisation of Zambia, chieftainess Nkomeshya has sided with the people. She came to the Oasis conference to show solidarity with those that said No to the third term."
He said chieftainess Nkomeshya's integrity has been a family inheritance which was also displayed in her late father chief Nkomeshya.
Prof Hansungule urged President Banda to research about the Nkomeshya family and discover their life of principles.
"But this 'stubbornness' for truth and justice goes deep into the Nkomeshya family. If only President Banda had read Fergus Macpherson's 1974 book 'Kenneth Kaunda. The Times and the Man', he would have easily discovered that the Nkomeshyas have never entertained corruption and dictatorship. In this book, Kaunda, through Macpherson reveals that chieftainess Mukamambo's father chief Nkomeshya was degazetted by colonial masters for adamantly refusing to have his people evicted from their ancestral land in order to pave way for a Forest Reserve," Prof Hansungule explained.
"When most would sit down before a white man, the old man chief Nkomeshya stood on the side of his people even though he knew that this would spell doom on his chieftainship. He did not care the colonial trappings of power. In this sense, chief Nkomeshya and now his daughter chieftainess Nkomeshya are like President Nelson Mandela's father who when he was ordered to appear before a colonial magistrate in his capacity as chief to answer charges that his subjects' cattle had strayed and destroyed a white farmers' maize crop, he responded by saying 'I will not come. I am still preparing for battle', and of course he lost the chieftainship."
He said the country lacked such traditional leadership for democracy.
Prof Hansungule said it was the duty of all chiefs to defend democracy.
He said women like chieftainess Nkomeshya deserved everyone's respect and protection because they defined people's identity.
"Politicians like President Banda and his erstwhile campaign manager 'Malawian' for William Banda do not care our identities, our respect. All they see in us are votes, not people. Chongwe people who were subjected to William Banda-perpetrated violence must sue him and the MMD and make them pay for what they did. It is clear police cshief Francis Kabonde cannot take on William Banda because he is Rupiah Banda," said Prof Hansungule.
"Chongwe people have no police to protect them. President Rupiah Banda and his namesake William Banda cannot protect them. They must turn to the courts for their protection. All women and men of good will cannot let the President get away with this. President Banda should be condemned for the terrorist remarks against the chietainship of Nkomeshya and it must be made clear to him that should anything happen to the chief especially given the loose canons of the likes of William Banda out there, he would be held responsible."
Addressing a public rally in Chongwe, President Banda threatened to ‘retire' chietainess Nkomeshya if he won this year's election.
That was barely a day after chieftainess Nkomeshya refused to accept a courtesy call from him.
The chieftainess also refused to get a ‘gift' presented on Friday, a day before the rally from President Banda's emissaries comprising his special adviser for political affairs Dr Francis Chigunta and Zesco managing director Ernest Mupwaya.
Labels: CHIEFS, CHIEFTIANESS NKOMESHYA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
Hansungule echoes call for speedy disposal of poll cases
By Ernest Chanda
Thu 07 July 2011, 04:00 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansugule says the law should be reformed to avoid protracted delays when dealing with election petitions. Commenting on chief justice Ernest Sakala’s appeal to judges for expeditious disposal of electoral cases before and after this year’s elections, the Pretoria University law lecturer said the laws should have provided for specific timeframes within which such cases should be concluded.
“Take, for instance, presidential petitions threaten to run at the same time as the term of the president whose election is being contested, which makes a mockery of the benefits from petitioning. Both the presidential petitions against late presidents Chiluba and Mwanawasa went on and on without end,” Prof Hansungule said.
“Meanwhile, the two contested presidents were sworn-in and moved their families to State House, started signing laws, replacing military and security chiefs and performing all the functions of an uncontested incumbent.
I am not here suggesting what is impossible that the Supreme Court could nullify the sitting president’s ‘victory’. It can’t be.”
He said under the current arrangement it was difficult for the courts to decide against the incumbent president.
Prof Hansungule said instead courts had found it easier to decide on petitions involving members of parliament and councilors.
“The impossible, however, is deciding against the incumbent president who in any case is already in office. I argue that whatever the evidence, the Supreme Court can never declare a presidential election invalid. But it is a question of principle that the law should try and promote patent fairness on this issue,” he said.
Prof Hansungule said the nation should learn from Uganda which provides for a time to settle electoral disputes before swearing in the presidential winner.
“According to the Constitution of Uganda, there is a ‘cooling off period’ after elections to allow for any petition against the ‘winning president’ and a timeframe fixed to resolve the dispute before the president is sworn in,” Prof Hansungule said.
And Prof Hansungule says the Supreme Court is equally guilty of delaying election petitions.
“Therefore, the issue is not so much the High Court judges delaying petitions or not dealing with them fairly according to law. It is as much the Supreme Court which the Chief Justice was clearly not addressing to heed the Chief Justice’s advice,” said Prof Hansungule.
“For instance, it is utterly wrong for the Constitution to make the Chief Justice electoral officer for the purposes of presidential elections and then expect him to sit over petitions concerning the election of the president he had just certified.
How does the angry petitioner who feels cheated at the conduct of the electoral officer who also happens to be Chief justice who must sit together with his peers to resolve his anger come to reconcile with this? There are many troubling things that the Chief Justice omitted to say in his otherwise timely advice to the country’s judges.”
Opening a one-day conference for judges organised by the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) in Siavonga on Tuesday, justice Sakala urged judges countrywide to expeditiously deal with cases that would arise in their courts during and after this year’s elections.
He said the forthcoming presidential, parliamentary and local government elections would come with massive challenges which could subsequently lead to losing candidates filing election petitions to settle differences.
Labels: 2011 ELECTIONS, ECZ, MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
Hansungule urges Rupiah to come out clean over arms deal
By Bright Mukwasa
Thu 05 May 2011, 04:01 CAT
PRESIDENT Rupiah Banda should respond to specific allegations raised if he claims he does not know anything about the US$100 million arms deal revealed by George Mpombo, says Professor Michelo Hansungule.
Prof Hansungule said in an interview that President Banda should promote constitutionalism as enshrined by coming out clean over the scandal.
“It is a gross violation of the Constitution (Article 44 (1) and, therefore, offensive to the principles of dignity and leadership for the Head of State to even have his name mentioned in scandal.
