Of Course Ghana is not Kenya - Kow A. Essuman

[Ab-Titchaz]

Of Course Ghana Is Not Kenya!


"Ghana is not Kenya" is one reaction you would hear whenever you compare the presidential election petitions currently pending before the Supreme Courts in both countries.

"Why not" is an immediate reaction to the "Ghana is not Kenya" reaction and I can empathise with that. Both countries are African countries and seem to have taken the path of democracy.

Both countries have made provision in their respective constitutions for presidential election petitions to be filed in their respective Supreme Courts to challenge the election of the president. So why can't Ghana be like Kenya?
I can also empathise with those who vehemently say, "Ghana is not Kenya" and indeed, I do empathise with those who react in that manner but for completely different reasons. I mean how can we even think that Ghana can be like Kenya.

We have to face facts and be honest with ourselves when comparing the manner in which the Supreme Court in both countries are dealing with the presidential election petitions before them. In that respect, Ghana is nowhere near Kenya at all. In fact, Ghana is millions of miles behind Kenya and we, Ghanaians, ought to be ashamed.

In writing this short piece of article, I have confined myself to the presidential election petitions before the Supreme Courts in both countries and the manner in which those petitions are being dealt with. I must therefore emphasise that this article does not compare the economic success or democratic success of both countries.

Having set out my intentions clearly, it is my opinion that Ghana is not Kenya because Ghana is far behind Kenya and also because

1. Kenya understands the stakes; Ghana does not.

This is not the first election dispute being determined by a court in Kenya. The outcomes of previous election disputes before the courts in Kenya caused the violence following their last elections. At least 1,200 lives were lost with thousands more severely injured as a result of the violence.

The loser in that election did not trust the Kenyan courts to deliver justice so instead of proceeding to court, his supporters and sympathizers went on the streets and he did not stop them. With this background in mind, the Kenyan Supreme Court knew what was at stake in the presidential election petitions before them.

The loser in the 2013 elections placed his trust in the Kenyan Supreme Court to resolve the issues he had with the results declared by the Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission ("IEBC"). The Justices of the Kenyan Supreme Court knew what was at stake i.e. potential violence and inevitable loss of lives and injuries, and therefore managed the court with a view of determining the dispute before them in a fair and speedy manner.

The Justices knew and were reminded by Ms.Kethi Kilonzo (the lawyer for Africa Centre for Open Governance) in her submissions that the dispute before them did not require an interpretation of the constitution or an interpretation of law but rather an election dispute and same should be treated as such.

Notwithstanding the strict deadlines in the Kenyan constitution regarding presidential election petitions, there was a sense of urgency demonstrated by the Chief Justice of Kenya, His Lordship Dr. Willy Mutunga and the other Justices of the Kenyan Supreme Court. They wanted to dispose of the presidential election disputes quickly so that Kenyans could return to their normal lives and thus treated the dispute before them as an election petition and not as just another dispute before the Supreme Court.

Similarly, the Petitioners in the Ghanaian Supreme Court have placed their trust in the Justices of the Supreme Court to determine the election dispute before them instead of encouraging their supporters and sympathizers to take to the streets and be violent. Unfortunately, the Ghanaian justices don't seem to appreciate what is at stake mainly because this presidential election petition is the first of its kind in Ghana. Also, because we don't have a history of violence like Kenya has.

The presidential election petition before the Ghanaian Supreme Court is being treated as an ordinary dispute before the court. There is no sense of urgency on the part of the justices to dispose of the petition and bring finality to the election that took place on 7 & 8 December 2012. If the Ghanaian justices understood the stakes, the petition before them would have been long determined.

2. Technology in the Kenyan Supreme Court

One can only admit that the Kenyan Supreme Court is far ahead when it comes to the use of technology in the delivery of justice. I watched live proceedings of the Kenyan presidential election petitions on television right here in Ghana and followed everything going on in the Supreme Court.

I did not have to be physically present in the Kenyan Supreme Court or even in Kenya to follow this historic presidential election petitions. That is the power of technology and the Internet.

