Wednesday, 3^rd December, 2025

 

The House met at 1430 hours

 

[MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

NATIONAL ANTHEM

 

PRAYER

 

_______

 

URGENT MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

MR KAMPYONGO, HON. MEMBER FOR SHIWANG’ANDU, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, MR LUFUMA, ON THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) BILL NO. 7 OF 2025

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, the Urgent Matter without Notice I am about to raise was directed at the hon. Minister of Justice. Since I cannot see her, I direct it to the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House, and it pertains to the constitutional amendment process.

 

Madam Speaker, a day or two ago, we saw the Technical Committee, which was appointed by the President of the Republic of Zambia, present its report, and the draft Bill, which draft Bill was said to be heading to this institution.

 

Madam Speaker, yesterday, before the hon. Minister of Justice could share with us what was going to happen to the report and the draft Bill, which were handed over to the President, she notified this august House that she was reactivating the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, which had been deferred on the Floor of the House for wider consultations.

 

Madam Speaker, we are at sea, as your legislators, regarding what is to happen to the report and the draft Bill. Now that the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, which was a subject of a constitutional legal matter, has been reactivated, the hon. Minister of Justice has not come to the august House to explain what will happen to both processes that were dealing with the constitutional amendment.

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

 

I advise the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu to file in an urgent question so that that matter can be attended to, because as far as I am concerned, it does not concern loss of property, life or any catastrophe to befall the nation. So, the hon. Member should file in an urgent question directed to the hon. Minister of Justice.

 

MR ZULU, HON. MEMBER FOR NYIMBA, ON THE HON. MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, MR LUFUMA, REGARDING THE WASHING AWAY OF CHANDA BRIDGE

 

Mr Zulu (Nyimba): On an Urgent Matter without Notice, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

 

Mr Zulu: Madam Speaker, my Urgent Matter without Notice was directed at the hon. Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, but since he is not in the House, I direct it at the hon. Minister of Defence and Acting Leader of Government Business in the House.

 

Madam Speaker, God is so mighty that he has blessed us with rainfall in the province, especially in Nyimba District. People from Chinambi Ward and Luangwa Ward have been basically cut off so they cannot access the central business district (CBD) in Nyimba. Some of them cannot even go to the other side for farming because Chanda Bridge was washed away due to a storm in the district.  So, I would like to ask the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House what the Government’s position is on this matter because communication was sent yesterday. As of today, we have not received any reply, and the situation is not too good.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: There is a Ministerial Statement that is pending, which is supposed to be issued by Her Honour the Vice-President. Unfortunately, she left instructions that she would like to issue the statement herself. I believe Her Honour the Vice-President will be in the House next week.

 

Since the matter is a bit urgent, maybe, hon. Member for Nyimba, you can file in an urgent question. However, I hope you have also communicated to the Government officials, so that you do not wait for the question to be attended to by the hon. Minister in the House.

 

MR KANG’OMBE, HON. MEMBER FOR KAMFINSA, ON MR NKANDU, HON. MINISTER OF YOUTH, SPORT AND ARTS, ON NATIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM PLAYERS NOT BEING PAID ALLOWANCES

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

 

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, thank you for the privilege and honour to direct an Urgent Matter without Notice at the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts.

 

Madam Speaker, the Zambia National Football Team last won the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) in 2012. Since then, we have struggled to get glory at that level. We have been hearing of complaints from football players of our national teams, both men and women, that there are no resources to pay them allowances to prepare for a very important tournament called the AFCON. 

 

Madam Speaker, I am an interested party, and I believe many other Zambians are interested parties as well. So, we are interested in knowing how prepared the team is to go and compete in Morocco and win the AFCON, as opposed to losing games in the first four matches.

 

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts in order to not assure the nation that the Zambia National Football Team is ready for the AFCON in Morocco and that Zambia will not have challenges paying allowances to its players? We have heard players in the main team and other teams that represent the nation complain about this issue.

 

Madam Speaker, football is our national pride. We are proud when the nation wins important tournaments. Therefore, is the hon. Minister in order to allow players to continue complaining? Every day, we hear news of players not being paid, but we allocate money to the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Arts. We have allocated enough money to that ministry.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, an Urgent Matter without Notice is one that has happened within the last twenty-four hours. You have clearly stated that people keep on asking about that matter. So, it is an old matter.

 

Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, find another platform to raise that matter with the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts.

 

We make progress.

 

_______

 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

 

VISA APPLICATIONS FOR ZAMBIANS TRAVELLING ABROAD

 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe, SC.): Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver this Ministerial Statement in response to the concerns raised on the Floor of the House, as well as recent public debate and social media commentary regarding various consular matters between Zambia and our partners in foreign states.

 

Madam Speaker, to start with, I wish to address the question of hon. Members of Parliament who sought visas for travel to Schengen and Nordic countries. The ministry noted the concerns expressed by hon. Members of Parliament, members of the public and the media regarding the alleged rejection or delay in the issuance of visas for hon. Members of Parliament. In the interest of transparency, and to preserve cordial bilateral relations, it is necessary to provide a factual and comprehensive update on the matter, which I now do.

 

Diplomatic Passports and Eligibility

 

Madam Speaker, diplomatic passports in Zambia are issued pursuant to Part III, Sections 5 to 7 of the Passports Act No. 28 of 2016 and Cabinet Office Minute CO.4/1/1 of 10^th May, 2000. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that a diplomatic passport may be issued to:

 

1. a Zambian diplomat accredited to a foreign country and their spouse; and

 

1. any other person as the Minister may prescribe.

 

Madam Speaker, the integrity and credibility of Zambian diplomatic passports remain beyond reproach and continue to enjoy full recognition and acceptance across all international jurisdictions. These passports reflect the sovereign authority of the Republic of Zambia and serve as a testament to the country’s adherence to established diplomatic protocols and international norms.

 

Visa Application Procedures

 

Madam Speaker, visa issuance falls within the sovereign prerogative of each state. Suffice to inform the House that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation has successfully facilitated many Schengen visa applications for hon. Members of Parliament, Government officials and, indeed, members of the general public alike. In this regard, the matters under consideration were isolated incidents. Delays arose due to the late submission of applications, which fell short of the minimum processing timeframe required by Schengen visa regulations.

 

Madam Speaker, although hon. Members of Parliament hold diplomatic passports, Schengen visa regulations stipulate that only hon. Ministers or persons of equivalent rank and above qualify for fast-track processing. The category of fast-track processing currently does not include hon. Members of Parliament. Hon. Members of Parliament are, therefore, required to submit applications, at least, ten to fifteen days before the intended travel dates to accommodate administrative processing, including courier dispatch of passports to Nairobi for certain Schengen states, or to Pretoria for the United Kingdom (UK).

 

Specific Cases

 

Madam Speaker, let me highlight the following cases:

 

1. the Geneva-bound visa applications for hon. Members of Parliament to attend the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) 7^th Montreal Collective Global Forum from 1^st to 4^th December, 2025 were submitted late and could not be processed within the necessary timeframe;

 

1. visa applications to Switzerland are submitted through the Swedish Embassy, which contracts VFS Global to manage applications on its behalf. Applicants complete forms, pay the requisite fees and undergo biometric enrolment at VFS Global, and the applications are then forwarded to the Swedish Embassy in Nairobi for processing. Standard processing is ten to fifteen working days, with a fast-track option of three days reserved for delegations led by hon. Ministers and/or above. In the case of the hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa and his delegation, the request for visa issuance came within five working days and, therefore, could not be accommodated, as it did not meet the fast-track criterion; and

 

1. similarly, the eighteen-member delegation applications were not submitted on time to the German Embassy, as the request for a note verbal was only made five days before the intended travel, making timely issuance impossible, particularly as the German Embassy required recommendations for approval from Berlin, owing to the size of the delegation. The embassy was, however, willing to grant five members of the delegation clearance on an exception basis, but this was not taken up as it was found not appropriate by the delegation itself.

 

Status of Zambia-Germany Relations

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to affirm that Zambia’s relations with Germany remain warm, constructive and mutually respectful. Co-operation spans governance, renewable energy, trade, skills development and health. The Government has not received any communication indicating a change in Germany’s policy towards Zambia or Zambian officials as the case may be. The matters under discussion are isolated administrative occurrences and are not indicative of any deterioration in bilateral relations or diplomatic reciprocity with Germany or, indeed, any of our international partners.

 

Measures to Avoid Similar Occurrences

 

Madam Speaker, to prevent future challenges, the Ministry is implementing the following measures:

 

1. Public Sensitisation

 

Madam Speaker, through public sensitisation, the ministry is informing applicants about visa processing requirements for different jurisdictions. A circular was issued to relevant stakeholders to this effect;

 

(b)     Co-ordination strengthening

 

The ministry is engaged in inter-departmental co-ordination to ensure documentation for official travel is submitted in optimal timeframes;

 

(C      Enhanced Communication

 

The ministry is promoting adherence to diplomatic norms in handling official delegations through closer engagement with foreign missions; and

 

(d)     Mission Support

 

Working with Zambian Missions abroad is imperative to address all concerns arising from official travel.

 

Madam Speaker, the Government remains committed to protecting the dignity of this House, upholding Zambia's foreign interests and ensuring that diplomatic passports are respected globally.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to provide this update and reaffirm the Ministry's commitment to facilitating official travel while safeguarding the integrity of Zambia's diplomatic engagements. May I take this opportunity to further offer clarification on false reports alleging that a sixty-day travel ban has been imposed by the USA.

Madam Speaker, very quickly, allow me to address matter alleging a sixty-day travel ban by the United States of America (USA).

 

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, reports that have been circulating and have been generated by one particular tabloid are false, misleading, and must be dismissed with the contempt they deserve.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation confirms that no communication has been received from the Government of the United States of America indicating any form of travel ban or new restrictions on Zambian citizens or Government officials. All existing travel procedures remain in full effect.

Madam Speaker, further, I wish to clarify on the USA Visa bond pilot programme which I have previously brought before the Floor of this House. For the benefit of the House and the public, the following clarification is provided:

 

1. in August 2025, the USA Government included Zambia and Malawi in the Visa Bond Pilot Programme, introduced under Section 221(g) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act and under a Temporary Final Rule;

 

1. the programme applies only to B-1 (business) and B-2 (tourism) visa applicants from countries assessed to have high visa overstay rates; 

 

1. Government officials, including hon. Members of Parliament, students and applicants under other visa categories are not affected; and

 

1. the programme is not a travel ban. It is an administrative measure running for one year, subject to review.

 

Madam Speaker, the ministry continues to engage the US authorities to ensure smooth implementation and to safeguard the interests of Zambian travellers and ultimately, the lifting of the pilot programme in respect to Zambia.

 

Zambia-United States Bilateral Relations

 

Madam Speaker, the bilateral relationship between Zambia and the USA remains strong, productive and mutually respectful.

 

His Excellency President Hakainde Hichilema recently held a constructive discussion with the US Secretary of State, the Hon. Marco Rubio, reaffirming co-operation in health, agriculture, governance, mining, and investment and other areas of mutual interest. We have continued to engage the US State Department, including our own US Ambassador to Zambia, His Excellency, Mr. Michael C. Gonzales, on various areas of partnership and our continued friendship with the USA. These engagements confirm that relations between the two countries continue to take a positive and collaborative trajectory.

 

Madam Speaker, at this point, I wish to appeal to public and the media to:

 

1. verify information before circulating it;

 

1. rely on official Government communication channels for updates on immigration and international travel and any matters to do with our international relations; and

 

1. refrain from sharing unverified reports that may cause unnecessary alarm or undermine diplomatic relations.

 

Mr Nkandu: Repeat that!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC: Madam Speaker, at the request of the hon. Members of the House, I will repeat the last item: the members of the public are urged to refrain from sharing unverified reports that may cause unnecessary alarm or undermine diplomatic relations with our foreign partners.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish to reassure this House and the nation that the ministry is actively addressing matters relating to the international relations of our beloved Zambia. We remain committed to defending the dignity of this House, protecting the welfare of Zambian citizens abroad and strengthening Zambia's relations with all partner nations.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

Mr Charles Mulenga (Kwacha): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity given to me to ask a question to the hon. Minister on the Ministerial Statement just delivered.

 

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister’s l statement is loud and clear. The unfortunate part is that there has been a lot of misinformation that was published in various tabloids and on social media.

 

Mr Nkandu: From the PF!

 

Mr Charles Mulenga: I would like to find out what immediate action the ministry may take against those people who were in the forefront to circulate such misinformation so that we do not have a repeat of what has transpired.

 

Mr Haimbe, SC: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Kwacha for that question on a point of clarification.

 

Madma Speaker, in terms of the immediate action that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation is taking to curtail these unfortunate and somewhat malicious public circulation of false information is to use platforms such as this particular opportunity to issue a Ministerial Statement and through this august House to update the people of Zambia on the correct processes, procedures and the correct position regarding our diplomatic relations. However, I would also like ot take the opportunity to urge the hon. Members of this House, being the key apex leaders in our communities, to take correct information to the general public and to their constituents so that we avoid this deliberate attempt to paint the foreign relations of this country as having fallen below standard, and we will continue sensitising, as a ministry.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Jamba (Mwembeshi): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

 

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister has said that the information was being circulated by one tabloid or whatever.

 

Mr Nkandu: The PF tabloid!

 

Mr Jamba: Now, since this is a very honourable House, is the hon. Minister able to give details or the name of the tabloid that is circulating such information, because that is very important.

