Tuesday, 25th March, 2025

Tuesday, 25^th March, 2025

The House met at 1430 hours

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

_______

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MADAM SPEAKER

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Let us get to business.

ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I have received communication to the effect that in the absence of Her Honour the Vice-President, who is attending to other Government Business, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security, Hon. Jacob Jack Mwiimbu, SC, MP, has been appointed Acting Leader of Government Business in the House from today, Tuesday, 25^th March, 2025, until further notice.

I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Samakayi: Her Honour!

Madam Speaker: I thank you, Her Honour.

Laughter

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: I was just repeating what the hon. Members were saying.

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM TIZIWENJI SCHOOL

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to recognise the presence in the Public Gallery of pupils and teachers from Tiziwenji School in Chibombo District.

On behalf of the National Assembly of Zambia, I warmly welcome our visitors into our midst.

I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM KIND HEARTS SCHOOL

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to recognise the presence in the Public Gallery of pupils and teachers from Kind Hearts School in Chibombo District.

On behalf of the National Assembly of Zambia, I warmly welcome our visitors into our midst.

I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

THE CYBER SECURITY BILL, 2024, AND THE CYBER CRIMES BILL, 2024

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to remind the House that when the Cyber Security Bill, National Assembly Bill No. 29 of 2024 and the Cyber Crimes Bill, No. 30 of 2024, National Assembly Bill No. 30 of 2024, was tabled for Second Reading on Friday, 6^th December, 2024, the hon. Ministers of Technology and Science and Home Affairs and Internal Security respectively, sought leave of the House to defer the Bills to allow for further consultations. The two hon. Ministers are now ready to proceed with the Bills hence, the inclusion of the two Bills on the Order Paper for today.

I thank you.

_______

URGENT MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE

Madam Speaker: I notice there are several indications, but I will follow the sequence of indication on Urgent Matters without Notice.

MR B. MPUNDU, HON. MEMBER FOR NKANA, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND INTERNAL SECURITY AND ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, MR MWIIMBU, SC., ON TRANSFERRING WATER FROM LUAPULA RIVER TOKAFUE RIVER

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. My Urgent Matter without Notice is directed at the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security and Acting Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, there is apprehension in Luapula as we speak today, which may need to be handled, otherwise, it may lead to unrest. There is a report that has been circulated asking for people to make submissions on an undertaking by the Government to move water from Luapula River to Kafue River. In fact, the report was circulated on Saturday 22^nd March, 2025, and yesterday, 24^thMarch, 2025, was the last day for submissions.

Madam Speaker, the House may wish to note that the people of Luapula are predominantly fishermen and they survive on the resources around three water bodies, namely Lake Bangweulu, Luapula River and Lake Mweru. It is clear that attempting to transfer water from Luapula River to Kafue River will change the ecosystem of the river.

Madam Speaker, you would therefore, understand that there is apprehension because people in Luapula depend on fishing and they are now worried about how they will survive. However, the report suggests that the exercise will cost roughly around US$17 billion. This kind of money can build hydro power stations around the Luapula River, which has a capacity to develop over 1,000 mW. Is the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House in order to not come and inform the public what this is about?

Madam Speaker: Thank you, hon. Member. Your time is up.

First of all, you know our rules. Standing Order No. 71 clearly states that the information that we render before this House should be factual and verifiable. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Nkana has contacted the hon. Minister –

Mr B. Mpundu rose.

Madam Speaker: I am not asking you to respond, hon. Member.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, there is a report.

Madam Speaker: I am guiding you, hon. Member. So, you wait for my guidance. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Nkana has been in touch with the hon. Minister of Water Development and Sanitation to confirm and verify whether or not what the hon. Member is stating on the Floor of this House is true. So, hon. Member, without the report being tendered before this House, you are saying there is speculation, an assumption. Hon. Member, we do not deal with speculations and assumptions. We deal with facts.

Mr B. Mpundu raised his hands.

Madam Speaker: You have not tendered evidence to all the issues that you have stated today to confirm that what you are saying is truthful and verifiable. Your Urgent Matter without Notice is not admitted.

Mr B. Mpundu raised his hands.

Madam Speaker: First of all, may the hon. Member take steps to consult with relevant ministries to confirm that what he is bringing before the Floor of the House is factual and verifiable.

MR KANG’OMBE, HON. MEMBER FOR KAMFINSA, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF MINES AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT, MR KABUSWE, ON THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF KONKOLA COPPER MINES PLC AND MOPANI COPPER MINES PLC

Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an Urgent Matter without Notice, and I wish to direct it at the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals Development.

Madam Speaker, last year, there was huge excitement when an announcement was made that Mopani Copper Mines Plc had been sold to a new equity partner called the International Resources Holding (IRH). There was also high expectation that with the coming back of Vedanta Resources to Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) Plc, suppliers and contractors would be paid on time, and that business opportunities would be given to Zambian businessmen and women, who would be contracted by the two mining companies. Unfortunately, what has transpired and is now official is that, the KCM is actually in court for not being able to meet its obligations to different suppliers and contractors. People are now wondering in what spirit Vedanta Resources Limited was invited back to operate a mine when it had no financial capacity to do so.

Madam Speaker, for example, the Copperbelt Energy Corporation Plc (CEC) has sued the KCM for failing to meet its obligations. We have also read about bailiffs going to the mining company, which is ideally supposed to be providing services to our people.

Madam Speaker, the KCM and Mopani Copper Mines cater to Kitwe, Mufulira, Chililabombwe and Chingola. We are now going back to our constituencies and we do not know what to tell our people. Is the hon. Minister in order to not provide details on the financial position of the KCM and Mopani Copper Mines, considering that we were told that these two mines would be in a financial position to provide and contract jobs to our people? Is he in order to sit there without giving us an updated report on these two mining companies?

Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Kamfinsa. I know that when Mopani Copper Mines Plc was sold, the hon. Minister came to deliver a statement on the Floor of this House. We have now read in the newspapers about what is happening. Whether it is true or not, I am not sure. However, in view of what has been reported and the court actions that are happening, the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals Development should come to this House to deliver a statement on Thursday or Friday.

Mr Kabuswe rose.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Minister, which day would be convenient for you to deliver the statement between Thursday and Friday? Not now.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Hon. Ministers, our rules –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

Let me give guidance. According to our Standing Orders, when an Urgent Matter without Notice is raised, the hon. Ministers cannot answer there and then. As you know, hon. Ministers, you are supposed to speak from a position of policy, which is a written statement. So, I assume the hon. Minister does not have any written statement right now. I will give the hon. Minister time until Thursday, this week, to come back to this House to give an indication of what is happening at Mopani Copper Mines Plc or is it the KCM.

Hon. Opposition Members: Both!

Madam Speaker: Yes, for both Mopani Copper Mines Plc and the KCM Plc so that when hon. Members go back to their constituencies, especially those from the Copperbelt, they can give responses to their constituents.

MR MTAYACHALO, HON. MEMBER FOR CHAMA NORTH, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF EDUCATION, MR SYAKALIMA, ON THE RECRUITMENT CRITERION

Mr Mtayachalo (Chama North): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Mtayachalo: Madam Speaker, my Urgent Matter without Notice is directed at the hon. Minister of Education. Since I cannot see the hon. Minister, I will direct it at –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Chama North does not have his sunglasses on. That is why he cannot see.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: May the hon. Member continue.

Mr Mtayachalo: Madam Speaker, the recent recruitment of teachers as announced by the Teaching Service Commission, has raised serious concerns by several stakeholders, questioning the fairness of this particular recruitment process. The last recruitment exercise was decentralised. The District Educational Board Secretaries (DEBS) were fully involved in the recruitment process, and that way, there were very few complaints. However, this particular recruitment was centrally done, and there are a lot of complaints throughout the country. I know that it has been the policy of the Government that priority should be given to locally trained teachers, especially those in rural areas, to avoid rural-urban drift of teachers. I do not know what caused the ministry to change that policy. Instead of using a decentralised recruitment process, it used a centralised one. This has raised a lot of concerns. For example, in Chama, only thirty-one teachers have been employed and –

Mr Mutelo entered the Assembly Chamber and greeted some hon. Members.

Madam Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member for Mitete and the hon. Member for Lupososhi, who has just walked out, please, you know the rules. You cannot come in and start greeting and hugging one another when there is an hon. Member on the Floor of the House who is debating. When we punish you, you complain that you have been punished. It is only that the hon. Member for Mitete was sick that is why I am exercising leniency.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: May the hon. Member quietly proceed to take his seat.

May the hon. Member for Chama North continue.

Mr Mtayachalo: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I was interrupted, I was giving an example of Chama, where thirty-one teachers have been deployed but out of those, only four are from Chama. Meanwhile, in Chama, we have volunteers and locally trained teachers who are qualified and are on the data base. This is a country-wide problem. I am saying so because in the North-Western Province, the DEBS office was locked because of the same practices.

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious indulgence because if this is not corrected, rural areas will continue to suffer the widening gap in the teacher-pupil ratio. Already, in our district, forty-four recently recruited teachers have been transferred from Chama North to other places, thereby exacerbating the teacher-pupil ratio.

Madam Speaker, once again, I seek your indulgence on this particular matter.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, hon. Member for Chama North. I know the issue of teacher recruitment is very important. As you have said, there have been a lot of complaints nationwide. Whether this issue is urgent or not, it has to be dealt with urgently. However, it does not qualify as an Urgent Matter without Notice. I therefore, urge you to file in an urgent question, which can be considered on Thursday or Friday.

Hon. Members, let me guide the House. Since we are adjourning on Friday, according to our Standing Orders, Urgent Matters without Notice are directed at the hon. Minister. The hon. Minister therefore, needs forty-eight hours to come back to the House and render a Ministerial Statement. Today is the last day, according to my calculations and our rules. Therefore, tomorrow, there will be no Urgent Matters without Notice that will be raised because if they are admitted, there will be no enough time for the hon. Ministers to come to the House to render Ministerial Statements. However, only under very exceptional circumstances would an Urgent Matter without Notice be admitted. Please, let us take note.

We make progress.

Mr Mtolo: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, as a very worried hon. Member, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Order No. 213 (2) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024. This particular clause reads:

“ (2) A Member shall not act in a manner that brings the House or other Members generally into disrepute.”

Madam Speaker, what this means is that whatever we say here should reflect the level of this House. Once you start hyping society in a wrong direction, society will believe. Even a very productive activity can become negative.

Madam Speaker, if this country has problems of hydro-power, and we have water in a particular area which we can take to another area for irrigation and other uses, are we in order –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Minister!

I already made a ruling on that issue. Let us not reopen the issue. The best is that if a member of the Executive has an explanation, he can always issue a Ministerial Statement.

Mr B. Mpundu: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, stop debating while you are seated and uttering words like ‘ati bene bama deal’ and ‘bebe ba nsala.’

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Again, it is not reflecting well not only on the House but also on the way we do things. We are sending a wrong signal, like the hon. Minister was saying. So, please, it is said that silence is golden. If you are not happy with what has been said, just keep quiet. Say it in your mind without anybody hearing it. Otherwise, you can go and debate as you usually do on social media. Nobody will control you there.

_______

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

TAZAMA PIPELINE OPEN ACCESS SNAG

The Minister of Energy (Mr Chikote): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to issue a Ministerial Statement in response to the Urgent Matter Without Notice raised by the hon. Member of Parliament for Bweengwa, Mr Kasauta Michelo. This relates to the News Diggers headline dated 20^th March, 2025, titled “Open access hits a snag as Agro Fuel fills TAZAMA reserve tanks, hinders offloading of cheaper diesel.”

Madam Speaker, before I address the headline, let me give a brief background and also highlight key developments in the petroleum sub-sector. When the people of Zambia placed their trust in the New Dawn Government in 2021, under the able leadership of the Republican President, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, a commitment was made to deliver meaningful reforms that would transform the economy, bring relief to our citizens and repair the damage caused by years of mismanagement in the petroleum sector.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, we inherited a fuel supply system that was not transparent and designed to benefit a few at the expense of the majority. The previous regime was involved in price fixing, which resulted in huge Government debt.

Interruptions

Mr Chikote: As at August 2021, the New Dawn Government inherited fuel debt amounting to US$477,798,993.

Mr Mufalali: Ba PF (Patriotic Front).

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, this amount grew to US$877,175,158 as at 31^st March, 2024, and this is due to badly drafted contracts by the previous Government.

Madam Speaker, the New Dawn Government took a bold step to restructure this sector, ensuring that Zambia gets the best value for money while guaranteeing a stable and transparent supply of petroleum products. In line with this commitment, the New Dawn Government has undertaken the following reforms:

ended the Government’s direct involvement in petroleum procurement and financing, which brings efficiency to the fuel supply chain;

converted the Tanzania Zambia Mafuta (TAZAMA) pipeline from transporting crude oil to transporting diesel; and

implemented open access to the TAZAMA pipeline, ensuring competition, transparency and fairness in the fuel supply system.

Madam Speaker, because of these reforms, we have achieved the following:

lower transportation costs for diesel, passing the savings to the consumer;

increased participation of Zambian entrepreneurs in the petroleum supply chain, creating jobs and business opportunities; and

a transparent, competitive process for pipeline access that promotes achievement of lower prices, fairness and accountability.

Madam Speaker, the conversion of the TAZAMA pipeline has attracted some misleading headlines. So, let me set the record straight.

Madam Speaker, in September 2022, the Government, through TAZAMA, floated an open competitive tender for the supply of kerosene to clean the pipeline. The tender also included the supply of diesel, which was required to displace the crude oil deadstock. After a transparent process, Agro-Fuel Investments Limited, in a joint venture with Vitol of Bahrain, was awarded the tender. The cleaning of the pipeline was done by TAZAMA itself. The conversion commenced on 24^th January, 2023, and was successfully completed on 16^th March, 2023.

Madam Speaker, when the pipeline conversion was completed, oil marketing companies (OMCs) were invited to participate. To avoid supply disruptions, the Government allowed selected companies to use the pipeline on an interim basis, ensuring stability while finalising open access modalities. As promised, the New Dawn Government has now fully developed the open access framework, and the first cargo under this system will arrive in April 2025. This is a testament to our determination to deliver on our pledges.

