Friday, 28th Friday, 2025

Friday, 28^th November, 2025

The House met at 0900 hours

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

_______

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MADAM SPEAKER

VISITORS FROM KAFUE PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to recognise the presence, in the Public Gallery, of visitors from Kafue Parliamentary Constituency.

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

Thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

SUSPENSION OF VIRTUAL SITTINGS

Madam Speaker: I wish to inform the House that applications for virtual sittings will not be approved with effect today until the House adjourns sine die. The applications that have already been approved are, hereby, cancelled with immediate effect.

Thank you.

_______

RULING

RULING ON THE APPLICATION BY MS T. LUNGU, HON. MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR CHAWAMA CONSTITUENCY, FOR VARIATION OF THE DIRECTIVES IN THE RULING DATED FRIDAY, 25^th JULY, 2025, ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED ON TUESDAY, 15^th JULY, 2025, BY MR B. KAMBITA, HON. MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR ZAMBEZI EAST CONSTITUENCY

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, the House will recall that on Friday, 25^th July, 2025, I rendered a ruling on a point of order raised on Tuesday, 15^th July, 2025, by Mr B. Kambita, hon. Member of Parliament for Zambezi East Constituency. In raising his point of order, Mr B. Kambita, MP, referred to the alleged submission by the Former First Lady, Mrs Esther Lungu, to the South African High Court, where it was reported that the Former First Lady stated that her family did not intend to return to Zambia due to safety concerns. On that premise, Mr B. Kambita, MP, enquired whether the House was in order to continue recognising Ms T. Lungu, MP, as an hon. Member of Parliament when she had no intention of returning to Zambia.

In that ruling, I stated that due to the ongoing negotiations and court proceedings between the Lungu family and the Government of the Republic of Zambia regarding the burial of the late Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, Former President of the Republic of Zambia, the issue of Ms T. Lungu, MP’s status would be addressed at a later date. Therefore, in order to balance Ms T. Lungu, MP’s right to mourn her late father and the need for representation of the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency, I directed Ms T. Lungu, MP, in absentia, to:

present herself to my office, if the House was on recess, or to the House itself, within fourteen days after the burial of her late father; or

present herself to the House within fourteen days of the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly.

Accordingly, on Wednesday, 30^th July, 2025, Ms T. Lungu, MP, was informed of the directives contained in my ruling through a letter in which she was advised to comply with the stipulated directives.

As the House is aware, the burial of the late Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu has not taken place to date. In this regard, the directive that was supposed to be adhered to was for Ms T. Lungu, MP, to present herself within fourteen days of the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly. The House may wish to note that the fourteen days from the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly lapsed on Thursday, 25^th September, 2025. The House may also wish to note that Ms T. Lungu, MP, has, to date, not presented herself to the House. At this juncture, it is important to note that the point of order by Mr B. Kambita, MP, raised the issue of the vacation of a seat by an hon. Member of Parliament. I will come back to this issue later.

The House may wish to know that on 24^th September, 2025, my office received a letter from Ms T. Lungu, MP. In that letter, Ms T. Lungu, MP, acknowledged the directives issued in my ruling of 25^th July, 2025, aforesaid. She, however, stated that her absence from the House was not out of disregard for my office or her duties as Member of Parliament, but was due to legal matters related to the burial of her late father. She further indicated that she hoped the legal process relating to the burial of her late father would be expedited so that she could resume her parliamentary duties.

In that regard, Ms T. Lungu, MP, requested that her leave of absence be extended until the conclusion of the court matter. Alternatively, she requested that she be permitted to attend the Sittings of the House virtually.

Hon. Members, I referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Absences, for the Committee to enquire into the application by Ms T. Lungu, MP, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Assembly. The referral was premised on Section 28(5) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia, which grants my Office the discretion to refer matters relating to the privileges and discipline of hon. Members to the Committee on Privileges and Absences. The said provision states as follows:

“28. (5) The Speaker may refer a case of breach of privilege or contempt of the Assembly to the committee on privileges to examine the case and make appropriate recommendations

to the Assembly.”

Similarly, Order No. 202(3)(a)(i) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, provides as follows:

“202(3) Committee on Privileges and Absences

The Committee shall:

(i) Assist the Speaker in considering matters relating to the privileges and discipline of Members.”

Therefore, in line with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, on Monday, 10^th November, 2025, the Office of the Clerk wrote to Ms T. Lungu, MP, informing her that her application had been referred to the Committee on Privileges and Absences, for consideration and that the Committee would sit on Tuesday, 18^th November, 2025. She was also requested to appear before the Committee on that date. However, Ms T. Lungu, MP, did not respond to the notice.

Hon. Members, Order No. 215 (a) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, provides that non-compliance with a ruling or directive of a presiding officer is an act of gross disorderly conduct. It states as follows:

“215. A Member commits an act of gross disorderly conduct if that Member -

(a) defies a ruling or directive of a presiding officer.”

Further, Order No. 243(1) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, provides for the procedure to be followed where a Member seeks to be absent from the Sittings of the House. It states as follows:

“243(1) A Member seeking permission to be absent from a Sitting of the House shall seek written permission of the Government Chief Whip or the Speaker, in such form as the Speaker may determine, stating the period of absence, the reasons and any other relevant information.”

Furthermore, eminent authors on parliamentary practice and procedure, M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, in their book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Seventh Edition, (New Delhi, Lok Sabha, 2016) on page 425, have this to say:

“Each constituency expects that the member it elects will take his seat in the Lok Sabha and attend the sittings of the House, except when it is necessary for him to remain absent on account of unavoidable reasons. It is the right of the Lok Sabha to receive from him an account as to why he was absent. The duty of members to the House is paramount and they are expected to remain absent from the sittings thereof only when there are compelling reasons for doing so.”

From the foregoing, it is clear that a Member disobeying a ruling or directive of a residing officer and a Member being absent without permission amount to misconduct.

Hon. Members, the Committee met on Tuesday, 18^th November, 2025, to consider the matter. As I earlier indicated, despite Ms T. Lungu, MP, being served with the notice of the hearing, she did not appear before the Committee to augment her written application. In its deliberations, the Committee noted that the burial of Ms T. Lungu’s late father had not taken place. Conversely, the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly commenced on Friday, 12^th September, 2025, therefore, the fourteen-day compliance period expired on Thursday, 25^th September, 2025.

The Committee was of the view that Ms T. Lungu, MP, did not, per se, defy the Ruling dated 25^th July, 2025. On the contrary, her letter sought to vary the directives in the Ruling. She specifically requested:

for an extension of her leave of absence until the conclusion of mediation and related court proceedings on the burial of her late father; or

to attend the Sittings of the House virtually.

Furthermore, the Committee observed that there was no provision in the law or the Standing Orders that allowed or prohibited an hon. Member from applying for a variation of a directive or order by a presiding officer prior to its effective date. In this regard, the Committee considered the following recommended options to make to the Assembly:

the Speaker to allow the hon. Member to attend the Sittings of the House virtually until the burial of her late father; or

the Speaker to extend the hon. Member’s leave of absence until the burial of her late father; or

the hon. Member to be given seven days within which to attend the Business of the House, failure to which the Hon. Madam Speaker should invoke Article 72(8) of the Constitution, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia, by informing the Electoral Commission of Zambia that a vacancy has occurred in the Chawama Parliamentary seat.

In deliberating on the above options, the Committee observed that there was no definite timeframe within which the legal matters and negotiations regarding the burial of Ms T. Lungu, MP’s late father, would be concluded. Consequently, extending the Member’s leave of absence until the burial of her late father would leave the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency without representation for an indefinite period.

In view of the foregoing, the Committee resolved to recommend that Ms T. Lungu, MP, be permitted to attend sittings of the House virtually until the burial of her late father. The Committee noted that this arrangement would strike a balance between Ms T. Lungu, MP’s, right to mourn her late father and the need for her to represent the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency.

Hon. Members, I have given earnest and deliberate consideration of the recommendation of the Committee. While I acknowledge the Committee’s thorough examination of the matter, I do not agree with its recommendation of allowing Ms T. Lungu, MP, to attend the Sittings of the House virtually as a way of rendering representation to the people of Chawama Constituency. It is of particular concern that Ms T. Lungu, MP, has not rendered representation to the people of Chawama since June 2025, and there remains no definitive indication as to when the legal processes surrounding the burial of her late father will be concluded. The House may wish to note that a Member’s representative function does not start and end at attending the Sittings of the House.

Hon. Members, let me now turn to the issue of the Point of Order Mr B. Kambita, MP, raised Hon. Members, precedent was set in the Ruling on a Point of Order raised on Tuesday, 15^th October, 2024, by Dr C. Andeleki, Member of Parliament for Katombola Constituency on the status of Mr J. E. Banda, then hon. Member of Parliament for Petauke Central Constituency, following his absence from the House after his disappearance from the Chipata Central Hospital. In that case, the House resolved that I invoke Article 72(8) of the Constitution, by informing the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) of the occurrence of a vacancy in the Petauke Central Parliamentary Constituency. This followed the prolonged unauthorised absence of Mr J. E. Banda, despite being accorded several opportunities to present himself and to attend to the Business of the House.

The House placed reliance on Article 72(2)(c) of the Constitution, which renders a parliamentary seat vacant when an hon. Member acts contrary to a prescribed code of conduct. The prescribed code of conduct that was breached by Mr J. E. Banda was Order No. 243 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, on an hon. Member’s requirement to seek permission to be absent from the sittings of the House from the relevant authorities. In this regard, I am of the considered view that this august House must not be seen to depart from the set precedent by establishing a precedent that deprives constituents of their right to representation for an indefinite period. As earlier noted, I directed Ms T. Lungu, MP, to present herself and to attend the Business of the House within fourteen days of the opening of the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly. To date, this directive has not been adhered to. For this reason, and as per precedent set in the J. E. Banda case, Ms T. Lungu, MP, is in breach of a prescribed code of conduct, being Orders No. 215 and 243 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024.

In view of the foregoing, I will put the question for the resolution of the House to invoke Article 72(8) of the Constitution.

Question that the Office of the Speaker should invoke Article 72(8) of the Constitution of Zambia Act, Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia, by informing the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), of the occurrence of a vacancy in the Chawama Parliamentary seat put and agreed to.

_______

URGENT MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE

MR SIMUMBA, HON. MEMBER FOR NAKONDE, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, MR MTOLO, ON NON-PAYMENT OF FARMERS BY THE FOOD RESERVE AGENCY

Mr Simumba (Nakonde): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Interruptions

Mr Simumba: Madam Speaker, I can see how the hon. Members on your right –

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Nakonde!

It is time for Urgent Matters without Notice.

Mr Simumba: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Raise your Urgent Matter without Notice.

Mr Simumba: Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, the matter I wish to raise is directed at the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The non-payment of farmers has to be treated as a disaster.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order!

Can we settle down, so that we listen to the hon. Member for Nakonde.

Mr Simumba: Madam Speaker, in Nakonde, 5,843 farmers from thirty-two villages like Chilolwa, Kantongo and Kaombwe are planning to protest because of non-payment of funds for the maize they supplied to the Food Reserve Agency (FRA).

Madam Speaker, I seek your discretion. Compel the hon. Minister of Agriculture to make payments because this is a national disaster. If people continue protesting as they did in Kasama, something else may happen.

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious guidance on this matter because we cannot have 5,843 unpaid farmers in Nakonde. Only 2,931 have been paid. The amount that the Government owes farmers in Nakonde is K164 million. This is a lot of money for our small-scale farmers.

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious guidance on this matter.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Nakonde. I think, the hon, Minister of Agriculture has come to the House on two occasions to explain the process and what was being done on the payment of farmers. As hon. Members of Parliament, the best we can do is to try to resolve the issue of non-payment with the relevant authorities.

