Wednesday, 8th April, 2026

Wednesday, 8^th April, 2026

The House met at 1430 hours

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

_______

ANNOUNCEMENT BY MADAM SPEAKER

PUPILS AND TEACHERS FROM EMMANUEL ADVENTIST SECONDARY SCHOOL

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

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

I thank you.

_______

URGENT MATTERS WITHOUT NOTICE

MR B. MPUNDU, HON. MEMBER FOR NKANA, ON THE LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, DR NALUMANGO, ON LATE PAYMENT OF MOBILE NATIONAL REGISTRATION CARD EXERCISE EMPLOYEES

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

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, I rise on an Urgent Matter without Notice, which I direct to the Acting Leader of Government Business in the House.

Hon. PF Members: No, she is here.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, forgive me, I direct the matter to the Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, this matter is very compelling. There is growing apprehension among the individuals who participated in the last mobile National Registration Card (NRC) issuance exercise. They have not been paid since September last year.

Mr Kapyanga: Question! Shame.

Mr B. Mpundu: Madam Speaker, you may want to know that most of these friends of ours contracted debts to go and settle in the areas where they were deployed to undertake this important exercise.

Mr Kapyanga: Shame!

Mr B. Mpundu: Everyone wants to know what happened. Whenever we commence mobile NRC issuance exercises, the activities are fully funded. Our friends who were hired for this exercise are now wondering what happened to the resources that were made available, as they have not been paid for the service they rendered to this country since September.

Madam Speaker, is Her Honour the Vice-President in order to sit there very quietly and not give a position as to why the Government has misused or misplaced the monies that should have gone to paying our hardworking public servants?

Madam Speaker, I seek your very serious indulgence in this matter.

Mr Kapyanga: Basakala nyongo.

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Members, the dignity of the House has to be maintained.

Hon. Member for Mpika, what did you say?

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, it is a loose translation of masholi –

Madam Speaker: No, what did you say?

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, I said, “Sakalanyongo,” which is loosely translated as masholi –

Madam Speaker: So, does the use of that word against other hon. Members, or anybody for that matter, befit an hon. Member?

Mr Kapyanga: Madam Speaker, it means ‘Hear, hear!’ in my language.

Madam Speaker: No, we are –

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Mpika!

Please, do not engage me. You know that there is acceptable language and non-Parliamentary language in the House. The official language here is English. That word you have used, ‘sakalanyongo’, whatever it is, …

Laughter

Madam Speaker: … is insulting. It is an insulting word.

So, please, can you apologise and withdraw that word?

Hon. PF Members: To whom?

Mr Kapyanga: Thank you so much, Madam Speaker.

I withdraw the word ‘sakalanyongo’ and apologise to the House and to the nation for using the word ‘sakalanyongo’.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Hon. Member for Nkana, the matter that you have raised as an Urgent Matter without Notice does not qualify. I advise that you explore other means through which you can bring that issue to the attention of the House. It does not meet the criterion for an Urgent Matter without Notice. So, the matter is not admitted.

MR WAMUNYIMA, HON. MEMBER FOR NALOLO, ON THE LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE, DR NALUMANGO, ON THE NATIONAL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (Amendment) BILL, 2026

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

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Wamunyima: Madam Speaker, thank you most sincerely for allowing me to raise this Urgent Matter without Notice directed to the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts, who is not in the House. Perhaps, I should direct it to the Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Education, introduced the National Youth Development Council (Amendment) Bill of 2026.

Madam Speaker, you may wish to recall that on 11^th July, 2022, this House adopted a report by the Committee on Youth, Sport and Child Matters, chaired by Hon. Sing’ombe. The House adopted the repeal and replacement of the National Youth Development Council Act, Chapter 144 of the Laws of Zambia. On 11^th August, at the Sixteenth Cabinet Meeting, the then hon. Minister of Information and Media released a statement that Cabinet had approved in principle the repeal and replacement of that Act. Your hon. Members of Parliament, through the Youth Caucus, have been working with the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Arts. They have gone around the country consulting on a new youth Bill.

Madam Speaker, my Urgent Matter without Notice stems from the introduction of an amendment Act. When this House adopted, by resolution, the repeal and replacement of the National Youth Development Council Act, I followed-up through questions to the hon. Minister and to Her Honour the Vice-President.

Madam Speaker, my Urgent Matter without Notice is that is the hon. Minister of Youth, Sport and Arts in order to introduce an amendment Act for the very law on which this House passed a resolution to repeal and replace, without informing this House, which passed that resolution, that there has been a change or shift in Government policy? Is the hon. Minister in order to proceed with the introduction of that law, when this House adopted a resolution to repeal and replace that particular legislation?

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Nalolo.

What I know is that a resolution could have been passed, but there is no Bill which is pending before this honourable House to repeal and replace the Act that you are referring to. The amendment that has been introduced is touching more on the composition of the board or the council. So, before the Bill is presented to the House for repeal and replacement, the House can still deal with the issue of the composition of the council because the Bill is not before us. We can only deal with matters that are presented before us. As you know, the Bills come from the Executive and are presented before the House for it to consider. These are issues that you could also present when the Bill is being considered before the Committee. So, you can appear there and make the presentations.

So, the matter does not qualify to be raised as an Urgent Matter without Notice. It is something that can be dealt with. Actually, it is even an administrative matter. So, it does not qualify and therefore, it is not admitted.

MR. KANG’OMBE, HON, MEMBER FOR KAMFINSA, ON HER HONOUR THE VICE-PRESIDENT, DR NALUMANGO, ON THE RECRUITMENT OF HEALTH WORKERS

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

Madam Speaker: An Urgent Matter without Notice is raised.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, again, I am grateful for the opportunity. I direct my Urgent Matter without Notice to the hon. Minister of Health.

Madam Speaker: You can proceed, hon. Member.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, seeing as the hon. Minister of Health is not with us this afternoon, I direct the matter to Her Honour Vice-President and Leader of Government Business in the House.

Madam Speaker, the House may recall that yesterday, there was an interaction on the Floor regarding the recruitment of health workers, and in particular, medical doctors. Arising from that interaction, the news item which has been disseminated by various media platforms is that 210 medical doctors will be employed, and many other health workers.

Madam Speaker, as a result of yesterday's discussion, there has been a concern that has been raised about the criteria that will be used to recruit the 2,500 health workers. Is it the number of years that someone has stayed after graduation? Is it the grades that one obtained in university? What is the criterion that will be used considering that the process has not been transparent, especially when we factor in the fact that the number of people who will be recruited versus the number of those who applied for the job opportunities? This is the concern from the people, and I hope that the Government can be allowed to explain the criterion before the names are published. I say so because clearly, the outcry is that the process of recruitment was not done transparently. So, people will end up questioning the Government if it does not explain the criterion for the recruitment exercise.

Madam Speaker, is the Government in order to not explain to the many applicants who are seeking jobs in the health sector the criterion that will be used to recruit the 2,500 health workers because some of them may not know exactly what roadmap was followed? Is the Government in order? I think that an opportunity needs to be accorded to the Government to explain to the people.

I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member.

Hon. Member for Kamfinsa, you have said that the issue was debated yesterday during Questions for Oral Answer. The question was submitted to the hon. Minister of Health and he responded to it. What you are raising, hon. Member, qualifies to have been asked as a subsequent question to the hon. Minister yesterday when that matter was being discussed.

First of all, the question you are raising today does not even meet the criterion for it to be raised as an Urgent Matter without Notice. Alternatively, you can engage the hon. Minister since it was already a matter that was on the Floor of the House, and by practice, we are not allowed to be repetitive. Today, we discuss a matter, and then, the next day, we discuss the same matter. It is against our Standing Orders.

So, hon. Member for Kamfinsa, please, do engage the hon. Minister or ask another question which can be addressed by the hon. Minister. Definitely, the matter does not qualify and is therefore, not admitted. That concludes Urgent Matters Without Notice. We can go to the next segment, which is the presentation of Government Bills.

_______

BILLS

THE BENEFITS OF FORMER PRESIDENTS AND FORMER VICE-PRESIDENTS BILL, 2026

The Vice-President (Dr Nalumango): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled, The Benefits of Former Presidents and Former Vice-Presidents Bill, 2026. The objects of this Bill are to:

provide for the retirement benefits of former Presidents and former Vice-Presidents of the Republic;

repeal and replace the Benefits of Former Presidents Act, 1993; and

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members on the left!

Please, hon. Member for Kanyama, are you visiting? Please, can you not disrupt the proceedings of the House?

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Cabinet Affairs. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

THE PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS (Amendment) BILL, 2026

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Public Service Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The objects of this Bill are to:

revise the composition of the Public Service Pensions Fund Board; and

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

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on National Economy, Trade and Labour Matters. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the program of work of the Committee.

THE MENTAL HEALTH (Amendment) BILL, 2026

The Minister of Health (Mr Katakwe): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The objects of this Bill are to:

revise the composition of the Board of the National Mental Health Council; and

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Health, Community Development and Social Services. The Committee is required to submit its report–

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Order, hon. Members!

Let us have some order. Please, tone down your voices when discussing. You are distracting me.

The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Health, Community Development and Social Services. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

Thank you.

THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING AND USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS (Amendment) BILL, 2026

The Minister of Labour and Social Security (Ms Tambatamba) (on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Mr Haimbe, SC.)): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons (Amendment) Bill, No. 27 of 2026.

Madam Speaker, the objects of this Bill are to:

revise the composition of the Zambian National Authority on the Chemical Weapons Convention; and

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you,

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

Thank you.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS (Amendment) Bill, 2026

The Minister of Tourism (Mr Sikumba): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the National Museums (Amendment) Bill, No. 34 of 2026.

Madam Speaker, the objects of the Bill are to:

revise the composition of the National Museums Board; and

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

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Energy, Water Development and Tourism. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

I thank you.

THE GREEN ECONOMY AND CLIMATE CHANGE (Amendment) BILL, 2026

The Minister of Green Economy and Environment (Mr Mposha): Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Green Economy and Climate Change (Amendment) Bill, No. 39 of 2026.

Madam Speaker, the objects of this Bill are to:

revise the composition of the Green Economy and Climate Change Technical Committee; and

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

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Energy, Water Development and Tourism. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

Thank you.

THE NATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE (Amendment) BILL, 2026

Mr Katakwe: Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the National Health Research and Training Institute (Amendment) Bill, No. 43 of 2026.

Madam Speaker, the objects of this Bill are to:

revise the composition of the Board of the National Health Research and Training Institute; and

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

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Health, Community Development and Social Services. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House in due course.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

Thank you.

