Dual Citizenship

diaspora bond
diaspora bond
diaspora bond
diaspora bond

VENTURES AFRICA – Leading global financial services firm, Goldman Sachs and Stanbic IBTC have been appointed to oversee Nigeria’s $100 million Diaspora bond sale, the country’s Debt Management Office (DMO) has said.

Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, embarked on a global roadshow in 2013 to showcase a $1 billion bond, with visits to the US, UK and parts of Europe inviting investors to take advantage of its burgeoning economy.

Proceeds from the billion-dollar bond are expected to be re-invested in infrastructure development, particularly in the power and oil industries.

This new $100 million targets Nigerians in diaspora, allowing them join in the process of funding economic development and the resulting financial benefits. However, a clearly thought out strategy regarding how the returns from the Diaspora bond, which was expected to be floated in December of 2013, is yet to be disclosed to the public.

International and local legal advisers, Olaniwun Ajayi LP and Arnold & Porter LLP have also been appointed for the issue, DMO’s website read.

Nigeria’s recent economic purple patch has seen the country witness an average growth of 6 percent. This has attracted the attention of global and local investors keen on exploiting emerging markets for richer financial returns

Vitalis Madanhi
Vitalis Madanhi

ON MARCH 26, 2013, the UK Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in which it had occasion to consider the recent past and present position regarding Zimbabwean asylum seekers. The case is referred to as SS and others.

In particular the court considered the impact of the decision in the case of RT Zimbabwe, RN Zimbabwe and the case of EM Zimbabwe which has been restated in the case of CM Zimbabwe which happens to be the present country guidance case to be followed in asylum matters regarding Zimbabweans.

It is a feature of all the seven appeals considered in the case of SS and others that the appellants were found not to be credible in the version of events they put forward to the tribunal. A further feature of these appeals is the extent to which such findings of want of credibility may impact on what the Secretary of State says is a question of fact common to each appeal: that is, whether it remains necessary for the appellants (if returned to Zimbabwe) to demonstrate loyalty to Zanu PF to ensure safety from persecution.

The Secretary of State says that the findings of lack of credibility do, or may well, impact on the ultimate determination of the asylum claims. Thus the issue of credibility was duly examined as key to the success and or otherwise of a claim for asylum.

The court in turn considered first the impact of the decision of RT (Zimbabwe). In order to properly explain where the parties are at issue and in order to determine the proper disposal of each of the appeals on their own particular circumstances, it was necessary first to consider the ambit and implications of the decision in RT (Zimbabwe).

In that case, each of the Zimbabwean claimants had been found (contrary to their protestations in some of the cases) not to hold any political beliefs; but it was also found by the tribunal that they could and would, if necessary, be able to demonstrate loyalty to President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party and therefore there was no real risk that they would be subject to ill-treatment if returned to Zimbabwe.

However, the core decision of the Supreme Court, applying the principles laid down in HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31[2011] 1AC 596, was to the effect that there was no basis for treating differently a person who had no political beliefs, but who, in order to avoid persecution, would be obliged to pretend that he did, from a person who did have active political beliefs and who, in order to avoid persecution, would be obliged to conceal them.

A simple assessment of credibility becomes essential at all times when a claim is made. An appellant who has been found not to be a witness of truth in respect of the factual basis of his claim will not be assumed to be truthful about his inability to demonstrate loyalty to the regime simply because he asserts that. The burden remains on the appellant throughout to establish the facts upon which he seeks to rely.

 But care must be taken in respect of such an appellant who has chosen to put forward a wholly untruthful account in support of his claim. The standard of proof he must meet is not a demanding one. As was pointed out in GM & YT (Eritrea) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 833, per Buxton LJ at paragraph 31:

‘In every case it is still necessary to consider, despite the failure of the applicant to help himself by giving a true or any account of his own experiences, whether there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution on return.’”

That lack of credibility may be of key importance in any given case seems to be borne out by the actual disposals of the four cases by the Supreme Court. RT was found to be credible. It was accepted that she was apolitical and that she would be returned to a milieu where there was a real risk she would face hostile questioning which she could not truthfully answer. It was for that reason that the appeal of RT was allowed. By way of contrast, the appeals of SM and AM were remitted in circumstances where each had been found not to be credible.

In the cases of SS and others the common thread has been the fact that the appellants were not credible at all and their appeals had been considered in different courts before the matters were eventually considered by the court of appeal. The court of appeal remitted back to the Upper tribunal for reassessment. A quick summary of all the material issues in each case is outlined below highlighting matters requiring further evaluation. The material matters arising should be considered and effectively dealt with by anyone seeking to make an asylum claim afresh and or on appeal.


In the case of SS, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Upper Tribunal. Permission to appeal was granted by Sir Richard Buxton on 19 July 2011 on the basis that, having regard to RN (Zimbabwe), the ambit of the approach based on credibility raised a point for consideration and also on the basis of the subsequent developments in the RT (Zimbabwe) litigation as to whether a person should be expected to lie about his political beliefs.

The court then ruled that the appeal should not be dismissed outright. First, it may be necessary (among other things) to consider the true extent of SS’s political convictions: his sur place MDC activities were described as being solely to bolster his claim (as well as being found not likely to attract attention). The evidence could be consistent with him being in truth a continuing Zanu-PF supporter (and so not required to lie if questioned): but no express finding, either way, on that point has yet been made. Further, more consideration may be needed as to the milieu of his return, since that might bear on the risk of his being interrogated at all.


This client had limited surplice activity in support of her asylum case. But there was no finding that such (limited) sur place activities as she undertook had come or would come to the attention of the authorities, indeed the implication of Immigration Judge Chambers’ decision was to the contrary. Nor was there any finding that she was not, or would be perceived not to be, associated with the regime. But the court observed that, where PN’s own evidence in all material respects was disbelieved and where (in the light of RT (Zimbabwe)) it can be said that further findings were needed, including on the issue of milieu, one cannot say that the appeal would be bound to succeed. EM (Zimbabwe), as restated in CM (Zimbabwe), was the applicable country guidance and would create a huddle for JS.


This case too was remitted to the Upper Tribunal. The Immigration Judge found that the sur place activities would not become known. But the Immigration Judge did not, apparently, regard that as conclusive and went on to say that in any event the authorities would be “likely” to find such activities as “insincere”. The court observed that the Immigration Judge did not (because of the view she took) make a finding as to whether BC was indeed a Zanu-PF supporter in reality and so did not consider whether she would be required to lie or be unable to demonstrate loyalty if stopped.


