Zambia hands out the treatment to Sheriff and his PH...

Jack Koch

AFFIDAVIT
I, J.S. KOCH, SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT (SUPREME COURT) AND LOWER COURTS (MAGISTRATES COURTS) FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, REGISTERED PEACE OFFICER AND STATE APPRAISER, MAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIDAVIT IN POINT FORM.

1. I recently hunted with Ray Millican, professional hunter in Lupande Msoro, Zambia
2. I made 2 trips to this area and sent South African clients to hunt there.
3. On my last trip we had to leave a hunt while in progress as Professional Hunter Ray Millican became very sick and had to be rushed to hospital.
4. The buffalo hunt was stopped while in progress and Mr R Millican was carried to camp where I and his camp staff gave him medical treatment.
5. Mr Millican’s condition deteriorated and I realized that he suffered from severe heat stroke, his sugar levels dropped, his blood pressure was high and his tongue swelled in his mouth.
6. Due to his condiiton, we left the camp at +1 03H30 and rushed back to Lusaka his condition was serious and he would die should he stay in camp.
7. At +1 09H30 we were stopped at a large roadblock in Nyimba
8. We were kept in a police office for 2 hours without proper charge explanation nor proper police identification procedures.
9. Mr Millican’s condition deteriorated.
10. We were then instructed to go back to Chief Msoro – no reason given.
11. We were taken back by armed escort.
12. I was informed that my buffalo was being skinned and I can collect it.
13. Three game guards (unfortunately I don’t know their names) informed me the animal would be slaughtered properly. When Mr Robby Meyer came to collect the buffalo, it had mysteriously disappeared.
14. At Katete, Mr Millican became unconscious and we rushed him to St Francis Hospital.
15. The doctors were horrified that he was being ‘arrested’ in his condition and ordered the ZAWA game guard and police to release him.
16. The game guard refused.
17. I explained to the game guard, a Mr Khomo as I can recall that I am a client in Zambia and a Sheriff in the RSA. That his conduct was illegal and that I will contact the South African Embassy and Zambia’s Supreme Court and make a huge case against him.
18. I also stated that he has no authority to refuse a sick man proper medical treatment.
19. I then drove Mr Millican to Lusaka Medical Clinic.
20. All Mr Millican’s other vehicles, trailer, camp equipment and personal belongings were taken by ZAWA and the police.
21. Mr Millican only received medical help 9 hours later.
22. ZAWA, Chief Msoro and the Zambian Police had no authority to:
a) Arrest Ray Millican
b) Arrest myself Mr J.S. Kock
c) Arrest Mr Robbie Meyer
d) Confiscate vehicles and equipment
e) Escort us back to Msoro

23. ZAWA, Chief Msoro and Zambian Police failed to follow proper legal procedures required in civil and criminal law.
a) Failed to issue Subpoena’s
b) Failed to issue summons
c) Failed to produce warrants of arrest
d) Failed to have legal court orders to attach property
e) Failed to supply reasons for procedures

24. ZAWA, Chief Msoro and Zambian Police committed the following crimes:
a) Wrongful arrest
b) Kidnapping
c) Theft of property
d) Extortion
e) Duress
f) Putting the life of a sick man in danger

25. I want to report this matter to SCI, the South African Legal Institute and the South African Embassy but Mr Millican begged me not to.
26. His reasons are that he does not want to discredit ZAWA as he has future business with them
27. This matter will be referred to higher authorities should I receive no feedback. I trust it would not be necessary

__________________________________________________________

Ian Manning NOTES:

The hunting client, Jack Kock, recently contacted me as ZAWA has not replied to his affidavit and covering letter of 8 November 2007, asking that I publicise this matter in the interests of the future of the Zambian hunting industry, a future which a few rogue government officials and a chief should not be allowed to sully. I also happen to know the PH concerned, Ray Millican, who has over the years brought a great deal of business to Zambia.

Chief Msoro has taken powers which he does not possess and should clearly be brought before the courts. I would be saddened by this as our Landsafe Investment Trust system - accepted by the House of Chiefs, fights for chiefs to be part of a truly decentralized system in which they and their community, together with Government, have ownership of the natural resources on their land - guided by community landuse plans and a trust management structure. Msoro, by all reports, rides roughshod over his CRB, and appears to think that a PH working in his area for the concessionaire is somehow legally responsible for the pledges agreed to by - in this case, Mitchell Safaris. And then to order ZAWA officials and the Police to arrest Millican while gravely ill, and to have them obey, is a grave injury to due process. The action of the ZAWA Nyimba sector Liaison officer (A. Nkhoma) - a man who works in my area and whom I have found to be untrustworthy and a treacherous individual seeking to destroy where he can five years of our work with the community, is not only to be deplored but should require an inquiry leading to his dismissal. Is this the treatment we are to expect for our foreign clients, placed under escort with his gravely ill PH and driven off like a common criminal?

The letter written by the Senior Warden of the South Luangwa Management Unit of ZAWA to the Regional Manager of ZAWA on 29 October 2007 (which should appear on the picture being clicked), a unit funded by NORAD for two decades, is according to Koch - as his affidavit affirms, a farrago of lies and evasions.

Zambia's finest hunting block to be run by ZAWA

The Nyampala hunting block, lying within the country of the Bisa chief, Nawalya, is now to have its hunting managed by the Zambia Wildlife Authority. Having got rid of its concessionaire, Leopard Ridge Safaris, despite the High Court having still to decide on whether the expulsion was legal, ZAWA first put it out to tender, then - doubtless on the order of the ZAWA Board, decided that they would run it themselves, an advert for two professional hunters being placed in the local papers. Those who payed some $1100 to tender will be asking for their money back.

Given the very strong rumours circulating about the imminent removal of other hunting concessions from operators holding legal Hunting Concession Agreements, it seems that ZAWA and its Board have decided that nationalization is the way forward for them out of their financial difficulties. They will be shaking their heads in Tanzania.

Zambian Supreme Court ruling on hunting safari industry...

In the Supreme Court of Zambia on 14 August 2007, in the case, Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) versus Blackwell Banda (for Nawalya/Munyamadzi Community Resource Board (CRB)), the judges ruled that the Hunting Concession Agreement (HCA) between ZAWA, the community in the hunting block (represented by the CRB), and the safari hunting operator, constituted a license, which like any other license issued by ZAWA, could be terminated by them at will.

This ruling will have far reaching consequences for the hunting industry should ZAWA, for whatever reason, wish to remove a concession from an operator, or remove a particular operator from a community where they are in a productive partnership. The rights of both the community (the customary landowners) and the safari hunting investor are therefore affected.

A Zambian safari hunting operator defends his concessionary rights in the High Court...

On 23 October, Leopard Ridge Safaris requested that the High Court in Lusaka recognize their rights to their safari hunting concession. such rights not being recognized by the Zambia Wildlife Authority who had removed Leopard Ridge from their concession without due process, and who have recently put their area out to public tender. The judge's decision is expected shortly. The industry awaits; investors await.

Zambia High Court Action to stave off 'deportation' of hunting safari operator...

THE CURRENT STATE OF LITIGATION – PENDING AND OTHERWISE, IN THE ZAMBIAN HUNTING SAFARI INDUSTRY IN 2007

Case One:

1. Termination of Leopard Ridge safaris (LR) hunting concession by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA).
2. LR ceased hunting
3. LR, represented by Wynter Kabimba & Associates (WMK) applied to the High Court for a judicial review and a stay of execution.
4. Judge refused stay
5. Judge directed the matter go to arbitration

Case Two:

1. WMK advised Leopard Ridge that the community partners in the tripartite Hunting Concession Agreement (HCA), the Nawalya Community Resource Board (CRB), could take action against ZAWA, for a number of reasons: 1) as signators to the HCA they had not been consulted on the matter, 2) they were happy with LR, and 3) they stood to lose income from hunting.
2. The CRB applied in the High Court for an injunction prohibiting the cessation of hunting safaris.
3. The CRB were granted the injunction, and LR resumed hunting
4. ZAWA appealed to the Supreme Court
5. The Supreme Court ordered that LR cease hunting.
6. At 4.00 am in the third week of August, a force comprising ZAWA Wildlife Police Officers and paramilitary, moved in to the LR field camp in the Luangwa, served LR with the order, and advised them to pack up immediately and leave. Clients were at the time hunting with Greg Michelson – shareholder in LR.


Case Three:

1. The National Movement Against Corruption (NAMAC) and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) were defeated in the High Court over charges that the outfitters had overshot their quotas, four of which had contested the action. NAMAC/ZAWA had appealed to the Supreme Court, and had lost, on 19th July 2007.
2. Following the dismissal of the appeal the Appellants (NAMAC)
agreed that the consent judgment which was signed between ZAWA and
NAMAC be set aside by consent of the parties. WMK on behalf of the safari four, agreed to this proposal as it did not in any way prejudice the safari four case.
However, NAMAC have now raised a counterclaim against the companies
involved, and ZAWA as Defendants, with the intention of obtaining
judgment in similar terms as those contained in the consent judgment
previously signed with ZAWA.
3. However NAMAC clearly wishes to obtain a decision to terminate the HCA of the four outfitters..
4. ZAWA, through its Director-General, is in agreement with this decision of NAMAC’s

Case Four:

1. In October, LR go to the Supreme Court in an attempt to win back their Nyampala concession – being represented by WMK in the matter.

Case Five:

1. On 4 September, the case of Mbeza Safaris three resident director/shareholders is heard in the High Court as a result of a stay of execution and judicial review granted against the Minister of Home Affairs, the Chief Immigration Officer and the Attorney-General in the matter of the Minister’s refusal to renew their self-employed work permits as is required for investors holding investment certificates under the Investment Act of Zambia. WMK acts for the resident Mbeza executive shareholder/directors.
2. These events coincided with the start of the hunting season, and followed an attack by unknown persons on the Mbeza client base recruited by hunting agents based in Johannesburg, Munich and Paris; and by a known professional hunter impersonating a Zambia Wildlife Police Officer who suggested to an Mbeza client that the company might have been guilty of an offence while hunting that person the previous season. Police are currently investigating, although the matter was reported to the Professional Hunters Association of Zambia and the Zambia Wildlife Authority. As part of the affidavit to the learned High Court judge, WMK stated that the unproven accusations by the Principal Private Secretary to the President accusing the owners of LR and Mbeza Safaris as having attended a secret lunch at which the overthrow of the Government and the destruction of Zambia’s maize stocks, had contributed to moves by the state against them.

Supreme Court of Zambia Appeal No.16/2007 between NAMAC and four Hunting Safari Companies...

NATIONAL MOVEMENT AGAINST CORRUPTION (NAMAC).......APPELLANT

AND

SOFARAM SAFARIS LTD...........................................1st RESPONDENT
MBEZA SAFARIS LTD................................................2ND
SWANEPOEL & SCANDROL LIMITED
LEOPARD RIDGE SAFARIS LIMITED

28 MARCH 2007 AND 12 JULY 2007

FOR THE APPELLANT: S.L CHISULO
FOR THE 1st & 2nd Respondent: W.M. Kabimba

JUDGEMENT


The appellant and the Zambia Wildlife Authority obtained a consent judgment between themselves under Cause No. )6/ HP /0596.

The respondents were not parties to those proceedings and were not informed about them. The respondents brought a fresh action to challenge the said consent judgment whose terms, they claimed, adversely affected their entitlements and standing vis-a their prior agreements on hunting concessions with the Zambia Wildlife Authority.

The appellant raised a preliminary issue in the court below

That the respondents were wrong in law by starting a fresh action to challenge the consent judgment, that they should have applied to be joined as parties to the action in which the consent judgement was obtained.

The learned trial Judge in the court below dismissed the preliminary issue stating that as respondents were not parties to the consent judgment but were affected by its terms, they were entitled to bring fresh proceedings to challenge the said consent judgment.

The appellant f1led four grounds of appeal as follows:

1. "The trial Judge erred and misdirected himself when he concluded in paragraph 5 of page R6 of the Ruling that "the consent judgment clearly affected the rights and interests of the Respondents herein (plaintiffs in the Court below) in particular as regard paragraph 1 {a} and {d} {i} and {ii};" without explaining to what extent and whether adversely or positively the said consent judgment had affected the rights and interests of the respondents.
2. In view of ground (1) above, there is a strong inference that the tria1 Judge had erroneously accepted the arguments by the respondents herein that:

i) the consent judgment had abrogated the respondents' rights with Zambia Wildlife Authority.
(ii) The consent judgment was a final judgment against the respondents and therefore the only way they could attack the consent judgment was through the action commenced by the respondents before the trial judge. The learned trial Judge misapprehended the purpose and effect of paragraph 1 (a) of the consent judgment and thereby failed to recognize and consider the following facts and points of law in his Ruling:
(i) That the respondents were cited for a specific public injury, i.e. poaching which they had each committed and apparently admitted.
(ii) That the compromise penalties meted out by Zambia Wildlife Authority against each of the Respondents for the said public injury were contrary to the Zambia Wildlife, Act No. 12 of 1998 and that the said compromise penalties were therefore against public policy and illegal.
(iii) That overall, the consent judgement, arising out of judicial review proceedings, was intended only to enjoin the Zambia Wildlife Authority to comply with the law and any terms contained in the Hunting Concession Agreements entered into with each of the respondents. The trial Judge erred in principle and misdirected himself on a point of law and when he attempted to explain locus standi to challenge a consent judgement in terms of one being an interested party in the contents of the consent judgment; as opposed to one being a party to the agreement contained in the consent judgement."

Mr. Chisulo, learned state counsel for the appellant cited authorities in support of his submission that the respondents were wrong in law to start a fresh action to challenge the consent judgment.

The gist of the appellant's submission is that the respondents cannot bring a fresh action to challenge a consent
judgement, they should instead apply to join as parties to the action and plead their case in that same action. The respondents stand, on the other hand, is that they are entitled to bring a fresh action to challenge the said consent
judgement.

Mr. Kabimba, learned counsel for the respondents cited authorities in support of his submissions one of them being the case of Zambia Seed Company Limited vs. Chartered International (1). The legal issue for determination in his appeal is whether the respondents, on the facts on record, can challenge the consent judgement by initiating a fresh action.

On account of the view we take of this appeal, it is not necessary to discuss the submissions of the parties in detail, suffice it to say that we have duly considered them together with the authorities cited.

This is an appeal which raises a point of law which is already settled. The learned trial Judge in dismissing the
preliminary issue relied on the pleadings on record which show that indeed, the consent judgment being challenged, adversely affects the interests of the respondents. We agree with the observations of the learned trial Judge in his ruling that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the respondents' interests regarding prior hunting concessions entered into with a party to the consent judqement were adversely affected. The record shows the terms of the consent judgment complained of, in part, directed implementation of sanctions against the respondents. The record also shows that the appellant, a party to the consent judgement, stated in its defence to the action brought by the respondents in the court below that the appellant had no obligation to inform the respondents of the proceedings under which the consent judgment was obtained. It is not in dispute that the terms of the consent judgment, in part, affect the entitlements of the respondents. We wish to reiterate what we said in the case of Zambia Seed Company Limited vs. Chartered International (1) that a consent judgment is final and that, "...by law the only way to challenge a judgment by consent would be to start an action specifically to challenge that consent judgment..."

A consent judgment, once sealed is final determination of issues therein, it is not possible to join the proceedings after judgement has been pronounced. The respondents were in order to institute fresh proceedings as they did. We dismiss the appeal with costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.

SAFARI MACED: THE SAFARI ENCYCLOPAEDIA

Gordon Ernest Mace in action

Safari Maced

“Safari Maced”, after Zimbabwean safari agent Gordon Ernest Mace, is a term used to describe safari agents who book named clients with a safari operator, then fail to deliver them without reason or compensation – and with insufficient time to find replacements. This was a practice unheard of prior to the 1970’s where the utterance, ‘you have my word ’ - followed by a handshake, was binding.

This term for deception and dishonourable business conduct is redolent of the term, Quisling, describing a traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country, named for Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), a Norwegian who collaborated with the Nazis.

In contemporary use, “Safari Maced” is synonymous with “a dishonourable and dishonest act” and is particularly applied to safari agents, safari outfitters and safari clients who mislead and deceive each other. Unlike the chemical “Mace”, the effects of being safari maced are long lasting – for the perpetrator.

See http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddv4n6pk_116fk4t39

Zambia: Poaching is threatening tourism industry

RAMPANT poaching is threatening the declaration of tourism as an economic sector, Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA public relations officer Maureen Mwape has observed

Mwape yesterday said ZAWA was worried about the increase in poaching activities in the Lower Zambezi National Park's Game Management Area (GMA) of Chinyunyu in Chongwe district. "If we are not careful animals will be depleted and since tourism is mainly wildlife based, the government's declaration of the sector from a social one to an economic sector will be adversely affected," Mwape said. "And all efforts of enhancing and promoting the tourism sector will not be attained unless poaching is controlled and we appeal to the government and other stakeholders to help since ZAWA lacks resources to adequately patrol the protective areas."

And Mwape said ZAWA over the weekend confiscated 91 kilograms of game meat from six suspected poachers in Chinyunyu area. She said the suspects who included four females and two males were arrested at a roadblock mounted by ZAWA officers when they were found with suitcases and sacks containing meat. The confiscated bundles comprised meat from baboons, impala, common tiger (impombo), warthog and hyenas. "We have six suspects in our custody at Masamba police in Chilanga and we are just processing the documents so that they appear in court tomorrow (Friday) and we also impounded the bus they were travelling in," Mwape said.