_______

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

INVESTMENT IN SOLAR ENERGY AND OTHER FORMS OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN CHINSALI DISTRICT

286. Mr Mukosa (Chinsali) asked the Minister of Energy:

whether the Government has any plans to invest in solar energy and other forms of electricity generation in Chinsali District;

if so, when the plans will be implemented; and

if there are no such plans, why.

The Minister of Education (Mr Syakalima) (on behalf of the Minister of Energy (Mr Chikote)): Madam Speaker, the Government has plans to develop the 75 MW Mwambwa Hydropower Plant and 20 MW solar facility through the private sector. In addition, the Government has plans to install 2 MW in each constituency under the Presidential Constituency Energy Initiative (PCEI) to support power availability. So far, the ministry is working with the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, and has shortlisted companies that will implement the projects. The ministry is targeting this month, April 2026, as the start date, and funds from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) have been secured.

Madam Speaker, the projects are currently in the development phase. The timeline for the construction of the solar plants starts this month. As for the hydro, the timelines for construction or completion have not been fully determined.

Madam Speaker, according to the response in part (a) of the question, the Government has plans to invest in solar energy, and electricity generation, in Chinsali District.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mukosa: Madam Speaker, I have taken note of the Government’s intention to install a 2 MW solar plant in Chinsali. I say thank you.

Madam Speaker, I want to seek clarification on the hydropower station that the hon. Minister has talked about. Did he say that the Government has plans to construct a hydro power station in Chinsali? I did not hear his answer clearly.

Mr Syakalima: Madam Speaker, I said through the private sector.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

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

Madam Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Chisanga: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to raise a point of order, which is anchored on Article 72 of the Republican Constitution.

Madam Speaker, when we arrive in Parliament, our first order of business is to swear to uphold and protect the Republican Constitution. One of the requirements of the Republican Constitution is that each hon. Member of Parliament must remain in his or her seat the whole tenure of Parliament without defecting to another political party. Under Article 72(2)(d) and (g), any hon. Member of Parliament who changes political parties, or one who was elected as an Independent joins a political party, is deemed to have vacated his or her seat. It is on record that the following hon. Members of Parliament have defected to the United Party for National Development (UPND), lately, …

Hon. Opposition Members: Publicly!

Hon. UPND Members: Question!

Mr Chisanga: … and they have declared so publicly:

Hon. Michael J. Z. Katambo;

Hon. Sydney Mushanga;

Hon. Joel Chibuye;

Hon. Sunday Chanda;

Hon. Marjorie Nakaponda; and

Hon. Leevan Chibombwe.

Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling on whether, by being in this House, these hon. Members are not abrogating the Republican Constitution, specifically Article 72.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. Member for Lukashya.

I do not have the details of what transpired. The best I can do is reserve the ruling to enable me inquire as to what exactly happened. So, the ruling is reserved to a date to be notified.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: Can we make progress.

The Acting hon. Minister of Energy was in the process of responding to a follow-up question from the hon. Member for Chinsali.

Mr Syakalima: He should repeat the question.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Chinsali, can you repeat the question.

Mr Mukosa: Madam Speaker, actually, the Acting hon. Minister answered the substantive question and stated that the Government has intentions, through the private sector, to construct a hydro-power plant in Chinsali. However, my follow-up question was: Has an area been identified where the ministry would like the private sector to develop a hydro-power station in Chinsali?

Mr Syakalima: Madam Speaker, I said that the Government has plans to develop a 75 MW hydro-power plant at Mwambwa.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Have you heard, hon. Member? The hon. Minister said Mwambwa. I do not know whether it is the correct pronunciation or not.

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, it is important for the hon. Minister to clarify what he meant by Mwambwa. Is it a stream or something else? I do not think there is anything like that in Chinsali District.

Madam Speaker, coming to my question, the hon. Minister mentioned that he is looking forward to the installation of a 2 MW solar power facility in each constituency. I would like to know when the ministry intends to implement the programme? Further, the hon. Minister said that the programme will be implemented under the Presidential Constituents Energy Initiative (PCEI) using the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). How much will it cost to establish a 2 MW solar power facility?

Mr Syakalima: Madam Speaker, that is a new question.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

I do not understand the justification or the grounds for raising the point of order, because if the hon. Minister says that it is a new question, should that surely result in a point of order. If the point of order is based on what the hon. Minister said, then it is misdirected. However, let us hear it. What is your point of order?

Mr Kampyongo: Madam Speaker, it is your job to state whether a question is new or out of context.

Madam Speaker, as the hon. Minister was responding to the substantive question posed by the hon. Member for Chinsali, he included, among many other interventions, the establishment of 2 MW solar facilities. How can the question I asked become a new question when I just wanted to find out how much it will cost to establish a 2 MW solar facility under the PCEI? How does that become a new question?

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minster in order to conduct himself in the manner he did when it is his responsibility to respond to our questions?

I seek your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Shiwang’andu, if you look closely at Question No. 286, you will see that that the hon. Member is asking whether the Government has any plans to invest in solar energy and other forms of electricity generation in Chinsali District. The hon. Minister said that the Government has plans, and one of the plans is to install 2 MW solar facilities under the Presidential Constituents Energy Initiative (PCEI) using the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). This is a constituency-specific question. Therefore, when the Acting hon. Minister was answering the question, he restricted himself to the question asked by the hon. Member for Chinsali and the cost of the solar facilities did not arise from the substantive question. Therefore, the point of order is misplaced.

We make progress.

REHABILITATION OF ROADS IN KAMFINSA CONSTITUENCY

287. Mr Kang’ombe (Kamfinsa) asked the Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development:

whether the Government has any plans to work on the following roads in Kamfinsa Parliamentary Constituency:

Kamfinsa Correctional Facility - Ndola/Mufulira Junction;
Kanshimu Farm Block - Kakolo Farm Block; and
Old ZAMTAN - New plots in ZAMTAN up to ZAMTAN Cemetery.

if so, when the plans will be implemented; and

if there are no such plans, why.

The Minister of Lands and Natural Resources (Mrs Masebo) (on behalf of the Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development (Eng. Milupi)): Madam Speaker, the Government, through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, has plans to work on the following roads in Kamfinsa Parliamentary Constituency:

Kamfinsa Correctional Facility - Ndola/Mufulira Junction;

Kanshimu Farm Block - Kakolo Farm Block; and

Old ZAMTAN - New plots in ZAMTAN up to ZAMTAN Cemetery.

Madam Speaker, the plans will be implemented once funds have been made available for the project.

Madam Speaker, as stated above, the Government has plans to work on the mentioned roads in Kamfinsa Parliamentary Constituency.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, the question that I posed to the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development has a very short background. When I was elected Member of Parliament, I took the liberty to engage the hon. Minister and the Permanent Secretary (PS) to ensure that the projects that I referred to are implemented. The road from the prison to the Ndola/Mufulira Road stretches about 10 to 12 km, and that is not a short stretch. I knew that the council would not have the capacity to undertake such major road works, including work on the road from Kanshimu Farm Block to Kapolo Farm Block. I was assured that the works would be done under a World Bank-funded project, and Ndola Central Constituency, which borders Kamfinsa, was also going to benefit. We have seen that in other parts of Zambia, the World Bank has funded the works and these works are being done by a contractor, not the local authority, because of their scope.

Madam Speaker, my first follow-up question is: What happened to the commitment that was made by the ministry to undertake the works in Kamfinsa Parliamentary Constituency?

Mrs Masebo: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the follow-up question.

Madam Speaker, the Government, through the Road Development Agency (RDA), will in this quarter undertake an assessment of such roads, with the view to establish the scope of works and associated costs. The works will then be added to the 2027 Road Sector Annual Work Plan once the cost has been established.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member specifically asked a question concerning the World Bank. I cannot speak for the World Bank now because funding from the World Bank is normally a matter that is agreed on with the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. At times, some agreements fall through.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kang’ombe: Madam Speaker, my responsibility, on behalf of the people of Kamfinsa, is to communicate their concerns to the Government. Consistently, I have communicated various issues. As a local team, we have also tried to work on our roads. Unfortunately, the works required cannot be implemented by the local authority. The scale of the works and the number of bridges on some of the roads cannot be implemented by the local authority. As I go back to the constituency over the weekend, I want some level of assurance on this matter. Nkana Football Club is going to play Power Dynamos over the weekend. So, obviously, I should go back to the Copperbelt. As I spare some time to engage the community, what message should I take to the people of Kamfinsa regarding the works that will be undertaken by the Government?

Mrs Masebo: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament understands that the Government is one entity. The same Government has decentralised the management of certain roads. The roads the hon. Member is talking about are district roads. District roads are supposed to be prioritised by local authorities. The hon. Member is part of the local authority, thanks to the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025. Once a district prioritises its roads, the ministry responsible for local government is supposed to assess the roads which can be worked on by the local authority and those which cannot be worked on by the local authority. This is why the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development advertises such roads to contractors. It is because the ministry understands that certain roads cannot be worked on by councils. I already indicated in my answer that there is going to be an assessment of such roads, not just in Kamfinsa, but in many other districts. These are ongoing works. I indicated in my earlier response that road works will be assessed. In the 2027 Budget, the roads will be considered.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

ADMINISTRATION OF MUSINDANO PRIMARY SCHOOL

288. Mr Simumba (Nakonde) asked the Minister of Education:

why Musindano Primary School in Nakonde District is administered by the Isoka District Education Board; and

when the administration of the school will be re-aligned to the Nakonde District Education Board.

The Minister of Education (Mr Syakalima): Madam Speaker, Musindano Primary School has continued being administered under the Isoka District Education Board due to historical administrative arrangements. At the time the school was established, Nakonde District was part of Isoka District, and the school was placed under the administration of Isoka. When Nakonde was later created as a separate district, the administrative alignment of some institutions, including this primary school, was not immediately adjusted. As a result, the school remained under the Isoka District Education Board to ease management at that time. However, upon review by the district and provincial education offices, it was established that the school is located in Mukulika Ward of Nakonde District and, therefore, falls within the jurisdiction of Nakonde District. The matter came to our attention when it was noted that the school was unable to fully benefit from the programmes implemented under Nakonde District through the support of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF).