Hon. Members encouraging constituents to protest will not solve their problem; it will just bring more problems for them. So, the best you can do, hon. Member for Nakonde, is to engage the hon. Minister of Agriculture. He has already assured the nation. Also, our Standing Orders do not allow us to repeat the same issue several times.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

When the hon. Minister came to the House, he made an assurance that members of the public would be paid for the maize they supplied to the Food Reserve Agency (FRA). That is an assurance. I do not know how far we can take that matter, other than engage each other. Maybe, ask the hon. Minister to make sure that he complies with the assurance that he gave to the House. So, it is not a closed shop. You can still engage the hon. Minister or go to the Committee on Government Assurances to see how the hon. Minister can be compelled to pay.

So, the Urgent Matter without Notice is not admitted.

MR WAMUNYIMA, HON. MEMBER FOR NALOLO, ON THE ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, MR LUFUMA, ON THE COLLAPSE OF THE TAILING DAM AT EZ MINING IN MWENSE DISTRICT

Mr Wamunyima (Nalolo): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Wamunyima: Madam Speaker, I thank you most sincerely. My Urgent Matter without Notice is directed at the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I woke up to the news of another tailing dam that collapsed at EZ Mining, a copper mining site in Mwense, resulting in the discharge of effluents into local streams and local water bodies. The same thing that happened in Chambeshi has happened in Mwense. I raise this matter as a serious concern related to the environment, considering that the report on the extent of clean up in Chambeshi is still not complete. Meanwhile, another issue has been reported in Mwense. There is a need for the Government to have a lasting solution. If a second tailing dam has reportedly collapsed, what is the issue? Are mining companies complying with the expected structural standards of what a tailing dam should be? Who is checking the companies, so that we avoid a systemic increase in pollution that will deeply affect our people?

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Nalolo. I see the hon. Minister of Green Economy and Environment in the House. I am not sure whether he is aware of the incident that happened in Mwense.

Mr Mposha indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: Since the hon. Minister is aware of the matter, I am sure that the Government is taking action.

Hon. Member for Nalolo, file in an urgent question so that we give the hon. Minister time to find out what is on the ground. When the question is submitted and considered on the Floor of the House, the hon. Minister will be ready to address the concerns. Of course, issues of the environment are very important to the country. With what happened in Chambeshi, we do not want a recurrence in another area. So, please, file in an urgent question and it will be considered at the right time.

MR MUTELO, HON. MEMBER FOR MITETE, ON THE ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, ON THE NEED FOR THE PRESIDENT TO VISIT MITETE

Mr Mutelo (Mitete): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Mutelo: Madam Speaker, this matter is directed at the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, this matter is so urgent in Mitete. In 2021, the current Republican President, then President of the United Party for National Development (UPND), was never allowed to campaign or set foot in Lukulu and Mitete. After he won the last election, he did not set foot in Mitete. The people of Mitete, with red eyes, are asking the President to go to Mitete.

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Mitete, for raising that issue. You said the matter is urgent, but I know that you are sending a message to His Excellency the President, who is listening. I know that he listens to the proceedings of Parliament. So, I am sure he has heard your message. Maybe, the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House can also send a message to the President that the people of Mitete want to see him in Mitete.

So, that urgent matter is not admitted, but …

Laughter

Madam Speaker: … but you can engage the Executive. You can even send a message to the President because he is listening, and you can escort him to Mitete.

_______

QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER

WILDLIFE OFFICERS STAGING A SIT-IN PROTEST

113. Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa) asked the Minister of Tourism:

whether the Government is aware that some wildlife officers have staged a sit-in protest, demanding improved conditions of service;

if so, what immediate measures are being taken to resolve the problem;

whether there are any plans by the Government to improve conditions of service for wildlife officers; and

if there are no such plans, why.

The Minister of Tourism (Mr Sikumba): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Government is very much aware of that development, which took place on 24^th November, 2025, and, subsequently, issued a press statement to update the nation on the matter on the same day the incident occurred. The House may wish to know that this was not a sit-in protest, but an illegal industrial action in which some wildlife police officers closed offices, access gates and issued unauthorised statements, inciting others to strike.

Madam Speaker, for immediate resolution of this illegal industrial action, the following measures were put in place:

security measures were instituted to safeguard public safety, ensure wildlife protection and maintain uninterrupted tourism services; and

the officers were engaged to return to duty to allow for operations and business to continue, which they did.

Madam Speaker, as a result of these measures, operations in affected areas have since fully returned to normal and constructive dialogue continues with the officers. However, it must be noted that the conduct of the officers falls outside the established code of conduct of public officers. Henceforth, necessary administrative procedures shall be instituted during the resolution of the said actions. The Government remains committed to handling grievances, as per procedure, to maintain industrial harmony and a conducive working environment for effective service delivery.

Madam Speaker, the Government reiterates its commitment to ensuring that all public officers, including those in the wildlife subsector, operate under fair and improved conditions of service. To this effect, the Government has since revised and approved organisational structures, awaiting Treasury authority. The approved structures provide for the upgrade of salaries, among other conditions of service.

Madam Speaker, in realising the need to improve conditions of service for wildlife police officers, the Government approved the organisational structure for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) under the Ministry of Tourism with effect from 9^th September, 2024. It must be noted that the approved structure has provided for an upgrade in salary scales, where the lowest salary scale will be PSS 12 and the highest will be PSS 1, in order to align with the Department of Immigration in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security. Further, the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, through the Public Service Management Division (PSMD), is being engaged in order to secure Treasury authority for implementation of the approved structure.

Madam Speaker, having mentioned that, question (d) falls off.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to direct a follow-up question to the hon. Minister responsible for tourism.

Madam Speaker, the reason I brought up this matter through an Urgent Matter without Notice earlier is purely because of the nature of the work that wildlife officers discharge in respective game management areas (GMAs) and a couple of national parks that we have. Those are places where we need the right environment for tourism to thrive, but at the same time, we need to ensure that humans and animals do not come into conflict. That is why I raised the issue.

Madam Speaker, in his response, the hon. Minister of Tourism has stated that the ministry is engaging the affected officers. He further stated that the Government has plans to improve their conditions of service, which is their demand. Their cry is that their conditions of service are not good. The hon. Minister went on further to say he is waiting for Treasury authority. When is the ministry likely to get Treasury authority that will deal with the demands that were raised by the wildlife officers because these are very important workers, whose demands need to be attended to so that we have the right environment for tourism to thrive? That is my first follow-up question.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Kamfinsa for that follow-up question.

Madam Speaker, it is very important to follow the trends that have been happening in Zambia. The Government is really committed to improving the conditions service of all Public Service workers, including Parliamentarians. However, the challenge that we are faced with is the limited resource envelope. The United Party for National Development (UPND) Government inherited an empty Treasury.

Mr Simumba: Question!

Mr Sikumba: It was a completely empty Treasury. However, we have slowly, but surely, been building up the Treasury to be able to now ensure that our Public Service workers have decent and fair conditions of service.

Madam Speaker, I must hasten to remind the hon. Member that the DNPW was previously an authority. It used to be called the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). If my memory serves me right, he was at the Copperbelt University (CBU) at the time. ZAWA was dissolved because the institution could not pay its statutory obligations. It was moved to the Ministry of Tourism under the Department of Tourism.

Madam Speaker, when we came into office in 2021, my first order of business was to look at the plight of officers under the DNPW because even that transition in 2013, if my memory serves me right, was not done properly. We have since started engaging the officers to realign them. We have had these discussions from as far back as 2022.

If the Government had resources available, I am sure that my hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, and the Acting hon. Minister, Eng. Milupi, would gladly give the ministry the Treasury authority. As a ministry, we have ensured that we do our part. I have mentioned the approval of the organisational structure. We have found the need for the other issues that pertain without the intrinsic value related to salaries. The conditions of service do not just apply to the salary, they also apply to housing. This ministry has built in excess of 200 houses for the department, not only in one region, but also in the Eastern Province, the Western Province, the North-Western Province, and the Southern Province. In terms of tools of trade, just this year, my ministry bought in excess of thirty land cruisers to help officers execute their duties properly. We will improve the conditions of service for our officers as soon as we manage to get Treasury authority. We are very committed.

Hon. Opposition Members: Question!

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, should I tell you when exactly we will to do it; a firm date? Maybe not. We might ask the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to tell us when the money will be made available. As a ministry, we stand ready to receive the money as soon as it is made available.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, the response from the hon. Minister is that it awaits resources being made available by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. My understanding is that the hon. Minister has been dealing with this matter for a long time. I think, he has highlighted 2022 and the efforts that have been made, but I thought that by now, he should have received feedback from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning on whether it is something that cannot be done, or it is something that can be done in January. At the end of the day, we do not want our workers to continue making demands if the demands are attended to. We are a month away from the new year. Without sounding like I am repeating the question, is the hon. Minister in a position to state if it is something the ministry is resolving this year or next year? I think, we need that clarity so that we do not worry about this key personnel going back on go-slow, whatever they are calling it from a technical point of view. I do not think we have been given the timeline on this particular matter.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, at the risk of sounding pedantic, we do not want to create unnecessary expectations in our officers. What they are looking out for, and we have had engagements with them and, indeed, everybody else, first of all, is the re-alignment of the structure. That is a lot of work. It requires a lot of consultation, stakeholder engagement, and I stated as follows:

“This was put in effect on 9^th September, 2024.”

Madam Speaker, having done that, we have submitted this document through the Public Service Management Division (PSMD), as we are awaiting the Treasury authority. If I had a way, I would probably say that it will be done before the end of the year, it could be a Christmas gift. However, it also requires Treasury authority, our resource envelope. The hon. Member should not shy away from the fact that we inherited an empty Treasury. We will also look at other avenues of uplifting the conditions of our people, as I mentioned, the tools of trade. We need to make it easy for our officers to undertake law enforcement and conservation. That is why I have talked about working with our partners. We are not only looking at our Treasury. The President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, is on record talking about allowing our partners managing the. There are not just thirty-six game management areas (GMAs), by the way. There are twenty national parks, thirty-six game management areas and two bird sanctuaries. All those require staff.

Madam Speaker, I must also mention, and probably use this opportunity, that the Department of National Parks and Wildlife has a staff complement in excess of 1,941. You can only imagine the amount of money that is required to bump up any of the conditions of service. So, I would like to make a clarion call to our hon. Member and, indeed, our officers, to be calm. The Government is not sitting idly, it is working towards uplifting their standards of work. We will work together. Also, we should always follow the prescribed channel of communication, grievance as well as disciplinary action so that we can move this country forward.

Madam Speaker, I will not create expectations, but rest assured that the plight of our officers is a priority for my ministry.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms Chonya (Kafue): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to join you in welcoming the people of Kafue to the House this morning.

Madam Speaker, I want to know when the sit-in happened and how long it lasted. I seem to have missed the news. I am trying to see whether it was sometime last week, as we also received a report from the Lower Zambezi about an officer who had abrogated his duties, so to say, and then an unfortunate incident occurred during which some elephants terrorised a village in Chitende Ward. I want to know when exactly that was so that we know whether the incident was as a result of the sit-in, or just pure indiscipline on the part of the officer, and appropriate measures can also be instigated.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I am not privy to the piece of information regarding an officer who may have abrogated his duty. I will sit with the hon. Member to get further particulars, and we should be able to act as such.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Charles Mulenga (Kwacha): Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity you have given me to ask a question.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister has rightly indicated that the ministry intends to improve the conditions of service, which is a good thing. In the same vein, is the ministry considering enhancing the protection of the officers by way of equipping them with high-tech machinery? Poachers have high-tech equipment, while our Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) officers still use old equipment. In that way, they cannot curb poacher activities. So, is the ministry considering equipping the officers with high-tech equipment so that they can carry out their operations successfully?