 

Mr Nkandu: The PF!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I believe our rules in terms of citing third parties in the House who cannot defend themselves are clear. Believe me, I am itching to give that information. Perhaps, as a ministry, we shall take it outside of the confines of this House, and release this information to the general public using other means. Otherwise, in terms of third-party information about individuals or entities who cannot defend themselves, I am afraid, hon. Member for Mwembezhi, I am constrained by the rules of this House.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker, we appreciate the statement given by the hon. Minister.

 

Madam Speaker, in his statement, the hon. Minister stated that the Germany Embassy was at least ready to process five visas out of the eighteen-member delegation. Can he confirm whether the mission was just worried about the size of the delegation? If it was ready to process five visas, it would have still been possible to process the other thirteen. Would he say that the reason could have been the concern about the size of the delegation?

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu for that question and the clarification being sought.

 

Madam Speaker, certainly, it was not about the size of the delegation because, subsequent to the incident that occurred, the Germany Embassy came out clearly in public media, and stated that it would want to have as many of our hon. Members of Parliament and Zambian citizens travel to Germany, as it goes to strengthening our bilateral relations. So, it was not the size of the delegation, but purely an administrative matter.

 

Madam Speaker, the offer to process five visas came in an attempt to, first of all, not only as an exception but also, offer a sort of olive branch, if I may, in view of the serious situation that occurred. However, our hon. Members also could not allow only five members of that delegation to travel. So, we did not accept the request. Certainly, the relations remained strong, and a testament to that fact is that the Germany Embassy was willing to make an exception just to accommodate us.

 

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Speaker, thank you.

 

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for the answers he is providing.

 

Madam Speaker, I came rushing because I was part of a panel discussion at 1415 hours, and I am actually online outside, because I am presenting at the World Health Organisation (WHO) meeting in Geneva. It is very sad to hear the submission made by the hon. Minister. That could only happen if the ministry did not know what it was doing. Vividly, I even called the hon. Minister today to ask for a note verbale, which the ministry wrote to the German Ambassador or embassy. I sat in the office at the ministry and the aforesaid embassy was put on loudspeaker, and we heard its submission. When we bring things to the House, they should be taken seriously because we need–

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: What is the question?

 

Mr Mwambazi: Madam Speaker, I just want to build my question because I have seen screaming headlines in the News Diggers. How we can come up with a fake story? We are honourable people, and things should be addressed the way they are and how they transpired.

 

Madam Speaker, firstly, we would like to see the note verbale that was written, and when it was written, and whether it was five days before the actual timeline given for submission. I think this is disheartening. I have never spoken like this in this Parliament, but we need to address some of these issues effectively to ensure that our people, even these so-called ambassadors, in terms of diplomacy, are put in perspective because we will continue on the same trajectory if we do not do that. What I want to ask the hon. Minister, who is my colleague and friend, is: When did we apply for the visa according to the note verbale and when was the visa denied? The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation is the one that applied for the visas, not us.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa’s question and, of course, the frustration that he is clearly expressing.

 

Madam Speaker, I think, I was clear in my Ministerial Statement when I said that no application was actually submitted to the embassy, because by the time the processes commenced for the submission of applications, we were already out of time. I hear, and sense from the hon. Member’s submission that there is a question of efficiency within our own processes. Clearly, that is a matter that has to be looked into and to understand where there was a miscommunication, which resulted in the application not being filed within the specified time.

 

Madam Speaker, the request for a note verbale, according to the information that has been given to me, was only received five days before the intended date of travel. So, in those circumstances, an administrative decision was made to the effect that the application would not be viable and, therefore, it was not submitted. I hope that helps the hon. Member understand what happened and to clarify the situation.

 

Suffice to say, Madam Speaker, we, as a ministry, launched a service charter not too long ago, under which certain standards are to be observed. So, I, therefore, invite the hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa to visit my office with further information so that the necessary disciplinary and corrective action can be taken in the event of a lapse amongst our own staff either on the ministry’s side or, as the case may be.

 

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Mwambazi: Madam Speaker, we came up with the programme that involved Parliament and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation. We applied for visas in the first leg through the Italian Embassy. Everything was done by the ministry, and on time. The ministry, again, came back and said that we were going for a second leg, so, we should submit applications. Everything was facilitated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation. What I am failing to reconcile from the submission made by my hon. Minister is how the same ministry, which knows the timelines and was organising the trip, can fail to acquire the visas on time, and was out of time. That is what we are failing to reconcile. That is why I want the hon. Minister to tell us what transpired because it was not done by Parliament, but the ministry.

 

Mr Haimbe, SC.: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Bwana Mkubwa for using the Floor of the House as an inquest process.

 

Madam Speaker, I think, my Ministerial Statement was absolutely clear. The essence of it was to address the impression that was created in this unfortunate situation, that there is a challenge in terms of diplomatic relations between Zambia and its partners. That is the gist of the Ministerial Statement. If then, the hon. Member is dissatisfied in terms of processes that were undertaken between Parliament, as an institution, and the ministry, I have submitted that this matter should call for disciplinary action, which disciplinary action cannot be meted out by any process we are undertaking in this House currently. We will only create a talking shop. If we really want to get to the bottom of the matter, resolve it and take care to ensure that it does not happen again, that evidence, that discussion must be held at administration level between the ministry and Parliament officials. I will end there. I think that is sufficiently clear.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

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

 

Madam Speaker, I believe and agree that different countries have different rules for issuing visas. Further, I believe that once a diplomatic passport is issued, it is for different purposes, and among them, is to facilitate the travel of those who are conferred with that status, allowing them to attend to any emergency at any given time. However, there are times when hon. Members are required to attend to certain issues within a short period of time. Considering the period given to acquire visas, how will hon. Members of Parliament manage to fit in within a specific time period? They may be given only two days in which to respond or attend to visa matters. How would they manage to respond to such requests from different jurisdictions within such a limited time?

 

Mr Haimbe, S.C.: Madam Speaker, indeed, as the hon. Member has alluded, the essence of the diplomatic passport is to confer diplomatic status on the individual who holds the passport. What does this entail? It entails, for example, that they will enjoy the immunities and privileges that are bestowed on diplomats under the Vienna Convention.

 

Madam Speaker, what the hon. Member is asking is in relation to emergency travel, which I think is outside the scope of our conversation here because we are discussing travel in the ordinary course of business. Emergency travel is dealt with in exactly that fashion and on a case-by-case basis. So, it does not mean that because there are specific timelines for the ordinary day-to-day issuance of visas, there cannot be consideration for any intending traveller for emergency purposes.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Chala (Chipili): Madam Speaker, I think that my question has been partly answered because, in his statement, the hon. Minister mentioned that there are categories, and that the first category includes hon. Ministers and other senior Government officials. However, my question is: Can the hon. Minister give me three reasons he thinks he can give a diplomatic passport to hon. Members of Parliament that has no advantage?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Haimbe, S.C.: Madam Speaker, I do not think that it would be quite fair or correct to suggest that the diplomatic passport has no advantages. As to me giving three reasons, I think I would invite the hon. Member, being the holder of a diplomatic passport, to understand the passport that he holds by reading the Vienna Convention of 1961. It will detail what he enjoys in terms of diplomatic status when he travels. The position I would give is that the Vienna Convention has all the answers that he would want in terms of the benefits of a diplomatic passport.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Chewe (Lubansenshi): Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. Minister as he was giving his answers. In his response, he brought up the issue of the United States of America (USA).

 

Madam Speaker, my question concerns the note verbale that the USA or the ministry issues when one is going on an official visit to the USA. There are parts meant for individuals who are not Government officials, but intend to visit the USA, and those individuals are subjected to parts B1 and B2, which I am sure the hon. Minister is conversant with. For B1, one must pay US$10,000, and for B2, one must pay US$15,000. These payments are in form of a bond, which can be very difficult for some people to obtain because they do not have the money. Therefore, what measures is the ministry putting in place to ensure that it lessens the burden because very few people can afford to raise US$10,000 for them to travel, and that excludes air tickets? In some cases, some people only want to visit their relatives while others go there to do business because we are living in a global village. What measures is the ministry putting in place to ensure that this burden is lessened?

 

Mr Haimbe, S.C.: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Lubansenshi for that important question.

 

 Madam Speaker, concerning the measures that are being put in place, the hon. Member for Lubansenshi will recall that when I returned from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, I issued a Ministerial Statement. The issue that the hon. Member has raised was addressed, and amongst the engagements that we had on the side-lines of the UN General Assembly (UNGA80) was a trip to Washington, D.C., where we engaged with our counterparts from the USA, and we had a meeting with colleagues from the State Department, and such engagements continue at the very highest level.

 

Madam Speaker, as stated in my Ministerial Statement, recently, there was a conversation between the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Hakainde Hichilema, and the Secretary of State for the United States of America, Mr Marco Rubio, where matters relating to our relationship were discussed, including, as it were, the issue of the visa bonds that apply not when one is going to visit relatives, by the way, but relating to parts B1/B2, which the hon. Member correctly referred to, which relate to business and business tourism.

 

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr J. Chibuye (Roan): Madam Speaker, the failure by the German Embassy to issue or give visas to the travelling party of hon. Members and, indeed, officials from the ministry aroused a lot of speculation in the country.  Some speculated that there might have been challenges or, indeed, some brushes in terms of the diplomatic relationship with Germany. I would like the hon. Minister to tell the nation, and indeed the House, if at all, there has been such an occurrence before.

 

Mr Haimbe, S.C.:  Madam Speaker, I do believe that there have been instances when challenges with the issuance of visas, not only in relation to Schengen states but across the globe, have arisen even for us hon. Members of Parliament. I specifically recall that I, as Minister of Justice, had to forego one trip because of administrative challenges. Of course, being alive to the fact that we cannot debate parliamentary business, I end there.

 

Madam Speaker, suffice it to say, I would like to take this opportunity, again, to say that the relations between Zambia and Germany remain very strong, and in fact in relation to Schengen countries. I think members of the public would benefit from some statistical information, which would help to ease the thoughts going through their minds and that of hon. Members.

 

Madam Speaker, the use of third-party visa processing is not unique to Zambia.  In many African countries actually, 70 per cent of processing is done through third-party issuance. In Malawi, the processing of Schengen visas is done via the Swedish Embassy in Nairobi, and the period is ten to fifteen days plus courier time. In Rwanda, Schengen visas are processed in either Nairobi or Dar-es-Salaam and only expedited for hon. Ministers and above. That is the fast-track process. Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi process Schengen visa requests in Nairobi, and passports need to be couriered as well. Botswana and Namibia process Schengen visas via Pretoria, while Lesotho and Eswatini process them via Pretoria and they are couriered to Zambia.

 

Madam Speaker, outside of the African continent, Cambodia processes Schengen visas through Bangkok, but the period is the same. Laos is equal to Cambodia; it processes visas through Bangkok. Nepal processes visas through New Delhi in India, Mongolia through Beijing and the Maldives through Sri Lanka.

 

Madam Speaker, it is clear that each sovereign country decides how to issue its visas and Zambia is no exception. A visa not being granted cannot be a basis upon which to say that there could be a challenge with our bilateral relations. We must adhere to the timeframes stipulated as much as possible, obviously except where there is an emergency or some other exception that would require a fast-track process.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

_______

 

BILLS

 

THE PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX (Amendment) BILL, 2025

 

SECOND READING

 

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

 

Madam Speaker, the Bill before this House is principally seeking to amend the Property Transfer Tax Act, so as to;

 

1. extend the tax relief applicable to a company transferring the shares and a company receiving the shares that has been part of a group of companies which is subject of a group reorganisation;

 

1. limit the forms of surrender of forfeiture of shares for no consideration that are exempt from property transfer tax; and

 

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

 

Madam Speaker, I recommend the Bill to the House.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Mr Chaatila (Moomba): Madam Speaker, in line with its terms of reference under Order No. 204(4)(d) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2024, your Committee held ten meetings and received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including Government ministries, parastatals, industries, civil society and think tanks to consider the money Bills referred to it by the House.

 

Madam Speaker, the Property Transfer Tax (Amendment) Bill No. 23 of 2025 seeks to amend the Property Transfer Tax Act so as to extend the relief applicable to group re-organisation under the Act to cases that result in a change of shareholding with respect to a company incorporated in Zambia. This is in order to provide clarity on tax treatment for intra-group transactions and to close identified loopholes, while facilitating legitimate business restructuring. These amendments are intended to ensure that taxation is aligned with true economic ownership, promote investment efficiency and reduce costs associated with internal re-organisations.

 

Madam Speaker, your Committee commends the Executive for the progressive amendments contained in the Bill. Notably, there is a provision that allows the Commissioner-General to determine a new value for transfers of shares during group re-organisation. This will encourage long-term productivity and capital formation and clarify exemptions relating to the surrender or forfeiture of shares for non-consideration.

 

Madam Speaker, some stakeholders were concerned about the three-year requirement for companies involved in group re-organisation to qualify for new value treatment. They were of the view that this may unduly restrict legitimate restructuring activities, particularly for distressed companies, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that may require rapid re-organisation. Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the three-year requirement for group re-organisation to be exempt from paying the Property Transfer Tax be reviewed. Further, your Committee recommends the publication of clear guidelines or the criterion that the Commissioner-General will apply to determine whether group re-organisation qualifies for new value treatment. Such guidelines will promote transparency, predictability and consistency in application, thereby reducing uncertainty for businesses.

 

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, I wish to place on record the Committee’s sincere gratitude to all the stakeholders who made submissions and to you and the Clerk of the National Assembly for the guidance and support that was rendered to it throughout an important study.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the House for supporting the Bill. I also wish to take note of the observations made by the Committee as well as the issues raised. I wish to indicate that the three-year requirement is an anti-avoidance safeguard against short-term restructuring designed purely to avoid tax. This safeguard is important in protecting fiscal integrity. The three-year requirement only applies to group re-organisation with the parent company outside the Republic.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee has recommended that the criterion that the Commissioner-General will use in determining a new value should be published in order to create clarity and consistency in the application of the provision. This is well noted, and I will instruct the Commissioner-General to do likewise through practice notes.