Madam Speaker, following consultations between the district education office and the provincial education office, it was resolved that the administration of this primary school be re-aligned to Nakonde District with immediate effect, in order to ensure that the school is managed under the correct district, and enable it to benefit from Government programmes being implemented in Nakonde. The ministry has since guided that the necessary administrative procedures be concluded to formalise the re-alignment.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Simumba: Madam Speaker, I think, at this time, I would like to just thank the Government for hearing our cry that the school should be re-aligned to Nakonde District. I do not have much to say, since the hon. Minister has confirmed that that is going to be done.

BENEFICIARIES OF FARMER INPUT SUPPORT PROGRAMME IN CHINSALI

289. Mr Mukosa (Chinsali) asked the Minister of Agriculture:

how many beneficiaries of the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) there were in Chinsali District as of the following dates:

1^st December, 2014;
1^st December, 2019;
1^st December, 2024; and
1^st September, 2025;

whether the Government has any plans to increase the number of beneficiaries; and

if so, when the plans will be implemented.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr Mtolo): Madam Speaker, the number of beneficiaries on the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) in Chinsali District as of the following dates were:

Date No. of Beneficiaries

1^st December 2014 8,466

1^st December, 2019 8,466

1^st December 2024 8,466

1^st September, 2025 8,466

Madam Speaker, you will note that the figure is static.

Madam Speaker, the Government has no plans to increase the number of beneficiaries on FISP in the district, as the Government’s policy is to promote other initiatives, including the Sustainable Agriculture Financing Facility (SAFF), as well as encouraging farmers to join private out-grower schemes and seed suppliers.

Madam Speaker, there are no plans to increase the number of beneficiaries, as stated in the answer to part (b) of the question above. The Government policy is to promote other initiatives.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mukosa: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for having indicated that from 2014 to date, there has been no change in the number of farmers on FISP in Chinsali. According to what he said, the static number is 8,466. Now, considering that the number has been 8,466 for almost twelve years, what has been happening regarding those who die or relocate to other places? Have they been replaced? I would like to know for the sake of being informed.

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, indeed, in order to maintain the standard number when there is a change in the applicants, other names from the same district are introduced so that the number remains the same, and that the district is not disadvantaged.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, I agree that the number of beneficiaries who are churned out nationwide is 1,024,000, nationwide. So, I wanted to find out whether the inclusion of new co-operatives, as beneficiaries, is what is causing people to portray a picture that they are actually sharing fertiliser in ama meda or the five litre gallons. Is the hon. Minister aware that that is a source because of the inclusion of new co-operatives on the beneficiaries?

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

Madam speaker, the Government does not encourage sharing of inputs. That happens outside the Government's obligation. Ours is to give the fertiliser to the 8,466 people. If they share, it could be that maybe, they want to give an uncle or any other person, but that is outside what we guide them because that is not a correct thing to do. Maybe, just to keep the record straight, it is assumed that this sharing has been going on for a very long time. So, it is not a new phenomenon.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, my question is a rider on the follow-up question that came from the hon. Member of Parliament for Chilubi.

Madam Speaker, the number of beneficiaries has remained constant, as the hon. Minister has shared with this august House, but he may wish to know that there are new co-operatives that have been introduced in Chinsali while the number has remained the same. This is what has mounted pressure on the farmers to share their inputs because whereas the numbers remain constant, the new co-operatives have also come with some new members. That is the reality that is obtaining in Chinsali and in the next constituency, Shiwang’andu. However, since we are dealing with Chinsali, that is the situation on the ground. What are you going to do to address that real challenge on the ground?

Mr Mtolo: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank Hon. Kampyongo for that intervention.

Madam Speaker, as the Government, we came to this House and indicated that since the Farmer Input Support Program (FISIP) was merely meant to help enhance production, almost $400 million to $500 million is given out every year. So, it is not a sustainable programme. To make it sustainable, we are going for other programmes like the Social Action Fund (SAF), where beneficiaries are expected to pay at least the principal amount with a very marginal interest rate of the Bank of Zambia (BoZ) plus two basis points. If the BoZ’s interest rate is at thirteen, we will make it fifteen. So, as it were, the hon. Member could be right, but whether it is right or wrong, we will not increase the number of FISP beneficiaries.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

_______

MOTION

MODALITIES THAT WILL EMPOWER LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO RETAIN A PERCENTAGE OF PURE REVENUE COLLECTED WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION

Mr Fube (Chilubi): Madam Speaker. I beg to move that this House urges the Government to put in place modalities that will empower local authorities to retain a percentage of pure revenue collected within their jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

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

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, in the first place, I would like to lay the foundational principles that are connected to this Motion. Among them, I want to recognise that the law in Article 152 positions the council as the implementer of Government projects at district level. I further want to recognise that in Article 147, there is the devolution, which entails the administration and management of State resources, meaning political, social, legal and economic affairs at national level.

Madam Speaker, what this Motion seeks to harvest, among other things, is respecting the law as it has been made and in doing so, we first of all, want to recognise the existence of the National Roads Fund Agency (NRFA), which is backed by the National Road Fund Act No. 11 of 2002. However, this Motion will specifically dwell on Section 16(2)(d).

Madam Speaker, I also want to recognise that there is the Tollgate Act No. 14 of 2011, which defines the key terms that –

Interruptions

Mr Fube: (pointed at hon. UPND Members): Madam Speaker, there is a bit of noise coming from there, and it is a bit disturbing.

The Act talks about the toll fees and defines what a toll fee is. In this case, it is collected on any road, border post, bridge, pontoon and any other place, where the agents or concessioner operates a toll point.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of the money collected; the road fund is meant to construct, maintain and rehabilitate public roads and related infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, we also realise that the Local Government Act No. 2 of 2019, specifically Section 16(2), also gives the local authority power to manage, construct and maintain specific roads and road networks within their jurisdiction. Therefore, there is a serious marriage in terms of the legal and policy framework in support of the decentralised arrangement. Therefore, I will be blind to not recognise that Cabinet Circular No. 32 of 2023 does not include toll gates or toll fees in this particular arrangement.

Madam Speaker, this is the circular that talks about devolution and devolved functions among them the ones from the Ministry of Transport and Logistics, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and other ministries related to this issue. If I remember very well, it is also linked to Gazette Notice No. 1123.

Now, why are we talking about toll fees? Rightly so, while revenue is currently centralised, the law supports decentralisation of toll collection in the road sector. Looking at where toll gates are positioned, it is in this House that I asked a question about the revenue that comes from those toll gates and the number of established toll gates we have. The hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning was kind enough to provide that information. Toll gates are now widespread, and the Government is planning to construct more. Where does the problem come in? The problem is that the roads where toll gates are stationed are getting damaged, and demand maintenance. Usually, when the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA) steps in, it is a structure for approving funds and so on.

Madam Speaker, through this Motion, I am asking for a percentage, although it has not been specified, of what is collected through toll fees, like what the President did in the structure of the 2024/2025 Constituency Development Fund (CDF), when K3.2 million was allocated to support that particular arrangement. I realise that US$210 million has been made available for qualifying local authorities. However, I am talking about the fact that much of the funds that local authorities receive are from the Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF) and the CDF. What I am trying to take away from this is a collapse of equity into reality. I am talking about taking away some of the local authorities that can raise funds on their own. If they are taken away from benefiting from the equalisation fund, and leave those that are not exposed to “hot” revenue, the percentage and equity can come in. There are three classifications of our councils. All the councils that include the local authorities, municipalities and town councils do not have the same financial capacity. The laws that I have pointed out call for fiscal autonomy of local authorities so that they can manage the maintenance of roads, bridges, pontoons and many other things that are connected to the road networks.

Mr Mung’andu crossed the Floor.

Madam Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. Member for Chama South, have you forgotten our rules? Wait in the Backbench while we are listening. When the hon. Member for Chilubi finishes, you can resume your seat. You can sit near the hon. Member for Roan.

Hon. Member for Chilubi, continue.

Mr Kampyongo: Send him out!

Laughter

Mr Fube: Madam Speaker, what I am trying to underscore is a financing model that empowers the local authorities to react to immediate damages to roads and bridges on roads that house toll gates. As simple as that. For instance, if the road is damaged, and there is a George Kunda Toll gate and a local authority nearby, there is no need to wait for the NRFA to maintain that road. Since the Local Government Act empowers the local authority to maintain roads within its jurisdiction, the local authority will be positioned, using the percentage we are calling for, to react to that damage.

Madam Speaker, if we are to travel on the road between Kapiri and Nakonde, we will find toll gates, but the road is in a bad state, yet we can count many local authorities on that stretch. If the local authorities were empowered, they would be reacting to patches within their jurisdiction using the fund. I know that the argument would be the circular that I referred to earlier. However, the circular, just like Article 7, as part of the law is the Constitution and Statutory Instruments (SI), can be navigated. I know that this Motion also calls for the amendment of some of the laws I mentioned earlier.

Madam Speaker, with those few words, I beg to move.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Chama South, you can resume your seat.

Mr Mung’andu resumed his seat.

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

Mr Chanda: Now, Madam Speaker.

Interruptions

Mr Chanda: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to second the Motion moved by Mr Fube, on behalf of the good people of Chilubi with whom we are joined at the hip by the Chambeshi River. The only difference between us is the height.

Laughter

Hon. Members: Question!

Mr Chanda: Madam Speaker, the mover of this Motion is one of your distinguished researchers, and this House has conferred serious accolades on him. I think supporting this important Motion goes to recognising the great work that the Government and the President have done in rolling-out and implementing the decentralisation agenda. The decentralisation agenda, as we know it, becomes the cornerstone of Zambia's governance and developmental agenda. In this regard, it is important to recognise that the Government and His Excellency the President are doing a great job in ensuring that decentralisation is undertaken at unprecedented levels.

Madam Speaker, getting to this Motion, my presentation will be around decentralisation. This Motion is timely and necessary for advancing the decentralisation agenda and improving service delivery at the local level. The local authorities we are talking about play host and maintain significant portions of the road infrastructure, many of which feed into the national road network and toll collection points. As the mover of this Motion has alluded to, and in speaking to the legal framework, there is every need to strengthen Local Government financing, and this Motion speaks to one of the solutions to ensuring that local authorities have what it takes to respond to some of the challenges that would be faced within their localities.

Madam Speaker, this Motion is correctly aligned with Zambia's broader decentralisation agenda, as alluded to. It empowers local authorities with responsibilities and financial resources required for them to execute their mandate effectively. When we speak about decentralisation, we speak of human resources and the fiscal perspective, and they are key pillars in meaningful local governance. Sharing toll revenue would be a practical step in that direction, ensuring that local authorities have the resource base to count on and fall back on when responding to maintenance works, installation of road signage and works on roads that feed into the national road network.