It is to be noted that SM had accepted that he had once been a Zanu-PF member and had formerly worked for the government in its security unit. It may be that findings are required as to whether or not he was in truth still a Zanu-PF supporter, or at least likely to be perceived as such: and to explore whether he would be at any real risk of being stopped and interrogated or (if so) whether he would be required to lie or be unable to demonstrate loyalty. Questions of any risk would need also to be assessed by appropriate findings as to the milieu to which he would be returned.


There was no consideration made about whether this appellant would be required to lie to assure his safety. It may well be said – as Ward LJ did – that a first step would be to assess whether he would be at risk of being stopped and interrogated: and it could be said that the findings of fact thus far tend to gainsay such a risk.

It cannot possibly be said that the appeal, if remitted, would be bound to succeed: indeed the findings thus far made suggest serious problems for SC’s case. In any event, the true extent of SC’s political convictions remains to be explored, as does a full assessment of the milieu to which he would be returned. It may also be noted that he has a mother and siblings and family network in Zimbabwe, who it is said have suffered no persecution; and the Immigration Judge had found it would be safe for him to return to them. This case was also remitted to the Upper tribunal for a rehearing on these points.

CM (Zimbabwe)

This determination of the Upper Tribunal (Blake J, Upper Tribunal Judge Lane and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Campbell) was promulgated on 31st January 2013. This is presently the current country guidance case on Zimbabwe. Basically it restates the case of EM Zimbabwe. It is of course a most detailed determination, with voluminous appendices.

i) The country guidance in EM (Zimbabwe) on the position in Zimbabwe as at the end of January 2011 was not vitiated. It was held that the tribunal had there been entitled to find that there had been durable change since RN (Zimbabwe).

ii) The only change required to the EM (Zimbabwe) country guidance arose from the Supreme Court decision in RT (Zimbabwe): see para 214.

iii) It was found that there was cogent evidence of a downward trend in politically motivated human rights violations in Zimbabwe; and there was no evidence to suggest that the nationwide findings made in RN (Zimbabwe) with regard to the risk of having to show loyalty to Zanu-PF continued to apply (paras 194-195).

The determination in CM (Zimbabwe), in effect endorsing the country guidance given in EM (Zimbabwe), makes it difficult for the appeals remitted to the Upper tribunal to succeed. Clearly there are – in the light now of CM (Zimbabwe) – potentially formidable obstacles in the way of each appellant. Their cases remain to be assessed on their individual facts, in the light of RT (Zimbabwe) as well as of the country guidance contained in EM (Zimbabwe) as restated in CM (Zimbabwe). In all the circumstances any one claiming asylum should take note of the above analogies and what the courts actually look at and to be credible as this is also important.

Vitalis Madanhi is the Principal solicitor of Bake and CO Solicitors, a firm specializing in Immigration and asylum law in Birmingham, UK. He can be contacted at vmadanhi@bakesolicitors.co.uk, Phone 01216165025, mobile 07947866649 www.bakesolicitors.co.uk

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information and guidance. It is not in any way intended to replace or substitute the advice of any solicitor or advisor. Each case depends on its facts. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information. /NEWZIMBABWE


The final draft Constitution of Zambia has been leaked on the internet. Below is the full Citizenship clause and also a link to download the full Constitution.

12. A person who was a citizen of Zambia, immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, shall continue to be a citizen of Zambia and shall retain the same citizenship category from the date the citizenship was acquired.

13. Citizenship may be acquired by birth, descent, registration or adoption in accordance with this Part.

14. (1) A person born in Zambia is a citizen by birth if, at the date of that person’s birth, at least one parent of that person is or was a citizen.
(2) A child found in Zambia who is, or appears to be, of not more than eight years of age and whose nationality and parents are not known, shall be presumed to be a citizen by birth.
(3) For the purposes of this Part, a person born aboard-
(a) a registered ship or aircraft of a country, shall be deemed to have been born in the country of registration of the ship or aircraft; or
(b) an unregistered ship or aircraft of a country, shall be deemed to have been born in that country.

15. A person born outside Zambia is a citizen by descent if, at the date of that person’s birth, at least one parent of that person is or was a citizen by birth or descent.

16. (1) Subject to clause (3), a person is entitled to apply to the Citizenship Board of Zambia to be registered as a citizen if that person has attained the age of eighteen years and-
(a) was born in Zambia and has been ordinarily resident in Zambia for a period of five years;
(b) was born outside Zambia, has or had an ancestor who is, or was, a citizen and has been ordinarily resident in Zambia for a period of five years; or
(c) has been ordinarily resident in Zambia for a continuous period of not less than ten years;
immediately preceding that person’s application for registration, as prescribed.
(2) Notwithstanding clause (1), a person who is, or was married to a citizen, for a period of not less than five years, is entitled to apply to the Citizenship Board of Zambia, to be registered as a citizen, as prescribed.

17. A child who is not a citizen and who is adopted by a citizen shall be a citizen on the date of the adoption.

18. (1) A citizen shall not lose citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country.
(2) A citizen who ceased to be a citizen, before the commencement of this Constitution as a result of acquiring the citizenship of another country, shall be entitled to apply, as prescribed, to the Citizenship Board of Zambia, for citizenship and the Board shall bestow citizenship on that person.

19. (1) A citizen-
(a) may renounce citizenship as prescribed; or
(b) shall be deprived of citizenship if that citizenship was acquired by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact.
(2) The process and procedures to be followed by the Citizenship Board of Zambia when granting or depriving a person of citizenship shall be prescribed.

20. (1) There is established the Citizenship Board of Zambia.
(2) The composition, appointment and tenure of office of members of, and procedures to be followed by, the Citizenship Board of Zambia shall be prescribed.

21. A citizen is entitled to–
(a) the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship as provided in this Constitution or as prescribed; and
(b) a document of identification issued by the State to citizens.

22. (1) A citizen shall –
(a) be patriotic to Zambia and promote its development and good image;
(b) pay taxes and duties lawfully due and owing to the State;
(c) protect and conserve the environment and utilise natural resources in a sustainable manner;
(d) maintain a clean and healthy environment;
(e) provide national, defence and military service when called upon by the State; and
(f) co-operate with law enforcement agencies for the maintenance and enforcement of law and order.
(2) A citizen shall endeavour to-
(a) acquire basic understanding of this Constitution and promote its ideals and objectives;
(b) register and vote, if eligible, in all national and local government elections and referenda;
(c) develop one’s abilities to the greatest possible extent through acquisition of knowledge, continuous learning and the development of skills;
(d) foster national unity and live in harmony with others; and
(e) understand and enhance Zambia’s place in the international community.