Madam Speaker, following a prequalification process, eighteen OMCs have been cleared to participate in the new, transparent system. Therefore, after prequalification, as per the open access guidelines, the next stage was to subject the prequalified OMCs to monthly invitations to submit competitive offers for three lots in quantities of 35,000 metric tonnes per lot. With the invitations now in motion for competitive offers, two tender processes were successfully conducted for April 2025 and May 2025 with the following results:

April 2025 Winning Premium US$84 per Metric Tonne

Lot I: Titanium/Adnoc – 35,000 metric tonnes;

Lot II: Boltt Energy – 35,000 metric tonnes; and

Lot III: Indeni Energy – 35,000 metric tonnes.

May 2025 – Winning Premium US$54 per Metric Tonne

Lot I: Agro-Fuel/Vitol – 35,000 metric tonnes;

Lot II: Titanium/Adnoc – 35,000 metric tonnes; and

Lot III: Dalbit International – 35,000 metric tonnes.

Madam Speaker, the Open Access Policy Framework has brought in competition, which has compelled OMCs to cut their profits, as demonstrated in the recent tenders. It is, therefore, the New Dawn Government’s resolve to ensure that the competition is sustained.

Madam Speaker, let me now address the concerns on the headline which appeared in the News Diggers newspaper. I have noted certain media reports suggesting that the storage space at the TAZAMA Pipeline Limited facility in Dar-es-Salaam has been filled up to block other players who have cheaper fuel. Let me assure this august House and the nation at large that TAZAMA is fully prepared to receive products from the first vessel under the Open Access Policy Framework in April 2025. Let me also be clear by saying that TAZAMA has put in place measures to ensure that ‘sabusequenti’ cargoes …

Laughter

Mr Chikote: … expected under the framework will be offloaded –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

What was the word again?

Laughter

Mr Chikote: ‘Sabusequenti’.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Subsequent.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, let me also be clear by saying that TAZAMA has put in place measures to ensure that subsequent cargoes ...

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: … expected to be delivered under the framework will be offloaded and they will have the required storage space.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, this Government is not here to perpetuate the trend of business as usual. It is here to deliver change, fix what was broken and ensure that the people of Zambia benefit from an economy that works for everyone, not just a few well-connected individuals.

Madam Speaker, the measures we have taken in the petroleum sub-sector will ensure that fuel prices are affordable for every Zambian and that there is reliable and secure fuel supply, and more Zambians participate in the petroleum supply chain. To that end, the New Dawn Government is committed to ensuring that the fuel supply system in Zambia remains sustainable, competitive and transparent.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: That is the honourable gentleman from Luampa.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the Ministerial Statement presented by the hon. Minister of Energy.

Hon. Members, as we ask questions, please, let us be precise to the point so that we can allow as many hon. Members to ask questions as possible. If hon. Members take more than twenty seconds to ask questions, they will be curtailed.

Hon. Member for Kwacha, you may proceed.

Mr Charles Mulenga (Kwacha): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to ask a question.

Madam Speaker, in the Ministerial Statement, the hon. Minister indicated that the company that has been awarded the contract to supply fuel for April 2025 will bring it into the country at a cost of US$84 per metric tonne. We have seen that Malawi has cheaper fuel –

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

Your thirty seconds are up. Please, as I indicated earlier on, to avoid being curtailed, ask your question precisely to the point. Otherwise, I am tempted to call upon the next hon. Member. I am just using my discretion. Ask your question in the next fifteen seconds.

Mr Charles Mulenga: Thank you for the guidance, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, in the few months to come, are we likely to see fuel price reductions similar to what is obtaining in Malawi?

Mr Mung’andu: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Before the hon. Minister comes in, there is an indication from the hon. Member for Chama South.

Hon. Member, what is the point of order?

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Speaker, our rules are clear. What we present on the Floor of this House should not only be factual, but verifiable. Is the hon. Member for Kwacha in order to go along with the falsehood that is going around on social media about fuel in Malawi being cheaper than in Zambia? In fact, from available figures, in terms of United States (US) Dollars, we know that Malawi is struggling with foreign exchange (FOREX) –

Interruptions

Mr Mung’andu: In terms of the United States dollar (US$) per litter, Malawi …

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Speaker, the fact is that fuel in Malawi is not cheaper than in Zambia, but the narrative that fuel in Malawi is cheaper than in Zambia has been carried all over.

Is the hon. Member in order to mislead the listeners out there and join those who are spreading falsehoods that fuel in Malawi is cheaper than in Zambia? This is important, Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling.

Mr Sampa rose.

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Members, we want to make progress. I am sure your interest is to follow up on the ministerial statement. If we start raising points of order time is running out. We will not be able to ask questions.

Hon. Member for Kwacha, please, as you raise your questions, do not refer to other countries. I do not believe that you have evidence to show whether fuel in Malawi is cheaper or expensive. Even the hon. Member for Chama South also does not have evidence to confirm whether fuel in Malawi is cheaper or expensive. Otherwise, we will see many people trekking to Malawi to look for fuel, which might not necessarily be cheaper than what we have here. Let us put our house in order. I think that is what we want. Let us put our house in order without necessarily looking at what our neighbours are doing. So, hon. Minister, may you answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kwacha.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, in my statement, I stated that the Open Access Policy would drive this country to affordable prices for our citizens. The policy we have implemented will lead to lower prices by April, 2025. We have spoken about this impact in our reforms. The people of Zambia must appreciate the reforms taken by the able leadership of His Excellency of Mr Hakainde Hichilema. We will continue providing services that will favour our citizens. So, as we start implementing the Open Access Policy, we are projecting that the diesel price will go down in April.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. So, hon. Members, ask your questions within one minute. If you do not, we will go to the next hon. Member. We have agreed on that.

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Speaker, before opening the access to the pipeline, Agro-Fuel Investments Limited was charging between US$180 to US$200 per tonne. They only reduced to US$84 per tonne after the Government opened access to the pipeline. Why did the Ministry of Energy sabotage the economy by single-sourcing a supplier who was charging almost three times the price?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to make it very clear that in my statement, I stated that because of the policy shift, the Government disengaged from direct procuring petroleum products. So, all the players that were participating in supplying petroleum products were not selling to the Government. Secondly, it must be understood that the Government did not single-source Agro-Fuel Company. What was happening was that the private suppliers were getting their products and bring them to the Zambian market to sell at a regulated price by the Energy Regulations Board (ERB). It is not about Agro-Fuel Investments Limited, the players that were getting the supply and were being regulated by the ERB. There was nothing like single sourcing a company.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

I do not know. Do you have answers to the questions? If you have answers, then, why are you asking questions? Why do we not allow the hon. Minister to answer the questions?

Mr Mtayachalo (Chama North): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the ministerial statement.

Madam Speaker, the high cost of fuel has undoubtedly affected the many economic sectors in the country especially the private sector, which has failed to create jobs because of the high cost of fuel. Why has it taken the Government four years to explore the open access when they could have taken remedial measures could have been taken much earlier to protect the economy?

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Members, hon. Members, do not debate or try to answer questions when you are not the hon. Minister of Energy. Otherwise, I will excuse my brother from Luampa and I will ask the person who was answering to take over the answering of questions. Are we agreed? May the hon. Minister of Energy answer the question.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to correct the hon. Member. We have not been in office for four years.

Mr Nkandu: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: We have been in office for three years and a few months.

Interruptions

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, it is easier to destroy than to build. The petroleum sub-sector was seriously destroyed.

Mr Nkandu: By who?

Mr Chikote: I even said in my statement that we found a huge debt left by the previous regime.

Mr Nkandu: By the PF!

Mr Chikote: However, this Government has decided to come up with reforms that we are now trying to implement to provide affordable prices to our citizens and this is what we are doing. It is not easy to build what they destroyed. It has taken us time to put up modalities in relation to the new reforms we have put on the table.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Katakwe: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the responses to the ministerial statement.

Madam Speaker, I would like to find out how much reduction in percentage or figurative form in fuel prices will be? Will it be less by K5, 10 per cent, 1 per cent, or just a coin?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, it would be too early for me to start giving percentages because the reductions have to be calculated by a qualified body, which regulates prices. However, the confidence I am giving to the people of Zambia is that come April, prices will not go up they will go down.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Bweengwa is the one who started this topic.

Mr Michelo: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for the statement.

Madam Speaker, I want to know how much fuel has been costing per barrel of tonne in the recent past. It is also important for us to know the difference in terms of how much the fuel was costing in percentages to 54 per cent. I want to know the ripple effect and whether the people of Zambia will benefit from the cheaper fuel.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, first of all, let me state that there are several factors that are considered when determining the price building. It is not only one factor. There are premiums and prices at the international market that are considered. A competent body will be able to guide the nation on the prices.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Sampa (Matero): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Minister eondongana!

Laughter

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, I am humbled. I thank the hon. Minister for that good response. I just want to tell him that it is not “sabusequenti” but subsequent. I also want to remind him that there is free education out there. There are pupils out there.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Ms Mulenga: Hear, hear!

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister stated that when they took over the Government in 2021, they found the fuel debt of US$400 million. Five years have passed and instead of that debt reducing, it has doubled to US$800 million. It has doubled by 100 per cent. When they came into power, the fuel price was K17 per litre but now, it is at K35 per litre, which is a 100 per cent increment. The Agro-fuel Investments Ltd, which has the monopoly way of doing business, makes US$90 million per year.

Mr Anakoka: What is the question?

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, can the hardworking hon. Minister of Energy confirm that the owner of Agro-fuel Investments Ltd, Sashi Patel, has captured the hon. Minister, the President, and the Government?

Hon UPND Members: Question!

Madam Speaker: Order!

Order, hon. Member for Matero.

Former Deputy Minister of Finance, I am sure you know the rules. Do you have evidence to confirm that what you are saying is true and verifiable? Let us not alarm the nation. We are leaders here. You are a President of a party.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Are you a former leader?

I do not know what the status is. So, hon. Member for Matero, can you please withdraw what you said?

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, well-guided, and I withdraw the statement.

The question, Madam Speaker, is: What happened to the dead stock that the Agro-fuel Investments Ltd found in TAZAMA Pipeline? We know the dead stock was worth US$300 million. That dead stock had always been there. It was not removed. So, when they took over from the Patriotic Front (PF), they knew there was fuel in the pipeline. What did they do with that fuel?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, in my statement, I said that the debt that they left behind was US$477 million. I also stated that because of the badly drafted contract that they entered into, the debt accrued to US$877 million. The debt accrued to US$877 million because of the penalties.

Madam Speaker, these are the things our colleagues in the PF are supposed to be ashamed of because these are things they left behind.

Interruptions

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member is saying that they left the debt stock worth US$300 million. Does he have facts or he is just guessing? The truth of the matter is that the debt stock which was in the pipeline was taken to the refinery in Ndola. It was made into finished product and sold for K15 million.

Hon Opposition Member: Question!

Mr Chikote: Sorry, Madam Speaker, it is US$15 million. So, the figures that the hon. Member is stating are not real. He is just guessing.

In short, Madam Speaker, this Government has committed itself to make sure that whatever was broken, is fixed. Hence, I said that by April, the fuel prices will start going down. So, that is the progress that we have made in the petroleum sub-sector.

Mr Nkandu: Hear, hear!

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mumba (Kantanshi): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for that statement. We all know that energy has actually fuelled our inflation because, on a monthly basis, prices have been going up. Hence, all the other sectors of our economy are affected. I am glad that there is an open access and that he has clearly cited the advantages or the benefits that have come out of it.

However, Madam Speaker, two fundamentals drive our prices of fuel, The exchange–

Madam Speaker: May the hon. Member remember that he has one minute to ask a question?

Mr Mumba: Yes, Madam Speaker ...

Madam Speaker: Your time is running out.

Mr Mumba: … there is the exchange rate and the price of fuel on the international market. Now, the hon. Minister is assuring us that we are going to have cheaper fuel starting from April. Could he just explain further how that is going to happen, considering that we are still dealing with our exchange rate, which is a critical component of the price of fuel?

Madam Speaker: I know the hon. Minister has already answered that. However, maybe, the hon. Member did not hear.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I stated that several factors are considered, correctly like the hon. Member said, before prices are put. However, what gives us confidence to say that in April, the prices will go down is because of the competition that we have attracted amongst the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), where they have tried to consider to reduce on their premiums, that determine the profit. Before then, people were making super profit from whatever was being traded on the market. That is why we are saying that we are going to achieve that because OMCs are being compelled to compete. The result will give us fair prices, which will lead to reducing the pump price.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Chitambo you had indicated. Have you withdrawn? Has your question been dealt with?

Mr Mutale (Chitambo): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thought my time would never come.

Madam Speaker, I just want to do a comparison with the Minister because the issue in the House is about the fuel price being high.

Madam Speaker, from the time that the pipeline was changed to diesel, how many other suppliers have used it, and at what price?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for his question.

Madam Speaker, as I stated, the players are the ones who were getting the product and supplying it to the market. The responsibility of the Government is to regulate the price by getting the premiums from the OMCs. So, in terms of how many players were using the pipeline, there was a list. As a ministry, we provided permits that allowed players to use the pipeline. That is the role the Government played. So, there are many players who have been using the pipeline. I went further and said that for open access, we used a prequalification process for OMCs. I stated that eighteen OMCs have been prequalified and are competing on a monthly basis. We have managed to pick three for April and three for May. This means it is not only one player who was allowed to use the pipeline.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity …

Mr Nkandu: Ehe!

Mr Chikote: … to make it very clear –

Hon. UPND Members: Yes!

Mr Chikote: Our dearest hon. Colleagues are busy saying that we have single-sourced Agro-Fuel Investments Limited. This company is just like any other player we found doing business. The Patriotic Front (PF) also used Agro-Fuel Investments Limited.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: So, I do not see anything strange about the New Dawn Government considering the company as a player. This player was on the market even during the time of the PF.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: So, where is the challenge? Is Agro-Fuel Investments Limited a different company from the company the hon. Member from Matero was using in the previous Government?

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kampyongo: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Chikote: This is the same company that the hon. Member for Matero was using when his party was in power.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kafwaya: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Let us make progress. Let us finish. We have only eleven minutes, and I want the debate to flow.

Hon. Member for Lunte, if you have a point of order, I will hear it when we finish this segment. I want the debate to flow because members of the public are listening and are interested in hearing what is happening.