Madam Speaker, as I support this important Motion, I call on the Government to establish clear modalities, through legislation or policy reforms, that allow local authorities to retain a reasonable percentage of toll revenue generated within their jurisdictions, which is critical in maintaining national oversight and also equitable distribution.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, this Motion speaks to the fiscal empowerment of local authorities. It also speaks to strengthening local service delivery, enhancing local accountability, promoting local economic development, deepening the decentralisation agenda by transferring functions and decision-making to local government authorities, and ensuring that local authorities have adequate resources at their disposal.

Madam Speaker, within that context, I support this important Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Kampyongo (Shiwang’andu): Madam Speaker, thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to make a few comments on the debate on the Private Member’s Motion, ably moved by the hon. Member of Parliament for Chilubi.

Madam Speaker, this Motion basically speaks to the policy of decentralisation, and is also constitutional in nature, because the challenge of implementing the Decentralisation Policy has more to do with resources. It is easy to devolve portfolio functions from the Central Government to the local authorities. However, when we do not allocate matching resources for those devolved functions, the Decentralisation Policy is not implemented, and this has been a challenge for many years.

Madam Speaker, Act 151 (1) of the Constitution provides as follows:

“(1) There is established a local government system where –

(a) functions, responsibilities, and resources from the national Government and provincial administration are transferred to the local authorities in a co-ordinated manner.”

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament stated that there are facilities installed in the jurisdictions of the local authorities where revenue is generated, and the toll gates are among such facilities. So, if the responsibility to look after the road network in a district lies with the local authorities, how then can they not access the resources that are generated within their jurisdictions?

Madam Speaker, when you are travelling to the Western Province, you will find inferior toll facilities where someone has to open the barrier, and you are charged a fee to pass through. All these are initiatives for the local authorities to generate revenue. However, we have given councils responsibilities without matching resources.

Madam Speaker, we must respect the Constitution as it is the supreme document of the land and is very instructive. Article 152(1) of the Constitution states as follows:

“(1) A local authority shall –

administer the district;

oversee programmes and projects in the district;

make by-laws; and

perform other prescribed functions.”

Madam Speaker, Sub-Article 2 states the following:

“The national Government and the provincial administration shall not interfere with or compromise a local authority’s ability or right to perform its functions.”

Madam Speaker, the Sub-Article is very clear. Therefore, the hon. Member of Parliament, in moving the Motion, should have just urged the Central Government to respect the Constitution because what he is asking for is already provided for in the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, there is a toll gate in Mpika District, where revenue is being collected by the Central Government, but there are trenches right before it, as you saw when you visited Muchinga. Let me give a classic example. Resources are collected from the toll gate, but there is a bad stretch on the road, on which that toll gate is installed, that has not been patched.

Madam Speaker, we are breaching the Constitution. Therefore, the hon. Member of Parliament is urging the Government to respect the supreme law of the land. In fact, the sub-legislation; the Act that provides for toll gates speaks to the fact that local authorities should play a role in managing the toll facilities. So, it is a matter that requires the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to liaise with the hon. Minister of Local Government and Rural Development because the Equalisation Fund and the Constituency Development fund (CDF) are constitutional. It is important that we do not select the parts of the Constitution to respect and uphold. In my view, the Motion raises a very pertinent question: Will the Decentralisation Policy be just a matter of pronouncement when we say we are implementing it?

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning and the hon. Minister of Local Government and Rural Development should start implementing the provisions of the Constitution. Local authorities have no resources when some facilities that are installed in their jurisdictions are generating resources, which are transferred to the Central Government.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mwambazi (Bwana Mkubwa): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing the people of Bwana Mkubwa to contribute to the debate on this Motion, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Chilubi.

Madam Speaker, this is an important Motion. However, I will not dwell so much on what the law states regarding the Motion, which some hon. Members did as they were debating.

Madam Speaker, there are various Acts under the Road Development Agency (RDA) and the local authority, vis-à-vis the management of our public infrastructure. There are trunk roads managed by the RDA, as well as roads maintained by the local authorities. However, I will dwell more on the issue of capacity. The discussion borders on retaining a percentage of toll revenue collected within a jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, local authorities have many avenues that they can use to raise revenue. They are also well-funded under the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). Suffice to say that the issue we are grappling with concerning local authorities is capacity. As we speak, there is K3.2 million under local government for feeder roads in various constituencies. We are still grappling with the issue of capacity for local authorities. Some local authorities are not managing maintenance of roads and funding. When local authorities start retaining a percentage of toll fees, then, maintenance of some trunk roads should move to them. I think, it is an issue of harmonising some laws. If we did that, we would add an extra for local authorities when they are still grappling with certain issues. Capacity is being built through the CDF. We have seen the defects within local authorities, and we have seen where they are improving. I think that if we want to manage our resources effectively, it will not be prudent for us to add an extra duty for local authorities.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Bwana Mkubwa, I do not support this Motion because of those reasons. Maybe, in the near future, we can harmonise some laws to ensure that engineering departments in local authorities are capacitated. I can cite many examples on this matter. Departments of engineering in certain local authorities, including in my district Ndola, are still struggling with inspecting projects within their districts. Now, if we add an extra duty of collecting and pocketing toll revenue for local authorities, they will need to start maintaining trunk roads. How will they maintain them? We need a robust maintenance policy for trunk roads because heavy-duty vehicles pass on those roads. So, the duty of maintaining trunk roads should remain with institutions such as the Road Development Agency (RDA). This is to ensure that trunk roads are effectively managed.

Madam Speaker, suffice to say that if you look at some of the roads that have toll gates, you will see that they are managed by the people who financed the construction of those roads through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). These roads will be managed by the financiers for, maybe, twenty to twenty-five years. We cannot have laws that are in conflict with one another. We cannot say that roads should be managed by local authorities because some roads are managed by investors in order for them to recoup the investment that they brought into this country. Some roads have been built by investors through PPPs.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Bwana Mkubwa, I do not support this Motion. This is because we should re-align some laws and first ensure that councils have the capacity to run and maintain the aforesaid roads and infrastructure in their jurisdictions before we talk about councils maintaining trunk roads. Some councils cannot even pick garbage. Councils can charge fees for garbage collection and raise revenue. However, we find that garbage is not picked by councils. How are they going to maintain some roads in their jurisdictions if they cannot pick garbage?

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Bwana Mkubwa, I do not support this Motion.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Anakoka (Luena): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Private Member’s Motion, which is urging the Government to put in place modalities to enable local authorities retain a percentage of the toll fees collected within their jurisdictions for local empowerment.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that this Motion has even come here because I think that not too long ago, there was a question or some kind of a discussion on a similar principle. It was ably explained at that point that it is a complete non-starter to suggest that local authorities that have roads passing through or infrastructure located in their jurisdictions be allowed to collect separate revenue or retain a percentage of whatever is generated from the infrastructure. This is because of a very simple reason: Where will this start and where will it end? Should the airport be handed over to the local authority in Chongwe? Should the university be handed over to the local authority in Lusaka? Should the Victoria Falls Power Station be handed over to the local authority in Livingstone? This Motion is a non-starter.

Madam Speaker, let us talk about toll fees. Toll fees in this country are regulated under the National Road Fund Act. Specifically, Sections 16 and 17 of the Act talk about the source of funds for the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA) as well as the application of those funds. Toll fees are the major sources of funds for the NRFA. National roads pass through several local authorities, but they do not necessarily end there. Take the Mumbwa Toll Plaza, for example. It is located in Mumbwa, but the issue does not end there. The traffic that passes through that toll gate comes from Lusaka, or even beyond, and goes way beyond Mumbwa. So, if the revenue collected from that toll gate must be fairly distributed, one cannot say that only the local authority in Mumbwa should be allowed to retain a percentage of the funds. The traffic through that toll gate goes to Nkeyema, Kaoma, Mongu, Limulunga, Senenga and other places. So, what would constitute fairness if assets such as toll gates were to be localised, as far as revenue apportioning is concerned? It certainly cannot be that assets in those areas should be considered as generating local revenue, or that a portion of the revenue be available to local authorities. That will not be sustainable.

Madam Speaker, the same argument has been brought forward by some individuals in the past, that part of the revenue realised by the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) from borders in border towns be retained by local authorities. It simply would not work. In fact, there is nowhere in the world where things are done like that. It would be a recipe for confusion. The current arrangement, where resources are pooled and applied for the construction of new roads, maintenance of existing roads and general improvement of the road sector infrastructure is the most sustainable way of utilising the national resources collected from toll fees, as opposed to handing over the money to local authorities.

Madam Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that people have insinuated that there is actually a constitutional or legal requirement in this country to the effect that local authorities are entitled to a portion of such funds. There is no such law. Even the portion from the Constitution that was read by my hon. Colleague, specifically Articles 151 and 152, about local authorities, did not in any way insinuate or suggest that some money is supposed to be shared with local authorities. What is there is that local authorities will be funded normally from the national pot. Under the National Road Fund Agency Act, local authorities are not allowed to retain a percentage of the funds realised from toll fees and apply them to any other activity as they see fit. We want to justify this Motion by saying that local authorities will use that money to maintain roads. No, because local, township or city roads are covered under separate funding. In fact, they also benefit from national funding in a number of instances, anyway.

Madam Speaker, for that reason the people of Luena do not support this Motion because it has ignored the macro view of the road sector infrastructure development and the general benefit to the citizenry. Instead, the Motion has attempted to localise key infrastructure such as toll gates to local authorities, where they are allegedly located. I am using the word “allegedly” because it is a convenient location. Otherwise, the revenue realised from toll gates does not count as locally generated funds. It is the national funds that are distributed for the benefit of all townships, districts and all cities, and for the benefit of all the citizenry in the nation.

Madam Speaker, with these few words, I wish to restate that I do not support this Motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Samakayi (Mwinilunga): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It has been long since I had a chance to debate matters that are brought before this House. I think, this is a very important debate, and I wish to add the voice of the people of Mwinilunga.

Madam Speaker, I have heard insinuations that the United Party for National Development (UPND) Government moved swiftly without considering the issues that may derail decentralisation, especially as regards revenues. I want to say to the contrary, this country has been looking for champions to implement national decentralisation. I have said, many times over, that we really needed someone to champion decentralisation because it is good for the country.