23. A reference in this Part to the citizenship of the parent of a person at the time of the birth of that person shall, in relation to a person born after the death of that person’s parent, be construed as a reference to the citizenship of the parent at the time of the parent’s death.

Status, Application and Interpretation

24. (1) The Bill of Rights, as provided for in this Part, is fundamental to democracy and constitutionalism and shall be the basis of Zambia’s social, political, legal, economic and cultural policies and State action.
(2) The rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights –
(a) are inherent in each individual;
(b) protect the dignity of the person;
(c) include rights and freedoms which are consistent with this Constitution but not expressly provided for, except those that are repugnant to the morals and values of the people of Zambia; and
(d) are subject to the limitations, derogations and restrictions provided for in Articles 66, 67 and 68.

25. The State shall recognise the role of civil society in the promotion and protection of the Bill of Rights.

26. (1) Where legislation does not give effect to a right or freedom, the Constitutional Court shall develop human rights jurisprudence.
(2) A court, the Human Rights Commission, State institution, a person or body shall interpret a right or freedom in a manner consistent with Articles 24, 312, 313 and 319.

Civil and Political Rights

27. A person shall not be discriminated against, except under a law that provides for affirmative action.

28. (1) A person has the right to life.
(2) The life of a person begins at conception.
(3) A person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except for a capital offence the sentence of which is death, subject to limitations, defences and extent prescribed.
(4) A court shall not impose a sentence of death on a convict –
(a) who is pregnant;
(b) who is a child; or
(c) where there are extenuating circumstances relating to the commission of the offence.

29. A person has the right to freedom of the person which includes the right not to be deprived of that freedom arbitrarily.

30. (1) A person has the right not to be –
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner.
(2) A person has the right to security of the person which includes the right not to be subjected to human trafficking.

31. (1) A person shall not be held in slavery or servitude.
(2) A person shall not be required to perform forced labour.

32. A person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to –
(a) be searched;
(b) have that person’s home or property searched;
(c) have that person’s possessions seized;
(d) have information relating to that person’s family, health status or private affairs unlawfully required or revealed; or
(e) have the privacy of that person’s communications infringed.

33. (1) A person has the right to freedom of conscience, belief and religion.
(2) A person has the right, individually or in community with others, publicly or privately, to manifest any religion or belief through worship, observance, practice or teaching, including the observance of a day of worship.
(3) Clause (2) does not extend to conduct or statements that infringe the enjoyment of freedom of conscience, belief and religion by others or that may incite religious wars.
(4) A person shall not be compelled to act, or engage in an act that is, contrary to that person’s conscience, belief or religion.
(5) A person shall not be deprived of access to an institution or a facility on the basis of that person’s belief or religion.

34. (1) A person has the right to freedom of expression which includes –
(a) freedom to hold an opinion;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity;
(d) academic freedom; and
(e) freedom of scientific and technological research, as prescribed.
(2) Clause (1) does not extend to –
(a) conduct or statements which incite war, genocide, crimes against humanity or other forms of violence; or
(b) statements which –
(i) vilify or disparage others; or
(ii) incite hatred.

35. (1) A person has the right of access to information held by the State or another person which is lawfully required for the exercise or protection of a right or freedom.
(2) A person has the right to demand the correction of false or misleading information recorded or published about that person.
(3) The State shall proactively publicise information that is in the public interest or affects the welfare of the Nation.

36. (1) Subject to clause (3), the freedom and independence of electronic, broadcasting, print and other forms of media is guaranteed.
(2) The State shall not exercise control over or interfere with a person engaged in –
(a) broadcasting or the production or circulation of publications; or
(b) the dissemination of information through any media.
(3) The State may license broadcasting and other electronic media where it is necessary to regulate signals and signal distribution.
(4) Public media shall-
(a) independently determine the editorial content of their broadcasts or communications; and
(b) afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.

37. A citizen has a right to participate in political activities.

38. (1) A person has the right to freedom of association, which includes the right to form, join or participate in the activities of an association.
(2) A person shall not be compelled to join an association.

39. A person has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, demonstrate or picket and present petitions to State organs and State institutions.

40. A person has the right to freedom of movement, which includes the right-
(a) as a citizen, to a passport; and
(b) to enter, remain, leave and reside anywhere in the Republic; subject to the imposition of restrictions on the entry, movement or residence of persons who are not citizens, as prescribed.

41. A person who is granted asylum or refuge in Zambia has a right not to be returned to the country of origin or a third country if that person has a well-founded fear of persecution, in the country of origin or a third country, which justifies that person’s request for asylum or refuge.

42. (1) A person has the right, individually or in association with others, to own property in any part of Zambia.
(2) The State or a person shall not arbitrarily deprive a person of property.
(3) The State shall not compulsorily acquire a person’s property unless the acquisition is in the public interest.
(4) Where a person’s property is compulsorily acquired in accordance with clause (3) –
(a) the State shall promptly, adequately and effectively compensate that person; and
(b) that person, or any person who has an interest in or right over that property, has a right of access to a court.
(5) Where the State compulsorily acquires land from occupants who have acquired the land in good faith and who do not hold title to the land, the State shall provide for compensation to be paid to the occupants, as prescribed.
(6) The rights under this Article do not extend to property unlawfully acquired.

43. All persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

44. A person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

45. (1) A person has the right to access justice.
(2) A person has the right to execute a judgment against the State after one year of the delivery of the judgment.
(3) A court shall not order security for costs on matters of public interest litigation.

46. A person who is suspected of committing an offence is entitled to –
(a) remain silent; and
(b) be informed in a language which that person understands of the –
(i) right to remain silent; and
(ii) consequences of remaining silent.

