Friday, 28^th March, 2025

The House met at 0900 hours

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

_______

No Quorum

Bells rang

Madam Speaker: Order!

We now have a Quorum

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MADAM SPEAKER

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM THORN HILL BOARDING SCHOOL

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, we now have a Quorum I wish to recognise the presence in the Public Gallery of pupils and teachers from Thorn Hill Boarding School in Lusaka District.

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

I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

PUPILS AND TEACHESR FROM TRIPLE ALLIANCE DIGITAL ACADEMEMY PRE AND PRIMARY SCHOOL

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I also wish to recognise the presence in the Public Gallery of Pupils and Teachers from Triple Alliance Digital Academy Pre and Primary School in Lusaka District.

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

I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

MIGRATION OF PARLIAMENT RADIO FROM ASTRA 4A SATELLITE TO AZERCOSMOS SATELLITE

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to inform the House that Parliament Radio will be migrating from the STRA 4A Satellite under Vision Consult GMBH to the Azercosmos Satellite. The migration process will begin on Tuesday, 1^st April, 2025.

During the migration process, the Parliament Radio remote sites across the country will be off air. However, the Lusaka frequency 92.5 FM will still be on Air. In addition, Chirundu, Mazabuka, Monze, parts of Choma and Kabwe will also be able to access Parliament Radio on 92.5 FM. Transmission at the Parliament Radio remote sites across the country is expected to be restored by Friday 30th May, 2025. The inconvenience the process will cause to the Parliament Radio listeners especially in our remote sites is deeply regretted.

I thank you.

_______

RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER

POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY Mr G. G. NKOMBO, MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AGAINST MR F. R. KAPYANGA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR MPIKA CONSTUTUENCY AND MR L. SIMUMBA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR NAKONDE CONSTITUENCY ON TUESDAY 18^TH MARCH, 2025

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will recall that on Tuesday, 18^th March, 2025, when the House was considering the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address on the progress made in the Application of National Values and Principles, and Mr Y. Mtayachalo, Member of Parliament for Chama North Constituency was debating.

Hon. G.G. Nkombo, MP, Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, raised a point of order premised on Standing Order 221, which provides for naming of an hon. Member. In raising the point of order, Hon. G.G. Nkombo, MP, stated that the rules of natural justice dictate that one cannot be a judge in his own case. Further, he stated that as the House was voting on a question to suspend or not to suspend Mr F. Kapyanga, hon. Member of Parliament for Mpika Constituency, and Mr L. Simumba, hon. Member of Parliament for Nakonde Constituency, both voted despite being involved in the matter on the Floor of the House. He reiterated that when one is being judged, one cannot take part in the process. On that premise, Hon. G. G. Nkombo, MP, inquired whether that was procedurally correct. He, in that regard, requested that the two votes from the hon. Members in question be expunged from the record.

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

Hon. Members, the point of order by Hon. G. G. Nkombo, MP, raises a question of eligibility of an hon. Member to vote on a question which is deciding his or her fate. Order 221 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, is instructive on the procedure to be followed when an hon. Member has been named. In naming the hon. Member, the Presiding Officer, at the end, puts a question that the named hon. Member be suspended from the service of the House for a stated period. In ascertaining the result on the question, the Speaker, in the first instance, collects the voices of the “Ayes” and “Noes”, and declares the result accordingly. Consequently, if any hon. Member disagrees with the decision of the House on a question put, such an hon. Member may call for a division. Hon. Members in support of a call for a division shall stand in their places or indicate electronically, and if a call for division is sustained, a question for casting a vote is called.

Hon. Members, the relevant provision of the Standing Orders that governs voting is Order 157 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, which provides as follows:

“(1) Unless otherwise provided under the Constitution, a question arising in the House shall be decided by a majority of Members in the House, present and voting.”

The emphasis on present and voting is mine.

“(2) In ascertaining the result on a question under paragraph (1), the Speaker shall, in the first instance, collect the voices of the “Ayes” and “Noes” and shall declare the result accordingly.”

Hon. Members, where “Ayes” and “Noes” have not resolved the question, or where a division has been called, the Presiding Officer, then, resorts to electronic voting, as the case may be.

In augmenting his point of order, Hon. G. G. Nkombo, MP, stated that the two hon. Members who were a subject of the question to be resolved should not have participated in voting for their own fate as that was contrary to the principles of natural justice, which dictate that a person shall not be a judge and jury in his own cause.

Hon. Members, Order 160(1) to (5) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, on electronic voting provides as follows:

“(1) Unless the Speaker or Chairperson of Committees otherwise directs, voting on a division in the House shall be conducted electronically.

(2) When the Speaker or the Chairperson of Committees, as the case may be, directs that an electronic vote be taken, the Division Bells shall be rung for five minutes.

(3) At the end of the five minutes, the Speaker or Chairperson of Committees shall direct that the doors be locked and the Bar closed, and no Member shall, thereafter, enter or leave the Chamber until after the voting.

(4) When the Bar is closed, the Speaker or the Chairperson of Committees shall, again, put the question and, thereafter, give instructions on electronic voting.

 (5) The Speaker or the Chairperson of Committees, as the case may be, shall, as soon as the result of the voting appears on the indicator board or the voting is complete, announce the results of the division to the House.”

Hon. Members, the tenor of the Standing Orders above do not preclude any hon. Member, who is duly present in the House at the time of voting, from participating in voting. It, therefore, follows that Mr F. Kapyanga, MP, and Mr L. Simumba, MP, were eligible to vote and did not breach our Standing Orders. On the aspect of the principle of natural justice that a person shall not be a judge or jury in his own cause, I am of the considered view that this does not arise. I, therefore, hold that Mr F. Kapyanga, MP, and Mr L. Simumba, MP, were present and eligible to vote and were, therefore, not out of order.

I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: We move to the next item on the Order Paper.

Mr Chala entered the Assembly Chamber in a white suit.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: I do not know why hon. Members are always envious of the hon. Member for Chipili.

It is the last day. So, you have to shine.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

_______

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICIAL WORKING VISIT TO JAPAN

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe, SC.): Madam Speaker, I wish to report to this august House that Mr Hakainde Hichilema, President of the Republic of Zambia, undertook an official working visit to Japan from 3^rd January, 2025, to 7^th January, 2025. The President was accompanied by me, in view of my portfolio as Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Hon. Chipoka Mulenga, Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, Hon. Charles Milupi, Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, and other senior Government officials. The visit covered engagements in the cities of Kyoto, Nagoya and Tokyo. In addition, the President held several fruitful engagements, including a bilateral meeting with His Excellency Mr Shigeru Ishiba, Prime Minister of Japan, the Chief Executive in Charge of Africa at Toyota Tsusho Corporation and a tour of Toyota Motomachi Factory, a site visit to Horiba Limited, a tour of Sustaina Kyoto Waste Management Plant as well as an audience with His Majesty the Emperor of Japan.

Madam Speaker, the programme reflects the New Dawn Government’s commitment to continuously engage the international community at the highest level in line with Zambia’s foreign policy and economic transformation agenda. The President will continue to undertake state visits to different countries to explore trade and investment opportunities for our motherland.

Madam Speaker, under the able leadership of President Hakainde Hichilema, Zambia has taken steps to strengthen the long-standing bilateral relations with Japan, which is a strategic partner for Zambia. During the visit, President Hakainde Hichilema held fruitful discussions with his counterpart, as aforementioned, during which the two countries acknowledged the long-standing bilateral relations and re-affirmed the need for continued co-operation and collaboration to further deepen the bilateral friendship.

Madam Speaker, key highlights of the visit included the signing of the bilateral investment treaty and the holding of the Zambia-Japan Business Forum, which stands to give impetus to Japanese investments in Zambia and vice versa. Let me emphasise that the bilateral investment treaty, a landmark agreement between Zambia and Japan, will undoubtedly promote and protect investments between the two nations, thereby providing a framework for co-operation and growth. Zambia and Japan are, therefore, expected to increase economic co-operation, which will lead to job creation and improve economic growth. During the bilateral summit, Prime Minister Ishiba, also announced that the Japanese Government would consider specific co-operation towards the development of infrastructure and enhancement of regional connectivity.

In the mining sector, Madam Speaker, Japan expressed interest in promoting co-operation in the field of mineral exploration with the Zambian Government. This was through the Japan Organisation for Metal and Energy Security (JOGMEC). Mineral exploration and the assistance being provided by the World Bank, including support in governance around critical minerals, were key features of the conversation. In addition, the Japanese Government announced the decision to provide support to Zambia towards enhancing irrigation systems for small-scale farmers to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Madam Speaker, I also wish to report that the President confirmed Zambia's participation in the 2025 Osaka-Kansai Expo, scheduled to take place from April to October 2025. The 2025 Expo will present an opportunity to showcase Zambia's potential for economic potential. It will also contribute to Zambia's efforts aimed at strengthening business ties with Japanese companies. In addition, Japan will, this year, host the Ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD9) from 20^th to 22^nd August, 2025, and the President has confirmed Zambia's participation. It is anticipated that under TICAD9, the two countries will work closely to co-create innovative solutions to help address African and global challenges.

Madam Speaker, during the visits to Nagoya, President Hichilema held bilateral meetings with Mr Ichiro Kashitani, the Chief Executive in charge of Toyota Africa, at Toyota Tsusho Company, and toured the Toyota Motomachi Factory, as I mentioned earlier. During the meeting, Toyota Tsusho Company expressed interest in expanding its investment portfolio in Zambia, including diversifying its investment to areas such as energy and pharmaceuticals. President Hakainde Hichilema and the Zambian delegation also undertook a site visit to HORIBA Limited, a company that manufactures and supplies a wide range of precision equipment and systems for application in different sectors such as health and automotive research and development. To this effect, the President extended an invitation to Horiba Limited to set up a regional hub in Zambia and supply the southern region with various precision equipment for different application.

Madam Speaker, a site visit of the Sustaina Kyoto Waste Management Plant was also undertaken in Kyoto to observe the incinerator, waste power production, bio-gasification facility and other powerful large-scale facilities, which no doubt have significant impact on Zambia with regard to solid waste management. President Hichilema took the opportunity to invite this potential investor to set up a similar facility in Zambia as a regional hub.

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, I wish to inform this august House that the official working visit to Japan provided a platform for bilateral discussions on a variety of issues of interest to the country. The visit strategically planned to include meetings with the top leadership, local authorities and potential investors as highlighted above. The President successfully managed to reset Zambia's longstanding historical relations with Japan and reaffirmed the political commitment required to enhance bilateral co-operation between the two sides for the mutual benefit of the two countries and peoples.

Madam Speaker, the implementation of the signed bilateral investment treaty for the promotion and protection of investment and the Zambia-Japan Policy Dialogue and other outcomes of the visit must be expedited for the momentum gathered to continue and for intended benefits to accrue to the peoples of the two countries.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the Ministerial Statement rendered by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

Mr Mutale (Chitambo): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for that statement. I think, that is how it should be. Whenever trips are undertaken, the hon. Minister must inform the people of Zambia what we are achieving from them.

Madam Speaker, Japan is one of the great nations. There is a lot that we can learn from there. The hon. Minister articulated very well, the issue of the bilateral talks that were held and the developments that we await to see.  However, when will Zambia see those developments?

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, indeed, as the hon. Member for Chitambo has stated, Japan is, indeed, among the significant countries in the world. So, both countries stand to benefit from the collaboration. So, I agree with his comment. Coming to the question asked; When does Zambia see the benefits? We start seeing the benefits immediately. For instance, there was a significant representation of Zambian businesses at the business forum that I referred to. I think, in excess of forty-three Zambian companies went to showcase what they can offer in Japan. Similarly, we had over 100 Japanese companies present at the business forum. That tells us that from the private sector's perspective, already the symbiosis has begun. Those are the immediate benefits.

Madam Speaker, with regard to Government-to-Government benefits, as I mentioned in the statement, we have seen the rekindling of the relationship between the two countries. Already, there are benefits that are flowing from that. I also mentioned the interest that Toyota Tsusho has to invest in the energy sector. We all know that we have a few challenges in the energy sector. They are looking at bringing in a 100 MW power plant, to start with. Already, the company is looking at sending a team, if it has not already arrived in Zambia, to undertake feasibility studies. So, the benefits are immediate. We will keep on updating the nation accordingly.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Speaker, out of the trip taken by the President to Japan, I wish to inform you that I have requested your office to allow me to move a Motion to discuss one of the agreements that was signed in Japan, which is the Zambia-Japan Investment Agreement on the promotion and protection of investment. This leads me to my question. When trips like this are undertaken, who is responsible for crafting the agreements between Zambia and other countries? I am asking that question because the agreement that I am referring to disadvantages local businesses as well as the economy. I could have mentioned a number of articles, but I will only cite one, since I have already made a request to move a Motion instead on the same. For example, Article 15, does not restrict capital transfers, and that has been the biggest problem for Zambia. So, who crafts the clauses in the investment agreements?

Madam Speaker: Order!

Let me guide the House.  Hon. Members, if you have made a request through a letter, please, do not mention it on the Floor of the House because that is an administrative matter. It is still being attended to and once approved, the hon. Member will be duly informed.

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Nkana for the question as to who negotiates or prepares the documentation. In respect of the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with Japan in particular, there was a good number of stakeholders involved in the process of drafting led by the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry, with the support of the Attorney-General for Zambia.

Madam Speaker, let me also take the opportunity to just address one of the concerns, perhaps I could call it that, raised by the hon. Member for Nkana. He suggested that there is some sort of inequity in the manner in which the documents are prepared. That could be further from the truth. The interests of Zambia and Zambians are always considered first and foremost, and of course, keeping in mind the interest of our partners so that we prepare documentation that is fair to allow a proper trade balance, in this instance. Perhaps, there are specific technical areas that the hon. Member might want to look at as soon as he receives the response to engage with the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry to explain the specific nuances from a technical perspective. By and large, documentation is prepared not to create an unfair environment for either of the parties to the documentation. This is why the Attorney-General plays a critical part in reviewing the documents and approving them.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kapyanga (Mpika): Madam Speaker, the President has undertaken over forty trips, since he assumed office in 2021, and all of them have reportedly been successful. However, there are no benefits accruing to the people of Zambia, in the sense that we continue to see the economy worsening. Why should the President continue undertaking such trips at huge cost when they do not benefit the people of Zambia?

Mr Haimbe, SC.: I thank the hon. Member for –

Madam Speaker: I can see that the hon. Minister is anxious to answer ...

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Indeed, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: … before he is even called upon.

Laughter

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I do apologise for standing before being called upon.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Mpika, I know, cannot resist the temptation to bring propaganda, if I may call it that, and speculation, to a serious discussion of this nature.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, the Ministerial Statement relates specifically to Japan, and I outlined very clearly the benefits accruing to Zambia from that particular trip. Surprisingly, the hon. Member did not want to speak to the trip, which I suppose is an admission that he accepts that that trip in particular was successful.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the over forty trips comment. The hon. Member has alleged that there are no benefits accruing to the Republic of Zambia. This, again, underscores the need for us to be responsible as hon. Members of Parliament when we make statements because, the nation is watching. There is no need to politick without a factual basis on matters of such significance.

Each and every one of the trips undertaken by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia, has shown benefit to this country. For example, I can talk about an outstanding trip which was undertaken in 2023, where the relationship between Zambia and China was elevated to a strategic comprehensive partnership. That is a benefit that is there for everybody to see. It is clear that where a country has good and strong relations with a country of such significance as China, which is a world leader, it means it is on the right path. I do not understand how any Zambian could then say that there are no benefits accruing to the people of Zambia.

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the fiscal outcomes of that particular trip. I am using it as an example amongst the numerous presidential trips. I have said this before on the Floor of the House and elsewhere, but I will repeat it. One of the direct benefits of the trips is the revamping or dewatering of Shaft 28, in Luanshya.

Mr J. Chibuye: Hear, hear!

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, what more do we have to show to demonstrate that there is a strong relationship between these two countries, which is yielding benefits for the people of Zambia? For more than twenty years, the hon. Minister for the Copperbelt will be able to give more detail, some of the mines had no activity, but now we are seeing life being brought back to places that were dead and investments that had stopped coming back to yield benefits for the people of Zambia. How can an hon. Member come to the Floor of this House and suggest that there is no benefit accruing to the people of Zambia? We must debate from a factual perspective.

Madam Speaker, it is just that I am limited in what I have to say due to time, but I ask the hon. Member, if he really wants to know how much the people of Zambia, to engage with my office so that I can tutor him and show him line by line …

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Haimbe, SC.: … the work that has been done and the benefits that have accrued.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: So, hon. Member for Mpika, you have been invited for coffee to discuss and –

Mr Kapyanga rose to speak.

