NGC set up in Zambia

 the National Governing Council has been set up in Zambia to oversee the implemenation of the APRM..  Civil society has commended the government through the Ministry of Justice and for appointing the APRM National Governing Council (NGC) adding that this is a sign government's commitment towards the realization of Peer Review in Zambia.

the CSOs however note with great concern that this gesture by the government may be jeopardized by the nature in which the NGC was appointed, its representations and attached conditions. I note that the whole process of appointing the National governing council was shrouded in secrecy contrary to the APRM Guidelines.  The following are some of the issues that need attention

1.    The number of members (47) on the National Governing council was not the agreed number at the National Brainstorming Session. The session agreed on 15 – 21 representatives and a number of factors were taken into account including representation, consensus, cost effectiveness among others. It is necessary that Government states clearly the reasons for this departure from the agreed number.

2.    The Brainstorming Session further resolved that the Chairperson of the Brainstorming Session would be selected by the NGC members. Unfortunatly, the Ministry without consultations appointed the chairperson Mr. Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika who is coming from the Anti-Corruption Commission a quasi government Institution while his appointed vice is serving on the National Constitutional Conference. Mr. Lewanika is an active Politician and therefore his position discredits the process because he is aligned to government which should not be the case as APRM pioneer countries have shown.  We question the effectiveness of the Vice Chairperson who will have the challenge of serving on both the NCC and the APRM NGC.

3.    Key church mother bodies like the Christian Council of Zambia, Zambia Episcopal Conference and Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, are not represented on the NGC and we are of the opinion that the APRM process will miss out on a critical voice.

6.    The NGC is not gender balanced because it is dominated by the male folk with only 11 women compared to 36 men, this does not match up to the SADC gender quota.

7.    The NGC is 60% Government leaving Civil Society and Private sector sharing 40% and yet the APRM is aimed at assessing the Government. The question that begs an answer is how objective the assessment will be if the NGC is packed with Government operatives? We see danger that this process might be turned into an expensive Public Relations exercise with very little objective outcomes?

It is not late to make amendments as now is the time to do so. We suggest that the composition of the NGC be revisited and comes down to the numbers recommended during the Brainstorming Session.

 Mr. Lewanika  should  step down from being the Chairperson of the NGC. He has clearly indicated that he is an active politician supporting the ruling government. While we recognize that he has the quality and capacity to chair such a body, his continued involvement in partisan politics will cloud the independence and the objectivity of the whole APRM process. Government cannot be the hunter and hunted in this process and we should have a Chairperson who has no ties with Government or the ruling party or even any other political party for that matter. We strongly believe that there are a number of independent minded persons from the Private Sector or even civil society that could chair this process. As Mr. Lewanika intends to resign from the ACC which constituency will be representing as he sits on the NCC.