Wednesday, 9th July, 2025

Wednesday, 9^thJuly, 2025

The House met at 1430 hours

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

_______

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MADAM SPEAKER

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM MAAMBO SECONDARYSCHOOL

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

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

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM TOP-NOTCH ACCADEMY

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to recognise, the presence, in the Public Gallery of pupils and teachers from Top-Notch Academy in Lusaka District.

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

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

CONFRONTATIONS AT KIKONGE GOLD MINE

Hon. Members, you may be aware that over the past few days, there have been reports that confrontations erupted at Kikonge Gold Mine in Mufumbwe District, in the North-Western Province, between alleged illegal miners and the police, which regrettably resulted in the loss of lives. In this regard, I would like to inform the House that I have permitted the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security to issue a Ministerial Statement tomorrow, Thursday, 10^th July, 2025, and inform the House and the nation at large, regarding the happenings in Mufumbwe District. We sincerely convey our deepest condolences to the bereaved families.

I thank you.

_______

RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER

ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED ON TUESDAY, 1^stJULY, 2025, BY MR MUBITA ANAKOKA, HON. MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR LUENA CONSTITUENCY, ON WHETHER THE HOUSE WAS IN ORDER TO REMAIN SILENT IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENT DECLARING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MAKING PROCESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will recall that on Tuesday, 1^st July, 2025, when the House had just finished considering Urgent Matters without Notice, Mr Mubita Anakoka, hon. Member of Parliament for Luena Parliamentary Constituency, raised a point of order premised on the powers of Parliament to legislate as provided for under Part 14 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, and in particular, Order No.108. The point of order was raised in the following terms:

“Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.

“Madam Speaker, the people of Luena, as you know, do not rise on points of order unless they are compelled to do so. In this case, the point of order is also contemporaneous.

“Madam Speaker, the point of order I am rising on is anchored on the entire Chapter 14 of the Standing Orders, but with specific reference to Standing Order 108. However, as a way of anchoring what I want to raise as a point of order, allow me just to highlight that Article 62 of the Constitution establishes Parliament and Article 62(2) expressly vests legislative powers in this Parliament. Article 77 further empowers this House to regulate its own procedures and processes. As part of that self-regulation, this House has Standing Orders. It is in this respect that I refer to the entire Chapter 14 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024. Standing Order 108 specifically makes reference to Article 79, which is specifically about the procedures and processes to be followed when this House seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia.

“Madam Speaker, while this House was engaged in a process, as prescribed in, and empowered by the Constitution in Article 79, we closed the week with some breaking news coming from another Arm of the Government in the form of the Constitutional Court, which pronounced that the processes that were under way in this House were unconstitutional.

“Madam Speaker, is this House in order to keep quiet when, while it was in the process of discharging its constitutional mandate, another Arm of the Government declared the process unconstitutional? This usurpation of powers on such a serious issue has the potential to impact negatively the constitutional order of this country in terms of the separation of powers. Is this House, therefore, in order to keep quiet when there is such a pronouncement, which has far-reaching consequences in terms of the ability of this House to execute its constitutional mandate?

“Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling on this matter.”

In my immediate response, I reserved my ruling in order to study the matter. I have since studied the matter and I now render my ruling.

Hon. Members, the point of order raises the issue of one Arm of Government interfering with the operations or functioning of another Arm of Government.

Before I delve into the merits of this point of order, I wish to inform the House that ordinarily, a point of order raised against the House would not be sustained. This position is fortified by the ruling of the erstwhile Speaker, Rt Hon. Justice Dr Patrick Matibini, SC., on a point of order raised by Dr M. Malama, the then hon. Member of Parliament for Kanchibiya Parliamentary Constituency, against the House for allowing the exhibition of “political colours” as reported in the Daily Parliamentary Debates of Tuesday, 27^th February, 2018. In that ruling, the Speaker Matibini, SC., stated as follows:

“I wish to begin by guiding the House that a point of order cannot be raised against the House. This is because the purpose of a point of order is to draw the Speaker’s attention to a breach of the rules of the House by a Member.”

However, given the significance of the issue raised in the point of order by Mr M. Anakoka, MP, I exercised the discretionary powers vested in me by Standing Order 141 to allow the point of order, and I will now proceed to render my ruling.

Hon. Members, the background to the point of order by Mr M. Anakoka, MP, is that on Friday, 27^th June, 2025, the Constitutional Court rendered a judgment in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila versus the Attorney-General, 2025/CCZ/009. In that case, the petitioners, being unhappy with the ongoing Constitutional Reform Process, filed a petition in the Constitutional Court seeking the Court’s determination of the following questions:

whether Article 128 of the Constitution as read together with Article 2, limits the powers of the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of a Bill or actions taken to amend the Constitution until after the said Bill or action materialises or crystalises into an actual constitutional amendment;

whether Article 128 of the Constitution as read together with Article 2 limits the powers of the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of a Bill or actions taken to amend the Constitution by virtue of only merely mentioning the word “Bill”; and

whether Article 128 of the Constitution as read together with Article 2 allows the Constitutional Court to wait until the Constitution is mutilated before it assumes jurisdiction to prevent that overthrow.

In this regard, the petitioners were seeking, among others, the following reliefs:

an order directing the Respondent namely; the hon. Minister of Justice through the Attorney-General, to undertake wider consultation with the citizens of the Republic of Zambia prior to tabling the Constitution (Amendment) Bill; and

an order to stop the Minister of Justice through the respondent to halt any action or decision until after wide consultations.

The Constitutional Court, after hearing the matter, granted the following reliefs:

we declare that the decision by the Respondent to initiate a Constitutional Amendment Process without wider consultation goes against the spirit of Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91 and 92 of the Constitution; and

we order that the Respondent complies with the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring a people-driven process led by an independent body of experts including wider consultations with the people.

Hon. Members, it is important at this juncture, to note that at the time Mr Munir Zulu and Mr Celestine Mukandila filed the petition in the Constitutional Court, there was no Bill tabled in the National Assembly. However, at the time of the judgment, the legislative process in the National Assembly was already underway. As the House will recall, the hon. Minister of Justice presented the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, No. 7 of 2025, on Wednesday, 25^th May, 2025.

Hon. Members, in his point of order, Mr M. Anakoka, MP, was asking whether this House was in order to keep quiet when, while it was in the process of discharging its Constitutional mandate, another arm of the Government declared the process unconstitutional. He said this in reference to the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the Munir Zulu Case. He further stated that this usurpation of powers on such a serious issue has the potential to negatively impact the Constitutional order of this country in terms of the separation of powers.

The questions that this part of the point of order raise are:

whether the Constitutional Court did indeed, declare the legislative process of Bill 7 unconstitutional; and

whether the Constitutional Court ursuped the powers the Legislature.

I have had the benefit of reading both the majority and minority judgments in the Munir Zulu Case. My reading of the Judgment reveals that with regard to the first question above, the Court did not declare the legislative process in the National Assembly of Zambia in enacting the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, N.A.B No. 7 of 2025, popularly known as Bill 7, unconstitutional. The court addressed the constitutionality of the process prior to the presentation of Bill 7 in the National Assembly.

Further, the court ordered that the respondent complies with the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring a people-driven process led by an independent body of experts, including wider consultations with the people. By ordering the respondent in this manner, the Court was in essence ordering the Respondent to stop the process which was already underway in the National Assembly. I will address this issue more intensely when dealing with the doctrine of exclusive cognisance.

Hon. Members, I am aware that there is currently a petition in the Constitutional Court between Isaac Mwanza and the Attorney-General under cause number 2025/CCZ/0013. Among the reliefs being sought in this petition is a declaration that the decision of the court purporting to determine the procedure process for initiating a Constitutional amendment prior to the drafting of a Bill, in the absence of provisions in the Constitution and the law amounts to unlawful usurpation of legislative authority and Executive authority, contrary to Article 62(2) and Article 91(2) of the Constitution as read together with section 2(2)(d) of the Inquiries Act. Therefore, I will not delve into the issue of whether the Constitutional Court has usurped the legislative mandate of the National Assembly as it is sub judice.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to provide guidance on the sanctity of the legislative process of this august House. Parliament is vested with the legislative authority by Part VI of the Constitution. Specifically, Article 62 of the Constitution vests legislative authority in Parliament. For avoidance of doubt, Article 62 provides as follows:

“62. (1) There is established the Parliament of Zambia which consists of the President and the National Assembly;

(2) The legislative authority of the Republic is vested in and exercised by Parliament;

(3) A person or body, other than Parliament, shall not have power to enact legislation, except as conferred by this Constitution; and

(4) A member of the National Assembly shall be referred to as a Member of Parliament.”

Hon. Members, the National Assembly has a far-reaching freedom to determine and regulate its internal procedures and proceedings. This is referred to as the exclusive cognisance of the House. The privilege of exclusive cognisance derives from both legislation and Parliamentary practice. Article 77(1) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to regulate its own procedure and to make Standing Orders for the conduct of its business. It provides as follows:

“Subject to this Article and Article 78, the National Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and make Standing Orders for the conduct of its business.”

Additionally, Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia, provides as follows:

“34. Neither the Assembly, the Speaker nor any officer shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise of any power conferred on or vested in the Assembly, the Speaker, or such officer by or under the Constitution, the Standing Orders, and this Act.”

Hon. Members, the import of Article 77(1) of the Constitution as read together with Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is that the National Assembly has the power and the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct its internal affairs without interference from any external body, including the courts of law. There is an abundance of authorities confirming several judicial decisions that the courts have no jurisdiction and cannot interfere with the internal proceedings of the Legislature.

In the case of Hem Chandra Sen Gupta and Others versus The Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Air 1956 Cal 378, 60 Ven 555, the Chief Minister of West 12 Bengal had given notice to move a Motion for the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to approve a proposal for the Union of the States of West Bengal and Bihar. Opposed to the merger, the petitioners sought to restrain the Chief Minister from pursuing the Motion. The petitioners also sought to restrain the Union of India from bringing any Bill or legislation in Parliament for the purposes of uniting the two States. In resolving the issue whether court process could be used to stall an internal process of the Assembly, the court observed at paragraph 22 of the judgment as follows:

“Under the rules of procedures framed by the Assembly under Article 208, a member was at liberty to bring forward any resolution, provided the rules were observed. It was for the Speaker of the House to allow or disallow such a resolution to be raised or discussed in the House. The courts could not at that stage seek to regulate the procedure of the House and arrogate to itself the powers of the Speaker. If, however, a law was passed or a resolution adopted or a motion carried, which was not in accordance with the Constitution, such a law, resolution, or motion could be declared invalid by the Court.”

The court further held, at paragraph 22 of the same page, that:

“The Constitution lays down the respective jurisdictions of the legislatures and the courts. It is the business of the Legislature to make laws and of the court to administer them. The powers, privileges and immunities of the State Legislatures and their members have been laid down in the Constitution. In such matters and within their allotted spheres, they are supreme and cannot be called into account by the courts of the land. The courts are, therefore, not interested in the formative stages of any law. Even where a law has been promulgated, it is not the duty of the courts to act in a supervisory character and rectify the defects on its own Motion.”

In deciding the Gupta case, the court referred to the English case of the Queen versus Lords Commissioners of the Treasury [1872]7Q.B.387, where it was held that the Legislature had the exclusive cognisance to decide its own affairs. Thus, in the Gupta case (supra), the court adopted the statement of Blackburn J, as follows:

“I must observe in saying this that there is not the slightest intention on my part to question the exclusive prerogative of the House of Commons in voting the money. As long as the thing remains to be made a resolution in the House, it could not, I believe, be brought properly before this court. But when the money has been voted, and the money has been granted, and an Appropriation Act has been passed, then it has become an Act of the Legislature, and we must construe it when it comes before us as we should do any other Act.”

The import of the dicta by Blackburn J, cited above, is in effect that no action can be commenced to challenge a process of the National Assembly before it is completed and a decision is made. Thus, any challenge must come after the decision is made. In addition, in the case of Bradlaugh versus Gosset [1884] 12 Queen’s Bench Division (QBD) 271, the court was emphatic when it held that the House of Commons was not subject to the control of the courts in its administration of that part of the statute law, which had relation to its internal proceedings. Further, in Hamilton versus Al Fayed (1999) 3 ALLER 334, the House of Lords stated as follows:

“The principle is that the courts will not challenge or assault, by any order of their own, an assertion of authority issued by Parliament pursuant to Parliament’s own procedures. This principle extends to acts and decisions of Parliament which are not part of the process of enacting primary legislation (such as the acts of the PCS, CSP and the House of Commons in this case). It flows from the court’s recognition of Parliament’s constitutional status as sovereign legislator. Once it has identified the subject matter of a dispute as falling within such process, the court will not proceed.”