Madam Speaker: No, I am not calling on you, hon. Member. I am just informing you of the invitation that you can go and have a chat with the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

Mr J. Chibuye (Roan): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the statement. It is gratifying to note that the President’s delegation included the hon. Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, Eng. Hon. Charles Milupi and the hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, Mr Chipoka Mulenga. Zambia is embarking on reindustrialisation. We realise that Japan is a manufacturer of motor vehicle brands like Toyota. It is gratifying that the President had an opportunity to visit that institution. It is also a fact that Japan has the best contractors in road construction. Is there any possibility that we could see Japanese companies in Zambia to fill up the gaps in the road infrastructure development, that will also compete with the existing contractors from various places? Also, could Toyota come and set up a car assembly plant in Zambia, rather than Toyota only selling vehicles? Is there any chance of that happening?

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Roan for that very progressive attitude. This is the basis upon which we are engaging, as hon. Members of Parliament in this House. We have to explain what the Executive is doing so that when we adjourn sine die today, we can give good news about the discussions we had. How does Japan bring its expertise to Zambia? This can be done through skills and technology transfer and direct work being done here for the benefit of the people of Zambia. Those discussions yielded quite a significant number of results. More importantly, it was made clear that the potential partners from the private sector and the Government are aware that local content is very important, and the fact that we must have citizens’ participation in any of the activities we undertake. In that regard, there will be a benefit trickling directly to our people. Yes, hon. Member for Roan, we had those discussions. Let me also give a very clear and specific example. There was a discussion on the construction of a new bridge across the Luangwa River and the construction of the road from Lusaka to Luangwa as part of the plan undertaken by our counterparts from Japan.

So, Madam Speaker, I reiterate that the trips we undertake yield significant fruit for the people of Zambia.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Sampa (Matero): Madam Speaker, I thank you –

Madam Speaker: Sorry, hon. Member for Matero. There an indication for a point of order from the hon. Member for Sikongo. What is the point of order, hon. Member?

Mr Simushi: Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to raise a point of order. My point of order relates to Standing Order No. 222, entitled, “Duration of Suspension of Member Named”.

Madam Speaker, Hon. Kapyanga and Hon. Simumba were suspended on 18^th March, 2025, for a period of seven days. According to Standing Order No. 222, if an hon. Member is named under Standing Order No. 221, the suspension period shall be, on the first occasion, for seven Sitting days excluding the day of suspension, which applied to the two hon. Members. Therefore, the period of suspension for the two hon. Members should have ended today, if we are counting the days according to Standing Order No. 222. In that regard, are the two hon. Colleagues in order to be back in the House today from their suspension?

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Sikongo, for raising that point of order. The suspension is supposed to be for seven Sitting days, excluding the day of suspension. I do not know if we can calculate the duration for that suspension. Maybe, the Clerks at the Table can help us do the calculation.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: So, the suspension is supposed to end today. I saw that the hon. Members were in the House yesterday, before the suspension expired. So, they were not expected to have been part and parcel of yesterday’s Sitting. They were trespassing, including today. 

Hon. UPND Members: Even on Wednesday.

Madam Speaker: They were here on Wednesday?

Hon. UPND Members: Yes.

Madam Speaker: They were actually not supposed to be in the House until when we resume Sittings in June, 2025.

Hon. Member for Mpika and hon. Member for Nakonde, you have not exhausted the days of your suspension. The suspension is supposed to end today. So, on Wednesday, Thursday and today, you were not supposed to be in the House. Accordingly, you will be deemed to not have participated in the proceedings for the days that you were not supposed to be in the House. So, hon. Member for Mpika and hon. Member for Nakonde, you will be excused until you come back in June because the suspension only ends today.

For the avoidance of doubt, when the hon. Members came to the House on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday during their suspension period before the same was exhausted will be deemed to not have been part of the Sittings. Furthermore, since there was also a lapse on the part of the Clerks at the Table, it is alright that they will not be punished any further than being deemed to not have been part and parcel of the Sittings for the three days.

Hon. Members, please, let us make sure that we follow the processes properly so as to not put the Presiding Officers in an awkward position. Let us make progress.

The hon. Member for Matero may continue.

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, just as a rider on the issue of following the rules, I want to make a confession on why I sometimes come late to the House.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, I come late because I have two babies below two years. So, each time I am coming to Parliament, they cry for me and I have to attend to them.

Laughter

Mr Sampa: Therefore, I cannot help it, but to commend you for the initiative of starting a crèche or nursery here at Parliament. I was most delighted to hear the news. You will go down in history as the one who brought an initiative so that hon. Members like me can come with their babies to Parliament to help their mothers do other things. As the father of the babies, I can bring them to Parliament and contribute effectively.

Madam Speaker, once again, I commend you for that initiative. I do not know if the Standing Orders can allow me to publicly make a big donation. Anyway, I will handle it administratively.

Laughter

Madam Speaker: Alright, let me comment on that before I forget, especially that the hon. Member is committing a donation. You may resume your seat while I make a comment.

Mr Sampa resumed his seat.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Matero, for those comments. Of course, the crèche is meant for both female and male hon. Members of Parliament, members of staff and other stakeholders. I am happy to learn that you have four children who will need the services of the crèche. I was telling hon. Members and members of staff that we need to fill up the crèche. So, I am glad that you are doing the right thing. We need more children to improve our numbers or increase our population. Therefore, I am appealing to hon. Members to, please, go and multiply. 

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam Speaker: As for the donation, hon. Member for Matero, I do not know if you were here when the hon. Member for Lunte pledged K20,000 worth of building blocks. So, you are welcome to also donate. The plan is to have a crèche running and operating by 8^th March, 2026. So, we have a target to beat. I am grateful, hon. Member for Matero, for that pledge. We receive it with open hands. Now, you may ask your question.  

 

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, I will put it in writing administratively, in the interest of time, because it may eat up my time for the question if I start doing it now.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Sampa: Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. Minister for being part of the President’s trip to Tokyo, Japan. I was happy to hear him say that the President, the Leader of Government in the House and himself have realised the importance of undertaking international trips. We are coming from a background where the Republican President, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, used to call his predecessors as a kamwendo munjila, which means someone who travels a lot. Now that our hon. Colleagues have realised that it is something that must be done and also that they are pro-cost cutting, is it possible that future international engagements can be done virtually? Now that we have become a world where virtual meetings can be convened and given what the country is going through due to budget constraints, is that a possibility?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Matero for his perspective, which, however, does not seem to differentiate between kamwendo munjila, which he says means moving around aimlessly, and President Hichilema’s trips, which are pointed. The past kamwendo munjila that the hon. Member has spoken about did not have any tangible benefits coming to the country.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: In fact, what was seen mostly was dancing, playing and using international trips for leisure.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: So, one cannot compare apples with oranges. You cannot compare the dark past with the light of the present day, where trips are undertaken in a business-like sense. In fact, when we leave the country and arrive where we are going, we immediately do our business and leave on the first available flight to return home. If the hon. Member has noted the statements that the ministry issues whenever the President is traveling, he knows that we insist on saying that immediately after his engagement, the President will return home. We go for work and not play. So, let us not compare the past with the present because there is a very big difference.

 

Mr Chisopa: Question!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, as regards his question on virtual meetings, I am sure the hon. Member for Matero understands the importance of networking and face-to-face meetings. Face-to-face meetings are one of the most important aspects of such trips as they create and forge strong relations upon which we can do business for the benefit of the country, not for play. When we have opportunities for virtual meetings, we have them. The hon. Member may wish to note, for instance, that the Southern African Development Community (SADC)-European Union (EU) Joint Summit was held virtually not too long ago to transact important business. However, virtual meetings are not always possible. Was it not for the same reason we, as Members of Parliament, said that we wanted to sit in the Assembly Chamber the time we used the Hybrid Sitting format? It is important to have a feel of personal interaction and forge strong relations. I would give many other examples of engagements where leaders have engaged face-to-face to show that they speak genuinely from their hearts in the interest of their people. There is nothing more significant than that.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Mtayachalo (Chama North): Madam Speaker, this country has struggled with persistent power shortages because we mostly depend on hydropower. I know that Japan is one of the countries that have invested heavily in nuclear technology. I want to find out whether such discussions were held during that trip. I know that by 2040, nuclear energy will account for 20 per cent of Japan’s energy supply. So, is there a possibility of transfer of nuclear technology to Zambia instead of us depending on hydropower, which has disappointed us, especially because of climate change?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I think, the general response to the hon. Member’s question is that the discussions were around diversifying the energy mix, not specifically regarding nuclear, solar, wind or whatever other forms of renewable energy are available. I can certainly say that with respect to Toyota Toshu, as I earlier mentioned, and I will emphasise this, as a private sector entity, the company has looked at the prospect of bringing solar beginning with a 100 MW installation, then, ramping up to 300 MW in a specified period. I have also been reliably informed by the hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry that the same company came into the country within two weeks of our visit to Japan and it has started undertaking feasibility studies. I think, the primary concern that the hon. Member has raised is on how what is being done in Japan can be used to improve the energy sector. So, those are the tangible outcomes we can speak of.

 

Madam Speaker, let me also take this opportunity, having been whispered to by the hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, to speak on another private sector entity, CRRC Yangtze Co. Ltd, that came to Zambia following the visit to Japan to undertake feasibility on a partnership in the health sector and manufacturing of critical drugs. So, those are some of the outcomes.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Ngowani (Mpongwe): Madam Speaker, I want to find out what the size of the Japanese delegation was so that the people of Zambia can compare and contrast.

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, if I understood the question well, I think, the hon. Member has asked about the numbers in terms of the groups that we met.

 

Madam Speaker, we had access to the highest level of leadership in Japan. I must also mention that it was a great honour for President Hichilema to have an audience with the Emperor, which is not something to take for granted. In terms of the delegations, our counterparts matched our delegation in the sense that the hon. Ministers responsible for the sectors that we travelled with were also present. In addition, there was significant interest at all times because the matters are of great interest to our counterparts in Japan. The private sector was very supportive and we were given full access to all the necessary resources we could engage with in terms of the human side and technical expertise.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: I do not know if the question has been answered. The hon. Member for Mpongwe was rather looking at the size of the delegation that went to Japan.

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I thought the hon. Member was talking about the Japanese delegation. Our delegation was lean, as I indicated earlier. It was comprised of my team and I, and the other hon. Ministers travelled with their teams as well. There were no musicians or extraneous people who had nothing to do with the business that we went to transact. As hon. Ministers, we limit as much as possible the people we travel with to necessary technical staff, like Permanent Secretaries (PSs) and perhaps an officer. The President’s delegation would be constituted according to what is required for security and so on and so forth. So, I can confirm the delegation was lean.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Chala (Chipili): Madam Speaker, firstly, allow me to salute you for protecting me from this honourable House, especially people from the Western Province who have not seen dressing like this before. So, I am going there to showcase.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Chala: Madam Speaker, the President has taken a number of trips, which have been successful in nature, but the hon. Minister chose to talk about the trip to Japan. I want to find out why the hon. Minister chose to talk about the Japan trip, not the trips to other countries. People from the other countries might feel that the trips that were taken to their countries were not fruitful. Can the hon. Minister clarify why the ministry settled on this topic.

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. Member for Chipili on the dazzling attire that he has worn today. Being a Friday, and as we adjourn sine die, I am sure we shall meet in other areas where we will dazzle the general public with our exuberance.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, all the trips are equally important. When members of the public show an interest in finding out more information, the ministry receives requests for further information on trips through the Office of the Vice-President. That is what informed my presentation of this Ministerial Statement and the one on the African Union (AU) Heads of State Summit. Suffice it to say, as a ministry, we also recognise that there is a need for us to give such information. So, I will present more Ministerial Statements, some of which will be combined to give highlights on some trips whether past or future. I can confirm that each of the trips is significant.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Kankoyo is trying to emulate the hon. Member for Chipili, but I do not think he matches. The hon. Member for Chipili is dressed like a Mbunda man. However, my relative from Sioma does not seem to be matching.

 

Since we are cousins of the people from the Northern Province, hon. Member for Chipili, please, teach my brother from Sioma to emulate you. You are my cousin. You are a Mbunda man.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam Speaker: That was on a light note.

 

Hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa, you may proceed.

 

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Speaker, thank you, and I thank the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for giving us an update on the President’s trip to Japan. Being at the helm of foreign policy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the hon. Minister has been undertaking several trips and signing bilateral agreements, which he mentioned. What mechanism has the ministry put in place to track important bilateral agreements to ensure that we are in tandem with our foreign policy vis-à-vis the implementation of the aforesaid bilateral agreements?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa for that important and practical question. Indeed, I must state that His Excellency the President insists, with each engagement, that an action matrix with specific outcomes be put in place. As we speak, we have, for example, the working visits undertaken between Zambia and Botswana. An action matrix was developed with specific actions for sector ministries and all authorities and officers that are required to participate. The action is being looked at, and we will go back and sit, as a joint commission of the two countries to check the implementation status. In short, we have agreed on actions, which are checked periodically. At the moment, we are dealing with a certain issue with the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry. For example, when we talk about our Botswana engagements, are we giving effects to the Kazungula Bridge Authority documentation and its agreements? So, yes, there is a strict regime of follow-up with every trip.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Dr Andeleki (Katombola): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing the people of Katombola Constituency to ask the hon. Minister a question.

 

Madam Speaker, it is being alleged by the Opposition that the President could have just been using the Zoom platform to attend meetings. Had the President not travelled, would it have been possible to restructure the over US$14 billion debt that the Patriotic Front (PF) Government left on Zoom?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, thank you very much, and I thank the hon. Member for Katombola for that interesting question about achieving debt restructuring via Zoom. The debt restructuring exercise that was undertaken was complex. Certainly, without question, it would not have been possible to undertake it without the physical engagements with the various stakeholders. By the indication of the hon. Member, the debt burden that this country was left with was over US$14 billion, which His Excellency the President described that as a python around the neck of this country. That python had to be loosened so that this country could get a semblance of returning to economic stability. The visits to France, China and engagements with other key players in the debt restructuring process were necessary so that personal relationships could be forged, and we could stand by the support of the countries involved. The leaders of some of the said countries, in particular, President Xi Jinping of China and President Macron of France, as co-chairs, took it upon themselves to support the process of debt restructuring for Zambia because an effort was made to go to them and ask for their help. I doubt if a non-personal touch such as Zoom could have achieved that.

 

Madam Speaker, indeed, having seen how His Excellency the President engage counterparts in foreign countries, I can attest to the fact that he certainly is our chief marketer. He can convince our partners that we are the right people to partner with. For example, I recall one of the business forums where the President spoke to potential investors, it was an emotive submission made to the investors. We came back with not less than thirty-five to thirty-six enquiries. If the hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry was here, he would have confirmed that what I am talking about took place in one of the countries during the most recent visit. I think, it was in China on the side-lines of the Forum for China-Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) Summit.

 

Madam Speaker, we cannot underscore the importance of face-to-face interactions. As the hon. Member intimated, that US$14 billion noose around our necks was only loosened on account of the engagements I have mentioned, for and in the interest of the people of Zambia.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker: I can see that the hon. Member for Kankoyo is trying to match the hon. Member for Chipili’s dressing. Although we have run out of time, he is anxious to ask a question. So, the hon. Member for Kankoyo will be the last one to ask a question.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mabeta (Kankoyo): Madam Speaker, Kankoyo is next to Chief Saili (Lumbembe) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). So, I am slowly becoming like my ancestors in the DRC.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mabeta: That was on a lighter note. I remain a Zambian.

 

Madam Speaker, one of the benefits that we, the people of the Copperbelt, have seen from the international trips the President has undertaken is the investment coming to the mines. A few days ago, I am sure all of us were disturbed by the complaints and the noise from the suppliers on the Copperbelt. As I speak today, I want to confirm that as of 29^th February, 2025, suppliers were paid what they were owed in full, which was US$7 million.  They have all been paid because of an investor and a President who listens to the cries of the people.

 

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Kankoyo!

 

Is that a question on the point of clarification on the Ministerial Statement rendered by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation? It does not qualify. You are bringing in extraneous issues. Ask your question on a point of clarification on the statement.

 

Mr Mabeta: Yes, Madam Speaker, what I am trying to find out from the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation is that if the President was having meetings on the Zoom platform, would we have had an investor such as the one we have today, who can pump in US$830 million into Mopani Copper Mines in twelve months?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I believe not. Again, we cannot over-emphasise the importance of face-to-face meetings, which have resulted in many positive outcomes. We expect more of such outcomes in various sectors, as the hon. Member has already alluded to. Currently, the primary focus is on smart agriculture and irrigation for small-scale farmers. I can tell you, for example, that manufacturers from Zimbabwe have shown interest in supplying centre-pivot systems that can work at a small-scale level. That is the sort of benefit we get from face-to-face interactions. There are so many that in this short space of time, we cannot outline every one of them. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Kankoyo has intimated, virtual technology has its own limitations. Yes, it is also used in collaborations to meet people, far and wide, who can potentially invest in the country for the benefit of our people.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

MOBILE NATIONAL REGISTRATION CARD EXERCISE

 

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a Ministerial Statement on the issuance of National Registration Cards (NRCs) through mobile registration. The Department of National Registration, Passports and Citizenship is mandated to issue national identity documents, namely NRCs, national travel documents, citizenship and civil registration documents, such as birth certificates, adoption certificates, death and marriage certificates. Its mandate is derived from the National Registration Act, Chapter 126, the Passport Act No. 28 of 2016, the Citizenship Act No. 33 of 2016, the Birth and Death Registration Act, Chapter 51, the Marriage Act Chapter 50 and the Children's Code Act No. 12 of 2022 of the Laws of Zambia. The ministry, through the National Registration Office, periodically undertakes mobile issuance of NRCs in all the ten provinces of Zambia to capture eligible Zambians.