When the UPND Government came into office, it fronted the issue of revenue through grants to the local authorities, and this was a very difficult part. So, as a Government, and as a country, we are doing extremely well in terms of providing some interventions to local authorities. Indeed, the Government cannot implement what is required at the same time because this is what actually caused the delay, because we were not courageous enough to implement certain aspects and put others on hold. There was no leadership which could think that way prior to the UPND forming Government. So, you cannot fault this Government for implementing the National Decentralisation Policy. Otherwise, it is doing very well.

Mr Speaker, I wish to specifically discuss the issue at hand. If we are talking about the broader framework of financing local authorities, I would have supported the mover of the Motion. The fact that the Motion has taken a narrow view on toll gates, I have been appropriately advised by the people of Mwinilunga to not support this Motion.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr B. Mpundu: Question!

Mr Samakayi: I will, therefore, give reasons.

Mr Speaker, in Local Government, there is what is called the Principle of Subsidiarity. This entails that anything that can be done at the local level by the people should be given to them. Anything that can appropriately be undertaken by the Central Government, let the Central Government do it. For instance, there are toll gates in the hands of the private sector through the public-private partnership (PPP), but there could be other toll gates that are in the hands of the Central Government. So, if I may ask, where are they situated? Are the toll gates in all the districts? The answer is no. So, the Central Government collects revenue from the few toll gates that are in its hands because it is well-positioned to do so. I am not too sure whether the mover exhausted his research because currently, there is money going to local authorities.

Hon Opposition Member: It is the Equalisation Fund!

Mr Samakayi: It is not the Equalisation Fund. The money is from the Road Development Agency (RDA), and it goes to every council. Maybe, the hon. Members were not checking with their councils. If they were checking with their councils, they would have known that there is a grant that is going to local authorities from the RDA. So, that money and a portion from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) goes towards road maintenance and construction. If hon. Members have not bought the popular yellow equipment, as it is known, that is their problem. Perhaps, it is time to consider buying the yellow equipment.

Madam Speaker, in Mwinilunga, we have six full-fledged equipment. So, we are ready to work on our roads using the money from the RDA and the CDF, except that the constituency or the district is too big. That is the challenge. Otherwise, the Government is already doing what the mover is suggesting through the grants allocated to local authorities. I think that before bringing issues to this House, we really need to do some good work through research. Otherwise, we will come here and start talking about things that the Government is already doing.

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

Mr Samakayi: Yes!

So, Madam Speaker, …

Madam Speaker: Order!

Hon. Member for Mwinilunga, let me just give guidance.

Hon. Member for Chilubi, this is your Motion. If you have any points you wish to raise, take note of the issues being raised and write them down so that as you wind up, you may talk about them. Allow people to debate and then, you will respond as you wind up.

May the hon. Member for Mwinilunga, continue.

Mr Samakayi: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the point is that this Motion must fail because it does not pass through the tests of the issues that I have mentioned. Maybe, next time, we should be talking about how to look at the legal framework for revenue mobilisation for local authorities. Today, we had a meeting with the Secretary to the Cabinet, and we have been discussing issues such as capacities for local authorities. Where the Central Government has capacity, it should do the work, but give a share to the local authorities. Where local authorities have capacity, they should be allowed to implement. That is the bottom line. That is how local authorities and the Central Government operate, as a big brother.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

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

Madam Speaker, this Motion, which has been presented by the hon. Member, on behalf of the short people of Chilubi, is very important.

Hon. Member: Question!

Mr Zulu: Madam Speaker, firstly, we, as a country, need to acknowledge that our systems have failed us. So, whatever we do, we fail to move. There is a very thin line between those who are for and those who are against the Motion. The Government is doing a wonderful job in releasing the money that comes from the Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA), through the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA), to the local councils that issue road tax and fitness certificates. Few hon. Members may not be aware that local councils received, I think, K3 million last year. In this year’s Budget, the Ministry of Finance and National Planning increased the allocation to K6 million. If that is being done at the RTSA level, why can it not be done through the Road Development Agency (RDA)? Saying that local councils whose areas have toll gates should be the ones to benefit from tolls is where the bad taste comes from. All we need to do is collect the money, because a vehicle travelling to Lundazi, where there is no toll gate, passes through Chongwe, and then Nyimba, where there are toll gates. There are no toll gates in Rufunsa and Petauke, but the vehicle will pass through Kasenengwa, where there is a toll gate. Also, there is no toll gate in Chipata up to Chadiza. So, we would not select Chongwe, Nyimba and Kasenengwa to benefit from the money that is collected from the traffic that flows through the Great East Road, because that traffic passes through all those towns. We just need to collect the money, and ask the Central Government to apportion a certain percentage for us, as a nation, to share. We cannot promote one district because it houses the facility. Housing a facility does not mean that it is the only entity contributing to that facility.

Madam Speaker, for me to separate those who are against and those who are for the Motion, I ask this: Why do we need this money? The Government does it as the Executive. If you ask the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, he will tell you that his ministry releases money. I am aware that the ministry has already released K1 million out of the K6 million. So, it will be productive for the nation to see to it that constituencies, or districts like Nyimba and Kasenengwa, whose people have not seen a tarmac beyond the Great East Road, receive another tarmac. If money is collected from toll gates, for example, K1 billion, a percentage of it, maybe, 10 per cent, that means road works in each district would move. The concessionaires who have been given toll gates to manage have built two, if I am not mistaken; the one in Chililabombwe and recently, the one on Kabwe Road. The rest were done by the Government. What I am saying is that a certain tax should be collected. The hon. Minister should not be distracted by those who are opposing the Motion, because the Government is already doing it under the RTSA. So, the Government can use the same role to get a certain percentage, and the money should be shared among the 116 constituencies equitably. If it is K5 million, each district should get K5 million, just as it is being done with the RTSA. It does not matter if Lusaka gets K6 million, as small as Ngabwe is, it should also get K6 million. What the Government is already doing can be replicated. That is how the Government moves. So, even as the short man from Chilubi’s Motion is being opposed, it will be easy for us to understand that we are already doing these things.

Hon. Government Member: Question!

Mr Zulu: Madam Speaker, it is my prayer that the Ministry of Finance and National Planning considers this. We, as a nation, can see to it that we start moving. This country has sufficient laws to ensure that we come up with a solution to this issue. We will not lose anything. Even those who come into this country as investors need to contribute. Few companies undertake corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the areas where they operate. The percentage, even a two per cent or three per cent, would be enough as our districts would be getting something.

Madam Speaker, I do not subscribe to the idea of capacity in our local councils. The engineers in our local councils are the same ones in Lusaka. They went to the same schools and graduated at the same time. So, capacity is neither here nor there. What is there are the systems that have been put in place. I was a Councillor, and I understand these things. When I was elected Councillor for Itawa, the local council was behind on payments by eight months, Hon. Silvia Masebo was my Minister then, but we managed to raise the money and pay the council workers within four months. What is needed are the systems and the heart to increase the revenue of the local councils. So, telling me that there is no capacity in the local councils is neither here nor there.

Madam Speaker, I know the department falls under the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, I propose that the institution that administers the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 9000 mechanism, which is situated in the middle of town, be moved. It should train our council workers. Directors need to understand what that institution does. If the concept behind the institution can be understood, things in the Government will start moving. The private sector flourishes because of the same people. The institution audits the quality of works and products. Why can the Government also not audit the quality of council workers or the products our local councils provide in the areas they operate?

Madam Speaker, I beg you for a minute so that I can ask the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning to ensure that Directors and Council Secretaries are invited by the institution for retraining so that they can start changing some of the policies that have failed this country.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Nyimba, you were not debating in accordance with the Motion, which is about toll revenue collected within local authority jurisdictions, not about fair distribution.

As you debate, hon. Members, look at the Motion.

Mr Mung’andu (Chama South): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, let me state from the outset that I do not support this Motion, and I will give the reasons.

Hon Opposition Members: We know. How can you!

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Speaker, this Motion suggests that the Government put modalities in place to ensure that a percentage of the revenue that is collected in districts where toll gates are located is given to the local councils in those districts. I think, I would call that extremely insensitive. It can also be the foundation of serious problems in our country. Such thinking should not be put up with. We are forgetting the fact that toll fees are a creation of the law, that is, the Tolls Act No. 14 of 2011. There are also statutory powers that are vested in the hon. Minister of Transport and Logistics, I think, through Statutory Instrument No. 85 of 2016.

Madam Speaker, you can imagine a situation in which, if this were allowed, how much money would be collected at Manyumbi Toll Plaza? What about at Michael Chilufya Sata Toll Plaza, which is between Ndola and Kitwe on the Copperbelt? If 20 per cent of that money went, for example, to Kitwe or Ndola –

Mr Fube: Who mentioned that figure?

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Speaker, tomorrow, you will hear the people of Chilubi claiming toll fees for passing through water because they only have water. If one passes through water using a speed boat, they will demand for toll fees.

Interruptions

Mr Mung’andu: Someone is reminding me that we should call it the Strait of Chilubi. Chilubi is too wide, we might not even have a strait. So, we should not encourage such thinking from hon. Members of this august House.

Madam Speaker, what does the Tolls Act say? The Government collects toll fees at toll gates to fund the construction and rehabilitation of more roads. We already have the Public-Private Partnership Act in place. For example, the road from Lusaka to the Copperbelt is being constructed through the public-private partnership (PPP) model, and thanks to the New Dawn Government and President Hakainde Hichilema’s methodical way of thinking, no public funds are being used on that road.

Mr Fube: What is NAPSA?

Mr Mung’andu: Madam Speaker, we want to collect toll fees and use them to construct a road leading to Chama, where there is no toll gate. That is what we want. We want the road from Lusaka to Mongu to be constructed using toll fees that are collected from other parts of the country. That is why toll gates were established.

Madam Speaker, suggesting that 20 per cent of the income from the toll gates or a certain percentage remains with the councils in areas where toll gates are located is discriminatory. I would have supported the Motion if the mover had said that councils should enhance property rates because toll gates can be evaluated, and councils pay property rates the way we, ordinary citizens, pay property rates. That would make sense, unlike touching on the income of the nation.

Madam Speaker, this is a dangerous Motion, which should not have been allowed on the Floor of this House, but because this House is democratic, we are happy to debate it. The people of Chama South are against this Motion and urge the mover to bring a better Motion.

Madam Speaker, with these few remarks, I strongly oppose this Motion.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: I think, you have debated sufficiently. The hon. Member for Chitambo will be the last one to debate, unless there are new points, because we are just repeating ourselves.

Mr Mutale (Chitambo): Madam Speaker, allow me to thank the mover of the Motion for bringing such a Motion to this House, to allow hon. Members to think positively on this matter. I also wish to thank the seconder for finding time to help our brother from Chilubi bring up this Motion.

Madam Speaker, this Motion did not need to be presented on the Floor of the House because it seeks to separate Zambians. There is a notion in this country of “One Zambia, One Nation”. Zambia is made up of one State. So, it is One Zambia, One Nation, one people, and that must be overemphasised.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutale: Madam Speaker, I am privileged to have lived in the Kaunda era, and I know that most of the country’s revenue came from the Copperbelt. There were mining activities in Kitwe, Ndola, Chingola and Kabwe, and the people who lived in those areas, never at one point, did they think that they should get all the revenue and keep it for themselves. They did not want even a penny out of the revenue because they knew that that revenue was required to develop the whole nation.

Madam Speaker, the mover of the Motion should have first thought about who is constructing the toll gates? Is it the local councils? For his information, local councils already have their own toll gates, which are in each and every district. Local authorities collect levies on maize and on whatever small things that people sell, and have many ways of collecting revenue countrywide, and the hon. Member knows that. In fact, there are many ways of collecting revenue in Chilubi because of the fish ban and other issues. That is why I do not understand why this Motion has been brought on the Floor of the House when there are already facts.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutale: Madam Speaker, we should not complicate things that are straightforward. Already, our local councils are benefiting a lot from the Central Government. Today, because of devolution, each sector of governance receives money from the Central Government. The hon. Member for Nyimba spoke about K3 million, which is given out every quarter. Local councils are given more than K3 million for maintenance of machinery and so on and so forth. All that money is given to the councils. If we are not careful and we support this Motion, we will end up creating many centres of power, and that will, in turn, cause problems. Yes, we want to devolve, but let us not create many centres of power.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about management issues here. If we had multiple revenue-sharing models in this country, it would be very difficult to manage that. The hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning will agree with me that it is not easy to manage models of finance in every district because each district has its own way of doing things. Where will Zambia end up? We have not yet reached the time when we can have states in this country, and for now, it is one Zambia, One Nation and one people.

Madam Speaker, away from that, I know that the revenue we are collecting from the toll gates is not only for constructing roads. Yes, the law might be there, but where does the money go? It goes into Control 99, and what we are getting from there is major infrastructure development. How do we achieve that if we allow certain portions of money to be taken away by the local councils, whom we already know are struggling to manage finances, including just spending the Constituency Development Fund (CDF)? Most councils are finding themselves with unspent funds, which are then sent back to Control 99. So, I really still want to find out the points that I might agree with, because I am not agreeing with this Motion 100 per cent. I am asking the mover of this Motion to withdraw it so that we do not have it on record.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mutale: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be part and parcel of a failed Motion. This was supposed to be a very positive Motion.

Madam Speaker, if we allow revenue collection in each and every district by too many institutions, very soon you will hear that even chiefdoms are collecting their own revenue. People will create more and more collection points. That should not be allowed. Let us allow the “One Zambia, One Nation” notion to grow in our minds. I fear for our children who are growing up. They should find that we left a legacy of unity in everything we did. Today, if we pass this Motion, what will some districts collect? Let us look at the people of Chilubi, for example. What will they collect? How are they going to develop, if we use the each-one-for-himself approach? Chitambo does not have any toll gates. So, where will I get the 10 per cent revenue? This will bring confusion in this nation. It will create many challenges for people who want to bring this country together. All of us should be thinking positively and looking forward to bringing the people of this country together as one people.

Madam Speaker, I urge my brother, the hon. Member of Parliament for Chilubi, to consider withdrawing this very bad Motion on the Floor of the House.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Speaker: No, I think the hon. Member for Chilubi has a right to carry on with his Motion. What matters is the decision at the end of the debate. That is what matters.

In terms of the response to the Motion, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning may respond.

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Some people still want to debate? No, we have exhausted the points. What new point do you have, hon. Member?

The hon. Member for Bangwuelu may debate.

Mr Kasandwe (Bangweulu): Madam Speaker, ignorance is no defence. The reason I have insisted to debate for two minutes is to correct the notion that there is no law in Zambia that compels local authorities to collect tolls. That is wrong. I will read Annex B. I just want to make a correction, so that people know that it is within local authorities’ mandate to collect toll fees. It is also the right of the hon. Member for Chilubi to bring a Motion and have it seconded by another hon. Member.

Madam Speaker, according the Constitution, one of the exclusive functions of local authorities is to collect toll fees. I am sure that hon. Members understand what the word ‘exclusive’ means. According to the Constitution, one of the exclusive functions of local authorities is to collect toll fees. I thought I should correct that notion. Exclusive functions are in the Constitution in the Schedule, under Annex B. So, any subsidiary law cannot supersede the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to correct hon. Members. Ignorance is no defence.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much.

The hon. Minister of Minister of Finance and National Planning will respond.

Interuptions

Madam Speaker: The Acting hon. Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development will respond.

The Acting Minister of Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development (Mrs Masebo) (on behalf of the Minister of Finance and National Planning (Dr Musokotwane)): Madam Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Private Member’s Motion moved by the Member of Parliament for Chilubi, Hon. Mulenga Fube, which is urging the Government to enable local authorities to retain a percentage of toll revenue collected within their jurisdictions.

Madam Speaker, whilst I appreciate the intent of the Motion, which seeks to enhance resource availability at local authority level, I rise to oppose it on both legal and policy grounds. Firstly, the legal framework governing road tolling in Zambia is clear, not ambiguous. Section 11 of the Tolls Act of 2011 provides that all toll fees collected shall form part of the Road Fund and shall be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of roads. This provision establishes a centralised and ring-fenced funding mechanism designed to ensure that resources are applied efficiently and equitably across the country. The Road Fund, as hon. Members may be aware, is administered by the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA), under the National Road Fund Act. This institutional arrangement ensures prudent management, accountability and strategic allocation of resources based on national priorities, rather than fragmented local considerations. The current framework already provides for local authorities to benefit from toll revenues. Through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, which serves as an implementing agent, funds from the Road Fund are allocated to support maintenance of a number of roads within local authorities. The allocation of funds from the Road Fund follows an inclusive process of identification of needs and coming up with the Road Sector Annual Work Plan. This approach guarantees equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that even less economically active districts where road toll collections may be minimal or non-existent are not disadvantaged.

Madam Speaker, an additional initiative supported by road toll revenues collected under the National Road Tolling Programme is the Road Tolling Maintenance Programme. This programme is a collaborative initiative by the NRFA, the Road Development Agency (RDA) and the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. It is designed to strengthen road maintenance efforts and enhance road safety across selected local authorities. Through this programme, numerous roads have been rehabilitated, such as pothole patching and road line marking in Kitwe, pothole repairs in Luanshya and the construction of the Kapiri Mposhi Bus Station, to mention but a few. If we allow each local authority to retain a portion of toll revenues collected within its jurisdiction, we risk creating disparities in development, as only high traffic areas will benefit, to the detriment of rural and low traffic regions.

Madam Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1640 hours until 1700 hours.

[MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, before Business was suspended, indeed, I was on the Floor and I was saying that whilst I appreciate the intent of the Motion –

Dr Kalila: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Order!

There is a point of order.

Dr Kalila: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and my sincere apologies to my sister who is on the Floor. However, my point of order is compelling. This is premised on Standing Order No. 213, which speaks to the conduct of hon. Members of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, yesterday, I took time to file in a personal form that speaks to my intention to file for nomination during our intra-party elections. This is a very important form, and I came with it here, and I was just remaining with one signature from our Provincial Chairman and the seconder from Central Province.

Mr Speaker, there were only the two of us in this row at the material time; myself and the hon. Member for Moomba Constituency, Hon. Fred Chaatila. However, at one point, I went out to look for the Provincial Chairperson, who was not in the House. When I came back, the form was missing, and there was nobody else, but just the two of us.

Laughter

Dr Kalila: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member saw me filling in the form. When I confronted him, he denied, and he has continued to deny. Now, the implication of thisis that I have missed the deadline ...

Laughter

Dr Kalila: … and I swear that there was nobody else, but the two of us. He is the one who even advised. I checked everywhere, but I cannot find the form. So, I am very convinced that the form has been stolen, but you can guess who else could have stolen it because there were only the two of us.

Mr Speaker, our Standing Orders speak to integrity, honesty, decorum and the behaviour that befits an hon. Member of Parliament. Is Hon. Chaatila in order to continue to hide my form and to deny giving it to me, thereby causing me to question his integrity?

I seek your intervention so that he can release the form, Mr Speaker.

Laughter

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, I know that that was on a lighter note.

Interruptions

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: I think, Dr Kalila, knows very well that there is no evidence to prove that the form was there.

Let us proceed.

Laughter

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Sorry, hon. Minister for the interruption.

You may proceed.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was trying to say that whilst the intent of the Motion was appreciated, I rose to oppose it because from a legal and policy ground, this was not feasible. I articulated a number of reasons, and I was at the point where I was saying that hon. Members may be aware that the Road Fund is administered by the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA) under the National Road Fund Act. This fund ensures prudent management, accountability and strategic allocation of resources based on national priorities rather than fragmented local considerations as was being suggested.

Mr Speaker, I also went on to say that if each local authority were allowed to retain a portion of all toll revenue collected within its jurisdiction, that would create disparities in development, whereby, only high traffic areas would benefit to the detriment of rural and low traffic regions. The proposed decentralisation of toll revenue retention would likely create unintended and adverse consequences. It would incentivise local authorities to lobby for the establishment of multiple toll points within their jurisdictions in an effort to maximise revenue. This proliferation of toll gates would place an undue financial burden on our citizens and road users, increase the cost of doing business and, ultimately, undermine the efficiency of our transport network. Such a development would render Zambian routes uncompetitive within the region and erode the strategic advantage of Zambia being a land-linked country.

Mr Speaker, this Motion risks undermining regional and international trade facilitation initiatives that the Government is working hard to promote and develop. Zambia has made significant strides in promoting key transport corridors, such as the Walvis Bay-Ndola-Lubumbashi Development Corridor, the Lobito Corridor and the Central Corridor. These corridors are premised on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and seamless movement of goods and services. The uncontrolled increase in toll points and associated costs would weaken these efforts and discourage transit traffic, thereby, diminishing the economic benefits that accrue to our country.

