IV. HARASSMENT OF GOVERNMENT CRITICS AND INDEPENDENT VOICES

The MMD-government's human rights record on the rights to freedom of assembly and association is in stark contrast to its professed commitment to uphold these rights.86 President Chiluba's background makes this particularly ironic, since, as a trade unionist, he was fervently opposed to one-party rule. The president was also detained for the non-violent expression of his views when Kenneth Kaunda served as president. The MMD government has not escaped the past. Its practice of dealing harshly with critics and independent voices is cause for great concern.

Background

The right of peaceful assembly in Zambia is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and regulated by the Public Order Act. Starting in 1991, the Public Order Act was re-activated in the context of a multiparty democracy. However, many organizations-the opposition, NGOs, and civil society groups-found that provisions of the act were routinely used against them. Government permits to hold meetings were difficult to obtain or were revoked at short notice. In the latter-half of 1995 and throughout 1996, numerous groups were denied permission to meet. In order to further control public gatherings, parliament enacted an amendment to the act (Chapter 4 enacted on March 3, 1996) to require fourteen days prior notice to request police permission to hold meetings, processions, or demonstrations. No set number of days were previously required. It also authorized police to turn down anapplication to assemble up to five days before the date of the public meeting.87 The amendment was enacted after the Supreme Court had declared the Public Order Act unconstitutional on the grounds that the provisions requiring people to get police permits to hold meetings or assemblies was a contravention of the Zambian people's constitutional rights.88 Under pressure President Chiluba shortened the notice needed for the police to approve a permit from fourteen to seven days. However, little in practice has changed. In the run-up to the election, several opposition rallies and a march were refused permission.89

Harassment of the opposition intensified in the months leading up to the elections. Opposition leaders were routinely called into police stations to be questioned about public statements. Eight senior UNIP leaders, including UNIP Vice-President Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta, were detained from June to November 1996 on trumped-up charges of treason and murder in connection with bomb blasts that were allegedly committed by the clandestine "Black Mamba" group. Two of the defendants were released in early September, and by September 27, the state had dropped its cases against the six who were still being detained. There was little evidence to suggest that the UNIP members were involved in any violent conspiracy against the state. Instead, it appeared that they were detained solely because of their political affiliation and to paralize UNIP in the run-up to general elections. This appeared to have been confirmed on November 1 when the six were acquitted of treason and murder charges and released. The court's ruling was that there was "no case to answer." Thus, the accused were not put on their defense.

The NGO sector was particularly hard-hit as the government embarked on a campaign to discredit local NGOs, specifically which were to monitor the elections. The government-owned newspapers ran articles that reported that two governments, Japan and Sweden, had offered huge sums of money as rewards to local election monitors to declare the polls unfree and unfair. The government took the opportunity to warn the NGOs that they could be regulated "to check those suspected to be engaged in nefarious activities."90

After the Elections

The days after the November 18 elections and before the results were tallied were turbulent and emotional. The seven opposition parties which boycotted the election charged that the results had been rigged and refused to accept them. They launched a civil disobedience campaign that was underway by the end of the month and filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the results and President Chiluba's constitutional claim to office. Opposition parties that had participated in the election but suffered severe electoral defeat joined ranks with those which had been involved in the boycott, pledging their allegiance to the Interparty Alliance.

At the inauguration for his second (and, under the 1991 constitution, last) term in office on November 21, 1996, President Chiluba set the stage for the period of intimidation and harassment that would follow. Claiming victory in an election marred by the opposition boycott and a low turnout, he dismissed charges from the opposition, NGOs and the international community that his landslide victory was rigged. "I will not talk about whether the elections were free and fair. We all know they were transparent," he said.91 His first salvo was to issue a series of warnings to his external and internal critics, advising them that his security forces were prepared for any political unrest. "The army is. . . alert, and very alert, ready and willing to reinforce the police and air force. They are not onlyin the rearguard, they are very much in the forefront to ensure that peace is maintained in the nation, on the borders and everywhere." 92 He warned Zambia's neighbors that his new government would not tolerate interference, and friendship would be based on mutual respect. He castigated NGOs for what he termed their anti-government stance, cautioning them that he would not tolerate a climate in which NGOs appeared to be "instructing" the authorities and overstepping their boundaries. "Let us have genuine and indigenous NGOs. We love freedom of expression and freedom of speech and we will promote NGOs but they have to be genuine in their operations," The Zambia Daily Mail reported a government spokeman as saying.93

President Chiluba also reiterated the need for opening the lines of communication with groups who opposed his political party: "Without dialogue democracy is at stake and it cannot succeed. I invite my colleagues in all parties to come and dialogue with me." Improving communication, however, did not mean he would tolerate the mounting calls for a civil disobedience campaign. He warned "anarchists" that their efforts would be swiftly thwarted: "My resolve is to be firm but fair. I am in control and my government has a duty to maintain law and order." 94

Open dialogue was not the route that President Chiluba followed as groups began voicing their lack of confidence in the election results. Within days, Chiluba's government issued warnings and confronted NGOs and opposition organizations that were challenging the validity of the November 18 election results. Large numbers of heavily-armed police were dispatched to counter what the state media portrayed as an offensive attack on the state, resulting in arrests and criminal charges. The pattern of using the police and the courts to intimidate and repress political opponents continued.

NGOs took the brunt of the response to the "anti-patriotic" fervor. The intimidation worsened with charges that the NGOs had received foreign funding without the president's consent. The government threatened to pass anti-NGO legislation and characterized them as "political troublemakers." The president's promise to hold more conversations with the opposition appeared more and more feeble as the government began a round of harassment, forcing some opposition leaders into hiding.

In an editorial entitled "Repression" in the November 25 edition of The Post, the editorial writers described President Chiluba's attack on the NGO sector as an attempt to crush political dissent. By classifying NGOs as either indigenous or non-indigenous, he was attempting to discredit the work of those who were challenging his policies and actions and keep a tighter rein on freedom of expression and association. The editorial went on to describe the means of harassing independent and opposition voices-the use of police, courts, public prosecution and "reckless issuance of search warrants to the police by magistrates"-as political abuse of the judicial process. It also observed that while President Chiluba was highly critical of foreign-funded NGOs, neither the government nor his political party could survive without financial support from the international community.

The MMD Government and the Opposition: Theory vs. Practice

In the briefing paper it prepared for a pre-Consultative Group meeting with the donor community on April 25, the Zambian government portrayed itself as having made considerable progress towards democratization and implementing good governance initiatives. The key measures that supported this claim were the following:95

7a] Dialogue with the Opposition-The President held one-on-one consultations with practically all leaders of the opposition parties and took on board many of the concerns expressed.

In his speech at the pre-Consultative meeting in London on April 25, Finance and Economic Minister Penza reiterated that "the President remains committed to the dialogue with Opposition Parties and has invited several of them to exchange views with him on matters of national interest."96

In practice, however, the government did not enter into dialogue with the opposition, hold consultations or address any of the concerns expressed by the opposition. The opposition sued President Chiluba for presiding over a flawed electoral process and challenged his constitutional right to office based on the nationality provisions that he had backed in the 1996 Constitutional Amendment Act. It was also debatable how much common ground exists between the government and the opposition, given the depth of disagreement over the introduction of the 1996 constitutional amendment. The opposition's oft-stated position is that fresh elections need to be held.