 

Madam Speaker, the exercise will endeavour to empower our citizens to participate in economic activities and strengthen electoral processes as provided for in the 8^th National Development Plan (8NDP). Our target is to capture all eligible Zambian citizens who have turned sixteen years or above since the last mobile issuance of NRCs was undertaken. Additionally, the exercise will also facilitate the issuance of NRCs to persons who have lost or damaged cards. The focus of implementation will be rural areas, particularly, far-flung areas where there is no access to national registration offices. This is where most of the people who cannot access national registration offices for routine registration are concentrated.

 

Madam Speaker, our approach will be grounded in the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness. Let me assure this august House that this exercise will be free of corruption. We are setting a high standard to regain the trust of the citizens we serve. I want to categorically state that this exercise will be conducted the utmost integrity and transparency. I want to state, without any fear of contradiction, that any officer found engaging in corrupt practices will face stringent disciplinary measures including prosecution. This Government is committed to maintaining public trust and ensuring that the exercise is carried out in a manner that upholds our values of honesty and fairness. This is a tangible demonstration of the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government's belief in democracy as the bedrock of our nation.

 

Madam Speaker, we are steadfast in our commitment to transparency and accountability in all our endeavours. By enabling Zambians to get NRCs and vote in the 2026 elections, we are empowering our citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and shape the future of our beloved country. The mobile issuance of NRCs is scheduled to commence within the first two weeks of April, 2025 and will run for three months. The exercise will be preceded by orientation of all officers to ensure that they meet the projected target of registering 3.5 million Zambians. The estimated cost of the exercise is K440 million. Unlike in the previous exercise, the ministry will send teams to all the ten provinces at the same time. This is an ambitious goal, but it is essential for strengthening our democracy and safeguarding the rights of our people.

 

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, I urge all hon. Members of Parliament to actively engage with their constituencies and inform the people about this important exercise. Let us ensure that every eligible individual understands the importance of obtaining an NRC, not just as a document, but as a gateway to participation in democratic governance and access to essential services. It is also a reaffirmation of our shared commitment to democracy, integrity and national unity. Let us join hands to ensure its success and contribute to the future prosperity of our great nation, Zambia.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

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.

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, it is commendable that the hon. Minister has given us this update.

 

Madam Speaker, I am made to believe that the exercise the hon. Minister has mentioned will still depend on the manual civil registration systems currently in place. His ministry has embarked on a major project of integrated registration and information system, which is meant to migrate the civil registration systems to digital and consequently, come up with electronically generated identity cards (IDs). How are we harmonising this because it comes with a huge cost? How are we going to harmonise the manual registration system and the old NRCs when we are supposed to be talking of new identity cards? Where are we?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu for that question. I would like to assure the nation that we are not migrating to the digital identity cards (IDs) until after the elections. We do not want anyone to complain when they lose elections. We shall continue using the legacy system or the manual issuance of NRC until after the elections.

 

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

 

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 

Mr Chisopa: The hon. Minister seated there (pointed at Hon. Mwiimbu, SC.) is saying that they do not want people to complain when they lose elections.  Why is he attaching the issuance of national registration cards (NRCs) to elections? An NRC is an essential document for every Zambian. It is not issued because elections are going to take place. Is he in order to attach the issuance of NRCs to elections?

 

I seek your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

 

Interruptions

 

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

 

Hon. Member for Mkushi South, the hon. Minister was explaining why there was no migration at this point. He was explaining that we cannot migrate to the new system at this point because there is an on-coming election. He further said that in future, there should be no complaint that some people were not able to vote because of the integrated system. I think that is what he said. So, he was just simply explaining.

 

Of course, the National Registration Card (NRC) remains an important tool for every Zambian. I am sure the hon. Member of Parliament for Mkushi South knows the challenges that surround the issue of NRCs, especially that there are so many duplicates around. The problem is that when you are being guided or answered, you are laughing. I do know whether you are laughing at me or laughing at yourself. Anyway, let us make progress.

 

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security has today announced that the mobile issuance of National Registration Cards (NRCs) is going to commence and the exercise is going to be done for three months. The hon. Minister is very much aware that that exercise started somewhere around 2022 in most parts of the south.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Why does he then want to be unfair to other places by giving them three months when that exercise is on-going in most parts of the south even as we speak today?

 

Mr Sing’ombe: Question!

 

Interruptions

 

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

 

There is an hon. Minister responsible for tackling all the questions you have. So, allow the hon. Minister to answer.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, as I respond to the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkana, I would like to inform the nation based on the information at hand and having witnessed the events preceding the 2021 General Elections.

 

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member may be aware that prior to the 2021 General Elections, mobile issuance of NRCs was supposed to take place in the Western Province and the North-Western Province for two weeks. Unfortunately, immediately after the Bill No. 10 of 2019 was slaughtered on the Floor of this House, the Government then decided to abandon that particular exercise. As a result of that decision, almost 50 per cent of the people of the North-Western Province were disfranchised.

 

Madam Speaker, what we have done is to ensure that everyone eligible in this country has access to an NRC during the process we are undertaking without discrimination. I can assure the hon. Member for Nkana that the exercise has not only been taking place in South Africa because he just mentioned the south. I do not know which part he was referring to, whether it was South Africa or Swaziland.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, the exercise has been taking place in almost all parts of the country where members of the public were not given registration cards in the past.

 

Mr Chisopa: Question!

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: So, we are doing that. For the time being, we have made a decision that we are not going to discriminate against anyone, like it used to happen sometime back. Once we commence, I will launch the mobile issuance of registration cards in Nkana ...

 

Hon. Government Members: Yes!

 

Mr Mwiimbu: ... on 10^th April, 2025. Therefore, I am inviting the hon. Member for Nkana to be part of the exercise.

 

Mr Amutike: Kasongo!

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

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

 

Madam Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Mwense comes in, there is a point of order from the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu. What is your point of order, hon. Member?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order No. 71, which states that the information we table in this august House must be factual and verifiable. I stand here proudly that I once served the nation in the office where my hon. Colleague is now.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: You can question, but that is history that cannot be erased.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, this country has been united for many years and any other person can serve in the public offices we have served in.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Yes!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Therefore, it is important to understand that a tour of duty has a beginning and an end for anyone of us who has had the privilege to be in public office.

 

Mr Sing’ombe: It was a bad one!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Can you shut up! That is why you cannot be in the Frontbench despite being a long-serving hon. Member (pointed at Mr Sing’ombe).

 

Mr Sing’ombe: Where are you yourself?

 

Madam Speaker: Order!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, the gentleman who is heckling is a long-serving hon. Member, who is expected to be in the Frontbench, but he is a Backbencher.

 

Madam Speaker: Ah, please!

 

Laughter

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker –

 

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Shiwang’andu!

 

Hon. Members, do not debate while seated because you are distracting the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu from raising his point of order so that I can understand it and make an appropriate ruling. If you heckle him and he starts using words that are not parliamentary in nature against other hon. Members, it is also not correct.

 

Hon. Members, two wrongs do not make a right. Let us behave ourselves in a dignified manner because members of public are following all the proceedings, including all the comments you are making and unparliamentary words you are uttering. Members of the public are listening to everything. So, that is just reducing the dignity and decorum of this House, which we need to maintain. We are not in any competition, whether you are currently holding office or not. So, let us complement each other. We may hold office today and tomorrow it will, probably, be somebody else. That is the nature of things. It just like when we are born, we will eventually die and somebody else will be born and somebody else will die. It is the nature of things or the rules of natural justice. That is the law of nature.

 

So, please, let us not be emotive on matters of this nature. Let us be responsible citizens and ask questions that are going to add value to what we are doing. May the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu ask his question so that he adds value to the process that we are undertaking right now.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Well counselled, Madam Speaker, and I am very grateful.

 

Madam Speaker, if you heard the question I posed to the hon. Minister, you may have noted that it was a progressive one. The system I referred to is the one we embarked on for the nation to have identification cards that are recognised globally. The system I referred to is the Integrated National Registration Information System (INRIS). So, it was a progressive question, but –

 

Madam Speaker: It was a point of order.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, my point of order to the hon. Minister is that, like you have guided, I only got concerned when he mentioned that there was segregation in the past in the manner the national identification cards were issued.

 

Madam Speaker, national registration offices have existed since Independence in most areas that the hon. Minister was referring to. At no point has the ministry he is serving now decided to segregate against any region. So, I only hope my hon. Colleague will focus on the programme he is announcing and how it is going to be done. In that regard, was he in order to start comparing and contrasting the past and present eras, and yet you have guided? I appreciate that we must respect and appreciate each other for whatever we have done.

 

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Shiwang’andu.

 

I believe, from what I was following, that the hon. Minister was explaining and giving justification as to why certain areas were being given attention in the issuance of the NRCs. According to him, what he found in the office was that some people in areas like the Western Province and the North-Western Province were not given NRCs for whatever reason. So, he was just explaining and in the process of explaining, maybe, he could have used the words that there was discrimination. However, according to the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, he did not discriminate against anyone when he was in office.

 

Hon. Government Members: Ah!

 

Mr Kangombe: He discriminated against me!

 

Madam Speaker: That is what he has said.

 

So, the hon. Minister was in order. He was explaining the apparent disparity as to why NRCs were not issued in certain areas. I think, there was no problem with that.

 

Mr Mabumba (Mwense): Madam Speaker, some of our constituencies are in border areas. Some Zambian citizens also live in other countries. My constituency, for example, is separated by a river on the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia. What measures is the ministry going to put in place to allow citizens who may be living in countries such as the DRC to genuinely acquire identification cards?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I just want to assure the nation that I made the statement in good faith. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, Hon. Kampyongo.

 

Madam Speaker, a number of my hon. Colleagues, who are in this House, were in the Opposition when the Mobile Registration Exercise took place. The Ministry of Home Affairs then gave a one-week extension to ensure that the number of people who were not able to access NRCs had an opportunity to do so. Immediately the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2019, (Bill 10) process fell through, ministry officers were directed to move from the centres, and that matter was raised on the Floor of this House. It is a fact. So, I stand without fear of any contradiction on the matter.

 

Madam Speaker, the issue that my hon. Colleague from Mwense has raised is very important. The ministry is aware that several foreigners accessed NRCs during the previous mobile registration issuance exercise. This time around, we are appealing to hon. Members to work with traditional leaders to identify genuine individuals who should access NRCs. We should identify Zambians who should access NRCs. It is a fact that several foreigners have NRCs. We also have evidence that foreigners voted in the last elections. We have copies of such NRCs that individuals were given. It is not only foreigners. We are aware that underaged children were given NRCs. We have the evidence. Even ten-year-old children were given and they voted. We should ensure that we guard our national identity cards jealously. The NRCs should not be given to people who are not eligible.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: I am just making an observation and throwing a question to the hon. Minister. Do people in border areas have dual citizenship now that we are allowing dual citizenship in Zambia? Are they dual citizens?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: They are not.

 

Madam Speaker: They are not. Okay. I was wondering because of the border-lines cases, and whether they vote in two countries or not. I was just thinking aloud.

 

Hon. Member for Kankoyo, you may proceed.

 

Mr Mabeta (Kankoyo): Madam Speaker, during the period, as the hon. Minister has stated, there are temptations for politicians to induce innocent children to obtain National Registration Cards (NRCs) before the legal age. However, as such children grow up, and want to do things that have age limits, they would be thirty-five years old, for example, on the NRC before they turn thirty-five in reality, and start falling off privileges that come with certain age limits. What message does the hon. Minister have for underaged children to not fall for temptations from politicians to give them NRCs before their legal age, as that may have consequences in the future when we, as politicians, are all long gone?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, it's not just consequences in the future, there are consequences even in the present. If one is not eligible to acquire an NRC, one commits an offence. It is criminal and consequences follow.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Sing’ombe (Dundumwezi): Madam Speaker, if I got the hon. Minister correctly, he has indicated that the exercise, which will take three months, will gobble up about K440 million. As a person who has worked in immigration before, I understand the importance of the National Registration Card (NRC). There is an indication on NRCs to the effect that if one picks up an NRC, it is supposed to be surrendered to the nearest police station. Is the hon Minister aware that there are thousands of unclaimed NRCs at our police stations? Before the ministry embarks on that costly exercise, is the hon. Minister not contemplating visiting police stations and collecting all those NRCs to re-distribute them to the chiefdoms since every NRC has details of a village and chiefdom where each person belongs?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I am not going to visit police stations because I am part of police stations. I am aware of uncollected cards that were either lost and, in certain instances, stolen from individuals and recovered. We have quite a number. We have been appealing to members of the public who lost their NRCs to get in touch with the police. Looking for the owners of those NRCs would be an expensive exercise to undertake. If those cards are properly identified; we know where they were issued and where the person purportedly resides, ministry officers will carry them so that individuals can claim them if possible.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker:

 

Mr Mubika (Shangombo): Madam Speaker, Shangombo was created in 1997. It was known as Senanga West then. Some places were about 200 km away from Shangombo and it was difficult for people to walk to Shangombo to acquire National Registration Cards (NRCs). Is there any hope the Government can extend to the people who are more than fifty years old or sixty years old who could not acquire NRCs then because they were told that they were over age? Working with chiefs in the areas, can those people be given NRCs so that they can benefit from the Social Cash Transfer (SCT) programme, the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) and other good programmes that the Government has opened up to citizens?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Shangombo has raised a very important matter. I am aware that there are such individuals in a number of jurisdictions. The ministry will take into account the circumstances those people found themselves in, especially, in areas like Shangombo where a number of people were not able to access NRCs as a result of the liberation war that was going on.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker: Order!

 

Business was suspended from 1040 hours until 1100 hours.

 

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

Mr Kamondo (Mufumbwe): Madam Speaker, before business was suspended, I was about to ask the hon. Minister a question. I would like to agree with the hon. Minister that Mufumbwe, as the House may be aware, is one of the vast constituencies in the country. From the Boma to the last point, which is Ndunga in Shimpandanga Ward, it is about 420 km. One of the challenges people faced during the last mobile registration exercise was a lack of gadgets and fuel. What about this time? What measures has the ministry put in place to ensure that those challenges that we faced during the exercise, which disadvantaged many people in Shimpandaga Ward, Miluji Ward, and Kanyankulo Ward, including areas near Kaoma and Mumbwa, are dealt with? Can the hon. Minister assure the people of Mufumbwe that the situation will not be the same and that all of them will be captured.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC: Madam Speaker, I would like to sympathise with my colleague, the hon. Member of Parliament for Mufumbwe. I would like to urge him, as he goes back to Mufumbwe, to mobilise his people to demand that Mufumbwe be delimitated. That is why we, as a listening Government, have listened to the cries of the people of Zambia that a number of constituencies should be delimitated, taking into account the issue that the hon. Member has raised.

 

Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. Colleagues here that we have the necessary equipment to ensure smooth mobile registration in all the constituencies. We are waiting for funding. We have been assured that once the funding is given to us, there will be no other issues. We will take into account all the other concerns that are being raised by hon. Members of Parliament.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Michelo (Bweengwa): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for his statement. I was so shocked when a certain hon. Member rose on a point of order to talk about discrimination when he was the number one individual to discriminate against some people in this country. I remember one time when I rose on a point of order during the last term of the National Assembly, which was 2016 to 2021 –

 

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Bweengwa!

 

I was just saying, “Now I am calling on the hon. Member for Bweengwa to ask a question on a point of clarification, if he transgresses, he is going to pay with a cow.” So, you are now trading on dangerous grounds. You will be sanctioned to pay with a cow.

 

Laughter

 

Madam Speaker: So, ask a question on a point of clarification.

 

Mr Michelo: Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister is quite aware that Monze District, where Bweengwa Constituency, Moomba Constituency and Monze Central Constituency are situated, was one of the most-neglected districts when it came to the issuance of National Registration Cards (NRCs) during the last exercise. Only three NRCs were issued in a day. The hon. Minister is aware of that. Is the hon. Minister going to behave the same way the Patriotic Front (PF) members behaved when they were ruling Zambia by discriminating against some people at the time they were supposed to treat Zambians equally?