President Banda has a duty to uphold the Constitution. If, as he claims he does not know anything about George Mpombo’s allegations, why should he not respond to the specific allegations the latter has raised?” Prof Hansungule asked.
He said it could be better for the President to submit the scandal to an independent inquiry which would establish the facts and shame the alleger.
“The public resources the President is accused of trying to influence to the benefit of his son and, therefore, to him belong to the poor people who are also the majority voters in the country. Dignity and leadership requires high level of moral authority which is not consistent with scandals,” he said.
Prof Hansungule said it was unfortunate that investigative wings were unable to take on President Banda as they existed on his mercy.
“One thing we learnt from former president Chiluba and now President Banda is that it is not possible for the ACC to act against the president because it owes its existence to him.
Despite this, however, President Banda should show leadership as defined in the Constitution and subject the scandal to an independent inquiry,” said Prof Hansungule.
He said being at the centre of the scandal, President Banda had a duty to appoint an independent body of experts of repute to probe the scandal.
Prof Hansungule said President Banda could not just brush aside such a serious allegation by throwing the ball back to former Defence Minister George Mpombo.
“A serious allegation such as this which implicates the head of state and his family in serious violation of the Constitution deserves nothing short of a full independent inquiry.
No less important is that the revelation was made by former Minister of Defence, at the time of the scandal, President Banda’s most senior Cabinet minister responsible for the defence and security docket,” he said.
Prof Hansungule said it was incorrect to accuse someone who quit Cabinet on his own conscience of ‘sour grapes’ unless one who had been dismissed.
“More than that, George Mpombo made specific allegations citing names of senior government officials that are privy to this scandal. These are people who are alive and who, therefore, can easily be approached to shed light on the allegations,” said Prof Hansungule.
He also said the ‘James-gate’ scandal showed the low-level of moral decay the country had descended to under the watch of presidents Frederick Chiluba and Rupiah Banda.
“Under presidents Chiluba and Banda, the levels of corruption in Zambia have reached the levels of Zaire’s president Joseph Mobutu Sese Seko,” said Prof Hansungule.
“Constitutionalism dictates that the President particularly where he and his family are named in scandals should respond with the same specific rebuttals the allegations were made otherwise the public would be forgiven if they believed them.”
Labels: ARMS, CORRUPTION, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
Mulongoti’s dismissal is shameful - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sat 26 Feb. 2011, 04:01 CAT
Professor Michelo Hansungule has described President Rupiah Banda's dismissal of Mike Mulongoti as works and supply minister, the revocation of his parliamentary nomination and suspension from the ruling MMD as shameful.
Commenting on President Banda’s dismissal of Mulongoti from both Cabinet and parliament last Saturday for challenging Vice-President Kunda in the race for the MMD vice-presidency, the Pretoria-based human rights law lecturer said Mulongoti’s dismissal shows that President Banda fears Vice-President George Kunda.
“He has exaggerated respect for Kunda. Anyone who touches Kunda must go. What shame for a president. President Banda should not act emotionally when challenged. He should have allowed Mulongoti the chance to contest the election and strategises to beat him there,” Prof Hansungule said.
“But of course he is so scared of political competition, he cannot stand it. He says nine MMD members are vying for the vice-presidency. How many are vying for the presidency? The MMD will reclaim its direction once it gets rid of insecure non-original members from its ranks.”
Prof Hansungule said MMD members should expel President Banda from the party before he frustrated all of them.
“The problem is that President Banda is not an original MMD member and he is awake to it. He came to the MMD through the back door and this is a common story.
He is insecure because he knows he is not MMD. He doesn’t believe in any of the principles of the MMD, foremost among them ‘democracy’ which is one of the words in the name of the party,” Prof Hansungule said.
“Again, where was he when MMD was formed? It is a simple question. Original MMD members should chase Banda before he chases all of them from the party.
Drive him Egypt/Tunisia style back to his farm and tie him on trees there. If they don’t do this, he will drain the party of its original members. He will chase them all if they don’t chase him because he is foreigner in the MMD.”
Prof Hansungule said there was no need for President Banda to fight Mulongoti to the extent of dismissing him. He said political parties should learn from the episode – that they ought to nurture their own leaders rather than import from outside.
“It is called ‘thieves fighting in the kitchen’. This is what President Rupiah Banda is engaging in by fighting Mike Mulongoti, his former Minister of Works and Supply. Thieves are fighting for power and spills in the kitchen … The main mistake Mulongoti made was to remind him he was not at Garden House in 1991, which is correct,” Prof Hansungule said.
He said Mulongoti’s sacking had exposed flaws in the Republican Constitution. Prof Hansungule said nominated members of parliament would always live at the mercy of their appointing authority.
“Mulongoti was a minister and nominated member of parliament, all of which are at the President’s discretion. In other words, Mulongoti was in government on President Banda’s benevolence,” said Prof Hansungule.
“How can you live like that? How do you live your whole life on the goodwill of another? There are others like that in the government. Dr. Situmbeko Musokotwane, Minister of Finance, is in government on those terms. The Constitution is fundamentally flawed. It is too clearly on the side of dictatorship,” Professor Hansungule said.
Labels: MICHELO HANSUNGULE, MIKE MULONGOTI, MMD
Read more...
Rupiah is scheming against free polls, warns Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Fri 04 Feb. 2011, 04:01 CAT
PRESIDENT Rupiah Banda’s government has schemed against free and fair elections slated for this year, says Professor Michelo Hansungule. Commenting on the hounding out of justice Florence Mumba from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) chairmanship, the Pretoria University law lecturer said President Banda has a lot to explain on the matter.
“President Banda must not be allowed to escape this one scot-free. It is not enough for him to conveniently say ‘I reluctantly accept justice Mumba’s resignation’.
Justice Mumba’s removal from the ECZ could be part of a grand scheme to avoid free, fair and credible elections this year,” Prof Hansungule said.
“President Banda must explain what happened at the Electoral Commission? Why did he allow government newspapers to be used by his cadres to throw mud at Justice Mumba, his own appointee? President Banda has some explanation to do to protect the integrity of the judiciary, assure the credibility of the forthcoming elections and protect the integrity of justice Florence Mumba.”