The House of Lords further stated as follows, on the same page:

“It must surely be for Parliament to lay down the procedures which are to be followed before a Bill can become an Act. It must be for Parliament to decide whether its decreed procedures have in fact been followed. It must be for Parliament to lay down and construe its Standing Orders and further to decide whether they have been obeyed. It must be for Parliament to, in any particular case, dispense with compliance with such orders. It must be for Parliament to decide whether it is satisfied that an Act should be passed in the form and with the wording set out in the Act. It would be impracticable and undesirable for the High Court of Justice to embark on an enquiry concerning the effect or the effectiveness of the internal procedures of Parliament in the High Court or whether in any particular case those procedures were effectively followed.”

Hon. Members, in the decision of the Queen’s Bench in Stockdale versus Hansard 3 State Tr (N.S.) 748, the court held that the House of Commons had exclusive jurisdiction over its own internal proceedings.

Coming back home, the principle of exclusive cognisance was acknowledged by the Constitutional Court in the case of Chishimba Kambwili versus Attorney-General 2019/CC/009. In acknowledging the principle of exclusive cognisance, the court referred to both Article 77(1) of the Constitution and Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, at page J31, in the following terms:

“We also note that by virtue of Article 77(1) of the Constitution, as read together with Section 34 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, … the National Assembly has exclusive power and jurisdiction over the conduct of its internal affairs.”

Hon. Members, the learned authors on parliamentary procedure and practice, M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, in their book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Seventh Edition, (New Delhi), Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2016, on page 249 state as follows:

“Parliament is sovereign within the limits assigned to it by the Constitution. There is an inherent right in the House to conduct its affairs without interference from an outside body ... The House has also collective privilege to decide what it will discuss and in what order without any interference from a court of law.

“ … It is well known that no writ, direction or order restraining the Speaker from allowing a particular decision to be discussed, or interfering with the legislative processes of either House of the Legislature or interfering with the freedom of discussion or expression of opinion of either House can be entertained.

“… The validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be called in question in any court on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.”

Hon. Members, it is, thus, abundantly clear from the foregoing authorities that as regards its internal proceedings, the National Assembly has exclusive jurisdiction and the courts cannot intervene. The reason for this is not farfetched, it is to maintain the separation of powers so that the National Assembly conducts its matters without any interference from either the Executive or the Judiciary. This ensures that the National Assembly is not hindered in the performance of its duties by busybodies who can rush to the courts to stop the proceedings of the House. If this absurd situation were to be allowed, the operations of the National Assembly would be paralysed and, ultimately, fail to execute its constitutional mandate. Therefore, the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, are promulgated by the powers granted to this House by the Constitution. To be precise, Part 14 of the Standing Orders prescribes the parliamentary legislative process; a process that is not outlined in any piece of legislation.

Having said the foregoing, Standing Order No. 108 outlines the procedure that this House must follow when a Bill to amend the Constitution is presented. The Standing Order provides as follows:

“108 (1) In accordance with Article 79(2) of the Constitution a Bill to amend the Constitution shall not be passed unless –

not less than thirty days before the First Reading of the Bill in the Assembly, the text of the Bill is published in the Gazette; and

the Bill is supported on Second and Third Reading Stages by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the Members of the Assembly.”

Hon. Members, I am also alive to the provisions of Article 5 of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

“5 (1) Sovereign authority vests in the people of Zambia, which may be exercised directly or through elected or appointed representatives or institutions.

(2) Power that is not conferred by or under this Constitution on any State organ, State institution, State officer, Constitutional office holder or other institution or person is reserved for the people.

(3) The people of Zambia shall exercise their reserved power through a referendum, as prescribed.”

Further, Article 62(2) and (3) clothes Parliament with legislative power and prohibits any person or body, other than Parliament, to enact legislation. The Article provides as follows:

“62 ...

(2) The legislative authority of the Republic is vested in and exercised by Parliament.

(3) A person or body, other than Parliament, shall not have power to enact legislation, except as conferred by this Constitution.”

The House will recall that prior to its presentation, the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 was published in the Gazette for thirty days, as provided for under Article 79(2)(a) and Standing Order 108(1)(a) of the Constitution and Standing Orders, respectively. I wish to point out that there is no proposal in Bill No. 7 of 2025 to amend either Article 79 or the Bill of Rights. These are entrenched provisions that require the involvement of the people through a referendum. Therefore, I was of the considered view that Parliament could exercise its legislative authority, as conferred upon it by Article 62(2), as read together with Article 5(1) above, which does not require a referendum, but is exercised by the Legislature through hon. Members of Parliament, who are the people’s representatives. There is nothing in the proposed amendments presented under Bill No. 7 of 2025 that requires the involvement of Article 5(3), which requires a referendum.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: In this regard, the Bill was properly before the House, both in terms of the law and parliamentary procedure. Standing Order No. 111 outlines the stages of a Bill, which include First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading. At this moment, allow me to briefly explain what happens at each of the legislative stages above for the benefit of some hon. Members and the general public.

First Reading

This is the presentation of a Bill to the House by the sponsor of that Bill. The sponsor of a Bill may be an hon. Minister or Private hon. Member. The sponsor simply reads the short title and the objects of the Bill; what the Bill is intended to achieve. Standing Order No. 112(3) provides that when a Bill has been read the first time, it shall stand referred to an appropriate Committee for detailed examination. Therefore, after the First Reading, the Speaker refers the Bill to an appropriate Committee for detailed examination. It is important for me to explain that when a Bill has been referred to an appropriate Committee, the Committee produces a programme of work, which includes consultative meetings –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Bwacha, order, please!

I will read that again. Standing Order No. 112(3) provides that when a Bill has been read the first time, it shall stand referred to an appropriate Committee for detailed examination. Therefore, after the First Reading, the Speaker refers the Bill to an appropriate Committee for detailed examination. It is important for me to explain that when a Bill has been referred to an appropriate Committee, the Committee produces a programme of work, which includes consultative meetings with various stakeholders on their views for or against the Bill.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, if we do not sit quietly, I can suspend the reading of the ruling and refer you to certain Standing Orders. I do not want to do that. Please, allow me to finish reading the ruling.

Hon. Members, apart from the identified stakeholders, hon. Members of Parliament and members of the general public are free to make submissions to the Committee within the programme of work of the Committee. This is a consultative process that involves the public and is in line with Article 89(1) of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

“89 (1) The National Assembly shall facilitate public involvement in the legislative process.”

In this way, members of the public are not excluded from the legislative process. The Committee reports back to the House on its findings in not less than twenty working days or including such additional time as may be prescribed by the Speaker.

Second Reading

On the day assigned for the Second Reading Stage of the Bill, the hon. Minister or Backbencher responsible for the Bill (the sponsor), shall move the Motion that the Bill be read the second time. The sponsor is then allowed to explain the objects or the rationale for bringing the Bill. After the sponsor has explained the rationale for bringing the Bill, the chairperson of the Committee to which the Bill was referred presents the report of the Committee, including the findings from the various stakeholders, hon. Members of Parliament and members of the public who made submissions to the Committee.

After the chairperson of the Committee presents the Committee’s report, other hon. Members are allowed to debate the Bill. At the end of the debate, a vote is taken for or against the Bill before proceeding to the next stage. If it is a Constitutional Bill, the threshold at this stage is two-thirds of all the hon. Members of the House voting in favour of the Bill. If it is any other Bill, a simple majority suffices. After the Second Reading, the Bill is then referred to a Committee of the Whole House for Committee stage.

Committee Stage

The objective of the Committee Stage is to accord the Committee of the Whole House an opportunity to approve the Bill clause by clause. It is important to mention that at this stage, if there is an hon. Member who is not happy with any clause can move an amendment for which he or she has given notice. Amendments are debated and passed using a simple majority, whether a Bill is a constitutional one or any other Bill. If a clause has been amended, the Chairperson immediately puts the question that the clause, as amended, stands part of the Bill. Where an amendment is not agreed to, the Chairperson orders the original clause to stand part of the Bill. If the Bill is not amended at the Committee Stage, it proceeds to the Third Reading Stage. However, if a Bill has been amended at the Committee Stage, it proceeds to the Report Stage.

Report Stage

As I have already stated, the Report Stage only occurs when there were amendments during the Committee Stage. Further amendments may be made to the Bill at this stage. The amendments at this stage are restricted to minor ones meant to clean up the Bill. After the Report Stage, the Bill proceeds to the Third Reading Stage.

Third Reading

At this stage, the Speaker puts the question that the Bill be read the third time. There is no debate at this stage. If a Bill is a constitutional one, the threshold for passing this stage is two-thirds of all the hon. Members of the House voting in favour of the Bill. If, on the other hand, the Bill is not a constitutional one, the threshold is a simple majority. After going through the Third Reading the Bill is considered as passed by the House.

Let us now turn to the process that was followed in the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, No.7 of 2025. Hon. Members, without providing all the details of what occurred when the hon. Minister of Justice presented the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No.7 of 2025, the procedures outlined in the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, were set in motion. As the House will recall, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee in line with Standing Order 112(3) and the Select Committee began to execute its mandate. In its programme of work, the Select Committee lined up the following stakeholders to be consulted:

Ministry of Justice;

Programme Manager, SADC-PF;

Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ);

Zambia Law Development Commission (ZLDC);

Ministry of Youth, Sport and Arts;

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development;

Ministry of Community Development and Social Services;

Gender Division – Office of the Vice-President;

Ministry of Finance and National Planning;

Human Rights Commission (HRC);

The Judiciary of Zambia;

Zambia Statistics Agency (ZamStats);

Policy Monitoring and Research Centre (PMRC);

Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR);

Action Institute for Policy Analysis Centre (AIPAC);

Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ);

Zambia National Federation of the Blind (ZANFOB);

Zambia Agency for Persons with Disabilities (ZAPD);

Zambia Conference for Catholic Bishops (ZCCB);

Governance Elections Advocacy Research Services (GEARS) Initiative Zambia;

Non-Governmental Gender Organisations Co-ordinating Council (NGOCC);

Girls Gone Political;

Zambia National Students Union;

Centre for Young;

Leaders in Africa;

Zambia Civil Liberties Union;

Independent Churches Association of Zambia;

Alliance for Accountability Advocates Zambia;

Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR);

Islamic Council of Zambia;

Press Association of Zambia;

Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Zambia Chapter;

Women in Law and Development in Africa;

Local Government Association of Zambia (LGAZ);

Young Women Christian Association (YWCA);

Zambia Institute of Governance and Civil Liberties Advocacy Platform;

Zambia Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU);

Measures of Justice and Democracy Foundation;

House of Chiefs;

Caritas Zambia;

Action Aid Zambia;

Alliance for Community Action;

Disability Rights Watch;

Zambia National Women’s Lobby;

Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ);

Carter Centre Zambia;

National Institute for Public Administration (NIPA) – School of Law;

Zambian Open University – School of Law;

Oasis Forum;

Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD);

Transparency International Zambia (ITZ);

Advocates for National Development and Democracy;

University of Lusaka (UNILUS) – School of Law;

Women in Law in Southern Africa (WLSA);

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ);

University of Zambia (UNZA) – School of Law;

Economic Front;

New Congress Party (NCP);

Socialist Party (SP);

Chapter One Foundation;

United Liberal Party (ULP);

Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD);

Patriotic Front (PF);

National Democratic Congress (NDC);

United Party for National Development (UPND);

Party of National Unity and Progress (PNUP);

Patriots for Economic Progress (PeP);

Citizens First;

Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD);

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF);

Leadership Movement;

New Heritage Party;

Golden Party (GP);

Zambia Must Prosper (ZMP);

Members of Parliament;

Minister of Justice; and

members of the public.

It is clear from the above list that the Select Committee intended to consult widely on the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025.

Hon. Members, Order No. 121 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, is instructive on the procedure to be followed when a Member sponsoring the Bill desires to defer or withdraw it. Standing Order No. 121(1) provides as follows:

“A Member who sponsors a Bill may defer or withdraw the Bill at any time by formally

writing to the Speaker stating his or her decision.”

Hon. Members, as the Select Committee was executing its mandate, on Thursday, 26^th June, 2025, my office received communication from the hon. Minister of Justice informing me of the deferment of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, No.7 of 2025. The reason for the deferment was to allow for further consultations with stakeholders. As the House will recall, I made an announcement on the same day and consequently, suspended the sittings of the Select Committee.

