SENSLESS DEBATE

BY all standards, the Swaziland land gift to President Lungu is unprecedented. It is understandable therefore that considerable debate has been generated, regrettably most of it is counterproductive.

This is why we support New Congress Party (NCP) president Peter Chanda’s suggestion on the need for the nation to come up with a progressive code of conduct or rule that will clearly state gifts the Head of State is entitled.

A code clearly stipulating what the President is permitted to receive would have certainly prevented the ongoing gratuitous debate on whether or not the Head of State was in order to accept the land from King Mswati recently.

Such a code is conspicuously missing from the existing Constitution, a clear omission that cannot be blamed on the Head of State.

In America for instance, they have the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act of 1966 which ensures there is no impression of impropriety on the Head of State.

This act was prompted in part by expensive gifts some Arab Kings would bring on their visits, such as luxury cars and fine horses among other things.

Given the prevailing situation, there is no doubt that Zambia needs to enact such a rule to guide on gifts the Head of State can receive to ensure there is no impression of impropriety.

In the absence of such an act, the gift, as expected, has triggered mixed feelings in some sections of society. For some, there is nothing irregular about accepting the gift of land from King Mswati, while others say the President shouldn’t have accepted the land.

But for some traditional rulers, there is nothing illegal about the gesture because in as far as they are concerned, a similar gesture was extended to King King Mswati in 2009 when he visited Zambia yet no one condemned the King.

It is certainly normal for Heads of States to receive gifts but in Zambia what is needed is a rule to guide on the matter. In political circles, the gesture has raised so much ruckus, with some opposition leaders who spend time scrutinising President Lungu’s every move, blowing this whole episode out of proportion.

Those still praying to impeach the President even celebrated the news of the gift with a frenzy of joy and could not hide their contentment in both the electronic and print media. To them, Mr Lungu’s acceptance of the gift had added impetus and enough ammunition to sustain their impeachment cause.

But as Mr Chanda states, Zambians should indeed take advantage of the temporal suspension of the Constitutional review process to incorporate a law that will cover such a gesture to prevent future controversies.

We totally agree with Mr Chanda. Indeed instead of wasting time on senseless debates, Zambians should take advantage of the Constitutional review process which is on hold to formulate a progressive code that will not only guide on the presidential gifts but will stand the test of time.

Further, the code will not benefit the sitting Head of State only but for future ones as well and in this way prevent such controversies.

As much as people can criticise the President now, the current Constitutional does not explain clearly what the President’s entitlements are.

So far, no one has pointed to a particular law which the President has breached by accepting the gift.

With so many lacunas in the Constitution to be sorted out, this is therefore the right time to come up with a law that is unequivocal on the issue of gifts of the President to prevent needless hullabaloos in future.

Yes debate is healthy in a democratic dispensation such as ours, but it is also retrogressive to expend so much energy and time, and in some cases resources, on issues that point to numerous shortcomings in the Constitution as the cause.

Without stifling the ongoing debate, we submit that for as long as the law is ambiguous on Presidential entitlements, citizens are wasting time – the present constitution, as alluded to already, is in fact, the reason for the ongoing hubbub.

As the NCP leader observes, what citizens should be debating is what constitutes gifts to the President and how much the Head of State must be entitled to otherwise the arguments are in vain.

Surprisingly some politicians have deliberately over politicised this issue, yet forgetting that successive Head of States had equally received gifts but there was no furore.

Clearly, for some politicians, this uproar about the gift of land is not about offering checks and balances but hinges on personal vendetta and is purely malicious criticism meant to malign the Head of State. This must stop.