Dual Citizenship windfall: Zambia unsure on dual citizenship while Kenya makes Diaspora MPs

By Hendrix Lifuna

“The Kenyan Diaspora should be represented in parliament as recognition of their contribution towards the country’s economy,” said Kenya’s Vice President, Kalonzo Musyoka recently.

The Kenyan Vice-President said amidst thunderous applause that foreign exchange remittance by the Diaspora increased by 27 per cent from $350.9 million to $475 million.

He said that the dual-citizenship provision in the new constitution should assure Kenyans abroad that they still have a role to play in the development of Kenya.

Mr. Musyoka urged Kenyans in East London or wherever they are in the Diaspora to lobby their MPs in changing the law so that a provision of a special Diaspora MP seat could be created to accommodate those living away from home into local leadership and politics.

While Zambia remains trapped in arguments on dual citizenship, Kenyans on the other hand have moved a step ahead and now want a Diaspora MP.

Zambians are yet unable to grasp the idea while our fellow African countries including Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda have dual citizenship and are benefitting economically from this arrangement.

Zambians abroad remitted a staggering US$300 million to Zambia in 2010 according to the figures collected by the United Nations (UN). This amount dwarfs any form of foreign-aid or Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Zambia receives in a year.

In a three-year period, this amount comes to almost US$1 billion. Not too long ago Britain committed to increase its foreign aid to Zambia to about £230 million for a period of three years.

That is equivalent to the US$1 billion remittance for the same period by Zambians in Diaspora casting light on the rationale behind the resistance by the government to adopt the dual-citizenship arrangement.


Chairperson of the Zambia-Canadian Association, Chasaya Sichilima, who has lived out of Zambia for 20 years, beginning with 13 years in England and the other seven in Canada, urged the Zambian Government to utilise its citizens in the Diaspora as they had the capacity to contribute a lot more than the FDI coming into the country.

He said Zambians living abroad did not necessarily need to be back in Zambia physically as they could contribute while being away.

He explained that one of the chief reasons people acquired citizenship when they migrated was that it became easier for them to stay in those countries and have access to loans and certain jobs which they would not if they were merely residents.

‘‘We want a shift where the President and the Government begin to recognise and make efforts to ensure that the Diaspora becomes a prominent force.

‘‘We actually should be given the incentive to contribute even a lot more than foreign investors because our hearts are in Zambia, our minds are in Zambia,” he said.

Mr Sichilima said Canada had made vast developments in many fields because it had harnessed the skills of people from different parts of the world.

On the issue of dual nationality, Mr Sichilima said: “It should have been done, like yesterday. That’s how late we are. We have, as a country, lost out on our own people who have gone to apply their skills elsewhere.”

A lot of Zambians, he said, were willing to help but needed a platform that could make them get more rebates than those offered to foreign investors.

He cited Kenya as one country that had put in place a Diaspora Act which made it a lot easier for people to invest or acquire land and, as a result, the country was getting a lot more money from its nationals abroad than what came in from foreign investors.

Mr Sichilima advised the Government to consider opening Diaspora desks in all foreign missions to help Zambians access investment information without having to take a flight back home.

Around 2006, Ghana received about $6 billion in remittances from the Diaspora in sharp contrast to $400 million in 2002, a year before dual citizenship was espoused and the figure was expected to increase.

Former World Bank country representative to Zambia, Kapil Kapoor, said Indians living in the Diaspora were making a significant contribution to that country’s economy.

‘‘It started from a realisation that the Diaspora are able to convey large sums of money which can be used for development. That’s twice the amount of all the money that donors provide developing countries. There’s a lot of attention that is focused on cooperating partners and donors. The Diaspora remits more than twice the amount,” Dr Kapoor said.

With President Michael Sata having appointed a 20-member Technical Committee to draft the constitution it remains to be seen whether the group would consider the dual citizenship clause as proposed in the Mung'omba draft report, one document Mr Sata has directed the team to refer to.