I wish to reiterate that according to the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, was properly before the House. The deferment that occurred on Thursday, 26^th June, 2025, was in accordance with the procedures for deferring a Bill as outlined in our Standing Orders. It is important at this stage for me to be categorical that, in line with the doctrine of exclusive cognisance, which I have extensively traversed in the preceding paragraphs, if the sponsor of Bill 7, that is the hon. Minister of Justice, decides to proceed with the subsequent stages of Bill 7, this House will resume consideration of the Bill.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: This is notwithstanding the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the Munir Zulu case. This is because the Constitutional Court or any other external body for that matter, cannot arrest a legislative process that has been set in motion and is under consideration in Parliament.

I thank you.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Order!

Interruptions

Hon. Members, can we please, settle down? We have a lot of work before us.

_______

URGENT MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE

MR KAPYANGA, HON. MEMBER FOR MPKIA, ON HER HONOUR THE VICE-PRESIDENT, MRS NALUMANGO, ON THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE ARMY IN PLACES WHERE ILLEGAL MINING IS TAKING PLACE

Mr Kapyanga (Mpika): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Kapyanga: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to rise on an Urgent Matter without Notice which is directed at Her Honour the Vice-President and Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker: You can proceed.

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, the current Cabinet resolved to deploy the Army in areas where there is illegal mining, particularly, for gold. This has instilled panic amongst our citizens …

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member, without curtailing you, I am sure if you were listening to my last announcement before I delivered the ruling, I mentioned that the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security will deliver a statement to this House tomorrow. Please, hold on to your questions. When the hon. Minister is on the Floor of the House, you will ask that question. I hope you were listening when I was guiding the House.

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, I take your guidance, but according to how I got it –

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member, I have guided.

MR KANG’OMBE, HON. MEMBER FOR KAMFINSA, ON HER HONOUR THE VICE-PRESIDENT, MRS NALUMANGO, ON THE DEATH OF THREE PEOPLE AT MATALA GOLD MINE IN NANGOMA CONSTITUENCY.

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

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Kang’ombe: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to rise on an Urgent Matter without Notice which is directed at Her Honour the Vice-President and Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker: You can proceed.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, yesterday, courtesy of the National Broadcaster, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC), a report was aired to the effect that three people died at Matala Gold Mine in Nangoma Constituency, which is in Mumbwa District. This subject matter is totally different from the Mufumbwe one.

Madam Speaker, given the fact that three lives have been lost in Nangoma Constituency, I am compelled to direct an Urgent Matter without Notice at Her Honour the Vice-President. Is Her Honour the Vice-President and Leader of Government Business in the House, in order not to come to this august House to assure the young people of Zambia, who want to participate in mining in that particular area where three lives have been lost?

Is she in order, Madam Speaker, not to come to this august House to give a statement on why lives have been lost in the mining ventures that our young people are undertaking?

Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, I think that issue is related to the Mufumbwe one especially the fact that those three deaths occurred just yesterday. I am sure when the hon. Minister comes tomorrow, he will also address that issue. So, let us hold on to our questions and ask the hon. Minister when he comes. This also relates to illegal mining, people mining without licences, young people and many other issues. Please, just prepare your questions so that when the hon. Minister renders the Ministerial Statement, you have more questions to ask him in order to clear those issues. So, please, hold on to your questions.

DR MWANZA, HON. MEMBER FOR KAUMBWE, ON THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, MR. MTOLO, ON THE FLOOR PRICE OF MAIZE

Dr Mwanza: On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Dr Mwanza: Madam Speaker, my Urgent Matter without Notice is directed at the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Madam Speaker: You can proceed.

Dr Mwanza: Madam Speaker, since the Government announced the floor price of maize, the Food Reserve Agency (FRA) never bought any maize until now. The people of Kaumbwe are worried that the national food security, which is very important is threatened by briefcase buyers. If one drove on the Great East Road, one would meet trucks laden with maize bought by private players.

Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture in order to keep quiet and not announce or rather open the depots for the maize? Our people need to benefit from the good price that the Government has authorised this year.

Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Member for Kaumbwe, I suggest you put in an urgent question because many people would want to benefit from the answer that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will give on that issue. We have exhausted the three matters.

Hon. Member for Feira, your Urgent Matter without Notice does not qualify.

So, we make progress.

_______

QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER

LOANS FOR CIVIL SERVANTS

371. Ms S. Mwamba (Kasama Central) (on behalf of Mr J. Daka (Chadiza)) asked the Minister of Agriculture:

how many civil servants applied for loans under the Sustainable Agriculture Finance Facility for the 2023/2024 Farming Season, in Chadiza District;

how many applicants were granted the loans; and

how many applicants at (b) paid back the loans, as of December, 2024.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr Mtolo): Madam Speaker, a total of 131 civil servants applied for loans under the Sustainable Agricultural Financing Facility (SAFF) for the 2023/2024 Farming Season in Chadiza District.

Madam Speaker, twenty-six applicants were granted the loans.

Madam Speaker, Chadiza was among the districts affected by drought and, therefore, farmers were not expected to pay back the loans.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms S. Mwamba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for that response.

Madam Speaker, does the Government have any plans to indicate a definite number of beneficiaries of the Sustainable Agriculture Financing Facility (SAFF) per district? I ask this because it seems that many beneficiaries of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) will benefit from the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) and SAFF.

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. We are trying to look at how we can actually target the number of potential applicants, district by district.

I thank you Madam Speaker.

Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa): Madam Speaker, the Sustainable Agriculture Financing Facility (SAFF) relates to making money available to those who want to engage in sustainable farming. How much money was allocated to this activity? I ask this question because some people have been complaining that only a few applicants have been considered while the majority still want to benefit from this particular funding. Do we have money for this particular finance facility?

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

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Katakwe: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on a serious note, on contempt of Parliament and breach of privilege.

Madam Speaker, an hon. Member of Parliament who utters derogatory remarks about Parliament outside parliamentary premises could be committing contempt of Parliament, which is a breach of privilege. This action can be seen as disrespect towards the institution and its proceedings, potentially undermining public confidence in Parliament. Depending on the specific content of the laws of the jurisdiction, this could lead to various consequences, including censure, suspension or other disciplinary action determined by the House.

Madam Speaker, I have used the words ‘derogatory’ and ‘contempt.’ An attack on the integrity or the authority of Parliament can be considered contempt of Parliament. On breach of privilege, yes, we understand that privilege generally protects hon. Members’ freedom of speech within Parliament, but this protection is not absolute and does not extend to conduct that undermines the institution itself.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkana was quoted in the media. According to The Mast newspaper published on Saturday, on page 2, –

Madam Speaker: Sorry, hon. Member. Without curtailing you, let me say that those matters did not happen on the Floor of this House. So, I advise that you write a letter of complaint.

Mr Katakwe: Madam Speaker, I am well guided, and the letter of complaint has also been written. With your permission, allow me to lay the letter on the Table of the House as well as The Mast newspaper.

Madam Speaker: The letter that you have written, hon. Member, should be sent either to the office of the Clerk or to my office together with The Mast newspaper and then the matter will be dealt with accordingly, since you cannot raise it as a point of order as no Standing Order has been breached now, and the incident did not happen on the Floor of the House.

Thank you very much. I do not want to curtail you, but we have a lot of work. That is why I wanted to –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: It is okay, hon. Member for Solwezi East. Thank you, I see your passion.

May the hon. Minister of Agriculture answer the question.

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, first and foremost, it is important that the House and the nation realise that SAFF is a commercial transaction between an applicant and a commercial bank. Our role, as the Government, is merely to support the applicant through the credit guarantee scheme. Funds, therefore, are made available by banks, and the banks are supported to some extent by the Government, through the Budget which this House appropriated, discussed and recommended. So, the obvious answer is yes, there is some support from the Government, but the real amount comes from commercial banks.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Zulu (Nyimba): Madam Speaker, when answering part (c) of Question No. 371, the hon. Minister clearly stated that Chadiza, just like Nyimba, was highly affected by drought. Is the hon. Minister aware that the people who were affected by drought are not supposed to pay back the loans that they got? However, they are being made to pay the loans back right now. Those who were affected by drought in 2023 and 2024 are paying back the loans, yet they are not supposed to. Is the Minister aware of this?

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, what I said is the policy position. Therefore, I am not aware that there are people who are being forced to pay. I would happy to be guided on who is being forced. What I continuously did was refuse to give a wholesale picture because certain parts of Zambia received rainfall and, therefore, people are supposed to pay back. However, for the eighty-four districts, I made it clear through a Ministerial Statement that the people in those areas are not supposed to pay back the loans. So, I would be happy to be guided on the areas that were affected and to know whether indeed the applicants are being forced to pay back the loans.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms S. Mwamba: Madam Speaker, the major complaint from most farmers is that SAFF loans are being accessed mostly by well-connected individuals in constituencies. What measures are being put in place to ensure that even genuine farmers without connections access the SAFF loans?

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, SAFF loans, as stated by the hon. Member for Kasama Central, are given by banks. The role of the ministry is to assist the banks in confirming that a given applicant is, indeed, a farmer. As to whom and how the loans are given, that is between the bank and applicant. As leaders, the people governing this country, we need to have interest and support our farmers because, who knows, what the hon. Member is saying could be right. It is up to the hon. Member for Chadiza, for instance, to get interested in who has applied for loans in Chadiza and support his constituents. Otherwise, we will continue having problems like that, and continue talking in this House without yielding any results. So, the issue is between the bank and applicant.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mutinta (Itezhi-Tezhi): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for the responses.

Madam Speaker, the last farming season was the first, in practice, in which the Government implemented the Sustainable Agriculture Financing Facility (SAFF). The people of Chadiza and many other places appreciate the benefits that come with SAFF, especially that it is targeting civil servants who are not part of the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP). For the benefit of the people of Chadiza and many other places, like Itezhi-Tezhi, what does the hon. Minister think was not done well by the ministry? I know that banks are responsible for giving out the loans, but there is an element that the ministry should co-ordinate in the process. What areas does the hon. Minister think need to be improved on so that this year, SAFF becomes better than it was last year?

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the views given by the hon. Member.

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that SAFF is implemented by banks. What are we, as a ministry, going to do to help improve the situation? Firstly, we want to ensure that each province is given a targeted number of beneficiaries. Secondly, we want to help banks ensure that farmers apply for a given type of loan. We need to remember that there are about five loan portfolios under SAFF. The other thing is to improve the selection process, which comes back to us, as hon. Members. Let us ensure that those who apply are genuine and that what they apply for is a product that they want to venture into to avoid situations in which people discount the loan amounts they are given. Some just sell farming inputs to agro-dealers for an amount less than the market value of those inputs. So, we are looking at how we can help banks improve the status of SAFF.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, this is a constituency-based question. I see that there is a lot of interest in the matter. I encourage hon. Members to engage the hon. Minister. We have a number of Motions that we need to go through. So, we will leave it at that.

We can make progress.

_______

MOTION

RE-INTRODUCE DEBT SWAP FOR CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this House urges the Government to re-introduce the debt swap facility for civil servants.

Madam Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Mr Chanda (Kanchibiya): Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

Mr Mtolo and Mr Mutati stood to walk out of the Assembly Chamber.

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Minister of Agriculture and hon. Minister of Technology and Science!

Mr Mtolo resumed his seat.

Madam Speaker: I can see him on an anthill there.

Laughter

Mr Mutati left the Assembly Chamber.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, I would like to present this Motion on the backdrop of the fact that this matter has been tackled before, but there has remained a big gap that needs to be filled. For starters, I would like to lay out the context of what I view as a debt swap. A debt swap, in this case, is a financial arrangement in which a borrower replaces existing debt with a new obligation under more favourable conditions. Another factor that I would like to lay out is the word ‘re-introduce’. That is against the background that on 29^th July, 2021, the Government entered into an agreement with the Civil Servants and Allied Workers Union of Zambia (CSAWUZ) to undertake a debt swap initiative for civil servants. The House may wish to know that the arrangement was cancelled on 29^th May, 2022. The reason given was that the arrangement was not sustainable. That is where we are coming from.

Madam Speaker, the question to be asked is: Why a debt swap? A debt swap is targeted at civil servants or public workers in relation to their payslips or their ‘take-home’ pay. Currently, civil servants’ payslips are riddled with high debt and deductions, which puts them under fiscal strain. They fail to meet domestic needs like food and other requirements. We need to talk about the stress that civil servants are going through because they are the engine of the Government that propels service delivery and productivity, among others. We realise that if workers who are constrained financially are responsible for Government facilities and service delivery, then they are already in a compromised position and their output may not be pleasing to the people of Zambia. That is the reason this debt swap Motion is being moved.

