Hon Members will recall that on Thursday, 5th October, 2023, when the House was considering question for oral answer No. 74 and Hon S Masebo, MP, Minister of Healthwas on the floor,Mr M Chinkuli, Member of Parliament for Kanyama Constituency, raised a Point of Order. The Point of Order wasmade pursuant to Standing Order 44 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021,which relates to the duty of the Leader of the Opposition to assist the presiding officers maintain discipline in the House.

 

In his Point of Order, Mr M Chinkuli, MP, enquired whether Hon B M Mundubile, MP, the then Leader of the Opposition,was in order to neglect his duty to assist the Presiding Officer in maintaining discipline and decorum in the House.

 

In her immediate response, the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker reserved her ruling to enable her render an informed ruling.  

 

Hon Members, in investigating the matter, I had recourse to the relevant verbatim record and video footage of the proceedings of that day.

 

The background to the Point of Order is that Hon S Kakubo, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, presented a ministerial statement on the State Visit to the People’s Republic of China by the Republican President, His Excellency, Mr Hakainde Hichilema.

 

While the Hon Minister was responding to a question for clarification by Mr M Kafwaya, Member of Parliament for Lunte Constituency, Mr M Kafwaya, MP, rose without being called upon and referred to the Hon Minister’s response as nonsense.  When the Hon Madam First Deputy Speakerattempted to guide him that he could not use such a word in the House, he engaged in an exchange of words with herand, generally, misconducted himself.  While he was doing this,Hon B M Mundubile, MP, the then Leader of the Opposition, who was a seat away from him, did not make any attempt to calm him down or stop him from misconducting himself.Subsequently, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 74, Mr M Chinkuli, Member of Parliament for Kanyama Constituency, raised the Point of Order which is the subject of this ruling.  

 

Hon Members, Standing Order 132 of the National Assembly Standing Orders 2021sets out the admissibility criteria for Points of Order.  Standing Order 132 (1) (a), in particular, provides as follows:

 

“132 (1) (a) A Point of Order may be admissible if it is raised immediately after the alleged breach occurs.”

 

Further, Standing Order 132 (4) provides thus:

 

“132 (4) Where a member observes a breach of rules long after the breach has occurred, the member may submit a written complaint to the Speaker.”

 

Hon Members, the import of the foregoing rules of the House is that a Point of Order must be raised soon after the alleged breach occurs.  Where a member fails to do this, then the member may submit a written complaint.

 

In the instant case, the House was considering the Ministerial Statement presented by the Hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation when the alleged breach referred to in Mr M Chinkuli, MP’s Point of Order occurred.  The Point of Order, on the other hand, was raised during Questions for Oral Answer when the House was considering Question No.  74, which was considered after Questions 72 and 73.  Evidently, by the time the Point of Order was raised, the House had transitioned from ministerial statements to Questions for Oral Answer.  Additionally, even during the Questions for Oral Answer segment, two (2) questions had been considered before the Point of Order was raised.

 

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Point of Order was not raised immediately after the alleged breach occurred as required by Standing Order 132 (1) (a).  In view of this, Mr Chinkuli, MP’s Point of Order is inadmissible.

 

I thank you.

 

____________________