 

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 Wednesday, 10^th December, 2025.

 

THE MOBILE MONEY TRANSACTION LEVY (Amendment) BILL, 2025

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

 

Madam Speaker, the Bill before this House is principally seeking to amend the Mobile Money Transaction Levy Act so as to:

 

1. revise the levy payable on a person-to-person transfer; and

 

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

 

 Madam Speaker, the Bill is straightforward, and I commend it to the House.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

   

Mr Chaatila (Moomba): Madam Speaker, in line with its terms of reference under Order No. 204(4) of the National Assembly Standing Order 2024, your Committee held ten meetings to scrutinise the Mobile Money Transactions Levy (Amendment) Bill, 2025. In doing so, your Committee interacted with various stakeholders from Government ministries, the financial sector, regulatory institutions, professional bodies, civil society organisations (CSOs) and mobile money operators.

 

Madam Speaker, this Bill seeks to revise the levy payable on person-to-person mobile transfers and to strengthen the administrative framework for its implementation. Your Committee notes that this measure forms part of the Government's broader effort to enhance domestic resource mobilisation.

 

Madam Speaker, the stakeholders who appeared before the Committee held mixed views on the proposed measures in the Bill. While some supported the measures as a necessary step towards widening this tax base, others raised concerns about the possibility of inhibiting financial inclusion, raising transaction costs and discouraging the use of digital financial services.

 

Madam Speaker, having carefully considered these submissions, your Committee highlighted a number of key observations and recommendations.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee observed that the Bill proposes to expand the scope of person-to-person transfers to include transactions made to oneself. While this amendment closes existing loopholes and ensures greater fairness in digital taxation, it also raises a broader policy issue. Your Committee is concerned about the rapid escalation of the mobile money transaction levy over the years. The levy was introduced as a minimal charge in 2023, but it has seen an increase annually by margins exceeding 100 per cent.

 

Madam Speaker, your Committee wishes to caution the Executive that such frequent and substantial increases pose a great risk to the use of digital payment systems. The sharp increase also inhibits innovation and undermines the national financial inclusion agenda. YourCommittee, therefore, recommends that the Executive considers adopting a more predictable, gradual and evidence-based approach to taxation in the mobile money sector. It is the view of your Committee that future adjustments must reflect industry maturity, affordability and the need to promote the growth of the digital financial services.

 

Madam Speaker, your Committee also observes that the revised levy schedule is intended to generate an estimated amount of K540 million as additional revenue. While your Committee supports the objective of enhancing domestic resource mobilisation, it expresses concern on the need to protect low-income and vulnerable users who rely heavily on mobile money transactions for their daily economic activities.

 

Madam Speaker, your Committee observes that these excessive increases across all slabs could disproportionately impact women, youth, small-holder farmers and the small and medium enterprises that form most of the users of digital financial services. Such increases may encourage users to revert to cash-based systems, undermine transaction formalisation and reduce the very revenues the measure seeks to mobilise.

 

Madam Speaker, your Committee is of the view that the Executive must explore other options by creating a more calibrated and equitably levy structure to avoid this effect.

 

In conclusion, I wish to state that your Committee recognises the importance of strengthening domestic resource mobilisation. However, it emphasises that fiscal measures must be carefully calibrated so that they do not stifle digital financial inclusion, discourage mobile money usage, or impede the growth of the digital economy. Subject to the Executive addressing these concerns raised in this report, the Committee supports the Bill.

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to express the Committee's sincere gratitude to all the stakeholders who made submissions and to you, Madam, and the Clerk of the National Assembly for your guidance and support throughout the deliberations.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me to make a few comments in support of the recommendations ably made by the chairperson of the Planning and Budgeting Committee.

 

Madam Speaker, the levy under discussion today, is one of the levies that has been adjusted every year. So, ordinary citizens need to understand this levy because it is now applicable to the mobile money transfers that people have been using, especially the unbankable citizens.  

 

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that if one has two mobile telephone lines and maybe, wants to move money from Airtel to Zamtel, the money will be levied. So, it is just like levying money being moved from the left pocket to the right. How are we going to help the unbanked if this is the way we are going to proceed?

 

Madam Speaker, this is a platform that teachers in the villages or elsewhere use, whose money is taxed in terms of salaries. However, when one wants to send some money to his/her mother to buy fertiliser in the village, it should attract this levy.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: This is a basic understanding. You can question if you do not understand. So, what the Committee is suggesting must be taken note of by the hon. Minister.

 

Madam Speaker, the definition, under Clause 2, which seeks to amend Section 2, provides for the definition of money transfer from person-to-person.  This is on the assumption that one is sending to someone else all the time. Like I have said, one may want to just buy airtime on CellZ (Zamtel) because one has got a bit of money in Airtel, but to move that money to Zamtel, it is levied.  That is why I gave that analogy of taxing money that is just from one side of the pocket to another. So, the hon. Minister needs to appreciate this.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee suggests gradual increments. If one is sending between K150 and K300, the levy used to be K20, but the proposed levy is K40, which is a 100 per cent increment. So, if one is sending between K300 and K500, the levy is being adjusted from 40n to 80n, which is another 100 per cent increment.

 

Madam Speaker, other categories of higher notches are already catered for in terms of revenue. So, the hon. Minister should pay attention to the proposal by the Committee that he must reduce the first four slabs from a projected average of 100 per cent down to 50 per cent. The Committee is also proposing that the K100,000 should be reduced to K300,000 slabs from the 200 per cent proposed by the Executive to 25 per cent. The last two slabs should be set to zero because they are already covered by other taxes.

 

Madam Speaker, this is a humble request coming from your Committee. Like I have said, whilst we support the hon. Minister's move to adjust domestic revenue mobilisation, he also has to strike a balance between that need and his own national financial inclusive policy, which is a strategy couched by his ministry.

 

So, you say that people must not be left behind. Those unbanked, who do not have bank accounts, can still be allowed to transact. That is the whole essence of the strategy.

 

Further, like the chairperson has said, your Committee, Madam Speaker, is of the view that there should be a moderate and tiered approach to reduce the first four lower slabs, for example, like I mentioned earlier, adjust the mid-range slab to 25 per cent and set the last two to zero. The hon. Minister may reduce in terms of what his ministry projected to realise from these transactions, but it can still be covered by higher notches.

 

Madam Speaker, it is also worth noting, like the chairperson of the Committee stated, that since the 2023 Act, which introduced this levy as a minimal charge, was enacted, the levy has been increasing every year, exceeding a 100 per cent, with most of the proposals, in some instances, surpassing the actual customer transaction charges applied by operators. The operators also charge a small fee on people who transact. When you send a K150, operators effect a fixed charge. Now, the ministry will also increase this levy. So, you will see how expensive it will become for the lower bracket of people who are in the informal sector, those who deal with small volumes of money. We will be with the hon. Minister if he decides to present proposals to this august House to increase taxes and levies on those who earn a lot and have guaranteed power supply, such as the mining industry. Yes, we will have to support them in terms of production, but if we can make more from there, it is important that we focus there than targeting lower earning citizens.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: There is an indication for a point of order.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on Hon. Katuta, Member of Parliament for Chienge. My point of order is pursuant to Standing Order No. 213, on the conduct of Members. I specifically want to refer to Standing Order No. 213(2).

 

Madam Speaker, is Hon. Katuta in order to circulate an article she wrote, casting aspersions on the conduct of your Committee, the Select Committee that was constituted to scrutinise the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10.

 

Hon. Members: The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7!

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7.

 

Madam Speaker, for ease of reference, Hon. Katuta posted the following on her Facebook page:

 

“These are the Members of Parliament who have been selected by the Speaker to scrutinise the infamous Bill 7. Looking at the composition of this Select Committee, I can only tell Zambians to pray harder for God’s divine mercy.”

 

Madam Speaker, she named Hon. Garry Nkombo, Member for Mazabuka Central, Hon. Sibeso Sefulo, Member for Mwandi, Hon. Brian Kambita, Member for Zambezi East, Hon. Emmanuel Banda, Member for Muchinga, Hon. Sibongile Mwamba, Member for Kasama Central, Hon. Anakoka, Member for Luena, Hon. Jacqueline Sabao, Member for Chikankata, Hon. Stanley Kakubo, Member for Kapiri Mposhi, Hon. Newton Samakayi, Member for Mwinilunga, Hon. Simon Banda, Member for Petauke Central, Hon. Wamunyima Imanga, Member of Nalolo, Hon. Misheck Nyambose, Member for Chasefu, Hon. Elias Daka, Member for Msanzala, Hon. Davies Mung’andu, Member for Chama South, and Hon. George Kandafula, Member for Serenje. Is she in order to say that these hon. Members are dishonourable and cannot be trusted unless God intervenes and gives them a certain direction so that they can reason? Is she in order to cast aspersions on all these hon. Members you have given the honour, on behalf of this august House, to scrutinise the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7?

 

Mr Nkandu: Just imagine!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The point of order does not sound good. However, we have never admitted issues that have been raised that come from social media. As far as we are concerned, we cannot rely on social media. Had it been any other reliable source, I would have made a ruling. Since we are relying on social media, we cannot admit the point of order.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member who was debating may continue.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, before I was disturbed by the hon. Minister, I was just about to conclude.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Interruptions

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Just continue hon. Member for Shiwang’andu. You were not disturbed. Points of order are allowed. We just have to accommodate them.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. Minister wants to realise more than K500 million out of this venture, but I will just end with a quote from your Committee’s Report.

 

“The Committee urges the Executive to avoid imposing excessive increases that may inhibit the growth of the digital financial ecosystem, discourage innovation or undermine ongoing financial inclusion efforts. A stable and well sequenced tax regime could enable operators effectively, which will help them contribute to a long-term revenue generation, without compromising sector expansion.”

 

Madam Speaker, that is what the Committee is asking, and we expect the hon. Minister to be considerate of these recommendations, because we have to support the unbanked citizens of this country rather than imposing these heavy levies that may impact, not only the sector but, …

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

The hon. Member’s time expired.

 

Mr Kampyongo: … our people who are already taxed, because the money they send through these platforms is already taxed.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: You do not follow these issues. You will be whipped.

 

Mr Kambita (Zambezi East): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity you have given me to add my voice to the debate the Motion on the Floor of the House.

 

Madam Speaker, from the outset, I would like state that I support the report of the Planning and Budgeting Committee, which speaks to the money Bill. In this case, the Bill seeks to adjust taxes related to mobile money transactions. Anything to do with taxation is guided by principles that were set out by one important scholar in our lives, Adam Smith in 1776 who came up with four canons of taxation. These principles, to date, still stand as the most vital principles used in taxation. Governments over the world, developed and underdeveloped, focus on the four canons of taxation.

 

Madam Speaker, as we debate this Motion, I would like us to measure it against the world standards that are set. Probably, some people are misleading people out there, as though the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning just dreamt up measures, which he put in place to disadvantage citizens. However, I am speaking from a well-informed point of view and I am on terra firma that the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning has actually looked for the best avenue to widen the tax base.

 

Madam Speaker, year in and year out, the Opposition has been crying out loud here, requesting the Government to broaden the tax base without giving solutions on how it can be broadened. This is one of the avenues of broadening the tax base, and when we broaden the tax base on the premise of the four canons of taxation –

 

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

 

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

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order No. 71.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee’s report on the Floor has been informing our debate. The hon. Member who has opted to lecture us on the genesis of taxation is now insinuating that here, we have been crying to the hon. Minister to broaden the tax base. I know that the hon. Minister is adequate enough to respond to this report that we are speaking to.

 

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Member who is on the Floor in order to make insinuations? I do not know if he has had sight of the report of the Committee on Planning and Budgeting, which we have been speaking to. He is making insinuations that are not contained in the report, and lecturing us on the genesis of taxation. Is he in order to proceed in that fashion? The hon. Minister is there to respond to the issues raised in the report.

 

Madam Speaker, I seek your serious ruling.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Zambezi East, please, as you debate, try to link the examples to the issues contained in the report. That way, you will not speak outside the report. Whatever example you have, link it to the content of the report.

 

You may continue.

 

Mr Kambita: Madam Speaker, the problem here is the wavelength of my debates.

 

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

 

Mr Kambita: Madam Speaker, I think I am operating at a very high wavelength, which is very difficult to catch, but I will boil it down to what we are discussing here.

 

 Madam Speaker, it is a tax measure –

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, just continue with your debate.

 

Mr Kambita: Madam Speaker, this is a tax measure. Any tax measure has a genesis and a basis on how it is actually made. There is a schedule in the report, including in the Bill itself, of how the levies will actually be administered. However, how were the figures arrived at? Do they meet the standards set, which are followed world over among the four canons of taxation, which I propounded at the outset of my debate? The first one is equity. Is this tax measure equitable? Is it the kind of measure, which will enable citizens to pay without them feeling it? Tax measures are made in such a way that the payer must pay according to his or her ability. When you look at the schedule, it is graduating. So, if you measure it against the yardstick of equity, as propounded by Adam Smith, it meets the standard.

 

Madam Speaker, let me talk about certainty. Because it has been stated clearly that if one is transferring this much up to this much, this is the amount that one should pay as a levy, it is certain. It is not ambiguous. Therefore, we cannot cry. This is the second canon of taxation that I am talking about. The third one is convenience. Is it convenient? It does not bother anyone, because as long as you transact, the levy is levied on you and you have to pay. It is very convenient. The fourth canon is economy. How expensive is it for the hon. Minister to collect this tax? It is so cheap because transactions are happening, whilst money is being collected by the mobile money dealer and is transmitted as taxation.

 

Madam Speaker, the reason we come to this august House to argue is when we are informed of something that will really affect the people we represent. However, when we explain these issues clearly, the way I am explaining them, it means that whatever measures the hon. Minister has come up with, are not outside the parameters.

 

Madam Speaker, for lack of a simpler language, I thought of explaining such issues using the examples I have given. They might be too high a wavelength for the hon. Members on your left-hand side to understand, but I am sure the hon. Minister understands what I am talking about. Everyone else who understands the principles of taxation also knows that these measures are based on the four canons of taxation as espoused by Adam Smith.

 

Madam Speaker, I thought of just making these few comments to support this Motion, which is on the Floor of the House.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker:  Those are some of the debating styles.

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker:  Hon. Members, I will allow the hon. Member who indicated first.

 

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

 

Mr Chala: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

 Madam Speaker, I think, Standing Order No. 71 –

 

Mr Kafwaya rose.  

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Lunte, I can only take one point of order at a time. The hon. Member for Chipili was the first one to indicate.

 

Mr Chala: Madam Speaker, the collaborator who was collaborating in his collaboration …

 

Laughter

 

Mr Chala: … stated that we do not understand certain things, yet no one has refused to pass the Bill and everyone is in support of it. However, the report has stated very clearly that the Government should reduce the tax percentage. Instead of a 100 per cent increment, it should reduce it to a 50 per cent increment. That is what the report is saying. Now, the hon. Member is saying something else. Is he in order? Send him out.

 

Laughter

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Thank you so much, hon. Member for Chipili. The point of order is not even cited, and I could not even understand it. Your point of order is not admissible.

 

Hon. Member for Mpika, do you want to debate? I keep seeing your name on and off.  Are you ready to debate, or are you still doubting?

 

Mr Kapyanga (Mpika): Madam Speaker, I am very much ready.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: You can proceed.

 

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to add the voice of the people of Mpika on this very important subject.

 

Madam Speaker, if I do not debate, I will be doing a disservice to the people who elected me to come and represent them. All of them depend on mobile money transactions when transferring money to other users across the networks. This is the more reason I have to add their voice to this very important subject. Let me put it on record that even in 2024, when the previous Bill was being enacted, I stood here to object to that enactment. I took into account the fact that poor people who cannot take their money to the bank use mobile money platforms instead. Therefore, introducing further taxation on such platforms would be very unfair to poor people. Even today, I have taken a similar stance in the interest of consistency.

 

Madam Speaker, the measures proposed in this Bill are being taken in the name of domestic resource mobilisation. Like the previous speaker said, mining companies, from which we need to collect a lot more resources, are enjoying some sort of tax incentives. In its 2023 report, Amnesty International cited glaring tax evasion by mining companies amounting to US$4.5 billion. I expected the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to come with a Bill to this House that would stiffen punishment for corporate tax evasion. I also expected the hon. Minister to do everything possible or use every strategy in the book to come up with measures to seal the loopholes enabling corporate tax evasion. Instead, we are here discussing a mobile money transaction levy in the name of domestic revenue mobilisation. If I were the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning today, under the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government, I would not even think of coming up with such a Bill in a country where foreigners are looting our resources. In Mpika, foreigners have camped in the bush to mine gold and take it out of the country.

 

Madam Speaker, this Bill is proposing upward adjustment of the levies on person-to-person mobile money transactions. Like I stated, I cannot support the Bill. I cannot support it because it demonstrates that under the UPND Government, our people will be taxed, taxed and taxed, and yet foreigners come here to get our minerals and have tax holidays based on promissory notes that they will increase mineral production to 3 million metric tonnes.

 

Madam Speaker, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), there is a war right now, but investors are still flocking there to mine minerals. However, here, some people are saying that investors can only come when we give them incentives such as tax holidays.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mpika, you have gone on to discuss matters outside the Mobile Money Transaction Levy (Amendment) Bill. You are now talking about mining. Can you, please, come back to the contents of the Bill. I have not seen anything about mining in this Bill. This is a Bill about mobile money. So, please, have that in mind as you continue with your debate.

 

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, I am talking about how best the hon. Minister can mobilise resources locally, instead of depending on mobile money transaction levies. I am doing this in the best interest of the poor people and unemployed youths in our country, who depend on mobile money platforms for transactions. This is the reason I gave an example of the eastern DRC, where mining is still taking place, despite a war existing there. Here, investors are given all manner of incentives, including tax holidays, yet our people are being taxed not only on mobile money platforms, but everywhere else.

 

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, I want to appeal to the UPND Government to seal the loopholes enabling tax evasion in the mining sector. The Government has sugilite that was confiscated in Mansa. It was taken to Kabwe –

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mpika, I guided you. You are bringing in so many things about mining. Please, just concentrate on the Bill. We are looking at the Mobile Money Transaction Levy (Amendment) Bill. It is very straightforward. If we were talking about mining, maybe, you could bring in an example about mining. Can you conclude with issues to do with mobile money, so that your people can hear you.

 

Mr Mubika interjected.

 

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament for Shangombo should know that I am doing this because there is a need for domestic revenue mobilisation, and that can be done when we abolish the tax holidays that mining companies enjoy. We need money, and that is where the money should come from.

 

Madam Speaker, I beg the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning that, please, this Bill will not take our country anywhere.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

The hon. Member’s time expired.

 

Mr Kapyanga: I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, when the 2026 Budget was presented, this House applauded the fact that for the first time in many years, most of the revenues were going to be generated domestically. Eighty-four per cent of our revenue will be generated domestically. This is the way it should be because our development must be financed by ourselves. The 84 per cent domestic revenue means that we, the citizens of this country, have to pay taxes. That is what it means.

 

Mr Chisopa walked into the Assembly Chamber.

 

Mr Chisopa: Finshi balelanda ba mudala?

 

Laughter

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, the good thing is that, unlike in the past, when taxes are paid today –

 

Mr Chisopa: Chwe, chwe, chwe!

 

Laughter

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mkushi South, you have just come in and are now disturbing the proceedings of the House. Kindly, leave the House for today. Leave the House for today. Do not even log in. There is nothing that you have done. Please, just leave the House.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Laughter

 

Mr Chisopa left the Assembly Chamber.

 

Dr Musokotwane: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker, I was saying that in this Government, when taxes are paid, the money goes back to the taxpayers. When taxes are paid, children, including those of the very poorest children, they are financed to go to school. When taxes are paid, medicine is made available in hospitals. When taxes are paid, classrooms are being constructed in the rural areas. So, the money that the Government is collecting from the Zambians goes back to them to bring development. It is not being stolen as was the case in the past.

 

Ms Mulenga: Ah!

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, I would suspect that the hon. Member alleged that the increase charge in the levy has been excessive comes about because of a misunderstanding by Hon. Kampyongo, the hon. Member for Shiwang’andu who started by saying that the charge for sending K150 to K300 rises from K20 to K40.

 

Mr Kampyongo: 40n!

 

Dr Musokotwane: No! It is not from K20 to 40n. It's from 20n to 40n.

 

Mr Kampyongo: 40n, yes!

 

Dr Musokotwane: I am correcting you because your message went out, which is misleading the people, and therefore, it is important that I correct you.

 

Interruptions

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, the charge for sending between K150 to K300 is not K20. It is not from K20 to K40. It is from 20n to 40n only.

 

Mr Nkandu: Again!

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, how can anyone reasonably say that to ask for a 40n from someone who is transacting and paying even a larger amount to the company sending the money is too much? How can one honestly say that 40n is too much, and that it is punishing the Zambians? Colleagues, let us be honest. Yes, the hon. Member is saying moving from 20n to 40n is 100 per cent, but the hon. Member is deliberately confused people because he knows that a 100 per cent from 20n to 40n is such a small amount of money. It is a very small amount of money.

 

Madam Speaker, therefore, this also answers the issue that hon. Members on your left raised, which is tax evasion.

 

Madam Speaker, we know that the branch of paying in this country taxes goes to the people in the formal sector such as teachers, nurses, clerks and police officers. They are the ones who are paying taxes every month. However, we also know that there are people in the informal sector who make much more money than those in the formal sector. These are marketeers, welders, and bricklayers. They earn much more money compared to the civil servants who are overburdened with taxes today. So, under those circumstances, what is wrong with asking a marketeer selling kapenta to pay 40n to contribute to the national resources? What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Madam Speaker, the more important point is that the money goes back to the same Zambians who pay the taxes so that their children can go to school, have medicines available and have roads. This is the way each one of us is going to contribute to the welfare of our country.

 

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 Wednesday, 10^th December, 2025.

 

BETTING LEVY BILL, 2025

 

SECOND READING

 

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

 

Madam Speaker, the Bill before this house is principally seeking to amend the Betting Levy Act, so as to;

 

1. provide for the imposition, payment and collection of a betting levy; and

 

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

 

Madam Speaker, the Bill is straightforward, and I commend it to the House.

 

Mr Chaatila (Moomba): Madam Speaker, in accordance with its terms of reference under Standing Order 204, No. 4 (d) of the National Assembly Standing Orders 2024, the Planning and Budgeting Committee was tasked to scrutinise the Betting Levy Bill, No. 31 of 2025, for the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly.

 

Madam Speaker, in scrutinising the Bill, the Committee engaged a wide range of stakeholders, including both state and non-state actors.

 

The Betting Levy seeks to establish a clear and dedicated legal framework for the imposition, payment and collection of Betting Levy. This is necessary because the current framework for tax on online betting is fragmented with different taxes being applied under different laws. The Bill aims to consolidate these arrangements and provide a more transparent and predictable system for imposing tax on-online betting activities.

 

Madam Speaker, stakeholders welcomed the Bill as a step towards a more sustainable betting tax framework. They were of the view that the existing 10 per cent excise due to betting services had significantly affected the industry, leading to a sharp reduction in the betting activities. The reduction in betting activities has consequently led to lower tax revenue for the Treasury. They, therefore, viewed the new betting levy as a more realistic and fair approach that could support revenue mobilisation while ensuring the industry remains sustainable.

 

Madam Speaker, however, stakeholders were concerned that the existing 10 per cent excise duty under the Customs and Excise Act had not been repealed. They warned that keeping this duty alongside the new levy would place an unfair double taxation burden on the industry and could seriously threaten its survival. Your Committee shares the view of the stakeholders in this regard and therefore, recommends that the Government should remove the 10 per cent Excise Duty on betting services to align the tax framework with the Betting Levy Bill and support the stability of the online betting subsector.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee also observes that the Bill does not define important terms such as “deposit,” “withdraw,” “customer gaming account,” “gross deposit,” and “gross withdrawals.” Your Committee is concerned that the absence of definitions for these important terms could create uncertainty in the calculation of the levy and lead to disputes between operators and the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA).

 

Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to include clear definitions of these key terms in order to provide clarity, improve compliance and ensure consistent application of the levy.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee further observed that Clause 5 of the Bill, which defines the tax base as “gross amounts received or paid out”, is ambiguous and could be interpreted in different ways. To avoid confusion, the Committee recommends that the Clause be amended to clearly indicate that the levy will apply to both gross amounts received and gross amounts paid out. This will simplify calculations and ensure uniform application across operators.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee also observed that for effective collection of the levy and transparency, it is important that the Bill provides for the use of approved payment systems and a mobile money withholding mechanism. The Committee, therefore, recommends that regulations be issued that, among others, require the use of approved payment systems and established mobile money operators as withholding agents of this levy.

 

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, allow me to express the Committee's sincere appreciation to all the stakeholders who provided valuable input into this process. The Committee also extends this gratitude to you, and the Acting Clerk of the National Assembly, for the support and guidance provided throughout the deliberations.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker, what we are looking at can be considered as a money Bill, which gives the ministry authority, according to Articles 202 and 203. The ministry is within the confines of looking at the money Bill. As it may be, the Bill on the Floor derives its powers mainly from the Betting Control Act, which we need to consider. When we look at issues of definitions, like the word betting, you will find that the activities under betting have been broadened. From the time the Betting Control Act was put in place to date, there is a big gap. Many young people who are not employed have resorted to betting as a way of getting some finances. The companies that are involved in betting have also expanded their reach to these same young people targeting that particular opportunity. Whereas the Betting Control Act manages betting, the word “betting” is found in the Customs and Exercise Act, that we looked at yesterday. I am concerned mainly about the provisions in Clauses 3, 4, 8, and 9, and, of course, taking into consideration Clause 7. I will try to anchor the debate around these Clauses. I will first talk about the focus of this particular Bill. It is targeting betting companies.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, as I have already given the background, the man who is saying “Question!” has many bonanza machines in Kaputa District, which I want to address. When we look at Clause 7, it targets companies. As the ministry targets companies, it needs to know that betting has found its way in different forms. If we confine ourselves to companies, we are likely to leave unmopped revenue. There are many bonanza machines where the man who is saying ‘Question’ comes from, and that is betting.

 

Madam Speaker, usually, I struggle to talk about this because, partly, my faith does not allow me to dwell much on issues that have to do with gambling. However, I will try to gather some energy.

 

Madam Speaker, when we look at what I am trying to underscore, in the Constitution, Article 161 says:

 

“A local authority is competent to levy, impose, recover and retain local taxes, as prescribed.”

 

Madam Speaker, “as prescribed” talks about the Local Government Act. That is where those powers would be. If those powers are in the Local Government Act, when we come to the money Bills, that the hon. Minister has anchored, you will find that we are using Article 199.  Article 199 authorises the hon. Minister to impose a tax, as it may be. However, some of the bonanza machines and other forms of betting, as prescribed in the Customs and Excise Act, and also supported by the Betting Control Act, fall outside what has been targeted to be captured. If that is the case, we are talking about a likely loss of revenue. Therefore, this Bill has stuck to the word, “company”.