The economic benefits of dual-citizenship are there. For example a total amount of US$250 billion was remitted in 2007 from the Diaspora from all parts of the world.

The Barotse Agreement -a by product of British deceit

THE FALLACY OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT

By Patriotic Zambian


The Barotseland Agreement has been in the news for many years now but I feel there are many issues which are not taken seriously when looking at this issue by both the pro- and anti- groups.

When approaching the BA64 one needs to understand that this issue does not begin in 1964 when it was signed but has much deeper roots. It must be remembered that the British pushed for the BA64 because they had obligations towards the Barotseland Protectorate which they wanted to get rid of.

Herein comes the Lochner Concession.

On 27th June 1890, Lewanika and his son Litia, Ngambela Mwauluka and 38 indunas signed the concession, which ‘shall be considered in the light of a treaty between my said Barotse nation and the government of Her Britannic Majesty Queen Victoria’.

It needs to be pointed out here that the BSAC misrepresented that they were signing on behalf of the British government when in fact they were signing for a commercial concern.

The company was not granted administrative rights but received ‘the sole, absolute, exclusive and perpetual right and power’ to ‘search for, dig, win and keep’ any and all minerals in Barotseland.

Francois Coillard recorded what the Litunga and his council considered to be the extent of his territory; they made the very dubious claim that Lozi authority was recognised by the Lunda and Luvale to the North, the Kaonde to the North east, the Ila to the East and the Tonga and Toka to the South East.

Thus Barotseland ceased to be a separate entity in 1911 contrary to what a lot of people are saying today.

In effect then, through the Lochner Concession, the BSAC assumed the whole of what was to become North-western Rhodesia; it’s authority and control over all the peoples named by Lewanika rested solely on its agreement with the Lozi; no independent agreements were ever signed by chiefs of the Lunda, Luvale, Ila, Tonga or Toka, who nevertheless had to submit to BSAC overrule. Talk of being sold down the river.

Lewanika’s copy of the Lochner Concession reveals that he hoped to obtain development aid and external protection without any reduction in his internal authority. ‘The company shall not be allowed or obliged to interfere in any matter concerning the Litunga’s power or authority over any of his own subjects.

In the companys copy of the Treaty, the emphasis upon development under Lewanika’s supervision and authority falls away; secondly, it is merely noted that the ‘Company shall not be obliged to interfere’ in the internal affairs of Lewanikas state while nothing is said about the Company not being allowed to do so by the Litunga.

When George Middleton, a lay preacher, revealed that Lochner was an agent of the Company and not the British crown, Lewanika was livid with anger. He wrote for assurances to Queen Victoria.

‘I am troubled by this and should the report spread, there will be trouble and excitement in my country and people.’ His protestations and his repudiation of the Lochner Concession were not taken seriously by the Bristish authorities in Cape Town and London.

The official view was that the Secretary of State did not have to express approval or otherwise of the Lochner Concession since it did not concern any exercise of powers of government or administration by the BSAC.

Lewanika’s protestations reveal not only the extent to which he was influenced by missionaries , but also raises the question of the extent to which he understood what was involved in the concession and its significance.

Lewanika claimed that he granted the concession because he was made to understand that it was the equivalent of a treaty with the Queen.

As a result of the North-western Rhodesia-Barotseland Order-in-Council of 1899, the BSAC soon exercised overweening influence in all of North-western Rhodesia and, specifically, in Barotseland.

By this Order in Council of 1899, Lewanika and the Lozi state had lost their sovereignty to the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government. No evidence has come to light to suggest that at the time Lewanika was formally told of the Order in Council and of its significance to him as king and to the Lozi state. But the Colonial Office informed the BSAC of this in very clear and direct terms.

The order superceded the Lawley Concession, and through it Lewanika’s negotiations and his concessions were operative only in as far as they are ratified by Her Majesty or are not inconsistent with the Order in Council.