47. (1) A person shall not be held in custody without being charged.
(2) A person who is held in custody retains that person’s rights and freedoms, except to the extent that a right or freedom is incompatible with being in custody.
(3) A person who is held in custody is entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

48. Subject to Articles 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 an accused person or a detainee has the right –
(a) to remain silent;
(b) to be informed in a language which that person understands of the –
(i) right to remain silent; and
(ii) consequences of remaining silent;
(c) to be informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the reasons for the arrest or detention –
(i) in a language which that person understands;
(ii) in the case of a visually impaired person, in Braille or tactile diagrams;
(iii) in the case of a deaf person, in sign language; or
(iv) in another appropriate means of communication;
(d) not to be compelled to make a confession or an admission;
(e) to be held separately from persons who are serving a sentence;
(f) to be released on bond, unless there is compelling reason to the contrary; and
(g) to be brought before a court –
(i) within forty-eight hours after being arrested or detained;
(ii) not later than the end of the first court day after the expiry of the forty-eight hours, if the forty-eight hours expire outside ordinary court hours;
(iii) as speedily as possible, if that person is arrested or detained far from a court;
(iv) for trial within ninety days of being arrested; or
(v) to be released on bail, as prescribed.

49. (1) A person has the right to have a dispute decided timely and to have a fair hearing before a court or, where appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal.
(2) An accused person or a detainee has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right –
(a) to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
(b) to be informed, as soon as is reasonably practicable, of the charge with sufficient details to answer the charge;
(c) to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
(d) to be present when being tried, unless the conduct of the accused person or detainee makes it impossible for the trial to proceed;
(e) to have the trial commenced and judgment given without unreasonable delay;
(f) to compensation for wrongful detention or imprisonment;
(g) to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner and to be informed of this right before taking plea;
(h) to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the State, at public expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result;
(i) to be informed promptly of the right in paragraph (h);
(j) to remain silent during the trial and not to testify during the proceedings;
(k) to challenge and adduce evidence;
(l) not to have illegally obtained evidence admissible at the trial;
(m) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
(n) to have, without payment, the assistance of an interpreter if the accused person cannot understand the language used at the trial and, in the case of a deaf person, a sign language interpreter;
(o) not to be charged, tried or convicted for an act or omission that was not, at the time it was committed or omitted, an offence under a written law;
(p) not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person had previously been acquitted or convicted;
(q) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishment, if the prescribed punishment for an offence was changed between the time that offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
(r) of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.
(3) Where this Article requires information to be given to a person, that information shall be given-
(a) in a language which that person understands;
(b) in the case of a visually impaired person, in Braille or tactile diagrams;
(c) in the case of a deaf person, in sign language; or
(d) in another appropriate form of communication.

50. (1) A person who is convicted of an offence and whose appeal has been dismissed by the highest court to which that person is entitled to appeal, may petition the Supreme Court for a re-trial if new and compelling evidence is available.
(2) Where there is compelling evidence that a person may be innocent of an offence, the State may petition the Supreme Court to re-examine that evidence and determine whether that person committed the offence or not.

51. (1) Women and men have the right to equal treatment and opportunities.
(2) Women and men have an equal right to inherit, own, use, administer and control property.
(3) A woman and a man have equal rights in the marriage and at the dissolution of the marriage.
(4) Without limiting a right or freedom, women and men have the right to-
(a) reproductive health, including family planning and access to related information and education;
(b) acquire, change or retain their nationality, including the right to change the nationality of their child if this is in the best interest of the child;
(c) choose residence and domicile;
(d) guardianship or adoption of a child; and
(e) choose a family name.

Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights

52. (1) A person has the right, as prescribed, to-
(a) health care services;
(b) decent housing;
(c) food of acceptable standard;
(d) clean and safe water;
(e) decent sanitation;
(f) social protection; and
(g) education.
(2) A person shall not be denied emergency medical treatment.

53. A person has the right to choose a trade, an occupation or a profession, subject to limitations imposed by law.

54. (1) A person has the right to employment and fair labour practices.

(2) A person in employment has the right to-
(a) fair remuneration commensurate to the productivity or size of the enterprise;
(b) decent working conditions;
(c) a pension benefit commensurate with that person’s office, salary and length of service; and
(d) form, join or participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union, including going on a lawful strike.
(3) An employer has the right to-
(a) form and join an employers’ organisation;
(b) participate in the activities and programmes of an employers’ organisation; and
(c) lock out.
(4) A trade union and an employers’ organisation have the right to-
(a) determine their own administration, programmes and activities; and
(b) form or join a federation.

55. A consumer has the right to-
(a) goods and services of reasonable quality and standard;
(b) information necessary to gain full benefit from goods and services;
(c) compensation for loss or injury arising
from a defect in goods or services; and
(d) fair, honest and decent advertising of goods and services.

56. (1) Subject to Article 304, a person has the right to use a language of that person’s choice.
(2) A person who belongs to a cultural or linguistic community has the right, with other members of that community to –
(a) enjoy that person’s culture; and
(b) form, join or maintain cultural and linguistic associations.
(3) A person shall not be compelled to-
(a) perform, observe or participate in cultural practices or rites; or
(b) form, join, contribute, maintain or pay allegiance to a cultural or linguistic association.
(4) The State shall-
(a) recognise the role of science, technology and indigenous technology in the development of the Nation; and
(b) support, promote and protect intellectual property rights.

57. A person has the right to a safe, clean and healthy environment.

58. (1) The State shall take reasonable measures for the progressive realisation of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.
(2) Where a claim is made against the State on the non-realisation of an economic, social, cultural or environmental right, it is the responsibility of the State to show that the resources are not available.
(3) The Constitutional Court shall not interfere with a decision by the State concerning the allocation of available resources for the progressive realisation of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.

Further and Special Rights

59. The older members of society are further entitled to the right to –
(a) participate fully in the affairs of society;
(b) personal development;
(c) independent living; and
(d) social protection, as prescribed.

60. (1) The State shall recognise and protect the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society and the necessary basis of the social order.
(2) A person who is nineteen years of age or older has the right to choose a spouse of the opposite sex and marry.
(3) The State shall –
(a) ensure the right of women to adequate maternity leave;
(b) ensure the availability of adequate paternity leave;
(c) ensure the availability of maternal health care and child health care; and
(d) promote the establishment of child-care facilities.
(4) A pregnant or nursing woman has the right to a non-custodial sentence, except as a measure of last resort where she poses a danger to the community.