 

Madam Speaker, I hope I will be allowed to talk about other races, like the Chinese who have invaded much of this betting arrangement. According to our definition of what betting is, they have different machines that qualify to be placed under betting. However, the escape in terms of revenue and income is not tabulated like companies, which are targeted by this Bill. For instance, the provisions of the Bill catch those who bet on football. The bonanza machine run by a Chinese person is not captured by the Bill, and that is revenue escaping the Zambian Government. Many young people, especially in rural areas play on those machines. Even Hon. Nkandu has three machines, according to my research, which are running as a bonanza at that shop. He knows the shop I am talking about.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Hon. Member for Chilubi, I think, you have moved away from the Bill. The Bill we are looking at now is the Betting Levy Bill, not the types of betting.

 

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, you cannot look at the types of taxes without looking at the activities. I am trying to underscore the activities that feed into the levy we are talking about. That is why I have mentioned bonanza machines. That is a betting activity. When I mentioned Article 161, I wanted to create a balance to see whether that still falls under this, because I have seen local councils collect money from people who operate bonanza machines, who are not computed like the companies, which are in Clause 6, as emphasised by the Bill. I am trying to underscore the fact that there is a lot of haemorrhage in terms of loss of finance, if we are to consider betting activities as they are defined in the Acts that I mentioned earlier. I did not necessarily want to move away from the Bill, because for us to collect these levies and taxes, they come from particular activities. That is what I was trying to underscore. I am sorry that I made the Kaputa joke. The man has been saying, “Question!”

 

Madam Speaker, just to wrap up, I support this particular Bill, on behalf the people of Chilubi. As I support this particular Bill, I would like to caution by saying that I would have like the Bill to cover all the activities that are considered as betting, not just those that are done by registered companies. I know that it is very difficult to compute, but we are allowing revenue to escape.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, I will make a few brief comments on this Bill. I want to start by urging the hon. Minister to take time to look at the reports that are prepared by the Committee on Planning and Budgeting, because when we are debating the reports, we do not give our own views, but the views of stakeholders, including the people we represent. So, when we say 40n is a 100 per cent increase –

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, we have already closed the debate on that Bill.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, he should know that we are dealing with the poorest. Betting, which is now under debate, and the point my colleague was trying to belabour, is that it is in different categories.

 

Mr Nkandu: How do you know?

 

Mr Kampyongo: There is that betting where the katuntulu participate; people like the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts with excess money go to bet.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, that is a different category. There is another category where you find jobless youths, who, day in and day out, bet on football or bonanza machines, which Hon. Fube referred to. Those are jobless youths, who are a time bomb. We can pretend here and say that this is not happening, but this is a reality on the ground. So, even when the Government is targeting to generate revenue, which is the responsibility of the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, it must be sensitive and realistic to what is obtaining on the ground. Those jobless youths do not earn much when they bet on bonanza machines, as the katuntulu with excess money earn when they bet on those Chinese Casinos and … 

 

Hon. Member: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: … – question themselves –

 

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

 

 Like I had advised the hon. Member for Chilubi, the Betting Levy Bill is talking about – If you read the introduction, it says the following:

 

“The Bill seeks to establish a comprehensive legal framework for the imposition, payment, and collection of a betting levy, to ensure that all online betting activities are taxed under a single, purpose-designed framework.”

 

Mr Nkandu: Online!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Online.

 

So, can we focus our debate on that. We know that there are many types of activities under betting, but here we are guided to focus on online betting activities.

 

With that guidance, you may proceed.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, like I said, I will be very brief. Yes, it is online betting. The people you will find online on phones are jobless youths who bet on football results and all manner of betting. So, even as the Government comes up with that comprehensive approach, it needs to take into account that there are jobless youths who spend the whole day betting to try and earn a living. That is what we are saying, and they do that online. The hon. Minister should also focus on targeting the bigger betters like the katuntulus. Those are the ones who have excess income that they can go and spend without feeling pain.

 

Interruptions

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: What is katuntulus?

 

Mr Kampyongo: A katuntulu refers to a senior person in the Government, who likes doing tantameni, …

 

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kampyongo: … giving hand-outs of money to people …

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: … so they refer to him as katuntulu. Ati he is a big bonanza in short.

 

Mr Nkandu laughed.

 

Mr Kampyongo: So, Madam Speaker, with those few remarks, I submit.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Is that betting now? I do not think that is part of this debate.

 

Hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, wind up debate.

 

Dr Musokotwane: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Committee and hon. Members for supporting the Bill. I also wish to take note of the observations and recommendations made by the Committee as well as the issues raised by hon. Members. May I take this opportunity to respond to some of them.

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that the Betting Levy is replacing the current tax regime on online betting. This means that the 10 per cent Excise Duty, the Presumptive Taxes, and the Withholding Tax will be abolished.

 

Madam Speaker, the Committee has observed that some core terms, such as “deposit,” “withdrawals,” and “customer gaming account,” have not been defined. Further, the Committee recommends that the Bill be clear on the tax base of the levy. These housekeeping concerns have been noted and the Bill will be amended accordingly.

 

Madam Speaker, the amendment will also cover the exemption of brick-and-mortar casinos and other concerns over the computation of deposits and withdrawals.

 

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

 

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

 

Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

 

Committee on Wednesday, 10^th December, 2025.

 

REPORT STAGE

 

The Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, 2025

 

The Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Bill, 2025

 

Report adopted.

 

Third Readings on Thursday, 11^th December, 2025.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Business was suspended from 1640 hours until 1700 hours.

 

_______

 

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

 

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the

Chair]

 

VOTE 01 – (Office of the President – State House – K163,469,036)

 

(Consideration resumed)

 

The Minister of Defence and Acting Leader of Government Business in the House (Mr Lufuma): Mr Chairperson, when the business of the Committee of Supply was suspended yesterday, I was about to respond to Hon. Kafwaya’s proposal. I would like to submit that we have noted the amendment moved by Mr Kafwaya. However, we do not support it on the following grounds:

 

1. the allocation is meant to support ministries, provinces and spending agencies (MPSAs) in verifying issues that arise during programme implementation, with the aim of developing timely interventions. Furthermore, it enables the Presidency to oversee the implementation of Government programmes in line with the President’s directives, the party manifesto and other national development frameworks; and

 

1. project monitoring entails regular spot checks of Government programmes, focusing primarily on the visibility of national projects in State media, co-ordination efforts and oversight of capital projects experiencing bottlenecks to ensure effective implementation. It is necessary that projects are monitored to ensure that the objectives for which they were planned and implemented are achieved.

 

Mr Chairperson, therefore, without this allocation, that is Vote 01 – State House, we will be unable to fulfil the core mandates. In view of the foregoing, the proposal should not be sustained.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson. 

 

Question that Vote 01 be amended put and negatived.

 

Hon. PF Members: Question!

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

Let me explain something.

 

Hon. PF Members: Ah!

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Are you there to guide me? Wait, it is time I explained.

 

The person who moved this amendment is Mr Kafwaya.  He was the ‘ayes’ in this issue.

 

Interruptions

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

Mr Kafwaya, you shot down your own amendment because –

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kafwaya: How?

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Yes, you said ‘no’, but you are the mover of the amendment.

 

Let us proceed, let us proceed, let us proceed.

 

Laughter

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Members, the question is resolved in the negative. Therefore, the amendment falls off.

 

Interruptions

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!  

 

Let us make progress.

 

Vote 01 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 02 – (Office of the Vice-President – K153,298,473)

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K153,298,473 be approved in respect of Head 02 – Office of the Vice-President to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Vote 02 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Members, I have to announce that we should have dealt with Head - 03 - National Assembly - K1,581,275,093, but further consultations are underway. So, I have rescheduled it to Tuesday, next week.

 

I thank you.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, Hear!

 

VOTE 05 – (Electoral Commission of Zambia – K 1,290,475,439)

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K1,290,475,439 be approved in respect of Head 05- Electoral Commission of Zambia, to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Mr Chairperson, this is a very important Vote. However, the resources allocated to this institution pose a challenge given that next year, it will be undertaking a national assignment of conducting general elections.  

 

Mr Chairperson, the just ended voters’ registration exercise already posed a challenge because the institution failed to meet its target. So, this will have a negative impact on the national assignment it will undertake of conducting the general elections.

 

Mr Chairperson, as we interacted with the officers from the institution during the Sector Budget Analysis of the fiscal year, we could tell that most of the lines that they wanted to be properly funded were not funded. Therefore, having interacted with the institution, it was not surprising for some of us to learn that it would have challenges with the budget.

 

Mr Chairperson, I would like the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House who is presenting this Vote to assure this House and the public out there that more money will be found to supplement the budgetary allocation to this institution, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ).

 

Mr Chairperson, it is also worth noting that the co-operating partners who have been supporting this institution have cut down their support, posing a further challenge to the institution. I do not want to see what happened or the challenges the institution faced with the equipment it procured to undertake the voter registration exercise. It could be that the equipment probably arrived late, and therefore, was not properly tested, leading to faults. The machines were giving challenges to the officers who were assigned, and that affected the overall performance of the registration process.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Chairperson, I can hear people questioning because they do not understand the implications.

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Chairperson, it is important that we try to fill that gap which has been left by the co-operating partners who have supported this institution for some time because like I have said, that financial gap will pose a significant challenge. The ECZ needs to have logistics in place. It had challenges of audit queries that could have been avoided. For example, when it comes to deploying security personnel, the Zambia Police is supposed to have a separate budget to help with the deployments, but it is catered for under the ECZ.

 

Mr Chairperson, the audit queries we were dealing with were to the effect that the expenditure on such activities were not properly accounted for. So, it is important to heed to the request for enough funding to this institution for it to undertake general elections. This will ensure the institution undertakes the mammoth task of conducting fair elections, which will culminate in genuinely acceptable results. It will also lessen conflicts that may emanate from the ECZ’s failure to conduct fair, transparent and acceptable general elections. So, I call upon the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House to appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to ensure that funding to this institution is guaranteed. Failure to do that will result what we are seeing now; a situation in which the commission has failed to achieve the projected target of registering over 3 million voters.

 

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kampyongo: It is a failure. We cannot celebrate failure. Yes, this can be understood by some people, but the general elections will be very critical for the Zambian people to accept in case of shortcomings such as what we have witnessed in the registration of voters, which has failed to reach their projected targets.

 

Mr Chairperson, with these few remarks, I still urge the Government to ensure that it finds more resources to capacitate the ECZ.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Members, earlier yesterday, I made an announcement that at this stage, I will only allow one hon. Member from each political grouping to contribute. So, at this stage, I call upon the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House to respond.

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I would like to thank Hon. Kampyongo for his debate.

 

Sir, would like to assure Hon. Kampyongo through this honourable House and the nation that the New Dawn Government will do everything in its power to ensure that the elections are properly funded because it is important that elections are free and fair. Therefore, we shall ensure that the elections are free and fair, and that funds are made available for this purpose.

 

Mr Chairperson, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning is here, and therefore, should we need any supplementary budget, we shall make it available.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Vote 05 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 06 – (Civil Service Commission – Office of the President – K 21,118,851)

 

The Minister of Labour and Social Security (Ms Tambatamba): Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K 21,118,851 be approved in respect of Vote 06 – Civil Service Commission, to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Mr Chairperson, I rise to add my voice to the debate on the Vote on the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission deals with the broadest part of 3,000 plus workers. Given the status of the commission, especially at the central point, it has been having problems ensuring that it reaches out to the workers, especially during appraisals, because part of its task is to look into appraisals and many other things. If my memory serves me right, the commission should not have more than six operational vehicles for use to reach the ten provinces, and we are talking about civil servants seated in all 116 districts. Given that status, that money has many gaps. If I look at the expenditure patterns, much of the money is allocated to emoluments. The goods and services provision, where equipment falls, is deprived. That means the commission cannot achieve its objectives, especially that it not only undertakes appraisals but champions programmes to boost human capital within the Civil Service.

 

Mr Chairperson, there is no strong component in that area. This leaves a situation where, if much of the money goes towards emoluments, people will be paid, but the emoluments will not be properly justified. The tabulations are not justified into categories in terms of whether they are increments or for more employment.  That is a particular gap. If we are to consider all that, that means people will be paid for not doing work at all, because the logistics that are supposed to facilitate the work do not allow them. I would like to put it on record that the Public Service Commission should be given more attention, especially when it comes to logistics, which among other things include vehicles, so that it can realise its objective.

 

Mr Chairperson, I think that is the little I wanted to add.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Ms Tambatamba: Mr Chairperson, I would like to thank the hon. Member who has made his submission about the need to improve supervision and have more logistics that can assist in ensuring that we sharpen the civil service.

 

Mr Chairperson, first and foremost, I would like to assure the hon. Member that the Government has undertaken decentralisation. Most of the Civil Service supervision has been devolved to the local areas. Supervision takes place at that level. Secondly, the Government has embarked on digitisation. That is another tool that is supposed to enhance supervision. That is complemented by the human resource management committees, which have also been decentralised. There is a clear pathway that will ensure that resources move away from the central point, as the country has been used to for many years. The ministry is being structured in that way as a way forward. Most of the work involving officers below a certain scale has been delegated to ministries, provinces, and spending agencies (MPSAs) from the central point. The fat that was on the upper part of the body has been brought down through decentralisation to keep a closer eye and allow each of the MPSAs to supervise locally rather than at the central point, for example, the Cabinet Office or the Civil Service Commission. Each ministry and spending agency has taken the supervise of personnel to the human resource management committees. That is where the budget allocations have gone. It does not have to stay at the service commission.