In the second place Company rule steadily ate away at Lewanika’s power inside Bulozi and he suffered humiliation after humiliation and made protest after vain protest.

The operation of the BSAC had great effect on the social and economic structure of Bulozi. Slavery, tribute labour and tribute were abolished and instead paid labour and taxation were introduced. The missionaries pointed out that the instrument of change in Bulozi was no more Lewanika but the ‘new Government which has become the instrument of transformation.’

By an Order in Council of 4 May 1911 Barotseland/North-western Rhodesia; North-eastern Rhodesia were amalgamated as one territory-Northern Rhodesia, still administered by the BSA Company.

Thus Barotseland ceased to be a separate entity in 1911 contrary to what a lot of people are saying today.

On 1 April 1924 the Administration of Northern Rhodesia became the direct responsibility of THE COLONIAL OFFICE. Herbert Stanley was appointed as Governor and Northern Rhodesia became an official Protectorate of the United Kingdom, with the capital in Livingstone.The capital was moved to Lusaka in 1935.

When the Crown assumed full power of Government over Northern Rhodesia in 1924, the Order-in- council which constituted the administration of the territory, enjoined that nothing in the provisions conferring power to regulate the natives shall be deemed to limit or affect the exercise by the King of Barotseland of his authority:{1911,1924,1929,1936,1953 Laws} N.B. Article 41 of the Northern Rhodesia Order – in – Council of 1924 reads:

1. It shall not be lawful for any purpose whatever except with the approval of the Secretary of State to alienate from the Chief and people of the Barotse, the territory reserved from prospecting by virtue of the concessions from Lewanika to the British South Africa Company dated the 17th day of October, 1900 and the 11th of August 1900 and the 11th of August, 1909.

2. All rights reserved to or for the benefits of natives by the aforesaid concessions as approved by secretary of State shall continue to have force and effect.

This, in theory, was how it was agreed to work but as can be observed above, neither the BSAC nor the British Crown saw need to adhere to this agreement as signed.

Thus in 1924, the British government inherited the responsibilities of the BSAC and the attendant issues accompanying the Lochner concession.

The Zambian independence issue caused apprehension since Lozi’s claim to a special status within Zambia as within Northern Rhodesia depended on the nineteenth century treaties with the BSAC and the British Government.

In 1964, at the time of independence, the British wishing to absolve themselves of their obligations towards Barotseland and knowing the unviability of a stand-alone Barotseland state, pushed for the signing of the BA64 so that the new nation of Zambia would take over their responsibilities.

Although given special dispensation for local government administration from the date of signing of the Lochner Concession, Barotseland was never considered as a separate country from first North-western Rhodesia and later Northern Rhodesia. It was a protectorate within another Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia.

As a British Protectorate, it was governed from Livingstone and later Lusaka.Geographically, Barotseland has always been drawn within the international boundaries of Northern Rhodesia and its boundaries have always been shown as provincial boundaries by the British. This is unlike Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland which were always shown within separate international boundaries. The present boundaries of Western Province are more or less the same as the old Barotseland contrary to the claims of people today who want to extend them to the railway line and Copperbelt

Lewanika’s granting of rights to the BSAC to the extent he did was illegal and cannot stand up to international scrutiny by today’s standards. It is not acceptable that he could have granted rights in areas where he had no jurisdiction and expect that the people in those areas are just going to accept with their arms folded.

In calling for the restoration of the BA64, the tribes which came under BSAC rule as a result of the Lochner Concession must categorically be taken as

separate from the old Barotseland. The BA64 is a by-product of the original deceit by Frank Lochner on behalf of Cecil Rhodes and the BSAC. With the knowledge we have now, we cannot allow an injustice of 1890 to be legitimised by an agreement of 1964.

The Barotse Agreement -a by product of British deceit

Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 12:57 pm

THE FALLACY OF THE BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT

By Patriotic Zambian
The Barotseland Agreement has been in the news for many years now but I feel there are many issues which are not taken seriously when
looking at this issue by both the pro- and anti- groups.

