NCC: An Illegal Gathering of Political Vultures?

Book Review

NCC: An Illegal Gathering of Political Vultures?

A 69-year-old Zambian sociologist, philosopher, writer and homme politique, Mr. David Kasuba, writes in his book due to be published next month, that MMD has been ruling Zambia illegally since 28^th November 1996.

Mr. Kasuba- says that Zambia is wallowing in a serious constitutional crisis which political and professional leaders of this country either do not understand or take advantage of to further their grim purposes while Zambian masses are sleeping.

He calls the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) ‘an illegal gathering of political vultures who, having allowed President Mwanawasa to ‘poach an elephant’ from public coffers, want shamelessly to have a share. At the expense of already overburdened people of Zambia. He also calls for the immediate dissolution of NCC and its replacement with the National Convention consisting of representatives of 70 plus indigenous nationalities of the land that constitutes Zambia, and of the two former Presidents and the incumbent Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, S.C.

The Book Title is: 12 Years of MMD Illegal Rule in Zambia? It comprises an introduction, 8 chapters and a conclusion. It has 104 pages and will cost K50, 000 a copy. The author is David Kasuba, as already said.

Among other things, the author argues that Zambia’s independence constitution was a conveyor belt of colonialism into post independence era where this dehumanizing, savage system of governance of other people has become entrenched in globalization. It denied indigenous people the right to self-determination as it created a new rainbow (multi-origin) nation of freed subjects of former British protectorates.

Mr. Kasuba writes in chapter 7 that as the result of this subtle way of prolonging slavery into post-independence era, there were three categories of Zambians by birth at independence on 24^th October 1964. He says that the first category comprised all former British subjects of Northern Rhodesia and other former British protected colonies and U.K. itself, who became Zambians by birth by law as per the Supreme Court verdict in the 1997 Presidential petition, which states among other things as follows:

“

54

“Constitutional provisions regarding parents or anyone born prior to independence who are or were Zambians by birth or by descent can meaningful only be construed as a reference to those who became Zambians on 24^th October, 1964, or who would, but prior for their death, have become Zambians on that date”

The second category consists of children who were born of pregnant mothers at 00.00 hour on 24^th October 1964 as these mothers changed in a twinkling of an eye, like in the Christological symbolism of baptism, from being British subjects to free citizens of a ‘liberated’ country.

The above two categories formed and form the first ever generation of Zambian citizens who had and have neither father nor mother born in Zambia prior to 24^th October 19964. They all became Zambian citizens by birth at the same hour (00.00 hour) on 24^th October 1964, as they either changed from being slaves to being free citizens, or as they were born in as new independent county called Zambia..

And quoting another statement in the Supreme Court 1997 Presidential petition verdict, Mr. Kasuba writes that the Supreme Court correctly and authoritatively resolves that there were no Zambians, no Zambian nationality and no Zambian citizenship prior to 24^th October 1964. Everything Zambian only commenced on that date, he says.

Mr. Kasuba further argues that under normal condition only children born on 24^th October 1964 formed the first generation of Zambian citizens by birth, but they were made to share their birthright with those who became Zambians by birth by law on that date.

As for the third category, Mr. Kasuba argues that this is formed of children who were born on 24^th October 1964 after 00.00 hour, that is, after their parents had changed from being slaves to being ‘Zambian citizens by birth’. Children of this category formed and form the second generation of Zambian born citizens. And these are the only Zambians who qualified to present themselves as presidential candidates in 1996 Presidential Election, according to the law.

From page 53 to 57, Mr. Kasuba writes:

In 1996, indigenous Zambians felt strongly that time had come to end foreign rule in the land once and for all, after Kaunda had declared his come back to active politics from his brief retirement. They introduced a parentage clause into the constitution to purportedly bar him and others whose parents were not born in any part of Northern Rhodesia, today Zambia. To them, as we have seen, Northern Rhodesia and Zambia are one and the same territory. Therefore, Zambia is Northern Rhodesia and vice-versa, and belongs to descendants of people who inhabited it before it became a British colony.

The parentage clause is in paragraph 3 of article 34 of the constitution of Zambia which reads as follows:

A presidential candidate shall:

(a) Be a Zambian citizen

(b) Have parents who are both Zambians by birth

(c) Have attained the age of 35 years

(d) is a member of, or is sponsored by a political party

(e) He is qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly; and

(f) Has been domiciled in Zambia for a period of at least twenty years.

It should be pointed out here that the Second Republic constitution on the election of President was a replica of independence constitution, except for qualification that required UNIP membership. Indeed article 38 of the 1973 constitution reads as follows:

A person shall qualify for election as President if, and shall not be qualified unless he:

a) is a Zambian citizen

b) is a member of UNIP

c) has attained the age of 35years and

d) Is otherwise qualified to be elected as member of National Assembly.

