PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE
Tuesday, 9th May, 2017
The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.
PRAYERS
(THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair)
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER
ERROR ON THE ORDER PAPER
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish to draw the attention
of the House to an error on today’s Order Paper wherein Order of the
Day, Number 1 has been erroneously reflected as Consideration Stage:
Estates Administrators Amendment Bill [H.B. 8A, 2016] instead of the
Second Reading: Estates Administrators Amendment Bill [H.B. 8A,
2016].
*HON. MARIDADI: On a point of order. Thank you Madam
Speaker for according me this opportunity. The Portfolio Committee on
Local Government, Public Works and National Housing tabled a report
which we received in this House. We normally say that the Executive is
not implementing the recommendations of Parliament but as a House,
we are not implementing our recommendations. The Portfolio
Committee said it point blank that Hon. Chigumba is a land baron in
Chitungwiza. So, as Parliament, what are you going to do because one of
us is a land baron? Land barons are causing a lot of problems. Are we
going to chase the Hon. Member from this House?
*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whatever we do in this
House is procedural. We do not just chase people away. Would you
please take your seat so that we can proceed?
*HON. MARIDADI: That is the procedure that I was asking for.
*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not that he will be
chased away. The Minister will look into that.
MOTION
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON.
MNANGAGWA): With the indulgence of the House, may I move that
Order of the Day, Number 1 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until
Order Number 2, 3 and 4 are disposed of?
Motion put and agreed to.
CONSIDERATION STAGE
JUDICIAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (EASE OF SETTLING
COMMERCIAL AND OTHER DISPUTES) [H.B. 4A, 2016]
Second Order read: Consideration: Judicial Laws Amendment Bill
(Ease of Settling Commercial and Other Disputes) [H.B. 4A, 2016]
Amendment to Clause 5 put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, adopted.
Third Reading: With leave, forthwith.
THIRD READING
JUDICIAL LAWS AMENDEMENT BILL (EASE OF SETTLING
COMMERCIAL AND OTHER DISPUTES) [H. B. 4A, 2016]
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON.
MNANGAGWA): Madam Speaker Ma’am, I now move that the Bill be
read the third time.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read the third time.
CONSIDERATION STAGE
DEEDS REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 3A, 2016]
Amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 put and agreed to.
Bill as amended, adopted.
Third Reading: With leave, forth with.
THIRD READING
DEEDS REGISTRIES AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 3A, 2016]
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON.
MNANGAGWA): I move that the Bill be read a third time.
Motion put and agreed to.
Bill read the third time.
SECOND READING
CONSTITUTION OF ZIMBABWE AMENDMENT (No. 1) BILL
[H.B. 1, 2017]
Second Order read: Second Reading: Constitution of Zimbabwe
Amendment (No. 1) Bill [H.B. 1, 2017].
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE
LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON.
MNANGAGWA): Madam Speaker, allow me at the outset, to reaffirm
the commitment of Government in its constitutional implementation, to
deepen the sacrosanct principles of constitutionalism in our flourishing
constitutional democracy. The long and arduous constitutional
development of our young nation, has taught us that there is more to
gain in religiously adhering to the dictates of constitutionalism including
the principles of separation of powers, judicial independence and rule of
law. These principles can only be of utility towards sound
constitutional implementation if both the content and substance and
adjectival aspects of our constitutional, legislative and administrative
frameworks are above board.
Madam Speaker, the constitutional framework for judicial
independence in any jurisdiction is paramount in determining the quality
of justice delivery, access to justice and the administration of justice.
These aspects are indeed intricately linked to the procedure of
appointment of heads of the judiciary and other judges. Such
appointment must be executed in a manner that does not compromise the
constitutional, legislative and administrative values and etiquette
expected of such crucial officials. The appointment procedure must be
in tandem with international best practice and be subjected to proper
administrative processes with no internal and external influence
whatsoever. This can only be achieved when the constitutional bedrock
on which such appointments should be anchored is solid enough to arrest
any mischief, perceptions and challenges that may arise in the
administration of justice. This Bill is brought before this august House
in order to reflect the spirit and letter of the above espoused values.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of proposing this constitutional
Amendment Bill stems from serious concerns regarding the procedures
of appointment for the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and the Judge
President of the High Court. It has become public knowledge that, with
the current constitutional framework on appointment of the heads of the
judiciary, the probability of subjecting some judicial officers to public
interviews by members of the Judicial Service Commission to which
they are also members is high. This will also create a probable situation
where junior members of the JSC find themselves in an invidious
position to interview their superiors.
Furthermore, the possibility of the outgoing Chief Justice, who
invariably and by virtue of him or her being the Chairperson of the JSC
of presiding over the interview process of his or her potential successor
are inescapable under the current constitutional regime. This without
doubt is irregular, inappropriate and stands firm to violate the principle
of separation of powers, checks and balances and good governance. In
any event, it is quite unexampled and has no precedent in the American,
Asian, African, Caribbean, Pacific and Scandinavian jurisdictions.
Madam Speaker, this Bill seeks to regularise the above. It will
amend the Constitution by substituting section 180, which provides for
the appointment of judges. The appointment procedure for all judges
will remain as it is except for the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and
the Judge President of the High Court. It is proposed by this amendment
that these three officials will be appointed by the President after
consultations with the Judicial Service Commission (in various
jurisdictions around the world, and under the previous Constitution the
appointment of all judges was done in this way except for the Judge
President who was appointed by the Chief Justice). If the appointment
of a Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice or Judge President of the High
Court is not consistent with any recommendation made by the Judicial
Service Commission made during the course of the consultation, then
the President will have to inform the Senate of that fact as soon as
possible.
Consequent to the foregoing amendment, paragraph 18(3) of the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, titled Commencement of this
Constitution, Transitional Provisions and Savings, is also amended by
excluding vacancies in the offices of Chief Justice and Deputy Chief
Justice from the scope of that provision.
Further, paragraph 18 (6) of the sixth schedule of the
Constitution has been misconstrued to mean that judges of the Labour
Court and the Administrative Court are at par with judges of the High
Court and that the Judge President of the Labour Court is at par with the
Judge President of the High Court when in actual fact the High Court
has inherent jurisdiction in terms of Sections 171 and 176 of the
Constitution respectively. Given the fact that the Administrative Court
and the Labour Court are specialised courts meant to deal with particular
areas of law, it was never the original intent to place these courts at the
same level with the High Court which has original jurisdiction on any
area of the law.
Madam Speaker, in view of the foregoing, the proposed
Constitution Amendment (No.1) Bill, therefore seeks to introduce a
separate appointment procedure for the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief
Justice and the Judge President of the High Court. Furthermore, it seeks
to bring more clarity to Section 174 by providing an explicit provision to
the effect that the Labour Court and the Administrative Court are
subordinate to the High Court.
Madam Speaker, this brings me to the specific contents of the Bill
before Hon. Members. The Constitution Amendment Bill contains eight
clauses.
Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the Short Title of the Bill which we all
have become familiar of.
Clause 2 is the Interpretation section and defines the term
“Constitution” as the Constitution of Zimbabwe as set forth in the
Schedule to the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act of
2013.
Clause 3 amends Section 172 (1) (a) by insertion of a new
paragraph (a) which says “a senior judge.”