When approaching the BA64 one needs to understand that this issue does not begin in 1964 when it was signed but has much deeper roots. It must be remembered that the British pushed for the BA64 because they had obligations towards the Barotseland Protectorate which they wanted to get rid of.

Herein comes the Lochner Concession.
On 27th June 1890, Lewanika and his son Litia, Ngambela Mwauluka and 38 indunas signed the concession, which ‘shall be considered in the light of a treaty between my said Barotse nation and the government of Her Britannic Majesty Queen Victoria’.

It needs to be pointed out here that the BSAC misrepresented that they were signing on behalf of the British government when in fact they were signing for a commercial concern.

The company was not granted administrative rights but received ‘the sole, absolute, exclusive and perpetual right and power’ to ‘search for, dig, win and keep’ any and all minerals in Barotseland.

Francois Coillard recorded what the Litunga and his council considered to be the extent of his territory; they made the very dubious claim that Lozi authority was recognised by the Lunda and Luvale to the North, the Kaonde to the North east, the Ila to the East and the Tonga and Toka to the South East.

Thus Barotseland ceased to be a separate entity in 1911 contrary to what a lot of people are saying today.

In effect then, through the Lochner Concession, the BSAC assumed the whole of what was to become North-western Rhodesia; it’s authority and control over all the peoples named by Lewanika rested solely on its agreement with the Lozi; no independent agreements were ever signed by chiefs of the Lunda, Luvale, Ila, Tonga or Toka, who nevertheless had to submit to BSAC overrule. Talk of being sold down the river.

Lewanika’s copy of the Lochner Concession reveals that he hoped to obtain development aid and external protection without any reduction in his internal authority. ‘The company shall not be allowed or obliged to interfere in any matter concerning the Litunga’s power or authority over any of his own subjects.

In the companys copy of the Treaty, the emphasis upon development under Lewanika’s supervision and authority falls away; secondly, it is merely noted that the ‘Company shall not be obliged to interfere’ in the internal affairs of Lewanikas state while nothing is said about the Company not being allowed to do so by the Litunga.

When George Middleton, a lay preacher, revealed that Lochner was an agent of the Company and not the British crown, Lewanika was livid with anger. He wrote for assurances to Queen Victoria.
‘I am troubled by this and should the report spread, there will be trouble and excitement in my country and people.’ His protestations and his
repudiation of the Lochner Concession were not taken seriously by the Bristish authorities in Cape Town and London.

The official view was that the Secretary of State did not have to express approval or otherwise of the Lochner Concession since it did not concern any
exercise of powers of government or administration by the BSAC.

Lewanika’s protestations reveal not only the extent to which he was influenced by missionaries , but also raises the question of the extent to which he understood what was involved in the concession and its significance.

Lewanika claimed that he granted the concession because he was made to understand that it was the equivalent of a treaty with the Queen.

As a result of the North-western Rhodesia-Barotseland Order-in-Council of 1899, the BSAC soon exercised overweening influence in all of North-western Rhodesia and, specifically, in Barotseland.

By this Order in Council of 1899, Lewanika and the Lozi state had lost their sovereignty to the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government. No evidence has come to light to suggest that at the time Lewanika was formally told of the Order in Council and of its significance to him as king and to the Lozi state. But the Colonial Office informed the BSAC of this in very clear and direct terms.

The order superceded the Lawley Concession, and through it Lewanika’s negotiations and his concessions were operative only in as far as they are ratified by Her Majesty or are not inconsistent with the Order in Council.

In the second place Company rule steadily ate away at Lewanika’s power inside Bulozi and he suffered humiliation after humiliation and made protest after vain protest.

The operation of the BSAC had great effect on the social and economic structure of Bulozi. Slavery, tribute labour and tribute were abolished and instead paid labour and taxation were introduced. The missionaries pointed out that the instrument of change in Bulozi was no more Lewanika but the ‘new Government which has become the instrument of transformation.’

By an Order in Council of 4 May 1911 Barotseland/North-western Rhodesia; North-eastern Rhodesia were amalgamated as one territory-Northern Rhodesia, still administered by the BSA Company.

Thus Barotseland ceased to be a separate entity in 1911 contrary to what a lot of people are saying today.

On 1 April 1924 the Administration of Northern Rhodesia became the direct responsibility of THE COLONIAL OFFICE. Herbert Stanley was appointed as Governor and Northern Rhodesia became an official Protectorate of the United Kingdom, with the capital in Livingstone.The capital was moved to Lusaka in 1935.

When the Crown assumed full power of Government over Northern Rhodesia in 1924, the Order-in- council which constituted the administration of the territory, enjoined that nothing in the provisions conferring power to regulate the natives shall be deemed to limit or affect the exercise by the King of Barotseland of his authority:{1911,1924,1929,1936,1953 Laws} N.B. Article 41 of the Northern Rhodesia Order – in – Council of 1924 reads:

1. It shall not be lawful for any purpose whatever except with the approval of the Secretary of State to alienate from the Chief and people of the Barotse, the territory reserved from prospecting by virtue of the concessions from Lewanika to the British South Africa Company dated the 17th day of October, 1900 and the 11th of August 1900 and the 11th of August, 1909.

2. All rights reserved to or for the benefits of natives by the aforesaid concessions as approved by secretary of State shall continue to have force and effect.

This, in theory, was how it was agreed to work but as can be observed above, neither the BSAC nor the British Crown saw need to adhere to this agreement as signed.

Thus in 1924, the British government inherited the responsibilities of the BSAC and the attendant issues accompanying the Lochner concession.

The Zambian independence issue caused apprehension since Lozi’s claim to a special status within Zambia as within Northern Rhodesia depended on the nineteenth century treaties with the BSAC and the British Government.

In 1964, at the time of independence, the British wishing to absolve themselves of their obligations towards Barotseland and knowing the unviability of a stand-alone Barotseland state, pushed for the signing of the BA64 so that the new nation of Zambia would take over their responsibilities.

Although given special dispensation for local government administration from the date of signing of the Lochner Concession, Barotseland was never considered as a separate country from first North-western Rhodesia and later Northern Rhodesia. It was a protectorate within another Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia.

As a British Protectorate, it was governed from Livingstone and later Lusaka.Geographically, Barotseland has always been drawn within the international boundaries of Northern Rhodesia and its boundaries have always been shown as provincial boundaries by the British. This is unlike Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland which were always shown within separate international boundaries. The present boundaries of Western Province are more or less the same as the old Barotseland contrary to the claims of people today who want to extend them to the railway line and Copperbelt

Lewanika’s granting of rights to the BSAC to the extent he did was illegal and cannot stand up to international scrutiny by today’s standards. It is not acceptable that he could have granted rights in areas where he had no jurisdiction and expect that the people in those areas are just going to accept with their arms folded.

In calling for the restoration of the BA64, the tribes which came under BSAC rule as a result of the Lochner Concession must categorically be taken as
separate from the old Barotseland. The BA64 is a by-product of the original deceit by Frank Lochner on behalf of Cecil Rhodes and the BSAC. With the knowledge we have now, we cannot allow an injustice of 1890 to be legitimised by an agreement of 1964.

Implications of President Michael Sata's Irrational Appointments

Barely two months after wrestling power from the corrupt and much discredited Rupiah Banda administration, President Michael Chilufya Sata is already becoming prone to making irrational and unthinking appointments of corrupt people that lack morals and integrity to various government positions. What started as a one-off guff is maturing into a daily ritual. Several appointments made so far, no names mentioned here, have left many Zambians worried, concerned and wondering whether the man at the helm of the Zambian Government is acting in his right frame of mind or not. A couple of days after his election, Sata stated that he is allergic to corruption. The question now is, if he is truly allergic to corruption, "Why has he such affinity for corrupt people, people that stole from the Zambia people, people still on trial or cases pending before the courts of law?" One wonders where Michael Sata was when many of his irregular appointees where found with serious cases to answer? Was he living in a part of the world that was disconnected from the media?

