Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:10:27 +0000
ROAN Member of Parliament Chishimba Kambwili is not the first nor will he be the last to make unwarranted accusations against a sitting president of being corrupt.
The late President Frederick Chiluba was accused of corruption spearheaded by the defunct Post Newspaper and its proprietor Fred M’membe.
Mr Chiluba had his Presidential immunity removed and was prosecuted and at great cost to the Treasury, he was acquitted of all the charges.
President Rupiah Banda, the country’s fourth president was not spared either. He had his immunity removed until the courts acquitted him.
It is like once you are in State House, you become vulnerable to all sorts of characters accusing you of all kinds of crime – part of the job description?
But should this be the norm?
At his press conference in Lusaka yesterday, Mr Kambwili played to the gallery, accused President Lungu of spearheading corruption in Government and protecting some corrupt ministers and individuals in the administration.
These accusations are being made by a man who until last year was in President Lungu’s Cabinet serving as minister of Information and Broadcasting Services as well as being the official government spokesperson.
All was well in President Lungu’s administration until the “bubble bust.” His subsequent expulsion from the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) just appeared to have been the last straw.
For starters, the President could not have sacked Mr Kambwili without strong compelling reasons. The President must have acted on very strong evidence presented to him that bordered on corruption.
That is why this brings into question the operations of the Anti-Corruption Commission because it had information on the alleged corrupt activities that prompted the President to sack Mr Kambwili.
It is over a year ago since Mr Kambwili’s dismissal from Cabinet, yet we are yet to see the ACC prosecute him for his alleged crimes.
He now goes gallivanting around the country claiming to be the innocent victim. Let the ACC take action so that the public could have confidence in its operations.
The bottom line though is that those who accuse the President must be made to produce evidence and if not, must be held accountable for their actions.
If it means locking them up, then let it be so – of course after convicting them in a court of law.
It is certainly unseemly, intemperate and criminal to make defamatory statements of the head of state and those responsible must be made to account for their utterances. As a creature of statute the Presidency must be held in esteem.