Clause 4 amends Section 173 (1) (a) by its substitution with the
phrase “a senior judge”.
Clause 5 amends Section 174 by the insertion of a new subsection
2 which clarifies that the Labour Court and the Administrative Court are
subordinate to the High Court without taking away the salaries,
allowances and benefits of the judges of the subordinate courts.
Clause 6 amends Section 180 by the insertion of a new section that
clearly sets out the appointment of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief
Justice and the Judge President of the High Court as being done by the
President in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.
Clause 7 amends Section 181 (2) (b) and (c) of the Constitution by
changing the titles of the ‘Judge President’ of the Labour Court and the
Administrative Court to ‘senior judge’.
Finally, Clause 8 amends the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution,
paragraph 18 (3) by excluding the vacancies of the Chief Justice, Deputy
Chief Justice and the Judge President of the High Court from the scope
of the provision.
Madam Speaker, Hon. Members will note that this Bill is crucial as
it ensures that the appointment procedure for the Chief Justice, Deputy
Chief Justice and Judge President of the High Court is regularised in line
with the sacrosanct principles of separation of powers, checks and
balances and good governance. It also seeks to bring the appointment
procedure in line with good international best practices implemented in
other jurisdictions the world over, in a manner that promote and depends
our deep seated democratic principle of constitutionalism.
Madam Speaker, I now commend the Constitution of Zimbabwe
Amendment (No.1) Bill (H.B. 1. 2017), to the House and move that the
Bill be now read a second time. I thank you.
HON. GONESE: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I am
seeking an adjournment of the debate for the reason that in terms of the
provisions of Section 328 of our Constitution, when it comes to all
Constitutional Bills, there is a legal requirement that public meetings
must be held. The public meetings by the Committee on Justice, Legal
and Parliamentary Affairs were held. However, the Committee has not
yet sat down to deliberate and adopt a report which will then set the tone
for the debate which is going to ensue in the House. The next meeting
of the Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is
scheduled for Monday next week.
The Committee met yesterday but it was also seized with another
report on the National Peace and Reconciliation Bill as a result of which
there was insufficient time to deliberate on the report for this particular
Bill. It is for that reason that I am seeking the indulgence of the Hon.
Vice President to allow the Committee to inform the House of its
findings which will then guide the other Hon. Members in the debate
which is going to ensue. I so move Madam Speaker.
HON. E. D. MNANGAGWA: Madam Speaker, were it not for
the reason that this Bill is extremely important, I would not have
acceded much more so because the appeal has come from Hon. Gonese
who has always stood in my way when I seek his cooperation [Laughter.]- But because this Bill is critically important, for that reason
I will accept his request. I now move that debate be adjourned. – [HON.
MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Just a point of clarification Hon.
Madam Speaker. I also seek clarification in terms of Section 324 if we
have also complied. I see that there is a double-barreled requirement of
having public hearings and also enjoining Parliament to write to the
public inviting them to have written submissions. I was just enquiring
with the Chairperson of the Legal Committee and he indicated that
perhaps it is something that borders on conjecture because nothing
formal and official has been made or done to make sure that there are
written submissions from members of the public and stakeholders
because this is a very important Bill as the Vice President and Minister
of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs has said. This is a very
important Bill and of course, it would require a robust engagement not
only of the citizens but even of the Hon. Members. So, I just wanted to
be sure as a Member of Parliament that we have done justice to the
dictates and requirements as per the Constitution in terms of making sure
that our law making is sufficiently clothed and couched in manners so
prescribed in the Constitution.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, may be the Hon. Chairperson can
help us whether he had received some written submissions.
HON. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Madam Speaker. Let me just read
what the provision states. It says here in section – [HON. MEMBERS:
Inaudible interjections.] – Madam Speaker, let me read what the
provision says. It says here, “Immediately after the Speaker has given
notice of a Constitutional Bill, in terms of subsection 3, Parliament must
invite members of the public to express their views on the proposed Bill
in public meetings and through written submissions and must convene
meetings and provide facilities to enable the public to do so.”
What I said is the Speaker refered the Bill to the relevant
Committee and before he had even presented, the Hon. Member is
querying the process. The Speaker referred the Bill to the relevant
Committee to comply with the provisions of this particular section. We
have not presented for him to question whether what he is saying was
not included or not. So, I think he has jumped the gun, he should just
wait for Tuesday and his answers will be – [HON. MEMBERS:
Inaudible interjections.] –
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, to my
understanding, the Hon. Member was seeking for clarification [HON.
MEMBERS: Yes.] – whether that process is being done, so I give it back
to you whether you are still receiving those submissions; there is nothing
wrong about that.
HON. ZIYAMBI: Madam Speaker, I think when Hon. Gonese
stood up to explain, he said we have a report that we need to deliberate
on and we will come and present. I am saying he has jumped the gun;
we are in the process of doing that.
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is okay Hon. Member.
What I wanted to hear from you is whether you are receiving the written
submissions or not. If you are doing that, then I know you will bring it
in the House, there is no problem Hon. Chamisa.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: In fact, I want to apologise to Hon.
Ziyambi.
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you were addressing me.
It is me who asked Hon. Ziyambi.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Do you know why I am apologizing
Hon. Deputy Speaker - it is because...
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am Speaker when I am in
this Chair.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Hon. Speaker.
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: The reason why I am apologizing is
because I do not understand the sense of anger from Hon. Ziyambi.
Perhaps I have wronged him.
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is what I have corrected
Hon. Chamisa.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Thank you if you have corrected it. All
we wanted to hear is whether yes or no that process...
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I have explained that
process.
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: But the response has not been given.
So, I am sure that – [HON. MEMBERS: inaudible interjections.] –
Sorry if you may allow me Hon. Speaker, the response is not supposed
to be given by the Chairperson. It is supposed to be given by
Parliament, either yourself or at the very least by the Clerk because you
stand in a better position to give a response in equanimity with the
calmness that is required. There is no need for us to fight over a very
simple issue.
THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Member.
The Clerk was advising me that they sent the request for the public
submissions in written form and it is being done but I know it goes
straight to the Chair. There is no problem, everything is under control
[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Can we please proceed,
Hon. Ziyambi.
CONSIDERATION STAGE:
ESTATES ADMINISTRATORS AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 8A,
2016]
First Order read: Estates Administrators Amendment Bill [H.B.
8A, 2016], as amended.
THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE,
LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON.
MNANGAGWA): Madam Speaker, my apologies both to Madam
Speaker and to the House. My speech has not arrived; I move that the
debate do now adjourn.
Motion put and agreed to.
Debate to resume: Thursday, 11th May, 2017.
SECOND READING:
NATIONAL PEACE AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION BILL
[H.B. 2, 2017]
Fifth Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the Second
Reading of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission Bill.
Question again proposed.
HON. ZIYAMBI: On 10th February 2017, the Government of
Zimbabwe gazetted the National Peace and Reconciliation Bill [H.B.2,
2017.] to put the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission
(NPRC) into operation and related matters. This Bill is the successor to
the National Peace and Reconciliation Bill [H.B 13, 2015] (the old
Bill) which was gazetted on 18th December 2015 and withdrawn from
Parliament in May 2016 following an adverse opinion on the Bill by
the Parliamentary Legal Committee as well as members of the public
during the Public Hearings held from 10 to 18 April 2016.
2.0 Methodology
The Justice Committee and thematic Committees of Human Rights
and of Peace and Security conducted joint public hearings in all of the
country’s provinces, and gathered views and opinions on the Bill.
Hearings were conducted in all provinces of the country by two
separate teams, Team A and Team B.
Team A held public hearing meetings in the following provinces:
Matebeleland North (Victoria Falls; Chinotimba Hall, 13 March 2017);
Bulawayo (Bulawayo Large City Hall, 14 March 2017); Matebelenad
South (Plumtree, Plumtree Town Council Hall, 15 March 2017);
Midlands Province (Gweru Civic Center Hall, 16 March 2017).
Team B conducted its public hearings in the following provinces:
Masvingo (Masvingo, Civic Centre Hall, 13 March 2017); Manicaland
(Mutare, Civic Centre Hall, 14 March, 2017); Mashonaland East
(Marondera, Mbuya Nehanda, 15 March 2017); and Mashonaland
Central (Bindura, Tendai Hall, 16 March 2017). The two teams held
joint public hearing in Mashonaland West (Chinhoyi, Cooksey Hall,
17 March 2017); and Harare (New Ambassador Hotel, 18 March
2017).
2.1 Attendance figures at Public Hearings
During the public hearing, many organisations and individuals
made their submissions and contributions. The following statistics
reflects the level of participation. At Chinotimba Hall,18 participants
attended and 7 contributions were made; Bulawayo Large City Hall, 111
attended and the Committee received 38 contributions; and Plumtree
Town Council Hall, 46 participants attended, 29 submissions were
made; Gweru Civic Centre, 134 participants turned up and there were 36
contributions made; Masvingo Civic Centre, 42 participants attended, 21
submissions were received; Mutare Civic Centre Hall, 123 participants
attended and 26 contributions were received; Marondera, Mbuya
Nehanda Hall 156 participants attended, 34 contributions were received;
and in Chinhoyi Cooksey Hall, 264 participants came and 11
contributions were made before the meeting was closed prematurely; at
New Ambassador Hotel in Harare, 156 participants came and 31
contributions were received. Thus, for Team A and Team B, 10
meetings were held, 1050 participants attended, 607 were males, and
443 were females, and a total of 207 contributions were made.
Organisations that made their submissions include the following:
The National Transitional Justice Working Group Zimbabwe
(NTJWG); Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe
(CCPJ); Zimbabwe Human Rights Associations (ZHRAs); PostIndependence Survivors' Trust (PIST); Centre for Public Engagement;
The Ecumenical Church Leaders Forum (ECLF); and The Zimbabwe
Christian Alliance (ZCA).
3.0 Submissions by members of the Public
3.1
Clause 1 – The Long title
Members expressed that the purpose of a short title is to give a short
descriptive summary of the subject matter of the Act. Hence, it was felt
that the current title is weak and does not embrace the full purpose of
the proposed law. It was the view that the purpose of the NPRC Bill
and what it intends to achieve has to be stated clearly in the Long title.
3.2
Clause 2: Interpretation
The interpretation section was viewed as being shallow and not
aiding in the interpretation of words used in the Bill. For instance,
members of the public cited the definition of ‘dispute’ that was equated
to ‘conflict’ which was then defined to mean any dispute or conflict of
a kind within the scope of the Commission’s constitutional mandate,
which Constitution however does not provide a definition of a conflict.
Stakeholders also noted that major terms used in a conflict situation are
not defined in this Bill.
3.3
Clause 3: Powers, Procedures and Functions of
Commission
Stakeholders raised concerns on the failure by the Bill to clearly
categorise, list and define the functions of the Commission, its powers,
procedures for handling complaints up to the stage of acquittal or
conviction and conditions under which one is granted amnesty. It was
a strong view that the functions of the Commission are not
corresponding with the powers of the Commission.
3.4
Clause 4: Independence of the Commission
Stakeholders expressed concerns about the extent of the
independence of the Commission in circumstances where the Minister
of National Security is allowed to lodge a certificate to the effect that
the disclosure of any evidence or document or class of evidence or
documentation is, in his or her opinion, contrary to the public interest.
Some concerns were also raised on the role of the Minister in the
setting up of the secretariat arguing that this was some form of
interference with the functions of the commission eroding its
independence.
3.5
Clause 5: Seal of the Commission
No issues.
3.6
Clause 6: Offices and operations of Commission
A strong view was expressed that there is need for a clause
sanctioning decentralisation by setting up offices even in very remote
areas to ensure equal access to justice by all.
3.7
Clause 7: Removal of Members from Office
No issues.
3.8
Clause 8: Investigative Functions of Commission
Stakeholders took issue with Clause 8 (1) and submitted that it is
vague, embarrassing and non-specific in that it does not define the
nature of the dispute or conflict or of the action or the omission or what
it means by authority and/or person. The public indicated that the nature
of the dispute or issues to be investigated by the Commission must be
described with sufficient detail so that the functions of the commission
are transparent and clear to all. It was also submitted that its functions
must be clearly demarcated from that of the Zimbabwe Human Rights
Commission.
Concerns were also raised regarding Clause 8 (3) which
acknowledges the due court processes under civil proceedings but
negates to do the same for criminal proceedings which implies that the
Commission can proceed to investigate matters before criminal courts.
The argument raised by stakeholders is that transitional justice systems
are put in place where the judicial system is inadequate and/or unable.
Subjecting the same person to two parallel systems is against established
legal practice especially in criminal matters.
3.9
Clause 9: Manner of conducting investigations
3.5.1 There was general discontent with this clause which affords
perpetrators of violence, dispute or conflict, 14 working days to
respond to the allegations raised in writing to the Commission. This
period was viewed to be too long, thereby providing suspects with an
opportunity to destroy evidence, abscond or intimidate witnesses since
they will not be in custody or detention.
Clause 9 (4) of the new Bill regarding legal representation for people
appearing before the Commission at their expense, is a condition that
was viewed as prone to manipulation and abuse by those with financial
resources.
3.5.4 Clause 9 (12)
No issues
3.6
Clause 10: Compellability of witnesses and
inadmissibility of
Commission
incriminating evidence given before
No issues
3.7
Clause 11: Appearance before Commission
No issues.
3.8
Clause 12: Other Offences
No issues.
3.9
Clause 13: Staff of Commission
No issues.
3.10 Clause 16: Funds of Commission
Concerns were raised on the import of consulting the Minister
regarding donations to the Commission. This was viewed as eroding the
independence of the commission.
4.0
4.1
Committee Findings and Recommendations
The Committee notes that the Short title of the Bill does not
give a descriptive summary of the subject matter of the Bill. The need
to have a short title that gives a descriptive summary of the mischief the
law is trying to cure is recommended. The Committee believes the
South African Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34
of 1995 is very informative in this regard.1
4.2
There is need to have an interpretation section that defines
key terms in accordance with internationally accepted standards. In its
present format, the Bill does not define a victim, conflict, dispute,
amnesty, perpetrator, post-conflict justice, torture and reconciliation
among other terms. The interpretation section is too weak and evidently
shows poor drafting.
4.3
Powers of the Commission must directly correspond with its
functions.
4.4
It is the Committee’s view that the issuance of a Ministerial
certificate in the public interest is universal practice necessary for the
preservation of law and order. As such, while some members of the
public expressed reservations with this, it is a clause that is necessary
for effective governance and maintenance of peace which are key state
functions.
4.5
The Committee noted that in the event that the Commission
is operationalised, its offices should be decentralised. Having this
clause in the Bill, effectively provides a legal instrument to compel the
commission to open offices closer to the people.
4.6
It is the Committee’s finding that the Bill as earlier stated
does not adequately define its terms and references. There is need to
clearly define and list the functions of the Commission vis-a-vis the
functions of the ZHRC. Notably also, is the fact that the Commission’s
operations are only limited to civil proceedings before the court but by
implication, the Bill suggests that the Commission proceed to entertain
a matter that is pending and/or ongoing in the criminal matters.
4.7
Regarding the 14 day period afforded suspects to respond in
writing by the Commission, it is the Committee’s view that the
Constitution in terms of section 70, affords such persons rights to
adequately prepare for their defence. As such, the 14 day period is
considered to be reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society as
ours.
Again in terms of section 69 (4) of the Constitution, it affords
anyone the right at their own expense to choose and be represented by a
legal practitioner before any court, tribunal or forum. As such, it is the
Committee’s recommendation that this provision be upheld.
4.8
Regarding donations to the Commission, it is the
Committee’s view that any nation would safeguard its independence
and sovereignty by ensuring that donations from hostile nations or
organisations meant to foment discontent are not allowed.
4.9
As a general observation, it is noted that the Bill is silent on
gender and there is a need for a specific gender section. It is
recommended that a separate section must be inserted on gender. This
section must set up a gender unit or similar mechanism of choice which
will do the following:
(a)
Develop specific guidelines and rules on how the
Commission will incorporate gender into its work;
(b)
Develop strategies to encourage the participation of women,
girls and other marginalised groups in the work of the Commission;
and
(c)
Facilitate gender equity into the structure of the
Commission.
5.0
Conclusion
Generally the Bill did not receive wide acceptance from the
members of the public. More specifically, the Bill did not deal with
legal issues pertaining to previous amnests granted, and the period
which the Commission has jurisdiction over. Also, the Bill failed to
define salient terms and references, particularly the issues to do with
perpetrators and victims. It is silent on the procedures to be used in
ascertaining one’s status as a perpetrator and/or victim. At the centre of
any healing process are victims. The Constitution states in section 252
that healing is one of the functions of the NPRC. It further talks about
providing rehabilitative treatment and support to victims and survivors.
This healing cannot be achieved if victims are left in the margins of the
process. I thank you.
HON. GONESE: Thank you very much Madam Speaker Ma’am.
I would like to contribute to this debate on the Bill which was introduced
in this august House. At the very outset Madam Speaker Ma’am, I
would like to point out that the Hon. Vice President, who is in charge of
peace and reconciliation does not seem to be committed to the issue –
[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – To begin with, he is not even here to
pilot the Bill itself. He was not even here when the Bill was read a
second time. Instead, this was done on his behalf by the Hon. Minister
of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing.
I have looked at the Second Reading Speech, which was presented
to this august House and with due respect Madam Speaker Ma’am, this
is really very shallow. The purpose of a Second Reading Speech is to
outline the principles to indicate the mischief which the Bill intends to
cure. Alas! Madam Speaker, this Second Reading Speech, all it does is
to regurgitate what is in the Preamble of the Bill. It does not tell us why
we need to have this commission, what the motivation is, the history of
our country, which led the framers of our Constitution to include this
Commission as part of the Independent Commissions supporting
democracy.
I therefore wish to submit that it is very disappointing that the Hon.
Vice President does not seem to have any interest in the principles and
objectives for which the Commission is being established. That is my
starting point.
When you look at the Second Reading Speech, all it has done is to
give us a summary of the relevant Clauses. It does not speak to the real
issues and the real issues are that; sadly in this country we have had a
history of conflict and we are looking at the very beginning when this
country was colonised, even going back to the time when we had to
liberate ourselves. Issues of conflict arose in the liberation of this
country, resulting in the policy of reconciliation in 1980. Unfortunately,
even after attaining our independence, we have had a sad history of a lot
of conflicts. We have the Gukurahundi incidents which happened in
Matebeleland and in the Midlands.
Madam Speaker, after every election, we have had issues of
violence, particularly in 2000, 2002 and also in June of 2008. Those are
some of the issues which we want to address so that we can bring
genuine reconciliation amongst the people of this country. This was the
motivation that led the framers of the current Constitution to see it
necessary to include in the provisions of the Constitution, the need for a
Commission to look after or deal with those matters with the objective to
ensure that such incidents do not recur. This will ensure that once and
for all we can say that in future, going forward we are not going to have
another situation where the people of this country are going to be
involved in those kinds of disputes or conflicts.
The second issue I would like to raise Madam Speaker Ma’am
arises from the fact that the Executive does not seem to be taking this
issue very seriously. If you look at the fact that our Constitution was
adopted in 2013 and it is now almost four years down the line. We have
had a Commission whose members were appointed more than two years
ago and yet when the original Bill was brought before this august House,
it was blatantly unconstitutional. It was clear to all and sundry that the
drafters of the Bill were not taking us seriously. In all the public
hearings that we had in this country, that issue was raised about the
unconstitutionality of the Bill. What did the Hon. Vice President do?
He simply withdrew the Bill and for more than a year nothing happened.
One would have expected that since the issues were very clear and
straightforward, what simply needed to be done was to cure the mischief
that had led to the Parliamentary Legal Committee (PLC), among others,
to issue an Adverse Report which had also led to members of the public
to reject the Bill. One would have expected the Hon. Vice President to
have moved with speed to ensure that this Bill came before us as a
matter of urgency to enable the Commission to carry out its work.
Be that as it may Madam Speaker, I would actually endeavour to
say that the Commission is in fact created by the Constitution. At the
end of the day, if one looks at the provisions, I think it is on Section 252,
it is clear that because of that establishment by the supreme law of this
country there is really nothing that should have prevented the
Commission from carrying out its work. Again, it is Section 342, goes
further to give the parameters under which some of these Commissions
can operate. I am at a loss as to why it has taken this long for the Hon.
Vice President to have ensured that the Bill is brought to this august
House timeously.
Again, Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that the
Executive is not taking this issue very seriously. You are aware that the
former Chairperson of the Commission, Mr. Cyril Ndebele died some
time last year. Up to now, he has not been replaced. The Constitution is
very clear, the requirements for that appointment is simply for His
Excellency to consult the Judicial Services Commission as well as the
Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, after that consultation to
appoint a Chairperson of the Commission. It is clear that this has not
been done simply because the Executive does not have any interest in
having these issues which are really fundamental and necessary to
enable us to move forward and not have another scenario where people
can just perpetrate acts of violence with impunity.
The purposes of having transitional justice is to ensure that when
those incidence would have occurred, we have a process of
reconciliation, a process of justice, a process of healing so that in future
you are not going to have a recurrence. It is clear to me that here we
have a situation where the Executive does not have any interest in
having that to happen.
Having said that, I will now go to the Bill itself. The problems
which we had first time have not been fully cured. As I have already
pointed out the problems that arose first time around where some of the
issues which I have already alluded to - where you had poor drafting and
lawyers coming up or crafting provisions which even a kangaroo court
presiding officer would have been able to point out that this is clearly in
violation of the provisions of the Constitution. That poor drafting, there
was an attempt to deal with those issues which were fundamentally
unconstitutional but however, we still have some issues of poor drafting.
