Zambia has been battling to come up with a new Constitution – a people-driven Constitution as it is popularly referred to – but to little avail, as successive governments have come to realise that ‘there is more to it than meets the eye’.
Despite the apparent political posturing, or is it political-point-scoring, what has finally emerged is clear: there are no ‘quick-fixes’ in the constitution-making process.
Many commissions, including the John Mwanakatwe, Patrick Mvunga and Willa Mun’gomba commissions of inquiry, had been tasked with gathering views from Zambians on various constitutional provisions, but a document acceptable to all stakeholders has proven elusive.
New Government spokesman and Information and Broadcasting minister Chishimba Kambwili alluded to this when explaining why the Patriotic Front (PF) Government (despite promising the electorate ahead of the January 20, 2015 presidential by-elections) has been unable to deliver a people-driven constitution, as originally anticipated.
Speaking during the ZNBC-TV Sunday Interview programme in Lusaka on March 15, the minister stated that it would be easier to amend the present document by asking Parliament to endorse only clauses that do not require the people’s endorsement through a national referendum.
He believed it would be cost-effective to hold the referendum (on certain aspects of the Constitution such as the Bill of Rights and other entrenched clauses) simultaneously with the 2016 tripartite elections.
Minister Kambwili admitted that when they were in opposition, the PF assumed they would succeed where the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) and United National Independence Party (UNIP) had failed and deliver a people-driven Constitution in “a matter of days” upon coming to power – first in September 2011; and second immediately after PF leader Edgar Lungu’s accession to the ‘throne’ as Zambia’s sixth republican President last January.
After studying the logistics and associates costs involved in the operation, it had finally dawned on the PF administration that it is a rocky road to constitutional reform.
I remember that even during the UNIP era, most people used to argue that too much power had been vested in one single individual – the President and who could do as he pleased – so such powers needed to be slashed to stop the individual wielding absolute power from developing into a rapacious dictator.
There are many important clauses in the current blueprint that most opposition political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) believe needed to be amended or repealed, some involving the powers of the President, as the chief executive officer (CEO) that must be cut.
Some people also zero-in on the controversial ‘Parentage’ clause, which was introduced by the Chiluba administration, aimed ostensibly at preventing first republican President Dr Kenneth Kaunda from contesting any future elections because his parents (David and Helen) originated from Nyasaland as Church of Scotland missionaries and settled at Lubwa Mission in Chinsali district of Northern Province. Should it be retained?
What about extending the franchise to Zambians in the Diaspora, whose cash remittances play a vital role in the economic development of the country, but who cannot be allowed to stand for elections until after five years following their return from overseas?
Before he was removed on disciplinary grounds both as PF secretary general and Justice Minister Mr Wynter Kabimba announced that the final draft of the Draft Constitution was ready and would be circulated to key stakeholders last year but that did not happen due to a number of technicalities.
And from what Minister Kambwili asserted in the Sunday Interview last week, the promised ‘people-driven’ Constitution could remain on the ‘drawing board’ for a considerable period of time before it is enacted into the supreme law of the land.
As Mr Kambwili said, and one would tend to agree with him, there is presently no ‘constitutional crisis’ in Zambia and so the limited financial available would be better spent on poverty reduction and the provision of essential services to Zambians particularly those in the underdeveloped countryside.
The problems confronting Zambia in her quest to thrash out a ‘fresh’ constitution that would reflect the changed environment, has reminded me of the problems Nigeria faced when the country returned to civilian administration after being governed by the military since January 15, 1966.
I believe that although Nigeria is a federation of 19 states, there are some lessons for Zambia that might prove useful to the Zambian voters when casting their ballots in the referendum, which Government has confirmed, will be held simultaneously with the 2016 tripartite elections.
To return the country to civilian rule, authorities in Lagos, the capital then undertook a number of research studies and detailed commissions of inquiry (as Zambia has done over the years) culminating in the late General Murtala Mohammed announcing a timetable for transition under a new democratic constitution for Africa’s most populous nation.