Madam Speaker, the model for the proposed debt swap, among other things, should take into account low interest rate arrangements, away from high interest rate facilities. Secondly, debt should be restructured in a manner that ensures that what is being deducted from the payslip is lower than it is now. Further, there should be consolidation of different loans on a payslip so that they are in one basket. When the debt swap process is concluded, the channelling mechanism should provide relief to the debtor. The consolidation of debt is a scheme that can bring in micro-finance, commercial banks and other lenders. We know that because of the strain that the public servants are in, they are even borrowing away from their pay slips, whereby they bring in shylocks and the like. This is because they are under financial strain.

Madam Speaker, another factor that may come in, since the debt swap is also linked to domestic debts, is that people say that we are trying to encourage the Government to borrow more. However, the Government is still borrowing to try and deliver services. This engine of the Government, which is also part of the Government’s delivery of service, should also benefit indirectly or directly.

Madam Speaker, the legal basis of the debt swap is in Section 69 of the Industrial Labour Relations Act Cap 269, which provides for regulations and conditions of service between employers and unions. I think, this is what is referred to as a tripartite relationship.

Madam Speaker, for the debt swap to be more successful and befitting, especially in an economic environment like ours, it should not, among other things, encourage indiscipline in the Civil Service. This debt swap is a temporary measure. So, among other things that are suggested to curb further indiscipline or borrowing are that this debt swap we are proposing should go with financial literacy and wider restructuring of the debtors, as it may be, especially reducing and staggering the debt to lower instalments and a longer period of repayment. For instance, if a civil servant was supposed to pay back a particular loan amount in three years or six months, we are proposing that since they are in permanent employment, the loan be staggered over a two-year period and above so that they have some relief.

Madam Speaker, I think that the debt swap is an open door, especially given that that the current environment also encourages that the economic benefits that the Government is talking about should benefit all, especially the 300,000 plus public workers.

Madam Speaker, we are scared that even those who have been recruited have joined the canteen culture of the general civil servants, where they land today, and immediately they get a loan to meet an emergency or settle some debt. So, there is a situation whereby a civil servant would borrow from one to pay back another.

Madam Speaker, this is a non-controversial Motion. I, therefore urge all hon. Members of Parliament to join me and lobby, on behalf of the workers, for the re-introduction of the debt swap for Civil Servants.

The hon. Member’s time expired.

Madam Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

Mr Chanda: Now, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise to second a Motion that speaks not just to fiscal policy, but to the heart of justice, compassion and responsibility. I rise to second the Motion that speaks to the very essence that effective and efficient Government service delivery depends and hinges on a highly productive Civil Service.

Madam Speaker, let me begin with a story of Buumba, a primary school teacher in Kanchibiya Constituency with nineteen years of service. Last month, her payslip showed minus K124.76. This is not a misprint. It means that after loan deductions, she owed more than she earned. Agnes, a widow raising three children, borrowed money to fix her roof, pay school fees and buy food when prices surged.

Madam Speaker, there is also Mulenga, a nurse in Luchembe in Kanchibiya Constituency. Her take-home pay is K113, and transport to the rural health centre costs K25 per day. So, she walks or sleeps on a mat at the clinic to avoid transport costs. She borrowed to pay for utility bills and funeral costs and has not recovered since. These are not fictional tales but the faces of our frontline workers and Zambians serving the nation but living in economic bondage.

Madam Speaker, the mover of this Motion has spoken about what the debt swap is. This is a Government mechanism supported by financial restructuring mechanism, allowing the Government to settle or absorb salary backed loans from Civil Servants, consolidate them under a central public financial institution such as the Public Service Micro Finance Company (PSMFC) and allow affected workers to repay the Government under more humane, transparent and affordable terms through payroll deductions. This is not a debt cancellation, but a controlled transfer and restructuring. It is a lifeline. It is not a handout, and it is not a hoax.

Madam Speaker, as of 2022, the debt owed by Civil Servants to microfinance and salary-backed lenders is reported to have stood at K27 billion. That number has almost risen owing to stagnant salaries, rising cost of living, the basic needs and nutritional basket, which now stands at K11,763 as of June, 2025, and weak regulatory oversight.

Madam Speaker, today, some Civil Servants take home less than 10 per cent of their gross pay, with many payslips showing zero or negative balances.

Madam Speaker, we now have Civil Servants borrowing to buy mealie meal, pay for funerals and afford transport to work. These are professionals, qualified and experienced individuals living in functional poverty. This is not just about numbers, but the dignity of a service and the moral obligation of a grateful nation.

Madam Speaker, many civil servants are blacklisted. They cannot access future credit. They live with anxiety, humiliation and despair. Their data is shared between lenders, and their lives are closely monitored not to support them but to extract every Kwacha.

Madam Speaker, predatory lenders charge interest rates of up to 60 per cent, and Civil Servants, because of their guaranteed income, are the primary targets. This is systemic exploitation of the worst order committed to the workforce that we so depend on in order for us to deliver.

Madam Speaker, we must learn from the past. I know that the previous Administration introduced a debt swap. It was well-intentioned but poorly executed in some areas. The flaws included a rushed national rollout, a lack of engagement with unions and civil society, and weak sustainability planning. We must learn from that experience, but not to abandon the idea. However, it needs to be reformed and reintroduced wisely.

Madam Speaker, the proposed framework of the new debt swap must be phased, in the sense that it must prioritise the low-income earners, starting with confirmed active Civil Servants. It must be structured and repayment capped at 30 per cent of net salary. The PSMFC should serve as the central collector and custodian. It must collaborate with the Bank of Zambia (BoZ), unions and regulated lenders. It must also establish a multi-stakeholder oversight board. It must also be protective by introducing statutory caps on interest rates as well as prohibiting the stacking of multiple loans. It must be educational and include mandatory financial literacy training.

Madam Speaker, this particular Motion aligns with the following policies:

the Eighth National Development Plan (8NDP) under human capital development;

the Vision 2030, reduce poverty and improved livelihoods;

public services reform agenda, a motivated and efficient work force; and

sustainable development goals, goal one, eight and ten, no poverty decent work and reduced inequality.

Madam Speaker, my appeal to this hon. House and the hon. Members is that this is not about partisanship but partnership with our civil servants. We all as hon. Members in this House, have teachers, nurses and police officers in all our 156 constituencies. We have all seen their anguish, the shame, and the desperation. Therefore, let this House respond not with rhetoric, but with resolve. I support this Motion not because it is for Hon. Fube and I, but because it is a rightful one.

Madam Speaker, we call upon this honourable House to urge the Government to reintroduce the debt swap in a phased and structured manner as follows: regulate institutions to consolidate and not cancel the civil servant debt; enhance the public service micro-finance institutions for implementation; cap predatory interest rates and introduce lending regulations; introduce oversight and transparency mechanisms; and provide financial literacy training to prevent future indebtedness.

Madam Speaker, this is a call for compassion, reform and justice. Let us remember that Buumba, Mulenga and thousands of them that they are not asking for charity but a second chance. Let this Parliament speak for the silent, lift the burden, and restore the dignity of our public servants.

Madam Speaker, may God bless our civil servants and may God bless Zambia.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Kambita (Zambezi East): Madam Speaker, while I stand here with mixed feelings, I would still say I support the Motion. However, my support will not go without comments that will help us reason together on what is best for everyone.

Madam Speaker, the mover and seconder of the Motion are calling it a debt swap. I am left with a lot of questions to try and reconcile the wording of the Motion and the suggestion that there should be a debt swap.

First of all, which debt should we identify which should be swapped by the Government? This is debt acquired by individuals, mostly, from lending institutions that have different rules and circumstances. This is how these debts come about. Further, each individual has their own share of debt in whatever form. So, coming up with a blanket statement of how debt can be swapped is quite difficult to reconcile on the part of the Government.

Madam Speaker, yes, while the idea sounds good to have, it is complex to implement. Why is it complex? It is complex because actually, it depends on the very effect of human behaviour. How did we arrive at where we are? These are issues of moral standing. How are some of the civil servants not in a debt trap situation? How is it that some are so deep in debt such that even when the safety gadgets are put in the payroll system, they have managed to bit them by having negative net incomes on their payslips? It is all about morality.

Madam Speaker, because of this fact, I would say that in as much as I would support and say that this is a good idea, we need to emphasise on growing the economy. So, far, the Government is putting in several measures to help our citizens, civil servants inclusive, even those who are in debt trap. Let us take a leaf from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). In my constituency, we do not exempt civil servants. They participate in obtaining CDF loans. Mostly, they are the ones who are even doing better. They are doing so well. They are able to repay the loans and they have come out of the so-called debt trap by using the CDF avenue.

Madam Speaker, so, these are some of the initiatives that the Government is putting across. I have just heard about the loans that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has been giving. I suppose civil servants are not exempted. Are they?

Hon. Government Members: No!

Mr Kambita: They are not. They can participate in this. All these are avenues of creating wealth. The reason some of our public workers have ended in debt trap is personal. Some of them have not managed their finances very well, sorry to say this.

Madam Speaker, I know of some who have just gone on a rampage of borrowing just because they are in the Civil Service. For those who have the experience of credit scoring, they should know that public servants are the safest to lend to because they have a guaranteed salary and employment tenure. So, lending houses also find them as easy prey to lend to because they expect that they will easily pay back. They are entitled to a salary every month and their employment is very much guaranteed, permanent and pensionable. They also have some income guaranteed after the end of their employment term. So, because of this, they become easy prey. Lending institutions quickly approve loans towards our public service workers.

Madam Speaker, however, on a personal note, some of them have been careless enough to get into debt trap and this is on individual basis. So, in my opinion, we should look at it using the, ‘case-by-case’ approach. Yes, coming up with a rule to say we appropriate funds from the Budget to rub all the loans for everyone and see how they can start afresh, they will go back to the same situation as long as the behaviour issue is not dealt with. So, we would be dealing with one issue whilst procrastinating the problem. Soon or later, it will actually be a problem again. So, the solution is in growing the economy and I think the Government is doing many things so far, including the implementation of initiatives to ensure the high production of copper.

Madam Speaker, the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government has vast initiatives to grow the economy. We should pay particular attention to the pronouncements that the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning makes when he comes to this House because they have an effect of how we live at home, including what income comes to me at household level.

When the economy is improved, all the parameters which affect it will be doing well, and problems will be reduced. We will not have to come to this House to try and come up with a policy to write-off individual debts. I do not think that is the way to go.

Madam Speaker, the way to go is to carefully improve on the parameters we have put already especially with the CDF, which all of us in this House are controlling. Why not deliberately support some of the people who are in a debt trap to come out the situation with the cheaper loans which are at 8 per cent interest rate? That is a solution. If they grow their business using the same, would they not be able to pay back the expensive loan that they owe? These are avenues we can leverage on and many other avenues which are actually available for the Public Service. Further, I think public servants are actually at an advantage in terms of accessing Government funding including, small credit.

Madam Speaker, there is an institution that supports public servants even acquiring assets. Why not leverage on that institution than going to the expensive lenders just because one has a safe payslip and a guaranteed income? To suggest that we should come up with a wholesale policy for everyone in whatever situation would be too much to ask the Government. I believe that it would be good for us to continue encouraging public servants to look at the avenues that have been created by the New Dawn Administration.

Madam Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member’s time expired.

Mr Kambita: The avenues are so splendid and are already working very well.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, every hon. Member of Parliament has an opinion on any subject. I was seated here listening to my hon. Colleague as he was tendering his opinion. However, I got very concerned when he alleged that all of us here control the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). I am not controlling the CDF. Nothing provides for me to control the CDF. The CDF is controlled by councils.

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Member in order, based on Standing Order No. 71, to indicate that all of us here, including myself, who is not controlling the CDF, control the CDF?

Mr Kambita: You are a member of the Constituency Development Fund Committee (CDFC), iwe!

Mr Kafwaya: Being a member of a committee does not amount to control. As a matter of fact, a CDF application is an Executive application; it is not a National Assembly application.

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Member in order to accuse all of us of controlling the CDF when in fact, some of us are not controlling it?

I seek your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, you have sufficiently debated your point of order.

Mr Kambita: And he is out of order.

Madam Speaker: So, let us make progress.

Mr Kambita: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was started for hon. Members of Parliament. So, why are you denying it? I thought that it was supposed to enhance your performance in your constituencies. I am wondering why you are refusing the CDF.