 

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

 

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, I sympathise with the United Party for National Development (UPND) hon. Members because they are remaining with only a few months to go.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Chisopa: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Bweengwa is asking the hon. Minister if they are going to behave the way the Patriotic Front (PF) behaved? Is he in order to talk about the Patriotic Front (PF) when he cannot even lay evidence on the Table to show how it behaved? He knows that every Zambian in this country who had to get a National Registration Card (NRC) got it. That is why his party even got many votes in some parts of the country.

 

I seek your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker: That is the problem of not listening to the debates when proceedings are ongoing.

 

Hon. Member for Mkushi South, you will recall that this issue was raised by the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, and the hon. Minister responded. So, let us not keep on going back and forth. The hon. Minister was stating what he found in his office and I guided.  So, let us not go back to the issue. You keep on saying that they are going.  Are you coming?

 

Laughter

 

Madam Speaker: Only if your Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is very high can you appreciate the joke. 

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my Ministerial Statement, we, as the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government, are going to be very transparent. We are not going to be discriminatory. We are going to start the process in all the ten provinces, and we are going to provide the requisite equipment so that NRCs are given to all Zambians.

 

Madam Speaker, before I resume my seat, I would like to respond to the hon. Member of Parliament for Mkushi South, who won by a very small margin.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: He is not going to come back in 2026. I hear he won by three votes.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: If we recounted the votes, we would find that he had lost, but since they were in power that time, they tinkered with the processes. The hon. Member is not coming back.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam Speaker: I thought the hon. Minister would not say ‘back.’ I thought he would just say, ‘he is not coming.’

 

Laughter

 

Madam Speaker: Okay, let us make progress.

 

The hon. Member for Solwezi East may proceed.

 

Mr Katakwe (Solwezi East): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It is always a pleasure to see you in a jovial mood.

 

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister talked about the lower limit in terms of age. Those who have attained sixteen years and above qualify to get a National Registration Card (NRC). On the upper limit, beyond which age should one not get an NRC? In Mushindamo, some people were disadvantaged and discriminated against. Some people have lived for thirty years with no NRC, yet they are citizens of Zambia. When it comes to issuance of NRCs, they are told that they are too old to get the NRC. As the exercise commences, what is the upper age limit for a person to not get an NRC?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, the minimum age for a person to acquire an NRC is sixteen years. There is no maximum age.  As I indicated when I was responding to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Shangombo, it depends on the circumstances. In certain areas, it was almost impossible to acquire NRCs. Provided there is evidence showing that an individual is Zambian, after thorough investigations and consultations, that person can be given an NRC.

 

 I thank you, Madam Speaker. 

 

Mr Kasandwe (Bangweulu): Madam Speaker, it is true that continuous issuance of National Registration Cards (NRCs) started in 2022, in some parts of the country. If you recall, I have raised this question in this House twice, and I met the hon. Minister maybe, a month ago, concerning the continuous issuance of NRCs. I want to put it on record that it is true that continuous issuance of NRCs started in 2022 in some parts of the country. I also want to ask the hon. Minister to deal with the issue of suspicion, propaganda and insinuation of who was disadvantaged or not in the past. Is it possible for the hon. Minister to come back to the House with data on that issue?

 

Madam Speaker, as the chairperson responsible for research in the Central Committee of the Patriotic Front (PF), I do many check-ups when issues are raised by the public. I have been to some of those places where the continuous voter registration is undertaken. For the purposes of closing this chapter, is it possible for the hon. Minister to come with data on how many NRCs were obtained in all parts of the country between 2016 and 2021? Could he also provide information on how many NRCs have been captured so far from 2021 to date, so that we bring this matter to a close? Each time the hon. Minister is asked to provide answers, he refers to the PF. Is the PF the yardstick of his performance? I am asking this question so that the hon. Minister can come back with a Ministerial Statement to give figures. I know that the figures for Muchinga Province, the Northern Province and Luapula Province are lower as opposed to those who are purportedly to have been disadvantaged.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member is asking whether we will always be using the PF as a yardstick. I will say yes.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I am a Christian. So, whenever I am preaching and I want to convert people, I always refer to Satan. I emphasise that the people of Zambia who want to convert should not be involved with Satan. That is our belief as Christians. 

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: There is no Christian who cannot be referring to Satan when preaching, unless he or she is not a Christian.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: That is what I am doing here.

 

So, for me, if I want to show how we have progressed, I have to refer to the PF because it was in the Government. So, I will not be wrong by doing that.

 

Madam Speaker, if the hon. Member of Parliament’s wish is for me to come with evidence to this House, it should not just start from 2021, but the period when the PF was conducting mobile issuance of NRCs …

 

Mr Kasandwe interjected.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: … because we will show the discrimination that occurred.

 

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member said 2021. We will be able to show the discrimination that occurred. We will be able to show even the notices that were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs pertaining to the extension of the issuance of mobile registration cards. We will be able to show the instructions that were given, that officers should stop issuing the NRCs. If they insist, I will be able to bring cards here to show that they were giving national identity cards to ten-year old children. I have that evidence. Further, I will be able to show and bring names of the individuals who were involved in the exercise to the hon. Member. If he insists, I am going to do that very happily, if that is what he wants. When that happens, I hope you will allow us to debate the individuals and the hon. Members of Parliament in this House who were involved in that exercise.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam Speaker: I do not know whether it is the wish of the House that we go to that extent.  It will not achieve what we want and will not be progressive. What we want is to ensure that members of the public are able to get the NRCs. Those who have lost their NRCs should be able to get replacements. So, going back to the issues of 2016, what are we really trying to achieve?

 

Of course, you can compare performances and what you have done, but we do not want to ruffle the feathers and turn this House into a boxing ring. If hon. Members want to engage in some boxing, we can have a field day outside. For one day, we can agree to go and have boxing outside and others will be cheerleaders. We can divide ourselves, but we will not be able to achieve anything. So, hon. Members, I appeal to all of you that we do something that will add value to the process of being representatives of the people.

 

We will have the next question from the hon. Member for Mitete.

 

Mr Mutelo (Mitete): Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister aware that between 2016 and 2021, the population in Mitete went up, but the issuance of National Registration Cards (NRCs) went down? If he is aware, what is the Government going to do for the people of Mitete regarding that issue? The hon. Minister has stated that in the next two weeks, the issuance of NRCs will commence and it will last for three months. However, Mitete is currently flooded. How are the registration officers going to reach the places he has called far-flung areas mwa Mitete? Is the Government going to provide choppers for them?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mutelo: Madam Speaker, it is not a laughing matter. As I said, right now, Mitete is flooded. The people in the area were disadvantaged in 2016 and 2021. Now, when the mobile registration will be conducted, the area is flooded. How is the Government going to help the people in Mitete to get the NRCs?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the situation in Mitete and I would like to assure my Colleague, the hon. Member of Parliament for Mitete, that the Government shall do everything possible to ensure that people in Mitete acquire the NRCs. We have water boats that we will be using in areas that are flooded like Mitete. So, he can be assured that it will be done.

 

Luitumezi shangwe, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. That concludes the segment. Let us make progress.

 

38^TH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE AFRICAN UNION HELD IN ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA, FROM 15^TH TO 16^TH FEBRUARY, 2025

 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe, SC.): Madam Speaker, thank you once again for according me this opportunity to present a Ministerial Statement regarding the attendance by Zambia of the 38^th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 15^th to 16^th February, 2025.

 

 Madam Speaker, I wish to report to this august House that Zambia was among the forty-nine out of the fifty-five AU Member States that participated at the 38^th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The Assembly was held from 15^th to 16^th February 2025, as aforementioned, under the theme, “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations.”

 

Madam Speaker, as per practice, the summit was preceded by the 46^th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of the AU, comprising Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the AU Member States held from 12^th to 13^th February, 2025, and the 49^th Ordinary Session of the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC), composed of Permanent Representatives and Ambassadors accredited to the AU held from 14^th to 31^st January, 2025.

 

Madam Speaker, the Zambian delegation was led by the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, and he was accompanied by myself, Hon. Princess Kasune, MP, Minister of Justice, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet – Finance and Economic Development and senior government officials. The major highlight of the Assembly was the launch of the AU theme for 2025, which is premised on the desire to address past wrongs and historical injustices that Africa continues to suffer as a result of the effects of colonialism, trans-Atlantic enslavement, apartheid and other systems of discrimination.

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to report, therefore, that Zambia supported the theme in light of the exploitation of our people and resources suffered during the colonial era like many other African nations. It is in this context that Zambia supported the call for honest conversations on past eventualities. Therefore, the summit designated reparations for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonialism and apartheid as a flagship issue and project of the AU with a view to enhance advocacy for the African Common Position on Reparations for Africa.

 

Madam Speaker, other key highlights of the 38^th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government included elections and appointments of AU Commission Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Commissioners as well as other candidatures of the AU organs. Other issues considered were the 3^rd African Implementation and Partnership Conference on Water (PANAFCON 3), the AU Committee of Ten (C10) on the Reform of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, health matters, the AU Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD), the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), peace and security matters as well as climate change issues, amongst the many items for consideration.

 

Madam Speaker, on the elections and appointments of senior staff at the AU Commission, I wish to inform the House that His Excellency Mr Mahmoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti and Her Excellency Selma Malika Haddadi of Algeria were elected as AU Commission Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson respectively, replacing His Excellency Moussa Faki Mahamat of Chad and Dr Monique of Rwanda, whose terms of office had come to an end.

 

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House that during the session on elections to different AU organs, the summit endorsed the election of members of the AU Advisory Board on Corruption (AU-ABC), to which a Zambian national, Ms Yvonne Mutepuka Chibiya, was elected for a second term in office.

 

Madam Speaker, during the discussion on matters proposed by member states, the summit adopted a decision proposed by Zambia to host the 3^rd African Implementation and Partnership Conference on Water (PANAFCON-3) in Lusaka, Zambia, from 27^th May, 2025, to 29^th May, 2025, under the theme “Assuring Water Security and Safe Sanitation for the Africa We Want”. In that regard, President Hichilema was requested to provide leadership and inspire action to implement the eventual outcomes of PANAFCON-3 and present an implementation framework for the consideration of the next summit on the vision and policy that is aligned to and will motivate action to realise Aspiration 1 of the AU Agenda 2063, which is a prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development. Further, the Government and support institutions were requested to ensure success of the conference and contribution of the post-2025 Africa Water Vision and Policy in influencing the global agenda on water and sanitation. The significance of Zambia hosting the water conference is that we have an opportunity to be part of the agenda setters noting that the AU theme for 2026 is “Assuring Sustainable Water Availability and Safe Sanitation Systems to Achieve the Goals of Agenda 2063”.

 

Madam Speaker, during discussions on the report of the Committee of Ten (C-10) Heads of State and Government on the Reform of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the assembly took note of the renewed momentum and continued support for the Common Africa Position (CAP), as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirta Declaration on the reform of the UN Security Council and the call for Africa to be treated as a priority and special case in the reform process to correct the historical injustice.

 

Madam Speaker, Zambia’s hosting of the Thirteenth Ministerial Meeting of the C-10 from 4^th June, 2025, to 6^th June, 2025, in Lusaka, Zambia, was also highlighted during the summit. The significance of hosting that meeting is that it gives Zambia an opportunity to re-assert itself as an active player in emerging issues of continental and global significance, such as the UN Security Council reforms. To recall the words of the President when he addressed this House, that is a personification of the expression “Zambia kucalo”, meaning Zambia to the world.

 

Madam Speaker, also worth noting were discussions around various health-related matters. On efforts towards enhancing domestic health financing, Zambia was commended for being among the nine AU member states that successfully concluded the national health financing dialogues. To that end, member states were encouraged to integrate the outcomes of regional health financing hubs into national strategies to achieve universal health coverage and sustainable health outcomes.

 

Madam Speaker, during discussions on the report of the AU Development Agency-New Partnership for Africa's Development (AUDA-NEPAD) Heads of State and Government Orientation Committee, the assembly re-affirmed AUDA-NEPAD’s central role as well as growing influence and impact, as the premier development agency of the AU with the mandate to co-ordinate and execute priority regional and continental projects towards accelerated realisation of Agenda 2063. In that regard, the tenure of AUDA-NEPAD Heads of State and Government Orientation Committee, to which Zambia is a member, was extended by one year. Under this matter, Zambia reiterated its readiness to host the World Skills Africa Conference and Competition, which was postponed to November 2025.

 

Madam Speaker, on consideration of the report of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the assembly welcomed Zambia’s second-generation peer report and congratulated President Hakainde Hichilema for the steadfast and sustained leadership in promoting good governance in the country by undertaking the review. The assembly also encouraged Zambia, having undergone the peer review, to take concerted action in developing a national programme of action to implement the findings and recommendations of the report and to align them with the AU Agenda 2063, particularly, its Second Ten-Year Implementation Plan.

 

Madam Speaker, I delivered a statement on behalf of President Hakainde Hichilema pledging to take necessary action on the matters brought out by the review. The assembly also thanked the retiring APRM members, which included a Zambian national, Ambassador Inonge Mbikusita-Lewanika, for exemplary performance during their tenure. The 38^th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the AU concluded with a strong commitment to address the continent’s challenges.

 

Madam Speaker, lastly, I wish to report that on the margins of the assembly, the President held meetings with his counterparts and other dignitaries aimed at driving economic growth, reducing poverty and promoting regional integration. During the meetings, various issues of key interest to Zambia were discussed on energy, agriculture, infrastructure development, candidature support and peace and security. The President participated in a Presidential Breakfast on the Africa Credit Rating Agency (AfCRA). The high-level meeting discussed the operationalisation of AfCRA, which is a dedicated credit rating agency for Africa designed to offer fair, transparent and development-focused credit ratings. President Hichilema also held a joint press conference alongside the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Chairperson, President Emerson Mnangagwa of the Republic of Zimbabwe, and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Chairperson, President Evariste Ndayishimiye of the Republic of Burundi. The leaders collectively expressed their support for Zambian national Dr Samuel Maimbo’s candidacy for the African Development Bank (AfDB) presidency, whose elections will take place in May this year. Amongst other activities undertaken was the official unveiling of the renovated chancery for the Republic of Zambia in Addis Ababa. That is another event worth noting.

 

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I wish to state that the AU continues to be a vital platform for African nations to come together to share experiences and work collectively towards a prosperous and peaceful continent. As we reflect on the outcomes of the 38^th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly, let us remain steadfast in our pursuit of ways that our nation can continue to reap the benefits of being a member of this continental body.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: There was a lot of chatting going on. I do not know whether we were even listening and following the Ministerial Statement. Anyway, since it is formality, I will now ask hon. Members to ask questions on points of clarification on the Ministerial Statement presented by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation.

 

Mr Mutelo (Mitete): Madam Speaker, I am so grateful to you, and the entire House is saying that everything is clear.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

 Mr Mutelo: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. Member of Parliament for Matero, who had walked out, is back in the House.

 

Madam Speaker, we know that the Republican President, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, physically attended the Assembly of the Heads of State. However, I would like the hon. Minister to confirm if the President has never attended a virtual meeting, as claimed by the hon. Member of Parliament for Matero. Has the President not attended any virtual ‘miting’i’? Can he remember the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Troika meeting?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mutelo: No, I am just giving him examples.

 

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member –

 

Mr Mutelo: Madam Speaker, on that note, I submit, although the hon. Member for Lufwanyama is saying that because of the new bank notes that will first be in circulation when the Kuomboka Ceremony takes place, he will also attend the ceremony. 

 

Laughter

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Mitete for giving me an opportunity to emphasise the point that was earlier made. In fact, the number of virtual meetings that are attended in the execution of the function of international relations far exceeds the physical meetings that we have had. So, he has attended a virtual ‘miting’i’, as put by the hon. Member for Mitete.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, do you want to ask a question? We would like to make progress now.

 

Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to confirm that the statement from the hon. Minister was very clear. So, we do not have any follow-up questions.

 

Laughter

 

Madam Speaker: Thank you for that. Let us make progress. We have a lot of work to do, hon. Members. Just to remind you that we still have a lot of business on the Order Paper.

 

_______

 

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

 

LOAD-SHEDDING OF HEALTH FACILITIES IN CHEMBE CONSTITUENCY

 

275. Mr C. Mpundu (Chembe) asked the Minister of Energy: 

 

1. why health facilities in Chembe Parliamentary Constituency are subjected to load-shedding by ZESCO Limited despite the presidential directive to not load-shed health facilities; and  

 

1. what urgent measures are being taken to ensure that the health facilities are not load-shed in order to prevent loss of life.

The Minister of Energy (Mr Chikote): Madam Speaker, in line with the President’s directive that health facilities be exempted from load-shedding, Chembe health facilities are given twelve hours of power supply instead of twenty-four hours due to the lack of a dedicated line to separate them from residential areas and other electricity consumers who are supposed to be load-shed.