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, in our quest to conduct law enforcement, we are working towards improving the conditions of our officers by way of also enhancing their tools of trade. Indeed, weapons are tools of trade. I must publicly state that the Ministry of Tourism, together with the Ministry of Defence, is already in the process of procuring equipment for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, understanding the fact that the poachers that the officers encounter almost daily use sophisticated equipment. We will ensure that we are up for the task and upgrade. That is already in motion, and the hon. Minister of Defence is very much aware.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mutinta (Itezhi-Tezhi): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, coming from the Kafue National Park, I understand why the wildlife officers are crying about the need for their conditions of service to improve. At present, efforts are being made to retrieve the bodies of three wildlife officers who drowned while they were part of an operation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for his efforts in restructuring the salary scale for wildlife officers. However, he should know that wildlife officers do not belong to any union. They are regarded as a security wing, yet they do not receive commission, just like the police and prison staff. Therefore, that puts the wildlife officers in a very dire situation as they have no one to speak out for them regarding their conditions of service. The hon. Minister is also aware that the entry salary scale for police officers is at PSS 12, while for wildlife officers, it is at PSS 14. That does not exist in any Government institution. So, I want to understand how wildlife officers are different from police officers. Are police officers more special than wildlife officers for their conditions of service to be different? I know that their operations are nearly the same.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Itezhi-Tezhi for that supplementary question. It is important for hon. Members to pay attention when the Executive Members of the Government are responding or issuing Ministerial Statements.

Madam Speaker, I will repeat. The National Parks and Wildlife Services or rather, the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) was moved to a department. Therefore, when we came into office in 2021, we inherited it and realised that there was a need to realign its structure. We have since done so.

Madam Speaker, if the hon. Member of Parliament did not pay attention, I will repeat my response. In realising the need to improve conditions of service for police officers, the Government has approved the organisational structure for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, with effect from 9^th September, 2024. Also, the approved structure has provided for – In English, when we say provided for, it simply means that it is going to happen. So, the approved structure has provided for the upgrade of salary scale from the lowest of PSS 12 to the highest of PSS 01, in order to align with the Department of Immigration. Are we going to start differentiating the police and staff from other departments? No! We are aligning it with the Department of Immigration. It is a process and it will happen. The officers will have fair and better conditions, especially during my watch and that of the United Party for National Development (UPND).

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chanda (Kanchibiya): Madam Speaker, we are not just talking about the wildlife officers in terms of statistics but we also need to know that they are human beings. It is also possible that from 9^th September, 2024, to date, there has been anxiety. Besides taking administrative measures, it would be very interesting to know how much the lowest wildlife officer gets as of today.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I am not very sure if we should now go into the semantics of how much they get. I know my salary is in the public domain, but the salary of my officer is a secret ballot. It is private and confidential. So, the lowest, as we are talking is in the salary scale of PSS 14, but we are moving it to PSS 12. We heard the hon. Member (pointed at Hon. Mutinta) say that the lowest as per level of, if I am not mistaken, Hon. Mwiimbu, SC., as a constable is PSS 12. So, yes, that is the lowest, which we have, which is approved in the new salary structure.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chala (Chipili): Madam Speaker, in his earlier response, the hon. Minister first stated that they are waiting for the Treasury authority. In his response again, he is talking about fiscal space. He said that when they took over Government, they found empty coffers. I feel that he is just beating about the bush. He does not want to tell the truth. Is it possible that he tells the people the truth that at the moment, it is not possible to do anything because of fiscal space so that they are clear?

Laughter

Mr Chala: Tell them!

Laughter

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Chipili for that question. Two things are consistently being mentioned here. Firstly, have we acknowledged that the conditions of service will be improved? Yes! What has the Government done? Have we reviewed the structure? Yes! What steps have we taken? We have applied to the Ministry of Finance and National Planning to get Treasury authority and we are waiting. We do not know when that will come. However, as a ministry, we are committed to pushing the Treasury to give us money so that we uplift them. As I mentioned, we currently have over 2,000 Wildlife Police Officers. If, by the mercy of God, we receive that money, or rather we find that money, rest assured that we will need the whole lot of that amount to implement that structure.

Madam Speaker, allow me to use this opportunity to also state that as a ministry, we are not sitting idle waiting for the Treasury authority to come from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. The ministry has also paid a housing allowance of 40 per cent to the wildlife police officers. We have also gone further to pay night duty allowance of 7 per cent of their basic salary, effective January 2022. In the same vein, we also got the Treasury authority to upgrade and also promote some staff in April 2022. Now, all these things are done in a quest to improve the conditions of service of the officers. However, the bigger ticket item, which everybody else seems to be talking about, which we are very cautious about and desire to deliver, is that of the approved structure to be implemented. That will require a colossal amount of money from the Treasury, which unfortunately, we do not currently have. However, we are working towards securing the funds with the hon. Member’s support by bringing an investment in Chipili, so that he can pay more taxes, which will contribute to improving the well-being of our officers.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The last two hon. Members, to ask questions will be the hon. Member for Magoye and the hon. Member for Chilubi, in that order.

Mr Malambo (Magoye): Madam Speaker, I know my question might sound a little bit different from the initial question that was asked.

Madam Speaker, the farmers are being brutalised by the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) officers while retrieving animals in the Kafue floods, which is counterproductive to the Government's efforts to promote beef production and export. Therefore, will the Government consider, through the hon. Minister, to engage the ZAWA officers to collaborate very well with the cattle herders in the plains? As we talk about their salaries, will we let them also get the salary that is due to them instead of just brutalising our people in the plains.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Although the question is unrelated to the issue of the riot, I will allow the hon. Minister to respond.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Magoye for that supplementary question.

Madam Speaker, I think, on a number of occasions I have come to the Floor of the House to discuss matters pertaining to the operations of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW). Please, it is the DNPW. We do not have the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA). The ZAWA was under Hon. Masebo.

Madam Speaker, we are working towards creating harmony between our officers and the communities they work in. We have specific sporadic challenges in areas where livestock and wildlife exist. A case in point is the Kafue Flats. We all know that most of the domestic animals in the Kafue Flats normally stray into the national park for grazing. We have instituted a team, which will be working together with the farmers in and around the Kafue Flats, so that the farmers are not seen to be entering the national park illegally.

Madam Speaker, the affected hon. Members of Parliament will be engaged by my team so that we find a lasting solution. I want to confirm that I have received a number of reports that cattle herders from adjacent ranches and farms find themselves on the wrong side of the law because they are not supposed to be in the national park. They always say that they were herding their cows. We will work together with the affected farmers to create a cordial relationship with the DNPW and the community.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Chilubi, I am worried about the answers that the hon. Minister has given. One of the questions was about the immediate measures being taken to resolve the problem. The hon. Minister has talked about Treasury authority and the more than 2,000 wildlife officers. I have not yet heard the immediate measure to address the issue. The hon. Minister is waiting for Treasury authority, and there is uncertainty surrounding the matter.

Madam Speaker, I want to emphasise that wildlife officers protect our resources. If the officers’ financial capacity is strangled, we will have corruption of some sort. You will find that our resources may not be protected. These people guard trophies, and if the trophies are not properly guarded because of frustrations, we may have problems. The wildlife officers co-operate with other partners within the sector. Apart from that, they also manage concessions distantly. I am worried that the hon. Minister has not mentioned immediate measures to be taken to resolve the problem, rather than banking on Treasury authority. In his own words, there is no surety about Treasury authority.

Mr Sikumba: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for that supplementary question.

Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the hon. Member of Parliament is worried. As a ministry, we are engaging with the officers and the relevant departments of the Government. Engaging is an immediate measure. Understanding what needs to happen is an immediate measure. My assurance to the hon. Member of Parliament and, indeed, to our officers who may be listening out there, is that the Government will not sit idly. We will ensure that their conditions of service are looked into and implemented.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

_______

MOTION

REVISE THE JURISDICTION OF LOCAL COURTS UNDER THE LOCAL COURTS ACT, CHAPTER 29 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA

Ms Halwiindi (Kabwe Central): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this House urges the Government to increase the jurisdiction of local courts under the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29 of the Laws of Zambia, so as to allow the administration of a deceased’s estate of value up to K200,000.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Mr Wamunyima (Nalolo): Madam Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

Ms Halwiindi: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Kabwe Central Constituency and many Zambians who have been affected, I am grateful for the opportunity to move this Motion.

Madam Speaker, I rise to move that this House urges the Government to increase the jurisdiction of local courts under the Local Courts Act, so that they are empowered to handle the appointment of administrators in an estate valued up to K200,000.

Madam Speaker, local courts stand at the front line of justice delivery in our country. They are the first and sometimes the only point of contact for many of our citizens, especially those living in rural areas and peri-urban communities. They address civil, customary, matrimonial, land and inheritance matters, yet their jurisdiction over estate administration remains limited and outdated. The current jurisdictional limits for local courts constrain their ability to effectively preside over the estate of a deceased valued up to K200,000. Section 36 of the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29 and Section 43(2) of the Interstate Succession Act, Chapter 59, give jurisdiction to local courts to give an Order of Appointment or Administrator with the value of the estate not exceeding K50. This limitation has led to the transfer of many estate matters to the subordinate court and the High Court. This has led to increased costs and procedural delays and limited access to justice, particularly for various vulnerable families in rural and peri-urban communities. The jurisdiction of local courts covers civil and minor criminal matters, including issues related to customary law, inheritance, marriage and land disputes. The Motion to increase the jurisdictional threshold to K200,000 is, therefore, intended to empower local courts with jurisdictional authority to effectively handle more estate administration matters and provide equitable justice closer to the people.

Madam Speaker, the following are the results of these limit constraints:

litigants are compelled to take such matters to higher courts, which are often located far from rural communities;

estate administration becomes costly and time-consuming; and

case bullocks in the subordinate and higher courts continue to grow, further delaying justice.

Madam Speaker, expanding the jurisdiction of the local court is seen as a practical measure to decentralise justice, decongest the higher courts and enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the justice system.

Legal and Policy Framework

Madam Speaker, the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29, provides for the establishment of jurisdiction and the procedure of local courts. Section 13 prescribes the limits of their civil jurisdiction, including the maximum value of estates they may handle. The thresholds have not been periodically reviewed to keep pace with inflation, population growth or the expansion of rural property ownership.

Madam Speaker, the Interstate Succession Act, Chapter 59, governs the distribution of estates for deceased persons who die without a will. It empowers local courts to appoint administrators and oversee estate distribution according to the prescribed legal formulas. However, their authority is restricted by the jurisdictional limit set out in the Local Courts Act.

Judicial Act and Justice Sector Reforms

Madam Speaker, the Judicial Strategic Plan 2022-2026 emphasises the decentralisation of judicial services, capacity building and enhancement of access to justice. The proposed increase in the jurisdiction aligns with these objectives by empowering the local courts to handle more substantive estate matters at community level. As things stand, many estates valued above the current threshold must be taken to the subordinate and higher courts. For families already grappling with grief, the process is costly, time consuming and geographically inaccessible. Communities in rural areas a forced to travel long distances, pay high fees and encounter long waiting periods before justice is delivered.

Madam Speaker, this Motion seeks to correct that imbalance by increasing the jurisdiction of local courts to handle estates valued up to K200,000, which will promote equitable access to justice and bring estate administration services closer to the people. The Judiciary itself recognises the need for this reform. Under the Judiciary’s Strategic Plan 2022-2026 –

Ms Sefulo entered the Assembly Chamber and sat at the Government Frontbench.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member for Mwandi, please, read Standing Order No. 214 (s).

You may continue, hon. Member for Kabwe Central.

Ms Halwiindi: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, under the Judiciary’s Strategic Plan 2022-2026 and the on-going justice sector reforms, the Government has invested in:

training local court, magistrate and clerks’ estate administrators;

modernising record keeping systems;

rehabilitating local court infrastructure, including through the Constituency Development Fund (CDF); and

information and communications technology (ICT) systems that improve case management.