While we all expect the president to make some appointments, we also believe that it is dangerous to let him on the loose and continue making serious mistakes. He is acting with impunity and total disregard and betrayal of the people that voted for him in the first place. One cannot agree more for the urgent need to have a constitution in place that will ensure checks and balances to guarantee the separation of powers. It is becoming all too clear that the PF government is on the path to renegade on most of their campaign promises. It is extremely disconcerting to see the PF leadership that we thought held much promise for a clean and upright governance start making unconscious appoints, and back-pedaling on the promise to re-introduce windfall taxes on mines.

The Zambian people are quick in starting to lose trust and if Sata continues in the manner he has been going about his appointments he will soon find that his support will thin out in no time. It is encouraging to see Dr. Sondashi advise President Sata to revoke the appointment of Emmanuel Mwamba as Permanent Secretary for Northern Province. Dr. Sondashi's courage is applauded. If the president does not consult his cabinet to arrive at rational decisions, this is an opportunity to correct the mess he is getting himself in. If he does consult his ministers but the ministers are just wimps, this is the time for them all to stand up for what is right and stop endorsing unrealistic ideas advanced by the president. 

Wild Cats and King Cobra

Nov 10, 2011

After just two months in office, President Michael Chilufya Sata has made a complete turnaround in his attitude to China. He once criticised Chinese investors but now wants to use them to develop Zambia’s economy.

The full force of his government is focused on reassuring its partners in Beijing, leaving workers and human rights groups to attack the activities of Chinese mining companies. In opposition, Sata (aka King Cobra) blamed Chinese investors for abuse and corruption; as President, he blames the former government for fraud in handing out working papers.

Every ministry that has any dealings with the Chinese government or Chinese companies has started a charm offensive. At a 28 October State House luncheon given by Sata for the Chinese community in Zambia, he told Ambassador Zhou Yuxiao that he would send Zambia’s founding President Kenneth Kuanda to Beijing to thank the Chinese government for its investment and aid. Rather than blame Chinese companies for unreliable construction projects or for bringing large numbers of Chinese labourers into the country, Sata blames the former government.

After lunch, Minister of Mines and Mineral Development Wylbur Simuusa told Chinese companies the government hopes for a period of unprecedented good relations with Beijing. He echoed the new Patriotic Front government’s message that China’s investments will be protected and that its companies will be able to engage in any economic activity as long as they respect Zambia’s laws. At China’s Lusaka Embassy on 31 October, Simuusa reassured Ambassador Zhou that he would work to reduce misunderstandings between the two governments after the recent labour unrest. Simuusa then left for an official visit to China.

On 2 November, Finance Minister Alexander Chikwanda told Zhou that China is Zambia’s most reliable partner. His ministry will set up a unit to work more closely with the Embassy on the follow-up of Chinese projects.

Since defeating incumbent Rupiah Banda and the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) in the 20 September polls, Sata’s popularity has soared. After campaigning on populist slogans of ‘more jobs, less taxes and more money in your pockets’, he has made huge statements and attempted to reverse the Banda government’s more unpopular decisions. Sata, who says his PF will lead Zambia on the principles of the ten commandments, has pledged zero tolerance for corruption.

Sata’s shake-up

In the first month of his presidency, Sata fired Bank of Zambia Governor Caleb Fundanga and its board, reversed the FirstRand takeover of Finance Bank, briefly halted metal exports and purged elements of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Drug Enforcement Commission, the police and Zambia Defence Force. He also directed that the minimum wage for non-unionised industrial workers be increased from 419,000 kwacha (US$85) to K1 million. Sata’s changes, so far, have focused on pro-poor programmes and combating corruption in the civil service. He promised drastic change within 90 days. His critics argue that some of his pronouncements and decisions on graft are not genuine but perceived. ‘This has come at a cost, promoting a high level of uncertainty,’ says a governance expert.