45

Remove qualification (b) in the above article, and you will remain with 3 qualifications required by the independence constitution. Qualification (b) was introduced into 1973 constitution to bar non UNIP members, especially Kapwepwe who had left it to form United Progressive Party (UPP) in August 1971, from standing as President in the election that was scheduled to be held in December, 1973. UPP grew rapidly popular and defeated UNIP, hardly 3 months after its formation in August 1971, in a by-election held in Copperbelt Mufulira-West constituency, in December of that same year. Thus Kapwepwe who stood on his party ticket was overwhelmingly elected to parliament.

UPP victory sent Dr. Kaunda shivering in his shoes, and considering the prospect that ANC of Nkumbula, which had shown great resilience since independence, would retain the Southern and Western provinces and that UPP would trounce UNIP in Northern, Luapula and Copperbelt provinces and lift Kapwepwe to Republican Presidency, he banned the latter’s party in February 1972, and proclaimed a One-Party State in December of that same year, but not until in August of the following year did the National Assembly adopt the new constitution, after the Choma Declaration.

And this is how the ruthless politician in Kaunda out-maneuvered both Harry Mwaanga Nkumbula and Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe, traducing the presidential prospects/ambitions of the latter, in particular, and trammeling any dissenting voice. In fact, people who were close to him acknowledge the fact that Dr. Kaunda never allowed other people’s accomplishment to speak for itself. This is a challenge he was not willing to face, instead he destroyed the challengers in one way or another.

52

It is important to underline, in this respect, the fact Dr. Kaunda considered himself as a MuBemba of Northern Province, having been born there. And he wanted every Zambian to regard him as such, yet, as they say, he is a MuTonga from Malawi. This enabled him, under the pretext of his party policy of tribal balancing that kept relatively all tribes satisfied, to deny Bembas an opportunity to rule this country or hold key senior posts in government because he, a ‘Mubemba’ from Chinsali, was President and represented the interests of Bembas. So it behooved to appoint people from other tribes to keys post for the sake of harmony and unity in the country, which was deceitful, indeed.

However, in 1991, the country entered the Third Republic by simply repealing article 4 of the Second Republic constitution which stipulated:

There shall be one and only political party or organization in Zambia namely the United National Independence Party, in this constitution referred to as “the party”.

This was removed together with all that made reference to it. As for citizenship, article 6 of the Second Republic constitution recognizes any person born of parents one of whom is Zambian, as Zambian. No attention was paid to social regime of both parents, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. It says:

A person born in or outside Zambia after the commencement of this constitution shall become a citizen of Zambia at the date of his birth, if on that date at least one of his parents is a citizen of Zambia.

This article has not yet been amended or abrogated in the subsequent constitution. It ascribes Zambian nationality and citizenship to all children born in or outside Zambia of parents one of whom is Zambian. This may be in conflict with the legislation of a country which recognizes the place of birth as the origin of the child, or with a customary law of descent. However, in 1996, the indigenous people of Zambia introduced a parentage clause into the constitution, as already said, to protect the highest position in the land from being held by a foreigner.

And from page 63 t0 64, Mr. Kasuba writes: It is loud and clear, as can be seen from the foregoing discussion, that the origin of Zambian nationality and Zambian citizenship is legal and not mythical like in the case of Romans beginning with Romulus, or traditional like in the case of Ethiopians, or historical like in the case of Iran or Iraq.

The Supreme Court’s definition of “Zambians by birth” underpins this very fact of law, but this Highest Institution of law interpretation in the land, went against its own understanding and therefore against the law, as it failed to nullify the election of the President, and explicitly order parliament to remove the amendment, in which case the Chief Justice would have performed the functions of the Office of the President and organized fresh presidential election, because no one qualified to be elected as President and the seat was legally vacant. Otherwise it would not be reasonable for it to say that:

“The introduction of parentage qualifications poses apparently solutionless problems and difficulties.”

By that it recognized the fact that it hand to deal with a constitutional crisis, but failed to handle it legally.

In Chapter 8(called the Way Forward), Mr. Kasuba puts forward a 4-step proposal to end the country’s constitutional crisis, and calls in the conclusion for the National Convention as the only legitimate institution that would solve once and for all the Zambian problem identified in Chapter VI of the book. He says NCC is an illegal, corrupt institution; it cannot endow Zambia with a constitution that would stand the test of time. Building on a corrupt foundation is like building on a cracked, flawed one. The house will not stand. Zambia must be given a fresh start.

The author has already three books to his credit. They include the best seller Joseph Kabila Kabange, Young and Great Leader for a Great Nation. 12 Years of MMD Illegal Rule in Zambia? is another Must Read. Let us stop ruling this nation by ignorance or greed. Get the truth that will set you free. Since there will be limited copies produced, this newspaper advises its esteemed readers to reserve their copies through the Editor of this paper.

AK