Madam Speaker, these efforts demonstrate that our local courts increasingly possess skills, tools and operational capacity in handling estate matters of higher value. Therefore, increasing the jurisdiction of local courts will bring several national benefits such as:

decongesting the High Court and subordinate courts, allowing them to concentrate on more complex cases;

reducing legal costs for ordinary citizens;

shortening the time it takes for families to access their rightful inheritance, preventing disputes and economic hardship; and

harmonising with the Interstate Succession Act, which already empowers local courts to appoint administrators, although their authority is restricted by outdated monetary limits.

Madam Speaker, countries like Kenya and Malawi periodically review the jurisdiction limit of their lower courts to reflect changing economic realities. Zambia must do the same considering inflation, population growth and increasing rural property ownership. The current limit no longer reflects the realities of our society.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to state that increasing the jurisdiction of the local courts is a potentially beneficial, timely and people-centred reform. It aligns with on-going judicial reforms and strengthens access to justice for most vulnerable citizens. I, therefore, urge this honourable House to support this Motion for the benefit of all our people in society.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Wamunyima: Now, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I thank you most sincerely for allowing me to second this Motion. I will be very brief considering that this is a non-contentious Motion. I would like to thank the mover for ably moving the Motion.

Madam Speaker, this Motion touches on an issue that our people are grappling with in remotes areas, especially in rural constituencies, where the High Court is only found in provincial administration centres. For example, if there is an issue of appointing an administrator for an estate of a family based in Nalolo whose assets exceed K50,000, that particular family has to come to Mongu to get probate and have a lawyer appointed in order to have an administrator. That is very costly and has seen an increased delay in resolving intestate disputes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to state that the limit as provided for by the Interstate Act, Chapter 59 of the Laws of Zambia, was set in 1989. That is too long ago and, therefore, it needs to be periodically reviewed to meet the inflationary changes that have occurred in the last several years.

Madam Speaker, I would like to summarise my views on this particular issue by saying that this Motion seeks to achieve three things. First of all, it seeks to lower the cost for our citizens in administering the estate of the deceased, by reducing the unnecessary costs of travelling to a provincial capital to have a lawyer. Secondly, it seeks to increase the pace at which conflicts and resolutions on inheritance matters are dealt with. Lastly, it will also reduce the pressure on higher courts in having to deal with various matters of those who die intestate. It will also harmonise our court and judicial system with international best practice.

Madam Speaker, with these few remarks, I beg to second the Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr J. Chibuye (Roan): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity given to me to add my voice to the debate on this very important Motion.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by sincerely thanking the mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Kabwe Central, and the seconder, the hon. Member for Nalolo. I agree with the hon. Member for Kabwe Central that this Motion is, indeed, overdue. I want to rightly mention that I support this Motion because, indeed, we have had challenges in as far as issues raised in this Motion are concerned.

Madam Speaker, it does not make a lot of sense to me that the family of the deceased who has left very little in terms of estate or monies in the account has to travel long distances, as the mover mentioned, to appoint an administrator. For example, in my constituency in Luanshya, some people have to travel to Ndola High Court to have an administrator appointed. The problem does not end at that. The money involved in appointing an administrator is quite colossal. For example, if a deceased leaves K10,000 in the account and the family wants to access that money through an administrator, for the process to end, you find that more money is spent than the money or estate that the deceased has left. So, it becomes an academic exercise at the end of the day.

Madam Speaker, my brief contribution is that this Motion is overdue and I want to support it. Increasing the threshold to K200,000, as has been suggested by the mover of the Motion, will, indeed, help people to access assets and money of the deceased in a better and decent manner.

Madam Speaker, nowadays, many people are working on a contract basis and everyone is required to open a bank account. In a situation whereby someone working under a one year renewable contract, God forbid, some passes on, very little is left in the account. For the family to appoint an administrator, the process is quite tedious and bad. It actually adds more pain to the family, instead of making the burden lighter. So, I want to appreciate and commend the mover of the Motion and agree that the jurisdiction threshold of local courts should, indeed, be increased to K200,000, as she has said, so that, at least, people will see issues of expenses and traveling long distances to appoint an administrator curtailed.

Madam Speaker, I want to support the Motion as it is non-controversial.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Munsanje (Mbabala): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, from the outset, I would like to indicate that I support this Motion, on behalf of the people of Mbabala. In fact, I also sent an enquiry to the Research Department on the same matter. So, I would like to thank Hon. Chrizoster Halwiindi, Member of Parliament for Kabwe Central, and Hon. Wamunyima, Member of Parliament for Nalolo, for moving and seconding this important Motion.

Madam Speaker, I have been a host to several visitors from Mbabala Constituency who come from different directions, some from Nchembe, Simahobi, Mpinda and Ngonga, to Lusaka to do themselves good by becoming administrators of estates after being appointed in the village. The unfortunate part has been that a number of them have failed to complete that process because of what is involved. In the past, you just went to the local court, and the process was done. Now, when they are referred to Lusaka by the local court, firstly, they are told that they need a lawyer to process their papers. I have taken them to law firms, and those firms say that those people must first deposit K15,000, for example, before they conduct any business. The next thing they say is that they need to advertise in the newspaper, and an advertisement costs another K6,000 or K7,000. Already, as the person has travelled, they have to eat, lodge and consider other things. Meanwhile, we are talking about decentralisation.

His Excellency the President launched the Decentralisation Policy for Zambia. We need to decentralise the judicial system in the administration of estates to allow our people to access this service in Mbabala, in the village. Chilayantambo and Macha have courts. We need to allow the admission of estates to be done there by increasing the jurisdiction of the two local courts and many others that we wish to establish in future so that within Chilayantambo and Macha courts a person can become an administrator of an estate to easily access the little money that is stuck in Airtel Money or any other mobile money platform. We have a lot of money that is stuck in mobile money wallets. Someone might have left a K2,000 or K500. We do not even know where that money is taken. Maybe, the hon. Minister concerned can clarify, because people give up and go back to their homes. For example, all those I have hosted before have gone back to the village, yet we know that this person left a K2,000 in the Airtel Money or MTN Money wallet. So, that money is lost just like that. The other money that is under the National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA) is also lost. It is forgotten because of administrative issues. In one case, we went to NAPSA, and found K13,000 that the estate could claim, but we were asked to deposit K15,000 to get a lawyer. It is of no use to pursue that K13,000. Again, that money is lost. There are many more cases in which people lose out. That money remains with the institutions, and they benefit instead of the individuals who are suffering in the village.

Madam Speaker, I want to support this Motion to ensure that we decentralise the process and allow the K200,000 threshold that has been suggested by Hon. Halwiindi which our people can also access, and, once an administrator has been agreed upon in the village, be able to simply walk to the local court, and be approved as an administrator. Maybe, we can improve on some of the requirements at the local court level, as opposed to the requirements one needs to access the High Court. We can establish guidelines that have some local court requirements. For example, triangulation of issues to state that a headman or the chief must also consent to the action so that things are handled at that local level without evoking travel to the high courts, which are only found in Livingstone, in our case, or Lusaka for many other cases. That poses a serious challenge for our people.

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this Motion. I hope that the Ministry of Justice will move quickly to revise this, and bring amendments to the Act that is responsible for this work so that we can quickly work on this as a matter of urgency to save our people.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chewe (Lubansenshi): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Lubansenshi, to add a voice to the debate on this progressive Motion.

Madam Speaker, I will not waste much of your time. I would like to appreciate the mover, as this Motion has come at the right time, especially in trying to cure some of the challenges that our people face in our constituencies, in particular, rural areas. This is about cost implications. When you look at the Government, you see that the Government is the people, and when people complain about certain things, it is important to pay attention. In this case, when you look at the bureaucracy on which this law is anchored, you will see that many people have difficulties accessing small amounts of money and, at the end of the day, have to spend a lot of money. Considering the provision is also one way of decongesting the courts, especially the High Court, why should we allow someone all the way in Shimumbi, Kandata, Mwingilila or Luena, for example, to go to the High Court in Kasama or Lusaka over, for instance, K6,000 that a deceased person left? If that issue can be left at the local level, where we can have even a threshold, just like the mover has suggested, that will help many people in our communities.

Madam Speaker, as I said, without wasting much of your time, I support this Motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC) (on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Ms Kasune)).: Madam Speaker, the Private Member's Motion under consideration is titled, “Revise the Jurisdiction of the Local Courts under the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29 of the Laws of Zambia: That this House urges the Government to Revise the Jurisdiction of the Local Courts under the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29 of the Laws of Zambia, so as to allow for the administration of the deceased’s estate of a value up to K200,000”.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by setting the record straight on the fact that the jurisdiction of the local courts on matters relating to succession is determined by Section 43(2) of the Intestate Succession Act, Chapter 59 of the Laws of Zambia, and not the Local Courts Act, Chapter 29 of the Laws of Zambia.

Madam Speaker, currently, Section 43(2) of the Intestate Succession Act provides that the local courts only have jurisdiction on matters relating to succession if the value of the estate does not exceed K50. We hasten to acknowledge that the K50 threshold is very low and not realistic.

In addition, we are also aware that the threshold for the subordinate courts on matters relating to succession provided for under Section 43(3) of the Interstate Succession Act is K100, and is equally very low and not realistic. As such, there is a need to make an upward adjustment to the threshold of jurisdiction on matters relating to succession for the local courts as well as the subordinate courts.

Madam Speaker, in that regard, the Judiciary, working in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, recently initiated internal processes. These processes will culminate in the amendment of Section 43(2) and (3) of the Interstate Succession Act and the enhancement of the jurisdiction of the local courts and the subordinate courts on matters relating to succession to a higher value, which will be determined after consultations with stakeholders. In part, the rationale behind the enhancement of the aforementioned jurisdiction is to improve access to justice, a cause which the New Dawn Administration is strongly committed to.

Madam Speaker, premised on the foregoing, we are grateful to the hon. Member for this Private Member's Motion. We are of the considered view that the Motion to urge the Government to enhance the jurisdiction of the local courts on matters relating to succession and thereby, enhancing access to justice is timely and progressive. We, therefore, support the Motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Halwiindi: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Acting hon. Minister of Justice for supporting this Motion. Allow me to also thank the seconder of the Motion, Hon. Imanga Wamunyima Junior, Member of Parliament for Nalolo, who ably seconded the Motion. I also thank Hon. J. Chibuye, Hon. Munsanje and Hon. Chewe for supporting the Motion. I was expecting the hon. Member for Serenje to debate because of the issue, which she raised in the House, regarding some people who could not access funds on behalf of their deceased relatives who died after supplying maize to the Food Reserve Agency (FRA). More so, the money that they needed to engage a lawyer was too much for them to obtain an order of appointment.

Madam Speaker, indeed, this Motion has come at the right time and I hope that the Executive will handle it with the urgency that it needs because there is a great need to revise the jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

_______

BILLS

SECOND READING

THE INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL, 2025

(Debate resumed)

The Minister of Technology and Science (Mr Mutati) (on behalf of the Minister of Information and Media (Mr Mweetwa)): Madam Speaker, as guided, I will start from where I ended yesterday.

Madam Speaker, the rationale for repeal and replacement of this Bill are, among others:

Advancements in Technology

Madam Speaker, technological convergence has transformed how content is produced and distributed. The current law is inadequate to manage digital and online broadcasting. The Bill introduces provisions for online broadcasting and imaging technologies.

Need for Comprehensive and Consolidated Legislation

Madam Speaker, the current Bill has undergone multiple amendments in 2002, 2010 and 2017, creating confusion and gaps. Repeal and replacement will ensure clarity, consistency and ease of administration. The Bill also provides for a broadcast charter to guide the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) regulation of the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) and State-owned broadcasters such as the Zambia News and Information Services (ZANIS) Television, Parliament Television and Lima Radio.

Align with Other Laws

The Bill harmonises the IBA framework with the recently enacted laws.