 

With those words, I submit, Mr Chairperson.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Vote 06 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 07 – (Office of the Auditor-General – K 248,119,696)

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, thank you very much once more.

 

Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K248,119,696 be approved in respect of Vote 07 – Office of the Auditor-General, to meet the expenditure for the year ending December 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Chairperson–

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Mr Kampyongo, this time around, you are in a good mood. You are debating a lot much. It is encouraging. You may proceed.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Chairperson, I am trying to teach these hon. Members (pointed to the right) what it means to be an hon. Member of Parliament offering credible oversight functions. That is what I am trying to teach these newcomers who will be going out very soon.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Kampyongo: At least, they need to go with some lessons.

 

Mr Chairperson, the mandate –

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Where are they going?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Chairperson, the people who hire and fire will be waiting next year. That is why I emphasised that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) should do a proper job so that the turnover (laughed) can be reduced. I can see many first-termers who are going fast.

 

Mr Chairperson, the functions of this important office, the Auditor-General's Office, are critical. As you know, this is the institution that is mandated to audit the accounts of State organs, institutions, provincial administrations and all spending agencies. What we note in this proposed budget is a reduction in the allocation of funds. This year, 2025, the allocation to the institution was K252,264,875. This figure has now been reduced to K248,119,696, as stated by the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House. This is happening when the inflation rate is going up. We, who belong to the Committees that depend on the work of the Auditor-General through the annual reports that they generate, are concerned. Speaking as a Committee member who interacted with the institution during the sector budget analysis, we expressed our hope that as we are considering the final figures, there could have been an adjustment because we are setting an institution to fail.

 

Mr Chairperson, this is a watchdog institution that sees how prudent the entire Budget we are appropriating will be utilised. Now, if this institution, which is mandated to watch over the funds that we are appropriating in the Yellow Book, is underfunded and is set to fail, what is the hon. Minister intending to do? It is a concern that should be taken seriously by the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, who is responsible for appropriating money. There is a risk that if this institution fails, the people who manage the resources we are appropriating to spending agencies, will get away with their mischief.

 

Mr Chairperson, it is very important that, even as we recommend this appropriation, we appeal to the hon. Minister to put the money where it is needed. Otherwise, we shall end up appropriating money and people will just misuse it.  Our call to the Leader of Government Business in the House is to put the money where it is needed. I am saying this because, during our interaction, we were made to believe that there could be some amendments to the Budget lines that are very critical to the institution. So, if we go with the status quo, of reducing the allocation when the cost of goods and services is going up, they are certainly setting the institution to fail. No two ways about it. There is no magic, no abracadabra. If institutions are not funded adequately, they will not perform to the expectations of the citizens. So, we still plead with the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to reconsider adjusting this allocation. The allocation cannot be reduced while the inflation rate is going up. It does not work. It does not help. So, let us put our money where it matters most.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

 Mr Lufuma: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Chairperson, we should all be cognisant of the fact that the Government has limited resources, and because of that, we have to make do with the resources we have. The Vote for the Auditor-General was given a ceiling. Within that ceiling, the institution was able to make budgets to the best of its ability, putting money where it matters most for the Auditor-General to be able to efficiently execute the services of that office. Yes, the allocation has been reduced, but the reduction is meagre. It is negative 2 per cent only. As far as we are concerned, in view of the allocations done by the Auditor-General, we do not doubt that the Auditor-General’s Office will be able to deliver on its mandate.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Mr Kafwaya indicated to speak.

 

 The Deputy Chairperson: Mr Kafwaya, I had announced that, according to our Standing Orders, only one person per political party is allowed to debate. Unless it is an amendment, but in this Vote, there is no amendment.

 

You have indicated. Maybe, you can switch off the microphone, Sir.

 

 Question was put, but there was no response from the hon. Members.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: You are not responding. We will not pass the Vote if you are not responding.

 

Dr Musokotwane: People are hungry.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: They had a tea break. We gave them tea.

 

 The Deputy Chairperson consulted.

 

The Deputy Chairperson:  Mr Kafwaya, you should have indicated on time before we passed. So, we skipped your amendment.

 

VOTE 07 – (Office of the Auditor-General – K248,119,696)

 

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Mr Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment:

 

1. on page 69, Table 5: Programme Budget Allocation by Sub-Programme: Under Programme 3406: External Audit and Assurance, Sub-programme 001: Public Debt and Investment Audit, by the deletion of K8,864,638 and the substitution therefor of K3,864,638; and

 

1. On Page 69, Table 5: Programme Budget Allocation by Sub-Programme:
   Under Programme 3406: External Audit and Assurance, Sub-programme 004: Local Authorities Audit, by the deletion of K3,033,928, and the substitution therefor of K8,033,928.

 

Mr Chairperson, my amendment is based on increasing the amount allocated to the audit of local authorities, by taking money from the public debt and investment audit. I considered the factors that are taken into account when planning an audit. Materiality is one of them. We also consider risks, the business model, internal procedures, as well as periodic assessments. Considering that the public debt and investment audit is done at the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, which is simply next to the Auditor-General’s Head Office, I think that the logistics required for the Auditor-General to conduct an audit at the Ministry of Finance and National Planning are easier to obtain than what they may consider when auditing local authorities. Let us remember that it is the local authorities that implement the Cash-for-Work Programme and the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). It is the local authorities that disburse grants and loans under the CDF, and some people even fail to pay the loans and the grants that they receive. So, when you look at the delinquency and all the other issues happening in councils, you will see that more money should be allocated for auditing local authorities. Consequently, I propose that K5 million be deducted from the allocation for Sub-Programme 001 – Public Debt and Investment Audit and added to the audit for local authorities. I think that anybody who considers how local authorities have been suffering or causing the Government to suffer agrees that it is important for the Auditor-General’s office to have more money allocated so that it can do a thorough job and help the UPND Government to solve the problems in our local authorities.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, we have CDF projects in all the local authorities, and we know that poor workmanship exists because right now bridges are collapsing. The Auditor-General can help the Government to solve such problems, but only when enough resources are allocated in that area. I think that it is easy for the Auditor-General’s budget to be re-aligned in this fashion.

 

Mr Chairperson, maybe, let me reiterate the point that Hon. Kampyongo raised on the Patriotic Front (PF) Government’s overall allocation to the Auditor-General’s office. I also think that it is unfair to continue reducing the amount of money allocated to the Auditor-General’s office. Let me remind you that in 2024, this House allocated K267.7 million to the Auditor-General. The following year, in 2025, the amount was reduced to K252.3 million. In the Budget for the coming year, the amount has been reduced to K248.1 million. Meanwhile, the budget for the Ministry of Finance and National Planning has been increasing since 2022. So, I do not see why the Auditor-General’s office should audit huge institutions using diminished resources. The Ministry of Finance and National Planning must consider increasing the allocation to the Auditor-General’s office so that it can do a good job.

 

Mr Chairperson, within the budget for the Auditor-General’s office, I would like to see a proper allocation which considers risk. This is why I have decided to raise two amendments.

 

Mr Chairperson, I submit the first amendment.

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, maybe, let me make an addition to Hon. Kampyongo’s submission as well as to the last submission by Hon. Kafwaya on inflation, which is that the amounts allocated for activities are going down while inflation is going up. According to our projections, the inflation rate is going down; it is not going up. We found the inflation rate very high. Yes, it is true. However, since the New Dawn Government came to power, it has reduced the inflation rate.

 

Mr Chairperson, let me come to the proposal by Hon. Kafwaya. I would like to submit that we have noted his proposal. We, however, do not support it on the following grounds:

 

Mr Nkandu: Not at all!

 

Mr Lufuma: A substantial portion under the Public Debt and Investment Audit Directorate is for personnel emoluments, with only a limited portion allocated for operations. So, if what Hon. Kafwaya is proposing is actualised, many staff in the Ministry of Finance and National Planning will go without salaries, and that is unacceptable. I do not think he would like that situation to happen. Secondly, a reduction in the allocation would affect the implementation of the planned audit activities.

 

Mr Chairperson, in view of the foregoing, the proposal should not be sustained. In other words, we reject the proposal by Hon. Kafwaya.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 

Question that Vote 07 be amended put and negatived.

 

Vote 07 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

Mr Kafwaya: What happened to the other amendment?

 

VOTE 08 – (Cabinet Office – Office of the President – K913,851,334)

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K913,851,334 be approved in respect of Vote 08 – Cabinet Office – Office of the President to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, are we going back to the Vote for the Auditor-General or not? I have a second amendment on that Vote. The second amendment has not been moved, but was circulated.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

You may resume your seat.

 

There was just one amendment in the Order of Proceedings.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Hmm!

 

Mr Kafwaya waved two papers.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: So, any other amendment has not been approved.

 

You may proceed as guided.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Which way?

 

Mr Kampyongo: That is procedurally wrong.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, I have an amendment on Vote 07.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Do you have an amendment on Vote 08?

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, yes, I do have an amendment, and I will proceed, after my other amendment has been rejected without consideration.

 

Mr Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment on page 85, Table 5: Programme Budget Allocation by Sub-Programme, under Programme 3418: State and Presidential Affairs, Sub-Programme 001: Public Affairs and Summit Meetings, by the deletion of K501,826,060 and the substitution therefor of K351,826,060.

 

Mr Chairman, let us consider removing money from Cabinet Office - Public Affairs and Summit Meetings - K501,826,060, and  take it to the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). 

 

Mr Sikumba: Question!

 

Mr Kafwaya: The amount that I am proposing is only K150 million.

 

Mr Sikumba: Question!

 

 Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairman, the FIC has done a lot of work in this country. The House may  recall that the FIC reported illicit financial flows involving around K2 billion when the Patriotic Front (PF) was about to leave office. It was K2 billion of illicit financial flows.

 

Mr Chairperson, the House will also recall that, the FIC has reported that amounts of K60 billion, K34.5 billion, US$2.8 billion, US$3.5 billion and another US$3.5 billion have been flown out of this country under the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government. That is US$10 billion plus in four years. This work is tremendous, but what its  budget? Its budget is so small. When I searched in the Yellow Book, I found, ...

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

Hon. Member, the figures you are mentioning …

 

Mr Kafwaya: Come again.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Resume your seat.

 

Mr Kafwaya resumed his seat.

 

 

The Deputy Chairperson: The House has no idea of the figures you are mentioning. The figures are unsubstantiated. They are imaginary figures because you have not laid the factual evidence on the Table for you to use them.

 

Hon. Member, remember that whatever you use here has to be factual and verifiable. However, I do not know where you got the alarming figures you are mentioning from. So, let us avoid debating in that manner because the public is listening. So, we should avoid misleading the public. If you wanted to go that route, our Standing Orders provide that you lay evidence even before 1200 hours so you can speak to it. So, proceed as guided. Maybe, withdraw the figures you have mentioned because they are unsubstantiated. If you want to use them in future, ensure that you bring verified records. So, before you proceed, withdraw the figures.

 

Mr Kafwaya:  As guided by Mr Chairperson, I would like to withdraw and say that the FIC has not reported US$2.8 billion, K60 billion …

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

Hon. Member, resume your seat.

 

Mr Kafwaya resumed his seat.

 

Do not go that route. I have guided you to not mention figures that we cannot verify.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, I am withdrawing.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: I am the only Presiding Officer here. I am guiding and you, but you are proceeding contrary to the guidance. Do you want to proceed or not? Do you have an amendment?

 

Mr Kafwaya: Yes.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: So, I have guided you on issues to do with figures. Do not go that route. You may proceed.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, should I proceed with my debate or I should first withdraw?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, be clear so that I do not make a mistake. Should I withdraw the figures or just go ahead and debate?

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Withdraw the figures.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Okay.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Withdraw the unsubstantiated figures.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, I am reversing the figures that I earlier mentioned. I am saying that I withdraw all the figures I mentioned totalling over US$10 billion and K60 billion, and say that by the guidance of the Chairperson, the FIC has not reported them.

 

 Mr Chairperson, I would like the FIC to be given a decent budget so that it can do more work. I have noted that the FIC does most of the work together with the financial institutions. 

 

Mr Mweetwa: On a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, I also know that the FIC could do more work if it was given locations within our borders; at airports, …

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order, hon. Member!

 

There is a point of order.

 

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Chairperson, thank you for the occasion and opportunity.

 

Mr Chairperson, as you know me, I rarely rise on points of order except when it is expedient and necessary, so to do, that I do rise.  My point of order is premised on the traditions and conventions of this House.

 

 Mr Chairperson, the rules of this House, the practices and precedents are very clear that when the Presiding Officer gives guidance, the hon. Member should oblige, such as you have done to direct the hon.  Member of Parliament for Lunte to withdraw, but he has patently refused to follow your guidance by stating that he was doing what he was going to say he was doing because you had said so, and therefore, to say that at your guidance, he is saying the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) did not report what he is alleging. That does not amount to withdrawing in terms of the records of our Hansard. Further, with your permission, the hon. Member on the Floor of the House is a senior Member, but we have seen that he is one of the Members on your left, who has a tendency of arguing with Presiding Officers and making the House ungovernable.

 

Mr Chairperson, where is this hon. Member and his such colleagues with such like-mindedness getting the appetite to be arguing with Presiding Officers and expending the valuable time of this august House so that youcan conduct the Business of this House with dispatch.

 

Mr Chairperson, I need your serious ruling on this unbecoming behaviour on the Floor of this House.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

First of all, I order the Hansard staff to ensure that that is completely removed from our records. For the hon. Member, when you are guided, ensure that you oblige and debate accordingly. You lose nothing. In fact, you earn more respect. Your people in Lunte are watching. So, I have guided you. This time around, I will temper justice with mercy. So, you may proceed as guided.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, I thank you so much.

