DORA Siliya's political life remains entwined with President Rupiah Banda's Government. Despite winning a judgment in the High Court that clears her, Banda's enemies continue to use the quashed findings of the tribunal as basis for their political attacks against Government.

An electoral pact has since been formed with the sole purpose of having fresh and early presidential and parliamentary elections.

Mr Banda's Government is only eight months, yet his enemies are keen to collapse it, giving it no chance to work or operate.

A vicious triangle has emerged in the MMD, the opposition and donor community championing the cause. Will President Banda's Government survive? Will Siliya ride the tiger?

To enemies of Rupiah Banda, Siliya is a symbol of Mr Banda's corruption. She reflects their accusation that Mr Banda practices tribalism, favouritism and is engaged in corruption.

Yet to many, Siliya is a victim of political forces and has been caught up in the fulcrum of forces that President Banda thought he could fight and overwhelm in an easy victory.

Siliya's attempts to stop the abuse of State resources by senior Government officials and others who were keen to keep afloat a fledgling and bankrupt airline, her refusal to award corrupt telecommunication tenders to a firm promoted by a person close to the former State House occupant, and her quest to expose these corrupt vices attracted vicious political attacks and schemes that have continued to threaten President Banda's Government.

Siliya is now at the centre of a political and judicial feud that has engulfed the president, the judiciary and opposition leaders Michael Sata (King Cobra) and his new side kick, Hakainde Hichilema (Prince Cobra).

Brief background

When accepting the report of the tribunal findings on the petition against then minister of Communications and Transport, Siliya, from Justice Dennis Chirwa, President Banda had glowing words for the judiciary, praising it for keeping peace and stability in Zambia.

He praised it for resolving disputes in a manner that promotes unity and peace in the country.

He was mistaken!

Instead, the findings of the tribunal were fuel for an ugly debate that ensued. Events leading to the court process against Siliya had caused a fractious debate in the country that people hoped the findings of the court would put to rest.

The findings didn't rest the matter but instead escalated political tension.

While stating that Siliya had been cleared of all three allegations brought against her under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Code of Conduct, the tribunal report, however, stated that she had breached the Republican Constitution by not following or ignoring the advice of the attorney general.

The report further warned that had it been the Republican President who had breached the Constitution, he would be subject of an impeachment motion in Parliament.

The findings were so controversial that they raised a furore that took up acres of newspaper space and predictably caused the resignation of Siliya from her position.

What is the motive of the tribunal findings?

It was clear that the tribunal's findings that Siliya breached provisions of the Constitution were in excess of its mandate and jurisdiction.

The tribunal erred in law when it adjudicated upon constitutional matters and pronounced itself on the provisions of the Constitution.

This is an exclusive preserve and power of the High Court (and on appeals the Supreme Court).

Magistrate, other lower courts, and tribunals are barred from interpreting the Constitution.

The tribunal, however, sought to interpret the Constitution when it alleged that Siliya breached Article 54 (3) when she awarded a contract to RP Capital without advice or regard of the attorney general.

Tribunals have a limited mandate and jurisdiction. In this case, the tribunal was constituted under the Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct Act of 1994 and is tasked to investigate breach(es) of the Code, make findings and recommend to the president measures to be taken against a member of Parliament or serving minister.

The tribunal also broke principles of natural justice as it pronounced itself on matters that were not subject of proceedings and, therefore, gave no opportunity to Siliya to be heard and defend herself.

The tribunal also seemed lost as to who was the client of the attorney general between Siliya and the Ministry of Communications and Transport.

But how could a tribunal with such eminent men in Justice Dennis Chirwa, Justice Peter Chitengi, High Court Judge Evans Hamaundu and deputy director of subordinate courts, Chilombo Phiri (as secretary) get it so wrong?

How could the learned members of the tribunal choose to ignore the tribunal's limited jurisdiction and mandate under the law?

How could they comment and seek to interpret the Constitution when they sat as a mere tribunal and usurp the exclusive powers of the High Court to interpret the provisions of the Constitution?

Was it wilful oversight? Or was it a ploy carried by deliberate intentions?

The rise of the phoenix

Just when Mr Banda's Government had reined in the empire, a fatal mistake was made. The Government side relaxed!

But the empire went to work. They embarked on a fierce campaign and schemes against President Banda.

Mr Banda's Government and his family were accused of corruption, inefficiency, neglect of duty and failure before his Government even settles down.

Although the mischief appears to be in the law which prescribes the composition by stating that the tribunal shall consist of persons qualified to hold or have held office of the High Court or Supreme Court, the chief justice is expected to appoint persons who are of High Court status so that in the event of an appeal or review against the tribunal's findings, embarrassment would not be caused when the High Court overturns the findings.

It is difficult to understand how the Supreme Court justices were expected to apply themselves to the proceedings. As men lower than the High Court? Isn't Sakala aware of the saying that 'where a Judge is, so is the court?'

Haven't judges signed orders in strange places and venues? How were judges Chirwa and Chitengi expected to act?

Or was the intention to make the findings of the tribunal on Siliya virtually final? That if the findings were a subject of appeal, High Court judges would be intimidated or be reluctant to make a contrary view fearing to contradict eminent and senior men?

Was the intention to place and sit these senior judges in a tribunal a thorough scheme to satisfy the empire? These are the questions exercising people's minds now.