CHUMAMABOKO, FIRST OF THE CENTRAL AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS?

At the time that F. H. Melland - a nephew of Prime Minister Asquith, arrived in 1901 on foot at Mpika, North-Eastern Rhodesia in order to take up his post with the British South Africa Company as Assistant Native Collector, Chumamaboko (arms of iron) had for some time been a leading member of the elite elephant hunting achiwinda clan. Famous in that part of the world for his hunting prowess, he soon attracted the attention of Melland who wanted to spend as much time as possible on his favourite pastime, hunting. They were to stay together until Chuma’s death shortly before Melland’s departure for England in 1924 when North-Eastern and North-Western Rhodesia were removed from BSA Company control and became Northern Rhodesia, administered by the Imperial Government.

Chuma became Melland’s professional hunter at the same time that the pioneer professional white hunters, the Hill brothers, Clifford and Harold, began conducting lion hunting parties on their ranch in the Machakos area of Kenya. Arguably therefore, Chuma was the first professional hunter in what now constitutes Zambia.

While at Mpika until about 1912, he guided Melland all around the district, venturing far into the Bangweulu swamps and the nearby Luangwa Valley. On the Luitikila river, which has its headwaters near Mpika, they shot a 116 pounder which today can be seen in the Thring Museum in England, one of the biggest elephant ever taken in Zambia, the record being a 130 pounder with one tusk.

Chuma followed Melland from Mpika to Solwezi, thence to Kasempa, Kafue and finally, to Mazabuka. And all the time they hunted together.

Melland wrote three books, one on elephant hunting, one on the anthropology of the Kaonde in Kasempa district, and one recounting his journey with Chuma and a friend, from Bangweulu to Cairo, hunting elephant on the way. There are a number of fish named after Melland as a result of his Bangweulu fish collections and he made valuable contributions in anthropology and what is now termed development studies. His friends were people like Mickey Norton, perhaps the greatest of all elephant hunters, and J.E. Hughes who operated the first professionally conducted safaris in the Bangweulu and whose classic book, ‘Eighteen Years in the Bangweulu’ is still much in demand.

Chuma was remarkable in every way. Melland recounts the tale of how Chuma, a man revered by his fellow Zambians, once personally cleaned up the latrines in the labour lines at Kasempa during an outbreak of dysentery, hubris being absent from his character.

The picture of Chuma was given to me by Melland’s eldest daughter, Amicia in 1998; a remarkable woman who worked for many years in Chile. F.H. was killed at the outbreak of war in 1939 when he fell between the train and the platform. He had just been appointed Secretary to the Royal Africa Society

Zambia, a bit of Old Africa...

INTRODUCTION

Zambia is located on the Central African Plateau encompassing large parts of the Zambezi and Congo drainage systems with an area of 752,614 km 2 containing four major biomes consisting of forest, woodland, grassland and wetlands. Most of the 19 National Parks, 35 Game Management Areas (GMAs) and numerous National Forests are under only rudimentary protection and management; a bit of Old Africa.

HISTORY

The imposition of colonial rule in Central Africa in the late 19th Century by the British South Africa Company (BSA Co.) resulted in the creation of two separately administered territories named North-Eastern Rhodesia and North-Western Rhodesia. Inevitably, statutory land tenure and wildlife conservation measures were soon imposed on customary land by way of alienations to European settlers on the line of rail and in the Abercorn and Fort Jameson districts, the power of the chiefs and the freedom of their subjects over wildlife and forests eroded, and the conversion of some customary land to state protected status, reserve and trust lands initiated.

Tourism – one of the oldest current Zambian industries, started c. 1880, when native hunters, often members of elite hunting clans - the Achiwinda, guided the occasional explorer/big-game hunters in pursuit of elephant and other game. From 1902, some settlers and ex-members of the BSA Co. began hunting safari operations. In 1949, after WW 2, the Government Conducted Hunting Scheme was started in the Luangwa under Norman Carr, and Bert Schultz – to be joined in 1950 by Barry Shenton, with 50% of net income accruing to the Native Authority. But, perhaps inevitably, conservation gave way to protection, when late in 1950, Nsefu became a special game reserve, in 1954 a full game reserve, and in 1972 being joined with the South Luangwa Game Reserve to form the present South Luangwa National Park. The significance of the two Luangwa-based schemes continues to be felt today as numerous efforts are made across Zambia and Africa to have wildlife provide earnings for tribal communities.

With the advent of Imperial Government rule in 1924 (Northern Rhodesia), particularly in the period between the Great Wars, the country was administered through the chiefs under Lord Lugard’s policy of Indirect Rule. By 1942, when a Game Department was more fully established, protective measures were increased, so that by the early 1970’s a broad-based protected area system was in place and 19 national parks created from their game reserve predecessors – stemming from the earliest creation of all in 1899, the Mweru Marsh Game Reserve. Many of these protected areas were supported by the production of management plans and by applied research. However, the power of chief’s greatly waned from independence, and the Natural Resources Act Cap 315 of 1962 – and later, the Natural Resources Act of 1970, legislation which contained everything necessary to usher in development to customary areas, was ignored and much of it later repealed by the Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act of 1990. More recently, the Wildlife Act of 1998 creates Community Resource Boards (CRBs) within chiefdoms, with the chief relegated to the non-executive position of Patron, inevitably creating dissension, but also allowing for the first glimpse of the liberating intrusions of democracy.

In 1975, following a fall in copper prices and a rise in oil prices, freehold land was abolished and the civil service almost totally Zambianized – a service which in 1962 had 5,000 university graduates in the administration, resulting inevitably in a rapid decline in the management of National Parks, GMAs and their wildlife, and curtailment of income for Native Authorities and communities. Between 1973 and 1993, almost the total population of rhino of some 20,000 or so were killed for their horns, and the elephant population - in the South Luangwa National Park alone, had declined from 31,000 to 7,000, and between 1994 and 2002, at a time when millions were being invested by donors in conservation, protection and community empowerment (NORAD funded, Luangwa Integrated Rural Development Project), 23.5 tons of ivory – representing some 14,589 elephant, was – according to the Malawi Anti-Corruption Bureau, smuggled from the Luangwa via Malawi and Durban, to Singapore ; and at the same time, the last population of rhino living within a few miles of the LIRDP HQ – some 13 in number, were, despite the assurance of senior conservation personnel as to their protection , exterminated.

The year 2001 ushered in further deterioration in the management of the Zambian wildlife estate due in part to the suspension by the President of hunting safari leases and the subsequent loss of much of the ZAWA income (US$2 million in 2001; US$2.7 million in 2002), the delay in the appointment of a Board of Directors and Director-General for the newly fledged ZAWA – established in place of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, and the refusal of donors to provide funding in the absence of these appointments. Foreign exchange earnings, tax income, employment and associated benefits for ZAWA workers, and income for CRBs who were responsible for appointing law enforcement officers under the Wildlife Act of 1998 were adversely affected, encouraging the onslaught on wildlife by opportunistic bushmeat traders reacting to the considerable traditional game meat demands of burgeoning urban populations encouraged by the absence, or by the active support of striking ZAWA and CRB scouts. In addition, the scientific capacity of ZAWA was severely impaired, most of the management plans, scientific reports and relevant files produced in the previous years being stolen, not returned by borrowers, or thrown away – an inspection of the government archives in 2003 revealing few files deposited there after 1974, and nothing in the ZAWA library; and where valuable research information is available, such as at Ngoma, the HQ for the Kafue National Park, researchers there appear to be in total ignorance of it.

After the President had curtailed hunting, tenders were put out in 2002, awarded, and then some of them overturned by the Minister (MTENR), leading to further High Court actions. However, hunting did get fully under away again in the 2004 season.

In 2006, the state of the biodiversity on customary land ‘commons’ - in which hunting concessions are placed, is – with a few exceptions - when related to the situation thirty years ago, deteriorating, particularly of the strongly interactive keystone wildlife species such as buffalo which are of immeasurable importance to the ecosystems on which a myriad of other species are dependant, now reaching very low levels in some areas, resulting – with the assistance of uncontrolled fires, in the increasing brittleness of rangelands and a deterioration in carrying capacity. And most seriously of all, the rural communities, although still with access to a plentiful supply of land and adequate rainfall, are denied ownership or proper access to the benefits of the natural resources being supported on their customary land, finding their land sold off by unscrupulous chiefs, district councils and corrupt officials in the Commissioner of Lands, and continue therefore to be ensnared in poverty, their hopes for tourism revenues now diminishing with that of the wildlife.