 

Madam Speaker, the Government has directed public institutions to install rooftop solar panels as an alternative to the grid supply, and in order to address the challenges we are currently experiencing. Therefore, my ministry, through the Rural Electrification Authority (REA), is ready to provide technical assistance, such as planning, tender documentation and supervision for the installation of the solar system.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr C. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister why in most cases ZESCO Limited does not inform the public about the timings of its load-shedding. This has been a very big challenge in Chembe because Government institutions such as hospitals cannot plan their work properly. Why is it so?

 

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, a number of factors, such as vandalism to power supply installations, are making it difficult for ZESCO to stick to the load-shedding schedules. However, we are working around the clock to ensure that ZESCO Limited improves its communication in areas that are being affected.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I see so much interest in this question. May I remind you that this is a constituency-specific question. I know that many other constituencies are affected, but I am trying to manage time because I am sure that hon. Members would like to attend to other matters. So, hon. Member for Chembe, do you have another question?

 

Mr C. Mpundu: Yes, Madam Speaker. What assurance is the hon. Minister giving the people of Chembe in terms of communicating and adhering to the load-shedding schedule so that members of the community plan their programmes accordingly?

 

Mr Chikote: Madam Speaker, indeed, this Government has committed itself to making sure that the challenges our people are going through are attended to.  How are we going to do that?  We have decided that the immediate and urgent measures that we can put in place is solar power. So, the Government is making all the necessary plans to make sure that our public institutions are provided with solar power. So, solar power is the solution at the moment.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

 

Hon. Members, as I indicated, are you agreeable that we make progress?

 

Hon. Members: Yes!

 

Madam Speaker: We proceed to the next question.

 

THE 2025 TEACHER RECRUITMENT EXERCISE

 

276. Mr Mtayachalo (Chama North) asked the Minister of Education:

 

1. why local applicants in each district were not prioritised during the 2025 Teacher Recruitment Exercise;

 

1. why the exercise was not decentralised to each district; and

 

1. whether local applicants in each district who were left out will be prioritised during the teacher replacement exercise. 

 

The Minister of Education (Mr Syakalima): Madam Speaker, the 2025 teacher recruitment exercise has not yet commenced. The public will be duly informed once the process is initiated. As a consequence, parts (b) and (c) of the question fall off.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Mtayachalo: Madam Speaker, I think, the way the Journals and Table Office prepared the question is not correct.   I meant the names of the applicants who were announced this year, 2025, not the 2025 teacher recruitment.

 

Madam Speaker: So, then, we are not speaking the same language. I believe the hon. Member was given the question before it was put on the Order Paper. Was the question availed to you, hon. Member, and did you confirm that it was correct?

 

Mr Mtayachalo: Madam Speaker, yes, a letter was written to me yesterday. I think, there was an oversight. It should have read “the names which have been announced in 2025,” but this is referring to the 2024 teacher recruitment exercise.

 

Madam Speaker: Since there is a misunderstanding on what the question is, I am sure that the hon. Minister might not have the information you are requesting for. Hon. Members, questions are availed to you so that you confirm if they are correct or not.  Under the circumstances, the question cannot be handled or answered at this time. So, I suggest that it lapses. Maybe, in the next meeting, the hon. Member can ask the question in the correct format.

 

We make progress. I know, his constituents want some answers, but we do not want to take the hon. Minister by surprise. So, the question lapses.

 

We make progress.

 

_______

 

BILLS

 

HOUSE IN COMMITTTEE

 

[THE CHAIRPERSON in the Chair]

 

THE CYBER SECURITY BILL, 2024

 

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 2 – (Interpretation)

 

The Minister of Technology and Science (Mr Mutati): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2:

 

1. on page 9, in line 21 by the deletion of paragraph (a) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. personal data that is managed, stored or transmitted through critical information infrastructure or processed by a controller;

 

1. on page 13, in lines 20 and 21 by the deletion of paragraph (f) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

(f) any other person that the President may, by statutory instrument, designate for purposes of this Act; and

 

1. on page 14, after line 24, by the insertion of the following new definition:

 

“Staff Board” means the Staff Board constituted in the Schedule.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 5 – (Director General and other staff)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 5, on page 16:

 

1. after line 15 by the insertion of the following subsection:

 

(3) The President shall appoint a Deputy Director-General, Directors and Deputy Directors who are necessary for the implementation of the provisions of this Act.; and

 

1.  in lines 16 to 18 by the deletion of subclause 3 and the substitution therefor of the    following:

 

(4) The Director-General shall, on the recommendation of the Staff Board, appoint other officers below the rank of Deputy Director that are necessary for the implementation of the provisions of this Act.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 17 – (Duty to report cyber security incidents in respect of critical information and critical information infrastructure)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 17, on page 22, inline 5by the insertion of the words “by the Agency” immediately after the word “published”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 23 – (Prohibition of use or possession of interception device)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 23, on page 25:

 

1. in lines 1 and 2 by the deletion of subclause (1) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. A person shall not use, manufacture or possess an interception device without authorisation.;

 

1. in lines 1 to 4 by the deletion of the marginal note and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

Prohibition of use, manufacture or possession of interception device;

 

1. in line 9 by the deletion of the words “, the Agency, Authority”;

 

1. in line 24 by the insertion of the words “electronic communications” immediately after the words “use of that”; and

 

1. in lines 29 to 33 by the deletion of subclause (4) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. Despite subsection (3), an institution or person referred to under that subsection shall keep a record of the interception conducted by that institution or person using an interception device registered under section 24 and submit a copy of the record to the Centre.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 24 – (Registration of interception device)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 24, on page 26:

 

1. in line 6 by the deletion of the word “approve” and the substitution therefor of the word “grant”;

 

1. in line 7 by the deletion of the word “division” and the substitution therefor of the word “Centre”;

 

1. in line 10 by the insertion of the words “, on terms and conditions that the Centre may determine” immediately after the word “form”;

 

1. in lines 14 to 16 by the deletion of subclause (4) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. A certificate of registration granted under subsection (3) shall be valid for a period as prescribed.; and

 

1. after line 16 by the insertion of the following new subclause:

 

1. A person who intends to renew a certificate of registration may, not less than three months before the expiry of the certificate of registration, apply to the Centre for renewal of the certificate of registration in the prescribed manner and form on payment of the prescribed fee.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 26 – (Surrender of certificate of registration)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 26, on page 26:

 

1. in line 22 by the insertion of the words “of a certificate of registration” immediately after the word “holder”; and

 

1. in line 27 by the insertion of the words “of a certificate of registration” immediately after the word “holder”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 28 – (Cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 28, on page 27:

 

1. in line 5 by the deletion of the word “division’s” and the substitution therefor of the word “Centre’s”;

 

1. in line 10 by the insertion of the words “of a certificate of registration” immediately after the word “holder”; and

 

1. in lines 13 to 20 by the deletion of subclauses (3) and (4) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. The Centre shall, in making the Centre’s final determination on the suspension or cancellation of a certificate of registration, consider the submissions made by the holder of a certificate of registration under subsection (2)(b).

 

1. The Centre shall not suspend or cancel a certificate of registration under this section if the holder of a certificate of registration takes remedial measures to the satisfaction of the Centre within the period specified under subsection (2)(b).

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 29 – (Lawful interception)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 29:

 

1. on page 28, in lines 34 to 36 by the deletion of subclause (7) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. The Centre shall make available to a law enforcement officer the duplicate signals of an indirect communication routed to the Centre under subsection (6).; and

 

1. on page 29:

 

1. in line 5 by the insertion of the words “interception of communication” immediately after the words “pursuant to an”; and

 

1. in line 13 by the insertion of the words “interception of communication immediately before the word “order”.

 

Mr Kang’ombe rose.

 

The Chairperson: Wait, I have not finished. I have seen you.

 

Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa): Madam Chairperson, there is an objection to the proposed amendment in Clause 29. I want it to be on record that Clause 29 is what the ministry is proposing and it has also circulated an amendment to Clause 29. For those who may not have had time to familiarise themselves with Clause 29 –

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Mr Kang’ombe, let me guide you. I think, your amendment will come after the amendment by the hon. Minister. So, we started with an amendment by the hon. Minister and then we will come to yours.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, I want to object to the hon. Minister’s proposed amendment.

 

The Chairperson: You can go ahead. I do not know what you will then say about your amendment.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: I thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam Chairperson, I want it to be on record again that Clause 29 is what the ministry is proposing. Obviously, I will be given an opportunity to clarify my proposed amendment to Clause 29. However, let me quickly comment on the proposal from the hon. Minister on what should be in Clause 29. I note that the proposed amendment from the ministry is at variance with the current provision in the law. I was expecting that the hon. Minister responsible and the ministry that has drafted the amendment would actually capture the current provision of the law. Currently, there is a clear provision that any form of lawful interception should satisfy two particular stages. The first stage that should be satisfied in the current law is for the Office of the Attorney-General to provide consent. That is what the current law states. Obviously, because the proposal has not captured that thought, on behalf of the people of Kamfinsa, I am not agreeing with the proposed amendment. I would have supported the amendment moved by the ministry if the feeling of the current provision was captured, which is that one first goes to the Attorney-General’s office for consent before any form of lawful interception. After consent is given, one gets a court order to undertake lawful interception. So, the proposed amendment by the ministry falls short of the current provision.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, the hon. Member is proposing that the Bill be changed. Our position is that the Clause must be maintained as proposed in the Bill. Our position is informed by the fact that the Bill ensures clarity, fairness, precision and protection of human rights in the interception process. As a listening Government, we accept the change proposed by the hon. Member in Clause 29(1). The amendment ensures that interception orders are granted based on reasonable grounds to enhance investigative processes while upholding judicial review. However, Clause 29(2) is not accepted on the grounds that the requirement for consent from the Attorney-General is unnecessary as judicial oversight by the Judge is adequate. It is impractical to expect a law enforcement officer based in Solwezi, for example, to travel to Lusaka to get consent from the Attorney-General and return to Solwezi to get an order from the Judge before taking any action given the unprecedented pace at which crimes are committed in cyberspace. The current Bill has placed stringent mechanisms to avoid abuse by law enforcement officers.

 

Madam Chairperson, Clause 29(3) is not accepted. The proposed Bill provides clarity on the type of order that is granted by the Judge, as an interception of communication order. This section in the Bill is maintained for clarity. Clause 29(3)(b) is not accepted. The Bill removed the requirement for a warrant as it is already provided that a law enforcement officer should obtain a court order in order to request for interception to be undertaken. Further, the Bill emphasises a need to engage the centre, as a sole facility through which interception must be undertaken, to install an interception device on the premises for the purpose of undertaking the interception. Further, we accept and agree with the proposed change in Clause 29(3)(c) made by the hon. Member. The amendment strengthens judicial oversight and prevents potential misuse of a law enforcement officer. Clause 29(3)(d) is not accepted. The proposed Bill provides clarity on the type of order that is granted by the Judge as an interception of communication order. This section in the Bill is maintained for clarity. Clause 29(4) is not accepted on grounds that, as explained earlier, the requirement for consent from the Attorney-General is unnecessary as judicial oversight by the Judge is adequate. Clause 29(5) is not accepted. The new Bill provides greater protection for individuals from prosecution based on hearsay. The proposal allows for mandatory admission of hearsay evidence by courts obtained from a foreign country. Clause 29(6) is not accepted. The Bill provides greater clarity on the duration and renewal conditions for the interception of communication orders. It provides that the order can be renewed for a further period of up to three months to avoid orders being issued for longer durations, which may border on the violation of privacy of individuals being investigated. Clause 29(7) is not accepted. The Bill clarifies that the service provider in question is the electronic communication service provider.

 

Madam Chairperson, I beg to move.

 

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Chairperson, the hon. Minister may have jumped the gun. There are two amendments that are being proposed to the Bill; Clause 29, one that was proposed by the hon. Minister and the other one proposed by Hon. Kang’ombe. The hon. Minister has already pre-empted the amendments that would have been moved by Hon. Kang’ombe. I am prompted to submit on what was being proposed, which the hon. Minister has already responded to. I want to submit that in the amendment proposition made by –

 

The Chairperson: Maybe, for the sake of being orderly because we are still coming to the amendment made by Hon. Kang’ombe, you can just hold on to the portion you want to comment on relating to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member. You can come in later. Let us look at the amendment moved by the hon. Minister so that we finish on that one, then, we move to the amendment moved by the hon. Member.

 

Amendment agreed. Clause accordingly amended.

 

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move that the Bill be amended in Clause 29, on page 27, in lines 30 to 41, on page 28 in lines 1 to 36 and on page 29, in lines 1 to 13 by the deletion of Clause 29 and the substitution therefore of the following:

 

29.(1)   Subject to subsection (2), a law enforcement officer may, where the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, is likely to be committed or is being committed and for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, apply, ex-parte, to a Judge, for an interception of communication order.

 

(2) A law enforcement officer shall, apply for a written consent of the Attorney-General in a prescribed manner and form, before making an application under subsection (1).

 

(3) A Judge to whom an application is made under subsection (1) may make an order –

 

1. requiring a service provider to intercept and retain a specified communication or communications of a specified description received or transmitted, or about to be received or transmitted by that service provider;

 

1. authorising the law enforcement officer to enter specified premises with a warrant and to install on such premises any device for the interception and retention of a specified communication or communications of a specified description and to remove and retain such device;

 

1. requiring any person to furnish the law enforcement officer with such information, facilities and assistance as the Judge considers for the purpose of the installation of the interception device; or

 

1. imposing the terms and conditions for the interception of interests of the persons specified in the order or any third parties or to facilitate any investigation.

(4) A Judge may grant an order under subsection (3) where the Judge is satisfied that –

 

1. the written consent of the Attorney-General has been obtained as required by subsection (2); and

 

(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that material information relating to the –

 

1.  commission of an offence under this Act or any other law; or

 

(ii)       whereabouts of the person suspected by law enforcement officer to have committed the offence; is mis-contained in that communication or communications of that description.

 

(5) Any information contained in a communication –

 

(a)        intercepted and retained pursuant to an order under subsection (3); or

 

(b)       intercepted and retained in a foreign State in accordance with the law of that foreign State and certified by a Judge of that foreign State to have been so intercepted and retained, shall be admissible in proceedings for an offence under this Act, as evidence of the truth of its contents despite the fact that it contains hearsay.

 

(6)        An interception of communications order referred to in this section shall be valid for a period of three months and may, on application by a law enforcement officer, be removed for such period as the Judge may determine.

 

(7)       An action does not lie in any court against a service provider, any officer, employee or agent of the service provider or other specified person, for providing information, facilities or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order under this Act or any other law.

 

Madam Chairperson, I have two documents; one of them is the current Bill, which was deferred last year and is being considered today. Clause 29 in the current Bill has various provisions up to Sub-Clause 8. I wish to clarify the amendments that are provided for under Clause 29 in the Bill and the amendments that I circulated so that everyone understands exactly what is being proposed under Clause 29.

 

Madam Chairperson, under Clause 29, I am proposing amendments to subclauses (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). The first proposal I wish to make under subsection (2); is that if a law enforcement officer wishes to intercept a private conversation or communication between two entities or two individuals, he/she must apply for written consent from the Attorney-General. The people of Kamfinsa submit that currently, we have two levels of clearance. I am calling them levels of clearance because they provide the comfort that the citizens would want to have. We cannot assume that every law enforcement officer is responsible. That is why the current practice has been the way it is, and I want to clarify that. I know that the ministry may raise issues related to administrative challenges. However, a law cannot be designed based on administrative challenges. A law must be designed on the understanding that law enforcement officers are working in an environment where there is efficiency. So, the assumption that we must be making here today, is not that we have challenges of people moving from point A to point B to comply with the law, rather the law is very clear. If one wants to intercept a conversation, one needs to first go to the Attorney-General.

 

Madam Chairperson, there is a reason the Attorney-General is very important. We can have overzealous officers who might attempt to misuse their privileged authority by recording people’s conversations simply because they have a court order. That is why the law provides that before one goes to court and tells the court that he/she suspects that something is about to happen between two individuals, one must first go to the Attorney-General. That is because in the event that he/she misuses his/her power, the same Attorney-General is supposed to represent him/her.

 

Madam Chairperson, the submission I am making today is simply extracting what is in the current law. As we debate today, let us be mindful that there is already a law in place. The law is very clear that if there is reasonable suspicion and the law enforcement officers believe that steps must be taken to intercept that conversation, one must first go to the Attorney-General’s Office, get consent and then go to court and get a court order and quickly undertake the requirements needed to intercept a conversation or communication.

Madam Chairperson, I am asking myself why we are removing the role of the Attorney-General from this very important and valuable process. For me, this is a process that should be retained in the law that is being considered. I will be very comfortable from where I stand if the Attorney-General is included in this clause because there is no harm in doing that. I am asking this because we cannot hide administrative inefficiencies. Our officers should work in an environment that allows them to be efficient. The way we are dealing with this matter, it is as if we are assuming that there is too much inefficiency in this Government. We need to ensure efficiency among our law enforcement offices. We need to provide such an environment and give the officers the tools that they require. We need to motivate them, if we have to, to ensure that they quickly submit a request for consent. They do not have to physically move from a remote district to get consent from the Attorney-General’s Office. We can find a way in which this can be done.