On June 9, 1997, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) held a roundtable in Stromsborg, Stockholm, Sweden, to facilitate discussion between the MMD and opposition parties. The roundtable aimed to "systematically approach the short, medium, and longer-term strategies for building sustainable democracy in Zambia."97 Present at the roundtable were representatives of the MMD, UNIP, Agenda for Zambia and the National Party as well as observers from the international community.98 These parties agreed to the following:99

1. The Secretaries General of all political parties in Zambia will meet within twenty-one days after the Stromsborg statement has been adopted to initiate an all-party meeting to establish the agenda and programme of action addressing sustainable democracy programme;

2. the ruling party in Government, the MMD, will initiate the first meeting;

3. facilitator(s) from international IDEA will be present in the meetings and facilitate the process.

Because of the dangerously sour ambience that surrounds relations between the Zambian government and the political opposition, IDEA's timing could not be better. But because of the government's decidedly unilateral and exclusivist approach to decision-making, shown particularly in the run-up to the elections, and because of the roadblocks that could emerge because of the government's intransigence and intimidatory methods towards the major opposition political parties, the IDEA project will be difficult to pull off.

On June 22, twelve opposition parties met and issued a statement explaining that they were willing to resume dialogue with the MMD government, provided that talks focus on repealing the 1996 constitution.100 The twelve opposition parties formed a coalition, called the National Patriotic Coalition, and met with the MMD on June 24 to prepare ground for a series of inter-party talks by presenting collective positions on various contentious issues. At this meeting, the opposition accused the MMD of trying to facilitate dialogue merely to impress the donor communities.101 However, IDEA representative B.T. Costantinos met with the National Patriotic Coalition in Lusaka on June 25 and tried to assure the opposition that despite having been invited to Zambia by the government, the timing of the IDEA meetings has nothing to do with the upcoming Consultative Group meeting in Paris: "I must dispel fears that this is being stage-managed for the Consultative Group."102

The pre-Consultative Group briefing paper had also pledged that elections would be guaranteed by an independent Electoral Commission:

[b] Electoral Commission-to ensure a fair and free [sic] election process, the Government established a permanent and independent electoral commission comprising well regarded and highly respected Zambians (High Court judges, etc.) to manage the elections.

At the pre-Consultative meeting in London on April 5, Penza reaffirmed that an effective and independent Electoral Commission would provide for free and fair elections.103

Given that the playing field is not level and that not all Zambians may contest elections on the basis of national origin, it is debatable if free and fair elections could be held in the present situation, according to a report issued by ZIMT. The recent February 20 Itezi-Tezhi parliamentary bielection confirms that many of the irregularities that occurred in the November election were repeated.104

The Electoral Commission, touted in the briefing paper and subsequently lauded by Minister of Finance and Economic Development Penza at the April 25 London meeting, remains gravely handicapped by a lack of credibility and universal acceptance. Absent a major restructuring effort designed to bring about representation in the commission by broadly respected, neutral personalities, or by multi-party representation, its believability and popular endorsement will be difficult to achieve.

The briefing paper's references to campaigning, in turn, made a virtue out of having first extended then reduced the period within which meetings required permits.

[c] Public Order Act-To protect freedom of assembly and to allow opposition parties to campaign freely, the Government amended the Public Order Act by reducing to one half the time required as notice prior to holding public meetings. The amendment also removed the requirement for obtaining police permits prior to addressing public gatherings. This amendment was welcomed by all opposition parties as a major step in terms of leveling the playing field.

While the Public Order Act was amended to cut the time required to give notice of a public meeting from fourteen days to seven, the requirement of requesting (and receiving) police permission has not been abolished. Since the election, the opposition has held rallies only after obtaining permission, which in some cases has been denied. The opposition did not welcome this amendment as a "major step." Freedom of association and assembly remain curtailed in post 1996-election Zambia.

Harassment of the Opposition

On November 22, four days after the elections, the Zambia Democratic Congress (ZDC), an opposition party which had participated in the election and suffered heavy electoral defeat, announced that it would file a petition in Supreme Court against President Chiluba. Derrick Chitala, ZDC general secretary, said: "We want to petition against all the malpractices that have been committed during the elections."105 The ZDC also announced that it had mended fences with UNIP and the Interparty Alliance.

Four days later on November 26, The Post reported that the president of the ZDC, Dean Mung'omba, and two of his party colleagues had gone underground out of fear for their lives. ZDC General Secretary Derrick Chitala said that the ZDC had received information warning them that the police were going to arrest Mung'omba after he called for the formation of an interim government. Chitala said that Mung'omba's life was threatened because of the pattern of events that had taken place since the elections. "There is a general terror being unleashed going by police harassment of NGOs," he said.106 Chitala also said that police were denying the party permits to hold peaceful processions to protest the elections.

At the same time, the Opposition Alliance chairman, Roger Chongwe, who is also chairman of the Liberal Progressive Front (LPF), also started being harassed after he wrote a letter to President Nelson Mandela, in his capacity as chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The letter warned leaders in the region of a possible military takeover in Zambia if the political impasse was not addressed. Chongwe described the elections as flawed and called on SADC to impose sanctions on Zambia. The contents of the letter, dated November 21, appeared in an article in The Post of November 27, written by Masautso Phiri.

A day later, on November 28, two plainclothes police went to Chongwe's home looking for him.107 The next day, police summoned Chongwe to Lusaka Central Police Station to be interviewed in connection with The Post article. Chongwe told Human Rights Wacth he refused, saying: "To express an opinion which government does not agree with is not an offence." That weekend, the police visited his home twice more. The second visit was by fifteen police and paramilitary officers. In a dawn raid the next day, three armed paramilitary and two plainclothes policescaled the wall surrounding Chongwe's property and entered his home with a search warrant that authorized them to look for a "subversive letter". Chongwe was not home. Further searches at his home and office for "seditious materials" followed in subsequent days, but because they found nothing, police could not arrest him. Former president Kenneth Kaunda was present during the search of Chongwe's office. On December 6, Chongwe said police tried to force him to sign a "warn and caution statement" for an offence related to causing alarm to the nation. But in an interview with The Post of December 10, Chongwe said that he had refused to be `cautioned' as an individual since the letter to SADC had been signed by all leaders of the Opposition Alliance. Chongwe described the police action as selective harassment. "We have made it clear that if police arrest one member of the alliance then they have to arrest everyone." At month's end, the police said that they had confiscated the SADC letter and that Chongwe would be charged with sedition. UNIP president Kenneth Kaunda, a co-author of the letter, was not questioned, nor was his home or office searched by police.

On November 30, the civil disobedience campaign was launched with calls for a public revolt against the MMD.

On December 5, a senior and founding member of the opposition UNIP, Mainza Chona, was summoned by police to appear before a magistrate because of a statement he had made three weeks earlier (November 14) about a bomb being planted in the home of the UNIP president Kenneth Kaunda. The summons accused him of making statements intended to cause public alarm, contrary to section 67 of the Penal Code. This followed an earlier attempt by the police to arrest Chona at his law offices. The December 11 Post reported that Chona was charged with publication of false news with intent to cause fear and alarm to the public and that he had made the statement knowing or having reason to believe that such statement was false.

