Search Articles |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
RELEVANT LINKS |
|
| |
|
| |
SPONSORED ADS |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| The Aftermath of Chiluba's Acquittal
|
Some people seem to be implying that under any
circumstances, the ruling of any court must be believed, not questioned, not
appealed against.
History teaches us that people have been persecuted in
the past grounded on similar simplistic stances such as the above: that a
court’s ruling must not be questioned, is infallible, as if anything calling
itself a “court” automatically makes democratic and just judgements. History is replete with countless examples to counter such a view:
the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Nazis etc. Why do we have higher courts in
the same System then, if courts' rulings are always right? Is it even democratic
that a handful of men (let’s just say most likely perhaps only three men: i.e.
Banda, Kunda, Mchenga) can as good as hold the progression of the Chiluba case
to the higher courts at ransom?
Former Foreign Minister Mundia Sikatana
(who’s an experienced and I guess a respected lawyer) said (in the press) a few
days ago that:
“statements coming from the state over Frederick Chiluba's
acquittal are unprecedented in the history of the country … when one hears the
statements coming from President Rupiah Banda, Vice-President George Kunda and
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Chalwe Mchenga, it was as if there should
never be any appeals over such matters involving Chiluba.”
Former Finance
Minister Ng’andu Magande has asked recently if the government is going to lodge
an appeal against the suspect’s acquittal.
Democracy is mainly about
national consensus, especially on the social level, not dictating judgements or hampering the progression of justice. The government of Zambia
has so far taken a U-turn in its manner of interaction with the Chiluba case,
issuing statements so contradictory and so controversial on the matter since the
ruling, that I think many Zambians are now confused, even when some may be
afraid to speak out: Who’s now the Accused here & who’s the Accuser?
In a democratic environment, I think We, the people, would expect
responsible statements on these matters from men in whom the power to wisely
decide over crucial issues and over our common future is vested.
One cannot expect sane, intelligent Zambians, especially
those to whom tribal categorizations, names according to tribe etc mean nothing,
to keep mum over the scandalous behaviour of the current Zambian government, its
shameful underhand handling of the Chiluba case. Today, it’s in fact almost
unbelievable that Rupiah Banda, the 71-year-old-man who should have long been
retired by now, was in fact put where he is today by late President
Mwanawasa(!).
If anything, the kind of political tension that Rupiah
Banda & Co. are busy brewing up in Zambia is the same kind of snobbish
behaviour and political chauvinism that has caused muted verbal conflicts turn
into all-out war elsewhere. The government must not think people are stupid,
using the judiciary as a scapegoat. Inarguably, This matter started out with the
government as the PROSECUTOR, but, quizzically, GRZ has taken the role of
Chiluba’s “protector”, protecting a suspected thief!!
On the other hand,
I try to understand what people supporting this ruling peddle as their point of
view, demanding "respect for the judiciary, it is free" and so on, but wonder
why other people’s view over the government’s careless handling of this case is
not being appreciated. Sure, in a civilized setting, legal disputes are the
courts’ jurisdiction to settle. Nevertheless, staying within the bounds of the
System, there’s also an allowance for legal disputes to be appealed, wherever
there may still be contention / grievance, after an initial court ruling; for a
civilized court’s aim can be nothing other than the meting out of justice, to
such an extent and in such a way that all grievance may be said to have been
dealt with by the court, within its judicial powers to the highest limit, and
not stifled.
I’m a scientist/Programmer & Web Designer/Developer,
see myself as an artist and a social writer/activist; so I’m not a lawyer, but I
think one doesn’t need to be a legal expert to be able to see and charge that a
particular case (such as Chiluba's) has been or is being badly handled. And it
is no-one’s right to hamper the course of justice and I think the ends of
justice can be said to have been met only when a case has gone to the highest
court of the land. That’s when we can talk about “respect for the judiciary” and
so on. It’s how I think justice, in a democratic environment, must operate: It
is mainly to soothe grievance.
What’s happening in the Chiluba case is
quite the opposite, though: This ruling is being forced on us all as final. Why?
Talk about “democracy”?? People supporting this ruling tend to act as if THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE have been met, as if Chinyama’s judgement is the last possible
ever and the case has been closed, Chiluba has been cleared, finish! But is that
really the case here, technically? Is that the case, when actually the opposite
is being engineered by the same figureheads who started out as prosecutors in
this case? If not due to personal or perhaps even tribal sentimentalities, I
wonder what the motivation there could be.
I believe Democracy, just like
Justice, is a forward-process and not an abrupt destination, that’s why I gave
the simple examples of the “Crusades”, the “Inquisitions” … Therefore, We, or
Zambia, may still be “counter-democratic” as reflected in our ambivalent
attitudes to democracy, and perhaps also in our limited understanding of the
concept, but that is simply because we have not arrived "there" yet. Technically
speaking, I find it even inappropriate to say Zambia is democratic (insofar as
solving all our current disputes and problems, corruption, poverty, hunger,
ignorance etc or how we go about successfully doing it ALONE, is concerned), and
as long as we don't rely on borrowed money to be able to exist (as a
State).
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the capacity of our country
or its people, even its leaders: to be democratic, honest, hardworking,
civilized etc. There are, I hope, millions of Zambians who think the current
government has failed them, shown it is not fit to rule over them, from the way
it has handled this potentially explosive Chiluba matter. I think the cleverest
thing the government of Rupiah Banda could have done is to parry any (potential)
suspicion from some quarters over the nature and depth of its involvement in
this case through distancing itself from the case and letting the case go to the
higher courts, show that the long arm of the law can follow crime to the highest
level, and follow you whoever you are. This would be irrespective of whether
Chiluba is finally acquitted or convicted by the Supreme Court.
After
all, this case is really The People Vs. FTJ Chiluba, and I think the government
should have acted in ways that—though of course wouldn’t please everybody (as
that’s impossible)—would at least let the people see that the case CAN go to the
higher court and will, as it should, since GRZ is the prosecuting agent on
behalf of the People of Zambia. An opposite scenario makes no sense to me,
except there’s more corruption to hide by these figureheads.
If Regina
Chiluba has the right to appeal against her conviction, against the People, then
what makes it so wrong for the People to appeal against a Chiluba? Why should
the government make an issue out of the possibility of the People appealing
against one single high-level case of suspected theft by public servant? If
Chiluba is really innocent as he claims he is and Banda claims the courts in
Zambia are democratic, why should the case be so blocked and in such a way, and
this by those who claim to rule over us, calling it
"democracy".
Certainly, it isn’t
mature democracy!
|
|
| Author |
Editor |
Added
On |
Mon Sep 07th,2009 |
| Rating |
(0)    |
Category |
Zambia |
|
|
| Chiluba Acquitted?—How come?!
|
In a surprising Twist of Fate, Frederick Chiluba finally gets a magistrate's acquittal in the high-profile corruption case about serious criminal charges many Zambians had hoped he would be convicted on and sent to jail for. Was this a fair ruling and how could it impact the future of the fight against high-level corruption in Zambia?
For many attentive Zambians, the shocking news this week has been that ex-President Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba, a man accused of gross corruption on multiple counts committed while he was in office, financial embezzlement, misuse of state funds etc., and in fact convicted by a London court for more or less the same (or related) offences only last year, has been cleared by a Zambian magistrates court of all criminal charges levelled against him by the Director-General of Zambia.
This has been a long, "duelling" contest that has definitely cost tens of billions of tax-payers' money since it was began in mid-2002, a few months after Mr. Chiluba had vacated the presidency in late 2001. Interestingly, Chiluba's co-accused, Faustin Kabwe and Aaron Chungu, have each been convicted to 3-year imprisonment terms.
Magistrates registrar Judge Jones Chinyama took more than 6 hours delivering the verdict, laboriously working his way through his prepared 445-page judgement script in that final round of the government's case against Mr. Chiluba.
How come? Was that just? What next now, and what implications will this ruling have on the fight against high-level corruption in Zambia, public confidence in the Zambian judicial system in the eyes of many? Some of us have also wondered: What would late president Levy Mwanawasa think today, even about the attitudes and remarks of his hand-picked successor Rupiah Banda concerning this issue?
For once, it is important to note that Frederick Chiluba is vilified by many average Zambians as the man who, starting just 18 years ago, mechanically and very carelessly pawned off their pre-1991 modest but secure livelihoods through his chaotic and dubious, if not deliberate, mass sell-offs of state/ public property. It is generally believed that Mr. Chiluba engineered the massive fast-track sale of property such as the rich mines, parastatals and housing infrastructure purportedly at give-away prices through back-room, under-the-table deals. Yet he at the same time sang songs of promise about better economic days in the making to the ears of desperate Zambians. By that time, millions of Zambians had become fed up of the stagnant 27-year Kaunda presidency and many wanted change. Not surprisingly, none of that promised change ever came—so far. These had been just the usual campaign tricks we all hear each day everywhere in the world of politics. In fact, most people lost.
Mwanawasa started the fight against Chiluba's alleged network of theft and corruption in a very courageous and dignified manner that many people admired in Zambia, Africa and (we assume) all over the world, when he revealed Chiluba's alleged reckless acts of theft at a session in parliament. In fact, he was hailed as a hero in the small Zambian blogosphere that existed at that time. Chiluba's alleged misuse of state funds through, for example, opening an illegal bank account with government money and falsified details, masking it as a government one, then repeatedly funnelling large amounts of foreign currency money from it via a London law firm to finance his children's expenses and gifts for himself, his lover-girlfriend etc., allegedly to confuse Zambians in the twisted trail, was disgusting to most poor but at least intelligent Zambians.
Through it all, Chiluba has come to be commonly known as the most corrupt Zambian president ever, even if Zambia has only had 4 presidents so far and he was only the second. In fact, to this writer's knowledge, many Zambians still openly call Chiluba a "thief" and in fact already judged the man a long time ago. So, therefore, one wonders how his acquittal can sit well with his wife's and co-accused's conviction this year on more or less the same (or related) charges, on the one hand, and with Chiluba's own conviction by a London magistrates court last year on more or less the same (or related) charges, on the other. In the London ruling that many hailed as a landmark and Chiluba dismissed as a neo-colonial and racist sham, the London court found Chiluba guilty of plundering a total of (about) £23 million. The same court "fined" him I think that same amount as a theft penalty. The court, in its ruling, detailed Chiluba's excesses in expenditures for tailor-made suits, large monies deliberately unaccounted for or whose records were falsified, and the abnormal numbers of his designer shirts, shoes, suits, ties, jackets, etc. plus other material goods and accessories he was said to have rapidly acquired after becoming president in 1991. An article on that ruling in the Times Online (of London), aptly titled "President who frittered £600,000 on clothes as his people starved", made disturbing revelations. The article may sound like all only hot air, but even if all this isn't even smoke, there would nevertheless surely have to be a fire somewhere:
... He used the stolen money to indulge his taste for clothes, jewellery, cars, luxury homes and handmade high-heeled shoes to boost his 5ft height ...
Chiluba spent at least £600,000 on designer clothes bearing his FJT monogram, representing his names Frederick Jacob Titus, Mr Justice Peter Smith said after a two-year legal battle and a four-month trial. "The most telling example of corruption," he said, "was the clothing acquired by FJT".
The former President "had a worldwide reputation as being a smart and expensive dresser. He had his own stylish suits with his initials, FJT, monogrammed on them, a large number of specially made signature shoes and thousands of monogrammed shirts."
During Chiluba's ten years in office, from 1991 to 2001, £600,000 was spent at Basile, an exclusive Swiss clothes shop, all of which was stolen from the republic.
The amount of clothing seized by the anti-corruption task force set up by his successor, President Mwanawasa, in 2002 was "considerable", the judge said. "First there were 349 shirts. A large number of these bore the FJT monogram on them and they were from virtually every designer outlet.
"Second, there were 206 jackets and suits. A large number of these were from Basile, bearing the FJT monogram.
"Third, there were 72 pairs of shoes. A large number of these were made by Basile with the FJT logo. All were for Chiluba's unique personal specification high heels. Many of them were in their original shoe covers and had not been used."
This extravagant spending came at a time "when the vast majority of Zambians were struggling to live on 50p a day and many could not afford more than one meal a day", the judge said.
Much of the stolen money was unaccounted for, but was shared out to government officials by Chiluba.
The judge said: "The most serious revelation in this case is the cynical and unjustified misappropriation of funds for the private purposes of government officials."
He added: "The people of Zambia should know that whenever he appears in public wearing some of these clothes, he acquired them with money stolen from them. He was the President at the top of the control of government finances. He was uniquely positioned to prevent any corruption. Instead of preventing corruption, he actively participated in it and ensured it happened. It is a shameful series of actions and he should be ashamed."
Chiluba took no part in the claims brought against him in London by the Attorney-General of Zambia on behalf of the Republic of Zambia. The judge said that he had been given "numerous opportunities to explain" himself to the Zambian people but had failed to do so.
He was paid just over £50,000 in salary during ten years in office and there was no evidence that he had the wealth to buy the clothes he owned. "It was simply stolen from the republic," the judge said. | Normally, this would be quite damaging for an ex-president, but apparently not for Chiluba or at least not in Zambia.
Another important issue to question, though, is how Mr. Chiluba could have comfortably financed the purchase of his expensive bungalow in Kabulonga, alongside his many shirts, shoes, suits and numerous expensive gifts for his then-girlfriend, now his wife convicted of connivance in these same offences that directly link back to Frederick Chiluba? In short, how did Chiluba, a man of modest tastes prior to his ascendancy to the presidency and in fact a Labour Union man, amass all that wealth within a fast space of just ten years after becoming a president? In this regard, it is quite regrettable that Mr. Frederick Chiluba, self-anointed "Master Dribbler", was ever given the chance to be a president of Zambia, being the controversial and tragic figure that he has become. As for Judge Chinyama's controversial ruling—"controversial" at least in the sense of what this writer perceives as the average informed Zambian's take on this all—, it remains to be seen if this was the only RIGHT ruling to make in this high-profile case, or whether the outcome was fixed. That's a fair remark to make, considering the unprecedented weight and magnitude of the issues involved, the known facts, the protracted investigations, the convictions of Chiluba's co-accused, the conviction of Chiluba's own wife, and also considering that this is a case whose final day in court has been postponed 3 or 4 times in the last 2 months alone at the very last minute, as far as this writer remembers. Judicial hesitation? Why? ... And then to clear Mr. Chiluba of all those—(I suppose a total of 11)—really damaging charges, despite all the evidence we all know? Strange.
President Rupiah Banda has now spoken out his relief and announced he is "pleased that Zambians have accepted the ruling of the Judiciary" and reminded Zambians of the "many good things" Mr. Chiluba did for Zambia, but I think many Zambians will wonder whether the president's insensitive remarks speak for them at all and whether this judgement doesn't have any political, extra-judicial connections. They will perhaps also wonder where the country is headed in the fight against high-profile corruption committed by greedy politicians or those who abuse power over the people, and what late President Mwanawasa would think of the sorry state of the exemplary fight against corruption he so courageously started, with material PROOF in his hand, when he took office back in 2001.
Just what would the late Honourable Mwanawasa think of all this mess today?
|
|
| Author |
Editor |
Added
On |
Wed Aug 19th,2009 |
| Rating |
(0)    |
Category |
Zambia |
|
|
| A Repatriate's Plight (Video)
|
An unfortunate tale of a Diasporan brother, who repatriated to Tanzania in 1980 on invitation by late Pres. Nyerere.
"... Sohooba Keith Smith, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, answered late Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere's call in 1980, repatriated to Tanzania and invested his life's savings in Ndamakai Coffee Estates, a magnificent 1,750-acre farm in the mountains of Arusha, at the edge of Ngorogoro Crater. He brought his family and all his assets with him to his adopted country, hoping to "fulfill the dreams of his ancestors", but instead, his property was stolen in a violent conspiracy that tragically echoed their nightmares. Arrested in 1987 for defending his family from armed intruders on his farm, Sohooba's property was stolen 3 weeks later by a German expatriate, aided by an African lawyer in a disturbing replay of history ..."
|
| Author |
External Source |
Added
On |
Sun Aug 16th,2009 |
| Rating |
(2)    |
Category |
Culture & Lifestyle |
|
|
| Kenya's Mau Mau war: veterans demand justice from Britain
|
|
Veterans of Kenya's Mau Mau independence struggle came to Britain in June demanding compensation for atrocities committed by the British.
Ken Olende tells their story:
Five veterans from the Mau Mau war in Kenya arrived in Britain last month to sue the British government for their imprisonment and torture 60 years ago. In the 1950s, Britain was desperately trying to hold on to its colonial empire and it crushed a nationalist rebellion in Kenya in a shockingly brutal manner.
The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) is bringing the case. George Morara from their legal team told Socialist Worker, "After the horrors of the Nazi era, Britain was central to establishing an international legal system to defend human rights.
"How could a country at the forefront of drafting these laws go on to commit torture on a horrendous scale in Kenya immediately afterwards?
"The government at the time claimed that it did not know what was happening. We wouldn't accept that as an excuse for Iraq or Guantanamo Bay.
"There was no justification for taking measures that made some of the victims blind or led to limbs being amputated. British soldiers castrated men and sexually abused women. These are outrageous human rights violations and the British government must be held to account."
Gitu wa Kahengeri is chair of the Mau Mau War Veterans' Association. He told Socialist Worker, "In August 1950 the colonialists passed a law describing the Mau Mau as a dangerous organisation.
"That law persisted in our law books after independence right through until 2003. It is only now that Mau Mau people can register organisations and meet legally.
"Our country was occupied by the British for nearly 70 years before we rose up. They were newcomers to our country. They could have stayed here as business people but they had to control our land. In 1948 we started an underground movement. We recruited people all over the country to remove the colonial power."
The authorities got wind of the emerging rebellion and launched a military sweep in October 1952. They detained all the African nationalist leadership, conservative and radical alike.
Bases
The leadership of the Mau Mau passed to new, less experienced activists. The organisation remained very disciplined and set about establishing guerrilla bases in the forests and supply lines from Nairobi.
Gitu continues, "I was a young man then, about 17 years old. I was at school. I had thought if I got an education I could get a good job. But the colonialists did not want that. Even with an education they wanted us to work as farm hands.
"The struggle was about land. Land is not something to be given by the government. It is our birthright. Everyone has the right to access land. When they refused to give us our land we decided to take it from them."
The settlers could not conceive that the Africans had legitimate demands. The all white East African Women's League summed up the typical settler view, stating that "the basic fact was not that the African had been held back by racial discrimination, but that he had travelled too far too quickly".
The response of the British to the growing insurgency in the capital was Operation Anvil – which rounded up all black people in Nairobi in early 1954. The city's population at the time was about 10,000, almost all black. Anyone deemed "suspicious" was held in a rapidly built network of concentration camps.
Like many secret organisations, the Mau Mau insisted members take an oath of loyalty. In the twisted racist thinking of the colonial powers, it was the oath that was driving otherwise passive Africans to rise up.
Oliver Lyttleton, secretary of state for the colonies at the time, said, "The Mau Mau oath is the most bestial, filthy and nauseating incantation which perverted minds can ever have brewed."
The camp system was supposed to force Mau Mau supporters to renounce their oaths and so abandon the rebellion. In practice any hope of "rehabilitation" was replaced by forced labour, torture and revenge. Up to 160,000 Kenyans passed through the camps.
Gitu says, "I was arrested in 1952. I was detained in a series of concentration camps: Athi River, Lodwar and Takwa on Manda island off the coast. That camp was particularly for leaders of the Mau Mau movement. I was there with Ramogi Achieng Oneko and Pio Gama Pinto."
The Mau Mau uprising is often portrayed as a tribal rebellion that only involved the Kikuyu people. However, the people Gitu mentions were from Luo and Asian backgrounds. The Mau Mau War Veterans have members from a wide range of Kenya's ethnic groups.
Also, the popular British view of a depraved orgy of violence against peaceful settlers doesn't sit well with even the official figures for deaths.
The British declared an official Emergency in 1952, which lasted until 1960. During that time 32 white and 26 Asian civilians were killed along with 63 white members of the military and 527 African who were "loyal" to the British. Officials admit that 11,503 African rebels were killed – though the KHRC estimates the real figure is nearer 90,000 people.
John Nottingham was a colonial district officer in Kenya during the Emergency but is now very critical of what the British did. He travelled to Britain with the Mau Mau veterans.
Asked if British forces had committed any human rights abuses during the Emergency, he replied, "If throwing a phosphorous grenade into a thatched hut with a sleeping family inside isn't a human rights abuse then I don't know what is."
Gitu remembers the forced labour that he was required to do. "We built roads. We built the international airport at Nairobi. We had no equipment," he said. "Many people died in the camps – some from diarrhoea because of the bad conditions, some were beaten to death. They wanted us to die there. Their aim was to suppress the movement."
A civil war of sorts developed between the heavily armed "loyalist" Home Guard and the Mau Mau and their supporters. There was a distinct class element to this. The chiefs and loyalists had grabbed the best land in the reserves.
There was an incentive for loyalists to accuse local enemies of Mau Mau membership since those convicted of rebellion could have their land confiscated.
The rounding up of the Mau Mau's urban leaders moved the leadership to local cadres in the countryside. Groups of up to 4,000 rebels set up bases in the deep forests around Mount Kenya.
The British army and the RAF were unable to dislodge the forest fighters, particularly as the Mau Mau were given intelligence and supplies by the local population.
The army forcibly moved farmers from their traditional scattered farmsteads into villages surrounded by barbed wire. This process involved almost the entire rural Kikuyu population of 1.5 million.
Executed
The greatest forest leader was the audacious guerrilla Dedan Kimathi, who managed to stay one step ahead of the British for years. When the authorities complained that they couldn't catch him as no one knew what he looked like, he sent them a photo.
He also sent a message to the British people on why they should support the rebellion. For all its naivety it is a call for solidarity that should be remembered:
"Do you not remember what your grandfathers did during the reign of King Richard II, when sixty thousand slaves [serfs] went to [the King] and demanded their freedom?
"These people tore down prison walls and the houses of the rich men they hated, and killed many who were their enemies. They burned the houses of the lawyers, tax collectors and the King's Officers who had wronged them, and killed many men of that sort, cut off their heads and set them up on London bridge. [Because of their resistance] the King made them free forever."
Eventually Kimathi was captured and executed in 1956. This effectively ended the rebellion, though the Emergency and the camps remained until 1960.
One of the veterans' demands is to be told the secret location of Kimathi's grave, so that he can be given a proper funeral.

|
| Author |
External Source |
Added
On |
Sun Aug 16th,2009 |
| Rating |
(1)    |
Category |
Kenya |
|
|
| All
Articles |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Login Here |
|
| |
|
| |
Top
Rated |
|
|
| |
Most
Popular |
|
|
| |
Editor's
Pick |
|
|
| |
Subscribe Articles |
|
| |
|
|
SPONSORED ADS |
|
| |
|
| |
|