 

Madam Speaker, we are now considering doing things electronically through the Electronic Government (e-Government) system. For example, we now have the SMART Zambia Institute, and so, there must be efficiency. We cannot hide the inefficiencies of our officers in the law. The law should be drafted correctly; one should go to the Attorney-General, get consent, go to a court and get a court order and quickly intercept the conversation. Let us not hide inefficiencies in the law. So, my proposal under Clause 29 is that firstly, we need an order from the court. Clause 29(2) reads:

 

“(2)    A law enforcement officer shall, apply for a written consent of the Attorney- General in a prescribed manner and form, before making an application under subsection (1).”

 

Madam Chairperson, what is so complicated about this harmless procedure? This is a watertight procedure. I know that the citizens want the comfort that as we intercept their communication, there are sufficient interventions that have been provided to fact-check the procedure for intercepting a conversation.

 

 Madam Chairperson, without belabouring the matter, I wish to submit my amendments.

 

 Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Members, before the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security comes in, I will allow the hon. Minister of Technology and Science to comment on the submission made.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, in my presentation that I made a little earlier, and you guided that I should have done so after the hon. Member had made his submission, I stated that the consent from the Attorney-General’s Office does not carry the substance because one still needs the final measure or exit, which is a court order. That is what is critical. So, we are saying that because of the speed of crime in cyberspace, let us ensure that we facilitate the speedy resolution of crimes.

 

Madam Chairperson, I submit.

 

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Chairperson, I would like to buttress the point made by the hon. Minister of Technology and Science.

 

Madam Chairperson, we should all note that when an amendment is being made to a law, it entails that there is a mischief that the amendment intends to cure. In this current situation, we are averting the commission of a crime and not having to act after a crime has been committed. If one is aware of a conversation that has criminal elements, he/she has to take immediate and prompt action to intercept that conversation. If we wait for the consent of the Attorney-General, the action will have already taken place, and we will be acting after the damage has been done. In the event that the interception is malicious, there are remedies that are available before the courts of law.

 

Madam Chairperson, I would like to give an example of what transpired in the United Kingdom (UK) recently, whereby some members of the public were circulating messages inciting other members of the public to riot. If the security wings in the UK were to wait for the long process of obtaining orders and authority, harm would have been done. The UK had a similar situation to the one we had. Therefore, they had to amend the law quickly so that members of the security wing could move in and avert a crisis.

 

Madam Chairperson, in the amendment that the hon. Member is proposing, he is telling us that we should not worry, instead, we should wait until the crime is committed then, we can go and get an order and investigate. Sometimes, conversations with criminal elements happen so quickly that a law enforcement officer cannot have time to wait for a court order to intercept such a conversation. Otherwise, he/she will be behind that criminality. That is why we propose and support those amendments.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: Mr B. Mpundu, it was supposed to be your turn to contribute. Do you still want to contribute?

 

Mr B. Mpundu (Nkana): Madam Speaker, I want to contribute and also raise a point of order on this particular issue. However, I can combine the two points because the hon. Minister has tried to sway this conversation to bring in the United Kingdom (UK).

 

Madam Chairperson, the precedent set or rules of this august House are that we do not discuss other nations and what is happening there. I have been curtailed several times by the Presiding Officers and told that I cannot infer or bring into my debate what is happening in other countries. So, the hon. Minister was almost confusing us by bringing in the UK. We are talking about Zambia here.            

 

Madam Chairperson, I support the amendment that has been moved by my friend Christopher, who is basically asking for something very easy and simple. The hon. Minister of Technology and Science knows that he has literally bulldozed this amendment against the wishes of the people of Zambia. There has been an outcry from several major stakeholders –

 

The Chairperson: Mr B. Mpundu, please, avoid calling your hon. Colleague, ‘Christopher.’

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Mu nandi, Madam Chairperson, uyu.

 

The Chairperson: No, no, no. The people of Zambia are listening. You are supposed to address him as Mr Kang’ombe when the House is in Committee of the Whole House.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Chafina, Madam Chairperson. Mr Kang’ombe, boyi niwebo Mr Kang’ombe?

 

Laughter

 

Mr B. Mpundu: I support Mr Kang’ombe’s proposition.

 

Madam Chairperson, the hon. Minister will remember that at the beginning of the conversation vis-à-vis the amendment of the Cyber Security Bill, several concerns were raised, starting with the Government’s level of engagement with major stakeholders. Laws affect every citizen.  So, it was imperative for the Government to engage stakeholders from the beginning. The Committee of Parliament submitted that it objected to this amendment, which is the reason the Bill was withdrawn or deferred in the first place. It needed to be withdrawn or deferred because of that particular conversation. Today, the hon. Minister is back, and Mr Kang’ombe is making a very simple request.

 

Madam Chairperson, as citizens, we are entitled to privacy. Therefore, subjecting our conversations to interception at will is not a fair proposition by the Government. Hon. Kang’ombe is basically proposing that we need to have a tight system of accessing our private conversations. Suggesting that we have a two-layer system of getting consent for an officer to intercept our conversations is not so much to ask. Besides, from his submission, the hon. Minister wants to run away from that point stating that the Attorney-General is not present everywhere in the country and gave an example of Solwezi not being represented by the Attorney-General.

 

Madam Chairperson, the hon. Minister may wish to note that the Attorney-General is represented in every part of the country. What Mr Kang’ombe is saying is that sometimes, officers are simply overzealous, and because of their working relationship with the court, they easily get consent. So, we would like to put another layer to that. We would like to put the Attorney-General in the process, who literally represents the public and the Government when the Government is sued. It is only fair that the Attorney-General is involved when an officer makes a request to intercept our private conversations, so that our right to privacy is safeguarded. So, I do not see anything sinister in the request that is being made. Remember, we have allowed the hon. Minister to have a field day despite him bulldozing and forcing himself –

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, ‘bulldozing’ is unparliamentary. 

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Bulldozing is unparliamentary?

 

The Chairperson:  Yes, can you find a better word? It is unparliamentary in the manner it has been used. 

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, the hon.  Minister, Uncle Flex, –

 

Laughter

 

Hon. Member interjected.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Mr Mutati, –

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, kindly address him as ‘hon. Minister.’

 

Mr B. Mpundu: For him, it is the hon. Minister.

 

The Chairperson: Yes.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Hon. Minister, I also want to make a very simple request. He has literally imposed this law against the citizens’ outcry. Further, he is aware that as late as the day before yesterday, the civil society organisations (CSOs) issued a statement asking him to consider their submissions. Part of what the CSOs submitted is that he cannot be as simple as he is trying to suggest by removing what the law already provides, which is two levels of consent. An officer has to go to the Attorney-General and a Judge for him or her to be able to intercept our private conversations. I think, the hon. Minister must be magnanimous at this stage and give way because there is no way he can bulldoze or rather impose a law like that.

 

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Member!

 

I think, I guided you to withdraw the word ‘bulldozing.’ I said that you should find a better word. The people are listening out there, and when they hear you mention that word, it is like hon. Members are not given an opportunity.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I am replacing ‘bulldozing’ with ‘imposing’ because we all agree that the hon. Minister has literally imposed against the wishes of the Zambian people. When I say the ‘Zambian people,’ I am talking about the major stakeholders. We should never think that the United Party for National Development (UPND) members are the Zambian people.

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Let us be mindful of the words we use. We do not want to paint a bad picture of this Parliament. All the procedures were followed and witnesses were involved, including the hon. Members of Parliament. So, let us be mindful of using some words because they will paint a wrong picture for the people out there. Hon. Member, can you please summarise your submission. We do not have enough time.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, with your indulgence, I think, I stand on authority when I make these insinuations, particularly imposition. We read the report of the Committee, and in the report, the Committee submitted that all the stakeholders who were engaged proposed that this clause should be shelved. Even when the hon. Minister deferred the Bill and engaged whoever he engaged, since they did not submit whoever they engaged, the CSOs have actually written a statement in which they are arguing that the hon. Minister has not taken on board –

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Ba Chair –

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, let us not talk about the whole Bill. We are looking at the submission by Hon. Kang’ombe, but now you are bringing in procedural matters. Can you be specific so that we do not waste time.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Ba Chair, I am basically building on Clause 29. Mr Kang’ombe has made a request that the hon. Minister here –

 

Laughter

 

The Chairperson: What is ba Chair?

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chair –

 

Laughter

 

The Chairperson: Can you please wind up so that we give chance to other hon. Members.

 

In fact, there is an indication for a point of order.  Hon. Member for Zambezi West, what is your point of order.

 

A point of order is raised.

 

Mr Kambita: Madam Chairperson, I rise on a serious point of order pursuant to orderly debate in this House.

 

The Chairperson: Pursuant to which Standing Order?

 

Mr Kambita: Pursuant to Standing Order No. 71.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Kambita: Madam Chairperson, I have noticed that in this Parliament, the standards are being brought down, especially by the new hon. Members.

 

Interjections

 

Mr Kambita: Yes, because of what I know.

 

Interjections

 

 Mr Kambita: Madam Chairperson, that is why you see me addressing you. That is how Parliament is supposed to operate. One cannot stand here and address another hon. Member, instead of addressing the Chairperson. All debates are supposed to be through the Chairperson. However, here we are, an hon. Member is continuously addressing the hon. Minister concerned about this Bill. He has gone on like that, and I have also seen it done by many hon. Members continuously. Is the hon. Member on the Floor in order to continue on that trajectory, reducing the standards of debate in this august House, as per commonly accepted Commonwealth practices of Parliament?

 

Madam Chairperson, I seek your serious ruling.

 

The Chairperson: Thank you for that point of order. We keep on reminding hon. Members that whenever they are debating, they are supposed to address either the Chairperson or the Hon. Speaker, according to Standing Order No. 64(1). However, there is a tendency of looking in all directions as if one is addressing other hon. Members. The practice is for the debater to address the Chair and not even the hon. Minister who has raised a Motion or responded to a question. So, hon. Members are supposed to address the Chairperson in Committee.

 

Mr Mpundu, I gave you adequate time, but we have now run out of time and there are other hon. Members who want to contribute. Hon. Members, can you, please, summarise your submissions. We do not want to hear long stories. We have read what the Bill is all about and the suggested amendment. So, let us try to be brief.

 

I will give a chance to the next hon. Member.

 

Mr Mung’andu (Chama South): Madam Chairperson, I have read the proposed amendments. Probably, before I put my position across, allow me to highlight the background of communication, particularly the telecommunication to do with mobile phones, the internet and many others. We will then, probably, appreciate the invention of communication or how it came into existence.

 

Madam Chairperson, I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that using phones was inconceivable in the past. Actually, it used to be demonstrated in fictional movies that people could communicate using a cell phone. Members of the public and this House should understand that the first mobile communication, including through the internet, was for security purposes. Only military departments could use the internet and cell phones. Those services were only made available for civilian use after putting measures in place to monitor their use. So, we should not make any mistake to think that we are hiding when using a cell phone or WhatsApp. We should understand that. So, where is the fear? If I am communicating with the hon. Member for Chilubi discussing the well-being of the country, where is the problem?

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Ni Clause shani iyo?

 

Mr Mung’andu: On behalf of the people of Chama South, I submit that I am not seeing anything wrong with –

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Mung’andu: I am speaking my mind. Madam Chairperson, I need protection.

 

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Members!

 

Mr Mung’andu, we are looking at the submission by Mr Kang’ombe.

 

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Chairperson, I have heard the debate. I have to also make my submissions along the same lines. We are here to present ideas. If other people have their ideas, I also have to submit mine.

 

The Chairperson: You may continue.

 

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Chairperson, when I look at the amendment, I can see that it can result in a lot of abuse. Many people’s lives would be put at stake. Someone can wake up one day and insinuate that an hon. Member has received K10 million when it is not true. How do we take such characters into account? The people who are objecting to this good Bill know that they will be caught and made to account.

Madam Chairperson, if this Bill will be subjected to voting, I will vote against the proposed amendment. The Bill should stand the way it has been couched. We need to bring sanity to the digital space. People should be responsible. Someone cannot just wake up and start defaming people. We need to find a way of checking what people are doing.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Mung’andu: Yes, not until one is affected.

 

Madam Chairperson, if a person is in the habit of defaming and telling lies about others, it is high time that person was fished out and that can only be done after being recorded. If anything, if someone using a cell phone poses a security threat, security agencies are interested in such people. So, they will still record suspects. That is a fact. If we do not have express laws to bring such people to book, we will see certain people being pushed right, left and centre. Now that we will have the law in place, we will pierce the corporate veil of liars and bring them to account.

 

Madam Chairperson, in short, I am not in support of the proposed amendment.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: I will allow the last hon. Member to speak.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, once again, I want to indicate –

 

The Chairperson: You should summarise.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Yes, I will summarise, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam, again, for those that may not have followed the conversation, the summary of the submission from Kamfinsa motivated by what the members of the public and other stakeholders have said is clear and categorical. Definitely, the law must mandate law enforcement officers to undertake what is called lawful interception. No one is objecting to lawful interception. Actually, we might be mixing things that are not even under consideration. Lawful interception simply means the law allows intercepting of a conversation. The views are different on the manner the interception should be done.

 

Madam Chairperson, my summary is that, currently, there is a law in Zambia called the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021. From 2021 to where we are today, the law is clear. We can go to the Attorney-General’s office, get consent, go to court for a court order and quickly do the interception. We should never hide the Government’s efficiencies in the law. Again, the people of Kamfinsa would like to submit that Clause 9 be amended.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: Can the hon. Minister of Technology and Science respond to submissions by Mr Kang’ombe and Mr Mung’andu.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, let me summarise and compare the harm that is about to happen to a person with the speed we can use to prevent the harm from occurring. If a person is seized, the purpose is to save life. If we choose to go through the process and start with a consent order, we will be closing the stable after the horse has bolted. After the damage is done, what would be the use of a consent order? So, we are emphasising on the amendment to protect and ensuring that crimes do not take place, which is more paramount than following the process.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

The Chairperson: We have to make a decision on whether to adopt the amendment proposed by Hon. Kang’ombe or not.

 

Question that Clause 29 be amended put and negatived.

 

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I wish to submit a step-by-step process of the interception of communication to prevent bodily harm, loss of life –

 

The Chairperson: I think, you have a different script. We are on Clause 30.

 

Mr Mutati: Yes. I am on Clause 30.

 

The Chairperson: Okay.

 

Mr Mutati: I will get to the part. This is just an introduction. By way of introduction, I was saying that I am going to enumerate the step-by-step process.

 

The Chairperson: You can go ahead, hon. Minister.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, Clause 30, on page 29, should not be deleted. Deletion of the provision will have dire consequences for the country. The provision is critical in addressing emergency situations to prevent bodily harm, loss of life or damage to property. In various abduction cases that law enforcement agencies have dealt with in the past, the provision has been used to quickly respond to emergencies and rescue victims. As a case in point, a maid and garden boy in Lusaka connived with outsiders to kidnap two children. When the matter was reported, the provision was invoked and the children were rescued within four hours. The provision also upholds judicial oversight over the interception process, as a safeguard against potential abuse by law enforcement officers. The provision has been part of our legal framework originating from Sections 68 and 67 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2009, under the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) Government and was incorporated under Section 30 of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act, 2021, under the Patriotic Front (PF) Government. Further, the Government’s decision to maintain the provision was arrived at after wide stakeholder consultation with the general populace and civil society, which consisted of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), Bloggers of Zambia –

 

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Minister!

 

I do not know whether we are together. The question about Clause 30 was straightforward –

 

Mr Mutati: Yes. It is Clause 30 that I am talking about.

 

The Chairperson: Okay. You are just supposed to say “I beg to move that Clause 30 be amended with words as circulated”.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move the following amendments:

 

1. on page 29, in line17, by the insertion of the word ‘indirect’ immediately before the word “communication”; and

 

1. on page 30

 

1. in line 10, by the deletion of the word “immediately” and the substitution therefor of the words ‘within twenty-four hours’; and

 

1. in line 15, by the deletion of the words “immediately” and the substitution therefor of the words ‘within two days’.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, allow me to thank your office for allowing me to move amendments to Clause 30. It is important that hon. Colleagues who are familiar with the provision underline the word “oral request”. There is a proposal in the law which is basically –

 

The Chairperson: Are you talking about your amendment Hon. Kang’ombe?

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Yes, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: No. We are on the amendments moved by the hon. Minister.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Okay.