61. (1) A child is equal before the law.
(2) In all actions and decisions concerning a child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration.
(3) A child’s mother and father, whether married to each other or not, have an equal duty to protect and provide for the child.
(4) A child is further entitled to the following civil and political rights:
(a) to acquire a nationality;
(b) to registration of birth and to a name;
(c) not to be subjected to corporal punishment or other form of violence, cruel or inhuman treatment in the home, school or an institution responsible for the care of children;
(d) to be protected in times of armed conflict and not to be recruited and used in armed conflict;
(e) not to take part in hostilities;
(f) to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation or abuse;
(g) not to be subjected to harmful cultural rites and practices;
(h) not to be incarcerated on account of the mother’s incarceration;
(i) not to be held in custody, except as a measure of last resort, in which case the child shall be –
(i) held in custody for a period of not more than forty-eight hours;
(ii) kept separate from adults in custody;
(i) accorded legal assistance by the State;
(ii) treated in a manner and be kept in conditions that take into account the child’s gender and age; and
(iii) tried in a Children’s Court;
(j) to protection of the child’s identity from exposure by the media or person during criminal proceedings;
(k) not to be discriminated against, neglected or abused;
(l) not to be engaged in work that is exploitative or likely to be hazardous or adverse to the child’s health or welfare;
(m) not to marry or be forced to marry;
(n) to know of decisions affecting the child, to express an opinion and have that opinion taken into account, having regard to the age and maturity of that child and the nature of the decision; and
(o) to diversion programmes.
(5) A child is further entitled to the following economic and social rights:
(a) parental care or, where the child is separated from its parents, to appropriate alternative care;
(b) free primary and secondary education;
(c) survival and development;
(d) adequate nutrition, shelter, basic health care services, social protection and social services; and
(e) a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
(6) The State shall protect a child-
(a) with special needs;
(b) who is orphaned;
(c) whose parent or guardian is in prison;
(d) whose parent or guardian is unfit to look after the child;
(e) with disability;
(f) who is a refugee; and
(g) who is homeless or lives or spends time on the streets.

62. The youth are further entitled to the right to –
(a) personal development;
(b) participate in governance;
(c) access gainful employment; and
(d) participate in the social, economic, political and other spheres of national life.

63. (1) Subject to clause (2), a person shall not engage a young person in an occupation or employment which would prejudice the health, education or interfere with the physical, mental or moral development of that young person.
(2) A young person may be employed for a wage, as prescribed.

64. A person with disability is further entitled to the right to–
(a) education and facilities that integrate the person into society;
(b) access to the physical environment, information, communications, public facilities and services, places and transportation;
(c) access materials, facilities and assistive devices for persons with disability;
(d) use sign language, Braille or other appropriate means of communication;
(e) be addressed or referred to in an enactment or officially, publicly or privately, in a manner that is not demeaning, derogatory or discriminatory;
(f) equal opportunities in the public service and cultural, political, economic and social activities;
(g) tax free materials and assistive devices;
(h) personal development and independent living; and
(i) social protection, as prescribed.

Non-Derogable Rights and Freedoms, Limitations and Derogations

65. Notwithstanding any other provision, a law shall not derogate from the following rights and freedoms:
(a) protection from inhuman treatment and security of person;
(b) protection from slavery, servitude or forced labour;
(c) freedom of conscience, belief and religion;
(d) the right to a writ of habeas corpus;
(e) non-refoulement as provided for in Article 41; and
(f) a right to a fair trial.

66. A right or freedom is limited by –
(a) a limitation, restriction or qualification expressly set out in the Article or clause containing that right or freedom;
(b) the limitations and restrictions specified in this Article and Article 67; and
(c) the limitations and restrictions provided in a law of general application as provided in Article 67, which do not negate the core or the essential content of the right or freedom and is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society, taking into account-
(i) the nature of the right;
(ii) the purpose of the limitation or restriction;
(iii) the extent of the limitation or
restriction; and
(iv) whether there are alternative means to achieve the required purpose.

67. A law that limits or restricts a right or freedom is valid only to the extent that the law –
(a) is reasonably required in the interest of public defence and security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, national, provincial and local spatial planning, taxation or the development, management and utilisation of natural and mineral resources;
(b) relates to the acquisition of property to secure the development, management or utilisation of the property for a purpose beneficial to the community or the public generally, upon the payment of due compensation;
(c) relates to a contract, lease, trust, settlement, deed, letter of administration, tenancy, mortgage, charge, pledge, bill of sale or title deed to land or other instrument;
(d) provides for licensing of activities;
(e) is required to enforce a judgment or an order of a court or tribunal; or
(f) imposes restrictions and duties on defence and security officers, other public officers and Constitutional office holders.

68. An act or measure taken, under a law, during war, state of public emergency, threatened state of public emergency or a national disaster shall not be inconsistent with this Part –
(a) if the act or measure taken is reasonably justifiable for dealing with the war, state of public emergency, threatened state of public emergency or national disaster; and
(b) if the law provides for the necessary detention of persons during a war, state of public emergency or threatened state of public emergency, subject to Article 69.

69. (1) Where a person is detained during a war, state of public emergency or threatened state of public emergency, the following shall apply:
(a) that person shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any case not more than fourteen days after the commencement of the detention or restriction, be furnished with a statement, in writing, specifying, in detail, the grounds of the restriction or detention;
(b) not more than seven days after the commencement of the detention a notification shall be published in the Gazette –
(i) giving particulars of the place of detention; and
(ii) stating the provision of the law under which the detention is authorised;
(c) if that person so requests, at any time during the period of the detention or not later than twenty-one days after the commencement of the detention and at intervals of not more than thirty days thereafter, the case shall be reviewed by the Constitutional Court;
(d) that person shall be afforded reasonable facilities to consult a legal practitioner of that person’s choice who shall be permitted to make representations to the authority by which the detention was ordered or to the Constitutional Court; and
(e) at the hearing of the case by the Constitutional Court, that person may challenge the –
(i) detention; or
(ii) validity of the declaration of war, state of public emergency or threatened state of public emergency and the measures taken during that period.
(2) The President may refer to the Constitutional Court for review the case of a person who has been or is detained under a detention order under any law.
(3) The Constitutional Court shall make a decision on a matter reviewed by it under this Article.

Enforcement of Bill of Rights

70. (1) A person who alleges that a provision of the Bill of Rights has been or is being contravened, in relation to the person, may apply for redress to the Constitutional Court or to another court which that person has immediate access to.
(2) A person may bring an action against the violation of another person’s rights and freedoms.

71. The President shall, each year, when addressing the National Assembly, report on the measures taken by the State in the realisation of the Bill of Rights.

Dual citizenship

Dual citizenship
Dual citizenship
The constitution national conference has adopted Article 18 of the draft constitution which provides that a Zambian Citizen can acquire dual-citizenship.