Prof Hansungule said national and international election observers should note the event with keen interest.
He said it was terrible that the government unleashed ignorant and ruthless ECZ workers on an innocent person.
“These are people who do not even have an idea about the extent of their compounds where they live.
They don’t know, for example, why Chilenje compound has that name,” said Prof Hansungule.
“The President never called on these hooligans to stop it. This is someone the President himself appointed to the Commission but could not protect, of course, because he was the one who unleashed the stone-throwers against the judge.”
Prof Hansungule said judges should avoid political appointments outside their profession to avoid abuse from the executive.
He said taking up such appointments was a serious risk to the legal profession.
“It may be insensitive of me but I blame judges themselves for their quandary.
When the President calls and asks you to serve in a particular capacity, why do they answer the telephone? The President will one day appear before them as accused, so why accept temporary insecure appointments politicians use to divide and rule the noble profession?” said Prof Hansungule. “Besides, is it lawful for a judge who has sworn to God and the Constitution to serve the judiciary for life at the same time to be part of the executive branch? Where does this leave the principle of separation of powers?”
Labels: FLORENCE MUMBA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, VOTERIGGING
Read more...
Banda should account for his political banditry - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Wed 19 Jan. 2011, 04:01 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule says President Rupiah Banda should account for his political banditry.
Commenting on last week’s event in Mongu where police shot dead two people from among demonstrators for the restoration of the 1964 Barotseland Agreement, the Pretoria-based law lecturer described police conduct as most uncivilised.
"Killing two innocent souls; people that are not sick terminating their lives just like that simply because you cannot argue with them is the most uncilivised conduct a government can be,” Prof Hansungule said.
“Rupiah should be made to account for these two cold-blooded murders. An apology is not enough."
He said in a civilised world, differences were discussed, and not responded to with loaded guns. Prof Hansungule said it was a shame that Zambia had degenerated into a lawless state under President Banda.
"It must be put in its proper perspective, these two cold-blooded murders Rupiah has committed in Barotseland must be seen for what they are; they reflect Rupiah Banda's personal character and those of his government," said Prof Hansungule.
"Why is there no strategy to deal peacefully with differences of opinion like over the Barotseland Agreement? Why is a gun the only strategy? Should we all get guns to advocate our different views? Rupiah, Minister of Home Affairs Mkondo Lungu, and all those involved should account for this."
Labels: MICHELO HANSUNGULE, POLITICAL VIOLENCE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
2009 and 2010 have been painful years - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sat 01 Jan. 2011, 04:00 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule has declared the 2011 general election an instrument for liberation from MMD corruption. Reviewing the year and looking at the way forward for Zambia, the South Africa-based human rights law lecturer urged the electorate to vote wisely.
“The way forward is very simple, straightforward and within reach. You cannot have a person in the Presidency who courts corruption by embracing a former head of state who cannot explain where and for what purpose he got the US$8 million,” Prof Hansungule said.
“This is a man whose property is being seized and sold in other jurisdictions and countries as corruptly obtained loot while at Zambian State House he is treated as a king. Let the average Zambian decide this question in an election that is free and fair. Cry the beloved country!”
He said 2009 and 2010 had been painful years in the governance of the nation.
Prof Hansungule observed that the nation was robbed of justice by the questionable acquittals of Frederick Chiluba and his wife Regina on charges of corruption.
He expressed disappointment with President Rupiah Banda who he said had betrayed late president Levy Mwanawasa’s quest for transparency.
“What is particularly interesting is that President Banda was Vice-President in president Mwanawasa’s government when the state decided to arrest Chiluba. He never uttered a word against President Mwanawasa’s action against Chiluba. He continued serving Mwanawasa loyally as number two in the country’s hierarchy. But it is not very surprising because most African politicians behave this way – hypocritically,” Prof Hansungule said.
On the constitution making process, Prof Hansungule described it as a show of political power.
“It National Constitutional Conference (NCC) certainly was not a sovereign body. Two splits in particular pointed to the NCC’s lack of legitimacy: in the first instance, independent civil society easily understood that the whole exercise was meant to ratify government preconceived policies on the Constitution and when the question of ‘membership’ could not be tabled to an open discussion, it independent civil society withdrew from the invitation to serve on the conference,” he said.
“However, government found compromised individuals and even established some friendly ‘NGOs’ and ‘churches’ whom they co-opted to the conference. Second, opposition political parties were completely caught unprepared by the development. Largely due to the fear to lose hefty allowances the members were promised for sitting on the conference, some of the individual members of parliament from opposition went as far as defying their parties which had officially gone along with NGOs and rejected the invitation to sit on the conference.”
Prof Hansungule hoped that the opposition would be united in their quest to remove the MMD from power.
“The only hope, however, is that the opposition comes together and puts up one candidate for the presidency in the coming elections. I mean the opposition in a united front (I don’t want to use the word ‘pact’) including Michael Sata, Hakainde Hichilema, Roger Chongwe, General Miyanda, Edith Nawakwi, Charles Milupi, Tilyenji Kaunda, that kind of a broad pact, if I may use the word now,” said Prof Hansungule.
Labels: 2011 ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION, MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
Banda’s leadership is a danger to democracy - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda and Chibaula Silwamba
Sat 06 Nov. 2010, 04:01 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule has asked President Rupiah Banda to be sober minded and show leadership over Parliament’s removal of the abuse of office clause in the ACC Act. And SACCORD executive director Lee Habasonda said Parliament has been turned into a rubber stamp.
In an interview, the Pretoria based Professor of human rights law said it was a shame that President Banda had chosen not to listen to people over the removal of the abuse of office offence clause. He described President Banda's leadership as a danger to democracy.
“The unacceptably high level of ignorance in President Rupiah Banda’s Cabinet over simple issues is worrying. MMD spokesperson Dora Siliya has just expressed her ignorance over the abuse of public office clause by invoking the UNIP old order to justify why her government is in order to strip the law of this clause. Is this what they discuss in Cabinet? ‘UNIP brought this clause, therefore, we must remove it because it is outdated and will prevent us from owning property.’” questioned Prof Hansungule.