Madam Speaker, some of the benefits of the repealed law will include, but not limited to, the following:

regulation of public service broadcasters, ZNBC and State-owned broadcasters;

a framework for free-to-air television implementation;

regulation for online broadcasting and the current gap in the act;

introduction of a penal provision to enforce compliance;

Transparent board composition and appointment process;

clear rules on shareholding changes for limited companies;

consolidation of all amendments for a single modern law; and

enforcement of digital migration policy provisions.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, 2025, modernises Zambia's broadcasting framework to keep pace with technology and regulatory changes. It strengthens IBA's capacity, improves governance and accountability, and introduces regulation for online and State-owned broadcasters. By aligning with national legislation and international standards, the Bill promotes a professional, ethical, independent media industry that supports transparency, diversity and inclusivity in broadcasting.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Eng. Mabenga (Mulobezi): Madam Speaker, in accordance with its terms of reference as set out under Standing Orders–

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1040 hours until 1100 hours.

[MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Eng. Mabenga: Madam Speaker, before business was suspended, I was about to contribute to the debate on the Report of the Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technologies on the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill No. 27 of 2025.

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the terms of reference as set out under Order No. 205(b) and 207(j) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, the Committee was tasked to consider the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill No. 27 of 2025. In order to acquaint itself with the ramifications of the Bill, the Committee sought both written and oral submissions from key stakeholders.

Madam Speaker, the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill No. 27 of 2025 seeks to repeal and replace …

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Eng. Mabenga: … the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act No. 17 of 2002, so as to strengthen the regulation of the broadcasting industry, enhance corporate governance of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and comply with international best practices in the broadcasting industry.

Madam Speaker, while some stakeholders who appeared before the Committee supported the Bill, others raised a few concerns that need to be addressed in order to strengthen the Bill, and to ensure that the IBA operates as a truly independent regulator capable of serving its vital role in the broadcasting sector.

Madam Speaker, allow me to highlight some of the key concerns for the benefit of the House. Stakeholders noted with concern that the Bill proposes to introduce a requirement for online broadcasting licences for anyone providing a service that delivers audio or audio-visual content via an internet-based network. While the interpretation in the Bill excludes weblogs, video blogs (Vlogs), and personal streaming, it remains ambiguous about content like podcasts, YouTube channels or community livestreaming that attract wide audiences. Therefore, stakeholders recommended that the definition of “online broadcasting” be refined to ensure it targets only genuine broadcasting activities. Stakeholders further submitted that the carrying mandate of free-to-air channels in Clause 35 could impose additional operational and technical costs without corresponding compensation. This could create a financial strain on broadcasters and discourage market entry or expansion, thereby, reduce competition.

Madam Speaker, allow me now to briefly highlight some of the Committee’s recommendations for the benefit of the House. The Committee noted that while online broadcasting is included in the Bill, broad or vague definition creates regulatory uncertainty. The Committee further noted with concern that the Bill proposes mandatory online broadcast licences for anyone providing audio or audio-visual content via an internet-based network. While the definition in the Bill excludes weblogs, vlogs, and personal streaming, it remains ambiguous regarding widely consumed content such as podcasts, YouTube channels and community livestreams. This has the potential to constrain freedom of expression and media pluralism, limit the diversity of voices online and hinder the growth of innovative digital media platforms. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the definition of online broadcasting be refined to ensure it targets only genuine broadcasting activities. Specifically, it should apply only to services that provide scheduled or consistently accessible programming to the general public, where the provider exercises editorial control and operates on a commercial or public service basis.

Madam Speaker, the Committee observed that the Bill vests the hon. Minister with full authority to appoint board members, a provision that could enable political bias and undermine regulatory independence. This differs from the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act No. 17 of 2002, which requires a multi-stakeholder committee to recommend board candidates to the hon. Minister for appointment, subject to ratification by the National Assembly, a mechanism removed in the 2010 amendment.

In view of the above, the Committee recommends that this Bill should reinstate the multi-stakeholder appointment committee to recommend board candidates, with appointments subject to National Assembly ratification in order to safeguard the independence and impartiality of the Authority.

Madam Speaker, before I conclude, allow me to state that the hon. Minister of Information and Media appeared before your Committee, and the concern I have highlighted, along with several others, was brought to his attention. Following this engagement, the Committee was assured that amendments would be made to strengthen the Bill and address the issues raised. It is the Committee's hope that its recommendations will be fully considered as the Bill progresses.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Madam Speaker, allow me to appreciate the chairperson of your Committee, who has just tendered his discourse.

Madam Speaker, I want to state from the outset that this is a very bad Bill. It is very bad and it should not be entertained by any Government …

Laughter

Mr Kafwaya: … that wishes for people’s freedoms to be enhanced. This Bill is about nothing but restricting people’s freedoms. The Bill we are talking about is this one in my hand. When we look at Clause 15, we will see that it proposes the prohibition of online broadcasting services without an online broadcast licence. Online broadcasting happens on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many other platforms. What the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government is proposing is that anyone who wants to broadcast on such platforms must have a licence …

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: … and the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) will determine further conditions, in addition to the conditions that exist on these particular platforms.

Madam Speaker, there are people who already have followings and are doing business on Facebook. However, once this law comes into effect, they will require ninety days before they can operate because the IBA will be granting an online broadcasting licence ninety days after submission of the application. As a matter of fact, the IBA can even refuse to grant someone that licence.

Madam Speaker, this is a bad law aimed at all bloggers. It is aimed at WhatsApp users. The chairperson of your Committee talked about audio and visual platforms. That means that WhatsApp will be prohibited in this country, unless one has a licence to use it. What type of Government is this, Madam Speaker?

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: This is painful. It pains me. This is why I always say, “Why is the UPND bringing such laws in this House?”

Interruptions

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, collateral censorship is what the Government is after. The UPND wants people to not project their views for fear of legal liability. What the UPND is doing is to limit access to information.

Mr Nkandu: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: If all of us who are on Facebook today or using Twitter should stop until the IBA gives us licences, what is the UPND saying? It wants us to stop sharing information. The UPND is aiming this law at the Zambian people. However, let me tell our hon. Colleagues on your right that many Zambian people have no other livelihood other than through social media. What they are saying is that they are going to close the only economic channel that exists for those people. How many people are doing small businesses on Facebook in this country? How many people are earning a living on Twitter in this country? They are many. So, what is the Government saying to them? As I said, this is about collateral censorship. The Government wants to use economic barriers to curtail freedom of expression. It wants to use economic barriers so that those who do not have money to go to the IBA and pay for an online broadcast licence do not participate on social media. This is a bad law for our country. This is terrible! This Government must change the way it looks at its people.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, what about transparency? The UPND wants to be doing things and there should be nobody to talk about the bad things it is projecting. The Government is introducing such laws because in the absence of participation and interactions on social media, what we have is the UPND giving tollgates away and nobody will talk because of collateral censorship.

Mr Tayali: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: What our hon. Colleagues are doing – When they give away a mine like they did with Mopani Copper Mine, nobody is going to talk because of collateral censorship.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: In that way, accountability diminishes. In that way, we have a situation where accountability and transparency evaporates. That is the environment that the UPND wants to create.

Mr Anakoka: On a Point of Order, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I want to also inform the UPND that there is a lot of innovation based on internet applications.

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

There is an indication for a Point of Order.

Hon. Member for Luena, what is your Point of Order?

Mr Anakoka: Madam Speaker, I wish to apologise to my hon. Colleague who is on the Floor of the House. However, maybe, this will give him an opportunity to cool down a little bit.

Madam Speaker, my Point of Order is on the hon. Member for Chienge. The Point of Order is in accordance with Standing Order No. 216, which is on the dress code for hon. Members of Parliament. From the moment the hon. Member walked in, I have been trying to process her dress code in line with what is provided for in the Standing Orders. I will not read the relevant Standing Order, since I have cited it. The hon. Member is dressed in …

Mr Mubika: Like Museveni.

Laughter

Mr Anakoka: … an outfit that would ordinarily be fine for a different purpose.

Hon. UPND Members: Yes!

Mr Anakoka: It is a very nice church outfit. In fact, it is a pulpit outfit. This House is very prescriptive in terms of what is acceptable and not acceptable. Is she in order to come to this House dressed in that manner?

Madam Speaker, I thank you and I seek your serious ruling.

Mr Mubika: Without quoting the Bible.

Laughter

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you so much.

Hon. Member for Chienge, that dress code is not appropriate for the House. You are appearing as if we are in church or you are in church.

Laughter

Madam First Deputy Speaker: So, maybe, the hon. Member can just fold the white scarf or the robe.

Interruptions

Hon. Members: Stand up!

Rev. Katuta rose.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, you are out of order. That is a church attire. It is like you are in front of a congregation preaching.

Mr Mubika: Yes!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: So, if you can adjust it and then, stay. If you cannot, you can go and change.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Hon. Member for Chienge, just remove the scarf or the robe.

Ms Sefulo: The sash!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Yes. Just remove it, if you want to remain in the House. If you do not want, you can leave us.

Rev. Katuta removed the robe.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, you may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I sense a fear of the Church. Church can be threatening.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, what did you say about the Church?

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I said I sense a fear of the Church. There is a sense of fear of the Holy Spirit. Church can be threatening.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: No!

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Kindly withdraw that statement, hon. Member, because you said that just following my ruling about the hon. Member’s dressing.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Just withdraw the sentiment, and continue with your debate.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, I withdraw that statement. The Church is not threatening. There is the Holy Spirit.

Mr Mposha: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, are the cyber laws not enough for the UPND to stifle people’s freedoms? The Bill on closed-circuit television (CCTV) is currently on the Floor of the House. It has passed the Second Reading and it is going to the Committee Stage. Are these laws not enough for the UPND, for it to now go for social media to gag people on online platforms?

It is frustrating for a common Zambian like myself to see a Government that is supposed to protect the freedoms of the people to go to every corner where people express themselves to stifle them. I feel very bad. Innovation happens on social media, and that is where people express themselves. Is the United Party for National Development (UPND) saying that even if you have an idea, it does not want to hear or see that idea unless you obtain a licence from the UPND? Remember, this is UPND, because the board members.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

You do not go to the United Party for National Development (UPND).

Mr Kafwaya: Go to the UPND, yes. Unless the UPND approve.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: You do not go to the UPND.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, yes, the UPND Government. When it approves, that is when you can tell it is your idea. That is the only way you can project your thinking. This is the only way you can share with it. Where is our country going with these kinds of laws?

Interruptions

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, when you look at –

I hear someone shouting “Forward!”.

Madam Speaker, this is forward in restricting people.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, this is forward in restricting and damaging the very human rights that they are supposed to protect.

Madam Speaker, what worries me the most is that this Bill went through the Cabinet. How can a Cabinet that is chaired by the President, which Her Honour the Vice-President and hon. Ministers are a part of, can bring such a Bill? How?

Hon. Government Members: Question!

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

Your task is to debate the contents of the Bill. That is all. Just talk about the contents of the Bill the way you started. You talked about the contents of the Bill, not what the Cabinet did. Your role is to debate based on whether you agree or not with the contents of the Bill. You started by saying that you did not agree. So, just continue giving us the reasons.

You may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, this is a Government Bill, it is not a Private Members’ Bill. So, it came from the Cabinet. This Cabinet (pointed at the hon. Ministers) is the one that produced this.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: We all know that it came from the Cabinet, but we are debating the contents of the Bill.

You may continue.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, anyway, my thought is clear. I am worried that the Cabinet produced this.

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, you can imagine the Cabinet wanting to censure people, limit people’s freedoms, introduce economic barriers, and circumvent accountability and transparency. It is poor on the part of the UPND.

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

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

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

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, my point of order is pursuant to Standing Order No. 71.

Interruptions

Mr Miyutu: Forgive me. I usually do that.