 

Mr Chairperson, I feel sorry for the FIC given the amount of work it is doing with a small budget. This is why I thought an institution like the FIC should be considered by any well-meaning Government, and I have proposed to the UPND Government to take K150 million and give it to the FIC. Where is it getting this money from? It is getting it from Public Affairs and Summit Meetings at the Cabinet Office. Why am I saying so? I am saying so because we are going into an election year and therefore, we know that very few people are going to attend summits.

 

Mr Chairperson, we also know that the Government, particularly the top, has been avoiding summits lately. We can tell based on what happened at the United Nations (UN). The President never went there. So, getting money from this particular Vote and taking it to the FIC is not harmful. Who will not go to the elections?  As you know, the FIC will continue ...

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

 Hon. Member, what has the United Nations (UN) Summit got to do with the Cabinet Office or the Office of the President?

 

Mr Kafwaya: That is the Vote from where I am suggesting that money be re-allocated.

 

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Member, what does the United Nations (UN) summit have to do with the Cabinet Office?

 

Mr Kafwaya: That is the Vote I am taking money from.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Structure the debate well. Avoid controversy.

 

Mr Kafwaya: No, no. It is a Vote. You can check.  That is the Vote I am proposing to get the money from.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Now, I am giving you guidance. It is like the two of us are here to regulate the Business of the House, you see. Proceed as guided. What does the UN summit have to do with what we are doing? The Vote for State House has already passed. So, proceed as guided, hon. Member. You still have a minute to continue supporting your amendment.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, let me appeal to my hon. Colleagues, including the hon. Minister, Mr Cornelius Mweetwa, to support this amendment. This amendment is important for the FIC because, as I said, when given a decent amount, it can locate its operations in key areas where it is absent. I have in mind our airports and borders, for example, in Livingstone, Chirundu, on the Copperbelt Province, we have Chililabombwe, and Muchinga Province. We need the FIC in those locations so that it can report illicit financial flows, not only for money, but natural resources. If we did so, then the true value of what this country is losing would be accurately projected for the benefit of the Zambian people.

 

Mr Chairperson, I wish to move the amendment.

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, we have noted the proposal made by Mr Kafwaya, hon. Member for Lunte, asking the House to basically move K150 million from Vote 08 – Cabinet Office to the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Vote. As important as that might be in the hon. Member's opinion, the proposed movement of the K150 million from Sub-programme 001 – Public Affairs and Summit Meetings would drop the amount below the 2024 allocation. This seems to ignore and defy the basics and fundamentals of budgeting.

 

Secondly, Mr Chairperson, in view of the forthcoming elections, the proposed reduction would expose the presidency to challenges in the execution of statutory, ceremonial and other functions. It is coming at a time when there is an anticipated increase in the number of international summits and conferences that the President should be able to attend. Further, we anticipate an increase in the number of State visits by foreign heads and dignitaries during the coming year, 2026. For that reason, the proposal that Hon. Kafwaya has put on the Floor of this Parliament be rejected.

 

Mr Chairperson, I thank you.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Since Mr Kafwaya moved an amendment, the Patriotic Front (PF) party is still entitled to one hon. Member to debate.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Chairperson, while I support the amendment that was moved by Hon. Kafwaya, although it was rejected, it is important that we appreciate the rationale.

 

Mr Chairperson, I have clarifications to seek from the Acting Leader of the Government Business in the House on Vote 08 – Cabinet Office – Office of the President – K913,851,334. I will draw your attention to Programme 3418, Sub-programmes 003, 004, 005 and 006. If you have the Output-Based Annual Budget Book, that is on page No. 76. I would like to know why Vote 003 – First Lady, which was at K3 million in 2024 and K2,304,554 in 2025, has reduced to K1,875,576, and Sub-programme 004 – Former President, which had an allocation of K4,444,269 in 2024, and had no allocation in 2025, has no allocation in 2026. I would like to know where this K4 million plus went, because we do not remember this office benefiting from the State the entire 2024.

 

Mr Chairperson, Vote 005 – Families of Former Presidents’ Welfare, had K5,671,402 in 2024, K2,356,685 in 2025, and in 2026, there is a proposal to spend a mere K1,919,026. I would like to know how many families will be catered for in this money, which has significantly reduced.

 

Mr Chairperson, Sub-programme 006 – Freedom Fighters had K1,073,753 in 2024, K824,841 in 2025, and in 2026, there is a proposal to spend K671,659. May I know why there is significant reduction in the budget lines?

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I missed the first sub-programme, but I was able to catch Sub-programme 005 – Families of Former Presidents’ Welfare and Sub-programme 006 on page No. 76. I will ask for the other one later. The reduction in allocation to the First Lady and other programmes is essentially due to budgetary constraints. Unfortunately, that is what the Treasury could afford at the time.

 

Under Sub-programme 005 – Families of Former Presidents’ Welfare, the 18.57 per cent reduction in the budgetary allocation for this sub-programme is attributed to the reduced number of families of Former Presidents being supported. So, naturally, the fewer they are, the less that is allocated to the families.

 

Mr Chairperson, under Sub-Programme: 006 – Freedom Fighters, the reduction of 18.57 per cent is also due to budgetary constraints.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Kampyongo rose.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Has the hon. Minister left out one response?

 

Mr Lufuma: Sorry, I think, I was able to catch it. It is the reduction of Sub-Programme: 003– First Lady. I answered that the reduction is due to budgetary constraints. So, we are working within what we can afford. The rest, I think, I was able to answer.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Vote 08 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

Interruptions

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Members, you should be paying attention to the business, or else you will state a position that you do not want. So, be observant, or else you will reject a Vote, and the ministry will not have money. I know you are consulting one another, but ensure that you pay maximum attention. We are considering the Budget. The aspirations of the country depend on it.

 

VOTE 09 – (Teaching Service Commission – Office of the President – K22,868,309)

 

The Minister of Education (Mr Syakalima): Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K22,868,309 be approved in respect of Vote 09 – Teaching Service Commission to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

Vote 09 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 19 – (Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit – K81,430,364)

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K81,430,364 be approved in respect of Vote 19 – Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit, to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

 Mr Fube rose.

 

Mr Chairperson: Mr Fube, next time, indicate before I put the question.

 

Vote 19 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 26 – (Ministry of Information and Media – K233,876,061)

 

The Minister of Information and Media (Mr Mweetwa): Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K233,876,061 be approved in respect of Vote 26 – Ministry of Information and Media, to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Vote 26 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

VOTE 27– (Public Service Management Division – K 104,676,231)

 

The Minister of Labour and Social Security (Ms Tambatamba): Mr Chairperson, I beg to move that K104,676,231 be approved in respect of Vote 27 – Public Service Management Division, to meet the expenditure for the year ending 31^st December, 2026.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Chairperson, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to support Vote 27– Public Service Management Division.

 

Mr Chairperson, in my view, this is a very important department of the Government which must be supported. However, as I support the money that this House intends to appropriate to this Vote, I appeal to the Public Service Management Division (PSMD) to look into the civil servants who have been placed in holding positions for over three years. I would like the PSMD to ensure that the affected staff are allocated their positions so that they can go back to work.

 

Mr Chairperson, I consider it a waste of public resources to keep civil servants in holding positions at the Cabinet Office without them offering a service to the Zambian people, yet they are getting paid on a monthly basis. What I would like to see is a situation in which the PSMD finds positions across the Public Service for all those who have been placed in holding positions. Once the PSMD does that, the people of Zambia will begin to derive value from the payments they receive through taxpayers’ money, on a monthly basis.

 

Mr Chairperson, the purse is tight and money is hard to come by. Therefore, every Kwacha that is squeezed out of the taxpayer must add value. Paying dormant people deliberately is not value for money. It is actually a waste of public resources.

 

Mr Chairperson, as I support the PSMD, I urge the division to do likewise so that it can foster decency for the Zambian people. I support the Vote.

 

I thank you, Sir.  

 

Ms Tambatamba: Mr Chairperson, I would like to thank you and the hon. Member for Lunte –

 

Hon. Member: Why are you thanking him?

 

Ms Tambatamba: For being an hon. Member of this House.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

 Ms Tambatamba: Mr Chairperson, in the long term, the division is working on attachments. I must say that overall restructuring will be done in future. There will be attachments across the Public Service. Those are the provisions that we are looking at establishing, and work is in progress.

 

I thank you, Mr Chairperson.

 

Votes 27 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

 

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 

(Debate adjourned)

 

_______

 

HOUSE RESUMED

 

[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

(Progress reported)

 

_______

 

MOTION

 

ADJOURNMENT: ADDRESS THE EXISTENCE OF POLITICAL INTOLERANCE IN THE COUNTRY

 

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

 

 Madam First Deputy Speaker: We have an item for debate to be introduced by the hon. Member for Chilubi, Mr Fube. It is not a Motion and it will not be seconded. At 1900 hours, the debate will end and lapse.   

 

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can see that hon. Members are very happy.

 

Madam Speaker, I beg to move a Motion to address political intolerance in the country. In the first place, I think, I would like to establish that sometimes when we talk about Motions, semantics come in. I know that there was a Motion which had the word ‘escalating’ and this word brought problems.

 

Madam Speaker, intolerance is the opposite of tolerance. Does intolerance, specifically political intolerance, exist? The answer is yes. Why are we addressing political intolerance? It is because it has the potential to dilute a good governance environment. This nation runs by order. If this nation runs by order, allow me to say that the Vision 2030 talks about good governance. The Eighth National Development Plan (8NDP) has a pillar called Good Governance Environment. The 8NDP talks about good governance.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, they are causing confusion.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Just continue, hon. Member.

 

Mr Fube: The 8NDP talks about a good governance environment. If we make that pillar from the 8NDP a part of our national life, it means that we need to take it seriously. Further, if you go to Article 8 of the Constitution, you will see that it lays down values like unity, good governance, democracy and many other factors.

 

Madam Speaker, why are we addressing political intolerance today? When we look at what forms much of our life, we will see that it is politics. Every five years, Zambians go to the polls to elect a Government. When I say, “Government”, I mean Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. This is because elections culminate into the formation of these institutions. As you may know, the President has powers to appoint members of the Judiciary, so long as the appointments are approved by Parliament. Parliament is made of people who are directly elected by the citizenry.

Madam Speaker, currently, we have an environment where even houses like your House would bring something very good; either hon. Members on your right or the left.  You will find that certain things, which are in the interest of the nation, will be refused because of the same political intolerance.

 

Mr Nkandu: Question!

 

Mr Fube: Political intolerance is a culture. I want to isolate political intolerance from violence because the latter is just a ka small by-product of political intolerance. Now that it is a culture, you will find that because of frictions that it causes among the people, even where people are supposed to coexist and cross pollinate ideas to build the nation that does not happen. For instance, when you look at Article 63 of our Constitution, you will see that it is talking about how hon. Members of Parliament are supposed to legislate, represent, approve the Budget and perform their oversight role, and if there is political intolerance, all these factors will be misconstrued.

 

Madam Speaker, I am also talking about a scenario where political intolerance has spread to the grassroots. I mean at district level as well as at constituency level. For instance, the Executive at the top, like the Cabinet would be willing to take services to the people, like the Social Cash Transfer Fund, Cash For Work programme and many other Government services, but where political intolerance exists, the environment at district level is polarised. I am just giving an example because I may be asked for evidence, which I may not provide. You will find that services at the district level where the District Commissioner (DC) is supposed to co-ordinate Government services, are given based on political affiliation. If the President intends that he has this package for the Social Cash Transfer, Cash for Work programme and the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) when it reaches down there, political intolerance will make the list of beneficiaries to be doctored. The hon. Minister of Community Development and Social Services, who is not around, has been good in making sure that she intervenes in ensuring the provision of some of these services, like what we experienced in Chilubi where she intervened positively.

 

Madam Speaker, we are bringing this Motion because we want to run away from the domain of everything being viewed with a political lenses. We want to run away from situations in which everything is viewed with political lenses because people are polarised. Life is spiritual too. You will find that among Zambians, we have over 95 per cent Christians, Muslims account for over 2.8 per cent and the other 1.8 goes to the Bahai Faith and the like. Political intolerance can equally trespass in that domain where people who are supposed to enter the same temple, mosque and many others become divided because there is political intolerance.

 

Madam Speaker, what we are trying to underscore is that political intolerance kills objectivity, which is a good ingredient in national development. If the existing political intolerance continues, the 8NDP, can collapse and its implementation may not be realised. I say so because in a democracy, there is a need to realise that a country is co-managed, in that the views that come from even the minority are supposed to count. The views that come from the majority are supposed to cross pollinate with the views of the minority.

 

Madam Speaker, today, I do not intend to point a finger at anyone because all of us are culprits of political intolerance. I thought that the people of Chilubi should address this particular question, especially that we are going towards elections.

 

Madam Speaker, Zambia has not seen bloodshed in political competitions.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Are points of order allowed during this debate?

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker consulted with the Clerks-At-The-Table.

 

Mr Fube: Within the thirty minutes nama points of order sure.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Kalabo Central, you have your point of order.

 

Mr Miyutu: Madam Speaker, Standing Order No.71 is clear on the relevance of the debate.

 

Madam Speaker, it is the mover, who, in the initial time of debate, said that people use semantics. So, I am using semantics to raise this point of order against my friend, the hon. Member for Chilubi.

 

Madam Speaker, I get affected when people use certain words which cover everyone. I am trying to look at what intolerance is and what my friend is debating. I did not want to debate, but he is using phrases such as “all of us.” I get affected. Can Hon. Mulenga Fube, Member of Parliament for Chilubi, lay that proof on the Table of the House to show that everyone in this country is politically intolerant.