I will just allude to two particular clauses.
If you look at Clause 10 (1) of the Bill which talks about persons
who appear before the Commission, it is clear that any person who is
questioned by the Commission in the exercise of its powers shall be
compelled to produce an article and it goes on. That same provision is
duplicated in Clause 11 which again states “any person who is
questioned by the Commission in the exercise of its…” word for word.
You just wonder as to whether these people were fast asleep or
whatever. This is something which is a cause for concern. That
duplication you also see it when you look at the First Schedule. Clause 2
(1) talks about provision of the Constitution and talks about the
appointment of members on a renewable basis. This again is duplicated
in sub-clause (4). You find that you have those errors of poor drafting.
However, that is not the end of the matter. The other issues have
already been pointed by the Chairperson of the Committee. It is really
unfortunate that when you have a Bill of this nature, you would really
expect it to focus principally on the victims and survivors. When you
look at this Bill, it is very sad that no emphasis is placed on those people
who are really the critical persons we want to deal with, the people who
would have suffered as a result of any acts of violence. It is important
that this be rectified when we get to the Committee Stage so that you
have clear definitions which are incorporated in the Bill, in particular,
when it comes to issues of victims and survivors.
Another issue where sufficient attention and sufficient detail has
not been given applies to the issue of gender. It is very clear that when
you have conflict situations, the sufferers and major victims of such
incidences are usually the women. If you look at most of the crimes
which are committed in conflict situations, you look at rape and offences
of a sexual nature, they are perpetrated against women. Even when you
look at situations where heads of households die and so on, usually it is
the women who are left to look after the children when the father has
been killed in conflict situations. I would have expected that any serious
mover of a Bill of this nature would have given sufficient detail to issues
relating to women who usually are the biggest sufferers when it comes
to matters of this nature. I would therefore implore- unfortunately he is
not here and I am just hoping and praying that he is going to read the
Hansard. I know he never comes to Parliament anyway. I am just
hoping that his co-pilot, the other Hon. Vice President will indicate to
him that he must read the Hansard so that he can take into account the
submissions which are going to be made by Members of Parliament and
in particular by the Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs and try to take them on board so that we can have an
improvement on this Bill.
Another cause for concern is that here we are talking of an
Independent Commission which is set up in terms of the Constitution of
Zimbabwe and the independence of that Commission is paramount. Here
we have a situation where there are six references to consultation with
the Minister. You wonder what role does the Minister have to play here.
The Minister is not part of the Constitution in so far as matters of
healing are concerned. As far as I am concerned, if it is the wish of the
Executive to have a Minister who is also responsible for the issues
relating to healing and so on, the role of that Minister must be
subordinate because that role is not enshrined in the Constitution unlike
the role of the Commission. I therefore, believe that the requirement that
for instance when the Commission is setting up its secretariat, it is
obliged to consult not just the Minister of Finance and Economic
Development but also the Minister responsible for healing should be set
aside. It should be removed and expunged from the Bill. It has no place
where you are talking of an Independent Commission. There should be
no need for the Minister to be consulted. If he has nothing to do, then he
must be assigned other duties and responsibilities which have nothing to
do with issues relating to national healing which can be adequately dealt
with and covered by the Commission itself which is set up in terms of
our Constitution.
Again Madam Speaker, another matter for concern is that, you then
have the provision which says ‘in consultation with’. I think it will be
preferable to perhaps say ‘after consultation’ if there is any need for a
consultation at all which is obviously a weaker provision in so far as the
obligation is concerned. In so far as the acceptance of donations and so
on, I again believe that, yes, the Minister of Finance and Economic
Development in terms of the Bill has to be consulted. I believe that it
must be made clear in terms of how the Bill is crafted that the
Commission itself is able to get donations from people who are willing
assist because it is common cause that this country is broke, that the
fiscus is not able to sufficiently fund all the Independent Commissions
that are established in terms of the Constitution.
I believe that the Commission is composed of persons of integrity
who are selected after a rigorous process. As I have already pointed out,
the Chairperson is appointed by His Excellency, the President and the
other eight members of the Commission are appointed after adverts are
placed in our national newspapers and interviews conducted by the
Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Obviously, when those
interviews are conducted, I believe that the Commissioners who are
going to be produced are going to be persons of integrity. We must give
wide latitude to accept donations from whoever they feel is going to
assist them in the execution of their duties and I believe that they should
not be unnecessarily hindered from accepting those donations.
My last point relates to the issue of Ministerial Certificates. I
know that at least there has been an improvement that the Commission
has got power to decide whether to uphold the issuance of a Ministerial
Certificate. I believe that it should be completely expunged from the
Bill – in any event public interests are not even defined in the Bill. So,
in other words we are giving a blank cheque to the Minister of State
Security to interfere in the operations of the Commission. I wish to
submit Madam Speaker, that that power to issue a ministerial certificate
should be removed altogether, we do not need it.
If you look at the hearings envisaged in terms of the provisions of
the commission, I believe that we are coming up with a scenario where
we are having proceedings of too much of a formal nature. I believe that
when you are dealing with issues of mediation, issues of trying to bring
about national healing, we need to have a process which is as informal
as possible. If you look at what happened in Rwanda where they had
their local courts called Gacaca courts and I believe that this is
something which we must be envisaging, a scenario where you do not
have formal hearings taking place so that the provisions in the Bill make
it clear that what we are having is a situation where we are going to have
issues of negotiation, mediation which are done in as informal a manner
as possible which will allow members of the public, people who have
been victimized to come forward without fear so that they can say what
they have gone through. Hopefully, the commission will then be able to
make the appropriate recommendations. It is for these reasons that I
believe that the concept is good but what it entails is for us to have a full
commitment which unfortunately and which very sadly is lacking on the
part of the Executive. I would like to implore the Executive to at least
take into account the spirit of the Constitution which led to the
establishment of the Commission. Thank you.
HON. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: Thank you very much
Madam Speaker. Let me start by saying, I am hoping that as we get into
this debate we can be as frank and perhaps as brutally frank as we can.
If we do not, we will not be able to get to the bottom of what this is all
about.
I want to join my colleagues and chairperson in saying the general
view that we got was not that people did not want the Bill; the general
thing that we got was that people wanted the Bill but they wanted a Bill
that made sense and this particular Bill was not making sense both in the
way it was drafted and the manner in which the contents and the issues
therein where expressed.
Before I get into why I am saying so Madam Speaker, let me just
say to you that the anger that we faced when we went for this public
hearing is amazing. It is unfortunate that we are unable to bring the
audio tapes or the electronic taps…
HON. MLISWA: On a point of order! Madam Speaker, this
debate is very serious, I saw Members of Parliament from the other side,
especially women, going out, what for, I do not know. The Masvingo
election is done. So, what are they going to talk about - I do not know
[Laughter.]THE TEMPORARAY SPEAKER (MS. DZIVA): I think there
is no point of order.
HON. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: Madam Speaker, I was
speaking to the anger that we found and to some extent, just this last
comment by the colleague is relevant because I think if the people that
we met actually had a way of sitting and watching the way we are
debating this, they would be very disappointed. For many of them, it
speaks of their lived realities, their day to day lived realities. It is
unfortunate that as a nation we have gotten to a point where issues of
conflict, healing, issues that should be bringing us together, we do not
care much about them, we are so used to just living life as life without
necessarily understanding where people are coming from.
