COMMENT: WHY IS CHITALA OPPOSING KABIMBA’S APPOINTMENT AS ACTING PRESIDENT? By Sishuwa Sishuwa Last week, President Michael Sata left the country for Israel and appointed the Minister of Justice and Patriotic Front secretary general, Wynter Kabimba, to act as President of the Republic in his absence. Kabimba’s appointment has been criticised by Mbita Chitala and Lucky Mulusa, who have raised concerns about its legitimacy and even constitutionality. Chitala is a former MMD member of parliament for Mbala while Mulusa had his election as Solwezi Central MMD member of parliament nullified by the courts of law on account of electoral malpractices. Chitala stated that it is “shocking that Kabimba who has never been elected [as a member of parliament] has been chosen to act as President in the absence of Sata”. Mulusa echoed Chitala’s sentiments and argued that it is unacceptable to appoint an unelected Cabinet minister, let alone one who was previously rejected by voters at a constituency level, to act as President. Mulusa was referring to Kabimba’s defeat to Yonnah Shimonde of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) in the 1996 Mwembeshi parliamentary elections, which he contested on the Zambia Democratic Congress party ticket. I have great respect for Chitala in particular and have avoided criticising his public views whenever he has expressed those I strongly disagree with. However, I cannot help but disagree with him on the issue of Kabimba’s appointment as acting President, because it is backed both by the Constitution and historical precedent. The law does not require an acting President to be an elected member of parliament or someone who has never lost an election to any public office. Article 39(1) of the current Constitution, which deals with the functions of President during illness or absence, stipulates that “Whenever the President is absent from Zambia or considers it desirable so to do by reason of illness or for any other cause, he may by direction in writing, authorise the Vice-President, or where the Vice-President is absent from Zambia or is incapable of discharging the functions of President, any other person, to discharge such functions of the office of President as he may specify, and the Vice-President or such other person may discharge those functions until his authority is revoked by the President”. The argument that Kabimba should not have been appointed to act as President because he is an unelected Cabinet minister or that he has previously been rejected by voters is most misleading and flies against established precedents. On 8 July, 1994, as on 14 August 1994, President Frederick Chiluba appointed V ice-President Godfrey Kenneth Miyanda to act as President when he was out of the country. This was despite the fact that Miyanda was at the time an unelected MP. It was not until 1996 that he contested the Kabwata parliamentary seat and became an elected lawmaker. In September 2004, President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa appointed his Vice-President Nevers Sekwila Mumba to act as President when he travelled to New York for a United Nations Summit. This was despite the fact that Mumba was an unelected member of parliament and had unsuccessfully contested the 2001 presidential elections as the National Citizens Coalition candidate. In June 2008, President Mwanawasa appointed Vice-President Rupiah Bwezani Banda to act as President when he left for an African Union Summit in Egypt, despite the fact that Banda was a nominated member of parliament and had lost the Munali parliamentary elections in 1991, which he contested on the United National Independence Party ticket. In January 2012, as on several other occasions before and afterwards, President Sata appointed the Minister of Finance, Alexander Bwalya Chikwanda, to act as President when he travelled to South Africa for the African National Congress centenary celebrations. This was despite the fact that Chikwanda is a nominated member of parliament. So, what is all this fuss about Kabimba’s appointment? What is special about it in comparison to these historical examples I have cited? Why didn’t Chitala and Mulusa raise any eyebrows against the appointments of Mumba and Banda? Why is it considered natural for Chikwanda to act but not Kabimba, in spite of the fact that both are nominated members of parliament and Cabinet Ministers? Surely, Mulusa and Chitala know that both Chikwanda and Kabimba have no constituencies, don’t they? Why is Kabimba being singled out when the relevant law has not changed and when there is a well-known or verifiable history to this practice of appointing unelected members of parliament to act as President? We can probably excuse Mulusa for his ignorance since he spent a significant part of the 1990s and early 2000s away in South Africa and may not be adequately familiar with the Zambian politics of this period. But it is unforgivable for Chitala, who served as a deputy minister in both the Chiluba and Mwanawasa regimes, to exhibit a wrong grasp or understanding of the constitutional provisions that govern one’s eligibility for the position of acting President and a lack of historical consciousness of a period during which he was an active and key political player. I sympathise with those who are unhappy with the status quo such as Chitala and Mulusa but the solution does not lie in advancing political arguments or discrediting those appointed but in lobbying for the amendment of the relevant sections of the law so that the practice they don’t seem to like is stopped. When people like Chitala and Mulusa speak, some may take their views seriously, not necessarily because of the merit of their arguments but simply because of their education credentials – Chitala has a collection of degrees from the University of Zambia, including a PhD in Public Finance, while Mulusa holds a BA in Accountancy and a Master’s degree in Development Finance – or the fact that they were once members of parliament or high-placed leaders in previous governments. It is therefore important for them to be more measured, careful, factual and responsible in their public utterances and avoid statements that may cause divisions or be misconstrued to mean that they are out to grow public dissent against particular individuals. For comments, email sishuwasishuwa@yahoo Story on Page 24 of The Post of Tuesday, July 1 2014.
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:13:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015