“Why should Zambia be so unlucky to have such raw people as leaders? Put simply, the letter and spirit of the clause is that you cannot be allowed to abuse public office to build yourself a house. The clause does not prevent you from building your house from your salary or from your other lawful resources earned from lawful activities. All it does is to bring honesty in public office by ensuring those who occupy public office use it (not abuse it) for private gain. President Banda's leadership is a danger to democracy.”
Prof Hansungule questioned how President Banda acquired his Chipata farm during the UNIP era if at all the clause had barred leaders from acquiring assets.
“How did President Banda acquire his Chipata farm if the clause is what he and Dora say it was? Is he suggesting he abused his office to acquire his farm? I think leaders like Dora Siliya and President Banda have a duty to understand simple things to avoid confusing the people,” said Prof Hansungule.
“President Banda must show leadership on this issue. He should think and act beyond the likes of Dora Siliya. The issue at stake is very simple. A whole President cannot be seen celebrating those that abuse public office as ‘new dispensation’. What is this ‘new dispensation’? Abusing public office for private gain with impunity is ‘new dispensation’? President Banda can do better than that. He must restore public confidence in the country's anti-corruption programme. He should not be seen kissing corruption.”
And Habasonda said it was unfortunate that Parliament had become a place of formalities and rituals without ability to challenge the executive’s actions, particularly those that threaten good governance, rule of law and systematic conflict resolution.
“We cannot have a Parliament that always rubber stamps things. Something must surely be wrong,” Habasonda said.
“SACCORD notes with sadness that the justification of the removal of the abuse of office clause by President Banda signifies a loss of legal and political direction for the country. It is clear that the executive is only listening to its own voice.”
He said Zambia was at a crossroads and stood the risk of an international perception that Zambia was now a haven of corruption where it was fashionable and gave pride to legalise abuse of office without any scruples at all.
Habasonda said it was worrying that this would have implications on donor support and domestic accountability.
“It is becoming very clear that capricious individuals have captured the statecraft and the leadership cannot appreciate the value of those persuading them to abandon the path they have taken over this law,” Habasonda said.
“As SACCORD we wish to serve timely notice that those scheming these laws and forcing them on Zambians must be mindful that while they can triumph for a season, what is certain is that their day of reckoning is surely coming. And it will be that day when they are no longer secured and protected by the trappings of government and the state machinery that they will discern reason in what we are saying now, but it will be too late. Zambia needs laws that serve the interest of the majority rather than the minority.”
Habasonda appealed to President Banda to send the amendment Bill back for further consultation instead of signing it into law.
Labels: LEE HABASONDA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
Mchenga, Shonga’s lies about abuse of office
By The Post
Fri 15 Oct. 2010, 04:00 CAT
In their attempt to justify their unjustifiable decision to remove the abuse of office offence from our statute books, they have no alternative but to shamelessly resort to lies.
Rupiah Banda and George Kunda’s representatives – Director of Public Prosecutions Chalwe Mchenga, Attorney General Abyudi Shonga and Ministry of Justice permanent secretary in charge of administration Annie Sitali – failed in their attempt to justify the removal of abuse of office from the Anti Corruption Commission Act when they appeared before the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, governance, human rights and gender matters on Wednesday.
Last week, Professor Michelo Hansungule challenged the government to give reasons for their desperation to remove abuse of office from our statutes. He rightly observed that it seems that the motivation for this move has nothing to do with good governance but an attempt to protect themselves because they know they have done wrong things. The appearance of Mchenga, Shonga and Sitali before the parliamentary committee went a long way to prove that Prof Hansungule is right.
We say this because these three individuals are well-educated Zambians capable of articulating their positions clearly and in a defensible manner. But what happened on Wednesday demonstrates that even they do not have any meaningful arguments to deploy.
In many ways, they resorted to half-truths and outright lies to try and justify something that they have been instructed to justify. They know that it is not justifiable, but maybe for fear of losing their jobs, they are ready to wriggle like a snake between two diametrically opposed positions. They have a crisis in their minds. If they tell the truth, they are fired; if they lie, they are disgraced. What do they do? It is unfortunate that in this day and age, professionals should be subjected to the whims and unreasonable demands of people like George.
It is very clear that George is driving this shameless agenda as he has many times before. George has developed a taste for power which has led him to abandon any pretence of decency. He is ready to do whatever it takes to remain in power and defend what he considers to be the legitimate dividend of his position. This is coming out even in the arguments that they are making. When civil servants stand up and try to defend crime in public, then we all must know that there is something very wrong. How can people argue that it is acceptable, it is not wrong for public servants to make money using their public offices without any accountability or restraint?
This is what the representatives of Rupiah and George were saying at Parliament. Shonga and Sitali even suggested that the current law is unconstitutional. This is a lie. Shonga went even further by saying that such accountability was appropriate under Kenneth Kaunda’s one-party and socialist-oriented state and not in today’s liberalised capitalist economy. What nonsense is this? As we have always said, if you don’t understand issues, it is better to shut up than to expose one’s ignorance in public.
We like the saying by some people that it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. Shonga as Attorney General should not make such careless statements to please his political masters. Can he show that the law, as it stands today, is unconstitutional? If these are the people that are advising Rupiah, then we have a big problem indeed. Maybe it is Rupiah advising them instead of the other way round because a serious lawyer could not make such a reckless statement.
If Shonga and Sitali are saying that the current law is unconstitutional, maybe they are talking about a different constitution which they are concocting with George. The Anti Corruption Commission Act as it stands today is consistent with the Constitution of Zambia. Shonga said that section 37 of the Anti Corruption Commission Act being unconstitutional was the major reason for its removal. Sitali, on her part, says that requiring an accused person to prove certain facts was unconstitutional. What both Shonga and Sitali are forgetting is that they are not the only ones who read the law.
We are pleased that we have learnt a little law and that even with that little law, we can show that they are liars. They are behaving like dishonest mercenaries. The Constitution is very specific about the issue they are debating. Article 18 (12)a says, “Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of – (a)paragraph (a) of clause (2) to the extent that it is shown that the law in question imposes upon any person charged with a criminal offence the burden of proving particular facts”. This constitutional provision allows the laws of our land to require suspects to prove certain facts notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18(2)(a) which states that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence – (a) shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty…”
These provisions are there in our Constitution and it is not possible that the entire Attorney General and his permanent secretary are unaware of this law. They were simply being dishonest; they went to Parliament with no other intention but to lie, deceive, mislead, manipulate the members of parliament and public opinion. This is definitely not a recipe for governing well. It’s clear that they are up to no good.