On December 12, police summoned ZDC President, Dean Mung'omba, to Central Police Station for "interviews." He was told to report to the divisional criminal investigations officer, but did not.108

On December 19, John Kampengele, a resident of Lusaka, was detained on suspicion of having helped expose double voting in the November 18 elections. "I still do not understand why I was picked up and detained like that as if I am a common criminal," he said.109

On January 20, Gerald Mutti was fired as managing director of the Zambia Telecommunications Company, Zamtel. It did not appear coincidental that his wife is Nellie Mutti, a prominent lawyer on the presidential petition who had also defended the treason trialists and The Chronicle cases. The January 17 issue of The Post cited State House sources who reported that Mutti was about to be dismissed "in a move engineered by President Chiluba." A special board meeting of the state-owned company had been called, and a "loyal majority" had been identified. In an interview with Human Rights Watch/Africa in Lusaka on February 19, Nellie Mutti spoke of her concern that her husband had lost his job because of her high-profile legal defense work:

It is difficult defending people that the state sees as opposition. You worry about your family and you can lose clients who in turn worry about how this might affect their relationship with government. For example, in the run up to the Treason Trial last year, I was phoned in May by Kalima, the principal registrar of the Industrial Relations Court [now Director of Public Prosecutions] and warned that if I joined the defense team, my husband Gerald, then managing director of ZAMTEL, might find problems with his job. This worried me for a while, I have to think of my husband's career also. But by June it came clearer that Gerald's problems were linked moreto his attempts to professionalize Zamtel and his regional origin. The president's unprecedented attack on him at Kitwe trade fair in June last year strengthened my resolve to keep my independence and when Gerald's contract was terminated on January 20, it came as no surprise to either of us.

But it is a tough job being independent and I am sure that representing people that are seen by government to oppose it also loses us clients. The pulling out of the Lusaka Cooperative Union from us recently could be such an example. Being independent has a high price to it in Zambia.110

On February 5, police forcibly broke up a UNIP demonstration in Ndola that had been held without police permission as part of the organization's post-election civil disobedience campaign. The crowd, led by the UNIP party chairman, retired general Malimba Masheke, ignored calls by police to disperse. Police reacted to this by firing tear gas canisters into the crowd and beating protesters with batons and quirts. Three demonstrators were arrested. The previous week, Home Affairs Minister Sampa had ordered police to be "very brutal" when dealing with "arrogant members of the public" who disobeyed their instructions. An order for General Masheke's arrest was issued by a senior police officer, but UNIP officials whisked him away.111

Human Rights Watch/Africa interviewed Pickson Chitambala, UNIP's vice-secretary of public information, about the demonstration, which was barely mentioned in the state media.

The usual notice was given to the police in writing. Police said go ahead. Usually the police say don't go ahead. We provided the names of the marshals for the march and the police kept quiet until Tuesday February 4th. They then said that they were canceling the meeting because of Zaire/Zambia tensions and because the council was worried about an outbreak of cholera. They would not even allow the meeting to take place in our offices. Since people were coming distances to the meeting in Ndola we decided to go ahead, the notice of the canceling of the meeting being too short.

At 10 p.m. on February 4, the leadership arrived from Lusaka. We went into the UNIP office. Women leaders decided to sleep in the office that night and the police again warned them that the rally should not take place. Then between 4 and 5 a.m. on February 5 the police raided our office and the women scattered. Our office had been raided and police encircled Ndola City Council with paramilitary police.

We went straight to the office when we heard about the raid. The police tried to block us but we asked them by what law they were trying to stop us getting access to our property. General Masheke addressed a crowd outside the office although the man in charge, Mr. Kantongo of Ndola Police, warned him that he might be arrested. During the raid of our office the police took away all our mielie meal, meat, valuables and other food to the police station. We have not seen these again. The rally did not take place, but some came to the office and heard Masheke speak.112

Human Rights Watch/Africa obtained the correspondence between UNIP and the Ndola authorities and police. On January 28, UNIP wrote to the Ndola town clerk requesting permission to use the major roads in the citycenter and promised that UNIP would provide tight security to control demonstrators.113 At the same time, UNIP wrote to the district commanding officer of the Zambia Police stating that "the purpose of the demonstration will be to express our views and feelings on the current political developments taking place in the Nation."114

On January 30, the Commanding Officer of the Ndola District Headquarters of the Zambia Police refused the group permission, stating that UNIP had not "come to discuss it with us as should have been the case." It continued: "However, I am sorry to inform you that due to the pressure of work on our part, it will not be possible for the Police to adequately police your peaceful demonstration. . . because of other duties which will be undertaken by us on that same day."115 On January 31, the Officer Commanding sent a handwritten note to the UNIP district chairman, asking him to come and see him.116

On February 3, UNIP sent the police a list of the names of marshals who would "maintain law and order during the peaceful procession," as well as the names of the convener and speakers which included General Masheke.117 On February 4, the Zambia Police responded, saying that they regretted to inform UNIP "that due to the current security situation that is prevailing in the District we are unable to allow you to go ahead."118 The deputy commissioner of police also wrote UNIP refusing permission.119 The same day, February 4, the town clerk wrote UNIP stating: "Owing to the inadequacy by the Zambia Police to provide security and furthermore the prevalence of cholera outbreaks in the city," consent to the demonstration could not be granted.120

Former President Kenneth Kaunda, in an interview with Human Rights Watch/Africa in Lusaka on February 16, discussed the state's tactics:

Remmy Mushota and Patrick Katyoka are suing me for illegally ruling Zambia between 1964 and 1991. My chairman Malimba Masheke is also being sued. Why it is in the Ndola High Court I don't know, we all work and live in the Lusaka area. The police presence is also excessive. We are an opposition party, they are doing this to try and frighten our supporters.

In an interview with UNIP central committee member Rupiah Banda, he told Human Rights Watch/Africa that other forms of intimidation were used in the Eastern Province.

There are MMD paramilitary militias in Eastern Province these days. The reason why they are there is to intimidate our people. Have you also noticed that the houses of the judiciary have increased security around them. Sometimes ten paramilitaries, this is not just for protection, but to intimidate.121

The February 26 issues of The Post reported intensified surveillance of the UNIP leadership. UNIP Secretary General Sebastian Zulu said that state security personnel had been stalking UNIP's legal affairs committee chairperson, Mwangala Zaloumis, who is also a member of the legal team representing the opposition in the presidential petition. She was also on the legal team that defended the UNIP "Black Mamba" treason trialists. According to Zaloumis, strange people had been calling at her home in Lusaka's Rome township, and on February 24, a car trailed her home from an opposition alliance meeting at the Liberal Progressive Front (LPF) offices. Each evening there were "broken down cars" on her road, but as she passed them, they drove off. Zulu also reported that a helicopter had hovered over his house, its occupants craning their necks to look into his house.

In another incident, the eighty-year-old aunt of Betty Kaunda-former President Kenneth Kaunda's wife-was reportedly detained and kept in a cell with a corpse for two days.122 The police searched her house without a warrant, ostensibly looking for weapons. Harassment of family members of political figures is not new in Zambia; but this incident demonstrates the hardly subtle targeting of family members of high profile leaders.

Human Rights Watch/Africa interviewed Betty Kaunda's aunt, Vida Ngoma, who lives in Chilenje South, Lusaka.123

A stranger came to the house and asked if this was Mr. Mwali's house very early in the morning on February 12. I replied that this was not Mr. Mwali's home and he went away. A little while later some people in uniforms came back in two vehicles. Three police entered the house and said they were searching for guns. They had no paper to say they could do this. Other police stayed outside.

Then the police took me to the Zambia Police Force (ZPF) headquarters in Lusaka and from there to Kawata police station. I and a friend, Mary Zulu, were then kept two days in a small cell with a body of a dead man in it. There were also two other men locked up with us. During these times we were given no food, nothing to drink.

It was only when UNIP heard about our plight that we were taken to court on February 14 and charged with unlawful possession of voters cards. Bail has been set at 500,000 kwacha [U.S. $386.39], but we don't have the money.

I'm eighty years old and can hardly walk. How can I run away? Why they do this I don't know. I'm not involved in politics. It must be that members of my family have been in the past. That's why this happened.

Harassment of Witnesses in the Presidential Petition

Starting in early 1997, the presidential petition was the main focus of Zambian political life. The petition, heard in the Supreme Court and brought by the opposition against President Chiluba, challenged the elections andPresident Chiluba's constitutional right to be president on the basis that his father was not Zambian. The petitioners brought forward more than sixty witnesses to support the allegation that the president's father was from Zaire or Mozambique and that Chiluba himself was born in Zaire. The Constitutional Amendment Act of 1996, engineered by President Chiluba to keep UNIP president Kaunda and others from contesting the presidency, had stated that a person running for office had to have been born in Zambia and be of Zambian parents. The opposition's objective was clearly to hoist President Chiluba by his own petard.

Kenneth Kaunda, who had been excluded from running for president because of the amendment, supported UNIP's decision to pursue the legitimacy of the MMD government through the petition: "We have taken a bold step by going to court and depending on the outcome of this case, Mr. Chiluba may no longer be eligible to govern this country."124

One of the witnesses in the nationality case, who was billed as the star witness, was Luka Kafupi Chabala, a Mozambican miner who was presented as the president's long-lost (but hitherto unacknowledged) biological father. Known as Kafupi, which means short in Swahili and a number of other Zambian languages, Chabala bears a close physical resemblance to the president, who is also a man of short stature. Chabala testified that the president was his son, born out of wedlock, after he had had an affair with the president's mother, who was married at the time. He said the mother's family had not wanted to acknowledge Chabala as the father, as he was "poor, short and unemployed."125

Lawyers for the petition alleged that their witnesses (on both the nationality question and election irregularities) were being harassed and intimidated. To protect them, the identity of witnesses were withheld until a day or two before their court appearances. In March, Chabala went into hiding. Another witness who had probed the president's roots, John Simusokwe, also went underground. The state-run Daily Mail reported that Chabala "was abducted by an opposition party from Masangu village in Luapula province in February" and that his son, Jack Chabala, said his 76-year old father was abducted with the intention to "force him" to testify against President Chiluba in the petition."126

Witnesses called concerning election irregularities were clearly subject to intimidation. Pressure was put so they would not testify and some of those who testified were arrested: a warning signal to others still scheduled to appear. Theresa Mulenga Kalo, the nineteenth witness to be called, was arrested and held for several days after testifying that she had voted twice in the November election, "out of loyalty" to the MMD, who had promised her financial reward that she never received. In a letter to the inspector general of police, one of the petition lawyers, Sachika Sitwala, said that Kalo was being threatened by security officers, which influenced all of the witnesses: "The effect of this episode is that your police are warning all those witnesses who are ready to testify in this petition only to do so if they are ready to sleep in cells."127

Four days after Kalo testified on April 3, police arrived at the house where she was staying as a guest with a search warrant, issued by a Lusaka magistrate, to look for "illegal documents, forged blue books, NationalRegistration Cards, invoice books."128 In her affidavit, Kalo said that the police officer, Detective Sergeant Mwangala, had lied to obtain the search warrant, which was solely intended to harass Kalo and her hostess. Kalo stated that the search demonstrated the "malice with which police are dealing with me as a witness in this petition."129 Kalo was arrested on April 9 and charged with unlawful possession of more than one national registration card, and held until her lawyers got her released on bail of K60,000 (U.S.$46.40) on April 17. She has pleaded not guilty to these charges. UNIP Vice President Senior Chief Inyambo Yeta described Kalo's arrest as official harassment and intimidation, reminding the police that their job was to serve the nation, not the MMD.130

Since the Kalo incident, there are reports of three other witnesses disappearing, apparently out of fear about the possibility of being arrested. Professor Patrick Mvunga, a member of the petitioner's team, told the court that three witnesses who were expected to come from Chipata and Lusaka's Mandevu compound had vanished, and eight town clerks who had been subpoenaed were reluctant to give evidence. "Right now they are afraid and their apprehensions are understandable in a fragile environment like ours," Mvunga told the court.131 The witnesses were slated to testify about their participation in a "ghost voting" exercise in Kabwe's Bwacha constituency.132

The MMD Government and NGOs: Theory vs. Practice

The brief distributed by the government prior to the pre-Consultative Group meeting in London in April claimed that the MMD government's relationship with NGOs had made "substantial and irreversible progress." It reads:133

10e] Government's relationship with the NGO Community-The Government recognizes the role of civil society in economic development, poverty alleviation and enhancement of the democratic process. It recognizes and appreciates the comparative advantages of the NGO community for service delivery in some vital fields. To facilitate close collaboration, Government officials working as a joint committee with NGO representatives have developed a collaboration policy framework. The policy was developed through extensive consultations with most NGOs, government ministries as well as the donor community. The policy framework has been approved by the Cabinet. Both the NGOs and the Government are happy and highly optimistic about this development and its potential for enhanced collaboration between the two key stakeholders.

In the section on next steps, the government claims it is "determined to forge ahead with its governance reform agenda as quickly as possible":

11d] NGOs-The final version of the policy framework is under review by Cabinet. The next stage will be to identify concrete projects and activities where Government, NGOs and other stakeholders can work jointly.

In his speech before donor countries at the pre-Consultative meeting in London on April 25, Minister of Finance and Economic Development Penza echoed the government's consideration of "the particular advantages of the NGO community for service delivery in several vital fields."134

The briefing and Minister Penza's London speech provide prime examples of how the government adjusts its rhetoric to what it believes the donor community wants to hear, while missing the mark in action by a wide margin. Although the MMD government recognizes NGOs as key participants on paper, its statements on the role of NGOs also reveal its discomfort with the variety of roles that NGOs play. The briefing recognizes many possible NGO contributions-encouraging the expression of diversity of views and opinions; providing service delivery; fostering economic development; and alleviating poverty-but not the promotion of human rights or election monitoring elections, both of which are part of fostering the democratic process. The government presents NGOs as being part of a big close-knit family. In truth, the creation of a civil society-and the role of NGOs in nurturing it-has been subject to intense government hostility in Zambia.

The brief tacitly states that democracy in Zambia is still a "work in progress" and that "all stakeholders are still in a learning mode regarding rights and responsibilities under a democratic system."135 Although the government portrays NGOs as its partners, NGOs that have been involved in the arena of civil and political rights were deliberately excluded from the government's "collaboration framework" meeting. When the government convened a meeting in January 1997 to develop an NGO policy, the only group invited was AFRONET, with less than a day's notice. The government is keen to promote organizations that it views as non-threatening, but those that have criticized government policy and practice and tried to foster democracy by monitoring elections, investigating land issues and advocating for human rights have taken the brunt of government intolerance, with the government threatening to pass harsher laws to make it illegal for them to receive foreign funding without the president's consent. Again, this exemplifies the government's drive to control institutions, organizations or organs of civil society that are and should remain, by their nature, independent of the government.

Harassment of Civil Society and NGOs

The NGOs that conducted independent monitoring of the elections have fallen victim to intensified harassment since the elections. In particular, the umbrella coalition of the Committee for a Clean Campaign (CCC), the Zambia Independent Monitoring Team (ZIMT), the Foundation for Democratic Progress (FODEP) and the Inter-Africa Network for Human Rights and Development (AFRONET) took the brunt of state intolerance for expressing the view that the elections were not free or fair.

The government has continued to be suspicious of the national origins of NGOs, as part of their effort to undermine their critics. After receiving the credentials of the new ambassadors of Sweden, China and South Africa in late December 1997, President Chiluba accused several NGOs of serving foreign interests and warned that "non-indigenous" NGOs were potential sites of mercenary operations. He charged that Zambia had no indigenous NGOs. "Those who profess to be Zambian are pretending to be doing so. Those ones are conveyor belts of outside NGOs. They have no members and the decisions they make come from outside. If we allow them then we will be creating grounds for mercenary operations."136 He added that without immediate action, problems would face Zambia.137

On election day, The Post carried an article that reported that the Committee for a Clean Campaign (CCC)'s chairman, Mwanajiti, was being pursued and threatened by state security agencies that were displeased with his work at CCC. This alleged that an operative, posing as an academic from Mozambique, had offered to broker a dialogue between him and police officers who were interested in offering him protection. On other occasions, it said he had been threatened with statements such as "you will lose whatever you may have."138

Less than a week after the elections, the police raided the Lusaka offices of the ZIMT, the CCC and the offices of AFRONET. Despite the intervection of lawyers who insisted that the search warrants to look for "stolen" goods were not valid, police seized files, documents, bank books and statements, computer diskettes and pamphlets.139 The police also arrested ZIMT President Alfred Zulu and CCC chairman and AFRONET director Ngande Mwanajiti at their homes early on the morning of November 24 for declaring the elections not free and fair. After being questioned at the Lusaka Central Police Station, the two leaders were transported to their respective offices where the raids were in progress. Police told them they were looking for "material inimical to the state."140

ZIMT General Secretary Gershom Musonda was also detained at Lusaka Central for several hours and charged with threatening violence, for commenting on the death of a police bomb disposal expert.141

Later that day, police froze the bank accounts of CCC, ZIMT and AFRONET after obtaining court orders to do so. The warrant stated: "Accounts to remain closed until further investigations are completed."142 This marked the beginning of the government's strategy of attacking human rights NGOs by freezing their assets and threatening their financial stability. The police ignored a court order to revoke and suspend the search warrant and continued to search other places belonging to the organizations.143 ZIMT President Alfred Zulu told The Post: "They have gone away with almost all our documents which we require to function, including cheque books and bank account books. We are now paralyzed."144

AFRONET filed a motion against the state, requesting the police to suspend the action and to revoke the search warrants. After hearing both parties, a magistrate issued orders suspending the execution of the warrants, staying the search and ordering that items that were seized should be returned. The following week, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Registrar of the High Court asking that the matter be placed before a judge for review.145

On December 9, a High Court judge, Peter Chitali, ordered the government to re-open the bank accounts of CCC. He added that the decision by a subordinate court to order the police to submit the seized documents fromZIMT, CCC and AFRONET was unlawful.146 However, police action was upheld, and the plaintiffs were told they could take civil action against the attorney general for wrong actions of public officers. Subsequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the action of the police had violated their fundamental human rights, a matter not addressed by the High Court.147

A week later, the police summoned Mwanajiti for "interviews" on the financial operations of his organizations after the government-owned Zambia Daily Mail newspaper reported that CCC, as an NGO umbrella for election monitoring, had spent almost K400 million (U.S. $310,000) on its elections operations. The government said that it needed to know the source of the money through the ministry of legal affairs. Mwanajiti was out of the country and did not present himself to the police. A similar summons was sent to ZIMT President Alfred Zulu who said he would not present himself unless his lawyer, Nellie Mufti, was present. Police sent another summons demanding his presence at force headquarters. The summonses represented a clear change in the government's method of attacking NGOs, but followed the government's suspicion that NGO were agents of foreign powers that were trying to unseat the government.

On December 30, police charged Zulu with five counts of receiving financial and material assistance between 1991 and 1996 from foreign governments and organizations, contrary to section 4 of Cap 109 of the Laws of Zambia. If convicted, Zulu faces up to two years of imprisonment. Zulu's lawyers, Nellie Mutti and Sachika Sitwala, said that the Societies Act, which had not been used since 1966, was intended to enable the president to control organizations which he perceived as political. There was no law, they said, that required organizations to seek the president's permission before receiving funding.148 On his return to Zambia, Mwanajiti was charged under the same act. The police statement read: "You are warned that police are making enquiries into cases of accepting assistance from foreign governments or agents. The allegations surrounding you are that between 1991 and 1996 you received assistance from foreign countries for your organization AFRONET and the CCC."149

On January 2, Sakwiba Sikota challenged the government to close down foreign embassies it suspects of funding NGOs and called for the abolition of the act because it limits freedom of association.150 "This prosecution is being done in bad faith. The state knows very well that the President has not made a declaration which is required under the Act," said Sikota. According to the act, the president must make a gazetted declaration of those organizations which cannot receive funding without his knowledge. This was not done for ZIMT or AFRONET.151

In the midst of the legal actions taken against him, ZIMT President Alfred Zulu also suffered personal harassment. In an interview with Human Rights Watch/Africa, Zulu said on January 3 that a MMD member of parliament, Samuel Miyanda, shouted at him at the Masiye Motel in Lusaka: "You NGOs want to cause chaos, you will start a war."152

On January 20, another MMD member of parliament, Ntondo Chindoloma, said at a public reception at the Holiday Inn in Lusaka, "You think you are advocating democracy. Do you think this is Great Britain? This is Zambia, you should watch out." Zulu said that the levels of harassment were sufficient that his friends and acquaintances were afraid to be associated with him.

Despite the government's rhetoric on its more enlightened attitude towards NGOs, neither the documents nor the bank account books that were seized by the police have been returned to either ZIMT, CCC or AFRONET. More menacing, the charges have not been amended or dropped against Mwanajiti and Zulu, and the two still face up to two years in jail if convicted. There is speculation that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is still trying to decide whether to prosecute.

Those connected to NGOs also fell victim to government harassment. For example, a University of Zambia secretary, Gertrude Mwewa, was suspended from her job on allegations that she was working for Alfred Zulu and ZIMT. Mwewa was doing some part-time typing work for ZIMT to earn extra cash to supplement her secretary's income, a common practice in Zambia.

In an interview with Human Rights Watch/Africa, she described what happened:

On November 25, at the University at 3PM Michael Tandeo and Peter Mpande of the university confronted me about reports that I had been doing work for Mr. Zulu and ZIMT.

They kept me in the office for one and a half hours and looked through my discs and opened documents. They told me to surrender my keys to the office. On the 26th they took my computer away and had some foreign technicians gain access to the hard drive where various documents were saved, including the ZIMT press release declaring the elections not free and fair. There were seven to nine other documents there.

My case was then transferred to the security people who confronted me. They showed me the documents and said that I was the person who typed them. I do not deny that I typed them. Like everybody at the university, I use my spare time, lunch breaks and so on to be productive. Otherwise you cannot survive, you starve. I type for everybody who pays. In the documents they retrieved there was a speech of President Chiluba I typed for the MMD, student work and lecturers papers. Mr. Zulu is also part of the university, so I saw no problem with working with him.

The university has suspended me, saying that my connection with Mr. Zulu has brought them into disrepute. But as you see his typing was only one of many things.153

Human Rights Watch/Africa obtained a copy of the letter of suspension. Dated November 25, 1996 and signed on behalf of the Registrar of the University of Zambia, it reads:

I wish to inform you that you are with immediate effect suspended from employment for allegedly using University facilities to print and publicise literature which has put the University of Zambia in disrepute. You will remain on suspension until investigations have been carried out and the matter resolved. While on suspension, you will be on half pay.

As of this writing, Mwewa had not been reinstated. She was called before a university tribunal to testify in April but has not received its verdict.154

While NGO leaders were being harassed and their organizations being drained of financial resources, the government set out to pass legislation to control them. The twenty-three page White Paper emphasized three main themes: that NGOs have been committing a crime in financial dealings with foreign governments, that NGOs have shifted from their traditional role as charities to partisan players and that NGOs needed a legislated body to check their operations.155

The policy paper called for the creation of a mechanism for regulating NGOs. "The absence of appropriate legal framework to govern NGOs has hampered the development of this sector. This may have made it easier for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage and to bring the sector as a whole into disrepute," the paper said.156 Except for organizations with budgets less than $5,000, the government wanted to ensure that NGOs were audited by the authorities, partly to enforce Cap 109 section 4(1).

The government's definition of NGOs as charitable organizations "established to act on concerns and issues for the benefit of the people of Zambia," was seen as an effort to outlaw NGOs that did not undertake charitable work, instead "having, in the opinion of the president objects of a political nature." The draft policy, however, recognized the vague definition of "political nature" and said that the law would be repealed in future. On an NGO Regulatory Council, the paper proposed legislating with the help of the Zambia Law Development Commission.

The government invited NGOs that were not critical of the government to a consultative workshop in Kafue George to discuss the proposed legislation. AFRONET was invited on the afternoon before the meeting and sent word around to ensure that other organizations attended.157 Not surprisingly, NGOs rejected the government's move to create a bureau to regulate them, instead drafting their own policy document which they hoped government would consider before arriving at a final policy. The meeting ended with a compromise: NGOs should be regulated by existing laws, which should be revised to keep in line with the `new political dispensation.'158

However, since the agreement was reached, the government's position has not changed significantly. As Ngande Mwanajiti expressed it: "The bottom line is that government simply does not know how to respond to NGO pressures. The response, so far, has been to accuse NGOs of partisan alliance, but this is not working at all. In fact, it is not all NGOs but human rights and related groups."

A new round of government anti-NGO statements and threats spelled further suspicion and hostility toward civil society. On January 17, at the opening of parliament, President Chiluba said that local election monitors whoquestioned the legitimacy of the November poll were "unpatriotic" and that the government intended to introduce new legislation to regulate such "wilful" behavior. He said he planned new laws "which would make election monitoring teams and all NGOs accountable to both their members and to society."159

A deputy minister, speaking in parliament, accused some NGOs of being agents of imperialists and called for stiffer legislation to keep them in check. Labor and Social Security Deputy Syacheye Madyenkuku said that the government's intention to bring a bill to legislate NGO operations in the country was long overdue. "When this Bill comes to the House, it will be supported," he said.160

On January 29, Legal Affairs Minister Vincent Malambo told parliament that his party, the MMD, did not harass any people in the country who had dissenting views. Reacting to an independent MP who had accused the MMD of intolerance he said: "There is no-one in this country who has been harassed or persecuted because of their dissenting views. People who break the law will be prosecuted under the law. That is not harassing. . . we know what is contained in our Bill of Rights in our Constitution but this can only be enjoyed to the extent of the length of one's arm. The minute you touch someone else's arm, then you break the law. We will tolerate law breakers only if they don't injure somebody else's rights." He also said that if no agreement with NGOs is reached after consultations, then government will legislate as it sees fit.161

On January 30, Home Affairs Minister Chitalu Sampa called on police to be "very brutal" in dealing with arrogant members of the public "who disobeyed their instructions." Addressing parliament, Sampa said any citizen who "tried to be pompous or show wrinkles to the police" in the course of their duty would be manhandled and arrested with force. He warned the House that he was ready to become "a dictator" and halt disobedience by the "so-called" human rights activists and NGOs to ruin the country. "We shall not allow a situation for people to continue talking carelessly in a country where peace is prevailing. We have entered a period of discipline, from now and I mean up to the year 2001 we will not tolerate anyone to be talking anyhow, we have to act." He added: "We were gathered in Lusaka with police chiefs and observed that people are just talking too carelessly. And therefore I have instructed Zambia Police that if anyone approaches with impunity or is disobedient to them, they should not use police service but police force. They should just catch him or her and if the lawyer also tries to be pompous they should also catch him or her."162

He told the House that a stiffer bill on NGOs had been drafted and it would contain grave punishment for any NGO which secured funds from the donors without the government's knowledge. "We have so many NGOs in the country and those NGOs must now toe the lines of democracy. Money which comes from donors without the knowledge of the government shall be confiscated and the culprits be punished severely."163

Speaking on the same day, Vice-President Godfrey Miyanda told parliament that legislating on NGOs and knowing their sources of funding was in the national interest. He said this was not to "bash" NGOs, but some of them were destructive.164

In line with these government statements and threats, a pattern emerged of less overt, but more damaging intimidation and harassment of NGOs on financial grounds. Human Rights Watch/Africa interviewed FODEP President Alfred Chanda, who described how the Zambian Revenue Authority (ZRA) had targeted FODEP with a massive tax bill, contrary to earlier agreements that NGOs operating on grants should be tax-exempt.165 FODEP, under the Zambia Democratic Governance Project and funded by U.S.A.I.D. through Southern University, has undertaken a number of activities aimed at strengthening the democratic process, including election monitoring of parliamentary and local government elections.166

Under the contract our sponsors, Southern University were not prepared to pay tax. The government had agreed that we should be exempt from paying tax. This was agreed in 1992. Just before the elections in September we began negotiations with the ZRA about tax arrears.

At the first meeting, ZRA insisted we were liable to pay tax. Later, another group said we were exempt and that the agreement was very clear. They said they would put this in writing by November 18. However, instead we received a big bill of K27 million (U.S. $20,000), backdating to 1991. They did not tell us how they made this assessment. There was also a penalty of K29 million (U.S. $23,000) with seven days to settle. We challenged this and the sum was reduced to K26 million (U.S. $20,000).

At the end of December our financial manager sent his assistant to the bank to get our monthly statement. It came to zero.

The ZRA had taken all the money from our account at Standbic. They had also told the bank not to notify us, which the bank obliged. This must be against banking norms.

This whole thing is about us declaring the elections not free and fair. They didn't raid us in public but decided on a more subtle form of intimidation. They knew exactly how much money we had in our account and how to cripple us. We were unable to pay the rent or salaries and other things. We are now preparing a court case.

The correspondence between the ZRA and FODEP confirms the attempt to extract massive taxes.167 Human Rights Watch/Africa contacted the bank to ask how a bank account could be accessed and emptied by the ZRA without the consent of the owner, but the bank refused to enter into discussion.

This financial attack is further confirmed by a comment made by Samuel Mulafulagu of the Catholic Commission of Justice and Peace who said that a senior manager of the ZRA said in January: "we have been told to clamp down on NGOs."

In an attack against NGOs that occurred one week before the London pre-Consultative Group meeting, Minister Without Portfolio Michael Sata warned NGOs to stick to their "non-partisan objectives" or else the government would treat them as political opponents. He called the government "too tolerant with some of these NGOs which have abused their objectives and authority. We shall be compelled to deal with them as political parties if they continue to cross their boundaries by misinforming the public on governance. . . . we accept criticism which is an accepted norm even in the developed democracies, but not insults leveled against the presidency under the guise of freedom of expression."168

Harassment of the Church

The Catholic Church, the most outspoken and united of the churches in Zambia, has also been a victim of harassment. Following the release of the 1997 Budget, the Church criticized Finance Minister Ron Penza for ignoring the plight of the poor and called for a wider public debate on alleviating poverty.169

Government response was swift. In the March 2 - 8 edition of The National Mirror, a Catholic-oriented weekly independent newspaper, Finance Minister Penza accused Catholics of trying to incite people by adapting populist positions: "The Catholic Bishops are creating dissidency in the country," he said. "These are the populist ideas of the previous regime that ruined this country for 27 years. . . . No amount of talking, lobbying or crusading will pull us out of poverty."

In response, Father Ignatius Mwebe, secretary of the Episcopal Conference, said bishops would not back down from criticizing the government or from calling for improvements in the welfare of the underprivileged: "Our concerns voiced out in our pastoral letters are not meant to mislead people as implied by Penza, but serve as our policy and guide. The statement on the 1997 budget was made in good faith with the intention of contributing to the ongoing debate. . . there is no reason why Minister Penza should panic and become so controversial about it."

The government dealt with the churches in the same subtle ways it had dealt with NGOs: by imposing high taxes on the goods they had received from foreign NGOs. The April 21 issue of The Times of Zambia reported that the Overseer of the Church of God Bishop John Mambo said that the lack of serious dialogue between the church and state had given the church no choice but to publicize troublesome issues, one of which "was the high tax it was charged by the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) on donated goods by foreign NGOs."170

Intimidation of the Judiciary

Throughout 1996, the judiciary and legal profession came under increasing attack from the government and its supporters for being independent-minded and criticizing the Constitutional Amendment Act.171

In a move that received international attention, President Chiluba exercised his constitutional powers and suspended an independent-minded Lusaka High Court judge Kabazo Chanda on January 11, 1997. President Chiluba appointed a three-person tribunal-two Supreme Court judges and a judge from Malawi's Supreme Court-to investigate whether Chanda should be relieved of his duties.172 The January 14 issues of The Times of Zambia reported that once the tribunal started sitting, a charge sheet would be prepared outlining what necessitated the measure: "According to the Constitution, a judge can be removed from office for reasons including inability, incompetence or misbehavior." The tribunal will reportedly commence in July.173

Justice Chanda's history of criticizing the president and the country's human rights record was long.174 In March 1996, he overruled the efforts of the speaker of parliament, Dr. Robinson Nabulyato, to sentence journalists Fred M'membe and Bright Mwape to indefinite prison terms for contempt of parliament. Chanda argued that the speaker and parliament had no right to imprison people.175 Earlier in 1997, Chanda released fifty-three prisoners, some of whom had been awaiting trial since 1992, on the grounds that the prosecutor failed to bring them to court speedily. His justification centered on the argument that justice delayed was justice denied.176

Many saw a direct link between Judge Chanda's judicial independence and the president's action. The Magistrates' and Judges' Association of Zambia (MJAZ) called the president's suspension of Justice Chanda's "intimidatory" and warned that "this tribunal might be a tool to undermine the independence of the judiciary."177

LPF chairman Roger Chongwe said the suspension signaled that Chiluba and his ruling party would not tolerate judges who frustrated their interests. "The action was political. It has nothing to do with performance. It's a warning to other judges. If they don't toe the line of Chiluba's politics, they will suffer the same fate."178

ZDC President Dean Mung'omba commented: "This amounts to intimidation of the judiciary by the executive. In normal democratic systems the executive should not have such muzzling powers.. The aim is to control the judiciary."179

The Mail and Guardian cited "reliable" sources in the judiciary who connected the suspension to petitions pending in the Supreme Court180 which had been filed by opposition groups challenging Zambia's recent elections and Chiluba's legitimacy as president."181

Human Rights Watch/Africa will closely follow developments connected with Justice Chanda's inquiry. In particular, Human Rights Watch/Africa will be concerned that such proceedings shall be conducted in a manner that accords with the United Nation's Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, specifically:182

17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.

18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.

19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.

20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the high court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.

86 The right to freedom of association is enshrined in Article 22 (1) of the ICCPR which provides:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

The permissible limits on the right to association appear in Article 22 (2):

No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . . . .

With respect to the right to peaceful assembly, Article 21 of the ICCPR provides:

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

87 See Human Rights Watch/Africa November 1996 Zambia report, op cit., pp. 27-34. 88 Supreme Court of Zambia, Judgement on civil jurisdiction between Christine Mulundika and seven others (appelants), January 10, 1996. 89 Ibid. pp. 27-28. 90 The Times of Zambia (Lusaka), November 12, 1996. 91 Reuter (Lusaka), November 21, 1996. 92 Reuter, ibid. 93 The Zambia Daily Mail (Lusaka), November 22, 1996. The distinction made between "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" NGOs, by which was meant those that received foreign funding and those that did not, furthered the dispute with donor countries which even prior to the election had been accused of aiding local election monitoring groups. See section VI. The International Response. 94 The Zambia Daily Mail (Lusaka), November 22, 1996. 95 Government of the Republic of Zambia, Zambia: Brief on the Government's Governance and Economic Reform Programme (Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia, April 1997) p. 2. 96 Government of the Republic of Zambia, Report of the Proceedings of the Meeting with Donors, Held in London on 25th April, 1997 (Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia, May 9, 1997) p. 5. 97 International IDEA, The Stromsborg Statement on building sustainable democracy in Zambia, Zambia Roundtable, Stockholm, Sweden, June 9-10, 1997. 98 Present at the IDEA roundtable were: Representing the MMD: Minister of Finance and Economic Development, R.D.S. Penza; Minister of Tourism, A.K. Mwanamwamba; Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services and Chief Government, S.D. Mpamba; Deputy National Secretary, P. Tembo; Economic and Personal Assistant to the Minister of Finance and Economic Development, O. Chiboola. Representing Agenda for Zambia: President of the Agenda for Zambia, A.M. Lewanika. Representing the National Party: Secretary General of the National Party, R.L. Sondashi. Representing UNIP: Secretary General, S.S. Zulu; Chairman for Economy and Finance, R. Chongo; Press and Public Relations Special Assistant to Dr. Kaunda, M. Lungu. International observers present: Sweden, U.S.A, the World Bank, Japan, Malawi, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, E.U., U.K., Finland, Germany, and UNDP. In addition, facilitators from IDEA were present. 99 The Stromsborg Statement on building sustainable democracy in Zambia, Zambia Roundtable, Stockholm, Sweden, June 9-10, 1997. 100 The Times of Zambia (Lusaka), May 23, 1997. 101 The Daily Mail (Lusaka), May 25, 1997. 102 The Post (Lusaka), May 26, 1997. 103 The Stromsborg Statement on building sustainable democracy in Zambia, Zambia Roundtable, Stockholm, Sweden, June 9-10, 1997. 104 See, Zambia Independent Monitoring Team, Itezhi Tezhi Parliamentary By-Election (20-02-97) Report, ZIMT, March 3, 1997. 105 The Post (Lusaka), November 22, 1996. 106 The Post (Lusaka), November 27, 1996. 107 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Roger Chongwe, Lusaka, February 13, 1997. The reponse that follows is based on this interview and press reports. 108 The Post (Lusaka), December 13, 1996. 109 The Post (Lusaka), December 19, 1996. 110 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Nelli Mutti, Lusaka, February 19, 1997. 111 The Post (Lusaka), February 6, 1997, "UNIP demo foiled." 112 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Pickson Chitambala, Lusaka, February 15, 1997. 113 Copy of letter by P. Simukwai to Town Clerk, Ndola, dated January 28, 1997. 114 Copy of letter by P. Simukwai to The District Commanding Officer, Zambia Police, Ndola, dated January 28, 1997. 115 Copy of letter by R.S. Kantango, Officer Commanding, Zambia Police, Ndola District Headquarters, dated January 30, 1997, and addressed to district UNIP chairman. 116 Copy of hand-written note by Officer Commanding, Zambia Police, Ndola, sent to UNIP District chairman Mr. Simukwai, dated January 31, 1997. 117 List of marshals sent to the Commanding Officer, Zambia Police, Ndola on February 3, 1997. 118 Letter by R.S. Kantongo, Officer Commanding, Zambia Police, Ndola, to UNIP district Party chairman, dated February 4, 1997. 119 Letter by Deputy Commissioner of Police Ndola, A. Nakai to P Simukwai, UNIP district chairman, dated February 4, 1997. 120 Letter by E.T. Chenda, Ndola town clerk to UNIP district party chairman, dated February 4, 1997. 121 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Rupiah Banda, Lusaka, February 15, 1997. 122 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Vida Ngoma, Lusaka, February 17, 1997. 123 Ibid. 124 The Post (Lusaka), March 11, 1997. 125 The Post (Lusaka), March 24, 1997. 126 The Zambia Daily Mail, March 12, 1997. 127 The Post (Lusaka), April 23, 1997, "Petition witness in danger." 128 Republic of Zambia, Search Warrant for Stolen Goods, issued by the Subordinate Court of 1st Class, Lusaka district, dated April 7, 1997. 129 Affidavit sworn by Theresa Mulenga Kalo, April 11, 1997, Lusaka. 130 The Post, April 23, 1997. 131 The Zambia Daily Mail (Lusaka), April 25, 1997, "Petition Witness `Chicken Out'." 132 The Post (Lusaka), April 30, 1997. 133 Government of the Republic of Zambia, Zambia: Brief on the Government's Governance and Economic Reform Programme (Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia, April 1997) p. 4. 134 Government of the Republic of Zambia, Report of the Proceedings of the Meeting with Donors, Held in London on 25th April, 1997 (Lusaka: Government of the Republic of Zambia, May 9, 1997) p. 6. 135 Brief on the Government's Governance and Economic Reform Programme, (1) (8) p.2. 136 The Post (Lusaka), December 20, 1996. 137 The Zambia Daily Mail (Lusaka), December 20, 1997, "Chiluba blasts secret agenda NGOs." 138 The Post (Lusaka), November 18, 1996. 139 The Post (Lusaka), November 25, 1996. 140 The Post (Lusaka), November 25, 1996. 141 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Alfred Zulu, president of ZIMT, Lusaka, February 15, 1997. 142 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Gershom Musonda, ZIMT general secretary, Lusaka, February 15, 1997. 143 Copy of warrant in Human Rights Watch/Africa's possession. 144 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Alfred Zulu, president of ZIMT, Lusaka, February 15, 1997. 145 Human Rights Watch/Africa correspondence with Ngande Mwanajiti, April 22, 1997. 146 The Post (Lusaka), December 10, 1996. 147 Human Rights Watch/Africa correspondence with Mwanajiti, April 22, 1997. 148 The Post (Lusaka), December 31, 1996. 149 Copy of police statement in Human Rights Watch/Africa possession. 150 On April 16, at a press conference to release the CCC election report at which Human Rights Watch/Africa was present, Ngande Mwanajiti, who was chairman of the CCC until its dissolution, made public the organization's funding. It operated on donor funds of U.S. $ 750,000 (K750 million) to run its activities in the election. $300,000 was from U.S.A.I.D. with the full authority of the Legal Affairs permanent secretary; $100,000 was from the Norwegian Development Agency (NORAD); K100 million (U.S. $80,000) from the Finnish embassy; the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) gave $150,000, while the embassy of Japan gave $44,928. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) gave $30,000 and the Dan Church Aid through the Christian Council of Zambia gave $25,000. 151 The Post (Lusaka), January 3, 1997, "Government challenged." 152 Interview with Human Rights Watch/Africa in Lusaka February 17, 1997. 153 Human Rights Watch/Africa interviewed Mwewa on February 17 in Lusaka, and obtained a copy of the letter of suspension. 154 Human Rights Watch/Africa telephone interview with Alfred Zulu of ZIMT, Lusaka, May 30, 1997. 155 The Post (Lusaka), January 27, 1997, "NGOs objections ignored by government." 156 The Post (Lusaka), January 27, 1997. 157 The Post (Lusaka), January 27, 1997. 158 Human Rights Watch/Africa communication with Mwanajiti. 159 Reuter (Lusaka), January 17, 1997, "Go-it-alone Chiluba to slash Zambia spending." 160 The Zambia Daily Mail, January 30, 1997, "NGOs must be controlled-minister." 161 The Post (Lusaka), January 30, 1997. 162 The Post (Lusaka), January 31, 1997, "Cops ordered to be brutal". 163 The Post, ibid. 164 The Post (Lusaka), January 31,1997, "NGOs funding worries government." 165 Human Rights Watch/Africa interview with Alfred Chanda, Lusaka. February 16, 1997. 166 FODEP's mission is "to work to empower the Zambian citizens with knowledge to build, strengthen and sustain institutions and operations of democracy." Since 1992, it has monitored elections in Zambia and South Africa, and with United Nations international observer status in Kenya, Mozambique and Malawi. 167 FODEP received three letters from the Zambia Revenue Authority, Direct Taxes Division dated November 1, December 19 and 24, 1996. The November 1 letter requests monthly payments of Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax, and states that Zambians working for "foreign companies" are not tax exempt. It states that "as the Accountant is obstructing us in carrying out our duties, we have no alternative but to estimate the tax due from FODEP from 1991 to date which is K27 million (U.S. $21,000)." The December 19 letter states the outstanding tax arrears from 1991/92 to 1996/97 as K27 million and penalties as K29.7 million (U.S. $23,000), with seven days to pay, or proceedings will be commenced. The December 24 letter, signed by the assistant commissioner of taxes, in response to a FODEP letter, while seeming to implicitly accept that there was a tax-exempt agreement, states that "law must supersede an agreement", and that penalties are not negotiable. 168 The Zambia Daily Mail April 18, 1997, "Sata Turns on NGOs." 169 Social Dimensions of the 1997 Budget of the Government of the Republic of Zambia-A Contribution to the Debate, statement of the Catholic Commission on Justice and Peace (Lusaka), February 14, 1997. The statement commented: "The most striking thing to notice about the 1997 Budget Address is the absence of any mention whatsoever of the major problem facing the economy of Zambia, the massive poverty of our people. According to official Government statistics, over 80% of the people live in households below a poverty line." 170 The Times of Zambia (Lusaka), April 21, 1997, article "Religious desk has failed to dialogue." 171 See "The Judiciary, the Legal Profession and NGOs," Human Rights Watch/Africa, Zambia: The Elections and Human Rights, pp. 31-32, op cit. 172 The tribunal is composed of Supreme Court judges: Justice Robert Kapembwa as chairman, and Justice Brian Gardner; and Leonard Unyolo, a Malawian Supreme Court judge, The National Mirror, January 12-18, 1997. 173 The Post (Lusaka), June 23, 1997. 174 Electronic Mail and Guardian (Johannesburg), "Chiluba suspends top judge", January 24, 1997. 175 The Mail and Guardian (Lusaka), ibid. See also Human Rights Watch/Africa, pp. 20-21 for a discussion of Justice Chanda's ruling "Fred M'membe and Bright Mwape v The Speaker of the National Assembly and the Commissioner of Prisons and The Attorney General 1996," (1996/HCJ/X). 176 The Mail and Guardian (Johannesburg), ibid. January 24 177 Ibid. 178 Ibid. January 24, 1997. 179 The National Mirror (Lusaka), January 12-18, 1997, "Chiluba gags judiciary". 180 However, in a statement on June 23, 1997, Justice Chanda said, "I finally received the three charges last week and contrary to what most people thought, there is no political or social charges which has been framed against me. . . . I want the nation to know that my suspension has nothing to do with the state per se or with my social conduct. It is purely a conspiracy within the judiciary to get rid of me because of my contribution during the re-introduction of multi-party system in Zambia." The Post (Lusaka), June 23, 1997. 181 Ibid. 182 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Off enders, Milan, August 26 to September 6 1985, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 121/22/Rev. 1 at 59 (1985).