THE POLITICAL VERDICT: Will Chilima pull a Ruto?

BY FRYSON CHODZI

If there is a man that Vice President Saulos Chilima and the UTM needs to draw lessons from, it would be none other than the Kenyan President William Ruto. Even the MCP as they plot and scheme against Chilima, they ought to understand the adage: when dealing with a wounded Buffalo, make sure you finish it off.

Chilima has been charged with corruption scandal which alleges that he received US$280,000 (MK286m) from a businessman Zuneth Sattar in order to facilitate the businessman’s dealing with Government. Based on these allegations, President Chakwera withdrew all tasks he had assigned Vice President Chilima and left him only with the constitutionally mandated responsibilities which are mainly limited to attending cabinet as a member. The VP has also been seen dutifully dismissing the guard of honour whenever Chakwera travels out of the country.

With this, there has been an persistent overdrive to push Chilima out of power into political oblivion. The scheming and shenanigans against Chilima has not only focused on determining whether he is guilty or not, but having a dirty campaign portraying him guilty as charged. The past few months have seen a consistent pattern in which Chilima is scandalised every time to divert the nation’s attention from serious scandals perpetrated under Chakwera’s watch.

A simple survey of the media will show that every time a scandal under Chakwera’s presidency comes to light, there is a pre-emptive or subsequent mudslinging directed at Vice President Chilima.

All this sounds like a script from William Ruto’s experiences towards the presidency in Kenya. The man was charged by ICC for crimes against humanity, where evidence became scarce. In 2011 he was acquitted of corruption charges by the Chief Magistrate Court of which he was accused of defrauding the state US$1.1million. He was suspended as a higher education minister over the case.

Those were not the only accusations that Ruto suffered. In 2020 he was accused of another 366million Euro scam which made sure that Ruto will not become the ruling Jubilee party’s presidential candidate. In fact, President Kenyatta opted to support Raila Odinga and pity him against Ruto who run on a ticket of United Democratic Alliance (UDA) in the 2022 elections. In the entire campaign, Ruto was portrayed as corrupt, and a fraud, but that did not deter the Kenyans from seeing through the political treachery and voting him into office.

Should Chilima resign because he is facing purported corruption charges?

There is a school of thought that Chilima must leave the office of the Vice President because he faces corruption charges. In fact the proponents of such argue that Chilima has brought disrepute to the office of the Vice President and in their eyes he is guilty as charged. It never seems to occur to proponents of the “leave” idea that the so called charges are exactly mere accusations. For what they are truly worth, they could well be nothing more than political predatory tactics by Chakwera – in the nature of “kuthana naye”.

Should Chilima resign or stay put? I will try to answer these questions the best way I can and hope you invite your conscience to an introspective dialogue over this issue. To my knowledge, the reasons for firing the vice president are very clear in the constitution.

Since most of the people don’t often read the Constitution, let me quote the section on the removal of the President and the Vice.

Section 86. (1) The President or First Vice-President shall be removed from office where the President or First Vice-President, as the case may be, has been indicted and convicted by impeachment.

(2) The procedure for impeachment shall be as laid down by the Standing Orders of Parliament, provided that they are in full accord with the principles of natural justice and that –

​ ​ ​(a)​indictment and conviction by impeachment shall only be on the grounds of serious violation of the Constitution or serious breach of the written laws of the Republic that either occurred or came to light during the term of office of the President or the First Vice-President;

(b)​Indictment on impeachment shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly in a committee of the whole house;

(c)​Conviction on impeachment shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly;

(d)​Conviction in cases of impeachment shall cause the removal, and disqualification from future office, of the office holder; and

(e)​Conviction by way of impeachment shall not act as a bar to legal proceedings

From the above, one would note that removing Chilima from the Vice President is by way of impeachment. However, Section 86(2)(a) of Constitution is very clear that indictment and impeachment shall be on the grounds of serious violation of the constitution or serious breach of the written laws. These violations must be proven before the Vice President can be indicted and impeached. For the avoidance of doubt, mere suspicions or unproven charges does not and would not suffice.

The very same Constitution recognizes that every suspect is innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. This is well applicable to every person regardless of the position one holds. In as far as the Constitution is concerned, Chilima is innocent until his alleged guilt is proved in a court of law. If Chilima was to be impeached on suspicions, then Malawi run a risk of degenerating into chaos since we would have developed another yardstick of determining the laws. Political opponents can then simply frame bogus charges and give them a semblance of truth, and based on that alone indict and impeach the Vice President.

Suppose for a moment that ACB releases a report tomorrow implicating President Chakwera and state that he would have been taken to court had it been that the President has no immunity (which may not be so far from reality after all). Would that statement alone be enough for Chakwera to resign or be impeached? Would we assume that the president is guilty as accused or indeed maintain that he has disgraced the highest office in the land and is therefore liable to leave or be removed from office? Would the “leave” crusaders against Vice President Chilima be consistent and take such a position? These are questions for your conscience.

In case you think it is conjecture, we have very peculiar situations whereby the president is mentioned in alleged corrupt dealing before the courts and in investigations by the ACB. For example, witness testimony and audio recordings filed in court in one case indicated that the President was busy meeting potential suppliers whilst the fuel procurement process was underway, which is alleged against others to be in contravention of the law. The ACB even interviewed the President. That is a serious implication of criminal behaviour. For the “leave” crusaders, should the president pave way for an investigation or stay put hiding behind immunity and only popping his head to yell corruption against others? The point is that we are all better off sticking to the presumption of innocence under the Constitution. And this applies no less to Vice President Chilima.

What’s the motive for pushing Chilima to resign?

I know for sure that in their crafting, they are trying as much ways to have an impeachment motion in place though they know it’s a long shot. So the only other option is to play a moral card and demand that Chilima resigns from the office of the vice President.

However, don’t believe a word they are saying. The calls for Chilima to resign has nothing to do with the matters of corruption or consciousness or morals. It’s all in the matter related to power. Politics of “kuthana naye”. You cannot preside over the most corrupt regime ever since independent Malawi, shield each other yet at the same time maintain a moral consciousness.

Consistency is part of a moral code that is ingrained in those who have a moral conscience. The inconsistency of posturing as morally conscious against corruption through neatly weaved and verbalised English on the one hand, and engaging in or allowing a horde of corrupt political cronies is at best self-delusional.

Malawians, like Kenyans, have attained the ability to see through political posturing and treachery and make their minds on issues. Fabricated discourses and self-righteous personal identities are a thing of the long past.

The people behind the calls for Chilima resignation are salivating at the prospects of what the Section 84 of the Constitution states upon the resignation of the Vice President;

If the First Vice -President and Second Vice -President dies or resigns from office, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired period of that term by a person appointed by the President.

So in their planning they know that the only way MCP will consolidate power is to have Chilima out of the way. They know that with Chilima out of the way, the President is more likely to appoint someone who will help MCP to have total control and also shield against the eventuality of losing power should something happen to the President. The lesson from recent history is still vivid.

The president can be twisted to appoint the person who the party wishes, after all, there is already enough evidence that Chakwera can be twisted by the powerful men and women in MCP to do what they want, not what his conscious, assuming he has any, really, tells him. But again think of it, letting MCP rule alone without Chilima, whom at least they fear, would be sending this country back into dictatorship in just a matter of weeks and worse still into bankruptcy.

Nobody in Government and MCP can convince me that all of the sudden they have developed a moral compass and hate corruption. Malawi has an SPC who is gravely accused of corruption, whether rightly or wrongly, standing next to the President. You have a President in power highly entangled in corruption web continuing to be in office.

All this Chizuma saga, we all wrongly thought it was Chilima fighting Chizuma. But time has shown us who real enemies of Chizuma are. You have people that went to buy fertilizer from a butchery still serving in their positions. People who paraded and laundered US$ currencies still advising the President.

It is only a lame excuse and preposterous to use the charges against Chilima as a yardstick for one to leave office. If that were the case, this Government must voluntarily resigns because the corruption levels have reached unprecedented levels all the way to the highest echelons of power.

In fact, I know for sure that the only reason that President Chakwera is not being taken to court for corruption is because of Section 91(2) of the Constitution protects him from prosecution whilst still serving as president. If he challenges me, I dare thim o repeal this section and see if he will last a month without criminal charges meted on him.

What’s the verdict?

Chilima resignation is a moral question that he himself must undertake. Not by a group of corrupt individuals who are only in power as a result of protecting each other and justifying their criminal enterprise. The allegations against Chilima remains allegations, until such time the court determines otherwise, we shall continue to respect the Constitution of Malawi on the presumption of innocence.

Basically, the reasons of forcing Chilima to resign are not constitutionally founded. They are nothing more than twisted and politically convenient opinions. Opinions being what they are, Chilima also has an opinion based on his moral conscious. If he believes he is innocent, he has the right to hang on to the office of Vice President.

We cannot apply a moral question to Chilima only and be selective about it when those that align with MCP and party cadres continue to be protected by the President. To date we have a person running a state enterprise by way of a court injunction when it’s all clear that the job was gotten out of crookedness. By contrast, Hellen Buluma was removed for precisely getting the job dubiously, albeit only when she had become disposable.

PS: This verdict emanates from the question I was asked in the political verdict number 1, where I was addressing the quagmire of leadership Vice President Saulos Klaus Chilima finds himself in. People commented that I have not said anything about the corruption charges against Chilima vis – a – vis the issues of resignation. This is it. Think again!