VZCZCXRO8318
RR RUEHMR
DE RUEHLU #0150/01 0461509
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 151509Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY LUANDA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2486
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RUEHLI/AMEMBASSY LISBON 4025

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LUANDA 000150 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/15/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR AO
SUBJECT: ANGOLA: UNITA PRESIDENT FACES HEAVY INTERNAL 
CRITICISM 
 
Classified By: AMBASSADOR CYNTHIA EFIRD FOR REASONS 1.4 B AND D 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) UNITA President Isaias Samakuva is under public fire 
due to botched plans to replace sixteen UNITA 
parliamentarians with those who should have originally been 
seated in 1992.  The sixteen parliamentarians, in 
retaliation, publicly criticized Samakuva's plan and after a 
heated debate in the National Assembly, other high-level 
UNITA officials also have criticized Samakuva's leadership. 
Samakuva in turn suspended the parliamentarians from all 
party activities.  Seriously misjudging the MPLA's 
willingness to support him in the National Assembly, Samukuva 
placed this important issue into the hands of those most 
interested in watching UNITA implode.  If the sixteen 
parliamentarians declare themselves independent members of 
the National Assembly, UNITA will lose 23 percent of the 
income it receives from the government, and more importantly, 
its ability to single-handedly block any votes requiring a 
two-thirds majority.   End Summary. 
 
Repercussions of Past Decisions 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) In 1997, under the Lusaka Protocol the National Union 
for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), Angola's 
largest opposition party, was urged to seat its seventy 
representatives elected in 1992.  Not wanting to risk the 
lives of UNITA,s key leaders, such as Lukamba Gato, Samuel 
Chiwale, and Adalberto da Costa Junior, by sending them into 
the then MPLA-controlled Luanda to take up their National 
Assembly seats, the late party president, Jonas Savimbi, 
substituted sixteen party leaders from below the elected 
cutoff of the electoral list to become UNITA,s 
parliamentarians.  Upon assuming the presidency of UNITA in 
2003, Isaias Samukuva announced his plans to strengthen 
UNITA,s position in Parliament by replacing those sixteen 
parliamentarians with key members who had stayed by Savimbi's 
side in the bush or traveled on diplomatic missions overseas 
during the final years of the civil war.  The decision was 
approved and ratified by UNITA,s Permanent Commission in 
July 2004. 
 
Weighty Financial Implications 
------------------------------ 
 
¶3. (U) The decision to replace the parliamentarians carries 
weighty financial implications.  Deputies currently receive a 
monthly salary of USD 1,500, monthly allowances that total 
USD 6,000, a home, and a car: an annual income of 
approximately USD 180,000 in a country where the per capita 
income in 2003 was USD 740.  Further, recent legislation 
guarantees that those parliamentarians in office on the date 
of the next legislative elections will receive a lifetime 
stipend of USD 2,500 per month.  The sixteen, if replaced, 
would lose all of this. 
 
¶4. (U) The GRA funds all political parties represented in the 
National Assembly based on the number seats at an annual rate 
of USD 100,000 per seat.  If these sixteen parliamentarians 
declare themselves independent members of the National 
Assembly, UNITA would lose 23 percent of the income it 
receives from the government. 
 
Samakuva's Bad Call 
------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) UNITA formally requested that Parliament enact the 
changes of deputies in May 2005, without the concurrence of 
the sixteen sitting parliamentarians.  After a lengthy delay 
in both the National Assembly's Constitutional Commission and 
the Ethics Commission, the request was scheduled for debate 
on January 31, 2006. Prior to the floor debate, the sixteen 
sitting UNITA parliamentarians, who had, until that time, 
remained quiet, began publicly criticizing UNITA,s decision. 
On January 31, the Commissions presented conflicting reports 
on the legality of Samakuva,s request, thereby starting a 
heated debate in which members of both parties went against 
their parties' leadership in support of either Samakuva or 
the sixteen parliamentarians.  The debate ended without a 
decision. However, a new ad-hoc parliamentary commission was 
created to further analyze the legality of substituting 
members of the National Assembly. (Note: Since there have 
been no elections since 1992, members of the National 
Assembly have only changed due to personal resignations, 
retirements, or deaths.  In these instances, the party was 
allowed to select the replacement with the concurrence of the 
National  Assembly's Ethics Commission. End Note.) 
 
 
LUANDA 00000150  002 OF 002 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) Following the January 31 debate senior UNITA party 
leaders such as Lukamba Gato, Aniceto Hamukwaia, and Eugenio 
Manuvakola suggested publicly that Samakuva does not have 
control over the party.  Many UNITA members feel that 
replacing the deputies should have been an internal matter. 
Further, they believe Samakuva,s decision to trust the 
MPLA-dominated National Assembly to side with UNITA was a 
grave miscalculation.  Left with the choice to back down or 
insist on replacing the parliamentarians, Samakuva chose the 
latter and on February 6, 2006, suspended the sixteen 
parliamentarians, pending UNITA's governing council's final 
decision on appropriate disciplinary measures for their 
public attacks on Samakuva.  Public debate on this issue 
continues to dominate the independent press, with a heavy 
focus on Samukuva's leadership crisis.  A final decision on 
the fate of the deputies has not been announced, but it 
appears to most political commentators that the sixteen 
deputies have the legal backing necessary to keep their 
seats. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7. (C) What appeared to be a simple change in the composition 
of UNITA,s parliamentary seats has become a major crisis in 
the party and could lead to Samakuva,s political eclipse. 
While the final decision on the fate of UNITA's 
parliamentarians is still pending, Samakuva,s suspension of 
the sixteen deputies was a decision made by a man in a no-win 
situation.  Backing down would have confirmed that he can not 
control the party.  By refusing to allow them to stay 
Samukuva is showing his strength, but this display could come 
at a high cost.  Financial security is the central issue for 
the sixteen parliamentarians.  If UNITA did not have the 
financial resources to handle this matter internally, 
Samukuva should have delayed the substitution until the next 
legislative elections.  While these sixteen deputies 
represented UNITA through a challenging time from 1998 until 
2002, they are valued for having shown up to work in enemy 
territory, not for contributions as UNITA parliamentarians. 
Ironically, their most significant act as parliamentarians 
may be this challenge to Samakuva's leadership. 
 
¶8. (C) By trusting the MPLA majority in the National Assembly 
to help him, Samukuva played into the hands of those most 
interested in watching UNITA implode.  Samukuva is now faced 
not only with a fight to retain his party leadership but also 
a potentially significant blow to his party's war chest. 
More importantly, UNITA would also lose its ability to 
single-handedly block any votes requiring a two-thirds 
majority.  Most important of all, the spectacle of 
parliamentarians squabbling over personal emoluments is 
increasing the alienation many voters feel from both major 
political parties and from the political process in general. 
End Comment. 
EFIRD