Madam Speaker, people should take caution. As we stand and speak, we must be cautious. The hon. Member for Lunte must realise and understand the importance of this House. Sometimes, I do not like to talk, but I get disturbed by what comes out of our mouths. This House is the mouthpiece for the people of Zambia. Therefore, what comes out must be factual and truthful. I get disturbed. I am not saying that what the hon. Member is saying –

Unfortunately, I have not even read the Bill. You have seen me. I have consulted people. What he is saying is worrying. If what he is saying is not in the Bill, it should not be allowed because people are getting the wrong things. We should not allow ourselves to produce words that are not in the Bill.

Rev. Katuta: You have debated your point of order.

Mr Miyutu: No, hon. Member. Just keep quiet.

Laughter

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, is the hon. Member for Lunte in order to exclude material that is in the Bill and opt to talk about things that are not in the Bill, because people are listening to the wrong things?

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lunte was given guidance to debate the contents of the Bill. When he started, he specifically quoted, is it Clause 15, and was using that Clause to debate. However, along the way, he went outside the contents of the Bill, and that is when I gave him guidance to stick to the contents.

Hon. Member, I can assure you that the hon. Minister will respond to all the issues that have been raised by the hon. Members to clear the air so that even the people outside are well informed about the Bill.

Please, let us not politicise the Bill. Let us just debate either positively or negatively. Help the people understand the Bill. Let us follow what is in the Bill. It will help the people we represent. If we take it too personal to heart, then, it is only you who will understand it. The Zambians need to listen and understand the Bill. They are not in the House. So, they have to understand through you. With that guidance, hon. Members who are yet to debate, help the Zambians understand the Bill the way it has been presented to the House. If you do not agree, there is also an opportunity at the Committee Stage to bring amendments, if you want to change something. You are free to come with amendments to the House. They will be considered at the Committee Stage.

Hon. Member for Lunte, please, wind up your debate.

Mr Kafwaya: Madam Speaker, users of audio-visual content; WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Instagram, should be aware. This Bill is totally against them. Even though my elder brother did not read it, he knew that what I was saying was not in the Bill.

Madam Speaker, I do not support the Bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Rev. Katuta (Chienge): Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this golden opportunity to debate, on behalf of the people of Chienge. This may be the last time I will post a video of my debate on Facebook because of this Bill we are discussing.

Madam Speaker, the Bill we are considering has decided to extend its long arm to innocent Zambians on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, WhatsApp, and also Twitter. I tried to look at countries in the world that regulate online content producers like the People’s Republic of China, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Malaysia. When we compare these countries to our country, Zambia, where we enjoy the rights as outlined in Articles 19 and 20 of our Constitution, I find it absurd that we are now talking about gagging the Zambians. At least in these other countries, they have given a threshold for who should get that licence. Imagine, if one wants to go live on Facebook, one needs to get a permit or obtain a license.

Madam Speaker, lately, most Zambians have learned the art of monetisation.

Mrs Masebo: On a Point of Order, Madam Speaker.

Rev. Katuta: Hon. Minister, you like disturbing me. Can I continue? She is always doing this whenever I want to talk. This is very important, Madam Speaker. She is an hon. Minister. She will come and respond to what I am saying.

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

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chienge, all hon. Members of this House are free to raise Points of Order. Be it an hon. Minister, or a Backbencher, they are free to raise a Point of Order at any time. So, hon. Member for Chienge, please refrain from such comments because the hon. Minister of Lands and Natural Resources is an hon. Member of this House. She can indicate to raise a Point of Order, not necessarily on you, but on anybody in the House.

Rev. Katuta: She has been doing that, Madam Speaker.

Interruptions

Mrs Masebo: On a Point of Order, Madam.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: A Point of Order is raised.

Mrs Masebo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, pursuant to Standing Order No. 71. I raise this point because it is important that when hon. Members debate issues, they have to be factual so that the public is not misled. I just wanted to assist the debaters as they debate the Bill. I have the Bill before me, and listening to the debate, it seems we are saying this Bill seeks to stop online bloggers, yet it actually does the opposite. So, that is why I raised this point of order so that those other speakers, including my sister, who was on the Floor of the House, must be factual. That is all.

Madam Speaker, I will take you to the definition of online broadcasting services according to this Bill, which is on the Floor. It states as follows:

“Online broadcasting service means a broadcasting service delivered over internet protocol-based networks such as internet radio, internet television, or internet protocol television, video on demand, web television, but does not include;

corporate audio or audio-visual communication; An example of this is online meetings that many of us nowadays have. That is excluded.

“(b) a broadcasting service that primarily provides data or text, whether with or without audio or video clips, such as an online newspaper, blog, weblog, audio or audio-visual clips;”

Madam Speaker, this means that all those people who are bloggers are exempted from this. So, what are we discussing here? Why do we choose to mislead the public?

“(c) personal audio or audio-visual streaming on social media or any other similar broadcasting service;”

Madam Speaker, this means those who like streaming and doing other things are free. They do not need a licence.

“(d) a broadcasting service or class of broadcasting service as the authority may determine.”

Madam Speaker, this business of debating without reading, then we want the public to be misled, is dangerous for a Parliament.

Madam Speaker, I need your clear direction to this House.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you so much, hon. Minister. Actually, it would have been better if you indicated to debate. Your contribution was not a Point of Oorder because it has been highly debated. This is because hon. Members actually tend to just say anything. They move away from the content of the matter that is being debated on the Floor of the House. So, hon. Minister, you have actually debated your Point of Order. There is nothing for me to rule on.

Hon. Members, if we have not read, there is no harm in just listening to what other hon. Members, especially those who have read, are debating on so that we are focused. As I mentioned, people out there, do not know anything about this Bill. They are learning it through the hon. Members in the House. So, can we be factual? Can we read our reports so that as we come to the House, we are more prepared.

Hon. Member for Chienge, you may proceed.

Interruptions

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker, I believe we come here as people's representatives. I am looking –

Mr Nkandu interjected.

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker, I need your protection from this man who gives beer to the people of Kaputa. They do not want him in Kaputa. He keeps on disturbing me. He only gives beer to people of Kaputa.

Madam Speaker, I need your protection.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Hon. Member for Chienge, you were given the Floor. So, please, continue and you are addressing the Chair. Just continue. If somebody is debating while seated, I will take care of that. Can you please continue with your debate.

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker,–

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Members on my right! Give her a chance to debate. Can you give her a chance?

You may continue, hon. Member for Chienge.

Hon. UPND Member interjected.

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

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker, I wanted to debate and speak on behalf of the people of Zambia, but I see that our colleagues are enjoying.

Madam Speaker, what I want to say is that we –

Hon. UPND Members interjected.

Rev. Katuta posed.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: I am listening, hon. Member for Chienge.

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker, I will just stand here until they stop talking because they keep on disturbing me.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chienge, I am listening. Can you continue so that we give room to the hon. Member for Kafue, who is supposed to debate after you.

Rev. Katuta: Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I think for the first time, I will decide to say one word to my hon. Colleagues in the House. Whatever we make as laws today, nothing is forever. This will haunt them when the time comes.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mrs Chonya (Kafue): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in my debate, because I am of the view that this particular Bill should not have been contentious in any way.

Its objects are a mere continuation of what the current Act provides for, which pertains to the composition and payment of TV levies. These issues are already in the existing Act.

Madam Speaker, I also took some time to look at Article 16 of the Bill, which, I think, is splitting hairs. It is alleged that there is an intent to restrict freedom of expression and the use of Twitter, WhatsApp and other channels. The clause says:

“Subject to section 13(4), a person that intends to provide an online broadcasting service shall apply to the Authority …”

Madam Speaker, we are talking about a broadcasting service here. We are not talking about blogging or sharing something on Facebook. That does not amount to service provision. If we are talking about service provision, certainly regulations should be put in place, and this is exactly what this Bill is talking about. So, really, I do not see the grounds upon which my hon. Colleagues are disputing this part.

Madam Speaker, let me come back to the report of the Committee. I will pick out the aspect about giving powers to the hon. Minister to appoint the board. The fear is that the hon. Minister will exercise control over the board. Firstly, I think, this is the standard or established procedure for almost all Government ministries and quasi-government institutions. Ministers have powers to appoint boards. So, I do not see why, in this case, the Minister should be restricted. In any case, the Minister represents the Government, which is ultimately responsible for all the happenings in the Republic.

Madam Speaker, think of the media industry, for instance. If there were no regulations of some kind and a board appointed by a Minister to hold the media accountable, with the so-called freedom of expression that has come, people would easily set the whole Republic on fire using falsehoods. That is why the responsibility ultimately lies with the Government to ensure that there are acceptable, for lack of a better term, levels of control or regulation, so that there is normalcy in the Republic. Otherwise, one day we will wake up and find that the nation is on fire, because of falsehoods and propaganda. That is why it is also important for us to verify whatever they read on social media. Half of the things on social media are meant to mislead the public.

Yes, indeed, we are talking about democracy, Madam Speaker. As you are aware, for most of my career I worked in civil society, where I championed the issue of freedoms and human rights. Over the years, I have matured and come to learn that even democracy has to be guided.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Chonya: Otherwise, there will be anarchy and unnecessary problems in our country. This is not a concern only for Zambia; it is a concern I have heard when interacting with people outside this Republic. As you know, I am a member of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP). Zambia should not be an island. We should bring home the best practices that will bring sanity within our Republic, not leave things like that in the name of people expressing their freedoms.

Madam Speaker, the issue of monetising is a different one. I think, the Motion on monetising content on Facebook was introduced by an hon. Member from the left in this House. I heard arguments about what this Bill would do to monetise content on Facebook. I think, we did not disagree on the idea that content can be monetised on Facebook. However, as I alluded to earlier, if monetisation comes through some kind of service, then, there has to be some regulation to that effect.

Madam Speaker, that is what I have to say. I end by saying that I fully support the report on the Bill as presented by the Committee.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to debate and support the Bill that has been ably moved by the Acting hon. Minister of Information and Media.

Madam Speaker, I am aware that today is Black Friday. On Black Friday, the prices of most things are reduced to entice people to buy commodities. However, I do not think it is fair to rebate our debate as it is Black Friday. It is not correct. What is being said on the Floor of this House is dishonourable. We are hon. Members of Parliament. When we stand here, we are supposed to speak factually and defend the interest of the country.

Madam Speaker, this Bill is harmless. It is intended to regulate podcasts and other broadcasts through social media and other channels. The exemptions that have been provided are adequate to protect the interests of Zambians. What Hon. Kafwaya stated on the Floor of the House is incorrect. If it were not unparliamentary, I would have said he was being uncouth and telling lies. However, I will not say it because it is unparliamentary.

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, it was said that we are the only country trying to regulate online podcasts and television broadcasts. That is not correct. I am aware that even democracies in the Western world have established regulations to ensure that the Internet is not abused. In the interest of the nation, residents and citizens, every responsible government has put measures in place to address this issue. If a government does not regulate the Internet, a crisis is created.

Madam Speaker, you are aware of what happened in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), where online media broadcasters were propagating hate speech and racism. The UK Government moved quickly. Within fourteen days, it introduced new laws to regulate online media. That was done in the interest of the country.

Madam Speaker, you heard the President of the US make a pronouncement on podcasts. His government is going to regulate podcasts without abrogating the rights of the citizens of the US. That is what we have done. The hon. Minister of Information and Media has done the correct thing. Exemptions have been provided to ensure that the rights of Zambians are not abrogated. That is what we have done.

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. Member is apprehensive. He thinks that we can abuse our power; we cannot. You are aware that Hon. Kafwaya and the Patriotic Front (PF) Government are the only ones who closed a television station in the last ten years. They are the only ones who shut down The Post newspaper. From the time we have been in office, we have not closed any media house.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: If anything, we have resurrected media houses which the PF had closed down. The people of Zambia trust us. The people of Zambia believe that we are the only ones who can move this country forward. The people of Zambia know that when there is a problem, we do not wear black. We resolve issues.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu SC.: Madam Speaker, when we have problems, we do not rebase our minds. We offer solutions. That is what we are doing, and that is what the hon. Minister of Information and Media is doing.

Madam Speaker, I would like to urge the people of Zambia to read this Bill. Once they have read the Bill, they will appreciate that the hon. Minister of Information and Media has no evil intention whatsoever pertaining to this Bill. If anything, we are protecting our interests. If we do not, we will be allowing pornography to be broadcasted on our platforms. We do not want human trafficking to be activated through online processes. Hence, the need to ensure that certain regulations are put in place. This particular Bill is in the interest of the country.

Madam Speaker, I am aware that certain people have been talking about issues pertaining to appointments. We are not like them. Our party constitution is very clear.

Mr Nkandu: It does not.

Mr Mwiimbu, SC: It does not provide for appointments based on party membership. The PF Government was the one that was appointing people based on party membership. According to Article 3 of the PF Constitution, …

Hon. UPND Members: Yes!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: … for one to be appointed to any positions of authority, he/she must be …

Mr Nkandu: A sympathiser!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: … not just a sympathiser, but a person who believes in the PF; a PF member.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: That is what our hon. Colleagues were saying. However, we are appointing any Zambian. If you check the boards of public institutions, you will find that some of the board members are PF.

Mr Nkandu: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: It is a fact. In our party regulations, we provide for institutions to be represented. The representation is based on institutions.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge all our hon. Colleagues to support this very important and progressive Bill.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker, when the hon. Member for Chienge was debating, you guided that people should stick to the contents of the Bill and not bring in irrelevant issues into the debate. When we look at Standing Order No. 71, we see that it is about the need for us to be relevance to the topic at hand. Is the hon. Minister, who is an expert than myself in law, in order to veer off what is contained in the Bill and started talking about partisan politics in the House?

Interruptions

Mr Fube: This kind of disorderliness needs to stop.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

What I heard is that the hon. Minister was getting issues from the Committee’s report. As a way of emphasising the issues that he brought out, he came up with examples. He did not move away from the contents of the report.

Mr Mutinta: Hear, hear!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: So, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security was not out of order because he was simply giving examples on the issues that he brought to the Floor of the House.

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker, when we stand on the Floor of this House, we have to be factual.

Mr Nkandu: Yes!

Mr Mutati: We have to speak to or debate what is placed on the Floor of the House. The debate by the hon. Member for Lunte was on things that are not even part of the Bill. That is what we call pure drama to mislead the public.

Mr Samakayi: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: That was totally aimed at misleading the public.

Mr Samakayi: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, this is a respectable House where politics should not be the order of the day because we are here to discuss the law. We can do politics outside this House, but let us not use this place to mislead the people of Zambia. Therefore, the debate by the hon. Member of Parliament for Lunte should not be part of the discussion on this Bill. The issues he raised are not part of this Bill. If I had the power, I would say we delete that debate because it was misplaced.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, the second point is on the hon. Minister making appointments to the IBA Board. As the Government, we have been very prudent in the sense that hon. Ministers get nominations from appropriate stakeholders and only appoint from those who are nominated. In this case, there will be representatives from the office of the Attorney-General, the Higher Education Authority (HEA), a professional media body, a Christian body, the Zambia Information and Communications Authority (ZICTA), the Engineering Association of Zambia (EAZ) and the Zambia Institute of Chartered Accountants (ZICA). These are the institutions from which the hon. Minister will receive nominations to appoint. It is clear that the hon. Minister will receive nominations. So, the hon. Minister will now appoint the nominees from various constituencies to be on the board. The Bill is clear on what we are doing, as the hon. Minister only appoints upon nominations being given …

Mr Nkandu: Not via Chilubi.

Mr Mutati: … from appropriate institutions.

Mr Nkandu: Yes!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, would an irregular person be nominated by the office of the Attorney-General? The answer is no. Would there be an inappropriate person nominated by ZICTA? The answer is no. So, these will not be political appointments. For instance, the representatives from the engineering institute are not political. It is not a political institution. So, the point I am making is that let us not mislead the people of Zambia.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

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

Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

Committee on Tuesday, 2^nd December, 2025.

SECOND READING

THE ZAMBIA NATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION BILL, 2025

Mr Mutati (on behalf of (Mr Mweetwa)): Madam Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity, yet again, to submit an input on this important Bill; the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Bill No. 28, 2025.

Madam Speaker, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act, Chapter 154 of the Laws of Zambia was enacted in 1998 to establish the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) as a statutory corporation transitioning from the Zambia Broadcasting Services (ZBC) under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The ZNBC has a nationwide reach through three frequency modulation (FM) radio –

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Hon. Minister, you are supposed to move the second reading of the Bill.

You may continue.

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, the ZNBC has a nationwide reach through three FM radio stations and four television (TV) channels. The corporation faces serious financial and operational challenges, which include monthly operating costs and outstanding debt to the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), the National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA), ZESCO Limited and an unpaid digital migration loan of US$54 million, accruing interest of US$4 million.

Madam Speaker, the objects of the Bill are to:

continue the existence of the ZNBC and redefine its functions;

reconstitute the board of the ZNBC and clarify its functions;

provide for the imposition, payment and collection of a broadcast levy;

repeal and replace the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act, Chapter 154; and

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

Madam Speaker, the rationale for the repeal and replacement of this Bill, among others, is a lack of a legal definition of public service broadcasting, leading to weak funding mechanisms. The new Bill provides a comprehensive and consolidated framework.

Madam Speaker, the introduction of a broadcast levy to replace the TV levy broadens the funding base and addresses liquidity challenges. The Bill also provides for the legal establishment of other state-owned broadcasters, such as the Zambia News and Information Services (ZANIS) TV, Parliament TV, Education TV and Lima Radio.

Madam Speaker, strengthening regulation and support for state-owned enterprise (SOEs) aligns ZNBC operations with corporate governance standards and other related laws, such as the composition of the board members.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act of 2025 modernises Zambia’s broadcasting framework to meet technological, financial and governance needs. It ensures the corporation remains a reliable, independent and efficient public service provider. Once enacted, it will position the corporation to inform, educate and entertain all Zambians while promoting national unity and democratic participation.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: We have combined the moving of the Motion. The hon. Minister was supposed to move the Motion and then the question was supposed to be put, but everything has been done. I will use my discretion and allow that we move on to further debate.

Chairperson of the Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technologies, hon. Member for Mulobezi, you may proceed.

Eng. Mabenga (Mulobezi): Madam Speaker, in accordance with the terms of reference, as set out under Orders 205(b) and 207(j) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, the Committee was tasked to consider the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Bill No. 28 of 2025. In order to acquaint itself with the ramifications of the Bill, the Committee sought both written and oral submissions from key stakeholders.

Madam Speaker, the Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act, Chapter 154 of the laws of Zambia, modernise the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) by aligning it with contemporary digital broadcasting standards and provide professional oversight under the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). It also introduces a broadcasting charter, repositioning the ZNBC as a public broadcaster rather than a national broadcaster, and strengthening accountability, professionalism and operational modernisation in Zambia’s broadcasting landscape.

Madam Speaker, from the outset, allow me to state that the Bill is a step in the right direction and it will go a long way towards improving the corporation’s financial stability. It will facilitate operational resilience in that the corporation will have a revenue-generating mechanism through the broadcast levy, which has been removed from the IBA for both television and radio, among other financing models. It is envisaged that this will enhance the corporation’s ability to deliver its services through a sustainable and predictable flow of funds that can sustain operations, even during economic downturns.

Madam Speaker, additionally, Clause 10 of the Bill aligns the corporation’s operations with the broadcast charter under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, ensuring adherence to professional broadcasting standards. This is significant in that it explicitly integrates the corporation within the national broad regulation framework overseen by the IBA. As a result of this, the corporation will also no longer be self-regulating, but instead operate under the oversight of the IBA, which sets and monitors compliance with broadcasting standards and editorial guidelines.

Madam Speaker, almost all the stakeholders who appeared before the Committee supported the Bill. A few concerns were raised, as highlighted in the report. Allow me to share some of the concerns for the benefit of the House.

Madam Speaker, stakeholders submitted that the broadcasting charter provided guiding standards for the contents, ethics and operations of broadcasters. However, the provision was vague regarding compliance, as it did not clearly outline the role of the IBA in the event that the corporation failed to meet the prescribed standards. The stakeholders recommended that the Bill specify enforcement or punitive measures for breach of the charter.

Madam Speaker, concerns were also raised regarding Clause 22 of the Bill, which provides broad immunity to board members, committee members and staff for actions or omissions undertaken in good faith, as it lacked a clear safeguard to prevent misuse of protection without a defined accountability mechanism. This provision was seen as potentially limiting resources because of negligence or improper conduct carried out under the guise of good faith. Further, stakeholders submitted that the provision on board appointments made by the hon. Minister gave the Executive excessive control over the corporation’s governance, potentially compromising editorial independence. Therefore, stakeholders submitted that the ministry should consider revising this provision.

Madam Speaker, allow me to now briefly highlight some of the Committee’s observations and recommendations for the benefit of the House.

Madam Speaker, the Committee observes that the Bill empowers the Minister to establish a State-owned broadcaster subject to Cabinet approval. However, there are no limits to the number of State broadcasters that can be created. The Committee therefore, recommends that the provision allowing a Minister to establish a State-owned broadcaster must be kept to a specific limit, taking into account the cost and sustainability concerns.

Madam Speaker, the Committee also observes that the Broadcaster Charter provides guiding standards for content, ethics and operations of broadcasters. However, the provision is vague regarding compliance as it does not clearly outline the role of the IBA in the event that ZNBC fails to meet prescribed standards. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the Bill clearly defines the role of the IBA in monitoring the ZNBC's compliance with the Broadcaster Charter and establish appropriate enforcement measures to address cases of non-compliance.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Any further debate? Hon. Members, if you have not read the report, please do not debate.

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I have read the report, although I am not sure about the column, but all the same, I will continue.

Madam Speaker, for starters, this Bill is heavily intertwined with the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill. It has lifted a lot of definitions, for example, in Section 2. However, I will not waste time on those definitions and what they mean.

Madam Speaker, Clause 3 of the Bill addresses professional standards or ethics, public interest, press freedom, freedom of expression, national values and inclusivity as enshrined in the Constitution of Zambia. This Bill tries to target Zambia as a democratic State. If that is the case, the term that has been used to define this particular broadcaster is State-owned broadcaster. Therefore, I would like it to be called, “a public broadcaster” as opposed to “a State-owned” Why? This is because, in a representative democracy like ours, we are only stewards of what the people entrust in us. This is an instrument that is supposed to promote national values, democracy, human dignity and constitutionalism. However, what happens at the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) is contrary to what the Bill is intended to address. We know that there is a silent policy whereby, one cannot go and express their views there as the Opposition. It will not be allowed.

Mr Munsanje: Question!

Mr Fube: I am speaking from experience. Even when we talk about–

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Can we be factual, hon. Member for Chilubi.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, I am being factual.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Please, be factual.

Mr Fube: I am being factual, Madam Speaker. I have been appearing on the ZNBC Radio and television (TV) since 1990, but now, I am prohibited. One cannot go there.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Fube: Yes, and I know what I am talking about, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, considering the issue we are discussing, I will take the House back to Clauses 5 and 3 of the Bill. Clause 5(1)(a) supports public interest. Clause 5(1)(c) also supports my argument.

Madam Speaker, unlike others, I will try by all means to stick to the Bill.

Madam Speaker, looking at those factors, I would say that public interest counts better than anything else. I know that the United Party for National Development (UPND) wants to react like that today, but I can say that from time immemorial, many past Ruling parties abused the ZNBC. It is not only the UPND. Therefore, it does not sit well to have this kind of abuse.

Madam Speaker, with regard to press freedom, I wish to state that I have had an experience when I went to talk about the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), and nothing else, using the same local content that people are talking about here, as one of the functions. There are situations when a worker at the ZNBC would instruct you on what to say about the CDF just because he or she is afraid. That particular–

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, do you have evidence to support what you are saying …

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, the evidence is my personal experience.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: … about a worker failing to come out in the open?

Mr Fube: I cannot mention a worker because that particular worker is not here to defend himself. However, with regard to what I am trying to talk about, I can only say, God is my witness.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, we cannot take that because you are talking to the Zambians who want to see evidence laid on the Table.

Mr Fube: People can say, “Questions”, but they know that this is what happens. I am talking about press freedom.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, if you have no evidence, kindly withdraw what you had said.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, I withdraw, and I will instead say that there is a lack of press freedom at the ZNBC.

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Even that will require evidence, hon. Member.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, when we look at the broadcast content, does it represent national interest? Clause 5 of the same Bill discusses national diversity. Do we see national diversity at the ZNBC? We do not. So, what I am talking about is evidenced by what is broadcast, unless we do not watch the ZNBC. What we see every day –

Hon. Member: Who?

Mr Fube: I watch the ZNBC. I am not like others. You can even ask the staff at Parliament. I buy Government newspapers, and I watch the ZNBC. So, I am a serious follower of the ZNBC.

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

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

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, Hon. Fube is my friend. He knows that he is my friend from the bottom of my heart.

Mr Fube: You are actually my brother.

Mr Miyutu: Yes! However, a fact is a fact, and the truth is the truth. It is away from perception and personal thinking. Hon. Fube, are you–

Mr Fube: Which Standing Order Number are you citing?

Laughter

Mr Miyutu: I am rising on Standing Order No. 71.

Madam Speaker, is Hon. Fube in order to consider his thinking as the way the nation thinks? He does not go there. He is thinking like that because he is on your left, Madam Speaker. He is not stating facts or giving evidence.

Madam Speaker, according to Standing Order No. 71, is the hon. Member supposed to continue debating on that trajectory, without laying evidence on the Table?

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Chilubi was actually asked if he had evidence, but he did not have any. So, he was asked to withdraw. So, when the hon. Member is asked to withdraw, it means even his pattern of debate should change. So, hon. Member for Chilubi, please, be factual. As I mentioned, you are taking it too personal. Remember that you are speaking on behalf of the Zambians, and the Zambians are listening to what you are saying.

If you say that the Opposition is not allowed to talk freely, or the worker you mentioned is not allowed to talk freely, what will be the picture of the ZNBC? Please, try to be factual. When you are asked for evidence, produce it. If you have no evidence, withdraw your statement and forge ahead.

So, hon. Member, do you have any other points to continue your debate?

Mr Fube: I have, Madam Speaker.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, you may continue.

Mr Fube: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am well-guided.

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

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chipili, I do not think we have time to attend to points of order. We want to wind up the debate on the Committee reports. In fact, according to Standing Order No. 214(s), you are not supposed to stand in front of the person debating.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Give time for the debate to flow before you raise another point of order. I have just attended to a point of order. Let us see if the hon. Member will adjust. Then, at a later stage, you can raise your point of order, not immediately after I have attended to one.

Hon. Member for Chilubi, you may continue.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, thank you for the guidance, but I have been trained to say the truth and be sincere every time. As I said, I am well-guided.

Madam Speaker, I want to bring your attention to Clause 6 of the Bill. If you scrutinise Clause 6, you will see that it is not in tandem with Article 259 of the Constitution, which is direct on how we should make appointments. I know that as a country, we have been overlooking it. For the sake of this clause, let me say that during broadcasting, a sign language interpreter is on set to interpret for the deaf. However, there is no representation for the disabled people and the youth. I have seen that women have representation through the Non-Government Organisation Co-ordinating Council (NGOCC). I think, it is important that even if it is the Minister appointing the board, he should abide by the requirements of Article 259.

Madam Speaker, I also want to address the issue of television levy (TV levy).

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

There was an indication for a point of order by the hon. Member for Chipili.

Mr Chala: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it is a point of procedure. I wonder whether we are in order to continue sitting when we do not have a quorum.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: That will be attended to. The Clerks-at-the-Table are supposed to indicate that to me. I have not seen an indication from them. That matter will be attended to once I confirm.

Hon. Member for Chilubi, you may continue.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, I was addressing the issue of TV levy. When TV levy was introduced, different agents used to collect it when a person purchased a television set, like the ones I am seeing here. When a person purchased a television, it was presumed that that person would watch the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) channels. However, with the invasion of –

Interruptions

Mr Fube: Can I continue, Madam Speaker?

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

We do not have a quorum. We are short of four hon. Members.

Interruptions

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1224 hours until 1227 hours.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum.

The hon. Member for Chilubi, you may continue. Wind up your debate.

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, before business was suspended, I was talking about the manner of collecting TV levies by different agents. We are focussed on collecting TV levy at the point of purchasing a television set. We have forgotten that people can watch ZNBC TV through different means. They can watch online, and so on and so forth. So, the methods of collecting TV levy should be broadened.

Madam Speaker, as I wind up my debate, I want to talk about the editorial policy in Clause 21 and many other factors I have mentioned. What we should promote is Article 20, which talks about freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is also in this Bill. Freedom of expression is for every Zambian. The ZNBC is a national broadcaster. So, we should make sure that it is socially accepted by the over 20 million Zambians. They need to buy into it and use it. This is what I have been trying to underscore. The national broadcaster should belong to all of us.

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member’s time expired.

Mr Mwila (Mufulira): Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm that I have read the Bill and the report of the Committee.

Madam Speaker, this Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Act. I want to start by looking at Section 3 of the Bill, which is talking about the guiding principles and values of the corporation. These have been highlighted as professional standards and ethics, public interest, press freedom, freedom of expression and national values and principles and inclusivity. These are very good guiding principles. However, I have a concern that if this Bill passes in its current form, the corporation is going to struggle to achieve the guiding principles. Why do I say so? This Bill seeks to reconstitute the board of the corporation. In the current law, there is an appointment committee which recommends names to the hon. Minister. The hon. Minister then appoints members of the board, subject to ratification of the names of people by the National Assembly. However, this Bill, in its current form, is seeking to remove the National Assembly from ratifying the names of people appointed to the board.

Madam Speaker, however, this Bill, in its current form, is seeking to remove the National Assembly from ratifying the board. If the guiding principles, such as press freedom and freedom of expression, are to be achieved, we do not need to remove the National Assembly from the process of ratification. The Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) is the people’s broadcaster or public broadcaster. It is owned by the Zambian people. So, if we reduce its governance by giving all the powers to the hon. Minister to appoint the board, and the board in turn appoints the Director-General, we are giving total control of the public broadcaster to the Executive.

Madam Speaker, I want to agree with the Committee’s recommendation that to safeguard independence and accountability, the board’s appointment should be subjected to Parliament’s ratification. What is wrong with the current law, whereby the names to constitute the board should be appointed by the hon. Minister and, thereafter, the same names should come to Parliament for ratification? This is so because we want to ensure that ZNBC remains independent and impartial. If this Bill is passed in its current format, we are taking away the power from the people and giving that power to the Executive to appoint the board and then the board appoints the Director-General. The editorial independence of the ZNBC stands to be compromised.

Madam Speaker, my submission is that I do not support that part of the Bill. Therefore, I just want to urge the hon. Minister that, as we proceed with reviewing and enacting this law, the Government should reconsider that provision and retain the process of ratification of members of the board by the National Assembly. By so doing, it will guarantee independence of the public broadcaster.

Madam Speaker, I want to move to the next provision in the Bill that talks about establishment of state-owned broadcasters. In his opening statement, the hon. Minister referred to the struggles that the ZNBC is facing in terms of financial challenges and how much it owes various creditors like the National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA) and the Workers Compensation Fund Control Board (WCFCB). This is so because ZNBC is struggling in terms of financial sustainability and liquidity.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that whilst we cannot even take care of the ZNBC now, in terms of its financial needs for it to operate effectively, the Bill is proposing that we establish state-owned broadcasters. What will be the need? In fact, the number is not even specified. What are the other state-owned broadcasters going to do that the ZNBC is not doing? The best would be to first of all strengthen the ZNBC.

Madam Speaker, I know there are different channels for the ZNBC. There is ZNBC TV 1 and ZNBC Radio One, Radio Two and Radio Four. ZNBC TV has TV 1, TV 2 and I understand there is also TV 3, although I have not seen it. So, there is no need to even start talking about establishing other state-owned broadcasters when we are struggling to keep our very own ZNBC financially in terms of its operations. So, what is the need? What is driving this Bill to include setting up additional state-owned broadcasters?

Madam Speaker, if what we need is to reach more people, let us open provincial broadcasting stations under the ZNBC until it is financially sound to take care of its own operations. Otherwise, we should not be talking about having other state-owned broadcasters across the country, which is just going to lead to an additional burden on public coffers and the people that contribute to the sustainability of the ZNBC.

Madam Speaker, we do not want to compromise the independence and impartiality of the ZNBC. People even struggle to pay the TV levy, which is now being transformed into the TV broadcasting fee. People are struggling, but it is just that they have no choice. If it was up to individuals to go to the ZNBC to pay, we would see that very few people would do that because of lack of confidence in the way the ZNBC is operating now in terms of impartiality and freedom of expression.

Madam Speaker, if we address that issue by strengthening the institution’s corporate governance without tempering with the way the board is appointed, we are going to instil confidence in the people and they will be willing to contribute to its operations. We should learn how other public broadcasters, like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the United Kingdom (UK), are run. The BBC is purely public-owned and people are happy to pay for their licences because of the manner in which it is managed and the manner it covers news without any biasness or partially. If that way of doing things is brought to the ZNBC, people will be very happy.

Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, this Bill should not be supported in its current format. Let us not compromise how the board is appointed. The proposal in the Bill takes away impartiality and independence. We should bring back the National Assembly into the appointment of the board and halt the opening of other state-owned broadcasters. We should strengthen the ZNBC in terms of human and financial capacity. Then, we can talk about expanding.

Madam Speaker, with these points, I thank you.

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker, I want to quickly agree with the chairperson of the Committee, who said that this Bill is in the right direction because it will give the ZNBC financial strength. It will also make levy collection more effective by removing double handling of the TV levy because in the past, the IBA played the role of a middleman. The funds were pass on to the ZNBC after a portion was taken out. The ZNBC will now have a mechanism of collecting the levy directly.

Madam Speaker, on the issue of the board charter, I wish to state that there will be a statutory instrument (SI) that will be issued to define the role of the board. That was one of the concerns raised by Hon. Fube …

Mr Nkandu: Via Chilubi!

Mr Mutati: … via Chilubi.

Laughter

Mr Mutati: I can only say that he was a bit speculative …

Mr Nkandu: As usual!

Mr Mutati: … by saying that only God is his witness. I am incapable of checking with God whether he is his witness or not.

Laughter

Hon. UND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutati: So, I will not comment any further on that.

Mr Nkandu: Quality!

Mr Mutati: Madam Speaker, the issue of the board, again, involves representatives from the Attorney-General’s office, the Engineerings Association of Zambia (EAZ), educational institutions and others. So, I do not see where the problem is.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

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

Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

Committee on Tuesday, 2^nd December, 2025.

REPORT STAGE

The Occupational Health and Safety Bill, 2025

Report adopted.

Third Reading on Tuesday, 2^nd December, 2025.

_______

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

The Minister of Technology and Science and Acting Leader of Government Business in the House (Mr Mutati): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.

_______

The House adjourned at 1239 hours until 1430 hours on Tuesday, 2^nd December, 2025.

____________

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm

Search form

You are here

Friday, 28th Friday, 2025

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm