Ruling by Hon Madam Speaker - On a Point of Order by Mr A Katakwe, MP, against suspended PF Members of Parliament for allegedly lying to the Nation through the Public Media that they were chased from Parliament in order to prevent them from debating

RULING BY THE HON MADAMSPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY MR A KATAKWE, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR SOLWEZI EAST CONSTITUENCY AGAINST SUSPENDED PATRIOTIC FRONTMEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR ALLEGEDLY LYING TO THE NATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC MEDIA THAT THEY WERE CHASED FROM PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO PREVENT THEM FROM DEBATING THE PRESIDENTIAL SPEECH AND FOR DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION
 
Hon Members will recall that on Wednesday, 16thMarch, 2022, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 286,and Hon S Masebo, Minister of Health had just concluded responding tothe question, Mr A Katakwe, Member of Parliament for Solwezi East Constituency, raised a Point of Order.The Point of Order was against Patriotic Front (PF) Members of Parliament who had been suspended the previous day for participating in a protest in the Chamber on 30th November, 2021. In the Point of Order, Mr A Katakwe, MP, alleged that the suspended MPs had lied in the media that they had been suspended to prevent them from debating the Presidential State of the Nation Address and for defending the Constitution.
Hon Members, in her immediate response, the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker reserved her ruling in order to study the matter.I have since studiedthe matter andwill reluctantly rule on this Point of Order. I say “reluctantly” for reasons Iwill explain later.
 
Hon Members, the Point of Order was based on video footage of a briefingby some PF Members of Parliament, who were suspended on Tuesday 15thMarch, 2022. Mr A Katakwe, MP, laida flash disk containing the video footage on the Table. My office had occasion to view the footage which was of a briefing by Hon B M Mundubile, Leader of the Opposition and Member of Parliament for Mporokoso Constituency, Mr S Kampyongo, Patriotic Front Whip and Member of Parliament for Shiwang'andu Constituency and Mr G Chisanga, Member of Parliament for Lukashya Constituency.
 
A brief account of the Members’ statements is as follows:
 
(i) Hon B M Mundubile, MP
He stated that the ruling had been rendered at a time that the country was mourning the Fourth Republican President and that he had noticed a trend ofrulingsbeingrendered during sensitive times.
 
(ii) Mr S Kampyongo, MP
He stated that Parliamentarians had sworn to defend the Constitution and, therefore, had to stand up against any attempt to breach it. He said that is what they had done when they had protested. He added that they were happy thattheir protest had yielded positive results through the amendment of Head 1 in the Yellow Book. 
 
(iii) Mr G Chisanga, MP
He stated that the President’s State of the Nation Address that had been presented the previous Friday would be debated by a truncated Parliament. He submitted that this would make the process incomplete because the Constitution envisaged all Parliamentarians participating in the debate on the President’s address. He added that, unfortunately, the debate on the Presidential address lasted for about fourteen (14) days whilethey had been suspended for thirty (30) days. 
 
Hon Members,Icarefully considered the statementsmade by the PF Members of Parliament during the briefing. I found that Hon B M Mundubile, MP, was lamenting the fact that the ruling was rendered while the nation was mourning the Fourth Republican President. Mr S Chisanga, MP, expressed concern that the President’s State of the Nation Address would be debated by a reduced Parliament because some Members were on suspension. Mr S Kampyongo, MP, was justifying the PF protest on the basis that it was in done exercise of their constitutional mandate to defend the Constitution and had yielded the positive result of correcting the Yellow.I did not, at any point hear the Members say that they were suspended to prevent them from debating the Presidential address or for defending the Constitution as alleged in Mr A Katakwe, MP’s Point of Order.In that regard, I find that the PF Members of Parliament were not out of order. 
 
Hon Members, I now wish to address why I have reluctantly ruled on the Point of Order.
 
Hon Members, a Point of Order is intended to bring to the attention of the House a procedural breach. There are, in this regard, several rules governing the admissibility of Points of Order. Iwish to cease this opportunity toremind the House of some of them. Specifically, I wish to draw your attention to Standing Order 131(3), which states as follows:
“(3) In raising a Point of Order, a member shall cite the Standing Order, law on privilege of members rule of procedure or practice which has been allegedly breached.”
 
I also wish to draw your attention to Standing Order 131 (6), which provides as follows:
 
“(6)A Point of order shall only be raised in relation to the conduct of business of the House being transacted at the time the Point of Order is raised.”
 
From the foregoing it is clear that for a Point to be admissible, the Hon Member raising it must cite the rule of procedure, law or practice on which it is based. Additionally, it must be related to the business being transacted in the House at the material time.
 
I now wish to address whether Mr A Katakwe’s Point of Order met the foregoing criteria.
 
I will begin with Standing Order 131(3). In raising the Point of Order, Mr A Katakwe, MP, stated, inter alia, as follows:
 
“Madam Speaker, there are Standing Orders on the behaviour of hon Members of Parliament. I would not want to go into the details of citing the Standing Orders, but they are on page 98, which is on the privileges, conduct of hon Members and parliamentary etiquette.”
 
Hon Members, by his own admission, Mr A Katakwe did not cite the Standing Order on which his Point of Order was based. In this regard, the Point of Order did not comply with the requirements of Standing Order 132 (3).
 
I will now turn to address the Point of Order in relation to Standing Order 132 (6).
 
In raising the Point of Order, Mr A Katakwe, MP, stated, inter alia:
 
“I need your indulgence on the behaviour of hon Members of Parliament, in particular, the Patriotic Front (PF) hon Members on whose ruling you actually articulated quite well to the nation. They went out there and appeared on public media, including Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC), and lied to the nation that they were chased from Parliament in order to prevent them from debating the presidential speech and for defending the Constitution of Zambia.”
 
Hon Members, Standing Order 132 (6) requires the point of Order to be relevant to the business being transacted by the House at the time. You may wish to know that at the time Mr A Katakwe raised the Point of Order, the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 286 addressed to the Minister of Health on whether the Government had any plans to construct a district hospital in Pemba. Evidently, there was no relationship between the Point of Order and the subject matter on the Floor at the time. Additionally, the Point of Order was based on an incident that occurred outside the House, which cannot be properly brought to the attention of the House through a Point of Order. 
How then does a Member of Parliament bring to the attention of the House a breach that occurred outside the House or one that happened long before or is unrelated to the business before the House. Standing Order 132(4) is instructive in this regard. It provides as follows:
 
“132(4) Where a member observes a breach of rules long after the breach has occurred, the member may submit a written complaint to the Speaker.”
 
Hon Members, the import of Standing Order 132 (4) is that if a Member notices a breach of the rules long after, it could be in a verbatim record, which a members sees days later, or a newspaper article or, indeed, a video or audio recording, that breach can only be brought to the attention of the House through a complaint to my office.
 
Hon Members, from the foregoing it is clear that Mr A Katakwe’s Point of Order, which was based on something unrelated to the business at the time and that occurred outside the House did not meet the criteria set out in Standing Order 131 for Points of Order. Rather, it qualified to be brought under Standing132(4) as a written complaint to the Speaker. 
 
Hon Members, sadly, I have observed an increasing trend by Members to bring matters that happened outside the House through Points of Order. I am also aware that there are currently some matters before the House and the Committee on Privileges and Absences which were erroneously brought through Points of Order. I wish to guide the House that for those matters already before it, I will proceed to render the rulings, as I have done in this case. However, henceforth, or should I say from now on, I will not entertain any matter that is brought through a Point of Order when it should be brought through a written complaint. Once again, I urge Members to acquaint themselves with the rules regarding Points of Order.
 
 
I THANK YOU.
________________________
Ruling Date: 
Tuesday, July 26, 2022