This is why Shonga even tried to discuss socialism, a matter which he did not seem to understand well. He would have done well to go and consult Dr Kenneth Kaunda before talking about issues he doesn’t understand. The issues that Parliament is grappling with are serious issues that have far-reaching consequences on all of us. There is no civilised state, capitalist, socialist or any other state whatever its description, that should accept the abuse of public office for personal benefit. There is only one state that accepts abuse of office: a corrupt state, run by corrupt people – a kleptocracy.
But surprisingly even Mobutu’s kleptocracy could not publicly say abuse of public office was acceptable even though it was the order of the day in Zaire. They knew that what they were doing was wrong and the most they could do was deny that there was any such abuse of office. Even Mobutu would look better when compared with the brazenness with which this Zambian kleptocracy wants to defend its crimes, its corruption, its abuse of public office and resources.
There is nothing socialist, capitalist or liberal about corruption, abuse of office. Any honest economic or political system abhors wrongdoing. There is no honest capitalist country in the world today which permits its leaders and public servants to acquire wealth, using their offices, and which they cannot account for. The United States, the most advanced capitalist country in the world, is the most strict country on this planet when it comes to abuse of public office.
We say this because in that country, abuse of public office is not only unacceptable legally but has also become a moral and cultural issue. In our view, this is one of the greatest contributions of the American Revolution to good governance in the world. China is also very strict about corruption in their country. They understand the grave consequences that could arise if corruption were allowed to flourish unchecked.
In China today, the offences that Frederick Chiluba and his friends committed would have been matters for capital punishment – they would be dead. That is how seriously they take corruption. This is a system founded on a deeply held belief that government is run best when the potential for the abuse of government offices by those holding or occupying them is curbed, and when it is held as close to the people as possible.
The issue of the leadership code that Shonga was trying to use to justify their criminal scheme does not hold water. Under Kaunda, leaders were allowed to run businesses. But there were very high levels of accountability that accompanied this. Enoch Kavindele was a member of the UNIP central committee but was allowed to run his businesses upon accepting the requirements of accountability that ensured that he did not abuse his position in the leadership of our country to enrich himself. The problem is not running business; it is abusing one’s office to enrich oneself. The problem here is corruption not running business. If you run business, you are able to account for your wealth if you have any. This is what civilised societies do.
Mchenga argued that Parliament should remove the offence of abuse of office because Zambians do not know how to keep receipts for the houses they are building. This is also a lie. The problem here is not about keeping receipts or producing them when they are needed. There is no honest person in this country who can fail to account for his house even if he doesn’t have receipts. Anyway, let him tell us how many people have been sent to jail since this law was enacted for failing to produce receipts for a house they had built from legitimately earned income. The truth is there is none. Mchenga is lying.
As for Mchenga, it seems lying is his preferred way of maintaining his job. It’s no wonder that the Law Association of Zambia has asked him to resign because he is not fit to continue in that very important public office when his instincts drive him to defend crime instead of prosecuting it. And since when has Mchenga been really concerned about justice?
All he defends every day on important public matters is injustice. We can ask: what justice was Mchenga advancing when he advanced that treacherous nolle prosequi to Kashiwa Bulaya?
What justice was Mchenga defending when he withdrew the appeal against what was clearly an unjustified acquittal of Chiluba by Jones Chinyama? There are more questions about justice Mchenga will one day be forced to answer.
Let them just do what they want to do without the nonsense of their explanations and insulting the collective intelligence of the Zambian people.
Labels: ACC, CHALWE MCHENGA, CORRUPTION, GEORGE KUNDA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
Irrational defence of abuse of office
By The Post
Sun 10 Oct. 2010, 04:00 CAT
No decent government could fight for the right to be corrupt and to abuse the power people have given it to utilise for the benefit of society. But this is what Rupiah Banda’s government, through the recklessness of George Kunda, is doing as it removes the offence of abuse of office from the Anti Corruption Commission Act.
It is not normal for government leaders to demand the right to acquire wealth without being accountable for it. We agree with Professor Michelo Hansungule that the government has not given any sensible rationale for removing the law against abuse of office.
While it is clear that the public are disturbed by this development, the government is quiet about the reasoning behind the removal of this provision. We have said before that this is a fundamental policy shift which cannot be carried through without explanation to our people. Can George and Rupiah tell our people why they want to be able to abuse their offices without being held to account?
We say this because this is what their actions amount to. Anyway, their dishonesty and failure to be open with our people about their reasons for removing this provision from our law will soon become clear. Our people will know why they are desperate to change this law.
It is not the first time that we are seeing such irrational behaviour from those who are entrusted with power in our country. Frederick Chiluba did the same. As somebody remarked during the anti-third term campaign, Chiluba knew that he had messed himself so badly that he could not afford to leave the presidency.
If he left the presidency, as has happened now, the mess that he was in would be clear for all to see. His reaction was to try and amend our Constitution to allow himself an illegitimate third term in office. Many of our people were wondering why Chiluba was so determined to stay in power.
And we told them then that it was because of the crimes he had committed that he was afraid to leave the presidency. We have been proved right. Chiluba is a thief who tried to protect himself by clinging to power. There are some similarities in what Chiluba tried to do and what Rupiah and George are doing today. We agree with Prof Hansungule that in the absence of a logical explanation, we are left to conclude that their behaviour is an act in self-defence.
This, however, is an exercise in futility. If they have abused their offices, they will not be saved by an amendment to the law. What will apply to them is the law that was in force at the time that they are alleged to have committed the offences. It is understandable that they are not able to come to the public and tell our people why they want to remove this law. This is because their manoeuvre is immoral and unjustified.
It can never be defended by anybody who has respect for public property. It is not difficult to discern why the offence of abuse of office as it appears in the Anti Corruption Commission Act is criminalised. All one has to do is read the Act, and no explanation is required for our people to understand what the law is trying to achieve. The people that run our government exercise a lot of power on our behalf, including the utilisation of resources on various projects.
