Special Report The Kwacha Times

FREDRICK Chiluba took over from Kaunda in 1991 when Zambia’s economy was in shambles. His team worked tirelessly to ensure that what they promised Zambia was delivered. MMD was funded by Britain to oust UNIP. Britain, operating on pretext that it was interested in the return of multiparty democracy in Zambia, sponsored the Movement for Multiparty Democracy –MMD which promised two things; Multipartism and Liberation of the economy.

The Chiluba regime genuinely wanted to bring these two things in Zambia but little did they realise that the Liberation agenda was part of a well calculated move by the imperialist to take back the over twenty-six companies that Kaunda Nationalized after Zambia became independent.
However, Chiluba realised very late that him and his team were duped by imperialists, Chiluba had finished his two constitutional terms. Because of the complication of the issue, he believed that it was necessary to amend the Constitution to facilitate his third term so that he could make things right, but his move was seen as selfish by many. He could not tell the public the truth he knew because of the oath of secrecy under which the presidency operates.

As a result, after failing to amend the constitution to allow him go for a third term, Chiluba opted to choose a candidate from MMD to succeed him hoping that he would work closely with that person, to ensure that ZCCM was not wholly sold to Britain’s surrogates Anglo-American. That is how late Levy Mwanawasa was single handedly picked by Chiluba to be MMD president. This move did not work, as Britain used the same Mwanawasa to revenge against Chiluba who had refused them to buy ZCCM so that they could control all the minerals in Zambia without the involvement of Zambians. Remember, it is Britain and its allies that funded the Task Force On Corruption (TOC) which claimed it was investigating Chiluba and his regime on corruption, for a specific period of time.

This background is provided so that Zambians can understand what happened during the privatization of companies in Zambia, and how certain few individuals were used to dupe Zambians.

Meanwhile, before Chiluba died, here is a letter he wrote for Zambians, offering a rare insight into why he was fought, and why he died prematurely and suspiciously;

Title: Corruption Propaganda

The real crime committed, for which I and many of my former colleagues, were punished, was my refusal to grant the British government sale of the whole of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM), the government owned copper mining monopoly, as one unit to Kafue Consortium, a company formed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) a British government parastatal. As government we took the option of unbundling the mining giant to broaden ownership and therefore safeguard the lives of ordinary Zambian people from the greed and caprice of a single owner.

Allowing the sale of ZCCM to the British, through Kafue Consortium, would in fact have been the worst act of corruption from those who pontificate about good governance and the fight and crusade to rid Africa of corruption. There was indeed no such corruption as to compare the happenings of financial scandals in the British House of Commons which is basically the pursuit and perpetuation of politics of calumny to force regime change in the third world.

This book (Mockery of Justice by Richard Sakala) is therefore a fair account of an author who is personally familiar both experimentally as a political government officer as well as one framed and persecuted for a long period as a victim of unlawful acts of the infamous Task Force. This book is an effort to provide an objective critique to the paternalistic politics of the so-called Donor governments which have continued to dictate the pace of political and economic development of their former colonies.

After the political ejection from emerging independent states, Europe has awakened to the fact that Africa wants to be truly independent and sovereign to freely manage their own affairs and resources without foreign influence.

The claim by Donor governments of the existence of unbridled corruption in Zambia which necessitated the creation of a special “Task Force” was a calculated scheme intended to create insecurity in the country. If indeed there was such corruption, during my era, the investigative wings of government in Zambia such as the Anti-corruption Commission(ACC) which we reinforced with an act of Parliament in 1996, Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) , the Zambia Police and many subsidiary elements were sufficiently equipped technically to investigate and prosecute such crimes.

These institutions all underwent a lot of technical and technological improvements and training to meet such challenges. And most importantly the donors could have trusted our own judiciary. But donors disrespected both.


The structural deficiencies inherent in most if not all economies of countries of the third world particularly those in Africa, which made them peripheral economies that fed Europe and America with cheap raw materials, led to the emergency of the aid syndrome which in effect has only served to hold Africa to ransom, as terms of trade have always continued to favour the North which is Europe and the Americans.

As a result of their continued manipulation of the terms of trade between Europe and the third world countries, the latter’s dependence on Europe for aid has increased, making Africa more and more politically and economically vulnerable to foreign political influence and manipulation.


Good governance has become more of a convenient weapon for Donors to cause change of leaders in Africa. But, aware also that any claim to political leadership in African states will be subjected to contestation and election in emerging democracies, the Donors have realised that their ability to impose their stooges as leaders on countries is being strongly resisted. Consequently they have styled and designated their aid to only to countries which practice ‘good governance’ whatever that means.

Donors plainly and often quiet crudely send their aid through their agencies calling them “Non-Governmental Organisations” (NGOs) which they claim work for the ordinary people. But this is a shameless lie as there are no member based NGOs. Most of these so-called NGOs are of their own creation representing their governments’ interests abroad, and with absolutely no grass root representation.

We all know that in ordinary use of political language and understanding of democracy and democratization , NGOs, which are also known as pressure groups or interest groups, grew out of the need to represent growing numbers of citizens who began to find it hard, for one reason or the other, to participate in the politics of their societies.

NGOs were this born and bred within their localities to represent varying interests of growing demographic numbers.

The era of industrialization made it an even more distant reality, for people with a common interest, to gather in one place to dialogue, as towns and cities bulged with populations.

Industrialization thus brought home the birth and growth of representative democracy. But this meant that interest groups identified themselves with a particular need or cause which had to be addressed.

But this is far cry in Zambia and the whole of African as most if not all NGOs are products of Neo Colonial manipulation.

The current status is quite frankly an affront to democracy as NGOs have become a one man or woman possession financed by foreign governments to whom they are accountable. They operate as small enterprises, most like grocery shops personally run by proprietors. They are a snare to democracy as they are not accountable to society nor are their leaders elected at all.

They do not even have a register for membership because there are no members to talk about. Indeed they do not present their accounts for audit and scrutiny to anybody except the foreign governments which sponsor them.

Where would be their allegiance? Where is their political morality? Surely he who pays the piper always calls the tune. Their allegiance goes to their foreign sponsors who use them to create unnecessary troubles.

There can be no worse corruption than this, and this only leads to retardiation of the process of democratization in developing nations.

Democrats must therefore hail the new law in Zambia obliging and compelling NGOs to disclose their source of revenue or income because this way society will be able to ask them to account for it.

If it is not blood money everybody must be willing and ready to provide the required information. If not for government at least for the sake of “the members” whose interests they purport to represent.

Dr. F.J.T Chiluba (Mphil)
2nd Republican President Zambia


Chiluba, for whatever shortcomings he had personally, was heavily loathed, and continues to be loathed even in his grave, by the West who championed propaganda against him, labeling him a thief through Zambians such as Fred M’membe and his defunct Post newspapers and many other NGOs who were funded by the Donors using blood money. All this was because he refused to sale ZCCM to Britain. ZCCM is still owned by Zambians but its shares in many businesses it has stake on behalf of Zambians, such as the various mining companies have drastically shrank as a result, it has no influence that is why mining companies can twist government with threats of laying off workers, each time the government is introducing a tax system that is beneficial to Zambia.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here