Article 18 (1) in the draft constitution states that “A citizen shall not lose citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country”.

The proposal was widely supported by many delegates.

In support of the article, Bishop Mambo said told the delegated said the constitution was not only for now but was mainly for the children who would find themselves in situations where they would need dual citizenship.

Lusaka (Zambia)
Lusaka (Zambia)

The thematic working group on representation of people at the ongoing National Constitution Convention have unanimously retained the 50+1 vote threshold clause in the First Draft Constitution for the election of the republican President.

And Chieftainess Nkomeshya Mukamambo II has observed that it will be very difficult for a political party to garner more that 50% of the total votes cast in an election to win the polls due to uncontrolled mushrooming number of political parties in the country.

The thematic group on representation of people, which is being chaired by Francis Chigunta, has retained Clause (1) of Article 75 which provides that elections to the office of the President Shall be conducted directly on the basis of a majoritarian system where the winning candidate must receive not less than 50% +1 vote of the valid votes cast.

In supporting the clause, Lubansenshi Independent Member of Parliament Patrick Mucheleka said it would be a betrayal to the people of Zambia to remove the clause as they have spoken that they need a president with legitimacy of all Zambians.

Contributing to the debate, United Party for National Development (UPND) Secretary General, Winston Chibwe, noted that the clause will unite the country as all Zambians will have to agree on who to be their president as opposed to the current scenario which allows the candidate with the highest votes who might be the minority to become president.

But Solicitor General, Musa Mwenye, observed that Clause 1 which provides for the 50+1 votes, coupled with the Proportional Representation (PR) system of electing Members of Parliament, will create a very powerful president and a very weak parliament which he said was not good for the country.

Mr Mwenye further observed that Article 75 will make it difficult for candidates hailing from tribes that are not the majority in the country to win elections as people in Zambia vote not necessarily on tribal lines but on the language spoken in a certain region.

But the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) National Women’s chairperson, Faustina Sinyangwe, who was the National Constitution Conference vice chairperson, revealed that the NCC was thrown out because it failed to adopt the 50+1 vote clause which people dearly wanted.

Ms Sinyangwe, who served on the Mung’omba Commission, stated that people countrywide submitted to the Mung’omba that they wanted the clause, hence the need to retain it if the constitution is to be accepted by Zambians.

But Pambashe MP, Ronald Chitotela, differed with the views of the rest as he noted that even the president elected by the 50+1 vote is far from being called a majoritarian president because the country has less than half of its population who are registered voters, hence the need for the convention to revert to the current system.

The clause, when subjected to a vote, all delegates voted to retain it, except for Mr Chitotela who voted against and the Solicitor General who abstained.

In addition the working group has rejected the Proportional Representation (PR) system of electing MPs and replaced it with the mixed member representation system which is recommended in the Mung’omba Constitution Commission.

The PR system, which has since been amended, was going to allow political parties to get seats proportionate to the votes they receive in an election which most members observed was not good as it will allow all political parties, including the least, to get seats in all districts.

The same electoral system has since been unanimously adopted for use in local government elections.

Meanwhile Chieftainess Nkomeshya Mukamambo II expressed worry at the mushrooming number of political parties in Zambia.

She noted that some political parties that have been registered have no national character and will only cause confusion during elections, especially after adopting the 50+1 vote clause, adding that the convention should device a way of regulating the number of political

dual citizenship
Dual citizenship

dual citizenshipExperts at the ongoing sector groups convention have unanimously resolved to maintain the dual citizenship article in the First Draft Constitution.

The experts mandated to analyse the citizen’s clause said dual citizenship was progressive as it would allow Zambians in the Diaspora who had acquired wealth to invest in Zambia.

It was emphasized that a number of Zambians in the Diaspora were unable to invest in Zambia because the current Constitution had no provision of dual citizenship.

The sector groups also adopted Article 20(1) which states that a Citizen’s Board shall be established.

Article 20 (2) which states that Parliament shall enact legislation which provides for the composition of, appointment of members to, tenure of office of members of, and procedures to be followed by the Citizenship Board of Zambia.

The group also unanimously adopted article 19 under the citizen’s clause which states that a citizen may renounce citizenship or shall be deprived of citizenship only if that person acquired citizenship by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of material fact.

The current Constitution states that a person shall cease to be a citizen of Zambia if that person acquired the citizenship of a country other than Zambia by a voluntary act, other than marriage and does any act indicating that person’s intention to adopt or make use of any other citizenship.

Zambians in Diaspora supporting if Campaign
Zambians in Diaspora supporting if Campaign

By Daniel Mwamba

Diaspora’s capabilities in terms of remittances, investment and knowledge transfer are crucial to the development of Zambia. Thus, Zambians in the Diaspora are equipped to invest in Zambian companies and establishing new ventures. The Zambian Diaspora should be encouraged to invest in Zambian companies and set up new ventures to become partners in achieving economic growth rate of above seven per cent and reduce unemployment among the youths.

With the knowledge and experience gained as academics, scholars, scientists, technologists, professionals and businessmen, the Zambian Diaspora can play a decisive role in the development of Zambia.

It is recognized that members of the Diaspora are able to make “Diaspora-specific contributions deriving from the absence of language and cultural barriers, and more specifically, their ability to better understand, and thus, more effectively adapt foreign approaches and technology to the homeland context” (Brinkerhoff, 2006).

A Diaspora can be broadly defined as a population “which has originated in a land other than which it currently resides, and whose social, economic and political networks cross the borders of nation-states or, indeed, span the globe” (Vertovec, 1999).

Diasporas are increasingly seen as a resource for countries of origin and an opportunity for effective knowledge transfer and capacity building in countries of origin. The involvement of Zambians in the Diaspora is crucial to further scale up the development outcomes Zambia has registered so far.

It is well established that Diaspora members are able to make Diaspora-specific contributions to their countries of origin. Evidence generally focuses on economic contributions of remittances and investments, but there is increasing evidence of non-economic contributions to human rights, good governance, and capacity building.

Zambians in the Diaspora can be strong support bridges in promoting the values of the country at large and investment opportunities in particular to the outside world. The Diaspora community can also lend its hand in tracking and comfortable placing Zambian produces at the international market.

The government of Zambia on its part can do its level best to bring about development through crafting, putting in place and enforcing policies, strategies, laws and regulations that suit to its development endeavours through without jeopardizing the stake Zambians in the Diaspora.

