I can't lie: every morning when I'm looking for newspapers, the first one I look out for is the Post newspaper. There are many days when I don't even know what the other newspaper headlines are saying because it's usually not something very interesting (although they also seem to have improved a little these days). The Post newspaper almost always has bold and daring headlines that are bound to catch any person's attention. Their editorials are also much more interesting because they are not as predictable as the other daily newspapers: they will not always just praise what Levy or his minister has done, but instead they will give their own opinion on any issue. I have never agreed with their editorials on economic issues (because these are always wrong), but their comments on the moral imperatives of leaders, particularly political leaders and public servants, are always very inspiring and even enlightening. One feels a sense of true hope when one reads their editorials in this vein; one's soul rejoices to know that there are other people out there who believe in absolute and certain morality, in pursuing total commitment of one's soul to virtue and honesty.

The fact that I enjoy the Post newspaper's reporting style and editorials is not why I feel the moral obligation to defend them against those leaders of the Patriotic Front who threatened them the other day for continuing to call Chiluba a thief. I defend them because I believe in the principle of individual freedom (in this case, press freedom). It is of course disappointing that the media bodies that have formed themselves for the ostensible purpose of defending media freedom hardly ever make any comment whenever the Post have come under such unfortunate threats from some politicians. If they truly believe in this principle of freedom of expression, and if they are truly formed for the purpose of defending this principle and right, then they should always rise up and use their clout to condemn any such acts from politicians who behave like this so that every politician who wants to do such a thing would be afraid next time because he will know he is not just threatening the Post, but everyone who believes in this principle.

A threat is precisely what this statement from the PF Members of Parliament was. They resolved that they would take measures to stop the Post from publishing articles that condemn Chiluba the way they do. How exactly do they intend to do this? At this stage, the Post should have reported these MPs to the police so that they could explain how they intend to do this, because if it is through physical means then they deserve to be locked up and stripped of their parliamentary seats immediately.

As parliamentarians, it is scary that they do not even understand the principle of media freedom. They do not know that the very reason for which they are in parliament is to protect individual citizens' rights by introducing and strengthening laws that have that precise goal and purpose. One gets discouraged to think that such people are actually in high numbers in parliament and they are able to actually use parliament to block the freedom of individuals who want to express their opinions freely through the press.

What is even more disheartening is that it is not just the Patriotic Front Members of Parliament who have failed to understand this principle of press freedom. The other month, other Members of Parliament from the Western province, represented by a number of parties, made similar attempts to block the freedom of the Post from publishing their own views on another controversial matter (to do with language). They literally insulted the newspaper's editor-in-chief through a joint statement officially released by them after they met.

What is ironic in both of these cases is that these people released their statements through the Post newspaper itself, with the full confidence that they would be published, but knew full well that the other "public" newspapers would not publish their controversial statements. This is always just so amazing: how do people fail to see such obvious contradictions manifested in their own actions? How could they not see that the very medium they were threatening and attacking is the one that makes it possible for them to even be heard whenever they have something to say?

This is not to say that one should not intellectually attack the Post when one has a disagreement with them. But these are not just "anyone"; these are elected leaders with legislative power who are in charge of making laws. And more than that, they express their disagreement in a way that sounds like they want to use their positions to prevent this newspaper from expressing its views freely. Their attack is therefore not "intellectual", but political (and usually, personal).

This is also confirmed by the fact that the same MPs have opposed the Freedom of Information bill on this very basis. They openly argue that they do not want the Post to be even more free than they are now because of the things they write and the way they write. Most of them have been proposing that they can support this freedom of information bill if only the media can be subjected to strict regulation by the government, and again they can't see how those two positions (more regulation and more freedom) directly contradict each other in an almost absurd way!

What hope do we have that our nation will ever realise the principles that mark civilized societies if our own leaders do not understand such principles?

Finally, I must comment on the particular issue in contention: the Chiluba-is-a-thief comment. If these Members of Parliament had any understanding of civilized politics, they would know that Chiluba behaved very inappropriately and immorally when he was in office and if they are truly honourable, they would not want to be associated with him or his defence in any way. A man who can become much richer after his presidency when he went in as a poor man from the unions is a man who has evidently behaved immorally. If Chiluba had big companies and things like that before he became president, one would not be totally surprised and suspicious if he became richer simply because he can make the whole economy grow and this can lead to the automatic growth of his own investments' value. But we are talking about a man who had only a few Kwachas and almost no assets to his name when he became republican president in 1991. How could such a man become so rich after ten years that he could even afford to buy clothes worth a million dollars?

A million dollars at the time Chiluba left office was equivalent to more than Five billion kwacha. The other day some civil servants went on strike demanding some promised payments and when about 3 billion Kwacha was released, they went back to work. This little thief could spend more money on his stupid clothes from one boutique than what these hard working civil servants wanted before they could go back to work! Isn't that obscene? And yet before he became president, he was just like these same workers! How can any right thinking person even conceive of the possibility that this is an innocent man who is just being persecuted by the "evil" Post newspaper?

How can any intelligent man fail to see that this person used his position as president to gain such inordinate wealth and believed he could get away with it because he was a clever "master dribbler" (as he publicly and proudly called himself)? And how can any person with even the slightest sense of morality fail to see that using the position of presidency to become wealthy is totally immoral, evil and criminal? To me it doesn't matter if he actually stole that money from the tax payers' coffers or if he received it from "well-wishers". The fact that he got it (personally) by virtue of his (public) office is what makes it an immoral and criminal offence.

But I do not expect these "honorable" MPs to understand my argument because they spiritually come from the era of the same Chiluba, in which such impropriety (theft) was normal, acceptable and even admirable. They will be confused when they read my argument because it's completely outside their paradigms of thought. To them, the expression "uwu bomba mwibala alya mwibala" [he who works in a garden must eat from that garden] is a biblical commandment instead of an evil maxim that it is. They can never understand anyone who suggests that a public servant must never touch anything beyond his legal, statutory pay. They think such a person is either insane or he is a hypocrite because such honesty and integrity is totally incomprehensible to them.

This article is therefore not written to them, but to that other generation of Zambians that is willing to discard the wrong and evil lessons that they were briefly exposed to in the degenerate Chiluba era. It is written for those who are willing to defend not only the principle of integrity in public office, but to also defend the rights of those brave men and women who valiantly expose such acts of impropriety when they see them in those entrusted with positions of power.