This offence seeks to ensure that these people do not use their positions to acquire wealth at the expense of our people. If this is allowed, we all know what is going to happen. We have seen it before. Under Chiluba, people like Xavier Chungu, his chief of intelligence, were walking around looking for projects to do.
The problem with those projects is not about whether or not they were bad or good. The problem was that their interest was not doing the projects; it was making money for themselves. The projects were therefore just a pretext and an excuse for diverting public resources into their pockets.
This was because they were sure no one was going to question them about their primitive accumulation of wealth and their newly acquired expensive tastes and conspicuous consumption. But when they left power, they found this law waiting for them, and many of them have been convicted.
As Prof Hansungule has observed, why should a law which has been so successful in arresting the rampant corruption and abuse of public office be changed? There are some of our people who might not know what this law says. This is what it says under Possession of unexplained property:
“37.
(1) The Director-General, the Deputy Director-General or any officer of the Commission authorised in writing by the Director-General may investigate any public officer where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such public officer -
(a) has abused or misused his office position or authority to obtain property, wealth, advantage or profit directly or indirectly for himself or any other person; (b)maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;
(c) is in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or (d) is in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act.
(2) Any public officer who, after due investigation carried out under subsection (1), is found to -
(a) have misused or abused his office, position, or authority to obtain advantage, wealth, property or profit directly or indirectly;
(b) maintain a standard of living above which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;
(c) be in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or
(d) be in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act; shall, unless he gives a reasonable explanation, be charged with having, or having had under his control or in his possession of pecuniary resources or property reasonably suspected of having been corruptly acquired, or having misused or abused his office, as the case may be, and shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control or into his possession or, as the case may be, how he came to enjoy the benefit of such services, be guilty of an offence.
(3) Where a court is satisfied in proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) that, having regard to the closeness of his relationship to the accused and to other relevant circumstances, there is reason to believe that any person was holding pecuniary resources or property in trust for or otherwise on behalf of the accused, or acquired such pecuniary resources or property as a gift, or loan without adequate consideration, from the accused, such pecuniary resources or property shall, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by or on behalf of the accused be deemed to have been under the control or in the possession of the accused. (4) In this section, "official emoluments" include a pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits.”
This law is very clear. It states that if a person has abused his office in order to obtain property, wealth, advantage or profit directly or indirectly, is guilty of an offence. What is wrong with the law stopping a public officer from abusing his office in order to obtain some illicit advantage? Why is Rupiah uncomfortable with this law?
This law also says it is a criminal offence for a public officer to maintain a standard of living which is above his legally earned income. Again, what is wrong with the law requiring public officers to live in accordance with their legally earned income?
What Rupiah and George are telling our people is that they don’t want this law. What this means is that for Rupiah and George, it is okay for public officers to live above their disclosed incomes and indeed it is okay for them to possess unearned or even illegally obtained income. What kind of nonsense is this?
This law also makes it a criminal offence for a public officer to be found in possession of money or property disproportionate to their present or past disclosed income. In other words, a person should not have more money or property than they can show to have legally acquired. Again, the simple question is: what is wrong with this requirement?
Rupiah and George would like to be able to control resources which are above their present or past known incomes. This is not the mindset of honest people. Only criminals want to hide the source of their income. This law also makes it a criminal offence for a public officer to receive any service or benefit from any source which suggests corruption.
Again, what is wrong with the law stopping public officers from receiving favours from contractors and other service providers to the government in circumstances that suggest corruption? Why is Rupiah determined to remove this law from our statute books? What is it that he has done? Our advice to him is: keep proper record of everything that you are doing because whether or not you change the law, you will have to explain the sources of the wealth that you are enjoying.
Rupiah and George should know that this is not just about themselves. Even their families are covered. Hiding resources in children and other relatives or friends will not help them. Creating all sorts of silly trusts will not help them. The law will visit them.
Our people must continue to demand an explanation from this corrupt government for its desperation to remove the offence of abuse of office from the Anti Corruption Commission Act.
Labels: ACC, CORRUPTION, GEORGE KUNDA, MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
Explain ‘mischief’ of abuse of office clause - Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sun 10 Oct. 2010, 04:02 CAT
PROFESSOR Michelo Hansungule has challenged the government to explain the mischief they have found with the abuse of office offence which they want to remove from the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) Act.
And Prof Hansungule has written to the Clerk of the National Assembly, protesting the removal of the abuse of office offence from the ACC Act. In an interview, the Pretoria-based law Professor further challenged President Rupiah Banda to disclose the legal rationale behind the decision in order for people to appreciate and understand it.
He argued that for any government to repeal a law, there must be strong grounds which were in the public interest.
"Where exactly is Rupiah Banda driving the country? Can the government tell us what is wrong with this clause as to make them convene Parliament to delete it? What mischief have they found with this law? Where is the non-conformity between section 37 and the Article of the UN Convention?" Prof Hansungule asked.
"Laws are made by men and women. The time we believed they were made by God is long gone. Consequently, it is in the nature of law that it can be amended, revised, repealed and new ones introduced. But this is not done lightly, certainly not at the whims of one person or clique. There must be reasons for changing the law, which reasons should pass through the democratic threshold."
Prof Hansungule questioned what exactly the government was trying to achieve by removing the abuse of office offence, especially that the same law had been used to fight poverty.
He charged that President Banda's administration was mocking Parliament with such a bill.
"What exactly are we trying to achieve in Zambia? Only saint Rupiah and his disciple George know. How mischeavous! Look at the relevant UN Convention against Corruption on the point: Article 19. Abuse of functions...," he contended.
Prof Hansungule argued that so far, the government had not convinced the public on the reasons for removing the abuse of office offence.
He said the only possible reason was for those in power to protect themselves from possible prosecution after they had left office.
"But what is the problem with Rupiah Banda's obsession with the abuse of public office? Neither he nor his disciples have advanced anything close to basic reason. The one I have heard is that 'oh no, we are not deleting the clause. Those who are saying so do not know law. The clause will remain in the Penal Code'. It is nothing like this. This law is purely for personal protection. Someone put it simply that you can cheat some people sometimes but you cannot cheat all the people all the time," Prof Hansungule said.
"The point is, we have not used the Penal Code against corruption for a long time. It is de lege ferenda. Why? Because it has never achieved the purpose. The only reason I can think of for President Banda and George Kunda to go for the abuse of office clause in the Anti-Corruption Commission is that they fear it will corner them once out of office. There is no other possible reason sane members of the public can come up with to justify the move."