Mr Wamunyima (Nalolo): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the statement. Just to put it on record, the hon. Minister said that when the pipeline was being cleaned, the Government signed a contract that the same diesel supplier should supply fuel before the open access policy. I remember that the hon. Minister’s predecessor came to this House to confirm that Agro-Fuel Investments Limited was the only supplier before the open access policy. Now, based on the Energy Regulation Board (ERB) guidelines, if a supplier has undue advantage and is using a Government facility while other OMCs are using tankers, that supplier must remit some money to the Government. How much has Agro-Fuel Investments Limited paid the Government for using the pipeline?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the question.

Madam Speaker, as the hon. Member has said, all the OMCs that have been using the pipeline have been paying money to the Government. However, I am not in the position to state how much exactly has been paid so far by Agro-Fuel Investments Limited for using the pipeline. I do not have the exact number. What I know is that whoever uses the pipeline has to pay a certain amount to the Government for use of the pipeline.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mung’andu (Chama South): Madam Speaker, I will ask the hon. Minister a less technical question. Previously, there were reports that fuel was bought above US$100 million per tonne, but now, the hon. Minister is saying it has come down to about US$84 per tonne.

Hon. Member: It is US$54.

Mr Mung’andu: I know that he said US$84; it is the media that is saying US$54. The hon. Minister said US$84. That is what I heard.

Madam Speaker, what does the hon. Minister think? Is it only competition? I am trying to understand why. The rate of the Kwacha to the United States (US) Dollar has gone up. That is the factor that determines the cost of fuel. The Kwacha has depreciated. Oil prices on the international market also determine the cost of fuel. These two are the factors that determine the price of fuel. Now, what has changed for the price of fuel to come down? Is it competition only, or are there other factors?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the question.

Madam Speaker, I did say that these are the good results of the open access policy. Competition has forced the OMCs to drop their premiums or the profits they have been making. These people understand what they have been making out of the usage of the pipeline. So, competition as a result of the open access policy has caused OMCs to reduce their prices.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kamboni (Kalomo Central): Madam Speaker, under the current system, the price of the supplier does not have a role in the pump price. Now, does the supplier’s price play a role in pricing? The answer is no. If the answer is no, why are we spending time here arguing? The price of the supplier does not determine the price of fuel?

Interruptions

Mr Kamboni: Madam Speaker, the price of the person supplying fuel, let us say, Agro-Fuel Investments Limited, does not determine the fuel pump price. The pump price is determined differently. Now, if the supplier does not determine the pump price, why are we spending a lot of time arguing about US$84 or another price, when that price is not a factor in determining the fuel pump price? That is my question. So, why are we arguing?

Laughter

Mr Mutale: Ema Backbencher!

Hon. UPND Member: Miles Sampa!

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: I do not know. Maybe –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

Anyway, the hon. Minister is there. Please, can you clarify –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Does the supply price determine the pump price?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I want to appreciate the hon. Member.

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I stated, there are a number of factors that are considered by the regulator which determine the prices. Of course, it has to be noted that before the open access policy, the regulators depended on the invoices the suppliers produced. When setting the price, the regulator considers the invoices surrendered by the suppliers. Now, why are we saying that the open access policy will help us to drive the price? It is because the same suppliers have decided to eat into their premiums, considering the profits they make. That gives us room for the regulators to come up with the prices. This is how we are trying to project. The fact that the hon. Member has brought up is very true. Those are the factors that determine the price.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

So, the hon. Member for Kalomo Central is clear now that the supplier price is one of the factors that determines the pump price. So, that is the position as explained by the hon. Minister. I am just trying to clarify so that we are on the same page.

Mr Tayengwa (Kabwata): Madam Speaker, my interest is in the debt that was left –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member for Kalulushi, just try to whisper. If you cannot whisper, write a note. Your voice is very sharp.

The hon. Member for Kabwata may continue.

Mr Tayengwa: Madam Speaker, my interest is in the debt that was left by tu Patriotic Front (PF); about US$400 million, which accumulated because of a criminal contract that was signed. My question is: What measures has the ministry put in place to ensure that such contracts will never be signed by Zambians ever again?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, indeed, the contract in question was a bad one, and it has landed the Government in huge a debt. That was all because of not putting the people of Zambia at heart. The previous regime did not do the right thing for the sake of the people of Zambia. Hence, we find ourselves with a huge debt today. The debt we are talking about is money that was supposed to help us provide services such as free education and increments in the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) allocation, which the people of Zambia enjoy.

Madam Speaker, one of the measures that the New Dawn Administration has taken is to disengage from such activities. We came up with policies that will deliver good services to the people of Zambia. We have taken measures to disengage from such kinds of contracts and involvement in doing wrong things that will affect our people.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mwila (Mufulira): Madam Speaker, many Zambians have been concerned with the high fuel prices and, for a long time, more than three years, we have pushed for the open use of the Tanzania-Zambia Mafuta (TAZAMA) Pipeline. However, the Government refused to heed our calls. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) had to direct the Government to open the use of the TAZAMA Pipeline to all players in the petroleum sub-sector. It is also widely believed that Agro-Fuel Investments Limited was given favourable treatment to have a monopoly in use of the pipeline and participate in the clean-up because there is a special relationship that the people behind the company have with the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government and the Ruling Party.

Mr Amutike: Question!

Mr Mwila Madam Speaker, can the hon. Minister use this opportunity to explain the special relationship between the people behind that company and the UPND.

Ms Mulenga: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, again, as I said, you need to present factual and verifiable information. However, since that was what was contained in the News Diggers newspaper article that the hon. Member referred to, I will allow the question.

Mr Amutike: Hammer!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. Member was still outside the Assembly Chamber or in his seat when I was explaining earlier.

Mr Amutike: He was out!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, if somebody is saying that this Government had a special relationship with Agro-Fuel Investments Limited, then, it must have started with the Patriotic Front (PF) Government.

Mr Nkandu: Eh!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, the PF was using that company during its time in office.

So, what special relationship did you have?

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mapani: Waona manje?

Laughter

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, this Administration has stated that the TAZAMA Pipeline is being used by many players. I have even stated the number of players who are using the pipeline. Agro-Fuel Investments Limited is an OMC like any other. We, as the Government, look at whether a company meets the requirements and then we give it the opportunity to use the pipeline. There is no relationship, whatsoever, that can be called special. The company is just an OMC. It ends there. Let it be clear that that company has no special relationship with this Government.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Unfortunately, we have run out of time. However, I see that there are several indications for questions. We need make progress, but I will allow five more questions. Please, be precise and straight to the point. Since the topic has attracted a lot of debate, we want to ensure that various issues are cleared up.

Hon. Member for Kaumbwe, you may proceed.

Dr Mwanza (Kaumbwe): Madam Speaker, the cause of the increase in debt owed to oil marketing companies (OMCs) from US$437 million to US$877 million, according to the hon. Minister’s explanation, is due to badly crafted contracts that led to penalties. The hon. Minister has stated that Agro-Fuel Investments Limited was one of the companies that was supplying petroleum products during the Patriotic Front (PF) regime. What motivated the current Government to use that company when it is one of the companies whose contracts were badly crafted and attracted penalties, thereby, increasing the debt burden to close to US$877 million?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Minister, I do not know if you got the question.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, can the hon. Member repeat the question.

Madam Speaker: The question is if –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

I was listening. If Agro-Fuel Investments Limited was involved in the contract that was drafted, which was a bad contract, why did the New Dawn Government decide to engage the company again? I think that is basically what the hon. Member said.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, that is the reason I said that the contracts were badly drafted. It is also the reason I mentioned that the New Dawn Government disengaged from such processes. However, the House should remember that in the contracts that were assigned, the conditions could not allow the Government to cancel everything there and then. The contracts were allowed to continue in accordance with the way they were drafted, and that is why we are calling them bad contracts.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member has asked why this Government has continued engaging a named company. No contract was signed between the Government and Agro-Fuel Investments Limited. What I said pertained to the permit to use the pipeline. There was no involvement of the Government in buying the products. The Government disengaged from buying the products. What was happening was just the usage of the pipeline. The OMCs were buying the products and supplying them on the market without the Government being involved in terms of financing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chewe (Lubansenshi): Madam Speaker, what is it that our Government has failed to do since 2022 when it started implementing the Open Access Policy in the fuel market, such that fuel is still expensive in Zambia? What is it that we have not done, which has made us, as a country to continue buying expensive?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, thank you very much and thank you hon. Member.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that sentiments that fuel in Malawi is cheaper than here are just social media assertions. I want to help the hon. Member and the nation at large understand that introducing reforms is a process. It is not something that you can just do in a day, it is a process. I even heard someone say that it is because of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is our own commitment to providing services that will help our citizens. It is not about the IMF…

Mr Amutike: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: … it is a programme for Zambia. So, there is no condition from the IMF. These are the reforms of the New Dawn Administration aimed at addressing the challenges that our people are facing. You must take note that this has taken time because it is a process. Modalities must be put in place for people to realise the benefits.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is becoming very difficult to follow the discourse with the hon. Minister because when he says open access is being allowed now, and then he says that there were other participants before, it beats all of us. If there was access to others, we should not be discussing open access now. Being the oversight institution, Parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is always taking people to task over variations such as what we are discussing here. If it cost between US$100 and US$200 per metric tonne to transport fuel products, it certainly goes without saying that the cost was affecting the pump price. The hon. Minister is now telling us that because of competition, these suppliers who were pegging the price of fuel at US$113 plus can now peg it at US$ 54. Those are the variations we have been dealing with here.

Could the hon. Minister share with us who is signing those contracts? Is it between his ministry and these suppliers or is it Energy Regulation Board (ERB) or indeed TAZAMA pipeline who are the owners of the pipeline? Further, who is paying the US$19 million per month for exchange loss in terms of pricing?

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, the first thing that must be understood by the hon. Member is that this is the reason we have introduced these reforms. These reforms have been brought in to address the challenges that we are facing in the petroleum sub-sector.

Madam Speaker, if the question is who is regulation or signing these processes in the open access, my answer is that the TAZAMA Pipelines Limited is the one in charge. It is the one that has provided the guidelines and other issues that govern the open access. To me, you have to take note that TAZAMA Pipelines Limited is the one driving this agenda.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mukosa (Chinsali): Madam Speaker, in his ministerial statement, the hon. Minister has stated that the reforms that have been undertaken so far have resulted in lowering the transportation cost of fuel, which has resulted in the benefit of the savings being transferred to the consumer. When the United Party for National Development (UNDP) came into office, the price of fuel was K16, and now, the it is K35.

Mr Amutike: K16?

Mr Mukosa: Yes, K16 or K17 there about.

Mr Amutike: It was K17.62.

Mr Mukosa: Anyway, even if it was K17or K18, it is understandable. My point is the difference between that K18 and the K35 now is almost double.

Mr Amutike: Grab a seat, tawaishiba –

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Maybe, you go outside and discuss that so that we make progress.

Laughter

Mr Mukosa: Thank you for your intervention, Madam Speaker. Otherwise I was seriously getting disturbed.

Madam Speaker: No, hon. Member, just ask your question through the Speaker.

Mr Mukosa: Madam Speaker, thank you. My question is: If there is a saving that has been made as a result of lowering transportation costs, and it has been passed on to the consumer, how come we do not see that saving going to the consumer? In other words, can the hon. Minister just explain to the country and to the people of Chinsali what he means by that. Where is this saving?

Mr Chikote: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member.

First of all, the hon. Member must understand that yes at that time, the fuel price was around K17.62 ngwee. The hon. Member is a senior Member of this House. He must understand that this is what has led us into debts. You were massaging prices, you were not paying for this fuel and you ended up creating huge debts for the Government, when that money should have gone towards providing services for the people. This is what you created.

Mr Amutike: Ehe kokolapo apo

Mr Chikote: That is why we have found ourselves where we are, it is because of what you were doing.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, this is what I was explaining. I thought the hon. Members were following. The K17.62 was just a cosmetic price. The effect was still coming back to the Government because our colleagues were not paying for the fuel, because of the processes. This is why we are saying that we have brought these reforms ourselves, as the Government. The positive effects will soon be seen; by the month of April. That is what a Government that is serious and committed to improving the well-being of its people does.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Speaker, when fuel is pumped from Dar-es-Salaam, it ends up in Bwana Mkubwa Constituency because that is where Tanzania-Zambia Mafuta (TAZAMA) Pipelines Limited is. I am grateful for this opportunity to ask a question. I thank the hon. Minister for the answers he is providing. The Open Access Policy has brought about competition, but we are speaking of one commodity, which is diesel, because petrol does not use that pipeline. The pipeline is not free, and I think, if I am not mistaken, it costs US$60 to pump fuel from Dar-es-Salaam to Bwana Mkubwa or to Ndola at the TAZAMA terminal. Are there any plans to construct a twin pipeline which can transport petrol?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Minister of Energy, I do not know if you have the answer to that question.

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, thank you that this is the last question. I also thank the hon. Member for it.

Madam Speaker, the New Dawn Government is committed to delivering services to the people of Zambia so as to improve their livelihoods. However, we continue to do the best that we can for the people of Zambia. Indeed, this Government has started by first bringing in these reforms and we have started with diesel. Furthermore, we are also committed to making sure that the petrol that comes by road is taxed. This is why among the measures we are putting in place, we are trying to construct another multi-purpose pipeline that will also transport petrol and ensure that both products are offered to the Zambian people at an affordable price.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to remind our hon. Colleagues who are asking these questions to not forget how much fuel was when they took over power from the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) Government. They should also not forget how much fuel was when they left office, despite the fact that they were not paying for it. So, they should take all those factors into consideration. During the MMD Regime, the price of fuel was at K5 per litre. When they took over power and the fact that they were not paying for the fuel, they left it at K17.62 per litre.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, they accrued the debt to US$477 million.

Madam Speaker, our hon. Colleagues must support this serious Administration which is seriously addressing the challenges they left.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Members, unfortunately, we cannot proceed –

Mr Kafwaya: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, I do not forget, I have a very good memory. So, just give me a chance.

Hon. Members, unfortunately, that is how far we can go with the Ministerial Statement. We cannot allow any more questions, but while we were in the process of question and answer, there was an indication from the hon. Member for Lunte to raise a point of order. What is the point of order, hon. Member for Lunte?

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I would like to appreciate you for giving me an opportunity to raise this point of order.

Madam Speaker, at times, this House can confuse us. We may plan to clarify a matter, but emerging issues would force us to divert.

Madam Speaker, as the hon. Minister was concluding his responses, he indicated to the nation that the previous regime found fuel –

Mr Nkandu: The Patriotic Front (PF).

Mr Kafwaya: Yes, the Patriotic Front (PF), as the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts has put it. He stated that the PF Government found the price of fuel at K5 per litre and left it at K17 per litre. He also stated that the PF were not paying for the fuel, thus the debt of US$400 million.

Madam Speaker, the PF Government was in office for ten years. It supplied fuel to the nation for ten years. The hon. Minister is talking about the debt of US$ 400 million, and that PF was not paying for the fuel. Is this hon. Minister in order to mislead the nation that the people of Zambia only consumed fuel for US$400 million for the entire ten years that the PF was in office? Is he in order to mislead the people of Zambia people without – and yet he is an hon. Minister who should be speaking to policies.

Madam Speaker, that is fuel for two months or less. Is he in order to tell the people of Zambia that for ten years that PF was in office, it only consumed fuel worth US$400 million?

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

I listened very attentively and what the hon. Minister of Energy said was that the Patriotic Front (PF) Government left a debt of over US$400 million. He did not say that during the regime of PF, only US$400 million worth of fuel was consumed by the Zambians. So, there is a difference there. The PF could have been paying for fuel, but they left a debt of over US$400 million, which escalated to double because of the penalties. I thought that was where the debate was going. It was not that for the ten years, only US$400 million worth of fuel was supplied.

Hon. Members, let us make progress and hon. Member for Lunte, at the time that you indicated for a point of order, that issue had not yet been mentioned. So, it was another one. It was a point of order on top of another point of order. It is alright and I hope I have handled it.

So, let us make progress.

_______

MOTION

THE REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe) (on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Ms Kasune)): Madam Speaker, I beg to move a Motion that this House, by resolution, adopts the revised edition of the laws of Zambia 2019 laid on the Floor of the House on 6^th March, 2025 and further authorises the President of the Republic of Zambia to bring the said revised edition into force, as the sole and official version of the laws of Zambia by statutory order.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you most sincerely for giving me this opportunity to move this Motion. The 2019 …

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Members for Lunte and Mkushi South, what does it mean when the Speaker is raising? According to our rules, you are supposed to remain silent, but you are debating there and disrupting me. Now, I have to read the whole process again. This is disruptive.

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you most sincerely for giving me this opportunity to move this Motion. The 2019 revised edition of the laws of Zambia was prepared pursuant to the Laws of Zambia Revised Edition Act No. 9 of 1968, which Act empowers the Commissioner-revision of laws, under the direction of the Attorney General, to prepare a revised edition of the laws of Zambia, within the specified period set out by my office by the Statutory Instrument (SI). In this regard, the office of the Minister of Justice issued the Laws of Zambia Revised Edition Specified Date Notice, Statutory Instrument No. 34 of 2020, and set 31^stDecember, 2019, as the cut-off date for purposes of the revision. Therefore, the revised edition being laid before this House is for the period 1997 to 2019.

Madam Speaker, as stated in my Ministerial Statement issued before this august House on 6^th March, 2025, the practice in most Commonwealth countries is to revise the laws of Zambia every five years. However, the Laws of Zambia were last revised two decades ago and as a result, our current revised edition contains laws that are no longer applicable as these have since been repealed or amended, thereby rendering the use of our current revised edition redundant.

Madam Speaker, allow me to re-emphasise that the revised edition of the Laws of Zambia will enable the courts, students of law, law enforcement officers and the general citizenry have access to an edition of the Laws of Zambia that is up-to-date and aligned with the current drafting style. I therefore, would like to request the support of this august House on this Motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank you and I beg to move.

Madam Speaker: This is procedural. So, let us move quickly.

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate on behalf of the people of Chilubi. I agree that we need to revise the Laws of Zambia because some of them are actually an export from the colonial times. However, Article 7 of the Constitution of Zambia defines the Laws of Zambia as follows:

“7. The Laws of Zambia consist of —

this Constitution;

laws enacted by Parliament;

statutory instruments;

(d) Zambian customary law which is consistent with this Constitution; and

(e) the laws and statutes which apply or extend to Zambia, as prescribed.”

Madam Speaker, having said this, I would like, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, to understand the volumes that will come to the House because before I endorse the need to revise the Laws of Zambia, I should be in the know regarding the laws we are revising. I think, as the Acting hon. Minister of Justice already indicated, there is a need to follow the routine of five years and the like. What is important is the content of the revision. It is important that citizens are availed the revised document through this House. We should know what we are revising or what is included in the document, in accordance with Article 7.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

I am sure that the Acting hon. Minister of Justice will respond to that.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe, SC) (on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Ms Kasune)): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Chilubi for that question. Indeed, the people want clarification. This is why I have what is called the volume of the Laws of Zambia (lifted the document). This volume I am lifting is Volume Six, which has chapters sixty-eight to eighty-six, and was done in 1995. There are over twenty-five of these so it is not possible to bring them on the Table as has been suggested. However, I would like to reassure the hon. Member of Chilubi that the law is a living thing. In the hierarchy of laws, amendments are made, for instance, to the statute book, and then they appear in the volumes as amendments that are pasted or written into the volumes. This revision exercise is taking all the amendments that have been made over the course of time and placing them in actual text in the volumes and the various pieces of legislation. So, the exercise is not being done now; it has been ongoing from 1995 when the revision was undertaken to date. The exercise was done to just clean up the statute book. Instead of picking up an amendment Act or a Statutory Instrument (SI), one can now read everything in the new, revised version of the statute book. It is a clean-up process. As Madam Speaker has already mentioned, this is a non-controversial process aimed at cleaning the statute book and ensuring that our citizens and those who refer to the law from time to time are not inconvenienced.

Madam Speaker, by the way, the hierarchy that the hon. Member has referred to in Article 7 follows the supreme law, which is the Constitution. There are specific ways in which the amendment of the Constitution is done, which is outside, separate and distinct from this exercise. Then, there are normal pieces of legislation, that is, the statutes that we make here in the House, which are amended from time to time through the normal legislative processes. Then, there is subsidiary legislation, which is delegated and is made by hon. Ministers through Statutory Instruments (SIs) and so on and so forth. So, these volumes relate to regulations, delegated legislation as well as the statues that we pass, but it does not touch the Constitution. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Madam Speaker, in winding up debate, let me also thank you for availing me this opportunity to present the Motion. I humbly beg and urge hon. Members to support the Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Chilubi is clear now. It is not new laws being enacted now, it is the old amendments that are being consolidated into the various Acts. So, with that explanation, we can make a decision.

Question that in accordance with the Laws of Zambia Revised Edition Act No. 9 of 1968, this House authorises the President of the Republic of Zambia to bring into effect the Revised Edition of the Laws of Zambia 2019 for the Fourth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly, laid on the Table of the House on Friday, 21^st March, 2025, put and agreed to.

_______

BILLS

SECOND READING

THE CYBER SECURITY BILL, 2024

The Minister of Technology and Science (Mr Mutati): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Speaker, l am pleased to present a policy statement on the Cyber Security Bill No. 29 of 2024. The House may recall that on 5^th December, 2024, during the First Reading of the Bill, as the sponsoring Minister, I requested its deferment. This decision was made to allow for further scrutiny and broader consultations with various stakeholders, including interest groups and the Committee on Media and Information Communications Technologies, in response to the concerns it raised.

Madam Speaker, to address the concerns, the Government constituted a technical committee comprising representatives from the Government and civil society, human rights bodies, media organisations and press freedom advocates to facilitate meaningful dialogue and ensure a balanced approach to the proposed legislation. The Committee convened three key meetings on 26^th February, 10^th March and 11^th March, 2025, during which stakeholders engaged in detailed discussions to address specific concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding the Bill’s implications on rights, governance and digital freedoms. These engagements have been instrumental in not only building consensus but also ensuring that the proposed provisions align with constitutional principles and international best practices.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that following the consultations, some Clauses of the Bill have been recommended for amendment to specifically address the concerns –

Mr Mung’andu rose and spoke to Backbenchers on the left.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

The security officer who is seated there, your role is not just to sit there and watch things degenerate into disorder. If you see people not behaving in accordance with the expectation of the House, please, have them moved. I do not have to intervene. Otherwise, there is no role that you are playing there; maybe, we need to change you.

May the hon. Minister continue.

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform this august House that following consultations, some Clauses of the Bill have been recommended for amendment to specifically address concerns of interest groups and society at large. To give context to my statement, I would like to point out that in 2022, it became clear that certain provisions of the 2021 Act required re-alignment with our evolving digital environment. Further, sections of the civil society challenged the Act in court, indicating a need for a more inclusive legislative framework through repealing the Act. The aim is to ensure a robust, transparent and widely supported legal framework. In the digital age, the Internet has become an essential tool for communication, information sharing and doing business using cyberspace. More than ever, whatever we do on a daily basis in our lives depends on connectivity to cyberspace.

Madam Speaker, the digital age brings many opportunities for innovation and economic development. However, it also presents unprecedented challenges with devastating impacts on our lives. For example:

cyberbullying, online harassment and cybercrime have led to ruined lives, tarnished reputations and lost livelihoods; and

cyber attacks targeting businesses and governments have the potential to disrupt entire economies and undermine national security.

Madam Speaker, despite our efforts in the past, including the implementation of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act and establishment of the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA), abuse of cyberspace continues to be a growing concern. It is, therefore, imperative that the legal framework be strengthened to address the emerging threats comprehensively.

Madam Speaker, the objects of the Cyber Security Bill, 2024, are to –

provide for cyber security in the Republic;

establish the Zambia Cyber Security Agency and provide for its functions;

provide for the regulation of cyber security service providers;

provide for the constitution of the Zambia Cyber Incident Response Team and provide for its functions;

provide for the constitution of a sectoral cyber incident response teams;

continue the existence of the Central Monitoring and Co-ordination Centre;

provide for the designation, protection and registration of critical information and critical information infrastructure;

repeal and replace the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021; and

provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility to protect our citizens, businesses and nation from abuse of cyberspace. The Cyber Security Bill, 2024, presents a critical and important step towards creating a safer, more secure digital environment for all Zambians. I call upon this august House and all our esteemed stakeholders to join hands with the Government in the endeavour to build a cyber community where we can connect, share and thrive without the fear of abuse or exploitation.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Eng. Mabenga (Mulobezi): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the terms of reference, as set out under Orders No. 205(b) and 207(j) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, your Committee was tasked to consider the Cyber Security Bill, No. 29 of 2024.

Madam Speaker, to acquaint itself with the ramifications of the Bill, your Committee sought both written and oral submissions from key stakeholders. The Cyber Security Bill, 2024, principally, seeks to repeal and replace the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021, establish the Zambia Cyber Security Agency and its functions and provide for cyber security in the Republic, among other objects.

Madam Speaker, while stakeholders agree that the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021, needs to be repealed and replaced, several concerns were raised, as highlighted in the report. It is, therefore, essential that the concerns raised during stakeholder interactions are addressed by the House to strengthen the Bill and ensure its practical effectiveness.

Madam Speaker, allow me to highlight some of the concerns for the benefit of the House. Stakeholders submitted that the Bill gives the Zambia Cyber Security Agency broad powers to investigate and respond to cyber incidents without sufficient checks. Further, the Bill gives the agency powers to handle cyber incidents, including powers to access, monitor and seize computer systems, which could lead to possible invasion of privacy. Additionally, there seems to be no clear limit on the scope of powers of the agency, which could lead to abuse, especially in political cases or matters involving dissent or critical opposition voices.

Madam Speaker, stakeholders submitted that the Bill contains broad provisions regarding the interception of communications, including lawful interception and use of interception devices. The powers under Clause 29 allow for the interception of private communication based on vague conditions, such as reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed. There are, however, no explicit judicial safeguards to protect against unnecessary or disproportionate interception of communications.

Madam Speaker, allow me now to briefly highlight some of the comments and recommendations that were made for the benefit of the House. Your Committee reviewed Clause 5 of the Bill, which grants the President the authority to appoint the Director-General of the Zambia Cyber Security Agency. While your Committee raises no objection to the appointment by the President, it notes with concern the absence of a requirement for the appointment to be ratified by the National Assembly. The lack of parliamentary oversight raises accountability concerns and diminishes transparency in the appointment process for such a critical position. Your Committee therefore, recommends that the appointment of the Director-General be subjected to ratification by Parliament to ensure transparency and parliamentary oversight of the head of the institution.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the stakeholders who interacted with your Committee. Gratitude also goes to you and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the guidance and support rendered to the Committee throughout its deliberations.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, I would like to submit that the starting point for any Bill is the Constitution. In Chapter 1, the Constitution is very clear about any law that conflicts with the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, I have in mind that currently, the cyberspace is being used as a mode of expression world over, and Zambia is not an exceptional. I note that some of the Clauses will be in conflict with Article 20 of the Constitution and many other Articles, including the one on privacy. I need to qualify why I say so with the following.

If we look at Clause 3(1), we see that the Bill’s control is placed d directly under the control of the President. Sometimes, with the way things become toxic on the political scenario, I do not think that this is encouraging good governance as it may, because we know that the Office of the President is an office of political standing and may have political influence on how this is controlled. Further, it is more threatening that the director, who is supposed to be appointed is not even supposed to be subjected ratification by this particular House.

Madam Speaker, I also want to dwell on Clauses 6 and 7, which talk about the interception. In this case, we are talking about invasion of privacy, which is a constitutional matter. It being a constitutional matter, we need to reflect that as we venture into making sure that repealing and replacing this Bill, we need to reflect much on that one.

Madam Speaker, I am further alarmed by a term in Clause 29, which talks about reasonable ground. We have experienced it with the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) and other Government agencies that this reasonable ground is left to the judgement of the officer that is making the judgement at that particular point. So, I fear that people's rights are going to be affected badly because once this Bill passed, we are going to have a situation in which people's rights will be left in the hands of the officers who will be making judgments based on what is called reasonable ground, which is not even qualified in interpretation as well as in definition.

Madam Speaker, I also want to indicate that the same safeguards that have been put in Clause 29 lack judicial safeguards, like where one has to be cleared by a magistrate, it has to be express. That means that it is suicidal to let the people's rights be interpreted by one person. A particular officer of that particular agency is going to interpret reasonable ground.

Mr Mweetwa indicated dissent.

Mr Fube: Maybe, there will be somebody doing a live what – Madam Speaker, the Minister of Information is disturbing me. He is busy shaking his head.

Laughter

Mr Fube: His head is so visible to see.

Madam Speaker: I thought that by shaking his head, he is agreeing with you. He is encouraging you, hon. Member. Proceed.

Mr Fube: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, what I meant by saying that it is lacking judicial safeguards …

Mr Mweetwa: On a point of order Madam Speaker.

Mr Fube: … is that we all know that sometimes, when you want to search all these service providers …

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Chilubi!

You asked for it. The hon. Minister has a point of order. What is the point of order, hon. Minister?

Mr Mweetwa: Madam Speaker, as you know me, I rarely, …

Laughter

Mr Mweetwa: … rise on points of order unless, it is extremely compelling that I am left without any option, but to do as I am just doing now.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. Member on the Floor debate, and this is in line with Standing Order No. 75, which provides that the information we bring to this Floor must be factual. Is he in order to make an assertion to mislead this House and the nation that the issue of privacy is a constitutional matter when the Constitution of Zambia is so clear, there is no way it provides that privacy is a constitutional matter. Is he in order to attempt to mislead this House, which had given him time to have his arguments heard?

Madam Speaker, I need your serious ruling on this matter.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Chilubi is debating not as a qualified lawyer. He understands privacy from a layman's point of view. So, maybe, we can excuse him for that. However, being a legislator, I think, he should know better than that. So, hon. Member for Chilubi as you debate, just make sure that you are within the provisions of the Constitution, if you really need to refer to it. You may proceed.

Mr Fube: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am well-guided, though the Bill of Rights from Article 11 to 28 includes that. All the same, I will continue.

Madam Speaker: Order, on. Member!

Do not reopen the debate. I have already made a ruling. Just proceed with your debate.

Mr Fube: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that this particular Bill before us is trespassing in the domain of the Constitution, and I still stand by that. As a layperson, I read the Constitution in accordance with Article 2, which demands that I should read to understand.

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that the Zambia Cyber Security Agency needed to be demystified in the Bill. it is not demystified because it remains hanging without a board, which means meaning that on one hand, it does not have an oversight. On the other hand, it is under the control of the President. It becomes a political tool and possibly, from what we have observed where sometimes, selective justice goes on, this provision is likely to be abused if we leave it the way it is. So, we pray that an oversight role be included, as its function. This will mean that a board should be put in place and this House should ratify the appointees of that particular board. That will sit very well with the people of Chilubi.

Madam Speaker, I want to end with the issue of the subscriber identity module (SIM) registration. The current cyber law takes care of particulars of anyone who desires to register a sim card. Therefore, the cyber law is very important. The House will realise that this particular cyber law overlooks that important aspect of sim registration. To me, that means that even the monitoring that the hon. Minister talked about will be difficult to implement if sim registration is not taken on board. How is this agency going to monitor the providers, where particulars are not provided and this particular Bill has left out the sim registration factor?

Madam Speaker, having been intercepted a bit by the people of Choma, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, I would like to rest my case on this particular note.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I like the ending that you have been intercepted by the people of Choma, bringing the same Cybercrimes Act into play.

Hon. Members: As the time is …

Laughter

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Madam Speaker, listen to some hon. Members saying, “as the time is”. These people are just waiting for “as the time is.”

Madam Speaker: Order!

As the time is 1640 hours, I suspend business for twenty minutes for health break.

Laughter

Business was suspended from 1640 hours until 1700 hours.

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, before business was suspended, I was about to start my debate. I thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to supplement the conversation on the Cyber Security Bill.

Madam Speaker, item 7.0 of the conclusion of the Committee’s report states, “However, the Committee finds that the Bill does not meet the required threshold to pass into law and urges the Executive to defer it for further consultations and to provide adequate time for the Committee to scrutinise it.” This happened on 5^th December, 2024. After hearing that the Committee and other stakeholders rejected this Bill for lack of threshold, the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government, decided to defer the Bill.

Madam Speaker, on 5^th December, 2024, the Cyber Security Bill was tabled before the for Second Reading stage. Today again, the Bill has been brought on the Floor of the House for Second Reading after being deferred because it did not meet the threshold to be turned into law. The Government pretended as though it listened. This Bill has been deferred before on the Floor of the House but today, it has been brought back the same way it was. If this Bill was not the same, it would have been referred back to the Committee. If the UPND had changed anything in the original Bill, it would have been referred back to the Committee. The Committee, as per its declaration in the report, would have been given ample time to scrutinise it but the UPND Government has brought the Bill the same way it was when it was deferred.

Madam Speaker, earlier in this Assembly, one hon. Member spoke to the criminal contracts that the Patriotic (PF) Government signed. That passed and this Assembly has records. So, why should the UPND Government mislead the Zambians that it had withdrawn a Bill for more consultations, when in the actual fact, it has brought the same old report.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Lunte!

Let me guide you, hon. Member. The Bill was not withdrawn, but deferred. There is a difference hon. Member. So, please, debate within the context.

You may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, the Bill was deferred for further consultations so that it could meet the threshold for it to be turned into law, according to the Committee report. It has been brought back the same way it was when it was deferred.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Why should the UPND Government mislead the Zambians that the Bill was deferred for consultations and four months later, it is brought back to the House the same way it was? What type of deception is this by a Government to its own people?

Ms Mulyata: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, this Bill should be taken back to the people.

Mr Mweetwa: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Lunte!

There is another point of order. Hon. Members, if we proceed at this rate, we will lose track of the flow of debate. Since I had not requested hon. Members to not raise points of order, I will allow the hon. Minister of Information and Media, who rarely rises on points of order to do so, since he has indicated again.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Mweetwa: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I was enjoying the debate by the hon. Member for Lunte, except when he began to mislead this House that the Bill was deferred for further consultations.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the reintroduction of the Bill is a creation of a platform for further consultations because when a Bill is brought back to this House that is when further ideas are going to be effectuated on the Bill.

Mr Chisopa: Iwe naiwe, just be –

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Mkushi South!

had already cautioned you that you, hon. Members, who have spouses in the House, you should behave in a particular manner so that we do not –

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Nyirenda: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lundazi, please, resume your seat.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: I am not –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Who is the spouse?

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lundazi –

Ms Nyirenda interjected.

Madam Speaker: No, I am not referring to you. I am referring to the spouse.

Ms Nyirenda: I am the only spouse here.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, please, you have to behave in a particular manner, especially when you know that you have spouses in the House.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: There is nothing wrong with that. I am advising him.

Ms Mulenga: Madam Speaker, is it spouse or spouses?

Madam Speaker: Oh, he has spouses?

Laughter

Ms Nyirenda: Madam Speaker, as far as I know, I am the only one here.

Laughter

Ms Nyirenda: Hon. Masebo is now saying she is also the wife.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Order!

Where I come from, we just put sand in the hands, present, and when you hit the hands, it means you are ready to start a war. So, we will go outside and try that.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: That was on a lighter note, hon. Members.

Hon. Minister, you may continue with the point of order or you had already raised it?

Mr Mweetwa: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Mkushi South knows very well that changes are effectuated to a Bill before it is passed. However, I understand because he is one of those privileged in this House to have spouses around.

Ms Sefulo: Imagine!

Mr Mweetwa: So, Madam Speaker, I was rising on a very serious point of order. Is the hon. Member for Lunte, therefore, in order to assert that no changes have been effectuated before the process for which this Bill seeks to be reintroduced, since he is now standing at the peril of misinforming the nation.

I need your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Actually, if the hon. Member for Lunte had been paying attention to the hon. Minister of Technology and Science when he was presenting the Bill, he would have known that the hon. Minister mentioned undertaking some consultations. So, may be the hon. Member for Lunte should pay more attention to the debates in the House so that when he raises a point of order or issues in his debate, it will be within context. However, the hon. Minister of Technology and Science is in the House so he will be able to respond adequately to the hon. Member for Lunte.

Hon. Member for Lunte, as you debate, please, debate in context to what the hon. Minister stated when he was presenting the Bill.

You may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I always value your guidance.

Madam Speaker, consultations and amending the Bill in order for it to reach the threshold may be two different things. What would consultations profit anybody if the Bill comes back in the same manner it was? Anyway, we are now talking about a report which existed on 5^th December. Assuming the Bill was amended, which Committee scrutinised the amendments? This Bill went away and came back in the same manner as it was before. It was deception on the part of the Government to have said that it was taking away the Bill in order to make it reach the threshold according to the demands of stakeholders and then bring it back in the same way. It is hoodwinking the Zambian people. This is scamming on the part of the Government, and governments must desist from this behaviour. This is why we always say that the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government cannot be trusted by people.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: It is the people who told the Government to go and make the Bill reach the standards. It is the people and the stakeholders who told the Government to go and make the Bill reach –

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member for Lunte, please, debate through the Speaker. Do not engage other hon. Members. By way of guidance, we are at Second Reading of the Bill. The processes of amendments, whether from the left or right, are still coming. So, this is just the Second Reading. The report is there, and I am sure the Executive has taken note of the concerns and you will be free to even propose amendments yourself when the time comes. So, the process is still ongoing. Consultations are still ongoing. This is just guidance.

The hon. Member may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, I have to reiterate that it is the people who told the UPND Government that this Bill does not met the threshold to be turned into law. Therefore, I find it deceptive for the Government to just take away this Bill for four months and then bring it back as it was before.

Madam Speaker, the UPND Government needs to become serious.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, this debate I have tendered is exactly the same debate I would tender on the next Bill because both Bills were deferred on the same day on the same basis. There is no reason the UPND should continue misleading the Zambian people.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: There is absolutely no reason.

Madam Speaker, this Bill should be deferred once again. The Government should allow consultations with stakeholders, amend the Bill and take it back to the Committee. Let the Committee scrutinise the amendments and then bring back the Bill for enactment. Then, we shall be able to support it. We cannot support deception. I will not be in a position to support deception because deception is bad. It is poison for the Zambian people.

Madam Speaker, I wish to end by saying that there is no support for the Bill from me.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: We have just recorded your debate so that when we come to the next Bill, we will just play it to save time.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: That is on a lighter note.

Thank you very much hon. Member for Lunte. We will move to the hon. Member for Kanyama. Please, can we have fresh ideas.

Hon. Member for Kanyama, do not repeat yourself. That also goes to the other hon. Members who are going to debate subsequently.

The hon. Member for Kanyama may proceed.

Mr Chinkuli (Kanyama): Madam Speaker, thank you so much for giving me a chance to add my voice to the debate on the matter on the Floor, on behalf of the people of Kanyama.

Madam Speaker, from the outset, I want to support the Bill. The Zambian people have suffered for a long time from issues arising from social media, computer hacking, scammers, just to name a few.

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time this Bill has been brought to this House. It was brought some time back. In view of the concerns of your Committee, the Bill was deferred. I want to thank the Government for having deferred the Bill so that the concerns could be attended to. I listened to what the hon. Minister read; he mentioned that a number of stakeholders were involved and a number of days were set for people to make submissions. Indeed, the Government is a listening Government, in the sense that it understands that it is the people who make the laws, not we, here. You may wish to note that the preamble in the Constitution clearly states “we, the people …” It goes on to say “have given this,” meaning it is the people who come up with the rules to regulate people. If we avoid interactions with the people and stakeholders, then, the laws we are making will not stand the test of time, in the sense that each time we try to implement them, there will be negative feedback. As a result, you will find that things will not move.

Madam Speaker, I just want to air my gratitude to the Government for the move it has taken. The Bill looks at people who hide behind computers and phones. I want to urge all hon. Members of Parliament to support the Bill because on a number of times, people have hidden behind cameras or computers to victimise others. I think, this Bill will cure that defect. We have had situations whereby someone has made a comment and caused people to start ridiculing people in the Government and insulting others. Why? It is because people know that there is no law to curb such people and bring them to book. Now, this law will definitely do that.

Mr Fube: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, please, wait. Let the hon. Member continue. You have stood three times and I have taken note of that. It is like Peter denying Jesus three times. I am not Jesus.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Simon Peter, why are you denying me? I have said, resume your seat.

May the hon. Member for Kanyama continue.

Hon. Member for Chilubi, I will come to you after the hon. Member for Kanyama has debated.

Mr Chinkuli: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, a number of people have been hiding behind cameras and, this time around, they will be exposed. Those who think that they can do whatever they want outside a certain jurisdiction may wish to take note that within the Clauses of the Bill, there is a provision for law agencies to bring them from outside jurisdictions to answer charges. There will be no hiding or running away. Our children have been victims of cybercrimes to a disturbing point. So, for me and all well-meaning hon. Members who love our nation, I think, it is just right that we support this Bill because it means well for us.

Madam Speaker, I have observed with sadness that while beautiful laws are enacted, their implementation has been a challenge. I do not know where the problem lies because, for instance, there are organs that are mentioned in the Bill, which are supposed to ensure that each and every bit of the proposed law is followed to the letter. We have been hearing about people hacking other people’s accounts. As we go into the period of elections, some people will hack into the electoral commission’s servers. However, to find out who and where such people are becomes a challenge. If there will be any challenges that implementers of this beautiful proposed law will face, I urge them to approach Parliament. As representatives of the people, we can see how best to help them so that the Bill is actualised with efficiency.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Fube: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Now we go to the hon. Member for Chilubi. What is the point of order?

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, sorry for the persistence. What I feared occurred as the hon. Member concluded.

Madam Speaker, we have two Bills before us. One is on cyber security and the other one is on cybercrimes. The hon. Member who was just on the Floor debated rightly and nicely on the Cyber Crimes Bill, and not the Cyber Security Bill. According to Standing Order No. 71, we always have to be relevant to the topic on the Floor. The material in the hon. Member’s debate would have been helpful in the debate on the Cyber Crimes Bill, and not the Cyber Security Bill. I do not know if he was in order to even debate for six minutes.

Madam Speaker: I recall the hon. Member for Lunte saying that whatever he was debating on this Bill also applies to the next Bill. So, there is an interchanging and intermarrying of the two issues. Sometimes, hon. Members may be misled in their debates. I am sure the hon. Ministers will clear up those issues when they respond.

Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, you may proceed.

Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa): Madam Speaker, you may recall that on 5^th December, 2024, I was seated where I am right now in this House. I had prepared to move amendments to both the Cyber Crimes Bill and the Cyber Security Bill for reasons that the civil society advanced, which I identified after reading the two pieces of proposed legislation. On that day, the expectation from members of the public was that apart from us who are privileged to read the documents, they would be given an opportunity to also scrutinise the two documents. What has happened since that day to today is that we have been ambushed with this procedure to debate this particular issue. We have started with the Cyber Security Bill. So, my first point of view is that I find the procedure we have adopted to be undesirable.

Madam Speaker, I know that according to the procedures of Parliament, we are to be guided on what is allowed. However, the expectation from members of the public would be that after the consultative process was exhausted, your Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technologies should have been given the opportunity to present its findings from the discussions it had with various stakeholders during the period from 5^th December, 2024, to where we are today. That would ensure that by the time the report is presented a second time, it would capture the views of the civil society and those who were not part of the initial consultative process. Therefore, I wish to make a request. I know that it is something that you can grant as our Hon. Speaker. While a consultative process happened with various stakeholders, from what we have been reading, unfortunately, the report of your Committee, which should have been tabled today, does not include their views. I know, for instance, that the Committee chairperson, the one who was able to comment on this matter, Hon. Mabenga, has no report on the submissions that came from the people your Committee consulted.

Madam Speaker, I am wondering about the things we are going to change from the initial documents that were tabled because the two Bills were rejected by stakeholders. After the stakeholders were engaged, your Committee, an important stakeholder, had no time to discuss what the civil society submitted. I will give an example. Clause 30 states that law enforcement officers will be allowed to make oral requests to record people’s conversations. Allowing such a process to be undertaken through an oral request is dangerous. An oral request simply means that someone can walk into an office of a communication service provider and demand to record a conversation between Hon. Mutati and Hon. Kang’ombe, for example. However, the current law, which is clear, stipulates that if a law enforcement officer wants to record a private conversation, he or she first has to get consent from the Attorney-General. Further, before the Attorney-General grants the consent, it must be proved that there is merit for the recording to take place. After consent is given, a judge has to give a court order granting one permission, as a law enforcement officer, to record any conversation that he or she feels can cause harm in the country. However, the Clause in question states that all that a law enforcement officer needs to do is make an oral request to an information and communication technology (ICT) services provider, such as Airtel, MTN or ZAMTEL, that suspect A is likely to communicate something that can cause harm in the country and, therefore, the suspect’s communication should be recorded. So, your Committee and I are wondering if that Clause is going to be removed from the Bill. The Clause states that law enforcement can make an oral request to record private conversations. The danger with that is that even your office can be recorded without permission and I find that to be very dangerous. That is why we must ensure that there is comfort for every stakeholder. All we want is comfort regarding that matter. Today, we are in the Opposition, but one day, we will be back in power. When we make a law, we should all be comfortable by knowing that we are making a good law.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Kamfinsa!

What has your coming back into power got to do with the Speaker? Please, remove me from your debate. I am an innocent observer.

Laughter

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, I take note of your guidance.

Madam Speaker, the point I was making, and I think everyone agrees with me, is that when a law is being made, all possible permutations must be considered, regardless of where one is standing today. My appeal to the hon. Minister responsible for the Bill he has presented to this august House is that we are not making a law to target any individual. We make laws to ensure that we provide a safe environment and promotes the rights and privileges of citizens. Clause 30 is a dangerous provision. I call it a very dangerous provision because it will be abused. From where I am standing, I am now alarmed. I am alarmed because I am asking myself: Who is proposing the provision under Clause 30? Is it that law enforcement officers are currently recording people without permission? Is it that what we are made to believe that now that they have been doing this for many years, they now want to find a way to legalise an illegality? That is my fear now.

Madam Speaker, my debate this afternoon is around the role of your Committee. Your Committee received submissions, and people rejected the Bill. Through your office, the Bill was deferred. Your Committee has not played any role in the consultative process, which is dangerous. This is why I do not support the Bill coming back in this format unless we allow your Committee to sit and review what the first civil society organisation (CSO) stated, what the second CSO stated and what members of the public stated on the provisions of Clause 30 and many other clauses. I was expecting that today, we would be told that the Committee received submissions from CSOs and various stakeholders. The feeling of the stakeholder is that we need to engage in the amendments to the provisions of the law. Unfortunately, your Committee has not been accorded that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, are we going to lose anything if we allow your Committee to sit for a few days to interrogate the proposed amendments and listen to the issues that pertain to the Bill? The role your Committee has to play will add value to the process. In its current form, the process has fallen short. On behalf of the people of Kamfinsa, I request that the proposed Bill goes back to your Committee.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Mkushi South, the man with spouses.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisopa (Mkushi South): Madam Speaker, today is a sad day because of what the bad United Party for National Development (UPND) Government has brought to this Parliament. This is why I always tell my colleagues that they are remaining with a few months to go. They are going.

Interruptions

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, what we are discussing today is an illegality of the first kind. First of all, your office should not even have allowed this illegality to show its face in this House. The procedure for a deferred Bill is straightforward. Unless, this Parliament has come up with another way of bringing Bills to this House because it is only the Parliamentary Committee …

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

Just for the purpose of guidance so that we are not all misled, the Bill was deferred at Second Reading stage. Unless, the hon. Member shows me a provision which prescribes that when a Bill is deferred at Second Reading stage, it should go back to the Committee for consideration. Otherwise, we are misleading ourselves. Let us be factual, hon. Member. That can only be done if leave is sought. If that leave has not been sought, the hon. Minister can carry on from where the Government left off.

You may proceed.

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, I have the report which we are debating in soft copy. It was submitted last year in December, and the chairperson of the Committee requested its deferment. The chairperson who has presented a report today has not indicated the position of your Committee after consultations. He has not indicated the position of your Committee after consultation. It is only the hon. Minister who has said that the Government consulted. Whom did they consult and where? The hon. Minister can tell us where the consultation took place. Was it in the hon. Minister’s office? Where did the consultation take place because consultation is supposed to be done through your office?

Madam Speaker: Order, hon Member!

Just debate. Bring out your issues. Do not engage the hon. Minister and ask him questions because he will not answer you. By doing that, you are only promoting disorder in the House because there will be an attempt to answer you. Then, it will degenerate into disorder. Bring out your points, and at an appropriate time, the hon. Minister will address your concerns. If you are not happy at the time of decision-making, you will make a decision.

So, let us proceed, hon. Member.

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, even if the UPND Government is going, it should not behave in the manner it is behaving.

Mr Amutike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Interruptions

Mr Chisopa: Why should it bring an illegality to Parliament? I know that the UPND is going next year but, please, it should not leave bad things in our hands as we take over next year.

Laugher

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Mkushi South!

That is not allowing us to debate.

Mr Kafwaya rose.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, I have called the House to order! When I call for order, it means I am giving guidance. There is an indication for a point of order from the hon. Member for Mongu Central. He is the one I was trying to call on.

Mr Amutike: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to raise a point of order on relevance of the debate. The hon. Member on the Floor is insinuating that the chairperson of the Committee is not in support of the Bill and he has not even given his position on this matter, yet we were all listening when the chairperson clearly supported the Motion. He stated his position clearly.

Is the hon. Member of Parliament on the Floor in order to mislead himself and the entire country by saying that the chairperson of your Committee does not have a position on this matter? Is he in order, Madam Speaker? I seek your serious ruling.

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon Members, when we debate, we always have to comply with our rules. We should be factual and not make assumptions. So, let us not make assumptions. I believe that when the hon. Minister was making his statement, he made some remarks, which remarks the hon. Member for Mkushi South would have picked had he not been looking at his various wives. By wives, I mean his various spouses.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, please, be relevant. Do not bring in the issue of others going because at one time, all of us will go and other people will come in. So, it does not matter who goes at what time. Let us not worry about that. The people of Zambia will decide. Just debate the Cyber Security Bill. That is what we are debating.

You may proceed, hon. Member.

Mr Chisopa: I thank you, Madam Speaker. I am aware that the hon. Member for Mongu Central is not even known by the people of Mongu. I do not even know how he found himself here.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, –

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, No!

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, are you an assessor of how the hon. Members are performing or what?

Laughter

Madam Speaker: When did you start assessing? If we were to ask how you are performing in your constituency, who is going to assess you? Let us be relevant. I am giving you the last warning, hon. Member. Let us be relevant, otherwise, I will curtail your debate because other hon. Members want to debate. We need to make progress.

Mr Chisopa: I am most obliged, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to re-emphasise that –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members.

Please, let us allow the hon. Member for Mkushi South to debate.

Mr Kabuswe interjected.

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, I need your protection from the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals Development. I know what is happening at Mopani Copper Mine (MCM) and Vedanta Resources Plc.

Madam Speaker: I think, we need to make progress. Any further debate?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity to debate and support the Bill that has been ably moved by the hon. Minister of Technology and Science.

Madam Speaker, we have heard the concerns, complaints, lamentations, and bitterness from the hon. Members on your left. Instead of addressing the issues, they have indicated that hon. Members of the United Party for National Development (UPND) will be leaving their positions very soon. I want to make it very clear, that in 2027, we will be coming back here to make a recommendation to this House to review the Bill, which we will pass today…

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: …because we will be in Government, and they will continue with their bitterness.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Then in Lunte, we will have an hon. Member of Parliament from this side (the right side of the Speaker) who will ably represent the people of Lunte, come 2026.

Madam Speaker, this listening Government listened to the concerns of the stakeholders, including your Committee, that we should defer the Bill and make further consultations. True to our word, we deferred the Bills and consulted. Throughout our consultations, we took note of the concerns of the stakeholders who are not in this House.

Mr Twasa interjected.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: I am aware, since I am working with the hon. Minister of Technology and Science, about the amendments that are going to be moved by the hon. Minister of Technology and Science and I, taking into account the concerns of the stakeholders who are not in this House. The rules of this House are very clear.

Mr Twasa interjected.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Kasenengwa!

Please, just wait for the hon. Minister to finish his debate. Take notes. If you have any issue, you will raise it at an appropriate time. Otherwise, you will be debating out of context. Be patient. We want the debate to flow so that we understand it properly.

May the hon. Minister continue.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, you have guided appropriately. The procedures of this House are very clear. If a Bill is deferred and it is brought back for debate, it cannot be taken back to the Committee. If there are issues that are being raised by hon. Members, they will be considered by the responsible hon. Minister, if appropriate, amendments will be made. It is up to the hon. Members to convince us pertaining to issues which they think must be addressed by us. That is the procedure. There is no way a Bill that is being considered can be referred back to the Committee. It cannot be. Those are not the procedures. For those who have been in this House, including the hon. Member for Lunte …

Mr Kafwaya: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: … are aware that even during their time, Committee reports were Tabled here, rejecting the recommendations of the Government, but the debate went ahead, and we voted. Those are the procedures, and that is what we are going to do today. If they do not agree, they are free to vote against the Bill. Those are the procedures. They should not create other procedures which are unprocedural.

Madam Speaker, you have guided and I thought I should add my voice to this debate.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Before we proceed, hon. Member for Lunte indicated for a point of order.

A point of order is raised.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I feel very sad listening to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security referring my constituency to what will happen in 2027. By the way, that is not the only thing he said. He firstly said that in 2027, they will be reviewing this law. This means that they just want to enact it to punish people during this period. I am sad. However, the point is, why should the hon. Minister start debating an hon. Member of Parliament for the United Party for National Development (UPND) who will take up my seat in Lunte, in 2026, as if he has assessed my desire for longevity in this House? Did I indicate my desire to get old in this House, like he has?

Laughter

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I have a profession where I come from, and I need to have the energy to go and do other things, other than what the hon. Minister has done. He has stayed for twenty-five years in this House and he is still proudly saying that he will be back in 2027. Is he in order to think that I want to be in this House for thirty years?

I seek your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Laughter

adam Speaker: Order!

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

I am tempted to call on the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security to respond to you, but I do not want the House to degenerate into disorder. However, the rules of the House state that we should not debate ourselves. So, let us not debate ourselves.

I know there is anxiety. 2026 is coming and people will say all sorts of things, but let us remain cool. Let us remain brothers and sisters until we cross over to 2027.

r Kafwaya crossed the Floor.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, I am ruling on your point of order, and you are going out. What kind of an hon. Member for Lunte are we looking for?

Laughter

Madam Speaker: It is okay, I understand. It is not easy so I can understand.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: May the hon. Minister of Technology and Science wind up the debate.

Hon. Member for Lunte, because you raised some concerns, I would like you to wait for the hon. Minister to address those concerns before you go out, please.

Mr Kafwaya walked to Mr Mwiimbu’s seat.

Madam Speaker: I hope you are not going to fight.

Laughter

Mr Kafwaya: No, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to wind down the debate on this very important Bill.

Madam Speaker, we started with basic principles. We have to balance national security with the rights of our citizens in delivering this particular Bill. We started with the basic principle that we must be as consultative as possible, particularly, with the civil society, so that we have a durable Cyber Security Bill. We started with the conviction that we can be able to accumulate value addition, which we did through engagement with the civil society, who made a very valuable contribution by lifting the substance, form and quality of the Bill that we are about to enact. We also came from a premise that we shall do nothing in terms of enacting a Bill that conflicts with the Constitution. So, the Constitution remains supreme. Those were the principles that guided us in the process. So, the fears that were expressed in the various debates are purely unfounded.

Mr Kampyongo: Question!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, regarding the debate by the hon. Member for Lunte, I think, what is important to appreciate is that we cannot continue deferring the pain and the inconvenience that our citizens are going through, such as money transfers. So, if one is calling for continuous deferment, one is calling for continuous pain for citizens, including those in Lunte.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: So, we have a sense of urgency.

Madam Speaker, we need to protect our citizens particularly in cyberspace. Defamations are appearing in cyberspace every day. The pain that people are going through is enormous. A young lady reported a matter to ZICTA. She lost her job because the weight of blackmail against her was inhumane. She was dressed down. Then, someone says we must defer the Bill. We cannot do so because that is not humane. President HH (Hakainde Hichilema) has said that his goal number one is to protect citizens in cyberspace, and he pushed us to put this Bill in place urgently. The Bill is meant to protect the people of Zambia from the harm perpetuated in cyberspace. That is all we are doing. Now, if that is wrong, one has to tell us that it is wrong to protect our citizens in cyberspace. That is what one needs to tell us.