Madam Speaker, for me the debate and the public hearing showed
me a divided nation, an extremely dived nation - divided in a number of
ways. Firstly, divided in the appreciation and understanding of the
issues that happened in the pre-colonial era, divided in the issues about
what happened in the post colonial era and divided around the issues that
happened just after independence and what is currently happening today.
I think that is the unfortunate part about this particular Bill, whoever is
drafting the Bill has just thought it is mechanical, business as usual
without dealing with what exactly we want to address and you are not
finding what exactly we want to address. Are we trying to do a truth and
reconciliation commission, we are trying to just create a certain
institution that is going to be dealing with issues generally about healing.
So unlike my other colleagues, I actually think the disappointment is in
that after the first time where we took this particular Bill for people to
speak, those issues have not been brought in because the basic thing that
people said is that do not give us something that is not talking about
truth. Our concern is somebody who comes back and said this is the
truth about what happened during Gukurahundi, this is the truth about
what happened during the liberation struggle.
The unfortunate thing that has happened with this Bill is that the
moment people hear about National Peace and Reconciliation, the first
thing that comes to their mind is Gukurahundi. Unfortunately it stops
you from thinking. If you go step by step, you should be saying to
yourself why is it today we are still talking about war veterans not
getting anything and not being supported. It is because we never dealt
with the issue around reconciliation, we would have said, what is it that
we are going to do about those that participated in the struggle and the
pains that they experienced during the liberation struggle - nothing like
that happened, so we have not debated that, we have not debated what
happened immediately after independence. I am prepared Madam
Speaker because these are some of the very uncomfortable conversation
that we started facing. I remember and I hope some of my colleagues
who were at the hearing also remember this, a very young woman
standing up in Bulawayo, saying this war between amaShona
lamaNdebele can only be described in this manner yikulwa kukaSatan
loJehovah – it can never finish. This is a young person who was not
there during the Gukurahundi era but the pain is about what she is
dealing with in terms of the marginalisation that she lives with on a daily
basis.
So, until you address the problems and issues that people are
facing, you will not deal with this. To play around and pretend that you
have a national peace and reconciliation when you are not dealing with
the issues of transitional justice which are issues of who has gotten land,
jobs and resources in this country, it is why you could clearly separate
the issues that were being raised in Matabeleland and Mashonaland
regions.
For example, I remember when we went to Mashonaland West and
somebody in the group was standing up and saying, ‘Stop talking about
Gukurahundi, after all the maNdebele people took inkomo zethu and our
wives.’ At a very basic level, it is a very upsetting statement for some of
us but it is a real statement. I am saying if that is the reason why the
people of Matabeleland today continue to suffer marginalisation because
there were cattle and women that were taken – then let us talk about it.
And if there is supposed to be reparation of the cattle coming back to
Mashonaland, let those cattle come back then we can go back to the
issues that we are talking about. I do not know what we are going to do
with the women that were supposedly taken. We cannot have them and
take them back.
In reality, we cannot pretend that certain things are being said and
we ignore them. If it is a general feeling that somebody thinks it is
justified to continue to oppress and subject a particular tribe on the basis
that you believe that there were cattle and women that were taken away
– then let us deal with it. Unfortunately, this Bill does not deal with that.
So, it is a useless Bill as far as we are concerned because that Bill is
supposed to be talking about why when you go into Matabeleland you
necessarily find people who are angry? They are angry because of
certain things that are being done systematically.
Madam Speaker, if you look at Section 18 of our Constitution, as
we drafted that Constitution, we put in a provision around equality of
regions because there was an understanding and appreciation that the
issue around inequality was important. Inequality comes from the fact
that historically, people believe and live through the realities that they
are not being treated fairly. If you go to an interpretation stage and do
not find a definition of why there is a need for reconciliation, then we
are talking nonsense.
I have said in this House, and I am glad the Hon. Vice President
Mnangagwa is here - when I raised the issue around the reburials of
people who were killed during the Gukurahundi era, the Vice President,
at that stage said to the House, we will facilitate for those that want to do
the burials. As I speak to you right now, if anybody is trying to have a
memorial service, not a reburial – to basically just get people in a
community to talk about what happened and how they think, they are
arrested and stopped from having those conversations taking place yet
those people watch day in and day out here in Mashonaland, people
sitting down and saying we are doing reburials. How do you think those
people feel?
For me, these are the issues that we are supposed to deal with. If
we pretend that there are no ethnic issues, we are joking and not being
serious. When we are here, let us not talk about Matabeleland and
Mashonaland – let us talk about here in Mashonaland. The Zezuru and
Karanga divide – completely there and we live with it in this very
House. We have those major differences about whether you are
Karanga or Zezuru and who is in control of what resources at this
particular point in time and what it means. Let us not pretend that those
are not realities that we are talking about. If we do not include the issues
around ethnic conversations and how we are going to deal with it, day in
and day out, we are going to be dealing with them. We are going to be
saying to ourselves, ‘MaZezuru ambotongawo, tavekuda kuti
maKaranga ambotonga.’ That is the debate that is there and if we
continue to pretend that the debate is not there, we are lying to each
other.
I think it is important that in terms of a way forward, we do not
play around with this if we really intend to do a proper truth and
reconciliation process. Let us go back and look at what happened in
Rwanda, like Hon. Gonese was saying. They said to themselves, ‘We
are going to do a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and it
will mean that truth is about dealing with the things that we are unhappy
and uncomfortable about. We will have to deal with issues of will there
be arrests or amnesty? We cannot have situations were amnesty is
given; part of the problems that we have right now is, if we go to post
2000, there are people who murdered people during the general
elections, arrested, convicted yet they were given an amnesty. Every
other day, when you declare some of them heroes, people are upset.
They are hurt because they know that these people have a particular
history that they have had before.
Trust me, people may get away with it now in the current context
but the generations that are going to be coming tomorrow and in the
future – this thing will come back. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]The children of those who were murdered will also come back to murder
because you are not going to be in power in perpetuity. There will be a
time that you will be out of power and when you are out of power, that
person who comes in and is in control is going to come back and deal
with you. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]- We need to be able to
understand and appreciate that particular aspect.
Madam Speaker, as a Committee, which is one of the things that
was missing in our report, had an opportunity to visit South Africa and
Kenya and do an analysis around what happened. In both areas, we
found that whilst South Africa had done a good job around truth and
reconciliation, they had not dealt with some of the fundamental issues
around transitional justice which is why in South Africa today they are
beginning to have serious divisions and contradictions around policy
issues, issues of land and the redistribution of land and resources … [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections. ]THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order, order Hon. Members,
may Hon. Misihairabwi-Mushonga be heard in silence. I think those
who wish to engage in private conversations can do so outside the
House.
HON. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: I am just giving you an
example of South Africa that whilst South Africa dealt with the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, one of the lessons that we learnt from
there is that it was too limited because it just dealt with the things that
had happened during the apartheid era. It did not deal with the
fundamental issues around transitional justice, resource allocation - who
is getting what and if something does not happen well, there is going to
be a disaster in South Africa. I think we should learn from that
particular aspect and not allow things to continue to fester and hope that
they will go away. They will not go away Madam Speaker, as at one
stage those things will come back to bite us.