 

If there was intolerance, Madam Speaker, would my friend today, be debating peacefully like that?

 

Mr Nkandu: Imagine!

 

Mr Miyutu: He said “all of us.” So, if he did not use the phrase “all of us”, I would not have risen on a point of order. So, is he in order to state that all of us are politically intolerant?

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Chilubi, it is very clear that this is your Motion. You are moving the Motion. So, do not involve other people. Just stick to the Motion and the reasons for moving ityou have it. So, when you are debating, it is you alone. Moreover, we do not debate ourselves. Stick to the Motion.

 

The hon. Member was out of order.

 

Hon. Member for Chilubi, you may continue with your debate.

 

Mr Fube: Well guided, Madam Speaker.

 

Madam Speaker, on a lighter note, I think that there is no political intolerance between Hon. Miyutu and I because we are very good friends.

 

Madam Speaker, what I was trying to underscore is that political intolerance has the capacity to deprive us of the credentials that we already have, as a peaceful nation, and as a nation that among other things, promotes freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. It has further got the capacity of killing the fraternal bonds that we enjoy from family level and can completely kill social cohesion. Political intolerance can lead to civil strife. So, , it is a call of reasoning.

 

Let us all reflect on the fact that if we allow political intolerance to go on and treat it like it is a petty kind of topic or happening, by the time we wake up, it will be too late for us because we would not have dealt with the root.

 

Madam Speaker, with that, I would like to place on record that this is a non-controversial Motion moved purely on a patriotism level. I think, it has to be addressed, and it does not follow a finger on anyone.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Ms Sefulo (Mwandi): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for allowing the people of Mwandi, through me, to add a voice to the debate on this Motion on the Floor of the House.

 

 Madam Speaker, allow me to help the mover of the Motion describe political intolerance:

 

“Political intolerance is a refusal to accept and respect the rights of others who hold divergent political views.”

 

Mr Nkandu: Quality! Muleumfwa?

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, I am taken aback by this Motion stating that we need to address political intolerance in this country. I am not too sure whether the mover of the Motion understands political intolerance. I know he is a very good researcher, but I suspect that he could have been thrown off guard when it came to the interpretation of political intolerance.

 

Eng. Nzovu: He was dreaming!

 

Mr Mubika: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, I will help him understand what this Government has done to ensure that the political intolerance that was left by the Patriotic Front (PF) is addressed.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, it is under this Government that you can see a woman dressed in regalia for the PF walking with a woman dressed in regalia for the United Party for National Development (UPND) without any intolerance, whatsoever.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, that was not the case where we are coming from. That was not tolerated at all. That is why I am at pains when such Motions are moved on the Floor of the House because I think as human beings, we should have that ka thing of shame.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, a sense of shame that makes you say that you cannot do something because of where we are coming from.

 

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

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Mwandi, please, withdraw “Shame” and replace it with a better word.

 

Mr Fube: That girl (pointed at Hon. Sefulo)!

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, look at who is calling me a girl.

 

Madam Speaker, I can be guided on what parliamentary words to use for people who do not have shame. I do not know. I do not want to use that word, because you have given me guidance, by saying this one is shameless. However, because I cannot find any word, whatsoever, to use, I would not want to use that word.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Can you not find a better word?

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, let me proceed.

 

Madam Speaker, political intolerance in this country meant our President being thrown out of the Sun FM studio during the time he went to express his views, which were different from these guys (pointed at hon. Members on the left). He was made to climb a roof. That is why I am at pains to see Hon. Fube moving such a Motion on political intolerance. How many roofs has Hon. Fube climbed for expressing different views? None. How many radio stations have been closed down since this Government took over? I can say none. The same hon. Member appears on programmes at radio stations that have been opened by the UPND. So, what does he mean when he says that there is political intolerance? I do not understand. I think, as hon. Members, we need to move away from moving political Motions, and we should be able (laughed)–

 

Madam Speaker, you have given me guidance, but where I come from, there is that thing that guides me to say that something is not right. Political intolerance was the violence that we saw. There was a lot of violence in this country. I do not want to refer to what I said last week because that hon. Member (pointed at Hon. Fube) is the same product. When he came to this Parliament, there was a lot of violence where he came from.

 

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

 

Ms Sefulo: I am going to school you, Hon. Fube. You are the one who has brought the Motion, and I am going to school you, …

 

Interruptions

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Ms Sefulo: … so that you do not bring such Motions in future.

 

Interruptions

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Hon. Member for Mwandi, order!

 

Hon. Government Members: Hammer!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Hon. Member for Mwandi, we are debating the Motion, not the individual. Just stick to the Motion. Forget about the individual.

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, I apologise. I will not concentrate on the individual because he came through political violence. I will concentrate on the Motion that he has moved.

 

Madam Speaker, political tolerance is what we have seen now. If there was political intolerance, do you know what would have happened? It was going to be revenge. Whereas, after we faced political intolerance during the former regime, we would have looked for an opportunity to avenge.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Your time is almost up.

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that–

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

The hon. Member’s time expired.

 

Ms Sefulo: Madam Speaker, I conclude, and say that this Motion is not well-intended. I can say that there is a lot of political tolerance currently in this country.

 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr Mtolo): Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

 

Madam Speaker, from the outset, I would like to indicate that the current Government stands on two issues. Number one is unity.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Mtolo: I would like Hon. Fube to listen, not be talking to another person.

 

You moved this Motion. So, if your Motion is not necessary, there is no need for us to debate.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, this is your Motion.

 

Mr Mtolo: Yes. Exactly.

 

So, you should listen.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, this Government is based on two fundamental issues. Number one is unity. How can anyone start bringing issues of intolerance when the Government is sitting on a foundation of unity? The other pillar is economic development. Some previous Governments did not have foundation stones. We did not know where they stood. It was just violence. That is when such Motions should have been moved.

 

Madam Speaker, secondly, it is important that the country knows who brings Motions. A messenger is an important element in your accepting what they bring, or do not bring.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, that is why during the colonial times, messengers were beaten because they brought issues of taxes.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Hammer! Hammer!

 

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, we need to be very careful about who brings these Motions, because they are now igniting and reminding us of what we went through. Let me say that, currently, Zambia is enjoying a lot of peace. Zambia is taking away cadreism. How can a person who is a product of cadreism and violence say that we should bring political intolerance issues here, to this House?

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Nkandu: Imagine!

 

Mr Fube interjected.

 

Interruptions

 

Madam Speaker: Order!

 

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, there is no toxic environment in Zambia. The environment is very fair and absorbing. How can anyone say that Zambia has intolerance in religion? Zambia is extremely tolerant of religion. How many religious groupings are allowed in Zambia? This one will be shouting this or that, another one will be using this or that language, this one will be saying this or that, and we are also tolerant. However, some groups feel that they earn more, own more and deserve more, and those should be told to be tolerant, not the Government, but those groupings that Hon. Fube knows well.

 

Mr Mwiimbu, SC.: Tonse!

 

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, let me also talk about the issue that the mover of the Motion brought in. He said we should not play with peace. There is a very powerful, yet small article circulating on social media from a former soldier. He said:

 

“You people do not play with peace. Peace is important. You think that what you have in Zambia is no peace? You will have no hospitals, you will have filling stations without fuel ...”

 

Madam Speaker, even Chilubi will become very far to get to because there will be no vehicles. We need to be careful with the Motions that we bring here. There will be no boats because there will be no one to give diesel for those boats to move, not even canoes, because even the crocodiles will be angry. So, let us be careful. I think, let us bring Motions that bring development or aim for development, not Motions that will simply rile people.

 

Madam Speaker, I am from Chipata. I am a Member of Parliament for Chipata. There is a certain compound in Chipata, whose name I will not mention because it will become the topic, but in there, there are people who were maimed by the Patriotic Front (PF). Some women are now lame because of the PF. How can I sit here and listen to a PF hon. Member talk about intolerance? I mean, this Motion should have been withdrawn. Otherwise, we are all going to have a very bad night because we are being reminded of the wrong things. Let us talk about growing maize and mining copper, rather than someone bringing a Motion, which does not even need to be heard.

 

Madam Speaker, this democracy that we have should be managed. Certain Motions should not be accepted, especially when you have told us to go home.

 

Mr Fube interjected.

 

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

 

Mr Mtolo: I will answer you. I can answer you.

 

Madam Speaker, without wasting a lot of time, this Motion should not have been allowed. It should be set aside and the people who brought it are the ones who need to be guided and told that the political intolerance that they brought is still being felt. We are failing to bury ourselves because of the intolerance of a certain group of people.

 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I will allow one hon. Member from the Patriotic Front (PF) and one from the United Party for National Development (UPND) to debate; the hon. Member for Lunte and then the hon. Member for Sesheke.

 

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Madam Speaker, there is no better time to request the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government to evaluate whether there is political intolerance or not.

 

 Madam Speaker, I find this Motion timely because when one of my colleagues was debating, he referred to how President HH (Hakainde Hichilema), when in the Opposition, went through the roof. That was political intolerance. Further, when you see Black Apple clobbered, that is political intolerance. When you see Jackson Kungo losing a life, that is political intolerance. Can we address political intolerance? Yes, we can. What are the benefits of addressing political intolerance? We create a better society where people are able to accept one another’s ideas and are able to engage based on their faculties. This is the time when faculty development must be valued much more than physical development.

 

Madam Speaker, discrimination will reduce in our country if we solve this problem. Imposing restrictions and refusal to accept diversity will be rare among ourselves. This is why a Motion such as this one should be encouraged. There must be room to evaluate our position as a country and if we find anything encouraging political intolerance, we must deal with those things so that our society can become better.

 

Madam Speaker, obviously, civil strife can result from political intolerance. I do not see anyone in this Assembly or even outside of this Assembly who would want civil strife in our country. This is why any opportunity to escalate political intolerance must be dealt with.

 

Madam Speaker, I would like to praise my colleague, Hon. Fube, for thinking patriotically. This is how patriotic people think. I heard the hon. Minister say that this Government is now based on unity and economic development and that we should bring Motions, which only address unity and economic development. Hon. Fube brought this Motion after he recognised that under this current Government, political intolerance is not prioritised. Therefore, urging the Government to prioritise political intolerance is a good gesture from Hon. Fube.

 

Madam Speaker, creating an opportunity to identify any possibilities of political intolerance is a good governance inclination, because then, we would be getting rid of any possibility of anyone flying through the roof like President HH (Hakainde Hichilema) did, when he was in the Opposition and anyone losing their life as Mr Kungo did. We want to create a country where our ideas can compete across that Table, so that the best idea wins and is implemented in the form of policy and, ultimately, benefits the masses.

 

Madam Speaker, I find it very surprising that the UPND can say that this is a Motion that you wrongly admitted in the House, but I praise you for admitting it. It is a good Motion.

 

 Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Kangombe (Sesheke): Madam Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to add a word on a very critical issue that my colleague, the hon. Member of Parliament for Chilubi, has raised.

 

Madam Speaker, I want to remind him that I was in Chilubi during the by-election that saw him come here to Parliament. In the company of Hon. Mubanga, Hon. Dr Situmbeko, Hon. Chonya, Dr Kambwili and President HH (Hakainde Hichilema), we were ejected from Chilubi by the previous Government because we could not be in the same vicinity. That was political intolerance.

 

Madam Speaker, I want to remind him of what the Constitution of the Patriotic Front (PF) states. Article 3 of the PF Constitution reads:

 

“The party shall ensure that all the public institutions, State-owned enterprises and popular mass and similar organisations are led by persons who are members of the party and who are uncompromisingly committed to the achievements of the party.”

 

Madam Speaker, this is pure political intolerance. Further, I want to remind my colleague that the fracas that happened in Sesheke, where I was a victim, was due to the fact that President HH was not allowed to be in Sesheke, because President Lungu was in Sesheke. That was political intolerance.

 

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleague, the hon. Member for Chilubi, that Mr Patrick Mucheleka, the Permanent Secretary (PS), and Hon. Mubanga were beaten in Chilubi mainland during his by-election. That was political intolerance. Just wearing a mere red T-shirt during the PF reign was suicide. People were being beaten. That was political intolerance, and I want to further remind the hon. Member that …

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

 

You can wind up.  

 

 Mr Kangombe: … the former hon. Minister, Mr Given Lubinda, was beaten by PF cadres. That was political intolerance.

 

Madam Speaker, I now want to show him what President HH has done. Imagine the President being stoned in Chingola, if it were the time of the PF, people would have died. However, because President HH is tolerant, nothing happened.

 

The hon. Member’s time expired.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

 

 Please, wind up.

 

Mr Kangombe: Madam Speaker, I am winding up. I still have two minutes remaining.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Wind up within a minute.

 

Mr Kangombe: Madam Speaker, I want to remind my hon. Colleague that mere disbursement of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was not evenly done. That was purely political intolerance. I want to remind him, again, that there were places that other members could not visit.

 

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

 

Mr Kangombe: Why? Because the places were deemed to be PF strongholds.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Kangombe: I want to remind him that …

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker:  Order, hon. Member!

 

Mr Kangombe: … in Mpika and Kasama, we were not allowed to refuel the vehicles. Why? Because it was perceived as a PF stronghold …

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order!

 

Mr Kangombe: … and we were called cockroaches and rats.

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

 

Mr Kangombe: That was political intolerance!

 

Hon. Government Members: Intolerance!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

 

Mr Kangombe: Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Madam First Deputy Speaker: There being no further debate, the time has expired. The subject for debate lapses.

 

_______

 

The House adjourned at 1901 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 4^th December, 2025.

 

____________