 

The Chairperson: Your amendment is coming up soon after we agree on the amendment moved by the hon. Minister.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, Clause 30 basically empowers law enforcement officers to undertake oral requests. My amendment is that we should delete Clause 30. Remove it from the Bill for the simple reason that we have already discussed other provisions in the law that deal with the procedure for intercepting communication. Why are we providing Clause 30? The Clause stipulates that there must be a provision for an oral request. An oral request, which is a dangerous provision, empowers law enforcement officers to go to any information and communication technology (ICT) service provider and to make an oral request. Oral request means by word of mouth, by simply saying that they have reason to believe that person “A” and person “B” are about to commit an offence, for example. Is an oral request needed when the procedure in Clause 29 is already sufficient? We have spent so much time in this House discussing what should be in Clause 29. Why are we providing Clause 30, which has stipulations about an oral request? We are giving too much power to law enforcement officers when we have already provided for them a compromise by means of getting a court order before they carry out any form of interception. Why should we then provide Clause 30? Without even spending too much time, anyone who has taken time to read Clause 29 and Clause 30 will agree with me that there is no need for Clause 30. It empowers law enforcement officers to undertake oral requests. An oral request simply means picking up a phone and calling a service provider to request that person “A” or person “B” be recorded. That their communication be intercepted. That is what the sentence reads.

 

“A law enforcement officer may orally request an electronic communications service provider to intercept ­”

 

Madam Chairperson, we have spent almost twenty minutes discussing a prescribed procedure, which is to get a court order. Why are we then putting Clause 30? What is the purpose of the Clause? Are we saying that our officers have been misusing the law? Are we saying that –

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Hon. Members, I wish to inform the House that the following arrangements have been made for lunch. Lunch break will be from 1300 hours to 1415 hours. The House will resume sitting at 1430 hours. Hon. Members will have their lunch in the restaurant here at Parliament Buildings while members of staff and ministry officials will have their lunch at the Members’ Motel. Transport to and from the Members’ Motel for members of staff and ministry officials will be available at the entrance of the library building.

 

Lunch for hon. Members, ministry officials and members of staff will be provided courtesy of the Right Hon. Madam Speaker. I urge all hon. Members to be punctual and I request Party Whips to ensure that a quorum is formed at 1430 hours so that we can adjourn on time.

 

I thank you.

 

The Chairperson made her way to the main exit, but quickly returned to the Chair.

 

Laughter

 

The Chairperson: Sorry. Some of us are confused today.

 

Order!

 

Business was suspended from 1301 hours until 1430 hours.

 

 

[THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the

Chair]

 

No Quorum

 

The bells rang

 

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Members!

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, before business was suspended, I was about to conclude my submission. You have guided me to not repeat what I have already indicated. Therefore, the summary of my submission this afternoon is that we should delete Clause 30. I propose this amendment for the simple reason that the concerns around interception orders are already covered in Clause 29.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

The Chairperson: Thank you. Please, let us avoid discussing what has already been mentioned or discussed.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I am in support of the amendment moved by Mr Kang’ombe. You can clearly see the confusion being created by these two propositions. In Clause 29, the hon. Minister is proposing to alter the existing law by removing that layer of authority. In Clause 30, he is proposing something that is completely different. In Clause 29, he is saying that it is too ambiguous and it is too much of a procedure to go to the Attorney-General and also to the Judge. Again, he has gone on to change and propose that an officer can simply make a phone call to a service provider for him/her to access our private conversations. Clearly, you can see that Mr Kang’ombe’s proposal is basically asking why we want to have two clauses that are in conflict with each other.

 

Madam Chairperson, our appeal, through Mr Kang’ombe’s submission, is that there is no need of having Clause 30. It must be deleted because it conflicts with Clause 29. Clause 29 is enough and gives a guarantee. The hon. Minister has insisted that we should just have a one-layer approval process, which is enough. We can accept that we will have this one-layer approval process, but to insist that an officer can just make a phone call to a service provider and intercept our private conversations is extremely absurd. Therefore, I want to be on record of having supported the amendment that is being moved by Mr Kang’ombe.

 

Madam Chairperson, on this score, the hon. Minister must just give in because we are not asking for too much. All we are asking for is that if law enforcement officers are going to invade our privacy, at least, they should go and get consent from the Judge. It cannot be left to them to continue prying on our privacy by simply making a phone call to the service providers. So, I just want to be on record. We are not asking for too much because so much damage has already been done, and here, we want the hon. Minister to give in.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Hon. Government Members: Ah!

 

The Chairperson: I think, it is clear.

 

The Minister of Technology and Science (Mr Mutati): Madam Chairperson, thank you very much. We have already dealt with Section 29, and now we are dealing with Section 30. There is a distinction between the two sections. Let me explain.

 

Madam Chairperson, Section 30, specifically deals with emergency situations, and Section 29 deals with ordinary day-to-day situations. Section 30 also defines the circumstances under which it can be invoked. It basically says that if there is an imminent danger to human life or damage to property, it then requires the law enforcement officer to make an oral request to the electronic service provider. The purpose is to avert the imminent danger, which is different from Section 29. After that is done, there is a requirement to provide an affidavit to the Judge stating the circumstances and details for the actions taken. The judgment of whether that action taken was proper or not, is up to the Judge. If the Judge determines that it was improper, there are punitive measures. So, the reason we have Section 30 is very specific. It is to deal with an emergency, protect life and also, save property. That is the basic difference. So, it is not even an issue of players between the Attorney-General and the Judge. It is the issue of providers taking immediate or prompt action.

 

Madam Chairperson, I hope this clears the misunderstanding.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Chairperson, I thought I should just add a few words because I think, sections 29 and 30 are in tandem and cannot be read in isolation. That is why we start with Section 29 and then go to Section 30. We should not look at the literal meaning of the words, but the context in which they are aligned. There is also, a proviso.

Madam Chairperson, let me look at the amendments proposed by Hon. Kang’ombe. Section 30 of the Bill still needs to stand, in the sense that it has certain provisions, such as the “in an emergency,” like the Minister has said.  Section 34 (a), (b), (c) and (d), provide for and also protects the law from abuse because of issues to do with the affidavit. The service provider also needs to submit how the recording is done according to the law. So, the law cannot be read in isolation and we cannot ignore some clauses.  For example, Section 30 ensures that an officer can request for a recording during an emergency.  Section 29 goes into the nitty-gritty and ensures that an officer does not abuse the law.

 

Madam Chairperson, I think, legally, Section 30 should still stand because it provides for what some of our hon. Colleagues fear.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam Chairperson: Hon. Minister, do you want to comment, or have you already commented?

 

Mr Mutati: I have already commented, Madam Chairperson. I think, it is quite clear.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam Chairperson: Yes.

 

Mr Kampyongo, please, be brief.

 

Mr Kampyongo: I will be very brief, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam Chairperson, what is key here, is to take all the interests into account. I know we have the Anti-Terrorism and Non-Proliferation (Amendment) Act, which deals with specific circumstances. In that law, there are specific circumstances and it also stipulates how officers should react to those circumstances.  Now, who determines an emergency? How is an emergency described? If an officer reaches out to a service provider when there is an emergency, the service provider will not be privy to the emergency, and that is where the gap becomes interesting. For example, having a situation where we would want to know if Hon. Mutati is about to do something and it is an emergency. So, who determines whether the situation qualifies to be an emergency?  We do not give blanket provisions even for enforcers because the potential to abuse the law depends on the parameters. How do you determine the parameters? Like I said, there are so many pieces of legislation that provide security for various circumstances, and I have cited the Anti-Terrorism and Non-Proliferation (Amendment) Act, which provides for specific circumstances and how officers can react to them.  That is why, the other day, I asked what enforcement mechanisms the ministry is going to have? The reason we made this law together …

 

Madam Chairperson: You can wind up.

 

Mr Kampyongo: … was because of the mechanisms that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security used to enforce it.  So, it will be important for the hon. Minister to speak to who determines what and how that is checked before it is evoked.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I will be very brief.  The reason of having an affidavit is for the Judge to determine whether the circumstances actually qualify in law. That is the only way we do it. 

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Madam Chairperson: The last person to speak is Mr Kang’ombe. Try to be brief.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, I am well-guided that I should be brief. I think, I have taken quite a lot of time to elaborate the requirement that we remain with Clause 29 and delete Clause 30. I am reading the provision under Clause 30 and the two words that have been used, which are, “reasonable grounds.” This means that a law enforcement officer will be required to make a judgment. It is clearly up to the law enforcement officer to decide whether harm might be caused, and that is why my point remains. If we are relying on the judgment of a law enforcement officer, we may as well utilise Clause 29. That is my submission on behalf of the people of Kamfinsa.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, there is no need of belabouring the point. We have already distinguished the circumstances in Section 29, which are ordinarily day-to-day happenings. Section 30 deals with emergencies, and those circumstances that are defined in the law. So, prompt action will be needed.  That is required, and as I said to Hon. Kampyongo, the affidavit is a safeguard.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Question that Clause 30 be amended put and negatived.

 

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill

 

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 32 – (Interception of communication for purposes of determining location)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 32 on page 31 in line 26 by the deletion of the words "or controller".

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 40 – (Interception capability of electronic communications service provider)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 40:

 

1. on page 34, in line 29 by the deletion of the words “subsection (2)” and the substitution therefor of the word “paragraphs”; and

 

1. on page 35, in line 1 by the deletion of the words “intercepted information” and the substitution therefor of the words “an indirect communication”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 60 – (Restoration of property)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 60, on page 42, in line 23 by the deletion of the words “without delay” and the substitution therefor of the words “within thirty days of the finding of the court or the withdrawal of proceedings”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 61 – (Assistance)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 61, on page 43, in line 14 by the deletion of the word “shall” and the substitution therefor of the word “may”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 64 – (Offences relating to critical information or critical information infrastructure)

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 64, on page 44, in lines 1 to 12 by the deletion of Clause 64.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

General Amendment

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move a general amendment, on pages 44 to 46 by the renumbering of Clauses 65 to 74 as Clauses 64 to 73, respectively.

 

Amendment agreed to. New numbering ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Title agreed to.

 

Mr Mutati: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment after page 46 by the insertion of the schedule set out in the appendix.

 

Amendment agreed to. Bill amended accordingly.

 

Long Title agreed to.

 

THE CYBER CRIMES BILL, 2024

 

Clause 1, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 2 – (Interpretation)

 

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2:

 

1. on page 6, in line 1, by the insertion of the words “, whether real or simulated,” immediately after the word “material”;

 

1. on page 7, after line 17, by the insertion of the following new definition:

 

“harassment” has the meaning assigned to the word

 _{Act No 1 of 2011}               in the Anti-Gender-Based Violence Act, 2011, and

the word “harass” shall be construed accordingly; and

 

1. on page 8

 

1. in line 20, by the insertion of the words ‘, whether real or simulated,’ immediately after the word “material”; and

 

1. after line 23, by the insertion of the following new definition:

 

“sexual conduct” includes sexual intercourse whether between persons or between a person and an animal, masturbation, sexual sadistic or masochistic abuse or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 10 – (Prohibition of recording of private conversation without prior notice)

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, one of our responsibilities as hon. Members of Parliament is to make laws. Today, we are performing that responsibility.

 

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, Clause 10 of the Bill reads –

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, you have not followed the procedure.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 10,

 

1. on page 10, in line 34, by the insertion of the word ‘intentionally’ immediately after the word “device”, and

 

1. on page 11, in lines 5 to 16, by the deletion of Sub-Clause (3).

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, Clause 10 of the Bill reads as follows:

 

“A person commits an offence if that person, using a device, records a private conversation without notifying the parties to the conversation.”

 

Madam Chairperson, the proposed amendment to the Clause is that we should insert the word ‘intentionally’ immediately after the word “device”, meaning that a person commits an offence if that person using a device intentionally records. As a result of including the word ‘intentionally’, it means that we have to delete Sub-Clause 3. Under the Sub-Clause, a law enforcement officer is exempted from this offence, as it is an offence under Clause 10(1). However, Clause 10(3)(b) stipulates that it will be an exception for law enforcement officers. It is not an offence for them. That is the problem we have with this law. Everything else is okay. It seems we have a problem when it comes to law enforcement officers. I am wondering in whose interest are we exempting law enforcement officers.

 

Madam Chairperson, we have already said that Clause 10 deals with the prohibition of recording private conversations without prior notice. That is the objective of Clause 10. Why is it that we want to exempt law enforcement officers under Clause 10(3)(b)? That is why I propose that if recording a private conversation is an offence, it should remain an offence. We already have other safeguards to deal with certain circumstances. Why are we allowing law enforcement officers to get away with recording private conversations? The amendment I am proposing this afternoon in performing my responsibilities, as a lawmaker, is that we insert the word ‘intentionally’ immediately after the word “device” in Clause 10(1) and then delete the exception that allows law enforcement officers to get away with that offence under Clause 10(3)(b).

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, there is no dispute that the hon. Member is performing his duties as a law marker. However, we object to the amendment that he is proposing, taking into account that under subsection 3(a), we have already considered the issue that he has raised.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, we are back on the same subject. Drafting laws is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security and the Ministry of Technology and Science proposed amendements. Again, you can see that we are dealing with one and the same issue here, which we have just been discussing in the previous Act that the Ministry of Technology and Science was proposing.  What is being proposed is very simple. What Mr Kang’ombe is speaking to is the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security now wants to allow deliberate prying into our privacy. On one hand, it wants to create a law that criminalises or stops individuals from recording a conversation and on the other hand, it wants to allow law enforcement agencies, without any safeguard, to record our private conversations. In the other discussion, there was a safeguard that the law enforcement agencies would be required to get some authority. Here, the hon. Minister wants to leave it very plain and open that law enforcement agencies can –

 

Mr Mweetwa interjected.

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, you may continue.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: The hon. Minister of misinformation is –

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, please continue. We are behind time.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, thank you. The hon. Minister of misinformation needs to be told what to do at this point.

 

Mr Samakayi: Question!

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, again, we are not asking for anything sinister or special here. Honestly speaking, we have the right, as citizens, to enjoy privacy. On one hand, the hon. Minister is stopping the deliberate recording of private conversations and on the other hand, he wants law enforcement agencies to access our private conversations without any safeguards. So, Mr Kang’ombe is basically asking for that provision to be deleted because it will empower unnecessary prying into our private conversations. It was taken care of in the other Bill under the Ministry of Technology and Science. So, why should it be left open now for law enforcement agencies to be listening to our conversations and recording them? I think that we are not asking for anything special. All we are saying is that there is already a provision in the other law, which is the Cyber Security and Cyber Security Act, 2021. Why is the hon. Minister introducing the same provision in the next law, except that here, he wants to remove the safeguard? Whose interest is he serving by doing this?

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, you can wind up.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, this is the same law. Why is he introducing it without providing a safeguard? If the hon. Minister saw the need to provide a safeguard in the other law, which we have just concluded, why does he want to remove that safeguard under this particular law?  I think, there is nothing special about what he is asking for. He is just asking if we can harmonise these two pieces of legislation.

 

Madam Chairperson, as I conclude, the two pieces of legislation that are being separated today were sitting as one law. There would not have been any duplicity if we had left it as it was, as one law that took care of the matter that we are talking about, which is recording conversations.

 

The Chairperson: Mr B. Mpundu, we are talking about the submissions on the amendment. Let us not talk about what we would have wished it to be.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, yes, we are speaking to the same issue. What we are doing right now is making two pieces of legislation that used to be one; the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act. It is one law, as we are speaking right now. What the two hon. Ministers have done is simply to separate them. However, we note that there is duplicity and confusion that has been created under one law.

 

The Chairperson: You can wind up. You keep talking about one and the same thing.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Lekeni tu pangeko amafunde.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, here, our mandate is to enact laws. We do not want people to come tomorrow and start asking us what we were thinking when enacting the law. Remember the saying, once beaten, twice shy. This Parliament has enacted laws before whereby people sat afterwards and asked themselves what they did. An example is the law on the Grade 12 Certificate requirement for one to stand for public office. So, we do not want to leave it to chance, to allow a law to pass t without interrogating and asking the necessary questions. That is why, through Kang’ombe here, we are performing our duty by proposing that we delete this clause.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Sorry, Madam Chairperson, I meant to say Mr Kang’ombe. Munandi uyu.

 

Interruptions

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Member, I think that we cannot allow you to proceed any further.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, why? What have I done?

 

The Chairperson:  Because you are repeating the same points. Just wind up.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: But I want to make an emphasis. This is my time.

 

The Chairperson: The hon. Minister has taken note of what you are saying.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, we are not asking for too much. All we are saying is that this is the same law that exists under another provision that we have just concluded, and in there, a safeguard was put while it is proposed that it be removed from the other law. Removing the safeguard from the law means that the ministry is now asking law enforcement agencies to start abusing our right to privacy. That is basically what we are asking here.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I listened very attentively to the submission by the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkana.  He has admitted that there are already safeguards that have been put in the law, which is the Cyber Security Bill. This Bill that the hon. Minister of Technology and Science presented covers law enforcement agencies. They are bound by that particular law. To initiate a process under the Cyber Crimes Bill, they have to follow what is obtaining under the Cyber Security Bill. There is no way that we can isolate one law and implement the other. As a law enforcement agency, when enforcing laws, it has to look at all the laws that affect that particular issue that one is determining. One cannot start splitting hairs.