Again, I reiterate that the Kenyan Supreme Court was very much aware of what was at stake and so did not hesitate to allow the proceedings to be televised live for all Kenyans who participated in the election to witness the determination of the disputes that arose therefrom and indeed allowed the whole world to witness the determination of the disputes. By taking such a step ensured that Kenyans were not kept in the dark regarding the presidential election petitions.

In Ghana, the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Georgina Wood, denied a request made by Danquah Institute for the live transmission of the presidential election petition proceedings on security grounds. But certainly, if Kenya, a country with a history of violence, can allow television cameras into the Supreme Court for live transmission of their presidential election petitions proceedings then respectfully, Her Ladyship Georgina Wood's basis for refusing live transmission on security grounds can no longer be justified.

Justice Wood's way of ensuring security at the Supreme Court is to swarm its premises with armed to the teeth policemen and before you enter, you are stripped of all your electronic gadgets so that you cannot update the rest of the world whilst the proceedings are going on. And this is the security measure that I believe cannot be justified.

Even more ridiculous is the requirement to be accredited to enter the Supreme Court, which by the way is open to the public, whilst the presidential election petition is being heard regardless of whether you are a lawyer or not. I strongly disagree with Justice Wood on accreditation as a mode of screening which member of the public gets to witness the presidential election petition.

All Ghanaians participated in the presidential elections and ought to witness the final determination of any dispute arising thereof. Only a few Ghanaians are permitted to witness the presidential election petition.How can that be possible when the 1992 Constitution requires all court proceedings to be made public? Again, how can that be possible when the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74)states that the presidential election petition shall be heard in open court? So why then must a Ghanaian be accredited to witness the presidential election petition? Who are these Ghanaians who have been accredited?

How does an ordinary Ghanaian receive accreditation? Why must a Ghanaian be accredited to witness a presidential election petition, which arose from a presidential election he or she participated in? How can we be certain that there is no discrimination in accrediting persons to witness the presidential election petition?

Members of political parties do not necessarily represent the interest of the majority of Ghanaians who do not belong to a political or apolitical Ghanaians. So then why should accreditation be limited to political parties? There would be no need for these questions if the cameras were let into the Supreme Court. All Ghanaians would then be able to witness whatever goes on in the Supreme Court.

Another interesting role technology played in the Kenyan presidential election petitions was that it quickened the process. The lawyers indicated in court during the morning session on 26 March 2013 that they would file their proposed issues with the court during the lunch break. When they returned for the afternoon session, the proposed issues had been filed and served on all the lawyers, and it was agreed the proposed issues would be narrowed down during the morning session on 27 March 2013.

The quick filing of the proposed issues was as a result of e-filing process in the Kenyan Supreme Court. This means you can file a process and within minutes the process would be served on the other parties. No wonder all the lawyers were holding their cell phones (mostly Samsung Galaxy) in court. Also, with iPads and other tablets mounted before the justices, there is no doubt that they were able to read whatever had been filed with just a click. If that is not an efficient use of technology in the courtroom and in the dispensation of justice, then I don't know what can be clarified as such.

Contrast that with Ghana where paper filing is still the order of the day. The parties to the presidential election petition are required to provide their email addresses and indeed they provided their email addresses but for what? To show that they also use email? Because so far, all processes have been filed and served through paper and not electronically so again I ask, for what reason were email addresses required if they were not going to be used? The Kenyan Supreme Court settled issues in less than 24 hours but the Ghanaian Supreme Court has taken 18 days and still counting and issues have still not been settled.

The Kenyans employed the use of audiovisual aids in the presentation of evidence and when Ms. Kilonza requested to test the audiovisual aids thirty minutes before the commencement of the morning session on 27 March 2013, the court granted her request. In the Ghanaian presidential election petition, the 1st Respondent is vehemently opposed to the use of audiovisual aids in the presentation of evidence. Audiovisual aids by the way include PowerPoint presentations and playing videos as part of the evidence.

Lastly, digital LED timers were used in the courtroom to restrict the submissions made by the lawyers. The lawyers agreed on the time to be allocated to each lawyer and they complied with their respective time allocations. To paraphrase what the lead counsel for RailaOdinga, George Oraro, said when wrapping up his submissions, "I looked up to the clock and realized that I had two minutes left and therefore knew I had to end my submissions only to be told my time is up."

If in the year 2013, the 21st Century, the ICT age, we cannot introduce and efficiently use technology in the dispensation of justice then I reiterate that Ghana is far behind Kenya.

3. The Chief Justice of Kenya is the President of Court

Justice Wood may have her reasons why as Chief Justice of Ghana, she chose not to sit and preside over the panel to decide this historic presidential election petition. I am not going to attempt to guess what her possible reasons may have been. I have however seen her preside over cases and I admired the manner in which she managed the court to ensure speedy but fair justice. Maybe, perhaps just maybe, if she were the president of panel hearing the presidential election petition, the justices would have showed some enthusiasm in disposing of same quickly. JusticeMutunga and his fellow justices showed the world that they intended on having the petitions before them determined within the constitutionally imposed timelines.

4. The conduct of the lawyers involved

Anyone who watched the Kenyan presidential election petitions proceedings will tell you that the conduct of the lawyers is worthy of commendation and indeed at the end of the hearing, Justice Mutunga commended members of the bar for their conduct. What therefore is the conduct that was worthy of commendation? Well, the language used by the lawyers in court was decorous and civil. They treated each other, even the junior lawyers, with respect and dignity. The lawyers had a common goal: resolving the presidential election disputes and doing so quickly within the constitutional time limit. The lawyers related to each other in a manner, which demonstrated that although they had a dispute between them, the interest of Kenya was paramount. The conduct of the lawyers in Kenya greatly reduced tension in the country as the petitions were being heard.

Contrast that with the presidential election petition before the Supreme Court of Ghana. The Petitioners' lawyers want the dispute resolved quickly so that Ghanaians can move on with their lives. The Respondents' lawyers on the other hand intend to delay the process for as long as they can to frustrate the Petitioners. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has played a role in allowing this delay to go on by not adhering strictly to the CI 74.

5. Strict deadlines

Unlike Kenya, Ghana has no constitutional timeline within which to determine a presidential election petition. This means proceedings in the presidential election petition can go on for as long as 4 years. No wonder the Ghanaian justices are not keen on resolving the presidential election dispute before them and continue to adjourn proceedings sine die (without a firm date).

Many Ghanaians including myself wonder why the drafters of the 1992 Constitution and members of the Rules of Court Committee who drafted the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (CI 74) did not foresee that any petition that goes before the Supreme Court to challenge the election of the president needs to be determined quickly and within a definite time.

The foregoing reasons make it evident and very clear that Ghana is not like Kenya and that Ghana is far behind Kenya in resolving presidential election disputes.

I end this short article with a quote from the Kenyan Attorney-General, Githu Muigai, in his submissions before the Kenyan Supreme Court... "As my Lords are aware as we speak here today the Supreme Court of Ghana is hearing the election dispute relating to their election which was undertaken in December and they are slower than we are and I think we should take a little credit for the sort of enthusiasm that this court has brought to a timeous disposal of this matter."

Editor's Note:

Written by Kow A. Essuman, Esq.
LL.B. Hons (Westminster), PgDip (BPP), LL.M. (Cornell)
Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn)(England and Wales)
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law (New York)
Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ghana

Of Course Ghana Is Not Kenya - ModernGhana.com

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Huku ndiko alikoenda Obama na kuwapigia debe kua 'wameshafika' kidemokrasia...

Safari bado ndefu Africa.

 

[Bantugbro]

Huku ndiko alikoenda Obama na kuwapigia debe kua 'wameshafika' kidemokrasia...

Safari bado ndefu Africa.

Westerners si wanasema sasa Libya imekuwa mfano wa Demokrasia katika Arab world...:biggrin:

 

[Ivonya-Ngia]

Kweli wonders shall never end!
Petition still undecided in the SC and Mr. J.D Mahama already sworn in, can the SC rule against presiding president? In Africa? I think that "oversight" in the constitution was intended. How can an election petition run without a timeframe? Hii mambo ipo sana in Africa and atleast kwa hili we should commend a job well done to Kenyan constitution. In Tz an election petition(parliamentary) can run up to 3 yrs, puuuh!!!
It's in my view all election petitions should have a reasonable constitutional timeframe.

 

[JokaKuu]

Huku ndiko alikoenda Obama na kuwapigia debe kua 'wameshafika' kidemokrasia...

Safari bado ndefu Africa.

Ab-Titchaz,

..Ghana is way ahead of many African countries with the way they conduct themselves during general elections.

..mwaka 2000 uchaguzi kati ya John Kuffour vs Prof.Mills ulihitaji second round voting. Pamoja na hayo hakukutokea vurugu za kikabila kama hapo Kenya.

..mwaka 2006 ukaja uchaguzi kati ya Nana Akuffo-Ado vs Prof.Mills. Uchaguzi huu pia uliamuliwa na second round voting. Lakini ktk hiyo second round voting kuna jimbo moja ilibidi warudie kupiga kura. Yaani nchi nzima ilisimama ikawasubiri wao wapige kura, and the votes were so close kiasi kamba uchaguzi uliamuliwa na kura za jimbo lililopiga kura mara mbili.

..here is the most interesting thing.... Katika 1st round voting ya 2006, Nana Akuffo-Ado ndiye aliyeongoza, lakini kura zilipokwenda 2nd round, mambo yakageuka na Prof.Mills akashinda. Halafu ushindi wa Prof.Mills dhidi ya Nana Ado ulikuwa ni 50.23 vs 49.77.

..kwa maoni yangu, kulinganisha na mataifa mengi ya Kiafrika, Ghana wako juu linapokuja suala la kuendesha chaguzi zao kwa AMANI.

cc: Geza Ulole, Rutashubanyuma, Kabaridi

 

[Kabaridi]

JokaKuu

sijua kama umesoma hii paragraph

Members of political parties do not necessarily represent the interest of the majority of Ghanaians who do not belong to a political or apolitical Ghanaians. So then why should accreditation be limited to political parties? There would be no need for these questions if the cameras were let into the Supreme Court. All Ghanaians would then be able to witness whatever goes on in the Supreme Court.

Hii naye ni tatizo to ordinary kenyans and ghanians....
let us not hpe in the near future that the justice system will substitute the electoral system in determining future presidents which should be people driven...

It is undeniable that ghana and kenya are very young democracies but the kenyan scenario is quite unique and different because the justice system has undergone serious reforms. Those are the results of honest reforms. when did the ghanian high court ever had radical reforms? When a petition in ghana drags for four years without a verdict, the courts are compromised either by a "status quo"/dictatorial oligarchs and also the fact that cameras are restricted from taking live proceedings cast doubts about the transparency of the ghaniana court systems.

offcourse in the process of implementation of the constitution there exists and will remain vexed groups and societies that will never appreciate work that has been done and currently being done; they will by all means scorn all the gains made by either referring to history of past mistakes etc, notwithstanding; PERPETUAL COMPROMISERS TO NATION BUILDING ARE HERE WITH US TO STAY AND AS A COUNTRY WE AGREE TO MOVE ON!! a country moving to brighter future and not an unjust one .

by the court upholding the kenyatta presidency is simple..the controversy surrounding BVR kits has been politicized with videos doctored down at kintinyaga road to act as amatuerish evidence to say the least. petitioners cannot sell that idea nor waste time of a president of the kenyan supreme court.

election petitions are not unique to the africa. US; in 2000 is when there was a disputed election between bush and al gore and bush narrowly won in the state of florida and the dispute was settled in court. A technically superior and advanced country underwent the same challenges with their computer systems breaking down and reverting back to the manual system. It is not known whether gore would have won the 2000 election if a recount was decided. But what the courts concluded is that all provisions in accordance to the law were followed.

As provided by the laws of kenya which we already knew that where there is a provision of computerized equpments with the associated software to relay results, there should be machine printouts/manual registers that can be used in the event the systems/software breakdown. programmers understand it as bugs.

very simple questions should be asked??
Did the IEBC use manual registers/direct machine printouts after the BVR failing?? YES

Any court worldwide reserves the jurisdiction to change a ruling based on the evidence provided. So for the ghanian case if there were sufficient grounds that there was election malpractice then it ws right for the court to overturn the election in favor of Prof. mills. it is up to the court to step in to make the ruling and decide. In this case the court retains it relevancy if such a scenario is to occur not only in ghana but also in kenya and the world over.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Ab-Titchaz,

..Ghana is way ahead of many African countries with the way they conduct themselves during general elections.

..mwaka 2000 uchaguzi kati ya John Kuffour vs Prof.Mills ulihitaji second round voting. Pamoja na hayo hakukutokea vurugu za kikabila kama hapo Kenya.

..mwaka 2006 ukaja uchaguzi kati ya Nana Akuffo-Ado vs Prof.Mills. Uchaguzi huu pia uliamuliwa na second round voting. Lakini ktk hiyo second round voting kuna jimbo moja ilibidi warudie kupiga kura. Yaani nchi nzima ilisimama ikawasubiri wao wapige kura, and the votes were so close kiasi kamba uchaguzi uliamuliwa na kura za jimbo lililopiga kura mara mbili.

..here is the most interesting thing.... Katika 1st round voting ya 2006, Nana Akuffo-Ado ndiye aliyeongoza, lakini kura zilipokwenda 2nd round, mambo yakageuka na Prof.Mills akashinda. Halafu ushindi wa Prof.Mills dhidi ya Nana Ado ulikuwa ni 50.23 vs 49.77.

..kwa maoni yangu, kulinganisha na mataifa mengi ya Kiafrika, Ghana wako juu linapokuja suala la kuendesha chaguzi zao kwa AMANI.

cc: Geza Ulole, Rutashubanyuma, Kabaridi

Mie nilikua na mawazo kama haya yako lakini kwa mujibu wa hii article na huyu bwana kua mGhana nadhani
ana point ya kusikizwa. Especially when it comes to the petitions dragging out. Unajua huo pia ndio ulikua
mchezo wa Rais Moi ambaye angechelewesha kesi kotini maksudi hadi mpaka miaka mitano!...That is the
scenario unfolding huko Ghana kwa sasa.

This is why the New Kenyan Constitution has a time limit to the whole process.

Tuzidi.

P.S. Hivi Tanzania huwezi ku-petition ushindi wa Rais katika kura zilizochakachuliwa?

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Westerners si wanasema sasa Libya imekuwa mfano wa Demokrasia katika Arab world...:biggrin:

Dah!...kazi ipo hapo.

 

[JokaKuu]

Mie nilikua na mawazo kama haya yako lakini k wa mujibu wa hii article na huyu bwana kua mGhana nadhani
ana point ya kusikizwa. Especially when it comes to the petitions dragging out. Unajua huo pia ndio ulikua
mchezo wa Rais Moi ambaye angechelewesha kesi kotini maksudi hadi mpaka miaka mitano!...That is the
scenario unfolding huko Ghana kwa sasa.

This is why the New Kenyan Constitution has a time limit to the whole process.

Tuzidi.

P.S. Hivi Tanzania huwezi ku-petition ushindi wa Rais katika kura zilizochakachuliwa?

Ab-Titchaz,

..I think the best jury itakuwa ni sisi ambao siyo Waghana au Wakenya.

..nasema hivyo kwasababu wakati huyo Mghana anasifia jinsi hukumu hii ilivyotolewa bila ucheleweshaji, wapo Wakenya wanalalamika kwamba supreme court ilikuwa so time constrained na kusababisha itupe pembeni ushahidi muhimu.

..kwa Tanzania hakuna ruhusa ya kikatiba ku-challenge matokeo ya kura za uchaguzi wa Raisi!! Sijui labda kifungu hicho kitaongezwa kwenye katiba mpya.

 

[Kabaridi]

Ab-Titchaz,

..I think the best jury itakuwa ni sisi ambao siyo Waghana au Wakenya.

haifai tz kuwa jury, itawezekana vipi huku mahakama ikifanya kazi gani katika nchi hizo wakipokea mishahara kutoka kwa kodi nk. Haiwezekani maana Tz inakosa rekodi ya serikali kurekebisha mahakama zake.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Ab-Titchaz,

..I think the best jury itakuwa ni sisi ambao siyo Waghana au Wakenya.

..nasema hivyo kwa sababu wakati huyo Mghana anasifia jinsi hukumu hii ilivyotolewa bila ucheleweshaji, wapo Wakenya wanalalamika kwamba supreme court ilikuwa so time constrained na kusababisha itupe pembeni ushahidi muhimu.

..kwa Tanzania hakuna ruhusa ya kikatiba ku-challenge matokeo ya kura za uchaguzi wa Raisi!! Sijui labda kifungu hicho kitaongezwa kwenye katiba mpya.

Hapo kwenye nyekundu ni slippery slope mazee...na nakubaliana na ulichosema maana evidence ilikuwepo lakini mahakama ikadai hakuna time ya kuchambua huo ushahidi.

...that gives food for thought kwa hao waliotengeza hio katiba maana time should be allowed for evidence to be scrutinized and that way the petitioner will not feel aggrieved.

...Tanzania wanampango wa kuzuindua hio kitu lini?

 

[JokaKuu]

haifai tz kuwa jury, itawezekana vipi huku mahakama ikifanya kazi gani katika nchi hizo wakipokea mishahara kutoka kwa kodi nk. Haiwezekani maana Tz inakosa rekodi ya serikali kurekebisha mahakama zake.

Kabaridi,

..Let me try one more time.

..sikumaanisha wa-Tz ndiyo waamue kesi ya uchaguzi wa Kenya.

..nilikuwa nazungumzia, specifically, hii article ya jamaa toka Ghana.

..mwandishi wa Ghana anasema mahakama yao inachukua muda mrefu kuamua kesi ya uchaguzi.

..wakati huo huo, kuna Wakenya wanasema mahakama yao ilikuwa too time constrained kiasi kwamba ikatoa uamuzi bila kuangalia ushahidi wote.

..sasa ndiyo maana nikasema wa-Tz, kwa nafasi yetu as outsiders to both Ghana and Kenya, labda tunaweza kuwa the best juries, katika kutoa ushauri kuhusu utaratibu unaofaa kuamua kesi za uchaguzi.

..Mwisho, haki ya kuamua nani aongoze Kenya ni ya wa-Kenya wenyewe.


.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

haifai tz kuwa jury, itawezekana vipi huku mahakama ikifanya kazi gani katika nchi hizo wakipokea mishahara kutoka kwa kodi nk. Haiwezekani maana Tz inakosa rekodi ya serikali kurekebisha mahakama zake.

Kabaridi,

try and see people as independent thinkers and not beholden thinkers to their government's ways.
There is no justification for not allowing Tanzanians to be 'jury' on this matter I believe.

Tuzidi kujadiliana.

Ab-Titchaz.

 

[The Boss]

we all want what we don't have

 

[JokaKuu]

Ab-Titchaz,

..wa-Tz tumeahidiwa katiba mpya by the end of 2014.

..mimi ndoto yangu ni katiba itakayovunja muungano wa Tanganyika na Zanzibar.

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

Ab-Titchaz,

..wa-Tz tumeahidiwa katiba mpya by the end of 2014.

..mimi ndoto yangu ni katiba itakayovunja muungano wa Tanganyika na Zanzibar.

Kama ni 2014, chaguzi inapigwa lini?

Hapo kwenye Tanganyika na Zanzibar my lips are sealed maana sitaka kusema kitu kisha nikwaze upande wowote.
Hebu nijuze why you dont want the Union but you opt for a separation?

 

[Koborer]

Ab-Titchaz,

..I think the best jury itakuwa ni sisi ambao siyo Waghana au Wakenya.

..nasema hivyo kwasababu wakati huyo Mghana anasifia jinsi hukumu hii ilivyotolewa bila ucheleweshaji, wapo Wakenya wanalalamika kwamba supreme court ilikuwa so time constrained na kusababisha itupe pembeni ushahidi muhimu.

..kwa Tanzania hakuna ruhusa ya kikatiba ku-challenge matokeo ya kura za uchaguzi wa Raisi!! Sijui labda kifungu hicho kitaongezwa kwenye katiba mpya.

No, i think you are wrong in this one. The longer the case takes, the higher the chance of building tension within the population. In the case of Kenya, CORD had a chance of submitting their evidence within the first 7 days, but chose (Perhaps tactfully) to withhold parts of it only releasing it during the court process. This was not provided for hence was expunged. Question is why they did not submit it along the earlier evidence. Was it a calculated move to catch the defence off guard?

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

we all want what we don't have

mmh...wewe nawe vipi tena mkuu. I believe all these things we want we can have but somebody is simply
refusing to let go...iwe Kenya, Ghana au Tanzania. Chungulia humu uone vile Zambia jamaa keshaanza
kuwaliza watu na warudi back kwa mfumo wa chama kimoja. Africa msoto tu!

TOWARDS A ONE PARTY STATE:


President Sata wants the political control that eluded him in 2011 and also the parliamentary majority that will allow him to change the constitution

The governing Patriotic Front's tactics are far from original. The PF's attempts to dominate the media and gaol opponents hark back to the era of the one-party state under the United National Independence Party (UNIP). Like the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) which it narrowly beat in the 2011 elections, the PF is using all manner of skulduggery to win by-elections and co-opt opponents to secure a parliamentary majority. President Michael Chilufya Sata and his closest advisor, the PF Secretary General and Justice Minister Wynter Kabimba, cut their political teeth in former President Kenneth Kaunda's UNIP.

This week, the government lifted the immunity from prosecution of ex-President Rupiah Banda. Police then arrested Banda, the former leader of the MMD, on 25 March for abuse of office over a Nigerian oil deal, which he denies. Banda was then released on 500,000 kwacha (US$93,000) bail. Leaders of the United Party of National Development (UPND) have also been arrested (although later released) on murder charges that were widely believed to be trumped up.

The PF's parliamentary campaign seems to be working well. The governing party won an unexpectedly strong victory in the key town of Livingstone when Lawrence Evans, the PF candidate, took the seat from the UPND on 14 March after the poll was postponed for two weeks because of violence. The MMD slipped to a poor third place. The opposition claimed the police intimidated UPND and MMD candidates amidst a low turnout of just over 30%. The PF posted government ministers to the constituency for long periods and engaged in vote-buying and other persuasive methods, we hear. By employing similar tactics, the PF is expected to do well in the by-elections at Kapiri Mposhi and Lukulu West, due to be held on 23 April. Both the main opposition parties are reeling under the assault and it seems unlikely they can resist the PF's momentum.

Defections and by-elections

The wave of by-elections is the result of the PF campaign to co-opt opposition MPs. All MPs who change party must go the polls, and the PF has been luring many to cross the floor. Thirteen opposition MPs from the MMD and the UPND are now serving in government and the total number of deputy ministers, the chief carrot offered to defectors, currently stands at 40. Sometimes, there are three or four deputies in one ministry (AC Vol 54 No 4, Kabimba looks ahead).

The MMD has wilted under the onslaught and its new leader, Nevers Mumba, does not possess the ammunition for a counter-attack. The by-elections and defections also allow the PF to establish a grassroots presence in areas where the party has historically been weak, and incorporate the constituency structures developed by rival parties to build a longer-term presence.
The campaign also includes petitions to the courts to overturn the election results in seats that the PF lost narrowly in the 2011 elections. Successful petitions result in by-elections. The overall aim is for the PF to achieve the two-thirds majority in Parliament necessary for amending the constitution. Lately it has become increasingly clear that Sata wants to move Zambia back towards a one-party state – although he is likely to tolerate a low level of opposition to keep up appearances and not institute the PF as a de jure single legal party.

The cobra strikes

Sata and the PF's authoritarianism have been visible in the deregistration of the MMD in March 2012, Sata's threat to dissolve Parliament if MPs kept voting against his legislation and then his castigation of the Anti-Corruption Commission for investigating Kabimba and another key ally, the Defence Minister, Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba. Those investigations were dropped.

Kabimba is also in the process of creating a powerful party organisation that will mirror the state administration down to local level, just as UNIP used to do. Under UNIP the bureaucracy became heavily politicised and bureaucrats and political appointees vied for authority within a convoluted committee structure. While the strategy may help to entrench the PF, it could paralyse governance.

So far, the PF's policy of co-option has resulted in five by-elections since the new government came to power in September 2011 but this will rise. At present, a number of MPs who have defected to the PF are appealing against their expulsion from their original parties. They are likely to lose these cases and when their expulsions are confirmed, they too will need to contest by-elections.

Regardless of their role in PF predatory politics, by-elections are still interesting litmus tests of the PF's popularity a year and a half into its first term in office. Of the eight held so far – some of which resulted from the death of a sitting MP – the government has won only five. Yet even victories have other stories to tell. On 28 February, Gabriel Namulambe won the by-election in the rural Copperbelt constituency of Mpongwe for the PF after he had defected from the MMD. As expected, he won the seat for the PF with 4,600 votes, ahead of the UPND on 3,069 and the MMD on 901. Namulambe has since been appointed to a deputy ministerial position.

The result shows how, as in other constituencies, a united opposition could potentially unseat the PF. Cooperation between the two parties would have resulted in a higher opposition turnout that could well have denied the PF victory. The low turnout, at 27%, may be typical but it also suggests that the PF is failing to spark enthusiasm, despite the President and over half the cabinet going there to campaign. Indeed, the elections suggest a potential resurgence of the UPND. Although the party leader Hakainde Hichilema is frequently accused of tribalism for failing to break out of the party's Southern Province base among Tonga speakers, there are signs that recent changes have created new opportunities for the third party of Zambian politics.

Fertiliser fury

In office, the MMD relied heavily on the support of rural areas whose livelihoods it subsidised through the distribution of fertiliser and by buying maize at above-market prices. The defeat of the MMD, along with the election of the more urban PF, means that these constituencies are now up for grabs. Although the PF hopes to build a support base in these areas by maintaining the MMD policy of purchasing maize at inflated prices, Sata has infuriated farmers by reducing free farm inputs from four free bags of fertiliser to two – even though he promised to raise the figure to 15 during the presidential campaign. Farmers were further disillusioned when the fertiliser did not arrive on time. On 5 March, the public outcry at the resulting shortage of maize and the consequent doubling of the price of mealie-meal – Zambia's staple food – forced the Minister of Agriculture to apologise to the nation. These developments have enabled the UPND to make fresh inroads: in Mpongwe, it was the only party to win more votes than in the 2011 election.

The party appears to be picking up MMD votes and gaining support outside its traditional constituencies and in other rural areas, especially in the Copperbelt. The PF is still favourite to win the next election but this depends on Sata being present to lead it. Although the PF has many impressive leaders within its ranks, it has always been a one-man party, a marriage of convenience held together by Sata's popularity. It is unlikely that any other figure within the government could maintain party unity or command mass support in his absence.

Sata's health may therefore be the most important factor in the PF's consolidation of power. Although hard facts are thin on the ground, many Lusaka insiders say that his health has deteriorated sharply and recent squabbles among his lieutenants suggest that they are preparing for a succession battle. If Sata does not lead the PF into the next elections, the opposition's political fortunes will change for the better.

http://www.africa-confidential.com/article/id/4833/Towards_a_one-party_state

 

[Ab-Titchaz]

No, i think you are wrong in this one. The longer the case takes, the higher the chance of building tension within the population. In the case of Kenya, CORD had a chance of submitting their evidence within the first 7 days, but chose (Perhaps tactfully) to withhold parts of it only releasing it during the court process. This was not provided for hence was expunged. Question is why they did not submit it along the earlier evidence. Was it a calculated move to catch the defence off guard?

Koborer,

Heshima mbele mzee mwenzangu,

We might start spliting hairs on what the definition of 'long time' means. In any case I wouldn't mind 2 weeks instead of one having learnt from mistakes. By the way its only a humble opinion.

Meanwhile I have no idea if this was a calculated move by CORD to catch the defence off guard because if it was, then it failed miserably.

 

[Koborer]

Koborer,

Heshima mbele mzee mwenzangu,

We might start spliting hairs on what the definition of 'long time' means. In any case I wouldnt mind 2 weeks instead of the'one having learnt from mistakes. By the way its only a humble opinion.

Meanwhile I have no idea if this was a calculated move by CORD to catch the defence off guard because if it was, then it failed miserably.

Okay pal, agreed. I wonder what was there in that new evidence. Pity, we may never get to know.