We went to Kenya, for example, Kenya did the same. They had a
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) but they failed to organise
it in a way that they would then say we have done a TRC but how are we
going to implement the issues that are coming out of the TRC and up till
now, they are grappling with those issues. So in Kenya, things may
seem to be working well but the issues around ethnic problems are still
there. The fortunate thing about some of these countries is an
acknowledgement that they have a problem. The sad thing about
Zimbabwe is the denialism that we have, a pretence that we have no
problems. So you will have somebody sitting here and saying, but in our
country we have not had conflict; in our country we do not have ethnic
problems yet we know that if we are organising our factions, we are
doing so on the basis of ethnicity. Why are we pretending that it is not a
problem that we are having? Let us deal with it and deal with it once
and for all.
I gave an example, which is on my favourite subject, around the
issues of war veterans and gender. Madam Speaker, when I went back
to look at, for example, those who were at the Lancaster House
Constitution, I found out that there was a woman called Kadungure. She
was the only woman who was there and it was noted. I do not know
whether that woman is there right now and I do not know whether she
died. I do not know what her circumstances were but I am giving that
example in that it is clear because we never had a conversation about
what happened during the liberation struggle that perhaps those that
really participated, worked and suffered are the ones that are not being
acknowledged today.
It is because we never really did a truth and reconciliation process.
I am saying what we noticed during the hearings is that we have a bigger
problem than what we are talking about here. We have an angry society
and in fact, most of us were being abused. They said, you are wasting
money and they were right - you came here last year and you said to us
let us talk about this Bill; now you are coming back again with this Bill
and for us it has not changed anything fundamentally in terms of what
we have done.
So, if we do not want to have a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, let us just come back here and be honest that we do not
want to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We will have it
when every one of us who are leaders today and who are governing have
gone and we forget about it. Let us not pretend that we want to have a
National Peace and Reconciliation Commission.
In conclusion Madam Speaker, let me give you this warning. We
are going to have a huge uprising in this country and that uprising is
going to come from the generality of the people who are not
beneficiaries of the assets that people are using every other day. We will
have people in the streets burning homes and burning everything else
because the language of speaking will not have worked. We are going
to have an uprising in the area around issues of ethnicity. We will
pretend to talk about it right now but I can tell you as somebody who
comes from that region that one day you will have a situation where
people will stand up and they will say anyone who is not coming from
here, we will hack to death and we will beat up.
You will not have an excuse for it because they keep giving you
warnings and warnings and you are refusing to deal with issues that they
are raising. I thank you Madam Speaker.
HON. CHASI: Thank you Madam Speaker – [AN. HON.
MEMBER: Inaudible interjections.] -
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER (HON. DZIVA): I have
discretion as the Speaker in Chair right and now so, I recognise Hon.
Chasi.
HON. MAJOME: On a point of order Madam Speaker.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
HON. MAJOME: My point of order is, I had been recognised by
the previous Speaker. While I do venerate the authority that you wield
in that Chair, from a privilege point of view, I had been recognised by
the previous Speaker. I have no doubt about your authority Madam
Speaker but what happens is that the procedure where a member has
been recognised to speak next; not that it is actually in the Hansard,
does that not matter at all? What then happens to my turn to speak
because I had been recognised that I would speak after Hon.
Misihairabwi-Mushonga.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I understand
where you are coming from. It is a matter of discretion and at this stage,
I am the one in the Chair and I have recognised Hon. Chasi. I will give
you a chance after that.
HON. MLISWA: On a point of order Madam Speaker.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Your point of order Hon.
Mliswa must be supported by the Standing Rules and Orders. So, in
accordance to what Standing Order are you raising your point of order?
HON. MLISWA: No, in fact my point of order is; what you are
saying too, must be supported by Standing Rules and Orders. You
talked about discretion, where in the Standing Rules and Orders does it
say that you use your discretion to overrule somebody? We are a House
of rules, the rules apply to you and to us. Where in the Standing Rules
and Orders does it say that the Chair can use discretion because we are a
House of rules. Which Standing Order are you using in terms of that
discretion you are talking about?
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: The Chair’s ruling is final.
HON. MLISWA: But the other Chair had ruled.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: I am the Speaker.
HON. MLISWA: It is on record in the Hansard because she said
that Hon. Majome and me.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Hon. Mliswa, you are out of
order, I am the Speaker right now and I make decisions – [HON.
MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I am not representing anyone, I
am the Speaker right now and I have made a ruling.
HON. CHASI: Thank you very much Madam Speaker – [HON.
MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I am just waiting to have your
attention Madam Speaker. This is a very important Bill and I have great
difficulty in supporting it from any angle whatsoever and from a
technical drafting point of view, it is a disaster. I have great respect for
the Attorney General’s Office. I have worked with them, they are a very
hard working office; they are technically sound but with respect to thisb
Bill, they have failed us. I think those that have spoken before me have
spoken in connection with section 1, the interpretation section. Even
members of the public, when we went round for the public hearings,
were able to see that there was no interpretation section. I think it had
two words that were meant to constitute an interpretation section. There
was no interpretation section in that Bill.
If you look at the level of interest in the Bill, those that have
spoken about the level of interest have spoken very well and have
indicated that there does not appear to be interest; any level of
meaningful interest in this Bill by those that are meant to be piloting it at
all. The period intervening between the first time the Bill came to
Parliament and this time around does not reflect the necessary level of
interest. The content itself does not reflect the seriousness that the
public I think take of the content and the nature of the material that we
are talking about. So, I think the level of anger that we witnessed when
we went around the country, is pertinent to mention. Going around the
country, it was very clear that the public viewed us with a great deal of
suspicion that we were playing with their time and that we were
complicity in the delays, that we were not serious as Parliament in terms
of what is...
HON. MLISWA: On a point of order Madam Speaker, in terms of
Standing Order No. 56 – [Laughter.] –
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order in the House, I have not
yet recognised you.
HON. MLISWA: Rule 56 talks of the quorum of the House; the
quorum of the House is not enough for us to continue. As such, I am
bringing this in terms of Standing Order Rule 56. I thank you. We are
not enough – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: According to the point of
order raised by Hon. Mliswa, I will allow Parliament to take necessary
procedures so as to make sure that the House had a quorum. If it does
not, we will adjourn the House. I will allow them to ring the bells for
seven minutes.
Bells rung.
Quorum formed.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Hon. Chasi, you may continue
with your debate.
HON. CHASI: Madam Speaker, I really do not want to repeat.
Most of the points have been raised by those that have spoken before
me. The points relating to the ministerial certificates are pertinent and I
do not want to repeat them. I just want to say overally, it is not a
supported Bill. It is not clear in terms of timelines, its import and it is not
clear as to when it is meant to commence. I agree with what most of the
Speakers before me have mentioned. I want to repeat that I have
difficulty in supporting it. I thank you.
HON. MAJOME: Thank you Madam Speaker for according me
this opportunity to speak. I do not take your indulgence lightly and I
thank you. I want to also lend my voice to support what was said by our
Hon. Chairperson and my colleagues from the Portfolio Committee.
Hon. Madam Speaker, in debating this particular Bill...
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, can Hon.
Majome be heard in silence. You will be given a chance to debate if you
like the issue.
HON. MAJOME: In debating this particular Bill, I wish to
possibly begin on a point of privilege. With the absence of the Hon.
Minister, I would like to inquire if there are any officials who work in
the office of His Excellency, the President and Cabinet and particularly
Hon. Mphoko’s Ministry because they do not appear to be here.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: I will allow them to give me
some feedback but from what I can see, I do not see anyone on the back.
HON. MAJOME: So with that Hon. Madam Speaker, I will beg
for your assistance. This is because it is a point of privilege, as was
raised by Hon. Gonese. The Hon. Minister who sponsored the Bill is not
here, who is the Vice President and there is not a single official from
their Ministry to debate this. The question is how often do Bills from the
organ on Healing and Reconciliation come to this Parliament, the point
is that this is very rare. So Madam Speaker, I would wish it put on
record and hope that Hon. Members of Parliament take very strong
exception to the attitude of the Executive in not valuing the processes of
this Parliament.
As we are now, Hon. Members where we are debating, we raise
certain issues in connection with the attitude of the Office of the Hon.
Minister regarding issues of healing and reconciliation and also the
attitude of the Hon. Minister with respect to him about his attitude and
understanding of what an Independent Commission should or should not
do. That attitude will be critical in the success of this Commission in its
operations. If the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission is
going to enjoy its independence as envisaged and indeed as demanded
by the Constitution...
HON. ADV. CHAMISA: On a point of privilege. From the
Standing Rules and Orders, we are given the powers as individual
Members of Parliament. If there is a point we feel impinges or
encroaches our right to privilege in this House, this issue has already
been indicated by Hon. Chasi, the Chair, Hon. Ziyambi and Hon.
Mliswa. I do not think it is sufficient to say we will have the Minister
reading the Hansard. Yes, he can read the Hansard but he will not be
able to understand and read the body language and the emotions of Hon.
Members. This is a serious national debate. It can only be a debate by all
of us.
We know that the Vice President is busy but inasmuch as he is
busy, the Minister of State could also come in. –[inaudible
interjections.]- We are saying perhaps he is busy but Hon. Speaker, you
know that it is good practice that when we are debating such important
Bills, we always have technical officials. I can see that there is none.
The seats are vacant and it tells you one thing. It is either there is no
seriousness by individuals who have been entrusted by Government to
deal with this Bill because we cannot allow a situation whereby serious
debates are undertaken in Parliament about serious national issues in the
absence of those serious national offices.
So, Hon. Speaker, it is my plea that we either summon as
Parliament, because we cannot just be speaking to ourselves. We do not
want echoes that are going to the caves, mountains and walls. We want
echoes that are going to the corridors of power so that when we speak
truth to power, power gives power to truth. As it is, we are just speaking
truth to power but there is no power to listen to our truth. So, what are
we doing? We are not expecting you Hon. Speaker to burden yourself
under these circumstances but let us have the relevant authority.
The Vice President should be here so that we are able to give
justice and good effect to the spirit in the Constitution. This is a very
important Commission and we would want the Minster or the Vice
President to be here. This is a plea that I am making and I know that the
plea has the majority support of all progressive Members of Parliament.
This is not a partisan call, it is a patriotic call. This is not an MDC or a
ZANU PF issue, it is a Zimbabwean issue.
The issues that are being raised, Hon. Misihairabwi-Mushonga
raised issues that are very touching and these issues require that we have
the hearts of the rulers of the land. If we do not turn the hearts of the
rulers of the land, we may not be able to turn the hearts that are crying
and wipe off the tears on the chicks of many Zimbabweans who are
literaly crying for justice. So, Hon. Speaker, I seek your indulgence and
the indulgence of this Committee that on this one, let us summon, or
may be summoning is too strong a word, but let us kindly request the
Hon. Vice President to be present or to avail himself for this important
debate – and the Minister of State to be here so that we are able to
engage them on this progressive national discourse. Hon. Speaker, I so
state and place on the table. Thank you very much.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER (HON. DZIVA): I wish to
respond before you can raise your point of order. I note with great
concern the matter of privilege that has been raised by Hon. Majome and
Hon. Chamisa. I think it is important for Hon. Ministers to be
responsible when they are carrying out their duties. However, I have
been advised by Parliament that the Vice President had made an
apology. He has gone to Bulawayo on national duty, so they asked if it
could be debated and through the Hansard they will respond after
tomorrow – [HON. MEMBERS: No, no.] – I think if we agree, we can
adjourn this debate to tomorrow when he comes back and Hon.
Members can debate in his presence [HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] –
HON. MLISWA: Madam Speaker, just to say this; we are constantly
accused of not being efficient as Members of Parliament. You in the
Chair have always told us you have written to His Excellency over the
conduct of the Ministers. Up to now you have not told us what His
Excellency has said. We continue doing this everyday and it becomes a
game. Next time can we get a response from you pertaining to the letter
that the Speaker wrote to the President pertaining to the conduct of the
Ministers who are not here?
Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa, if I am not mistaken is the Acting
President and I respect his conduct to duty. He is so disciplined to it.
why can the other Hon. Vice President not do the same? He equally has
a Minister in his office who is Hon. Tabeth Malinga Kanengoni. To me,
if Hon. Mnangagwa is not here, we see Hon. Sibanda presenting issues,
why can he not learn from Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa on the way
he conducts his duty, maybe he can learn. I think he needs to go for
some schooling from the Presidium pertaining to his conduct as Hon.
Vice President. If he is not available, his responsible Minister must be
able to represent him.
According to the Section 107 (2) of the Constitution, “Every Vice
President, Minister and Deputy Minister must attend Parliament and
parliamentary committees in order to answer questions concerning
matters for which he or she is collectively or individually responsible.”
So, the responsible Ministers are not here. In support of Hon. Chamisa’s
submission, who are we debating to, who are we talking to? Thank you
– [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order Hon. Members. I have to
respond to the point of order raised by Hon. Mliswa. Hon. Mliswa, I
think I gave a ruling on the matter. The Office of the Vice President and
the Ministry of National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation had
communicated with Parliament that they had another engagement in
Bulawayo, they are absent. We have heard it and we have had a ruling
and we are going to debate this issue when the Vice President is present.
However, I had recognised Hon. Majome to debate on the issue, so I will
allow Hon. Majome to finish her debate – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible
interjections.] – if she is comfortable – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible
interjections.] – Order Hon. Members.
HON. MAJOME: Hon. Madam Speaker as I raise the point of
privilege, I would want either the Hon. Minister as well as the State
Official and at the very least, the officials from the Ministry to be here
because I do not want to talk to myself. However, I have a point of
order Madam Speaker. Do I have your assurance that when they come, I
will have an opportunity to proceed with my debate? – [HON.
MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Order Hon. Members. Hon.
Members, I think the ruling has already been made and we have agreed
that the debate can be adjourned.
HON. MATUKE: I move that the debate do now adjourn.
HON. MUKWANGWARIWA: I second.
Hon. Mliswa having been speaking at the top of his voice.
THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: Hon. Mliswa, we are still in the
House.
Motion put and agreed to.
Debate to resume: Wednesday, 10th May, 2017.
MOTION
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
On the motion of HON. MATUKE seconded by HON.
MUKWANGWARIWA, the House adjourned at Twelve Minutes past
Four o’clock pm.