Workers saw the victory of Sata, a vocal critic of Chinese workplace practices (AAC passim), as a signal for poorly paid Zambian workers at Chinese mines to demand better working conditions. ‘The workers have expressed their views [at the ballot box] and now they feel liberated,’ Labour Minister Fackson Shamenda said on 24 October. Chinese-owned mines and industries have been hit by an unprecedented wave of industrial unrest. Chinese companies, chiefly in the mining sector, have suffered the brunt of the wild-cat strikes in the wake of Sata’s election.

The ‘Chinese have been responsible for the economic growth seen in Zambia in recent times… and therefore it goes without saying that instability at Chinese [mining] operations spells doom for the economy,’ an industry expert told Africa-Asia Confidential, adding that ‘the President needs to take responsibility for these strikes because ultimately the buck stops with him.’

Zambians working in Chinese mines are some of the lowest-paid employees in the hazardous mining sector. Sata won by a huge margin in Copperbelt Province, where he has enjoyed unwavering support since the 2006 polls. Under the MMD government, workers complained that foreign capital took precedence over workers’ welfare. Labourers continue to work under poor conditions and without proper protective equipment (see box).

Chambishi Copper Mines, owned by Non-Ferrous China Africa, was hardest-hit by the strikes that started on 18 October. On news of Sata’s elections, NFCA gave its 2,000-strong workforce a pay rise of 85%. The windfall was not meant to last for ever. The workers resisted the reversal and the mine had been rocked by stoppages, resulting in millions of dollars in losses. Sata has avoided commenting on the matter but both Labour Minister Shamenda and Mines Minister Simuusa backed the miners’ demands as ‘justified’. Sata sent a Simuusa-led delegation to resolve the matters using quiet diplomacy.

Artisans and craftsmen at NFCA are paid between K850,000 and K1.1 mn. Labourers contracted by NFCA’s main underground contractor, JCHX, are paid K450,000. ‘We want equal pay with KCM [India's Vedanta Resources-owned Konkola Copper Mines] and Mopani,’ shouted one of the protesting miners at NFCA. ‘We did the same copper and sell it to the people; we need to be paid the same,’ said other protesting miners.

Union sympathies

Former trades unionists occupy the top jobs at the three ministries that deal most with Chinese mining companies. The Labour Minister, his Deputy and the Mines Minister all share a union background. They engaged the Chinese companies in talks about wages rather than leaving it to the unions. On 11 October, Deputy Labour Minister Rayford Mbulu directed NFCA to award workers a K2 mn. salary increase to align pay standards with other firms. Ambassador Zhou stepped in to defend the interests of the state-owned NFCA on 24 October: ‘The increase is a bit too much and not realistic.’

A source at Chambishi said that NFCA sent representatives to other major mining companies in 2010 to investigate their pay structures but did not change its practices after finding that it paid less. After the sacking and rehiring of more than 1,000 NFCA workers on 23 October – with the threat of sorting out the troublemakers – a new round of talks started. On 1 November, the mining companies and unions started a two-month negotiation period about collective bargaining agreements.

Christopher Silute, the Deputy National Secretary of the National Union of Miners and Allied Workers, told AAC that the unions want the government to let them represent workers. ‘When we go to negotiate for higher salaries, what we are usually told is “your government has told us when we signed these agreements that the minimum wage here is ABC”, so it becomes very difficult because we don’t know what they’ve agreed.’ He said that Chinese miners originally opposed unions but the current government’s intervention means that all workers can join a union.

Meanwhile, a research note at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce suggested that these moves towards better regulation would squeeze profits at a time when global copper demand is flagging, ultimately affecting Zambia’s ability to attract investment./Africa-Asia Confidential