The government should explore ways and means to encourage deep participation by the Diaspora. The government should see the Zambian Diaspora as a stronger partner, not only in Zambia’s economic growth, but also in building Zambia’s knowledge society, while continuing to engage culturally and emotionally, and serving as the effective ambassadors that they have been for Zambia.
Excessive red tape, customs delays, bad infrastructure, corruption, lack of macroeconomic stability, trade barriers, lack of legal security, and mistrust in government institutions affect Zambians abroad decisions to invest in their home countries and to return.
Harnessing Diaspora contributions to trade, investment, and technology requires a favorable business environment, a sound and transparent financial sector, rapid and efficient court systems, and a safe working environment.
Zambians back home should learn to appreciate their own. We know that you make more money in a poor environment than in a rich one; the western world is built up already but Zambia is still virgin and waiting to be built and so anybody that takes the risk makes the fortune.

There is no communal life in Zambia, so how do we learn from each other when we don’t trust ourselves? The government, and indeed Zambians, can change our way of thinking; we need to engender ingenuity in everything we do to empower Zambians like the use of clay bricks to build houses and then you will see jobs and clusters of clay burning factories in the hinterland.

Zambians in the Diaspora send more than $350 million annually to their relatives and friends which is a testimony of both the emotional attachment and the fulfilment in investing in Zambia’s strong economy.

Top recipients of remittances among developing countries in 2012 were India ($70 billion), China ($66 billion), the Philippines ($24 billion), Mexico ($24 billion), and Nigeria ($21 billion).

According to the latest World Bank data, remittances to developing countries are projected to grow by 7.9 percent in 2013, 10.1 percent in 2014 and 10.7 percent in 2015 to reach $534 billion in 2015.

It’s known that Diaspora remittance can make up a considerable proportion of an African country’s income, especially for nations where there have been conflicts. According to data from the World Bank, Eritrea received remittances which were worth 190% of its export trade and 19% of its GDP whilst Nigeria receives approximately $1.3-billion every year, making it only second to oil for Forex income.

As remittances surge, several African governments and private companies are actively seeking ways to shift the resource from mere sustenance remittance of relatives and friends to more focused development and investment resources.

One innovative way in which governments are financing infrastructure, education and health projects is through Diaspora bonds, a concept that has gained momentum. Kenya, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia already issued such bonds while Zambia through the Ministry of Finance has discussed the possibility to issue in the future. Diaspora bonds can be a powerful financial instrument for mobilising Diaspora savings to finance specific public and private sector projects, as well as to help improve the debt profile of the destination country.

Allowing dual citizenship can encourage greater Zambian Diaspora participation by facilitating travel, avoiding the constraints foreigners face on some transactions (for example, temporary work or land ownership), and providing access to public services.

More broadly, dual citizenship can help maintain emotional ties thus encouraging continued contact and investment. But despite these benefits, only 21 of Africa’s 54 countries allow dual citizenship.

About the Author: He is the publisher of UKZAMBIANS.

consTHE clause which allows for dual citizenship in the First Draft Constitution has been rejected by delegates to the Northern Province Constitution Convention in Kasama.

Dual citizens can carry two passports and essentially live, work, and travel freely within their native and naturalised countries.

Opposing the clause, Mporokoso district medical officer Tresphord Mulenga said a person with dual citizenship had divided loyalties and Zambians needed to identified with prosperity or woes of their country.

Dr Mulenga said a genuinely patriotic person needed to be identified with only one republic and when issues of national importance arose, it would make it difficult for a dual citizenship holder to offer allegiance to one country and reject the other.

However, Catholic cleric Lombe Bwalya from Kaputa parish said dual citizenship was becoming more common in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

Father Bwalya said dual citizenship had the advantages of broadening a country’s economic base by promoting trade and investment between the dual citizen’s two respective countries.

Many countries are now seeing the advantages of dual citizenship and were liberalizing their citizenship laws.
Father Bwalya said dual citizenship had the advantages of broadening a country’s economic base by promoting trade and investment between the dual citizen’s two respective countries.

Some dual citizens also enjoy the privilege of voting in both countries, owning property in both countries, and having government health care in both countries.

However, when it came to a vote, it was recommended the clause on dual citizenship be removed.

In the Luapula Province convention the dual citizenship clause was retained amid arguments from some delegates including Chief Government spokesperson Kennedy Sakeni that the clause should be rejected on patriotic and nationalist grounds.

Debating on the motion, Mr Sakeni urged Zambians to critically look at the issue of dual citizenship and ensure that it was not allowed in Zambia.

“AS Zambians, let us critically look at the issue of dual citizenship and take the interest of the nation at heart. Why do people want to be citizens of other countries in the first place,” Mr Sakeni said.

Labour Deputy Minister Ronald Chitotela said dual citizenship would make it difficult to extradite Zambians who committed crimes if they moved to other countries where they had citizenship.

“Let us denounce dual citizenship because even countries like United Kingdom are having difficulties to extradite criminals,” Labour Deputy Minister Ronald Chitotela said.

Other delegates including former Minister in the MMD, Mwansa Mbulakulima argued that it was important for Zambia to give citizenship to Zambians living in the diaspora to enable them work in other countries.

“Most of the Zambians living in other countries cannot work because of the issue of citizenship hence the need for us to assist them,” he said.

Some delegates, especially from the medical field supported the dual citizenship clause saying it would go a long way in contributing to national development.

The issue of the dress code also raised concern with Pastor Maxwell Luchile saying indecent dressing had even affected the church.

The convention refused to amend the provisions of Article 9(a) to read “morality, descent dressing, Christian values and Ethics”.

The convention however agreed to amend the definition of words minority and marginalised groups in the draft Constitution, under Article 311, to ensure the words did not apply to groups like lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals, gay and prostitutes, which did not reflect on Christian values.

“Let us denounce dual citizenship because even countries like United Kingdom are having difficulties to extradite criminals,” Labour Deputy Minister Ronald Chitotela said.

In Muchinga delegates upheld the Article on death penalty as contained in the first draft constitution.
The delegates reached a tie before going into a secret ballot with 71 votes cast to retain the death penalty and 21 voted against the penalty while 7 people did not vote.

The delegates retained Article 28 sub-section 3 which states that a person may be deprived of life if that person has been convicted of a capital offence and sentenced to death.