However, it was Lt-General Olusegun Obasanjo, who replaced Gen Mohammed as Head of State, who put the reformed constitution into force after many of the proposed amendments by the various commissions of inquiry were either endorsed or rejected by the Supreme Military Council (SMC).
The SMC made 17 amendments to the Constituent Assembly’s final constitutional draft, which had officially been submitted for its consideration on August 29, 1978.
The amendments included the rejection of making English the sole language for the business of the National Assembly; the rejection of an amendment which would have given the judiciary control over its own capital expenditure; the deletion of a provision setting out procedures for incorporation into Nigerian territory from another sovereign state; rejection of a proposal to relate armed forces recruitment directly to relative provincial population figures; deletion of a controversial Assembly amendment , disqualifying from elective office those found guilty of misconduct since October 1960 (since independence); various additions to the code of conduct for public officials designed to strengthen its effectiveness in combating corruption (Nigeria is regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in Africa); the reduction to 10 the total membership of the civil (Public) service commission; and the entrenchment in the constitution of four military decrees, including Land Use Decree.
The council meanwhile endorsed such fundamental Constituency Assembly amendments as the increase in membership of House of Representatives (Parliament) and lowering of the age limits for presidential and parliamentary aspirants.
Gen Obasanjo then announced that amendments to the constitution had been made to lay the strongest foundation for the ‘attainment of good government, orderly progress and harmony of the nation’. He advised politicians to desist from embarking on ‘politics of deceit, false hopes, empty promises and unattainable goals, which would ultimately lead to unrealizable expectations, bitterness, discontent and unhappiness of the electorate”.
In response to stakeholders’ opinions on the need to provide the necessary checks-and-balances, special attention was focused on the powers of the President, as CEO and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. So Chapter VI – on the Executive – made provision for the election of the Head of State and CIC of the defence forces by universal adult suffrage with the whole country regarded as one constituency.
It was declared that presidential candidates must be Nigerian citizens by birth and who met the qualifications for membership of the Senate and who were aged at least 35 years.
Presidential elections would be held between 60 and 30 days before the expiry of the incumbent’s term of office, the precise date being fixed by the Federal Electoral Commission (in our case, the Electoral Commission of Zambia).
In the event of only one candidate being nominated, he would require (i) a majority of the total ‘yes’ vote over the total ‘no’ votes cast in the election and (ii) not less than a quarter of the votes cast in each of at least two-thirds of all the states (provinces) in order to secure election to the Presidency.
If a single candidate failed to fulfill these conditions, fresh nominations would be held in order to secure election to the Presidency. If a single candidate failed to fulfill these conditions fresh nominations would be required.
In the event of two candidates being nominated, condition (i) was modified to require ‘a majority of votes cast’ at the election, while condition (ii) continued to apply.
When more than two candidates stood for election, condition (i) required ‘the highest number of votes cast’, condition (ii) again continued to apply.
In the event of an inconclusive contested election, a run-off election was required to be held within seven days in which the members of both Houses of the National Assembly and of each state Assembly, voting simultaneously, would decide the outcome by a simple majority.
Where three or more candidates had contested the first election, the candidate in the run-off election would be (i) the person who had received the highest total number of votes and (ii) that candidate among those remaining who had received a majority of votes in the highest number of states (the candidate with the highest overall popular vote taking precedence when more than one candidate fulfilled the latter condition).
The presidential term was four years (with any successor of an incumbent who died or otherwise left office serving for the balance of the latter’s term), extendable by the National Assembly for up to six months at any one time in certain circumstances in times of war, and no person could serve for more than two elected terms.
There was also a Vice President, elected as the ‘running-mate’ of the President (American-style), who would succeed to the Presidency if a premature vacancy occurred like when John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was assassinated in Dallas in November 1963, Vice President Lyndon Brian Johnson (LBJ) took over . (If both offices became simultaneously vacant the President of the Senate would act as President for up to three months pending a fresh election).
Since the preoccupation in Zambia and elsewhere seems to have centred and still centre on the need to curtail the powers of the President, one hopes that these have adequately been dealt with in the yet to be made public Draft Constitution to be debated, amended and endorsed (where necessary) by the National Assembly in the run-up to next year’s general-referendum elections.
If that works as envisaged Zambia will by 2021 have a people-driven Constitution that will enjoy widespread acceptance.
Comments:
I want to say something about what you highlighted in your article titled ‘Teaching Council fees could be political minefield’ published on March 7, 2015.
In fact I would say it was a ‘bombshell dropped in the wheels of private run education institutions’ in Zambia.
With only countable days remaining, this month-end, private-run educational institutions will cease operating forthwith. It is fait accompli – a decision taken irreversibly!
The shuddering and shattering bombshell has been dropped through official communication released by Teaching Council of Zambia that has been established by Education ministry.
As gleaned from the little village bird, creation of the Teaching Council of Zambia was a decision mooted and concluded by the MMD during the presidential reign of Rupiah Banda and Dora Siliya as Education minister.
Putatively, as can be recollected, the MMD regime resolved to put in place a boon-doggling education policy which, apart from the establishment of the Teaching Council of Zambia, included selling many primary and secondary schools to individual entrepreneurs.
Unless revised these measurers are likely to boomerang on the unintended victims – the PF administration.
From this moth-end, running private educational institutions will be required to pay registration and inspections fees ranging from K9, 000 to K 44, 000.
For Early Childhood schools: Application and Inspection fee (K2, 500); Registration (K3, 500); Renewal (3,000); Total (K9, 000).
Primary Schools: Application & Inspection (K3, 500); Registration (K4, 500); Renewal (K4, 000); Total (K12, 000).
Secondary Schools: Application & Inspection fee (K4, 500); Registration (K5, 000); Registration (K5, 000); Renewal (k5, 000); Total (k15, 000).
Colleges of Education: Application & Inspection (K10, 000); Registration (K12, 000); Renewal (K8, 000); Total (K30, 000).
Universities: Application & Inspection (K12, 000); Registration (K15, 000); Renewal (K10, 000); Tuition Centres – Application & Inspection (K8, 000); Registration (K10, 000); Renewal (K10, 000); Total (K72, 000).
Payments applicable for international establishments range from K18, 000 to K 44,000.
Perusal of these payment tabulations questions the quiddity, or the compelling reasoning, taken in consideration by the Teaching Council to contrive such strange educational policy, oddly enough affecting a sector surviving like fish above water to make-ends-meet.
As you rightly said, in whose interest, and for what carping, the newly instituted Teaching Council formulate the nettlesome policy hurting the key stakeholders, the educational institutions, left, right and the centre?
It is no secret entrepreneurs running private educational institutions find themselves dealing in a sector ridden with insurmountable operational costs.
• Meeting prohibitive rentals for those operating from rentable buildings (K4, 000-K10, 000 per month);
• Electricity & water bills (around K6,000 monthly-industrial);
• Salary bills for teachers – no less than K1,000 (5-10 average staff);
• Cash-flow projection targets as market for private schools is now saturated; and
• Statutory payments, including ZRA taxes and PACRA registration fee, (only K80), City council trading licence fee, private Schools Association membership fee, etc…..
These operational costs put together, needing no more elaboration, qualify private educational institutions to be classified among business undertakings eligible for selective income taxation in the likes of agricultural, construction, textile and hospitality industries.
Specifically, in the case of Private Education Institutions, the Government should get them motivated with State grants extended to mission-run schools because there isn’t much difference between mission and private-run schools and colleges.
Half a century (50 years) has elapsed since Zambia attained independence, yet Government is still meandering and floundering in fostering quality education. Moreover, parents prefer sending their children to private schools rather than to Government schools.
So instead of throwing multi-spanners in the wheels of private-run schools, Government should be motivating the entrepreneurs in the education sector through financial grants.
Education fostering, whether in developed or developing countries, is a mammoth task. By over-taxing private-run institutions, Zambia will stand guilty of killing the golden geese laying the golden eggs.
But I am convinced that the good President Edgar Lungu-Chishimba Kambwili combination is capable of arresting the unfolding boon-doggie pro bona public – in the interest of the education fraternity.
Terence Musuku (Quill-driver) Ndola
Comments – please send to alfredmulenga777@gmail.com