Ruling by Hon. Madam First Deputy Speaker - On a Point of Order by Mr. R K Chitotela, MP, against Hon. R M Phiri, Minister of Agriculture, on whether the Hon. Minister was in Order to mislead the Nation

RULING BY THE HON MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER BY MR R K CHITOTELA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR PAMBASHE CONSTITUENCY, RAISED ON THURSDAY, 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2022, AGAINST HON R M PHIRI, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, ON WHETHER THE HON MINISTER WAS IN ORDER TO MISLEAD THE NATION BY ALLEGING THAT THE INFIGHTING AMONG THE UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDERS WAS THE REASON TO CANCEL THE FERTILISER TENDER, IN ABROGATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT, NO 8 OF 2020
 
Hon Members, the House will recall that on Thursday, 29th September, 2022, when the House was considering the Ministerial Statement on the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) for the 2022/2023 farming season, and Hon R M Phiri, Minister of Agriculture, was on the Floor, Mr R Chitotela, Member of Parliament for Pambashe Constituency raised a Point of Order. 
 
Mr R Chitotela, MP’s Point of Order was premised on Standing Order 65 (1) (b) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021, which provides as follows:
 
“65. (1) A Member who is debating shall –
(b) ensure that the information he or she provides to the House is factual and verifiable.”
 
In his Point of Order, Mr R Chitotela, MP, stated that the Hon Minister of Agriculture had informed the House that the Government had followed the correct procedure in awarding fertiliser contracts to eleven (11) companies.  Mr R K Chitotela, MP, therefore, asked whether the Hon Minister of Agriculture was in order to mislead the nation by alleging that infighting among the unsuccessful bidders was what led to the cancellation of the tender when the Public Procurement Act, No. 8 of 2020, did not provide that as a reason for cancelling a tender.  In that regard, he referred the Hon Madam Speaker to sections 54 to 60 of the Public Procurement Act, No. 8 of 2020, which provide the procedure for public procurement.
 
In her immediate response to the Point of Order, the Hon Madam Speaker reserved her ruling in order to enable her study the matter. I have since studied the matter and will now render the ruling.  
 
Hon Members, the Point of Order by Mr R K Chitotela, MP, invited the Hon Madam Speaker to delve into sections 54 to 60 of the Public Procurement Act in order to establish whether or not infighting was a reason for a tender to be cancelled.
 
Hon Members, as you are well aware, the interpretation of the law is the preserve of the courts of law.  It is for this reason that Standing Order 132(1) (e) does not permit a member to raise a Point of Order pertaining to a general interpretation of the law.  To this end, Standing Order 123(1) (e) states as follows:
 
“132 (1) A Point of Order may be admissible if-
(e) It does not relate to a general interpretation of the       law.”
 
Hon Members, it is evident that Mr R K Chitotela, MP’s, Point of Order will require me to interpret provisions of the Public Procurement Act.  In this regard, it is not admissible
 
 
I thank you.
Ruling Date: 
Wednesday, October 26, 2022