RULING BY THE HON MADAM SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED ON FRIDAY, 7TH JULY AND POINTS OF ORDER RAISED ON WEDNESDAY 19TH JULY, 2023 BASED ON STANDING ORDER 65 (1) (B) OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF ZAMBIA, STANDING ORDERS, 2021

 

 

Hon Members, on Friday, 7th July and Wednesday 19th July, 2023 several Points of Order were raised based on Standing Order 65 (1) (b) of the National Assembly of Zambia, Standing Orders, 2021. The Standing Order 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.”

 

I have decided to render a composite ruling on the Points of Order in order to avoid being repetitive and so that I can give hon Members guidance on the application of this Standing Order, which, regrettably, has not been applied correctly by many members. 

 

The Points of Order were as follows:

 

(i) Hon B M Mundubile, MP, Leader of the Opposition against Hon E Nkandu, MP, then Acting Minster of Mines and Minerals Development

 

Hon Members, on Friday, 7th July, the House considered Question for Oral Answer No 342 on mineral explorations and the number of mining licences that had been issued countrywide. During consideration of the question, Mr S Kampyongo, Member of Parliament for Shiwang’andu Constituency, inquired on the systems the Government had put in place to curb illegal mining activities in the country. 

 

In response, Hon E Ng’andu, MP, Acting as Minister of Mines and Minerals Development, informed the House that the Government had intensified the monitoring and inspection of areas where minerals were being exploited. He further stated that the ministry dispatched inspectors and law enforcement officers whenever it received reports of illegal mining activities to ensure the culprits were dealt with. 

 

Following the hon Minister’s response, Hon B M Mundubile, MP, Leader of the Opposition, raised a Point of Order. In raising the Point of Order, he made reference to the Report of the Planning and Budgeting Committee on the Effects of Illicit Financial Flows on the Budget and its Sustainability, which was tabled in the House on 5th June, 2023. He submitted that the report had revealed that there was a well syndicated and mechanised illegal mining operation at Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), which the Government had not stopped. He, in that regard, inquired whether Hon E Nkandu, MP, was in order to mislead the House that the Government had instituted measures to curb illegal mining activities.

 

Hon Members, in his response to Mr S Kampyongo, MP’s, question, Hon E Nkandu, MP, informed the House that measures had been instituted to curb illegal mining activities. He further stated that inspectors and law enforcement officers were dispatched whenever a report of illegal mining activities was received. I believe the hon Minister was presenting the Government’s position on the matter. In that regard, he was not out of order.

 

(ii) Mr L M Mufalali, MP, against Mr M Kafwaya, Member of Parliament for Lunte

 

On Wednesday 19th July, Mr, L M Mufalali, MP, inquired whether, Mr M Kafwaya, MP, was in order to mislead the House that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor General on the Accounts for the Financial Year ended 31st December, 2021 (PAC) had stated that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture had refused to tender accounting and other documents to the Auditor-General for audit verification.

 

The Point of Order arose from a statement by Mr M Kafwaya, MP, when debating the PAC report. In his statement, Mr M Kafwaya, MP, alleged that it had been reported in the PAC report that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture had refused to supply documents to the Auditor-General.

 

I reviewed the report on the audit findings pertaining to the Ministry of Agriculture, contained on pages 344 to 376 of the PAC report. I, however, did not find any observation that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture had declined to furnish the Auditor-General with accounting and other documents as alleged. On the contrary, the report indicates that the Permanent Secretary had indicated that the documentation was available for audit verification. The Committee, thus, only urged the Permanent Secretary to avail the said supporting documents to the Office of the Auditor-General for audit verification.

 

In view of the foregoing, Mr M Kafwaya, MP’s allegation that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture had refused to supply documents to the Auditor-General was not factual. In that regard, he was out of order. 

 

(iii) Ms K Mulenga, Member of Parliament for Kalulushi, against Ms S K Sefulo, Member of Parliament for Mwandi

 

On Wednesday 19th July, Ms K Mulenga, MP, asked whether Ms S K Sefulo, Member of Parliament for Mwandi, was in order to state that Social Cash Transfer funds were paid to ineligible beneficiaries without laying evidence on the table to substantiate her assertion. 

 

The relevant verbatim record showed that, in debating the PAC report, Ms S K Sefulo, MP, asserted that the report had highlighted that Social Cash Transfer funds were paid to ineligible beneficiaries.

 

Hon Members, I reviewed the PAC report which highlighted several irregularities in the Social Cash Transfer scheme. Among these, was the irregular payment to ineligible beneficiaries. 

 

From the foregoing, it is evident that Ms S K Sefulo, MP, was debating based on the PAC report, which was tabled in the House on 17th July and circulated to all hon Members. Therefore, the information she was giving to the House was factual and verifiable. In that regard, she was not out of order.

 

(iv) Mr M Fube, Member of Parliament for Chilubi, against Mr M Anakoka, Member of Parliament for Luena

 

On Wednesday 19th July, Mr M Fube, MP, inquired whether Mr M Anakoka, MP, was in order to mislead the House by stating that Article 180 (7) of the Constitution, Cap 1 of the Laws of Zambia, provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions is the Chief Prosecutor and head of the National Prosecution Authority.

 

A review of the relevant verbatim record revealed that when debating the National Prosecution Authority (Amendment) Bill, Mr M Anakoka, MP, cited Article 180 (7) of the Constitution as the provision that made the Director of Public Prosecutions the Chief Prosecutor and head of the National Prosecution Authority. It is noteworthy that the Article that does that is Article 180 (3) and not Article 180 (7). Therefore, to the extent that Mr M Anakoka, MP, cited the wrong constitutional provision, he was out of order.

 

Hon Members, I have observed, with dismay, the misuse and abuse of Standing Order 65 in the House. In some cases, when a member is dissatisfied with a position that has been given, instead of awaiting an opportune time to debate and counteract the position, they raise a Point of Order based on Standing Order 65. In other cases, a member will challenge a position given without laying evidence on the table to support their challenge. 

 

The purpose of Standing Order 65, hon Members, is to prevent a member from misleading the House and, through it, the nation at large. Therefore, a member should not allege a specific matter to be true unless he or she is able to substantiate it. This means that a member should, without exception, lay evidence before the House whenever he or she makes an allegation. In the light of this, Standing Order 65 should be used sparingly and only in those circumstances where the member alleging the breach adduces evidence to prove that, indeed, a breach has occurred. 

 

With this guidance, I am confident that hon members will not willfully mislead the House. I am further certain that, in future, Standing Order 65 will be used sparingly and only when it is absolutely necessary.

 

I thank you.