 

Madam Chairperson, if a law enforcement agency, as we debated earlier, wants to listen to an individual’s conversation, it has to follow the procedures that we have already passed. We cannot now sneak in amendments to defeat the earlier law that we passed. So, as far as we are concerned, we are on all fours and on terra firma on this matter. We cannot start amending laws with the view to defeating the other laws that we have passed. The intention is already covered under subsection 3(a). So, it is not an issue and there is no way a law enforcement officer would deliberately want to abrogate the law. If he does that, there are sanctions; he is on his own, as we always say.

 

Madam Chairperson, the amendment does not hold water. We have already addressed those issues under the Cyber Security Bill.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Chairperson, laws cannot be read in isolation, like the State Counsel has said. In Clause 10(1) of the Bill, if we insert the word “intentionally” after the word “device”, who proves the mens rea? We do not need to embed that here as it is the role of the courts. I think, what is stated in the Bill is adequate as it is and should be read in tandem for us to understand and adequately pacify them because we cannot just put an intent in Clause10. However, we need to leave that to the courts. So, I feel Clause 10 is sufficient.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

The Chairperson: Mr Kang’ombe, you are the last to debate. Be brief.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Nimwebo ba Deputy Minister!

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Mwambazi, kwati ni Deputy Minister.

 

Madam Chairperson, I want to read the provision in the Bill, because the hon. Minister has explained that it will not be a problem. However, I will explain where the problem is. I hope that everyone is reading. Clause 10(3) reads as follows:

 

“Despite subsection (1), it shall not be an offence to record a private conversation where –

 

(b) a law enforcement officer reasonably suspects ...”

 

Madam Chairperson, according to this law, a law enforcement officer can get away with this particular issue. That is what this provision is saying, and it is dangerous. This law is dangerous. It says that it is an offence for everyone to record someone, but it shall not be an offence for law enforcement officers to do so, provided a law enforcement officer reasonably suspects. That is where the danger is. People have not read this document.

 

Mr Katakwe interjected.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Hon. Katakwe, you have not read; that is why you are arguing.

 

The Chairperson: Mr Kang’ombe, please, address me.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, I want to emphasise that I am the one who has moved the amendment, and it is very clear. Regarding Clause 10(1), I have said that can we make it an offence for someone to record a person intentionally? We end there. If we exempt officers of the State as we have done in Clause 10(3), they will not be reading the Cyber Security Bill; they will be using this Bill and justifying that the Cyber Crimes Act allows them to record anyone, provided they reasonably suspect something.

 

Madam Chairperson, I do not want to be part of this decision because it is allowing law enforcement officers to record people. It is in black and white. In short, for the benefit of my hon. Colleagues gathered here this afternoon, the law needs to be amended. After this stage, this Bill will become law. We cannot create a law that exempts law enforcement officers. Recording someone should be an offence. This is my submission, and I hope those who have not understood the provision can take time to read it. We are exempting law enforcement officers.

 

Madam Chairperson. I thank you.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, we have been on this debate from yesterday, talking about the issue of reasonableness. I am aware that the hon. Minister of Information and Media debated the issue of reasonableness. I am also aware that the courts have interpreted reasonableness on a number of occasions. For the courts to determine a certain matter, they also delve into issues of reasonableness, and they have pronounced themselves on this issue. One of the issues which we are looking at now is that if an officer feels that there is a threat to life, or there is danger, then, he can invoke this provision.  Clause 10(3), talks about threat to life and property and immediate danger.

 

Madam Chairperson, the issue of reasonableness has been interpreted so many times. Even when my hon. Colleagues argue with their colleagues, they say, “I think, you are being unreasonable.” They can prove that. If one thinks that a law enforcement officer has usurped his power, one can sue. There are provisions in the law. Even under the Zambia Police Act and the Penal Code Act, there are issues of reasonableness. If a police officer reasonably suspects that one is committing an offence, one will be arrested you. That is what the law says. We cannot start defining issues here that are different from the existing laws. Reasonableness can be defined and established.  We have already said that there are procedures pertaining to actions of law enforcement officers. If they act outside the law, they will be held accountable.

 

Madam Chairperson, we do not support the amendment.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: Thank you so much.

 

I think, we have discussed enough. It is time to decide whether to take Mr Kang’ombe’s amendment or not.

 

Question that Clause 10 be amended put and negatived.

 

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 15 – (Prohibition of pornography)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 15, on page 13, in lines 14 to 30 by the deletion of clause 15.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 16 – (Prohibition of revenge pornography)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 16, on page 13, in lines 31 to 40 by the deletion of clause 16.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 17 – (Prohibition of child pornography)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 17, on page 14, in line 5 by the insertion of the words “, imports, exports” immediately after the “sells”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 18, 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 21 (Transmission of unsolicited deceptive electronic communication)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 21, on page 15, in lines 22 and 23 by the deletion of paragraph (b) and the substitution therefor of the following:

 

1. initiate the transmission of multiple electronic messages from or through a computer or computer system for purposes of causing harm or disrupting the computer or computer system;

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move that Clause 21 be further amended with words as circulated.

 

 The Chairperson: I do not think we are there yet. We are still dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. Minister.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: I can comment on that.

 

The Chairperson: No, you cannot, but you can comment on your proposed amendment.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move a further amendment in Clause 21, on page 15:

 

1. in lines 22 and 23 by the deletion of paragraph (b); and

 

1.  by the renumbering of paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

 

Mr Chisopa interjected.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I have asked that we amend Clause 21 so that we delete sub-clause(1)(b), which states that a person shall not intentionally and without lawful authority initiate the transmission of multiple electronic messages from or through a computer or computer system.

 

Madam Speaker, in his proposed amendment, the hon. Minister is now making a qualification by including the word ‘harmful’ and that is why I want us to remove that provision. He is suggesting that a person commits a crime if he or she initiates the transmission of multiple electronic messages from or through a computer or a computer system for purposes of causing harm or disruption of a computer or computer system.

 

Madam Chairperson, you can understand the vagueness in that statement –

 

Mr Miyutu interjected.

 

The Chairperson: You can continue, hon. Member. We do not want to lose your submission.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: The hon. Minister is suggesting that initiating the transmission of multiple electronic messages can cause harm. The question would be: If we left that provision as it is, where is the harm?

Mr Miyutu rose.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Miyutu, can you sit down. You do not know what you are doing there.

 

The Chairperson: Mr Mpundu, just wind up your debate. We want to make progress.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, what I have proposed is that we delete the entire statement in Clause 21(1)(b) because it is vague. It states that a person should not initiate the transmission of multiple electronic messages.

 

 Madam Chairperson, I will give an example. I communicate with people in the communities in my constituency through various ways. In the advent of social media, we have several WhatsApp groups. I can initiate one single conversation on multiple WhatsApp groups. The hon. Minister is now saying that such an act will qualify to be a crime if it is harmful. The question is: Whom will that be harmful to? If we enact a law that is too vague, it will be subject to abuse. I do not think we should do that.

 

Madam Speaker, the last sentence states –

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

You can summarise and wind up.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, we have enough time today. Let me just explain –

 

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Member!

 

You keep on repeating yourself. You were almost finishing, but you started to expand –

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, you need to understand this Bill because it will also confuse you.

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Just summarise so that we make progress.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: The danger is that if we do not interrogate this Bill, even you will be confused.

 

Hon. Government Members: Ah!

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

Mr Mpundu, I think, resume your seat. You do not need to involve me in your debate.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I am just saying –

 

The Chairperson: You should not involve me in your debate.

 

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Chairperson, I said that because you also participate in the making of laws.

 

The Chairperson: No, I am the Chairperson. I am not part and parcel of the debates. I am just guiding the debates and that is all. So, do not include me in your debates. You are just supposed to state your reason for moving an amendment. That is all and the process is straightforward. Within two to four minutes, you can state the reason to support your amendment. You do not have to debate or explain yourself. You just state why your amendment should be supported. That is all.

 

Hon. Minister, I am sure you have got the hon. Member’s point.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I would like to remind the House that when I came to the House to present the Bill, I mentioned that we made consultations with major stakeholders involved in the cyberspace. The amendment I moved is as a result of the various consultations we made. According to stakeholders, the proposal I have made covers their concerns. The key word in the proposed amendment is ‘purpose’. If the purpose of initiating the transmission of multiple electronic messages is to cause harm and injury to the public, then it becomes an offence. If it does not cause harm to anybody, it does not become an offence. That is what we are saying to the public.

 

Mr Mwene: Yes! Bayopa chani? 

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: As a responsible Government, we agreed to the proposals that were made by various stakeholders, including members of the public.

 

Madam Chairperson, on that premise, we do not support the amendment being moved by the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkana, who is a blogger.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson: Mr Kang’ombe, be brief and precise to the point.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Chairperson, maybe, what the hon. Minister should have done is to use this opportunity to respond ...

 

Mr B. Mpundu: On a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

 

Ms Sefulo: On whom?

 

Mr Kang’ombe: ... to issues in the context of what the Clause being amended intends to achieve.

 

The Clause has to be very clear. We need to know whether the action in question will harm an individual, a computer or society as a whole.

 

Having read the provision, I see no clarity on who would be affected by multiple forwarded messages. The hon. Member for Nkana said that we should delete the provision because it is ambiguous. We are making a law. We need to leave knowing that we are clear about what provision we are approving. It is not a matter of saying “That is why we are doing this and that”. We need to get clarity. You have allowed us to stand on this Floor today. We changed the Standing Orders specifically to deal with this business. Clarity is required. I do not think that there is any harm in clarifying the issues that Hon. B. Mpundu has raised. Who is the harm going to affect? Clarity is important. Is it on the computer system or the individual? We need to be clear before the amendment is considered.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether our hon. Colleagues would like us to start framing charges in this House. The Clause is clear. Anyone who:

 

 “Initiate[s] the transmission of multiple electronic messages from or through a computer or a computer system.”

 

Madam Chairperson, for purposes of causing harm or disrupting the computer or computer system. There must be an individual who initiates the process. It is clear. I do not see any ambiguity, and that is why we have made an amendment. We are responding to the concerns of stakeholders who also made proposals on the clarity they wanted on the matter. You may recall that a number of stakeholders stated that some of the criminal offences were not clear. As a listening Government, we clarified the offences. There is no ambiguity unless one wants to create ambiguity on this particular definition.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

The Chairperson: We have to decide.

 

Question that Clause 21 be amended put and negatived.

 

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 23 – (Prohibition of unlawful disclosure of details of investigation)

 

Mr Chanda (Kanchibiya): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move the following amendment:

 

1. on page 16, after line 14, by the insertion of the following new Clause immediately after Clause 23:

 

24(1) A person commits an offence if that person records or publishes a protected image of another person using a computer or computer system.

 

(2) A person who contravenes this section, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand penalty units or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section “protected image” means a visual representation (including any accompanying sound) made by any means including any photographic, film, video or digital representation, of a person at the scene of an accident or other emergency who, as a result of that accident or emergency, is-

 

1. dying or dead,

 

1. seriously injured, or

 

1. in a state of nervous shock.

 

1. on pages 16 to 20, by the renumbering of Clauses 24 to 35 as Clauses 25 to 36, respectively.

 

The Chairperson: Hon. Chanda, you may proceed.

 

Mr Chanda: Madam Chairperson, forgive me. Some of us are doing these things for the first time.

 

Madam Chairperson, the proposed amendment to Clause 23 is informed by what has become of cyberspace, especially when images of emergencies or accident victims are taken and publicised. The proposed amendment is non-controversial. It is proposed to cure what is becoming a serious trend in our nation so far as it relates to cyberspace. What I am proposing, on behalf of the people of Kanchibiya, is clear. In a few words, we are talking about protected images and that, of course, speaks to visual representations, which include any accompanied sounds made by any means, photographic films, videos or digital, of a person at a scene of an accident or emergency who, as a result of that accident or emergency, is dying or dead, seriously injured or in a state of nervous shock.

 

Madam Chairperson, I beg to move.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, whereas I appreciate the issue that has been raised by the hon. Member for Kanchibiya, I would not want to have the provision part of the law currently. Otherwise, we would arrest hundreds of people taking into account what is happening. Some people do it innocently so that they alert members of the security service to come to the aid of those who have been injured. I know it is a moral issue and a concern, but I do not think it would be in our interest to criminalise that. We just have to inform members of the public to be responsible. We would create a problem. I appreciate the issue which the hon. Member has raised, but I do not think that, at the moment, we should make it part of our laws.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Chairperson, I hear the submission of the hon. Minister but, first and foremost, I think that ignorance is no defence. The vice has been going on for too long and, for sure, it is a moral issue. How then do we regulate to ensure that people do not perpetuate the vice? I understand that we might end up taking everybody to jail, but then how does the ministry regulate to ensure that people know that it is a moral issue and mitigate it?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, that is now our responsibility, as the Government, to ensure that members of the public are sensitised to not take pictures of a deceased or injured person and circulate them. As I indicated, some intentions are noble, as a person would be alerting security wings and others of an accident, which might need attention. We will take into account the submission and ensure that if there will be a need in future, we take appropriate action.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Chinkuli (Kanyama): Madam Chairperson, looking at what the hon. Member for Kanchibiya has submitted, I agree with what the hon. Minister has said. However, there are certain people who get affected by seeing certain pictures. Some people faint upon seeing such pictures when they are sent to them. How can the Government look at those events where someone is affected by what has been passed on by a person who should not have done so?

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, as I indicated earlier, it is now incumbent upon us, as the Government, to educate members of the public on desisting from taking videos or pictures of persons who are injured or dead. What usually happens is that if a broadcaster is disseminating information to members of the public, the broadcaster warns members of the public that the pictures they are going to view are sensitive. That is what we should be doing. We have taken note of that, and there is no doubt about the issue being raised by the hon. Member of Parliament. We will take those issues into account and, maybe, put regulations in place to ensure that such things do not happen. However, for the time being, I would urge my colleague to not insist that it should be part of the law.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Mr Chanda (Kanchibiya): Madam Chairperson, I want to thank the hon. Minister for the responses he has provided. I do get the rationale by the Government on the matter; that it is an issue whose time, in terms of legislation, has not yet come. However, I think that it would be important that all of us, together with the ministry responsible for internal security look at how to curb this particular trend, which is becoming a menace, and also the trauma it is causing for affected families, issues of privacy and confidentiality, and so on and so forth.  Imagine you are seated, and the first thing you see on your gadget are images of a close relative involved in an accident. I think that can be very traumatising. So, my appeal and that of the people of Kanchibiya is that beyond this particular submission of the proposed amendment, the Government takes our submission, conducts further research and studies, and sees how best the trend can be regulated because it is disturbing.

 

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.:  Madam Chairperson, it is an assurance.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Question that Clause 23 be amended put and negatived.

 

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 30 – (Restoration and forfeiture of property)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 30, on page 18, in line 17 by the deletion of the words "without delay" and the substitution therefor of the words "within thirty days of the finding of the court or the withdrawal of proceedings".

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

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

 

The Chairperson: A point of order is raised.

 

Mr Chisopa: Madam Chairperson, I am raising a point of order pursuant to Standing Order No. 239.

 

Madam Chairperson, we can only conduct business if there is a quorum in the House.  Is this House in order to continue conducting business without the required number of hon. Members of Parliament in the House?

 

Madam Chairperson, I seek your serious indulgence.

 

The Chairperson: I will allow the Clerks-at-the-Table to confirm if the quorum has collapsed.

 

I am told we are short of four hon. Members. Can we have four hon. Members so that we can conclude business. We are almost done.

 

Interruptions

 

The Chairperson: Order!

 

We now have a quorum. Let us make progress.

 

CLAUSE 31 – (Assistance)

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 31, on page 19, in line 9 by the deletion of the word "shall" and the substitution therefor of the word “may”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

GENERAL AMENDMENT

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move a general amendment on pages 14 to 20 by the renumbering of clauses 17 to 35 as clauses, 15 to 33.

 

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 

Amendment agreed. New numbering ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Title agreed to.

 

______

 

HOUSE RESUMED

 

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

The following Bills were reported to the House as having passed through the Committee with amendments:

 

The Cyber Security Bill, 2024

 

The Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024

 

Report stage today

 

REPORT STAGE

 

The Cyber Security Bill, 2024

 

The Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024

 

Report adopted.

 

THIRD READING

 

The following Bills were read a third time and passed:

 

The Cyber Security Bill, 2024            

 

The Cyber Crimes Bill, 2024

 

The Geological and Minerals Development Bill, 2024

 

______

 

MOTION

 

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE

 

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security and Acting Leader of Government Business in the House (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

 

Question put and agreed to.

 

______

 

The House adjourned accordingly at 1607 hours on Friday, 28^th March, 2025, sine die.

 

___________