A delegate, Victor Mapande said the Article should be carefully examined while Frank Bowa seconded the proposal.
Another delegate Lewis Shikapwasha said the death penalty should be upheld even in a Christian nation as the Bible allows death penalty hence should be retained as a deterrent.

The delegates retained Article 33 (1) which states that a person shall not be held in slavery as contained in the first draft constitution while others suggested that Slavery, Servitude and Forced Labour be redefined.

The delegates amended Article 60 of the draft constitution to state the State shall place affirmation action programmes designed to ensure that socially acceptable minority and marginalized groups, participate and are represented in governance and other spheres of life, are provided with equal opportunity in cultural, political, public service, economic and social activities.

The Article further states that minority and marginalized groups shall be provided special opportunities for access to employment and develop socially acceptable cultural values, languages and practices.

Delegates failed to retain the Article before settling for the secret ballot with a total of 99 votes cast and 33 opting for the Article to be retained in its original form in the first draft constitution while 63 wanted it to be amended.

A Human Rights Commission representative, Kebby Malila informed the delegates that issues related to human rights were not negotiable.

Mr Malila said the rights women should not be subjected to negotiation with their spouses as this compromised the essence of human rights.

“Human rights are not negotiable. Consulting the spouse on rights of the woman would be eroding the foundation of human rights”, he said.

“Human rights are not negotiable. Consulting the spouse on rights of the woman would be eroding the foundation of human rights”, he said.

Delegates retained Article 52 under the Bill of Rights which allows women to have rights to reproductive health and change nationality of their children, access to family planning and related information.

Other Articles in the first draft constitution that were overwhelmingly retained include Freedom of Persons, Protection from inhuman Treatment, Security of Persons, Protection of Privacy of Persons, Home and Property and Communication and Freedom of religion and Conscience.

In Mongu, UPND Senanga MP Likando Mufalali blamed the Technical Committee for the poor turnout of lawmakers at the ongoing Western Province Constitution Convention.

Mr Mufalali said in an interview in Mongu that the Technical Committee had not informed the MPs on time, resulting in a poor turn out.

“The low turn out of MPs is due to the fact that the timing by the Technical Committee, I think, was not communicated to them on time. They (MPs) are attending to Committees right now. Parliamentary Committees have started,” he said.

SOME Zambians based in the USA who attended a meeting by Minister of Foreign Affairs Given Lubinda, Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry Bob Sichinga and Minister of Tourism and Art Sylvia Masebo.

SOME Zambians based in the USA who attended a meeting by Minister of Foreign Affairs Given Lubinda, Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry Bob Sichinga and Minister of Tourism and Art Sylvia Masebo.
SOME Zambians based in the USA who attended a meeting by Minister of Foreign Affairs Given Lubinda, Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry Bob Sichinga and Minister of Tourism and Art Sylvia Masebo.
By Evelyn Park

In my view Yes you can. Zambia is extensively inter tribal ( for lack of a better description) due to inter Tribal Marriages.

If the Zambians living overseas choose not to return home, and instead to fill the gap the Government decides to give citizenship to Australians, Chinese, British etc, I bet that these Nationals will proudly be holding DUAL citizenship.

Would an Australian choose to be a Zambian Citizen and revoke Australian citizenship? I very much doubt that.

Why would a Zambian prefer to live in the UK or other developed economies on social welfare benefit? I personally think, the answer is in the question itself. They will have shelter, clothing and food. If in a similar position back in Zambia, they will be moving from relative to relative begging or chasing cars at traffic lights hoping that someone buys a bag of tomatoes for K1,000.00 (which doesn’t even buy him/her a loaf of bread) Go figure!

There is no social welfare benefits for anyone in our economy! Jobs are scares public facilities like hospitals , schools and universities are under funded with minimal infrastructure to cater for the souls that remain hopeful for a break through. To this day we are yet to get a grip on how we get ride of corruption.

During my last visit to Lusaka, I attempted to visit the Tourism Board of Zambia and spoke face to face with a top official there ( an ex Journalist at ZNBC). All I needed were brochures , he proudly told me that we are under funded, we have run out of brochures after a big promotion in Spain etc. I requested if he could post some to me or even just email them to me, he said with pleasure, 5 MONTHS LATTER and I am still waiting…. I wonder if this official will support the request for Dual Citizenship, probably not! he is very safe as a government employee, he has a Blackberry a house and no doubt a government vehicle. Truly how much forward thinking is this kind of mentality providing to our Country? Could someone with Dual Citizenship have a crack at this Job and be more proactive? I think so because I feel that it’s more the negative state of mind that is preventing solid development than the need for Dual Citizenship by the few Zambians who have had broad experiences and realising that they would love to return and add to the future development with Ideas that might very well be helpful.

So my questions is should the notion that once a Tumbuka always a Tumbuka and never a Bemba be the deciding factor that prevents the incredible opportunities that Zambians living overseas would offer our communities? If some decide to give up UK citizenship and return home is there a comprehensive program in place to assist in resettling these families to at lease provide them with the standard of living no less than what they would leave behind in the UK? If they were on Social Welfare benefit, would the current leadership provide them with an equivalent?

Should this really be the grounds our Nation move forward on in the 21st Century?

Keen to hear your views.

Evelyn Park


Gender Minister, Inonge Wina, has urged Zambians living in Diaspora to always exhibit exemplary behaviour.

Ms Wina said Zambians in Diaspora must be able to sell the country not only as a tourist destination but also to expose the many business opportunities that exist for investors out there to partner with Zambian entrepreneurs.


She said at the time Zambians are in the Diaspora they are good will ambassadors promoting the country’s beauty and the main business opportunities that exist.

The Minister said this in Lusaka today when she received a cheque worth K11 million from Zambians living in Diaspora on behalf of the Mulenga family that recently gave birth to quintuplets.

The donation was made possible by Zambians, mainly from North America, and Canada in particular, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and Japan.

Ms Wina noted that Zambians in the aforementioned countries learnt of the birth of the first quintuplets in the history of the country and felt that they should be part of the joyous occurrence by making such a donation.

She said Zambians in Diaspora are concerned that many times they are perceived as people who go away and never look back to what is happening in their country, hence their coming together to make this donation as a token of a Christmas good will to the Mulengas.

Ms Wina added that the donation will also demonstrate that no matter where Zambians go they feel like they are still in their own country.

And Joseph Munsange, who presented the cheque on behalf of the Zambians in Diaspora, reiterated that the donation was as a result of the Zambians out there wanting to be part of the occasion.


Related other websites Links