Anyway, let us make progress.

Mr Mtayachalo (Chama North): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for according me this opportunity to say a few words on this very important Motion. Before that, allow me, on behalf of the people of Chama North, to convey my heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families and the people of the North-Western Province, following the death of the workers in the informal sector, who went to dig some gold in Mufumbwe. May their souls rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, I thank the mover of the Motion, Hon. Fube, and the seconder, Hon. Sunday Chanda. I think that the Motion is non-controversial. The mover and the seconder are merely telling the Government that there are civil servants who are highly indebted. At the end of the month, the affected workers do not get a salary; they get negative salaries. Some workers may receive negative pay for maybe two to three years. This is not happening only in the Civil Service; it is also very common in parastatal organisations, such as ZESCO Limited. I speak from experience. When a worker does not get anything at the end of the month, that worker is not expected to be productive. Most of the time, such a worker will look for alternative ways to earn a living. At the end of the day, productivity suffers.

Madam Speaker, I am alive to the fact that loan deductions from workers’ salaries is regulated by the Employment Code Act, 2019, and what is enshrined in various collective agreements signed between trade unions and employers. Employees consent to particular deductions. So, I think that it would be good for the Government to consider paying financial institutions for whatever the workers owe, and then the Government can keep deducting from the employees. Employees should not be getting negative salaries at the end of the day. That way, productivity will be enhanced.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are discussing this subject here in Parliament. This is a matter which is not supposed to be discussed by hon. Members of Parliament; it is supposed to be dealt with by trade unions. We have trade unions in this country registered under the law to protect the interests of Zambian workers. Now, if hon. Members of Parliament discuss issues which are supposed to be dealt with by trade unions, then, what is the role of trade unions in this country? So, I think that it is high time that trade unions woke up from their slumber and started doing what is needed of them. Trade unions get membership subscriptions every month from employees. If we are going to sit here and discuss debt swap on behalf of workers, then, it is quite a very sad development and a very serious indictment of the labour movement in the country.

Madam Speaker, I know the background to this matter. I remember that in 2012 or 2013, I stand to be corrected, civil servants were given about 100 per cent salary increment. I think that they assumed that every year they would get 100 per cent salary increment. So, they started overborrowing. However, as the years progressed, there was no way they could continue getting 100 per cent salary increment; percentages started reducing. Financial institutions and shylocks take advantage of vulnerable workers. Most employers, even those in the informal sector, do not have in-house loan facilities to give their workers loans or salary advances at a concessional rate. No wonder shylocks have taken advantage of the situation.

Madam Speaker, I think that the Motion is non-controversial so I support it. However, I appeal to workers to be financially disciplined. I know that some workers are very disciplined, but others overborrow, which is not good. While I support the Motion, I think that we need discipline among the workforce; I say this from experience. Certain loans which workers get do not even help their family members. Some of the money we get as workers ends up being spent in areas which are not productive, or which cannot improve our well-being. While I support the Motion, I call for financial discipline among workers. It is incumbent upon trade unions to inculcate a sense of discipline in their membership to borrow responsibly.

Madam Speaker, with those few remarks, I support the Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mwila (Mufulira): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate.

Madam Speaker, I support the Motion urging the Government to reintroduce the debt swap for civil servants. I support the Motion with a lot of empathy for civil servants, especially those who are highly indebted. Occasionally, I have come face-to-face with struggling civil servants. Their payslips are choked with deductions from various micro-finance institutions and other financial institutions. Every month after salary deductions, the workers are left with very little money to take home. Even as late as yesterday, I was in my constituency discussing with one civil servant. He told me that he goes home with about K2,000 because of three deductions from three different lending institutions. So, this Motion is important.

Madam Speaker, we also need to look at how some civil servants end up in such situations. For most of them, the indebtedness is not of their making. Of course, we have talked about financial literacy, which I support. I think that the Government must consider exposing civil servants to financial literature so that they can know how to manage their income. Sometimes, what happens is that when recruitments are done, for example, for teachers or health workers, and the recruits are given appointment letters and posted, financial institutions like micro-finance companies and commercial banks start sending them short message services (SMS’s). Some institutions send their officers to the workplaces to introduce the loan packages. The recruits are told that since they are now civil servants, they will be getting this or that amount of money, and that a loan is available to buy a car, for example, and that they will be paying back this or that amount.

On the other hand, Madam Speaker, when civil servants join the Civil Service, they read the conditions of service. Some of them see that after being employed, they will be paid a settling-in allowance or relocation allowance for those who are already in service. Those who are already in service even take leave, and expect to be given leave payment. However, those payments are not made on time. So, on the expectation that one will get a settling-in allowance or leave travel payment, they borrow so that when the Government pays them what they are owed, they will be able to clear their debt.

Madam Speaker, under successive Governments, starting from the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), Patriotic Front (PF) and up to the present one, some civil servants have accrued entitlements, such as allowances, but they have not been paid. So, based on that expectation, they borrow and wait, knowing that when they are paid, they will be able to clear their debts. However, the Government is not honouring its part. As a result, civil servants become debt-trapped.

Madam Speaker, the debt swap initiative that was introduced in 2021, and later cancelled, did not even cover everyone who owed micro-finance institutions or commercial banks. For those the Government owes allowances, it can discuss with their creditors to pay the money owned in accrued allowances to the financial institutions. So, the money the Government owes can be used to clear the debt owed to the financial institutions so that the debtors get a clean slate.

Madam Speaker, that is the background to the situation under discussion and that is why I support this Motion. It does not help to keep owing Government employees for many years, but allowing them to be in a debt trap. They are borrowing on the expectation that they will be paid what is owed. Them ending up in a debt trap is an unfortunate situation. This Motion is just urging the Government to re-examine that situation.

Madam Speaker, of course, there was an agreement that was signed between the Government and the workers’ representatives, the unions. I just want to urge the Government to support this Motion and go back to that agreement. I do not think that everything in that agreement was so bad that it cannot be resuscitated. The positive aspects of that agreement can be looked at and maintained. The clauses that this Government has reservations on can be relooked at so that we have a win-win situation.

Madam Speaker, as things stand, civil servants are in a coma financially. When employees are in such a situation, all they do twenty-four-seven is to look at how they are going to survive and remove the deductions on their payslips. Therefore, how does the Government expect them to be productive? For instance, how does a teacher focus on teaching in such a situation? How do health workers focus on administering health services when they are bothered with worrying about how they are going to get money for rent and provide food for their children? Basically, how will they sustain their families? So, the indebtedness is distracting civil servants from performing their duties.

Madam Speaker, the Civil Service is the engine of the Government. For the Government’s policies to be implemented, we need dedicated civil servants who are not bothered about providing food at home. At the moment, payday is the worst day for civil servants because the moment money reflects in their accounts, shylocks and money lending institutions start deducting. Employees are not even interested in looking at their payslips because all they see are low incomes, and they have to look for money elsewhere for them to survive for the next thirty days. They have to figure out how they are going to pay rent, provide food, sponsor their children to various learning institutions and so on and so forth. So, we need to look at the plight of civil servants and help them.

Madam Speaker, resuscitating the debt swap initiative is one of the ways in which we can support civil servants so that they put more effort into the work for implementing Government policies for this country to develop. Otherwise, if we are relying on people who are worried about their day-to-day living situations, all the efforts we make in this House will be vain. The Government’s policies that are expected to be implemented by civil servants will not be implemented because people are not focused on work. They would rather look at where they are going to get the next loan from and how they are going to raise money to settle the debt. Meanwhile, the Government owes them money. I am talking about people whom the Government owes money. They end up borrowing, expecting to be paid by the Government and then they can settle the debt. So, when the Government owes civil servants, it should pay them or deal with the issue through a debt swap initiative. Those who have gone on to borrow on their own, of course, need financial discipline. So, we are not saying that the initiative should cover everyone. However, those who the Government owes and are in debt, should be brought to the table to see how they can be helped.

Madam Speaker, this Motion is progressive. We should, therefore, look at it with a lot of empathy for the plight of civil servants.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Anakoka (Luena): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity you have given me to add my voice to the debate on the Motion ably moved by my good friend, the hon. Member for Chilubi, and seconded by the hon. Member for Kanchibiya.

Madam Speaker, from the outset, on behalf of the people of Luena, I would like to say that I do not support this Motion. The reasons will be outlined shortly. The starting point is: What are we talking about? What is this Motion proposing? The Motion purports to propose a debt swap initiative. Debt swapping can only occur if there is debt. There must be a borrower and a lender. So, when the borrower runs into difficulties to liquidate their obligation in the manner previously agreed, they suggest alternative ways to liquidate their obligation. That is how a debt swap comes in. There are several types of debt swap; debt for equity, debt for development and debt for nature. All kinds of debt swaps can be in place. What is being explained, as our hon. Colleagues have suggested about how it will alleviate the suffering of civil servants, is debt transfer. It is being suggested that the Government takes over the debt obligations of civil servants, whose welfare this Government cares so much about. That we must underline. However, the Government taking over the financial obligations of civil servants would be a reckless thing to do. In fact, I dare mention that even the agreements that were supposedly entered into by the previous Governments to alleviate the financial obligations of civil servants were not financially sustainable, and I suspect that the Governments then did not meet those obligations because of having no capacity to do so. One cannot take over a liability, unless one has the capacity to liquidate that obligation.

Madam Speaker, our hon. Colleagues, sometimes, can be puzzling. People think that the Government is an animal that can create money from air. So, whenever there are issues that need to be dealt, out of political expedience, they urge the Government to create money and take on personal obligations. How is the Government supposed to pay for individual obligations? Just last week, when the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning presented the Supplementary Budget, hon. Colleagues opposed it. They said that it was an irresponsible act and that there was so much poor planning. They questioned how the Government had not foreseen the things it needed additional funds for. It should be noted that part of the money that is supposed to be raised through supplementary revenue measure is for settling the obligations that the previous Government committed the nation to. Today, our hon. Colleagues are saying that they want the Government to take over more debts that civil servants entered into individually. When the Government says that the money has to be raised from the same civil servants and so can it increase taxes by 2 per cent, for example, they will say that this Government is not caring. Therefore, it is an irresponsible vicious financial cycle that we are proposing, which is not sustainable for the nation. These arrangements of the debt swap were put in place basically to attempt to hoodwink the Public Service in the run-up to the 2021 General Elections by giving them the impression that the Government cared so much and that it was feeling their pain. It would take over their pain by releasing money to financial institutions that they owed so they would not need to settle their obligations. We know that was not implemented. So, it will not be in the interest of the financial health of the nation to put in place an unsustainable solution such as a debt swap.

Madam Speaker, we do know that the microfinancing schemes or entities that operate in this country operate within a regulatory framework. So, individual public servants go to those institutions and sign contracts. In those contracts, they commit themselves, and these institutions do financial due diligence on individuals before they advance the loans. The only option therefore, to be pursued for people to get out of this debt trap, if they need to do any debt swap, is for them to go to the same financial institutions and agree on a debt arrangement; rearrangement or restructuring that will enable them to have longer periods to settle obligations and therefore, pay less as opposed to suggesting a political solution, which will not, in any case, be a sustainable solution to the problem.

Madam Speaker, with these few words, we would like to conclude and say that we do not support this proposed arrangement because it is not sustainable on the finances of the nation.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Kalabo Central will be the last person to debate. These late indications will not be admitted. I am worried about time.

Mr Miyutu (Kalabo Central): Madam Speaker, I thank the mover of the Motion. He is my close friend and he visits me in my room. We have many things in common.

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the mover wanted us to achieve from this proposed Motion. I was trying to look at the two words, ‘debt’ and ‘swap’. We cannot create a third party. Swapping is between two parties, as framed in the Motion. Maybe, what is framed here, on the Order Paper, is not what the mover wanted. Otherwise, a swap is between two parties. There must be an agreement between the two. There is no third party. I am just trying to look at swapping. So, how does the Government come in?

Madam Speaker, let me declare interest. I have close relatives who are civil servants. So, this must be known. I was a teacher for twenty-one years, and then I just gave up.

Mr Hamwaata: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, this Government is not for civil servants only. It is for everyone, including those who cannot get loans. Some people cannot write or read, and the Government has to care for them.

Mr Mwene: Tell them!

Mr Nkandu: Quality!

Mr Miyutu: There are also blind people, and the Government has to look after them.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, this Government has to buy medicine for those same civil servants. Maybe, there is a misapplication of the word ’swap’. I forgive them.

