I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr Guy Scott qualifies to stand for election as President of Zambia: For days on end, Zambians will be subjected to these lectures by hired lawyers explaining why Scott qualifies to stand, according to sources at the Post newspaper. Even if Scott himself has told the Guardian newspaper of UK that he will not stand because he doesn’t qualify under the current constitution, M’membe will push it to the bitter end. The Guardian newspaper of UK has also taken a very curious and almost patronising interest in Scott being first white president in Africa after the fall of colonialism. Scott himself seems satisfied just to be referred to as ‘the first white democratic African president’ just like Zambians were told in the past that ‘the first man to see Victoria falls is David Livingstone.’ Even though Kabimba and M’membe are working together to take the presidency, Kabimba is not so keen on the project to clear the way for Scott. Kabimba wants to be president and he expects Scott to support him as PF presidential candidate. But, in the final analysis, it will be ‘King Fred’, as his minions at the Post call him, who will choose the presidential candidate. Even if the constitution is very clear that that people whose parents were not Zambians cannot stand for president, M’membe will hire lawyers to explain that the Supreme Court in 1996 said that there was no Zambia before 1964. What happened in 1996 is that Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika and others, sponsored by M’membe again, went to court to argue that former president Fredrick Chiluba did not qualify to be president because his parents were not Zambian but Congolese. Though Chiluba won this case mainly on facts, as the Mbikusita team failed to prove their allegations, the Supreme Court made some comments on the presidential parentage clause. The most important comment was that there was no Zambia before 1964 and that therefore, there was no Zambian before that date. This is the judgment M’membe and his hired lawyers will try to manipulate by painting a picture that every person who was found in Zambia in 1964 became a citizen automatically. But this is not true. The Supreme court explained clearly that even if there was no Zambia until then, the new citizenship under the new country of Zambia was only available to eligible individuals not just anyone including tourists, refugees and migrant workers. The Supreme Courtsaid that: ‘When Zambian citizenship was created at independence on 24 October 1964, the Zambian Independence Order 1964 s 3, had conferred such citizenships on every British protected person who had been born in the former Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia or, if born outside the protectorate, whose father became, or would but for his prior death, have become, a citizen by birth in the protectorate.’ It was clear as the Supreme Court is saying in the above passage that citizenship was for people of Northern Rhodesia whose name had been changed to Zambia. In this case of Scott, he will have to prove that his parents were Southern Rhodesia Citizens if he has to rely on this judgement. On the Chiluba case, the Supreme Court found on facts that Chuluba’s alleged father, Kafupi, was actually a Norhten Rhodesia Citizen who was just staying in Congo and was therefore entitled to Zambian citizenship on October 24, 1964. The same was the case for his mother who was then based in what is now called Mozambique. She was a Northern Rhodesia citizen. Moreover, the Zambian system is based on the British model, which makes parliament supreme when it comes to making the law. This simply means that a Supreme Court ruling does not automatically amend the constitution. So the parentage clause stands despite what the Supreme Court said in 1996. It is in the USA where the judiciary can declare acts of parliament unlawful, not in Zambia or UK. What Scott and his sponsors will have to do is to take that judgment to the Supreme Court and argue that it allows him to stand as president, if they believe so. Then the Supreme Court will have to hear their case. It should be remembered also here that the Supreme Court is not bound by its previous decisions. They can depart from it and explain the parentage clause differently this time around. It is clear that parliament wanted to bar certain types of people from running for presidency and it is inconceivable that the supreme Court would state that everyone, including migrant workers and tourists qualifies to stand. And like someone remarked on facebook; chances are that if Scott allows M’membe to control him, he will also not finish his term -- https://zambianwatchdog/kabimba-hints-at-finishing-satas-journey/
Posted on: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:23:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015