Hon Members, I have a ruling to render against Mr Raphael Nakacinda, an outsider.

At this point, I direct the Serjeant–At–Arms to bring Mr Raphael Nakacinda, before the bar of the House. I also instruct the Sergeant-At-Arms to take the Speaker’s mace and to go and stand behind him.

Hon Members, this matter was commenced on Wednesday, 6th October, 2021, when Dr C K Kalila, Member of Parliament for Lukulu East Constituency raised a Point of Order. In his Point of Order against Mr R Nakacinda, a member of the Patriotic Front Party, Dr C K Kalila, MP, cited an article entitled “Stop being emotional, Nakacinda tells Speaker”, which was published in the Daily Nation Newspaper, Issue No 3074 and dated Tuesday, 5th October, 2021.  In the said article, Mr R Nakacinda is alleged to have reflected on the impartiality of the Speaker in the discharge of her duties.

 

In the Point of Order, Dr C K Kalila, MP, asked the following questions:

(i) whether Mr R Nakacinda was in order to cast aspersions on the Speaker and her Office, thereby calling into question her impartiality and character; and

(ii) whether by making the statements attributed to him in the Daily Nation Newspaper article, Mr R Nakacinda, was not in contempt of the House.

 

Hon Members, this matter has been inordinately delayed for a several reasons as set out below. 

 

1. On 3rd November, 2021, I referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Absences for detailed examination. Further, in line with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, on the same date, the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to the Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Nation Newspaper Limited requesting the newspaper to confirm whether the statements alleged to have been made by Mr R Nakacinda in the article, were correctly attributed to him. The Office of the Clerk also wrote to Mr R Nakacinda requesting him to confirm whether the alleged statement published in the Daily Nation Newspaper was correctly attributed to him. 

 

2. In his response, the Executive Director of the Daily Nation Newspaper Limited confirmed that Mr R Nakacinda was correctly quoted in the story and that the statements attributed to him were spoken to Mr Simon Muntemba, a reporter at the Daily Nation Newspaper Limited. Additionally, on 8th November, 2021, Mr R Nakacinda requested for further and better particulars regarding the letter written to him by the Office of the Clerk. In particular, he requested the Office of the Clerk to advise what portion of the article in question was contemptuous, in line with section 19 (e) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap 12 of the Laws of Zambia. 

 

3. The Office of the Clerk wrote another letter to Mr R Nakacinda, on 15th November, 2021, providing the further and better particulars as requested. In his response, on 20th November, 2021, Mr R Nakacinda sought further clarification on whether the letter from the Office of the Clerk meant that he should not exercise his freedom of expression or raise any issue against or criticise any person. 

 

4 On 9th December, 2021, the Committee on Privileges and Absences met to consider the matter and it was resolved that the Committee could not consider this matter because Dr C K Kalila, MP, used the wrong mode of commencement. The Committee observed that from the Memorandum that was before it, Dr C K Kalila, MP, raised his Point of Order based on the National Assembly of Zambia, Standing Orders, 2021, which only applied to Members of Parliament and not outsiders. Further, the Committee resolved that Dr C K Kalila, MP, be advised to lodge in a complaint, citing the correct provision of the law.

 

5. Acting on the guidance of the Committee, Dr C K Kalila, MP, lodged a complaint against Mr Nakacinda.  The Office of the Clerk wrote another letter dated 1st March, 2022, to Mr R Nakacinda informing him about the complaint and requested him to appear before the Committee on 3rd March, 2022. On the same day, Mr R Nakacinda responded that he was not going to avail himself before the Committee because he was not a Member of the House and, therefore, he was not bound by the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2021. On 4th March, 2022, the Office of the Clerk wrote to Mr Nakacinda informing him that Dr C K Kalila, MP, had lodged a complaint citing a breach of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

 

In response, by letter dated 14th March, 2022, Mr R Nakacinda inquired whether the complaint was new and whether the initial matter had been concluded, because the Hon Madam Speaker had not ruled on the matter. 

 

6. On 24th March, 2022, the Office of the Clerk, wrote to Mr R Nakacinda requesting him to appear before the Committee on 29th March, 2022. This letter from the Office of the Clerk was accompanied by a summons. Mr R Nakacinda failed to appear before the Committee.

 

7. On 29th March, 2022, the Office of the Clerk wrote to Mr Nakacinda requesting him to appear before the Committee on 31st March, 2022. This letter was also accompanied by a summons. When he appeared on 31st March, 2022, Mr R Nakacinda was accompanied by his lawyers who raised a number of preliminary issues. As a result, the Committee adjourned the matter in order to judiciously determine the issues raised by the lawyers.

 

8. On 23rd June, 2022, Mr R Nakacinda was summoned to appear before the committee on 30th June, 2022. When he appeared, Mr R Nakacinda informed the Committee that he had not been advised of the decision of the Committee or the Speaker and that for that reason he was not clear on which matter he had been called to respond to. 

 

9. On 8th July, 2022, the Office of the Clerk wrote to Mr R Nakacinda, advising him of the complaint that had been lodged by Dr C K Kalila, MP, and requesting him to confirm whether or not the statement in the article was correctly attributed to him.

 

In response, by letter dated 13th July, 2022, Mr R Nakacinda's lawyers, Messrs Makebi Zulu Advocates advised that based on the National Assembly of Zambia, Standing Orders, the Committee could not be both judge and jury in the same cause by giving the complainant guidance on what provisions of the law to rely on and subsequently make a determination in the same matter. 

 

10.  Hon Members, in other instances, despite being summoned to appear before the Committee, Mr R Nakacinda was either untraceable, or willfully unavailable to appear before the Committee.  

Hon Members, it is clear from the above narration, that Mr R Nakacinda caused the delay in concluding this matter. 

 

Hon Members, the complaint by Dr C K Kalila, MP, raises the issue of a person making statements reflecting on the character or impartiality of the Speaker, in the discharge of her duties.

 

Hon Members Article 88 (2) of the Constitution, Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia, empowers citizens to comment on a deliberation, statement or decision of the National Assembly. However, the right of a citizen to comment on a deliberation, statement or decision is not absolute, but subject to certain limitations such as respect of the rights and liberties of other persons.  This is similar to the right of a person to exercise his or her right to freedom of expression, which places a responsibility on that person not to infringe on the rights and privileges of others.  In that regard, criticism against the office of the Speaker should not be offensive, insulting, derogatory, or founded on baseless assertions or aspersions.

 

Further, the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia provides for contempts. In particular, section 19 (e) provides as follows:

 

“19. (e) Any person shall be guilty of an offence who commits any other act of intentional disrespect to or with reference to the proceedings of the Assembly or of a committee of the Assembly or to any person presiding at such proceeding.” 

 

Additionally, prominent writers on parliamentary practice and procedure, S L Shakdher and M N Kaul in their book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Seventh Edition, (New Delhi, Lok Sabha, 2016,) state as follows at page 278:

 

“Contempt of the House may be defined generally as “any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, even though there is no precedent of the offence. Hence, if any, act though not tending directly to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions, has a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing the House into odium, contempt or ridicule or lowering its authority, it constitutes a contempt.”

 

The same authors further state, at page 304, as follows:

 

“It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to make speeches, or to print or publish any libels, reflecting on the character or proceedings of the House or its committees …

Speeches and writings reflecting on the House or its committees or members are punished by the House as contempt on the principle that such acts “tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them.”

 

Further, Erskine May, in his book entitled Parliamentary Practice, Twenty-second Edition, at page 123 states that:

 

“….reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of his duties and similar charges against the Chairman of ways and means….have attracted penal powers of the Commons.”

 

The author, further, states at page 190, that:

“Reflections upon the character or actions of the speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege.  His action cannot be criticised incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except as a substantive motion.”

 

Hon Members, former Speaker, Rt Hon Amusaa K Mwanamwambwa, also had occasion to rule on a similar matter in the case of J C Mumbi-Phiri v V J Mwaanga (Daily Parliamentary Debates, Tuesday, 19th January, 2010).  In that case, Mr Antonio Mwanza and Mr Stanford Kabwata made statements during a live broadcast on Muvi Television which had the effect of casting aspersions on the character of the Speaker. The matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services and it was found that it is an offence for any person to cast aspersions on the Hon Mr Speaker.  The Committee established that the utterances made by Messrs Antonio Mwanza and Stanford Kabwata were disrespectful to the Speaker and amounted to an affront on his authority, which is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. In that regard, Mr Kabwata was admonished, because he apologised to the Committee, while Mr A Mwanza was reprimanded, because he showed no remorse for his utterances. Mr A Mwanza was further requested to apologise to the House.

 

From the foregoing authorities, it is clear that it is a breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House for a person to make statements that reflect on the character or impartiality of the Speaker. 

 

Hon Members, the Committee on Privileges and Absences met and deliberated on the matter on Tuesday, 6th December, 2022. During its deliberations, the Committee had recourse to the relevant newspaper article, the complaint and various correspondence between Mr R Nakacinda and the Office of the Clerk. Additionally, Dr C K Kalila, MP, appeared before the Committee and restated his complaint. Ms M Mbewe, Executive Editor of the Daily Nation Newspaper also appeared before the Committee to confirm that the article was correctly attributed to Mr R Nakacinda. 

 

Hon Members, after considering both written and oral submissions on the matter, and after lengthy deliberations, the Committee on Privileges and Absences established the following:

 

(i) Mr R Nakacinda, was uncooperative, because he took a legalistic approach, instead of simply responding to questions posed to him;

(ii) the Executive Editor of the Daily Nation Newspaper confirmed that Mr R Nakacinda did utter the statement attributed to him in the article published by the Newspaper. Further, the Executive Editor submitted that Mr R Nakacinda was called and he confirmed that he had indeed uttered the words as stated in the relevant article; and

(iii) Mr R Nakacinda was guilty of making a contemptuous statement, because, despite being given an opportunity to provide evidence to the contrary, he had failed to prove otherwise.  

 

In view of the foregoing, the Committee found the statement by Mr R Nakacinda, in the newspaper article, a breach of parliamentary privilege and in contempt of the House. 

 

Hon Members, in arriving at the punishment to mete out to Mr R Nakacinda, the Committee noted that the offence committed was serious because the statement he made was carried in a newspaper of wide circulation. In addition, the Committee considered the inordinate delay it had taken for the Committee to reach a conclusion in this matter, on account of Mr R Nakacinda’s actions. 

 

The Committee, therefore, resolved that Mr R Nakacinda, be reprimanded at the Bar of the Assembly in accordance with section 28 (4) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. I endorse this recommendation of the Committee.

Hon Members, Section 28 (4) states as follows:

 

“28. (4) If a person, not being a member, is found to have committed contempt, whether specified in section nineteen or otherwise, the Speaker shall order the person to appear before the Assembly and the Speaker shall, upon attendance, admonish or reprimand the person at the Bar of the Assembly.”

Hon Members, I will now proceed to address Mr Raphael Nakacinda. 

Mr Raphael Nakacinda, the House is extremely displeased with your utterances against the Hon Madam Speaker and the House in general. In your misguided analysis of issues, you endeavoured to lower the dignity of the Office of Speaker and the House. Furthermore, your arrogance and failure to appear before the Committee on Privileges and Absences is unprecedented.  Such misconduct is unacceptable and unbefitting your status as a person who previously served this House, both as a backbencher and a Hon Minister.

 

I, therefore, urge you to reform and desist from such misconduct in future. 

I now order you Mr R Nakacinda to unreservedly apologise to the House for your disrespectful and contemptuous remarks.

 

(Mr Nakacinda reads out the written apology)

 

I now order you to leave the House through the main door.

 

I THANK YOU.

_______________________