How was the tribunal against Peter Machungwa, Katele Kalumba and Golden Mandandi comprised when Dean Namulya Mungomba, Bwalya Kanyanta Ng'andu and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) petitioned then chief justice Mathew Ngulube to investigate breaches under Parliamentary and Ministerial Code of Conduct by the trio in the K2 billion scandal?

When that tribunal acquitted Katele and found Machungwa and Mandandi liable, didn't they seek a judicial review in the High Court?

The war against President Banda has taken an urgent tone.

Even Maureen Mwanawasa has wittingly or unwittingly weighed in with a comment.

On her recent visit to the Copperbelt, Maureen issued a statement virtually supporting the wild-cat strikes by nurses calling them legitimate.

She implored Government to make assurances to the striking workers and urged the Government to obtain resources and pay the salary demands of striking workers.

Observers now urge the Government to investigate who is associated with Pharco, a company owned by Italians which was given permission to manufacture ARVs. Pharco as Sunrise also ran Medical Stores.

Pharco was later replaced by Crown Agents in the running of the multi-billion industry of procuring and distributing medicine in Zambia through Medical Stores.

The Auditor General, Anna Chifungula on her recent tour of duty of border areas and Western Province insisted that K27 billion was stolen at Ministry of Health in 2008 alone. She also bemoaned the continued loss of vital accounting documents at the ministry.

Ms Chifungula has always expressed alarm at the extent and abuse of huge amounts of money at the ministry but no particular attention has been paid to her cries.

In April 2007, she exposed a scandal at the ministry where Medical Stores had disposed of drugs worth K24 Billion.

She demanded that then Health permanent secretary Simon Miti explain why he had allowed a system that resulted in such a huge and costly wastage.

She also complained that Ministry of Health officials led by Dr Miti always frustrated the work of her audits and showed little or no cooperation.

Then Minister of Health Brian Chituwo defended the disposal of the K24 billion worth of drugs, defending Miti that he followed all procedures required for the disposal of Government assets.

He attributed the wastage to the dissolution of the Central Board of Health and arguing that most of the expired drugs were 'unplanned donations' from service clubs, churches and NGOs!

Chifungula stated that it was shocking that while the constant cry of Zambians was that hospitals, clinics and health centres lacked medicines, the Ministry of Health had the luxury to allow drugs expire on the shelf and then dispose them as waste!

Magande, who has kicked off his campaign in the MMD and has embarked on a country-wide tour, was recently called for police interrogations over the abuse of State resources to support a private business in Zambian Airways.

Magande justified his 'intervention' as legal, citing the Loans and Guarantee Act as foundation for his intervention.

He stated that he has authority as minister of Finance to intervene in parastatal debts and loans, including that of National Airports Corporation.

He is reported to have informed the officers that he phoned then acting President Rupiah Banda at 22:00 hours to intervene on behalf of Zambian Airways against the decisions National Airports Corporation had made.

NACL had withheld services that threatened the closure of Zambian Airways. He urged Banda to look for "his Minister of Transport, Dora Siliya so that she could direct the managing director of NACL to halt the intended action!"

Clearly, the personal link and interest Magande had in the airline is exposed in his own answers!

The electoral pact

On June 4, 2009, a surprising announcement was made. Two leading opposition parties of the country, the Patriotic Front (PF) and the United Party for National Development (UPND) would form a formidable alliance against the MMD.

In a Press statement signed by PF leader, Michael Sata and UPND leader Hakainde Hichilema, the duo announced that they had come together in an electoral alliance to unseat the MMD.

They promised to offer stringent checks and balances against the "corrupt" Government of President Banda. They demanded early presidential and parliamentary elections.

The two parties have since embarked on political activities aimed at promoting the alliance.

A startling revelation has been Hakainde Hichilema who has emerged with vitriolic political attacks against Banda and his ministers. He lampooned Education Minister Geoffrey Lungwanga as a big man with 'a small brain'.

He further accused Minister of Information, Ronnie Shikapwasha of intimidation describing him: "Your body mass does not mean that you have more power and can intimidate me!"

After Siliya was re-appointed as minister, Hakainde held a Press conference to denounce Banda's decision demanding the immediate revocation of Siliya's appointment and resignation of President Banda.

He has accused the president of having a special relation with Siliya.

Hichilema was known to practice clean modern politics. His politics were likened to Barack Obama, promising a fresh, young start to the current rot in politics.

However, Hichilema has abandoned his quest for clean politics and language for dirty politics and crude language.

Probably his two electoral failures in 2006 and 2008 have taught him a sad lesson

that has left him desperate to achieve a total transformation.

But to morph into a little Cobra spewing enormous amount of venom against everyone, Hichilema has embarked on a dangerous journey. Many saw Hichilema as a softer alternative to Sata.

The weakness of the alliance is the choice of the presidential candidate. Hakainde seems to be counting on the NCC that it will bar Sata to stand at the next election with their wicked clause that demands that a degree holder should be among the qualifications of a presidential candidate.

Sata seems to be relying on his strength and age that can allow him to persuade Hichilema to wait until 2016.

Or in the event that they managed to collapse this Government and their call for a fresh election is upheld, Hichilema will stand in 2014!

The choice of the presidential candidate will make or break the alliance.

But for now, both parties appear to enjoy the attention, interest and publicity the alliance has brought them and the marriage will remain rosy as far as they keep the debate of the presidential candidate out of their bedroom.