Hon. UPND Members: Hammer, hammer!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, my good young man from Kamfinsa, I think, was properly answered by Hon. Jack Mwiimbu SC., that procedure, debate and processes are the core functions of Parliament. Parliament knows how to deal with procedure. So, we did not abrogate any procedure in deferring and bringing back the Bill today.

Madam Speaker, regarding the debate by the hon. Member for Mkushi South, I think, when we are dealing with issues to do with human beings, let us not introduce comedy in the process …

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: … because these are serious issues.

Mr Kampyongo: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mutati: So, let us not allow comedy for the purpose of ticking the boxes in our constituencies, because our own members in the constituencies are victims of harm from cyberspace.

Mr Munir Zulu: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mutati: If anything, the hon. Member should applaud us and say ‘you have brought protection to my members in Mkushi.’ We are doing this for you. Please, applaud us.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisopa: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

At this point, we need to make a decision, but there are several indications for points of order. Let me start with the hon. Member for Lumezi. The hon. Member of Lumezi just walked in a few seconds ago. He was not following the debate, but he wants to raise a point of order. So, on that ground alone, which is that he was not in the House, he will not be allowed to raise a point of order.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, what is your point of order?

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to raise this very important procedural point of order pursuant to Standing Order No. 71.

Madam Speaker, the procedure demands that Bills go through the necessary stages. The two Bills are at the stage where hon. Members are free to interrogate the reports from your Committees which scrutinised the Bills. From what we are learning now, these Bills have not gone back to the Committees. I also want to make it clear that whilst the Standing Orders do not provide for the procedure that follows if a Bill was deferred at the Second Reading Stage, we have had Bills like the Bill on mines from the Head of State go back to a Committee. So, to say that the report should not be subjected to the Committee might be farfetched.

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister, who was on the Floor, in order to insinuate that whilst hon. Members here were performing their …

Mr Chisopa: Oversight function!

Mr Kampyongo: … necessary parliamentary duty of debating the report, they were being comedians?

Hon. UPND Members: Yes!

Mr Kampyongo: We do not want to say that the responses we are getting are comical …

Laughter

Mr Kampyongo: … because we make laws to manage society.

Madam Speaker, the people who sent us here, the people we represent, have a stake. That is why we invite them to make submissions as we are crafting the law. That is a requirement. So, is the hon. Minister who was on the Floor, a long-time Member of the House, in order to be comical in the way he considered the submissions of your hon. Members here?

I really seek your serious guidance, Madam Speaker. We are performing the functions assigned to us by the people we represent.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

I do not know whether that was a debate or a point of order which turned into a debate. However, just for purposes of guidance, let us not mix what we have done here and what happens when a Bill has been passed by Parliament and sent to the President for assent, and in the event that the President does not assent to the Bill, comes back with the questions that the President wants attended to. Then, the Bill goes back to the Committee. Here, the matter was that the Bill was at Second Reading when it was deferred. I think, I said this earlier on. When the Bill was deferred, it was at Second Reading. When the Executive decided to bring it back, it continues at Second Reading. If the Executive wanted it to go back to the Committee, it would have applied for leave and then that leave would have been granted, but it preferred to pick up where it left. So, there is nothing irregular about what has been done.

Hon. Members can remind themselves by looking at Standing Order No. 128, which specifically provides for the procedure to be followed when a Bill is returned to the Assembly by the President. So, please, let us remind ourselves. I am sure that all the hon. Members have copies of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024. Let us read them.

So, now, it is time to make a decision.

Mr Chisopa: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On the issue of comedy, I think, the hon. Minister was not referring to the hon. Member as a comedian, but to what he was saying, that he was turning the whole debate into comedy. So, now, the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu has said that what the hon. Minister said was comical. What is the difference? We are all just playing with words and attacking each other. Let us concentrate on the work that is before us.

Let us make a decision.

Question that the Cyber Security Bill, 2024, be read a second time put and the House voted.

Ayes – (59)

Mr Amutike

Mr Anakoka

Mr E. Banda

Mr Chaatila

Mr J. Chibuye

Mr Chinkuli

Ms Chisangano

Ms Chonya

Mr E. Daka

Ms Halwiindi

Mr Hamwaata

Mr Hlazo

Mr Kabuswe

Mr Kandafula

Mr Kamondo

Mr Kapala

Ms Kasanda

Mr Katakwe

Mr Lihefu

Eng. Mabenga

Mr Malambo

Mr Mandandi

Mr Mapani

Mrs Masebo

Mr Matambo

Mr Mbangweta

Mr Michelo

Mr Miyutu

Mr Mtolo

Mr Mufalali

Mr Mulaliki

Mr Charles Mulenga

Mr Mulunda

Mrs Mulyata

Mr Musumali

Mr Mutati

Mr Mutelo

Mr Mweetwa

Mr Mweene

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.

Mr Ngowani

Mr Nkandu

Mr Nkulukusa

Eng. Nzovu

Mrs Sabao

Mr Samakayi

Ms Sefulo

Mr Siachisumo

Mr Simbao

Mr Simunji

Mr Simushi

Mr Simutowe

Mr Simuzingili

Mr Sing’ombe

Brig-Gen. Sitwala

Mr Siyakalima

Ms Tambatamba

Mr Tayengwa

Mr Wamunyima

Noes – (30)

Mr S. Banda

Mr Chewe

Mr C. Chibuye

Mr Chisanga

Mr Chisopa

Mr Chonde

Mr Fube

Mr Kabaso

Mr Kafwaya

Mr Kalobo

Mr Kampyongo

Mr Kang’ombe

Mr Katotobwe

Ms Lungu

Ms Mabonga

Mr B. Mpundu

Mr C. Mpundu

Mr Mtayachalo

Mr Mulebwa

Mr Mundubile

Mr Emmanuel. Musonda

Ms S. Mwamba

Mr Mwambazi

Dr Mwanza

Ms Nyemba

Ms Nyirenda

Mr P. Phiri

Ms Phiri

Mr M. Tembo

Mr Twasa

Abstention – (0)

Question accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

THE CYBER CRIMES BILL, 2024

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to present a memorandum in support of the Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Minister, the introduction of the Bill first.

I wanted to say something, but I will not. It is about sureties being remanded in custody. You would have gone in, as a surety.

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Speaker, in recent years, we have witnessed a rise in the abuse of the cyberspace targeting our citizens. People from all walks of life are being targeted by unscrupulous elements who exploit the convenience of digital platforms to perpetrate fraudulent schemes. In the digital age, the Internet has become a pivotal tool for information sharing, communication and conducting business online. Due to the connection between the cyberspace and everything we do daily, our lives are more dependent on it than ever before. There are numerous opportunities for innovation and economic development in this digital age. The Internet has empowered our citizens, giving them the tools to connect, share and innovate. With greater power comes responsibility. However, the Internet also presents unprecedented challenges with devastating impacts on our lives, such as ruined lives, tarnished reputations and lost livelihoods due to cyberbullying, online harassment and cyberattacks. Cyberattacks targeting businesses and Governments have the potential to disrupt the entire economy and undermine national security. There is a need to strengthen the legal framework to ensure that the Internet is not abused by unscrupulous elements.

Madam Speaker, illegal cybercrimes acts need to be clearly described and prohibited by law. Under the moral principle of no crime without law, a person cannot be punished for an act that was not proscribed by law at the time the person committed the act. Despite our previous efforts, which included the establishment of the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) and the implementation of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Acts, the misuse of the Internet remains a growing concern. Therefore, to handle the new threats more effectively, we must fortify our legal framework. The Internet has been misused by some people to deter the nation from important national issues. As a Government, we are dedicated to making sure that the Internet continues to be a tool for doing good rather than harm.

Madam Speaker, the Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024, has the following objectives:

provide for offenses relating to computers and computer systems;

provide for the protection of persons against cybercrimes;

provide for child online protection; and

provide for matters connected with or incidental to the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, the Cyber Crime law will identify standards of acceptable behaviour for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) users, establish socio-legal sanctions for cybercrime, protect ICT users in general and mitigate or prevent harm to people, data, systems, services and critical infrastructure. It will also protect human rights, enable the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed online and facilitate co-operation between countries on cybercrime matters.

The Cyber Crime law will provide rules of conduct and standards of behaviour for the use of the Internet, computers, related digital technologies, the actions of the public, the Government and private organisations, rules of evidence and criminal procedure and other criminal justice matters in cyberspace and regulation to reduce risk and or mitigate the harm done to individuals, organisations and infrastructure should a cybercrime occur.

Madam Speaker, the Bill has been developed to protect our economy and citizens from losing millions of Kwachas in damage caused by cybercrime each year. Cybercrime has the potential to prevent developing countries from using information technologies to increase commerce, investment, innovation, productivity and efficiency.

Madam Speaker, hon. Members may wish to note that between 2023 and the first half of 2024, the Zambia Police Service recorded 1,124 internet-related scams. These included 300 cases of obtaining money by false pretences, 170 cases of cyber extortion, 184 cases of unauthorised access to data and 450 identity-related crimes. The combined losses amounted to over K38,948 of which property valued at K12,407,990 has been recovered.

Madam Speaker, the Bill, once enacted into law, will protect the nation and future generations from online abuse. It is an instrument that is in tandem with the Republican Constitution aimed at protecting life and property. It is our collective responsibility to protect our citizens, our businesses and our nation from the abuse of cyberspace. The Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024, signifies a significant step towards creating a safer and more secure digital environment for all Zambians.

Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm that from the time we deferred the Bill, we have had several engagements with stakeholders. All the stakeholders were agreeable that this law is inevitable and must be put in place. Certain concerns were raised pertaining to the definition of certain crimes so that there is clarity on the matter. I can assure the House that I will come with amendments to address some of the issues that were raised by the stakeholders and also to take into account the issues that were raised in the report of your Committee earlier last year by your Committee. The concerns were addressed.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs for the work done on the Bill and all the stakeholders who made submissions to shape the Bill. I urge the hon. Members of this august house to support the Bill.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Brig-Gen. Sitwala (Kaoma Central): Madam Speaker, the Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs was tasked to scrutinise the Cyber Crimes Bill, N.A.B. No. 30 of 2024, referred to it by the House on 29^th November, 2024.

Madam Speaker, I will not waste the House’s time. This Bill is similar to what was debated earlier. We take note of the submissions by the hon. Minister. For the record, let me mention that the Committee and the stakeholders rejected the Bill. However, the Committee takes note of the hon. Minister’s further submissions. Therefore, we will leave it at that.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate. I feel sad to be in a position to contribute to this discussion. I take note of the levels of inconsistency and hypocrisy at the hands of the United Party for National Development (UPND) with regard to issues we are discussing today.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that when the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021, was enacted, of the stakeholders that rejected it, the UPND sang the loudest. For those who may want to follow this conversation, it is imperative that we take them through. There exists a law called the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Law, which deals with our participation in the cyberspace. It deals with those who abuse social media and protects them. Currently, there is an existing law. However, the UPND seeks to separate it into two pieces of legislation. So, right now, we are discussing the Cyber Crimes Bill.

Madam Speaker, enacting a law or amending it follows a particular process. The National Assembly will constitute a Committee or appoint an existing one to interrogate the proposed amendment. In this particular case, your Committee sat with stakeholders. Interestingly, your Committee in the report laments a two days’ timeframe given to scrutinise the proposed amendment. Now, this law affects us as Zambians. It affects our fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech and expression. This is the law the UPND Government is trying to over-regulate because there exists a law already that regulates the cyberspace. It is inconceivable for people to suggest that the abuses of social media cannot be policed. The law already exists.

Madam Speaker, the UPND is trying to over-regulate the use of social media. In short, it is trying to make it very difficult for the Zambians to use social media. I am very shocked that the hon. Minister said that the stakeholders supported the amendment. You may wish to note that the report of your Committee, on page 6, under its observations and recommendations, states:

“The Committee notes that witnesses who appeared before it did not support the Bill …”

Madam Speaker, your Committee further went on to say that it could not support the amendment, particularly because it did not meet the threshold according to what is dictated in Article 18 (8) of the Constitution. This is because any crime must be defined. Therefore, this proposition does not meet the threshold because it is not clearly defined. As an argument point, this proposition has not stated whether these crimes being categorised here are misdemeanours or heinous crimes. So, how can we impose or create a law that is not defined? A misdemeanour –

Mr Anakoka interjected.

Mr B. Mpundu: Sir, there is a misdemeanour and a felony. A misdemeanour is a minor crime, while a felony is a serious crime.

Madam Speaker, what is being proposed is a maximum sentence of twenty-five years. How can we impose twenty-five years on a law that has not been clearly defined? This is why your Committee stated that it could not support a vague proposition. There is too much vagueness in the clauses proposed in the Bill under discussion. I will give you examples of Clause 21 where it is said that it prohibited a person from, intentionally and without lawful authority, using a computer or computer system to relay or retransmit electronic communications, deceive or mislead users.

Madam Speaker, the key phrase I want to concentrate on is “mislead users”. What they are saying here is transmitting certain information on a phone to misleads people. The big question today is: Who will be determining what is true and what is misleading? The people of Zambia today will tell you that the UPND is known to be a group of liars or deceivers. Let me withdraw the word ‘liars’.

Ms Sefulo: Question!

Mr B. Mpundu: The UPND is known to be a group of deceivers. How can the people who are deceivers be the determinants of what is true?

Madam Speaker, Clause 21(b) further prohibits a person from initiating the transmission of multiple messages. Multiple messages mean transmitting particular information to people sitting here. That is what this law is trying to prohibit. How can the hon. Minister be outrageous in his proposition?

Dr Andeleki: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A point of order, is raised.

Hon. Members, let us allow the debate to flow. We will not make progress with these points of order.

Dr Andeleki: Madam Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to allow the people of Katombola Constituency to raise a point of order.

Madam Speaker, this is a people's House and many people follow the proceedings of the House. The privilege to debate should not be extended to breach Standing Order No. 71. Is the hon. Member for Nkana, who is debating in order to say that the UPND members are known to be liars? Is he in order to proceed debating in such a manner? Should such information grace the record of this Parliament?

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling on whether he is in order to mislead himself and cause such information to grace the Hansard.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Nkana withdrew the use of the word ‘liars’ and instead used ‘deceivers’. He said they are known for deceiving. Still more, I do not know whether what the hon. Member for Nkana stated is factual or he has proof to tender to show that the UPND Government is a group of deceivers. Let us be factual, hon. Members, and stick to the Motion that we are debating.

