RULING BY THE HON MADAM SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED ON 6TH JULY, 2023 BY MR R K CHITOTELA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR PAMBASHE CONSTITUENCY, AGAINST MR M ANAKOKA MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR LUENA CONSTITUENCY, FOR ALLEGEDLY MISLEADING THE HOUSE BY STATING THAT THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION AUTHORITY ACT NO 34 OF 2010 WAS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) ACT NO. 2 OF 2016

Hon Members, the House will recall that on Thursday, 6th July, 2023, when the House was considering the National Prosecution Authority (Amendment) Bill (N.A.B 7/2023), and Mr M Anakoka, Member of Parliament for Luena Constituency, was on the floor, Mr R K Chitotela, Member of Parliament for Pambashe Constituency, raised a Point of Order. The Point of Order was based on Standing Order 65 (1) (b) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021 which requires a Member debating to ensure that the information he or she provides to the House is factual and verifiable.

In his Point of Order, Mr R K Chitotela, MP, enquired whether Mr M Anakoka, MP, was in order to mislead the House by stating that the National Prosecution Authority Act No 34 of 2010 was enacted pursuant to the Constitution of Zambia Act No. 2 of 2016.

In his immediate response, the Hon Mr Second Deputy Speaker reserved his ruling in order to enable him to comprehensively study the matter. I have since studied the matter and will now render my ruling.

The Point of Order raises the issue of a Member’s duty to ensure that the information he or she provides to the House, when debating, is factual and verifiable.  A requirement, which I have no doubt, is well known to all Members by now. 

Standing Order 65 (1)(b) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021, to be specific, 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.”

Hon Members, in investigating the matter, I had recourse to the relevant verbatim record of the proceedings of Thursday, 6th July, 2023. The record confirms that Mr M Anakoka, MP, informed the House that the National Prosecution Authority Act No 34 of 2010 was passed in order to give effect to what is contained in Article 180 of the Constitution, which establishes the office of Director of Public Prosecutions.

It appears that Mr R K Chitotela, MP’s contention is that it was misleading for Mr Anakoka, MP, to state that the NPA Act, which was enacted in 2010, was made pursuant to Article 180 of the Constitution, when Article 180 was only introduced by the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act No. 2 of 2016.

Hon Members, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been imbedded in the Constitution since 1991 when the current Constitution, was enacted. Following its enactment in 1991, the Constitution was amended in 1996, 2009 and substantially in 2016.  It, however, remains the Constitution of Zambia, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia.  Prior to the 2016 amendment, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established under Article 56.  Therefore, when the NPA Act was passed in 2010, it was based on Article 56, which, following the 2016 amendment to the Constitution, is now Article 180.

Therefore, I find that Mr M Anakoka, MP, was not out of order in stating that the National Prosecution Act was made pursuant to Article 180 because that is the current constitutional provision that deals with the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I thank you.