He charged that the government had chosen to delete the offence because it had proved effective in the fight against corruption.
"This is the worst form of hypocrisy on the part of our government to unashamedly ransack a clause whose only mistake is that it has successfully been used in previous cases to protect public resources. Abuse of office is one of the most rampant white-collar crimes in our country. Zambia has lost billions of kwacha as well as opportunities through abuse of office. It must be clearly understood that abuse of office is usually not a crime for junior civil servants and others in their league," he argued.
"Usually, junior civil servants have no power to abuse. Rather, it is the powerful politicians with overwhelming power that tend to abuse it for personal gain. With Chiluba now in government as President Banda's political adviser, it is not surprising we are rewriting the struggle against poverty. Rather than renege on the fight against corruption, this is the time government should have left no stone unturned in ensuring the money the donors have left in the treasury under HIPC is put to good use. Zambians must watch closely how their MPs are going to vote when this bill comes up for the final decision."
And Prof Hansungule has written to Parliament for permission to submit to the Corruption Bill through teleconference.
"I would like to indicate my strong protest at aspects of the bill more especially the purported removal from the bill of the criminal offence of Abuse of Office. As a Zambian citizen, I believe I have a right to appear before the relevant parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinising this bill to have my views heard," requested Prof Hansungule.
"I would like to indicate my interest to address the Committee on this particular issue. As I am not in the country, I would appreciate if Parliament arranges for me to appear before the Committee through Video Conference, which I can arrange from this side."
The government has presented the Corruption bill to Parliament and notably missing is the abuse of office offence.
In the current ACC Act, section 37 carters for the abuse of office offence, but in the bill, the same section has been replaced by Concealment of Offence.
Labels: ACC, CORRUPTION, MICHELO HANSUNGULE
Read more...
‘Is the Attorney General a servant of the people’
By The Post
Sun 19 Sep. 2010, 04:00 CAT
A good servant must know who his master is. A servant who does not know who his master is, is a confused servant and cannot give the best service. This is a basic reality that those who are employed to serve our people must understand, or else they risk being irrelevant.
In the one party state, there was no difference between the party, the government and the state. The party reigned supreme. This was one of the weaknesses that led our people to demand a change to that system of governance. Today, we have a multi-party system. This system is supposed to guarantee our people’s democratic rights. It is not meant to serve the interests of the ruling party. But this seems to be the case today.
It seems that the wishes of the ruling party are paramount and superior even to the best interests of the state. There is an apparent failure to distinguish between the government and the state. The government is a transitional administrative structure that is ushered in through elections from time to time.
The state is the permanent entity that defines the nation. This is what we call Zambia. This Zambia, from time to time, hires a government to run its affairs for renewable periods of five years. This is how our democracy is organised. The government is supposed to serve the people and not vice versa.
In other words, whatever the government does must be in the best interest of the people or what we generally call in the public interest. But this is not what is taking place in our country today. The interests of government and its desire to retain power at any costs seem to supersede the dictates of public good.
This is the problem that Professor Michelo Hansungule is dealing with when he addresses Attorney General Abyudi Shonga’s refusal to appeal against judge Evans Hamaundu’s refusal to register the London High Court judgment against Frederick Chiluba.
Shonga has told the nation that his refusal was based on the instructions of his clients. The question that he has not answered is: who, in essence, is his client? Is it the government serving its party political interests or the state serving public interests? How does Shonga’s refusal to appeal a wrong judgment that compromises public interests serve any public good?
This is the issue that needs to be addressed. The Attorney General is not supposed to be a party cadre who carries out the wishes of the president regardless of their legality or illegality and effect on public good. Granted, he is an appointee of the president and in our system serves at his pleasure. But that is no licence for the president to use the Attorney General to get whatever decision he wants.
Like any ordinary lawyer, and more importantly the Attorney General, whose client is the Zambian public, is not supposed to carry out instructions that are wrong or in the case of the public, decisions that are against public good. Although in theory, the Attorney General is a lawyer from the government, the guiding ethos for his office is public good. He should never do or sanction anything that goes against public interests.
Hiding behind the fact that his client is government does not absolve him of the obligation to protect the public against abuse of power by the government. The Attorney General is not obliged to follow unethical or unconscionable requests from his client, the government. And the reason for this is very simple to understand. It is assumed that government always acts conscionably.
And for that reason, any instruction that is unconscionable goes outside what a government should do so that an Attorney General who is supposed to be serving the government in the public interests is not obliged to do wrong in the name of serving government as a client. What this means therefore, is that an Attorney General who does wrong can never hide behind acting on the basis of instructions.
This is because the only instructions that a government should give are those that are in keeping with public good. If instructions go outside public good, they cease to be legitimate government instructions. A good Attorney General must then take the opportunity to plant his flag of principle in the ground and stamp his authority.
He should not be driven by the illegitimate wishes of a government that is prepared to compromise public interests for political expediency. What we have said so far makes sense in relation to general legal advice away from the courts of law. But for matters that are in court, the Attorney General cannot be heard to say that he has been instructed to do x, y or z.
Instructed by who? We ask this because it is the Attorney General who is a chief advisor to the government. And the government is not the legal advisor to the Attorney General. The relationship of the Attorney General and the government is not the same as the relationship of an ordinary client with his lawyer.
This is because an ordinary client has a personal interest in the matter that a lawyer may be pursuing for him. This is not the same in the case of the Attorney General. The government or more specifically the president is not supposed to have personal interest in the issues that the Attorney General is pursuing on behalf of the general public.
A private client can decide to forfeit his interest because those interests are private. But a president is not supposed to forfeit public interests because they are not his to forfeit. This, therefore, raises a question: when the Attorney General says he is acting on the instructions of his client, what does he mean?
To us, it seems that the Attorney General has abdicated his responsibility to safeguard the legal public interests and has chosen to ride with the interests of the president and his political fortunes. We say this because it is very clear that if the Attorney General was acting in the public interest, he could not defend judge Hamaundu’s decision.
Furthermore, he could not, with a clear conscience, refuse to appeal a matter with such far-reaching implications. The registration of United Kingdom judgments in Zambia is not a matter that is only restricted to Chiluba’s highly politicised case. It is a decision that has implications for other areas of our endeavours as a nation. It is common knowledge that Rupiah Banda’s government has been boasting about bringing investment to our country.
The Attorney General knows or should know that a lot of the investment agreements that are concluded in our country involving huge amounts of money require the application of English common law and they also usually choose the United Kingdom as a seat for dispute resolution whenever disputes arise. The decision of judge Hamaundu which has refused the registration of UK judgments has called into question a number of these agreements which include UK law as an acceptable neutral law.
If the Attorney General was acting independently, he would be anxious to ensure that judge Hamaundu’s clearly wrong decision does not become the reason why this country begins to lose the opportunity to create employment by attracting investments. This is what happens when important decisions in the country are not made objectively but driven by shortsighted narrow interests.
We have no doubt in our minds that the Attorney General has a conscience and he knows that the decision he has made in the Chiluba case is not in the best public interest. But for one reason or the other, it is convenient for him to go along with the wishes of the government. This is not the way things should be.
The Attorney General’s office should be a strong office that is capable of safeguarding public interest with fear of recrimination. This office is just as important, if in some respects at least, not more important than the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is wrong for this office to be run at the whims of politicians whose interests are not always consistent with public good.
As Prof Hansungule has observed, the only way that the Attorney General is going to serve the public interest is to recognise that he is a public lawyer and therefore his duty is to represent public interest and serve the people. This is a call that his office makes on him. If he does not have the courage to do this, he is in the wrong job and a danger to the public.
Labels: ATTORNEY GENERAL, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, PRESIDENCY, SEPARATION OF POWERS
Read more...
Zambians are Attorney General’s clients not Rupiah – Hansungule
By Ernest Chanda
Sun 19 Sep. 2010, 04:00 CAT
PROFESSOR MICHELO Hansungule has argued that Attorney General Abyud Shonga’s client is not President Rupiah Banda but the people of Zambia. In an interview, the Pretoria-based human rights lawyer dismissed Shonga’s claims not to get instructions from anyone for an appeal against High Court judge Evans Hamaundu’s dismissal of the 2007 London High Court judgment secured against Frederick Chiluba.
Prof Hansungule contended that Shonga was missing an elementary point of law in his argument.
“There is a big difference between President Rupiah Banda and Zambia. When the Attorney General says he got instructions from his client not to appeal the High Court decision seeking registration of the Chiluba London judgment, he is grossly misinterpreting an elementary point of law. A public lawyer like the Attorney General is there to represent the interests of the public as a whole,” Hansungule said.
“His client is not the President or Vice-President George Kunda alone. Foremost above these, he or she must be able to read the public sentiment and from there gauge public interests.
Who is Attorney-General’s client? Who instructs the Attorney General? Obviously, the Attorney General cannot go to court without instructions. This too is basic law. Every lawyer can only go to court on the basis of specific instructions from his or her client to prosecute or defend that client’s interests.”
He said as a public lawyer, Shonga should always represent public interests because he was appointed to serve the people. Prof Hansungule contended that by refusing to appeal against Judge Hamaundu’s judgment, he was fighting the public that employed him.
“For instance, a pertinent question would be ‘what would best serve the interests of the general public in a case involving registration of a judgment by a foreign court, which confirmed that millions of kwacha of the general public were salted away by the accused where that judgment is denied registration’? Clearly, it is to do everything possible including appeal because this is legally possible here,” he said.
“Because the Attorney-General is appointed by government on behalf of the people to serve not the interests of a few individuals in government but those of the general public at large, therein lies the duty to act consistent with public interests. Not appealing or taking other measures to ensure the judgment was legally recognised in the country is directly fighting the very public who employed you to defend their interests.”
He called for professionalism in important positions such as that of the Attorney General.
Prof Hansungule questioned the reasoning in the President’s call for judicial independence instead of the other way.
“In order to achieve this public interest, Rupiah Banda or George Kunda, Minister of Justice, could have their views disregarded, if they seem to be inconsistent to what is best for the public.
This is why we need professionals that are professionals in these important positions of power. Not long ago, the Chief Justice of Botswana repeatedly told the President in his face at a lawyers’ meeting that ‘Mr President, I am independent from you; I do not need instructions from you,…etc’,” Prof Hansungule explained.
“In Zambia, it is the President who tells judges to be independent and not the other way round. And prior to that, he publicly announces that he told the DPP not to appeal the Chiluba acquittal because it is a waste of money!”
Prof Hansungule attributed most of the problems to what he termed a bad constitution that the country had. He said the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) tailored constitution would be worse than the current one.
“A key problem behind all this is the imperfect Constitution. The current Constitution is so bad in some respects especially presidential power that it is not worth being called a Constitution. The one the NCC has just recommended is worse than worse. Why should power – all state power – be reposed in one man? Is he God?” asked Prof Hansungule.
“This is why it makes them drunk with power. Take, for instance, appointments of ministers in charge of provinces; the constitution empowers the President to appoint a provincial minister in a province he lost to the opposition! Why?
Only because he is president? Is this enough? Why can’t the constitution promote freedom of people to govern themselves as they wish and with whom they wish without people they would never have elected into positions imposed on them?”
Answering a question from one state advocate that the general public was saying it was he and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Chalwe M’chenga who were refusing to appeal against judge Evans Hamaundu’s judgment in favour of former president Frederick Chiluba, Shonga said he is only answerable to the state and could not get instructions from an individual.
Shonga was speaking at Protea Hotel in Livingstone on August 30, 2010 after presenting a paper entitled Mounting a good appeal in Supreme Court. He said under Article 54 of the Constitution, he was only answerable to the state, and those questioning him had no mandate.
“I will answer your question from the back going forward. The people and organisations that are talking about the issue…do they have the mandate to speak for the people? How have they come to know that the Zambian masses want a certain issue? I have not heard of any referendum. The views are not from the people. Who is the client?
I will not get an instruction from Peter Zulu who walks into my office and says, 'do this'. Article 54 says the client is the state, and who is the state? It is the people who come from the constitutionally recognised institutions,” argued Shonga.
Labels: ATTORNEY GENERAL, MICHELO HANSUNGULE, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
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
Read more...