Mr B. Mpundu rose.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member, you have to wait. You will continue after you are guided.

May the hon. Member for Nkana continue.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, there is a lot of repressiveness in the clauses that are being proposed, and I have just given you an example of Clause 21. They proposed that whatever is being transmitted should be subjected to whether or not it is misleading. Should people be punished for a measure that cannot be clearly defined? Let me remind the House that the law entitles people to opinions, and opinions are not facts. Opinions are subjective and give raise to debate. However, in Clause 21, the law is proposing that anyone who is going to give an opinion which will be considered misleading will be criminalised by the UPND. What sort of a country are we building?

adam Speaker, let me end here because of time. Otherwise, I would have spoken on a number of things. Why do we enact laws? We enact laws so that we can cure what is infringing on people’s rights and freedoms. There are already existing laws, which are the cybercrimes and cybersecurity laws. I want to pose a question to the UPND Government: If it invited stakeholders to submit views on this proposition but they all refused, and the Government brought this issue to hon. Members of Parliament by way of a committee and they all refused to go ahead with this law, for whom is the Government making this law? I have never seen people who want to make a law for themselves. We make laws for the people. The people who appeared before the Committee all unanimously said that we cannot proceed to enact such a law with all its vagueness and vulgarities in this time and age. So, whom is the Government doing this for, and why towards the elections? These are the very people who objected to this law in 2021. Whom are you enacting this law for, imwe ba UPND?

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member’s time expired.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

As you debate, take into account what the hon. Minister was saying when he was introducing the Bill. Take that into consideration. Let us not debate at a point where we are four months away. I think, there is a current position that the hon. Minister has indicated.

The hon. Member for Kamfinsa may proceed.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to you, once again, for giving me this great privilege to make a few comments on the Cyber Crimes Bill.

Madam Speaker, once again, you recall that I actually prepared amendments to the Bill at the time that the Bill was first introduced before Parliament. One of the amendments I was going to propose was on Clause 10. Now, this is what I find very strange about Clause 10. Clause 30 in the other Bill, the Cyber Security Bill, has been copied and minor changes have been made and it has been inserted in the Cyber Crimes Bill. What is in Clause 30 of the Cyber Security Bill is about recording private conversations. In the Cyber Crimes Bill, surprisingly, in Clause 10(3)(b), there is a clause that has been retained, which is similar to the one in the other Bill, which basically says that a law enforcement officer, based on reasonable suspicion – Now, the stakeholders who were invited to appear before your Committee raised a very important concern. Their concern was: Who determines reasonable suspicion? Who has the liberty, the wisdom and the tools to determine that there is reasonable suspicion that Person A and Person B are going to cause harm to society?

Madam Speaker, Clause 10(3)(b) is actually in this Bill we are discussing. Once again, I want to use the words ‘will be abused.’ This is a very dangerous provision because it does not provide a safeguard. What safeguard must be provided? The hon. Minister, in his policy statement, said that one of the objectives of this Bill is to protect people’s rights. Now, we cannot protect people’s rights if we allow a clause as dangerous as this, which says that based on reasonable suspicion, people can be recorded. I find this to be very dangerous, and if we are going to pass this Bill into law, I for one will not be part of it if that provision is retained. If this is the Bill we are proposing to enact into law, I want to put it on record that on behalf of the people of Kamfinsa, I will move an amendment to amend Clause 10(3)(b), which says that based on reasonable suspicion, a law enforcement officer can record a private conversation.

Madam Speaker, these are the fears that people out there have. This issue might sound very easy and non-controversial, but it borders on the rights of citizens. I do not think that we are creating a law based on the dynamics today. We should create a law that will be useful today and five years or ten years from now. How should the law be structured? We cannot ignore the provisions in the existing law. This Parliament already enacted a law, which combines both the security and crime aspect. I want to repeat what I said earlier. In the current law, the Attorney-General gives consent to record a private conversation when he is satisfied. The Office of the Attorney-General must be satisfied that there is a need to record a private conversation. Once the Attorney-General gives a go-ahead, one goes to court and a Judge will be able to say that what has been brought to the hon. Judge is a reasonable request, thus a court order is granted. The Attorney-General and the High Court Judge have to be involved because we have had ligation in the past. What has happened in the past? If people were recorded, and they find that this was a violation, the State would be sued and the Attorney-General would have to defend an officer who misconducted himself. So, both the Office of the Attorney-General and the High Court are key not only to safeguarding the rights of the citizens but also ensuring that State officers who represent people in the line of defence do the correct thing. So, as the voice of Kamfinsa, my proposal will come as an amendment. I want to put it on record that I am going to move an amendment to ensure that we provide for the existing provision. Go to the Attorney-General and get clearance and then go to the High Court to get a court order. This is what should be in the proposed Cyber Crimes Bill.

Madam Speaker, lastly, let me talk about Clause 21. Just to simplify it, we all forward messages. Sometimes, when you receive a message on a particular issue, you forward the message. It is common practice to forward messages. The law, under Clause 21, is proposing that if you initiate, and the word used is ‘initiate,’ forwarded messages – I do not know how many WhatsApp groups I am in as Member of Parliament. I forward messages on so many things, such as development. The law, in Clause 21, is saying that when you initiate forwarded messages, and there is a reasonable feeling that those messages will cause some form of harm, you commit an offence. We need to qualify what can be forwarded and what cannot be forwarded because the rights of our citizens will be infringed upon. For me, this is why I am asking that we qualify offences. The intention can be good because there are people who might forward something that may be dangerous, but let us ensure that these provisions are qualified. We need the comfort.

Madam Speaker, I want to put it on record that I support the objectives of the Bill because they are clear. However, when you look at the accompanying clauses, which clause is supporting objective number one, for example? There is a bit of ambiguity, and that is why the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security has to provide an environment for regulations that safeguard our people’s rights. Let us not abuse these provisions. How do we ensure that these provisions are not abused? Let us qualify these statements. If there is a punishment that has to be imposed, let us qualify it. Once we vote on these provisions, we will all be on record that we supported something. Ten years from now, I want the comfort that when I stood on 25^th March, 2025, I supported provisions that protected future generations. This is why I will be reluctant to support the Bill in its current form without the necessary amendments.

Madam Speaker, once again, on behalf of the people of Kamfinsa, I do not support the Bill, unless the necessary amendments are made to capture the views of our people.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Munir Zulu (Lumezi): Madam Speaker, from the outset, permit me to appreciate you knowing well that if there is a report that I support wholeheartedly in this House, it is your Committee’s. Your Committee’s report speaks to the present and future situations.

Madam Speaker, on page 6 of the report, on the Committee’s observations and recommendations, item 6.1(i) states:

“The Committee notes that the provision of Article 18(8) of the Constitution, which requires that ‘a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence was defined …’ is cardinal in the enactment of the law. The Committee places importance on the cyber law in view of how cyberspace is susceptible to abuse by citizens. However, your Committee is alive to the importance of defining offences so as to give rights to accused persons to defend themselves. The right to defend oneself is as important as the right to protect the right of others.”

Madam Speaker, that is contained in your Committee’s report. I know that your Committee means well. The Cyber Crimes Bill that the hon. Minister has introduced, unfortunately, like many other times, is only speaking about people of like minds; those who are in this House or politicians. People who are not actively involved in politics in Lumezi, Nalolo or Kankoyo are not affected by this Bill. The Bill aims to punish people like the one in the Daddy Chololo clip, Why Me and politicians. We cannot –

Ms Sefulo: Why Me?

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Nkandu: Politicians?

Mr Munir Zulu: Madam Speaker, if we religiously believe in the conclusion of the report that your Committee produced, we would note that it has used words such as “heinous” and “unwelcome in a progressive society”. Your Committee agrees that a robust legal framework must be enacted to protect innocent citizens from abuse by those who get excited behind a computer keyboard or mobile phone.

Madam Speaker, we still live in a society where many people do not have access to mobile phones that can be used for Internet services. The majority of people have no access to WhatsApp, Telegram or Botim services. This Bill only speaks to selected few bourgeoisie. When your Committee rejected the Bill, it was not only speaking to us in this House. I hope you have taken judicial notice that the three Whips system is doing us, as democrats, a disservice.

Mr B. Mpundu: Hear, hear!

Mr Munir Zulu: Ordinarily, Madam Speaker, you would have seen many Backbenchers on your right speaking on this subject because the bull can turn to the other side, and it would be our friends and colleagues or our workmates becoming victims as a result of this Bill.

Mr B. Mpundu: Hear, hear!

Mr Munir Zulu: Madam Speaker, as per recommendations in your Committee’s report, the hon. Members on your left and right must be shielded. There is no harm in people withdrawing this Bill. Truth be told, today we can enjoy Executive powers and penalise those we do not agree with, but then the opposite can happen the next day. Will we be happy to support such a Bill? The answer is no.

Madam Speaker, Section 24(2) states:

“A person shall not use a computer or computer system to disseminate information … knowing the same to be false.”

Madam Speaker, sometimes, we share information or forward messages on WhatsApp to verify them. How will my intention be known if it is to verify or cause alarm? We already have a problem. If the Executive is sincere and it has learnt anything from hon. Colleagues we sit with on your left side who are in the courts of law today, it would withdraw this Bill. This is a bad Bill and it must be withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, human beings are emotive by nature. We cannot trust police officers, Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) cybercrimes expert or whatever name will be given to those who will implement this law because they can act on impulse due to personal issues. Reasonableness cannot be guaranteed in this regard. They can pounce on a person just to cause inconvenience. Should we support such a situation? Your Committee’s report is what this House should support and adopt. We are not in this House to adopt the report of the Executive. We are here to support your Committee’s report because we know well that your guidance is what keeps us going, not the report from the Executive.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Munir Zulu: Madam Speaker, the Backbenchers on your right and left side pay allegiance to your Committees’ reports when we are in this House. We are not here to negotiate with the Executive. The two days that the Executive gave us were not sufficient to consult widely with stakeholders over this Bill.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Lumezi, I urge this House to adopt your Committee’s report as it was laid before this House. Thereafter, the Executive can also give us a comprehensive report. For now, the Executive should not shoot down your Committee’s report.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Just for purposes of guidance, hon. Member, the report that a Committee submits is just to aid debate in the House. It is not –

Mr Chisopa: Asambamo Speaker!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, what is your problem?

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Have you seen me bathing in water just now?

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Some comments are not welcome. You know that what I am saying is a fact. The report of a Committee is submitted to aid debate in the House. It is not binding on anyone.

Hon. Members, as we debate, we need to take into consideration what others have said. I hope, hon. Member for Lumezi, you were in the House when the hon. Minister was presenting the Bill and you listened to what he said. Sometimes, it is better to wait and see what others present. At the right time, you can make a comment. You can either object or support, but to make an assumption that nothing has been done, I think, we are proceeding on a wrong premise.

Hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, you may proceed.

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, thank you for permitting me this time to make a few comments, reluctantly, on the Bill currently under debate.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by declaring an interest in the Bills, being the person who brought the Bill which combined the two Bills we are considering now to this House six years ago.

Madam Speaker, my debate will be in form of encouragement to the hon. Minister. I want to start by urging him to ensure that what the Committee has recommended in its report, as you have alluded to, is adhered to. I remember the interest the previous Bill drew from my successor, who was the Leader of the Opposition at that time, when I brought it to the House. He represented hon. Members and stakeholders from outside the House. The stakeholders the hon. Minister spoke for that time remain the same. They are the ones who have raised concerns on the Bills before us.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister is in a better place to ensure that the stakeholders’ concerns are addressed. As we formulate laws, we must ensure that the laws do not create tension within society.

I appreciate the need to ensure that the cyberspace is safe and secure for our citizens, but also that as we do that, the privacy of citizens is equally granted and that we do not leave room for the enforcers of the law to abuse it because that is where the issues are emanating from.

Madam Speaker, I have concerns with the fact that the ministry has split the Bills because even the hon. Minister who was presenting the other Bill knows that that law will require to be enforced. I can only imagine how effective the enforcement mechanisms in his ministry are because by and large, they will depend on the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security.

Madam Speaker, we are conflicted because we have the responsibility to support the hon. Madam Speaker’s Committee when it sits to scrutinise the Bill. I appeared before the Committee. The Committee has limited time to scrutinise the Bill, which has an effect and that time factor is highlighted in the report. My thinking, when the hon. Minister deferred the Bill, was that he was going to allow for further consultations so that by the time the Committee reconvenes, it would have given us a position that would have been comforting to the hon. Members and the members of the public out there.

Madam Speaker, like I have said, stakeholders are key. Probably, if I listened to the stakeholders, I would not have been here. So, the hon. Minister has an opportunity to ensure that he carries the stakeholders on board because they are very critical. The United Party for National Development (UPND) party has the numbers to pass the law, but what society also does is key.

The UPND may have the numbers here, but it is simple majority, just like on the other Bill which has just been passed. However, what is important is how it becomes applicable to the people we are making the law for. So, in addition to the assurances, I would like to know the amendments that will be made to address the concerns that have been raised by the stakeholders, including my hon. Colleagues who have spoken before me. Like the hon. Madam Speaker said, we are guided in what we do regarding the Bills by the reports that come from the Committees. That is why your Committees exist. We cannot ignore their recommendations. So, we need to be helped so that your Committee does not feel like it was just sitting. It recommends, and we can choose whether to respect its recommendations or not. I would not want to be part of the hon. Members who would take that route because then we would be subtracting from the work that we are supposed to do, as hon. Members.

Madam Speaker, my plea is that your Committee’s recommendations must not be put aside, but form the basis for the hon. Minister to proceed on what he intends to do. If he feels that the Bill should not go to the next stages, the then Opposition caused me to defer Bills such as the Public Order Act, which is yet to be brought back to the House. So, using the same principle, I would like the hon. Minister to hear us because it is about the people we represent. They matter. It is also important that we remind one another on what we are doing today, what we shall do tomorrow and what we did yesterday.

Madam Speaker, I said that I was very reluctant, but I think, my message is very clear. Knowing the hon. Minister, he has heard, and therefore, he will put the people first.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order!

(Debate adjourned)

______

The House adjourned at 1855 hours until 1430 hours on Wednesday, 26^th March, 2025.

_________

Search form

You are here

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm