Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:59:21 +0000
It is cynical for propagandists who are self-professed constitutional law experts to mislead members of the public that the invocation of Article 31 by President Edgar Lungu implies Zambia is under a state of public emergency, thereby causing apprehension.
Foremost, it is crucially important to underscore that what has caused apprehension is not the invocation of Article 31 but a steady build-up of events slightly before, during and after last year’s general elections.
If anything, the invocation of this constitutional provision should be the one to ease the apprehension that citizens must have felt because of what has been going on. Article 31 is intended to arrest any situation that has been happening that threatens the security of the country that if allowed to continue may lead to a state of public emergency.
In this case, by President Lungu invoking Article 31 it implies he will now use powers in the Preservation of Public Security Act Chapter 112 of the laws of Zambia to preserve public security.
The proclamation is not intended to escalate into disorder but to bring back the order that citizens had been enjoying prior to the genesis of these wanton activities that threaten public security. In fact, this should ease individuals whose minds are in a state of apprehension.
Supposing Zambia was in a state of public emergency, President Lungu would have invoked Article 30 because this is the applicable provision. The powers that are to be exercised in these circumstances are contained in The Emergency Powers Act Chapter 108 of the laws of Zambia, but this is not the case.
Therefore, it is grossly misleading for political and legal pundits to propagate that President Lungu declared a state of public emergency.
And it is rather shocking that some uncivil individuals can have the audacity to criticize President Lungu for the decision to invoke his constitutional powers to take practical measures to bring the debilitating situation under control.
Should President Lungu have waited for thorough investigations before invoking Article 31? Was this a haste decision? Are acts of arson and sabotage not a threat to public security?
We think the pattern of events which are an accumulation of politically orchestrated violence started with the Namwala saga that saw several people displaced just because they were perceived to be sympathizers of the governing Patriotic Front.
This systematic perpetration of evils acts has led to sporadic gutting of public markets, government offices and courtrooms across the country. In the recent past, acts of sabotage on key installations such as ZESCO pylons which supply power to the mining industry have been experienced.
Should President Lungu wait to act when it is clear property and lives are at risk?
Why should Government wait to take appropriate action when some anarchists are blatantly threatening the security of the country and agitating for intensified execution of these evil schemes?
We think that the President’s decision to invoke Article 31 of the Republican Constitution is timely. As correctly stated, a stitch in time saves nine.
For instance, there are investments that have been brought into this country by foreigners, investments made by both locals and government and President Lungu needs latitude to protect all these properties and lives.
Objectively speaking, there is no investor who would want to invest their resources in a country whose public security is threatened. Thus, invoking Article 31 seeks to guarantee protection of investments and enable citizens conduct their daily business under serene environments.
To suggest that the mere invocation of Article 31 automatically entails Government imposing blanket regulations which are intended to limited human rights is a ploy to instill fear in people much as it could be state out of ignorance.
In any case, why should every Jim and Jack interpret the constitutional provisions when they have no exquisite knowledge of the subject matter?
We urge Zambians to be wary of individuals who are out there to twist the provisions of Article 31 to suit their agenda. Do not be misled!