Laughter

Mr Miyutu: Because there is a swap, we are going to add at least one word.

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I was a teacher. I used to be a member of the Zambia National Union of Teachers (ZNUT) Committee in the district. There must be a section in all these unions that deals with education. This is the right time to talk to unions. I am sure you saw me leave the Assembly Chamber. I went outside to contact union officials. I always speak from the bottom of my heart.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: I went out to consult them. This is the right time for the unions to advise the workers. When I was home, I advised my children about the issue of debt. It is our role, as leaders or parents, to advise our children to conduct themselves in the right way. Do not encourage people to misapply money and say that the Government is going to re-introduce the debt swap programme. This Government is for everyone.

Madam Speaker, we want roads to be constructed in Kalabo Central. Where will the Government get the money from? We want more teachers to be recruited so that the numbers can increase. The key word in the Motion is ‘re-introducing’. I do not know what that is. Maybe, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning would know. Is the New Dawn Government supposed to come up with the debt swap arrangement again? When was that arrangement in place? I am sure it was before 2021. That is gone. This is 2025 under the New Dawn Administration, headed by Mr Hakainde Hichilema.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, we have to put this money to good use. For me to stand on the Floor of this House and tell Hon. Dr Musokotwane to convert these – Hey!

Laughter

Mr Miyutu: What is that?

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Aikona man!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, will I be fair to those people in Kalabo Central?

Hon. UPND Members: No!

Mr Miyutu: Is that the reason, surely, I would travel 900 km to come to Lusaka and tell Hon. Dr Musokotwane that he should get that burden? Somebody got the money. He walked from his room to the bank and agreed with the bank to get the money without consulting the Government. In short, I would not, over my soul, support that the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning should spend time looking for money, adding more work to the huge responsibility that he already has. No! I cannot do that.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: So, my word to our dear workers is that they should be calm in life. They should always do what they can do. They should not live other people’s lives. They should live their own life.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, I live my life. So, I advise people to live their lives. Even when I die, they will say that I lived my life. People should live within their means. This is what we should tell them. I tell the people in Kalabo that on Saturdays and Sundays, they go to certain places, yet they do not tell the truth about that. What type of people are they? I cannot know. For me, I have to tell people the truth, and the truth will save them. If we tell them to not get into debt, we are saving them because nobody will have huge burdens. So, we do not want to create a burden for the New Dawn Administration. This New Dawn Government has to construct a road to Sikongo. We want street lights and good houses. This is the money it is supposed to use. I do not know if we will still be here when there will be sufficient or abundant money.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1640 hours to 1700 hours.

[MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the mover of the Motion and the various debaters for their contributions to this topic that we are discussing today.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members on my left!

You may continue, hon. Minister.

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, just to make sure that the society understands what we are talking about, let me just summarise a bit on what this Motion is saying.

For example, I am a civil servant and I go and borrow money from the National Savings and Credit Bank (NATSAVE), and in the process, I also borrow from several other lending sources. In the process, I discovered that I cannot service the amount of money that I have borrowed. So, I now request my employer to take over and service my loan and agree that I start paying my employer over a period of time. That is the essence of this Motion.

Madam Speaker, as my hon. Colleague said earlier on, this was attempted by my colleagues in the previous Government. In fact, they are the one that introduced it. However, very quickly they abandoned it because they could not sustain it. It was taking too much money. So, they abandoned it. So, I wish Hon. Fube consulted his hon. Colleagues who were in the previous Government, the Patriotic Front (PF) Government, why they abandoned it and they could have given him an explanation within his party circles. However, since that information was not given to him, let me attempt to give it to him now, although of course, most of the points have already been mentioned by the previous debaters.

Madam Speaker, my hon. Colleagues are saying that the real answer to this problem, in as much as we sympathise, is to educate our public workers to borrow responsibly. That is what the real answer is. Anything beyond that becomes impossible. It is not correct to say that if the Government owes someone their leave days and other allowances, then they can borrow anyhow. What happens if the Government is not able to liquidate what it owes somebody?

Madam Speaker, even today, some of us in this House are owed money by people, some of whom are our relatives, but we cannot go to bank and say that Mr J or Mr B owe us money, therefore, the bank should lend us money. Do we do that? If one does that, one can quickly land into problems. One cannot tell whether the same person who owes one money is able to pay back. So, that is why I have been emphasising that we should borrow responsibly.

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that in the manner this Motion has been represented, it would appear as if people think that if the Government took over these loans, there would be no consequences on the Government and society. That is not the case. As we can see, money has become very tight to find. That is why even the Government has decided to come back here to ask for a Supplementary Budget. On top of that, people are saying that we add more activities to the Supplementary Budget that we have brought. It means that perhaps, we now have to come back to Supplementary Budget No. 2 of 2025 to accommodate what people are asking for? It is not possible.

Madam Speaker, the only way that could happen is actually to punish certain people who already enjoy certain facilities from the Government. If they say that the Government should take over the loans so that they start paying back to the Government, it means that we will fail to recruit teachers because all the money will go to pay what civil servants borrowed. We are talking about the young people. We will fail to recruit nurses because of the responsibility of paying the loans owed by civil servants.

Madam Speaker, we may also say that we cut the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). This will mean that we will have less classrooms to be constructed; less health facilities; and no free education because we will have cut from the CDF to pay back the loans the civil servants got.

Madam Speaker, quite clearly, is this a fair way of running the affairs of the public? Why do we have to punish the innocent young people who were supposed to be recruited, sit in new classroom blocks and get empowerment funds? Why should we punish them just because somebody who already has a job decided to go and borrow excessively such that we must divert the money to recruit the young people to paying loans they obtained? That is what it means.

So, this Government is saying no to that. We sympathise with those who have gotten into that problem, but maybe, that is also the time for them to learn to be careful. However, for a Government or an Administration to take away money from the Social Cash Transfer (SCT) scheme, free education policy or the CDF to pay the loans for civil servants can never be fair. This Government will never accept that.

Madam Speaker, as one of my hon. Colleagues debated, the onus is on those who borrowed to approach the institutions that they borrowed from to get their loans restructured. That way, maybe, they can have a breather. So, the Government’s position on this is a no.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, let me correct one thing which the hon. Minister has said. Firstly, I want to thank everybody who has spoken, including the hon. Minister, who has calmly tackled the issue, except for one thing; he said that the Patriotic Front (PF) Government abandoned the debt swap. That is wrong. The debt swap was abandoned on 26^th May, 2022, through Section 72 of the Industrial and Labour Relations Act, and the PF was not in power at that time.

Madam Speaker, as I rise to wind up the debate on this important Motion, I do so with a sense of beauty, clarity and unshaken commitment. To our teachers, nurses, policemen, agriculture officers and every civil servant across the country, I say to them today: this is a sad day. It is a sad day because I hear their cries. It is a sad day because I see them. It is a sad day because I honour their sacrifices.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Chilubi!

You are simply winding up debate, not opening a new page. Just wind up debate. You heard what your fellow hon. Members said, that is, those against and for the Motion. So, just wind up debate.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, I am winding up. This is my style of winding up.

Madam Speaker, yes, the Executive has chosen to not support the Motion at this stage, and that decision may disappoint many. However, I assure civil servants that this is not the end. This is an energised fight for their cause. The debt crisis they face is real. The burden is suffocating and the dignity that they deserve is long overdue. While the Motion may not secure the backing of the Executive today, the House has acknowledged the pain of the civil servants, and Zambians have listened. I will continue to advocate for them.

Ms Mulyata: Kulibe.

Laughter

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, can I be protected? I am winding up debate.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Please, wind up your debate.

Mr Fube: Yes, this is my style of winding up. I am trying to add all the issues that came up.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, I am guiding you. I said, please, wind up your debate. You have two more minutes.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, I commit myself to keeping this issue alive not just in Parliament but in every space where the plight of civil servants can be addressed. This conversation will continue and the calls will grow. I will work with civil servants’ unions, micro-finance institutions, the Bank of Zambia (BoZ) and civil society to find practical and sustainable solutions to the issue, which is bigger than politics. I emphasise: the issue is bigger than politics.

Madam Speaker, allow me, at this point, to declare that I am a former District Commissioner (DC) so I understand what people have been going through. Given that background, I would like to say that I accept that policies evolve. I will draw lessons from today’s debate, redefine the framework and engage the technocrats and stakeholders. At the right time, I will resubmit a strengthened proposal.

Madam Speaker, this Motion may not have passed into policy but it has succeeded in giving thousands of civil servants a national voice. The silence has been broken, the struggle has been named, and no one can now say that they did not know. To every civil servant listening, do not lose hope, we are in your corner. The wheels of justice may turn slowly, but they do turn, definitely. Today I have planted a seed, and I will nurture it until it yields relief. It will yield restoration, dignity and integrity for the Public Service.

Madam Speaker, we may be on different political sides of this House, but I believe that hon. Members of Parliament are united in care for the Public Service. The Public Service is a machinery that cares for everyone, especially delivery of Government services. To me, it is ‘aluta continua.’ This was a non-political Motion, and it was not meant for political grandstanding. As people who push agendas, this Motion was for everybody because we are all among the 300,000 plus civil servants serving us in different ways. We have an obligation to care for them. It is because of that that my colleague Hon. Chanda and I were motivated to move this Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.

Question that this House urges the Government to re-introduce debt swap for civil servants put and the House voted.

Ayes – (17)

Mr A. Banda

Mr S. Banda

Mr Chala

Mr Chanda

Mr C. Chibuye

Ms Chisenga

Mr Chisopa

Mr Kafwaya

Mr Katambo

Rev. Katuta

Mr Mushanga

Dr Mwanza

Mr Mwila

Ms Nyemba

Mr P. Phiri

Mr Shakafuswa

Mr E. Tembo

Noes – (53)

Mr Amutike

Mr Anakoka

Dr Andeleki

Mr E. Banda

Mr J. Chibuye

Mr Chilundika

Mr Chinkuli

Mr Daka

Mr Hamwaata

Mr Hlazo

Mr Kakubo

Mr Kambita

Mr Kapala

Mr Kapema

Ms Kasanda

Mr Katakwe

Mr Kolala

Mr Lubusha

Mr Lufuma

Eng. Mabenga

Mr Mapani

Mrs Masebo

Mr Mbangweta

Mr Miyutu

Mr Mposha

Mr Mtolo

Mr Mubika

Mr Mulunda

Mrs Mulyata

Mrs Munashabantu

Dr Musokotwane

Mr Musumali

Mr Mutati

Mr Mutinta

Ms D. Mwamba

Mr Mwene

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.

Ms Nakaponda

Mrs Nalumango

Mr Ngoma

Mr Nkandu

Mr Nkulukusa

Mr P. S. Phiri

Mrs Sabao

Mr Samakayi

Ms Sefulo

Mr Siachisumo

Mr Sikazwe

Mr Simbao

Brig-Gen. Sitwala

Mr Syakalima

Mr Tayengwa

Mr Zulu

Abstentions (00)

Question that this House urges the Government to re-introduce debt swap for civil servants put and negatived.

_______

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

PROTECTION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FROM ONLINE EXPLOITATION AND SCAMMING

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to present this Ministerial Statement. As I endeavour to present this statement, I would like to state that cyber scammers are as dangerous as political scammers, as the result is the same.

Madam Speaker, once again, I am grateful for this opportunity you have given me to present a Ministerial Statement in response to the Urgent Matter without Notice that was raised by the hon. Member for Roan, Mr Joel Chibuye, concerning what the Government is doing to protect hon. Members from scammers who are using social media, particularly Facebook, to exploit members of the public and misrepresent parliamentarians. This statement outlines the extent of the challenge and highlights the measures that the Government has taken, particularly in light of the recent enactment and commencement of the Cyber Crimes Act and the Cyber Security Act on 12^th May, 2025, to address cyber threats, including online impersonation, fraud and other forms of exploitation, targeting hon. Members and the general public.

BACKGROUND

Madam Speaker, the growth of digital communication platforms has provided significant benefits in terms of connectivity, outreach and engagement. However, it has also created an environment ripe for cyber criminals. In recent months, hon. Members have increasingly become victims of impersonation on social media platforms, such as Facebook and WhatsApp, where scammers create fake accounts or pages to:

defraud unsuspecting members of the public through false job offers and empowerment schemes;

spread disinformation and malicious content;

engage in identity theft, cyber bullying and character defamation; and

incite the public and undermine trust in public institutions.

CURRENT TRENDS AND DATA

Madam Speaker, according to data from the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA), between 1^st January, 2025 and 30^th June, 2025, the following were recorded:

Facebook had 621 hacking cases, all accounts recovered, and 224 impersonation cases, with thirty-four fake accounts successfully taken down;

WhatsApp had 462 hacking cases and 352 impersonation cases involving very important persons (VIPs), with all hacked accounts recovered; and

Telegram had 123 hacking cases, with 122 accounts recovered, and fifty-two impersonation cases.

Madam Speaker, the Zambia Police Service recorded a total of 874 cyber-related cases between 1^st January and 30^th June, 2025. This reflects growing public confidence in reporting incidents of online scams, impersonation, cyber harassment and other forms of cybercrime to law enforcement. Of these cases, 116 are currently before the courts, while 758 remain under active investigation. The total financial loss reported during this period amounts to approximately K111,036,000. The Zambia Police Service, through its dedicated Cybercrime Unit, is working diligently to ensure that all reported cases are investigated thoroughly and brought to their logical conclusion. This commitment underscores the Government's resolve to uphold public trust and protect citizens in the digital space.

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY RESPONSE

Madam Speaker, to address the growing threat of cybercrime, the Government has enacted and commenced the Cyber Crimes Act and the Cyber Security Act, effective 12^th May, 2026, sorry it is 2025. I am looking forward to the elections.

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, this follows the issuance of the Commencement Order. These laws represent a landmark step in our country's digital governance and cyber resilience.

Cyber Crimes Act

Madam Speaker, this act provides a dedicated legal framework to criminalise and prosecute cyber offences such as:

identity theft;

online impersonation;

cyber bullying;

unauthorised access to data; and

fraud and phishing schemes.

The Act empowers law enforcement agencies with the tools to investigate, arrest and prosecute offenders while enhancing victim protection mechanisms.

Cyber Security Act

Madam Speaker, this Act focuses on the protection of national critical infrastructure, promotion of cybersecurity standards and co-ordination of national responses to cyber threats. It establishes technical frameworks, ensures data protection and fosters a proactive cybersecurity culture across all sectors. Together, these laws bring Zambia in alignment with global best practices and provide a dual-track approach to preventive cybersecurity and responsive cybercrime enforcement.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES TAKEN

Madam Speaker, in light of the commencement of the two Acts, the following actions are currently underway:

Operationalisation of Institutional Frameworks

Madam Speaker, the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Implementation Task Force, led by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security and the Ministry of Technology and Science, is fully operational. The Zambia Police Service has deployed trained cybercrime officers tο all provincial headquarters. The Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) and other agencies are co-ordinating to ensure harmonised enforcement and capacity building.

Public Reporting and SIM Card Vetting

Madam Speaker, the 707# short code is fully operational, enabling the public to report suspicious mobile numbers. In the first quarter of 2025, 10,138 Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards were deactivated, preventing a potential loss of K16 million.

Collaboration with Meta (Facebook)

Madam Speaker, engagements with Meta have led to the verification of official pages for public officials. Hon. Members of Parliament are encouraged to apply for verification to prevent impersonation.

Digital Literacy and Public Awareness

Madam Speaker, national digital safety and cyber hygiene campaigns are being conducted. A national anti-fraud campaign is scheduled for August 2025, targeting schools, institutions and rural communities.

Technology-Driven Security Measures

Madam Speaker, Telecommunications (Telecom) providers have implemented Artificial Intelligence (AI) based spam filters to detect and block fraudulent content. Development of a mobile device verification portal is underway to block stolen or scam-linked phones.

CALL TO ACTION

Madam Speaker, while laws and institutions are critical, public vigilance is equally important. We urge all hon. Members to do the following:

enable two-factor authentication feature on all social media accounts;

use the 707# platform to report suspicious activity;

avoid sharing sensitive information through unverified online channels;

apply for page verification through ZICTA's co-ordination with Facebook; and

encourage constituents to report online scams and fraud to law enforcement service agencies.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the protection of hon. Members of Parliament and the public from online exploitation is not merely a cybersecurity issue, but also a national security and democratic governance imperative. With the Cyber Crimes Act and the Cyber Security Act now in force, Zambia has taken a strong step forward in building a safer digital environment. The Government remains committed to ensuring the full implementation of these laws and safeguarding all Zambians from digital threats.

We thank you, Madam Speaker, for your leadership and guidance in raising this important matter, and we re-affirm our joint commitment to protecting hon. Members of Parliament and the people of Zambia from cyber exploitation and political scamming.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the Ministerial Statement presented by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security.

Mr Chibuye (Roan): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I also thank the hon. Minister for his statement.

Madam Speaker, I have clearly heard what the hon. Minister tabulated regarding what the Government is trying to do to defuse or to stop these habits. However, I am concerned that the numbers are too high. While the Government is trying to stop all these habits, I know that we may have sufficient laws to handle these cases. However, we are aware that these hackers and scammers sometimes, actually use our people who are aware that there are two cyber Acts in place.

Madam Speaker, a K111 million financial loss is too much. Are we saying that the laws or the legal framework that we have in place are not sufficient enough? If that is the case, then, maybe, the hon. Minister can move an amendment in this House and make some of these offences non-bailable. Given that the laws we have in place regarding cybercrimes is not deterring the hackers and they keep challenging the systems, is the hon. Minister not thinking in those lines?

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I would like to state that the laws currently in force, which came into effect in May, are adequate to deal with issues of cybercrime in the country.

Madam Speaker, what we are currently doing is to ensure that we put the technological matters in place in order for the officers to fully enforce the law. We are also established a dedicated unit, which will be called the Cyber Security Agency. This agency will be in place very soon. It will complement what is being done by the Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authority (ZICTA), the Zambia Police Service and the Office of the President. So, we will have at least four institutions that will be dealing with matters of cyberspace. We are sure, and I am aware that we are doing something currently. We are not just publicising this. We have arrested a number of individuals including the famous one, whom somebody wanted to include in his point of order. That person is with us. We are feeding that person. So, we will get those who are committing cybercrimes in this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutinta (Itezhi-tezhi): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the responses.

Madam Speaker, this topic is very emotive. We have been scammed enough. As for me, there are about seven Twambo Muntintas all over the internet. Sometimes, one wonders what to do. From the author, this question was very specific to hon. Members of Parliament. In his response, the hon. Minister has defined two methods that can be used to protect our accounts such as the page verification with Meta and also, the two-factor authentication. Would the hon. Minister not want to collaborate with the Information Communication Technology (ICT) Department here at Parliament so that maybe, our accounts can be protected the way they protect our email addresses? I say this because not everyone was born with this kind of knowledge. Some people may not have the capacity to go through some of the security processes that the hon. Minister has mentioned. Is the hon. Minister thinking of working with the Information Communication Technology (ICT) Department so that hon. Members of Parliament can have their accounts protected using Meta and the two-factor authentication?

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank Hon. Mutinta for that observation and request.

Madam Speaker, I am aware that my co-presenter is listening. It is just that the rules do not allow us to be responding to these issues jointly, but I think he has taken note. His proposal has been taken note. The hon. Minister of Technology and Science will work with Parliament to ensure that certain measures are put in place.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Chinkuli (Kanyama): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for his responses.

However, what surprises me is the fact that we have scammers within the country. Just today, someone called me on a +570 number. So, it shocks me that we are unable to trace those people and they keep on doing it. I believe that ZICTA is able to track a phone call within the country. Now, if someone is in Chinsali and calls using a foreign number, why not trying and get hold of them and find out why they are using foreign numbers when they are in Zambia? Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I thank Hon. Chinkuli.

Madam Speaker, I want to inform the House and the public that we collaborate with other international organisations that deal with cyberspace. So, the matter is being handled. We are aware that some of these players who scam are not doing that from Zambia. The crimes are being committed outside the country. We have a gentleman who insults and humiliates people. He is sponsored by some of our hon. Colleagues and he is outside the country. So, we are collaborating so that he can be brought to book. Some of our hon. Colleagues here know him.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Laughter

Mr Zulu (Nyimba): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, being a victim of cybercrime, I just want to ask a simple question. For two days, I have been to and from the police and ZICTA. I just want to know how much investment has been put in, in terms of financing the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) education at the level of our police officers. How many specialised police officers are there to trace cybercrime cases? I am saying so because the number of specialised officers is not sufficient. Are there any plans to see to it that the number of specialised officers responsible for tracing cases of this nature is increased? Sorry, maybe, my question sounds like two or three questions but –

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Yes, you have asked three questions when you only need to ask one. Can you choose a question that the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security can respond to?

Mr Zulu: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

It is just that I have many things on my mind. It is therefore, hard to ask one question.

Madam Speaker, may I know how much investment the ministry has put in for the law enforcers to trace the foreigners who use Zambian numbers so that they are arrested. in It is just becoming unbecoming.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, that is a security question. I would not want to respond in terms of the quantum, but I can tell him that we are doing everything possible to protect the people of Zambia.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Shakafuswa (Mandevu): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing this Ministerial Statement on the Floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, some of us are victims of these Ponzi Scheme. The losers are Zambians because those scammers use our credible names to ask us to invest in Ponzi Schemes and they steal our hard-earned money.

Madam Speaker, I have been to ZICTA several times to report cases and I have always been told that it is following up on issues to do with, for example, Hon. Felix Mutati’s hacked page. The following week, they would tell me that they are following up on an issue of a high-profile person’s page that is hacked. For me, they assume I am not a high-profile person, even though I am a Member of Parliament, and no follow-up is made. Even if I go there after four months ago, I would find that no follow-up has been made.

I am tempted to ask whether the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security have the resources and tools to track the criminals who steal from our people who work hard for their money? If the ministry does not have the tools and resources, why has it not come here so that we can support and allocate more resources so that they can arrest those criminals?

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member for Mandevu, please, just ask one question. You have asked many questions.

Mr Shakafuswa: Madam Speaker, this topic hurts me because the scammers steal from the poor people of Mandevu ...

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Yes, we know.

Mr Shakafuswa: … and the unknown in Nchelenge.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: We know.

Mr Shakafuswa: I think the. Minister knows what I am talking about, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mandevu, ask your question.

Mr Shakafuswa: I have asked my question.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Have you asked your question?

Mr Shakafuswa: I hope the hon. Minister has picked it.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I am happy today that my colleagues, including my nephew, have appreciated that the law on cybersecurity is needed in this country.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC: He has confirmed on behalf of those who are quiet that we need this law to protect not just ourselves, but our people out there. There are individuals who have not reported financial loss. However, I would like to advise this House and members of the public that, if they have been scammed, they should report the matter to the police so that they can investigate it. Once a report is given to the police, they will collaborate with the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA) in their investigation and take the matter to court.

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

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: A number of scammers have been convicted. We know that some scammers have repeated their crimes on several occasions. We know some of them. Please, when you are scammed, report the matter to the police so that appropriate action is taken.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, sorry, I could not stop the hon. Minister because I wanted him to finish his response.

What is your point of order?

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, as I was consulting with my hon. Colleague, the Member of Parliament for Chilubi, I was multitasking. On the other hand, I was listening to the hon. Member of Parliament for Mandevu. As I listened to the hon. Minister as he was delivering his response to the comments tendered by the hon. Member for Mandevu, I was surprised that the hon. Member, who was elected by the people of Mandevu to speak for them and other Zambians who cannot speak in this Chamber, is now speaking on our behalf.

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister in order to claim that the hon. Member for Mandevu is speaking on our behalf, when we are seated in this Assembly with an equal right to tender discourse as the hon. Member of Mandevu?

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling on that.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, when you look at the Ministerial Statement that was presented by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security, you will see that it was very specific on the protection of hon. Members of Parliament from online exploitation and scammers. So, I am very sure that the hon. Minister or the hon. Member of Parliament for Mandevu spoke in that context because we are talking about hon. Members of Parliament. That is the way I take it, and that is how it is supposed to be, because we are looking at hon. Members of Parliament being scammed. So, because the Ministerial Statement looked at hon. Members of Parliament, the hon. Minister was not out of order.

Mr Kapema (Pambashe): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for his responses.

Madam Speaker, the so-called scammers plan daily. Some of them have even gone to the extent of pretending to be hon. Members and calling members of the general public, telling them that the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) loans or grants applied for are ready for payment so they can call on a particular line.

Mr Nkandu: Quality! Ema Pambashe aya.

Mr Kapema: What message does the hon. Minister have for the criminals so that they can stop this criminality?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, the scammers are criminals because they are not just scamming people but also committing crimes. So, the message to them is that the long arm of the law will catch up with them. We have put measures in place to ensure that all those scamming people, not just hon. Members of Parliament but ordinary members of the public, are brought to book. That is the message.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Pambashe rendered his Maiden Speech.

Mr Kapema: Madam Speaker, I did.

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

Madam First Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, my point of order emanates from Standing Order No. 178. I just want to ask whether the House is in order to continue sitting when the quorum has collapsed. It collapsed five minutes ago.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, please, be informed that that is an administrative matter. The Clerks-at-the-Table are supposed to inform me if the quorum has collapsed. So, at the right time, they are going to inform me that we do not have a quorum.

Hon. Members, we do not have a quorum. So, ring the bells.

Business was suspended from 1756 hours until 1758 hours.

[MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Madam First Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum. The hon. Member for Solwezi East can go ahead.

Mr Katakwe (Solwezi East): Madam Speaker, as the hon. Minister was giving his statement, I read something that states:

“The Bank of Zambia (BoZ) warns of rising cybercrime threat in the financial sector, restates readiness to tackle menace.”

Madam Speaker, the article states that this comes as a result of the disruption that happened at Access Bank. Over the weekend, the Zambia National Commercial Bank (ZANACO) also disrupted some services because of similar issues. Since the hon. Minister has stated that he is working with other ministries, I want to know if his ministry is able to bring BoZ and the commercial banks together to enlighten hon. Members on some of the innovations that they are putting in place so that we can become more aware and avoid cybercrimes, especially concerning our bank accounts. As it was stated, some of us are not aware of the innovations. It would be important to bring us to one platform to understand what measures the banks and the ministry, as the implementer of the Cyber Security Act and the Cyber Crimes Act, have put up.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, it would not be prudent for me to discuss matters that affect the banks for obvious reasons. Banking and financial sector issues are delicate and divulging certain information can cause a run on the banks. So, it would not be appropriate. However, I know that as security and financial institutions, we are putting the requisite measures in place to protect financial institutions.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

_______

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES NO. 1 of 2025

The Supplementary Estimates No. 1 of 2025 report approved.

Report adopted.

Question put and agreed to and Madam First Deputy Speaker appointed the Minister of Finance and National Planning to be a committee of one to bring in the necessary Bill to give effect hereto now.

_______

BILL

FIRST READING

THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL NO. 8 OF 2025

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Supplementary Appropriation Bill No. 8 of 2025.

Madam Speaker, the object of this Bill is to authorise supplementary expenditure from the consolidated fund of monies required for the services of the Republic during the financial year ending on 31^st December, 2025, in excess of monies appropriated for the services of the public by the Appropriation Act of 2024.

The following Bill was read the first time:

The Supplementary Appropriation Bill No. 8 of 2025

Second Reading on Thursday, 10^th July, 2025.

_______

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CABINET AFFAIRS ON THE REVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

Mr Lubusha (Chipangali): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this House adopts the Report of the Committee on Cabinet Affairs on the Review of the Management and Operations of the Office of the Public Protector for the Fourth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly, laid on the Table of the House on 3^rd June, 2025.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Ms Sefulo (Mwandi): Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

Mr Lubusha: Madam Speaker, in line with its terms of reference, your Committee considered the topic on the review of the management and operations of the Office of the Public Protector. In carrying out this important task, your Committee sought both written and oral submissions from various stakeholders.

Madam Speaker, the Office of the Public Protector plays a crucial role in promoting accountability, transparency and good governance in the Public Service. It is mandated to investigate complaints of maladministration, abuse of power, unfair treatment and violations of human rights by public institutions. This office stands as a pillar of justice for ordinary citizens who may not have access to other forms of redress. It is against this backdrop that your Committee carried out the review.

Madam Speaker, through its tours and engagements with stakeholders, your Committee identified several critical areas that require urgent attention if the Office of the Public Protector is to deliver on its constitutional mandate effectively. One of the most alarming findings of your Committee is that a large portion of the Zambian population remains largely unaware of the existence and functions of the office. This low level of awareness contributes to the large number of unreported cases. To address this, your Committee recommends that the office implements targeted awareness campaigns and prioritises integration of its mandate and functions into the national school curriculum. Educating learners from an early age will foster an accountability culture and empower future generations with knowledge to seek administrative justice. In addition, your Committee recommends the establishment of a well-publicised toll-free line.

Madam Speaker, your Committee further notes with concern that the office is one of the most underfunded oversight institutions in the country. That has severely affected its operations, including its ability to investigate complaints and to operate effectively in provinces. In this regard, your Committee recommends that the budgetary allocation for the office be increased to ensure adequate funding, autonomy and functional efficiency.

Madam Speaker, your Committee further observes that the decentralisation of the office, as mandated by the Constitution, has not been fully implemented. Currently, the office has no physical presence at the district level throughout the country, and only limited operations exist at the provincial level. This state of centralisation hinders access to justice, especially for rural communities. To address this, your Committee recommends that the Government provide adequate funding to expand the Office of the Public Protector’s presence to all the districts in the country.

Madam Speaker, your Committee also observes that the current law limits the institutions’ enforcement powers. While the Office of the Public Protector may issue recommendations to Government institutions, they are not binding. Therefore, compliance is at the discretion of the respondent institution. This has undermined the office’s authority. In this regard, your Committee strongly recommends that the registration be amended to provide the office with binding powers and robust reinforcement mechanisms.

Finally, Madam Speaker, your Committee notes that the current arrangement where officers under the Office of the Public Protector are appointed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) contradicts the provisions of the Public Protector Act No. 15 of 2016, which designates the Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) as the rightful appointing authority. This contradiction creates a serious conflict of interest, particularly, when the office is tasked with investigating the very institutions that appoint its officers. To ensure autonomy, your Committee recommends that the PSC be urgently operationalised.

As I conclude, Madam Speaker, kindly allow me to tender my sincere gratitude to you and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the service rendered to your Committee throughout its deliberations. Gratitude is also extended to all stakeholders who provided your Committee with invaluable information, which formed the basis of the report before this House today.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

Ms Sefulo: Now, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I rise to second the Motion on the Floor of the House, kindly allow me to thank our chairperson for ably moving it. In seconding the Motion, let me bring to light three things about the Office of the Public Protector.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that your Committee’s findings regarding the staffing levels at the Office of the Public Protector paint a very concerning picture. In some offices in the provinces, only two people work there, and the offices do not have legal representation. This paints a concerning picture about the overall efficiency of the Office of the Public Protector. Even more concerning is the absence of the Public Relations Officers in the offices. That is why the Office of the Public Protector is largely not known. We conducted a survey in rural constituencies, including here, in Lusaka, and discovered that the Office of the Public Protector is not known. One of the contributing factors is that that office does not have Public Relations Officers, especially at the provincial level.

Madam Speaker, let me also talk about the lack of office accommodation. It might interest you to note that since its inception in 1974, the Office of the Public Protector has continued to struggle with office space, particularly at the provincial level. The operational funds for the office were diverted to pay for accommodation space. That hampered its operations. It was not able to carry out certain functions because the money meant for activities was used to pay for office space. Your Committee is of the view that a separate budget line be allocated for accommodation. I should mention that this is not a luxury, but a necessity.

Madam Speaker, thirdly, let me speak to decentralisation as it relates to this office. This is an important office that is supposed to have its presence, not only at the provincial level, but also at the district level. If a survey were taken in Zambia, I think, it would reveal that the Office of Public Protector in South Africa would be better known than the Office of Public Protector here, in Zambia. This is because the offices have not been decentralised and the inadequate funding that the Office of the Public Protector receives. Compared with the funding to the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), the Office of the Auditor-General and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the funding to the Office of the Public Protector is too low. Therefore, it is difficult for such an important office in the country to carry out its functions.

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, kindly allow me to wholeheartedly second the Motion. I urge the House to adopt the recommendations of your Committee as they are key to empowering the Office of the Public Protector in executing the noble mandate with efficient visibility and accessibility.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to comment on this report. Let me recognise Hon. Andrew Lubusha and Hon. Sefulo for moving and seconding the report, respectively.

Madam Speaker, let me take you to page 3 of the report, which discusses the functions of the Office of the Public Protector. Among the many functions listed are: administrative function, maladministration prevention, support to public institutions, administrative policy awareness and so on and so forth. I am most interested in maladministration prevention. Before I go into what I intend to share with you, I would like you to go with me to page 4, where you will find challenges faced by the Office of the Public Protector in performing its function. The first point states that:

“The Ministry of Finance and National Planning contended that the institution had not made a significant impact and therefore, did not warrant increased funding …”

Madam Speaker, the office is crying for finances and it has given us comparative figures. It is saying, “look at what you given to the Office of the Auditor-General, the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). The ACC received K72 million in 2021, DEC received K89 million in 2021, the Office of the Auditor-General received K98 million in 2021, but the Office of the Public Protector only received K8 million.”

Madam Speaker, the Office of the Public Protector is crying. Who disburses money in this country? The Ministry of Finance and National Planning does. What is the ministry telling the Office of the Public Protector? It is saying that, “You do not deserve to be given more money. You have done nothing. Your work has not demonstrated that you are important enough to get more funding.” That is what the Ministry of Finance and National Planning is saying.

Mr Samakayi: Question!

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, listen to the cry of the Office of the Public Protector at point No. 11, Lack of Engagement with the National Assembly of Zambia. I would like to read what is stated in the report to you. It says:

“While the Office of the Public Protector submitted Special Investigative Reports to Parliament, the reports lacked accountability as they were not debated …”

Madam Speaker, with the little money; K8 million in 2021, the office submitted reports to this Assembly. However, the reports have been hidden. They have never been brought to the Floor of the House. This is why I sense that – even the Ministry of Finance and National Planning can tell you that the Office of the Public Protector does not require any enhancement. The office has made complaints about accommodation, transport, and the Treasury Authority for its structure. It has made all these complaints, yet the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government is saying, “Zero, you do not deserve any more support than what you have been given.”

Madam, should we, in the Assembly, also join that trajectory of thinking that the Office of the Public Protector is useless and that we should not debate the report? They submit reports which are not brought to the Floor of the House. How many complaints have we tabled regarding the Madam Mala Administration? How many complaints do we have regarding all the matters and yet, reports for this very poorly resourced institution are not brought to the Floor of the House. Who is making these decisions?

Madam, we have joined the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government in telling the Office of the Public Protector that even us in the Assembly, we think their reports are useless. Therefore, we cannot debate their reports because I have never seen their reports being debated. At least, we, in the Assembly, ought to be different.

Madam, I recommend that if this office is not useful, the way the UPND perceives it, then it should be abolished. Abolish it, Madam.

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

Mr Kafwaya: Madam, if this institution can only do the things that the UPND wants, it should be taken to the Office of the President like they have done with the Anti Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC). Maybe, there, they will be doing what is only required by the Executive. The UPND has demonstrated that whichever entity is good for accountability is put under the Office of the President, so that it is told not to disclose the identity of ministers who are under investigation.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

There is an indication for a point of order.

Hon. Member for Mwandi, what is your point of order?

Ms Sefulo: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

My point of order is premised on Standing Order No. 71, which is on the content of speech.

Madam Speaker, I rarely rise on a point of order. However, as a seconder of the Motion, I could not keep quiet and listen to Hon. Kafwaya, who is on the Floor of the House, misleading the whole nation. I do not know whether the hon. Member understands the oversight function of Parliament. He has actually indicated that Parliament wants to render that report useless because it is not brought to the Floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, your Committee was tasked to look at the Office of the Public Protector because of its importance. As a Committee, we are very dedicated to making sure that we enhance the presence of the Public Protector. Now, is Hon. Kafwaya, who is a senior member, in order to debate in such a manner, even rendering the Office of the Public Protector as useless? Is he in order to indicate that Parliament wants to render it useless. Actually, he was even pointing at the innocent hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning there. Is he in order to also bringing the UPND Government in question that we are rendering this office useless. Is this hon. Member in order to debate in such a manner?

I need your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mwandi, can we be very mindful of the way we debate? You have brought in Parliament, accusing Parliament of something that is not acceptable. There is never a day when we said that the Office of the Public Protector Institute is useless and therefore, we are not going to debate its reports. Hon. Member, please, be mindful of the way you debate. You were actually out of order. Very much out of order. Try to put your debate in a very good manner. Do not accusing the people, the Government or anybody. This institution is poorly funded. What is it that you can do? What can you suggest to help the institution?

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

(Debate adjourned)

ADJOURNMENT

The Vice-President (Mrs Nalumango): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.

_______

The House adjourned at 1827 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 10^th July, 2025.

____________

Search form

You are here

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm