Ruling by Hon. Madam Speaker - On a Point of Order raised by Mr. Munir Zulu, MP for Lumezi on whether the House was in Order to prevent MPs from Debating on Provinces where their Constituencies were not located without prescribing it in Standing Orders

RULING BY THE HON MADAM SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY MR MUNIR ZULU, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR LUMEZI CONSTITUENCY, ON WHETHER THE HOUSE WAS IN ORDER TO PREVENT MEMBERS FROM DEBATING ON PROVINCES WHERE THEIR CONSTITUENCIES WERE NOT LOCATED WITHOUT IT BEING PRESCRIBED IN THE STANDING ORDERS
_____________________________________________________
Hon Members will recall that on Tuesday, 13th December, 2022, when the House had resolved into Committee of Supply to consider Head 86, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, the Hon Mr Second Deputy Speaker, sitting as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of Supply provided guidance on the procedure of debate. The guidance was that following the suspension of Standing Orders No 25 and 27, the Head of Expenditure for the provinces would be considered by, firstly, the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House giving one policy statement for all the provinces. Thereafter, three Members from each of the provinces appearing on the Order Paper would debate their provincial votes. The appropriate provincial Hon Minister would then respond to issues raised on the provincial vote. When all provincial Heads of Expenditure had been debated, the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House would wind up debate. Thereafter, the Committee of Supply would commence consideration of individual Heads of Expenditure concurrently.
Hon Members will also recall that on Friday, 16th December, 2022, when the House was in Committee of Supply considering Head 98, Office of the President - Southern Province, and Hon C Mweetwa, Minister for Southern Province had just concluded his response to issues raised on the provincial Vote, Mr Munir Zulu, Member of Parliament for Lumezi Constituency raised a point of order. The point of order was against the House for preventing Members from debating on provinces where their constituencies were not located.  In his point of order, Mr Munir Zulu, MP, also enquired whether the House was in order to limit the number of Members to debate on each province without it being prescribed by the Standing Orders. 
In her immediate response, the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, sitting as the Chairperson for the Committee of Supply, reserved her ruling to enable her study the matter. I have since studied the matter, and will now render my ruling. 
Hon Members may wish to note that an examination of the Point of Order by Mr Munir Zulu, MP, reveals that it emanates from an order given by the Second Deputy Speaker, sitting as the Deputy Chairperson for the Committee of Supply, on Tuesday, 13th December, 2022. This, therefore, amounts to a challenge on a decision of a presiding officer. 
Standing Order 226 (1) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021, is instructive on the procedure to be followed where a Member wishes to challenge a decision of a presiding officer and provides as follows:
“(1) A member who wishes to challenge a decision of a presiding officer shall move a substantive motion.…”
Further, Standing Order 132 (1) (d) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021 provides that-
“(1) A Point of Order may be admissible if –

(d) it is not raised against a decision of the presiding officer…”

Additionally, Standing Order 132 (2) (d) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021 provides that-
“(2) A member shall not raise a Point of Order –

(d) on a presiding officer or an officer…”

The overall effect of Standing Orders 132 (1) (d) and 132 (2) (d) is that a Member cannot raise a point of order against a presiding officer as Mr Munir Zulu, MP, sought to do in this case. 
Hon Members, at this point I would like to provide guidance on the procedure to be followed when a Member intends to challenge a decision of a presiding officer. The guidance is contained in standing order 226 (1) which requires that a member who wishes to challenge a decision of a presiding officer shall move a substantive motion.  Therefore, in this instance, Mr Munir Zulu, MP, ought to have moved a substantive motion, made in writing, addressed to my Office and stated the grounds for the challenge. 
The consequence of the guidance above is that Mr Munir Zulu, MP’s, point of order is inadmissible as it does not meet the requirements set out in Standing Orders 132 (1) (d) and 132 (2) (d) and is in violation of Standing Order 226 (1).  
I thank you.

Ruling Date: 
Wednesday, February 15, 2023