On Tuesday, July 16th, 2002, the Zambian Parliament did what was hailed a victory for people power by lifting the late President Chiluba’s immunity. On Friday, March 15th, 2013, President Michael Sata’s Patriotic Front (PF) lifted former President Rupiah Banda’s immunity.

There are good reasons why former presidents should be prosecuted, especially when there is provable evidence of abuse of office and involvement in high level corruption. This should be accompanied by evidence that such alleged abuse of power or high level corruption is linked directly to the poverty levels of the people on the ground.

Lifting of the presidential immunity, in the absence of economic benefit to the people, becomes both a political gimmick to lure the people away from the failures of the incumbency and a ruse for political blame games. The fundamental test of any immunity, in the case of Zambia for example, is whether Zambia has become a better country democratically or economically after the lifting of the late President Chiluba’s immunity.

In democratic arrangements, immunity lifting must be undertaken against a clearly established evidentiary corpus as opposed to baseless allegations alone. Failure to deduce evidence pursuant to which a motion may be laid for immunity lifting, a ferocious precedent is set which would render the nation’s constitution a non-robust, political document or a weapon against which mild dictatorships may ingratiate themselves into full-blown demagogues.

Zambia is not the most corrupt nation in Africa. It is the only country to lift the immunity of two of its presidents in the 21st Century world of nations. The shame of it all is that this happens despite the guarantees of article 43 (3) of its constitution. There is no denying for Zambia that the incumbents have lifted former presidents’ immunities in bad faith. Any argument to the contrary must be weighed under the magnifying glass of reason and the truth of the resultant experience.

The lifting of the Chiluba’s immunity, for example, did not benefit the nation. It enriched commissioners and task-forces created to investigate and prosecute the alleged perpetrators. The argument oft-advanced by proponents of immunity-lifting is that it serves as a deterrence to would-be perpetrators. However, if that thesis was efficacious, today, Michael Sata would not be calling the shots on his predecessor, Rupiah Banda. If immunity-lifting, indeed, serves as deterrence, and even as a just determinant of future administrations, in Zambia, it is a complete failure.

There are three reasons why the lifting of former President Banda’s immunity is inimical to Zambia`s future and current political nuance. First, it was unwarranted. Unless the PF is hiding details from the public, the immunity clause should only be removed for serious offence, usually repeated offences that the president committed while in power. If allegations are only trivial, then no president in the world is safe, because by its nature, the presidency is a high risk office.

There is hitherto no evidence to suggest that Banda indeed abused the instruments of national governance. If the PF argues that Banda’s campaign money was stolen money, then the PF should also be blamed. Under the mantra of Donchi Kubeba, the PF encouraged its supporters to accept the so-called kickbacks allegedly handed out by the MMD. The morality of such behavior  does acquiescent the PF to be blamed. Moreover, even under the Chiluba immunity, Sata himself was shielded from blame even when he benefitted from all the alleged corruption proceeds; Michael Sata was MMD`s CEO and chief executive mastermind. And if the PF had a case, they would themselves follow solidly-led legal protocols in the lifting of the immunity. In this case, a motion tabled in parliament lasted barely a day to pass, and that against well-designed legislative conventions. This, in itself, is a bad precedent for Michael Sata – it opens doors for his own immunity being lifted and prosecuted for this omission in future!

Second, such immunity lifting is a mark of cowardice on the part of the PF government. Since he came to power, Michael Sata has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that he is leading Zambia into autocracy. Within less than two years in power, he has isolated the opposition, bribed them with ministerial or semi-ministerial positions, and imprisoned two of the leading opposition leaders. While he is busy dealing a dearth blow to our young democracy, the economy is still lagging and instead of “more money” into their pockets, the people now have “no money” into their pockets. Zambia is not better than it was under Banda a year and few months ago. Such lifting of immunity is a ploy to dodge from being answerable to the people on economic or democratic dealings of the PF. It robs the nation of the needed opportunity to access the PF governance on merit. It defeats the social and political ethos of national solidarity and engenders a dangerous precedent to future regimes.

Third, since independence from Great Britain in 1964, Zambia has only been ruled by four presidents; Michael Sata is the fifth. There is need to emphasize that Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia`s first president built the nation`s structures. Second president, Frederick Chiluba, built the democratic foundation upon which Zambia thrives today. Third Republican President, Levy Mwanawasa, introduced to Zambia a multifaceted approach to tackling corruption. Rupiah Banda, fourth president of Zambia, consolidated Zambia`s economic gains. The fifth president, Michael Sata, is erasing all the pluses Zambia has won across the years. The precedent he is setting is both injurious and inimical to his own legacy; what would preclude adjoining regimes from removing his own immunity and prosecuting him for all the undemocratic tendencies he has iced on the Zambian decaying cake!

I submit that Zambians must awake and demand that Zambia be governed according to the rule of law, not to the rule of a man; Michael Sata. I further submit that immunity lifting on our two presidents has ceased to be “historic”; it has become “barbaric.” We are prying to the ferocity of political machination rather than to reason and facts on the ground. If Zambia continues to be ruled by such mediocre leaders, the future of this great nation is in danger. The democracy and peace we enjoy may be a thing of the past. We must guard against hero-worship of leaders like Michael Sata and speak out loudly with all the authority our constitution has accorded us. We should not bask in the shadows of the ruling machine. People choose governments. If the people desire, they can change the government in power. The best we have built in Zambia may be destroyed before our own eyes. Where is a new generation of Zambians who should stand up to those currently dragging our beloved nation into a nation of fear and intimidation? Where is a breed of Zambian leaders who will stand up for democracy, and win?

By Charles Mwewa

Author of  King Cobra Has Struck: My Letter to President Michael C. Sata [2012].