Mr Speaker, the Motion has the potential to negatively affect public-private partnership (PPP) initiatives in the road sector. The PPPs rally on predictable revenue streams for viability and investor confidence. Fragmenting toll revenue across multiple local authorities would complicate financing structures and may deter investment in critical road infrastructure. As a benefit of the PPPs in the road sector, the Lusaka/Ndola Dual Carriageway project, for example, has included construction of urban roads in towns along the project highway. That is a direct benefit from the Government’s revenue-sharing allocation. Such initiatives can only be done centrally for the benefit of many local authorities.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, while the desire to enhance local authority financing is understandable, the proposed approach risks creating inequalities and could undermine national, regional and strategic infrastructure objectives. The interests of the local authorities are adequately represented through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. I, therefore, urge this honourable House to reject the Motion and, instead, support the continued strengthening of the current equitable road financing mechanism.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member for Chilubi, wind up the debate.

Mr Fube: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mposha: You have lost!

Mr Fube: Behave, you are an hon. Minister.

Mr Speaker, I am taken aback that the Motion that was approved by your Office can be questioned by people here, in this House, asking why it was even presented on the Floor. That is disorderliness. That is not following parliamentary etiquette. That is actually not understanding why we are here. I think, as ba Hon. Kasandwe said, ignorance has no defence.

Mr Kasandwe: Hear, hear!

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, we have exchanged ignorance on the Floor of the House, openly so. I would like to appreciate what Hon. Kasandwe did, and everybody else who debated. That has given the nation the opportunity to know how we do not understand devolution. Parts 9, 10 and 11 of the Constitution are about the devolution of governance. I am shocked that hon. Members who are supposed to make laws were quoting wrong things to justify why this Motion should fall. We have an attitudinal problem in this Parliament. It is about who has presented the Motion.

Mr Amutike: Question!

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, they even pick spears to hammer the person who has brought the Motion. The person who has said “Question!” should understand that, even through the principle of subsidiarity, which I understand well because it is among the ten principles of the Catholic social teachings, when we say that each person should play his or her role, that is what the Constitution stipulates in Articles 152 and 147. Hon. Kasandwe talked about the annex. I do not know whether hon. Members read the Constitution. The annex has parts A, B and C. Eko fyaba kunuma ya Constitution.

Laughter

Mr Amutike: Question!

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, that means behind the Constitution; at the end of the Constitution document.

Mr B. Mpundu: It is there!

Mr Fube: Yes.

Mr Speaker, looking at that, I am taken aback. Somebody talked about discrimination and the like. My father was a miner when the Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Investments Holdings (ZCCM-IH) Plc was the ZCCM. When we talk about how the ZCCM implemented projects, there was what was called social –what?

Mr Kang’ombe: Responsibility.

Mr Fube: Responsibility. Mr Speaker, social responsibility is what was being preached through this Motion to the effect that the areas where toll gates are stationed should be accommodated.

Mr Speaker, on equity, I understand that funds are comingled, but I am also shocked that our hon. Minister has said that what is being asked through this Motion will bring problems with development, even at the regional level. She went as far as that, which I do not understand because the Motion intended that the collection of funds would be done by the same systems at the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. It is a percentage of the money that would have been allocated.

Mr Speaker, I am afraid to say that while the President has been promoting devolution, and he is on top of things, he does not have a team to promote devolution as well. Many of the people who added value to this debate do not even understand what the law entails.

Mr Speaker, in my conclusion, I would like to say that even in the name public-private partnership (PPP), one of the Ps is ‘public’, which we have to know. Looking at all the laws that were quoted, there is the supremacy of the Constitution, which is in Article 1. That means a bigger portion of the Constitution has to be struck out. Let me say that the Council Citizen Engagement Strategy is a document that hon. Members read. They should also read the National Decentralisation Policy and the 2023-2027 Decentralisation Implementation Plan.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member’s time expired.

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, I was just referring to the documents so that hon. Members can read them. The vision of the President is contained in the documents.

Mr Speaker, I am very disappointed.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, at times, when you shout too much, I do not understand you. It is difficult for me to pick you here because – I do not know.

Laughter

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: I know you have a high volume by nature, but –

Laughter

Question put and negatived.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CABINET AFFAIRS ON THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE

Dr Kalila (Lukulu East): Mr Speaker –

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

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Before you proceed, hon. Member, there is a point of order.

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, thank you so much. Indeed, I had indicated to raise a point of order whilst the hon. Member for Chilubi was on the Floor.

Mr Speaker, was the hon. Member for Chilubi in order to get surprised that some hon. Members who debated the Motion have had no chance to look at the annex and schedule of the Constitution, which set out the exclusive function of collecting toll fees, and Part XI of the Constitution?

Mr Speaker, just this morning –

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: You have not stated what has been breached.

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, Standing Order No. 71 on being factual has been breached.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: On being factual about what?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, on being factual about the matters we present on the Floor.

Sir, was the hon. Member correct to think that hon. Members here can, with impunity, breach the Constitution they have sworn to defend and protect by publicly defecting from parties that have sponsored them here, not knowing that they have declared their seats vacant?

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, you are now debating. You are the one who is contravening the rules.

May you resume your seat.

Mr Kampyongo: Was he in order, Mr Speaker?

I seek your serious ruling, even as I sit down.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: He was extremely in order.

Laughter

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: May the hon. Member for Lukulu East, proceed.

Dr Kalila: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House adopts the Report of the Committee on Cabinet Affairs for the Fifth Session of the Thirteenth National Assembly laid on the Table of the House on 1^st April, 2026.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Mr Samakayi (Mwinilunga): I beg to second the Motion, Mr Speaker.

Dr Kalila: Mr Speaker, in line with its terms of reference, the Committee considered the topical issue on the review of the operations of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), and in carrying out this important task, it sought both written and oral submissions from various stakeholders, which is our practice here at the National Assembly.

Mr Speaker, FIC occupies a strategic position in the country’s effort to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. By receiving, analysing, and disseminating financial intelligence to relevant authorities, the centre plays a critical role in protecting the integrity of the financial system and supporting the work of law enforcement agencies. It is against this background that the Committee reviewed the operations of FIC and, during its deliberations, identified a number of gaps within the current legal, institutional, and operational frameworks, which require attention if a country is to strengthen its response to financial crimes.

Mr Speaker, the Committee notes that the existing legal framework does not adequately address certain emerging risks associated with modern financial crimes. The rapid growth of virtual assets, complex corporate structures, and sophisticated methods of hiding illicit funds demand that the law be reviewed and aligned to keep pace with the current trends. The review will ensure that investigative and prosecutorial authorities are able to trace, freeze and recover illicitly acquired assets. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the Financial Intelligence Centre Act No. 46 of 2010 be reviewed and updated so that it clearly addresses matters such as virtual assets, beneficial ownership, transparency, and the use of shell companies, among other issues.

Mr Speaker, another issue that emerged from the Committee’s interactions relates to the limited number of financial intelligence reports that eventually result in successful money laundering prosecutions. The Committee learned that one of the contributing factors is the weak co-ordination between relevant law enforcement and prosecution agencies. In view of the foregoing, the Committee recommends the creation of joint review mechanisms with key institutions, such as the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), the Zambia Police Service and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA). This will ensure that cases arising from FIC are better followed through and prosecuted successfully where necessary.

Mr Speaker, the Committee also notes that FIC faces significant resource constraints, which affect its ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, acquire modern analytical systems and develop adequate infrastructure. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the centre be provided with adequate financial support to meet its operational requirements. These include the filling of approved positions, improving staff remuneration, and investing in critical systems and facilities necessary for effective financial intelligence analysis.

Mr Speaker, the Committee observes that the collaboration between FIC and the law enforcement agencies, together with regulatory bodies and other Government institutions, is not as streamlined as it ought to be. Currently, information sharing often occurs in a fragmented manner, which can delay decision-making and hinder timely investigations. The Committee, therefore, recommends the creation of a secure and centralised digital platform that will enable these institutions share intelligence in real time and facilitate better co-ordination in the investigation of financial crimes.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the Committee observed in its action-taken report that following the resolution of the House to regulate the conduct of funerals of the sitting heads of the three Arms of Government, key areas such as funeral arrangements are still guided by draft policies rather than law, leading to gaps and inconsistencies. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that the Government expedites the enactment of a comprehensive and harmonised law to clearly regulate benefits and funeral arrangements for high public office bearers, including hon. Members of Parliament.

As I conclude, Mr Speaker, allow me to tender my sincere gratitude to you and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the services rendered to the Committee throughout its deliberations. Gratitude is also extended to all stakeholders who provided the Committee with invaluable information, which formed the basis of the report which we have presented today in the House.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

Mr Samakayi: Now, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion ably moved by Dr Kalila, on behalf of our Committee.

Mr Speaker, I wish to highlight a few critical issues which we observed during our meetings with the witnesses. The first issue I want to speak to is the development of a secure and centralised intelligence information-sharing platform. Currently, information is not co-ordinated or integrated. It moves sequentially. So, it is very difficult for institutions to execute assignments effectively. I have in mind, of course, the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), whose job is to collect information and analyse it, not undertake investigations. We have the legal enforcement agencies, which include the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) and the police. We also have regulatory bodies that regulate the financial sector. Other relevant institutions are fragmented. It is this fragmentation that is causing problems in service delivery and the efficiency we all aspire to have. There is a problem with executing assignments in real time. Information is delayed, and there is weak co-ordination and reduced effectiveness in tackling financial crimes and asset recovery. Financial crimes are increasingly becoming sophisticated.

Mr Speaker, I think, it is important for us to look at the gaps I have mentioned, so that we improve the execution of the FIC’s mandate. The gaps render the Financial Intelligence Centre Act ineffective. So, we recommend that we develop and deploy a secure and centralised digitalised intelligence information-sharing platform to be used by all the institutions I mentioned, which are connected in tackling financial crimes. It has to be a secure system so that each institution can access the information required to work with without disturbing the integrity of the system. Such a platform will, among other things, enable real-time exchange of information. It will also strengthen co-ordination among the institutions that I have referred to.

Mr Speaker, the other issue that we need to look at is strengthening the statutory feedback mechanisms. Currently, there is a problem. Once information is provided by the FIC, we do not know when matters are taken to court for prosecution. Therefore, your Committee suggests that in order to improve accountability, transparency and effectiveness of the FIC, it is important to amend the law and provide clear and enforceable timelines within which institutions must submit reports detailing the actions taken and the outcomes achieved. The law should also provide for appropriate sanctions for controlling officers who fail to provide information within the specified period, which should be enshrined in the legislation.

The third point, Mr Speaker, is awareness of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. I think, all of us need to understand these things, especially the small and medium enterprises, designated non-financial businesses and professions and the general public. If all of us are aware, we will contribute to tackling financial crimes. Therefore, we recommend increased public awareness, targeted education programmes and simplified practical accessible guidelines and capacity-building initiatives for key sectors. Additionally, your Committee recommends more regular inspections, improved monitoring systems and enhanced institutional capacity.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to reiterate my support for the Motion and urge this House to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, as they are key to empowering the FIC.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mumba (Kantanshi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I must mention that it is unfortunate that today we are listening to a report such as this, when we could have been listening to the gains that could have been made from an initiative which started in 2013. We are in 2026, but are now talking about how the intelligence network is fragmented, and how institutions are underfunded. We have heard many a time that the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) is underfunded, and that certain critical positions have not been filled to date. I think, we need to appreciate what the FIC is bringing to the table. Look at how the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) talks about how it has gone about handling money laundering investigations and bringing the culprits to book. The evidence is there. If officials from the FIC walked to the Ministry of Finance and National Planning and said, “Hey, hon. Minister, we need some more money. We could have done ABCD, but we are failing because we do not have enough money”, their request would become a priority because evidence is available.

Mr Speaker, two days ago, we heard a report on the Zambia Medicines and Medical Supplies Agency (ZAMMSA). Our famous ZAMMSA is in the newspapers every month over money laundering. This has been going on for some time. We debate on medicines here every day, yet our people out there are misusing resources. However, our people out there are stealing the same drugs which are meant for our people. That level of financial pilferage is happening at a time when resources are very critical and not in abundance. So, if the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) went to the Ministry of Finance and National Planning today, and said it needs extra money because it is doing this and that, there is evidence of what it is doing.

Mr Speaker, what we see from the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) are just figures which become a platform for political headlines and political punches between the party in Government and the Opposition. After the debate of whoever spoke the loudest and made the most screaming headlines finishes, that is the end of FIC report. We do not hear anything about the FIC. So, what does the report want us to do? Here in Parliament, we have been able to do what we need to do by ensuring that it is set up and it is operationalised. However, in almost all security institutions in Zambia, whether it is the Zambia Police Service, the Office of the President or the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security, there is some level of intelligence work going on. Probably, what the Executive needs to do is go back to the institutions I have highlighted above.

Mr Speaker, at the moment, there is the SMART Zambia Institute, which is supposed to help fight white collar crime, and it is highly funded through the budgets here. When we are allocating funds to various sectors in this House, the SMART Zambia Institute is highly funded. The Executive probably needs to go back and work together in a more correlated manner with one objective of ensuring that white collar crime is brought down. Otherwise, we will continue to have sad reports about the FIC and we will only end up having political punches between the opposition and the Government. Thereafter, we will still come back and have the same debates.

Mr Speaker, I wanted to add my voice of disappointment on behalf of the people of Kantanshi. There is a need for the Government to take advantage of what is currently happening and probably, optimise how the security units are working so that we do not just see headlines of the DEC and ACC, yet, there are also institutions such as the FIC, which should equally be doing the same thing and making sure that financial pilferage is totally reduced or even eradicated.

Mr Speaker, on one hand, in the Auditor-General’s Report, the Ministry will be talking about being underfunded, and on the other, it will a different thing. Just look at what the audit report has revealed. It is very disappointing, but it is from the same basket where the Government is saying it does not have enough resources. So, we have a lot of work ahead of us. However, the most important thing is that such reports are also important for the public to understand how their Government is working and the challenges that are there so that together, some of the problems could be solved.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the mover and seconder of the Motion. This is a very important report and I hope the Government will optimise how the security wings can work together in a more correlated fashion.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Chinkuli (Kanyama): Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to the people of Kanyama to add their voice to the debate.

Mr Speaker, from the outset, I want to thank the Committee for the report it has generated. I, therefore, want to commend the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) for the job well done in the fight against illicit financial flows despite working under difficult conditions. I will comment on one or two issues from page 3, point No. 2.3 of the report, which talks about the effectiveness of the FIC in detecting, analysing and reporting financial crimes.

Mr Speaker, to start with, any institution, with whatever name we would call it, needs to have improved infrastructure for it to achieve its objectives. According to the report, the FIC is operating from a rented house. At the same time, the rentals are an added cost to the small amount being allocated for its operations. Therefore, I would like to urge the Government to find accommodation for the FIC so it can operate independently.

Mr Speaker, secondly, when an institution is formed, the first thing is for its objectives to be stated. Of course, the first thing to consider is the establishment of the institution. We are told that the establishment is about sixty-six members of staff who are supposed to run that institution. Unfortunately, there are only thirty-five members of staff that are given the task execute the huge mandate of the FIC. For that, I would like to ask the Government to relook at the establishment and see how best the staffing levels can be improved.

Mr Speaker, finally, I want to look at the law. In some way, the law does not help the FIC to achieve its objectives. If we look at the Financial Intelligence Centre Act No. 10(2), we see that it empowers the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to freeze assets. However, that is just for a short period of time. Thereafter, it goes further to guide the one who is aggrieved on how to seek legal recourse. This is something that makes the FIC to not have absolute power over whatever it is doing. So, it somehow sends some fears to some officers who operate from there.

Mr Speaker, it is not an easy thing to be subjected to court. It can only take people who probably have studied law, and understand it. So, not all the officers who work for the FIC have studied law. If anything, they even get more scared when they are told that they would be sued, especially when they look at instances where other officers were sued. So, that affects whatever pressure they wanted to exert in order to execute their duties.

Mr Speaker, I would like to appeal to the Government to empower the DPP with absolute powers so that the institution becomes independent. Although we do not debate ourselves, we speak and debate issues independently because we are protected by the law. So, there is no fear because the law protects us. Why can we not advance that or forward it to certain institutions bearing in mind that once they execute a task properly, it is the country that benefits. So, my appeal is that as much as the FIC is trying to do its best to achieve the objective under difficult situations, let us empower the institution through the law. In short, we can amend the law so that it can suit what is happening to allow officers to work independently.

Mr Speaker, with those few remarks, I support the report.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, first, I want to say that I support the Motion to adopt the report, although I have certain comments to make.

Mr Speaker, we need to realise that the financial information that the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) targets is mainly in the domain of private players. The majority of stakeholders who share this particular information, apart from law enforcement officers and Government agencies, are private stakeholders. Having said that, the current law, especially the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, No. 46 of 2010, does not position the FIC as a serious watchdog institution. The FIC is supposed to play the role of an enabler as well as a facilitator for financial institutions, but it does not have that role. It is through such a role that this centre can have teeth. White collar crimes such as cybercrime, grand and institutional corruption are in the domain in which the FIC participates. However, the institution is not even equipped with, you will excuse my term, what I can call a physical security system, that can enable it, maybe, engage in the protection of certain things and the interests of the country, because it is supposed to protect the financial integrity of Zambia.

Mr Speaker, when we talk about the FIC, we are mainly bothered about the international arrangement. We do not look at the intra-country arrangement as much. Peeping through the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, you find that it heavily borrows from outside arrangements, overlooking our domestic financial environment. I have in mind things like suspicious transaction reporting, and how that is interpreted, and the weak prosecutorial uptake and enforcement capacity in Zambia. We cannot completely duplicate what obtains outside Zambia, and put it in a financial system that is possibly different, even in terms of the gross domestic product (GDP), as your Committee’s report stated on page No. 4. I know some people may be excited that Namibia has a lower GDP than Zambia. However, the GDP is not calculated like that. While Namibia has 3 million people, and its GDP is US$13 billion, Zambia is estimated at 20 million people, and its GDP is US$29 billion. They say that the devil is in the details. Looking at those factors and this particular arrangement, Namibia’s population is six times smaller than Zambia’s population. That means if we are to consider the populations that have been put on the Table presented in the report, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has a population of 113 million, while Kenya has 58 million, and the other one is 17.3 million, and calculate properly, Zambia would possibly be on the lower side when it comes to the GDP.

Mr Speaker, why do I bring up the issue of the GDP? We fight financial crimes because we do not want economic haemorrhage. We fight financial crimes because we want the money that circulates within the system to be used. We do not want the introduction of suspicious funds into our money system. That means the introduction of suspicious United States (US) Dollars, for example, through different windows into an economy that manages particular money within its system is the reason the FIC exists. The question is: Does the FIC have the capacity to curb such crimes? We are talking about tax evasion –

Mr Mposha: Wind up!

Mr Fube: Mike Mposha, if you do not have anything to say, just sit.

Mr Speaker, we are talking about unexplained wealth, corruption and illicit financial flows. That is where we are supposed to position the FIC’s control. Some of these factors may leak through provincial centres, but do we have the infrastructure that is widespread enough to curb that, at least, at the provincial level. I am talking about the 116 districts, but looking at the provincial level so that there can be a properly co-ordinated mechanism through which stakeholders within the money markets can comply; financial institutions, regulatory authorities and law enforcement officers. I am talking about co-ordination mechanisms that ensure that we harvest what we want from this arrangement.

Mr Speaker, when we look at –

Mr Sikumba: Finally!

Mr Fube: Hon. Minister wa bakapanga, you can conclude.

Laughter

Mr Fube: Mr Speaker, can I be protected from this hon. Minister watupale?

Laughter

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: What did you say, hon. Member?

Mr Fube: Eh?

Mr Second Deputy Speaker: What did you say?

Mr Fube: I said Minister watupale, the word means a squirrel. He is the hon. Minister of Tourism. He looks after our animals. Akapale ni squirrel, Mr Speaker.

Interruptions

Mr Fube: I said akapale. It is Bemba. Her Honour the Vice-President understands what I am talking about.

So, what I am trying to underscore, Mr Speaker, is the mechanisms in place. The FIC cannot exist in isolation, as an island. It needs a supportive response from different stakeholders. Stakeholders in this arrangement are key. What will beef up the stakeholders is the arrangement of the legal framework. Which, unfortunately, was stated as being adequate on some page in the report. The legal framework is not adequate because it is not just the Act that is supposed to be considered in this review, but also connecting other laws that support the money markets and flow of financial intelligence.

Mr Speaker, with those few words, I support what the Committee has put forward.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

The Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (Mr Mwiimbu, SC.): Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by your Committee and the hon. Members of Parliament who have debated on the Motion to adopt the report.

Mr Speaker, I wish to sincerely thank your Committee for the work that was undertaken in reviewing the operations of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). The work will contribute to strengthening the operations of the centre. I would like to emphasise that the FIC is an administrative type of financial intelligence unit that does not have investigative or prosecutorial powers. It functions as a buffer between the reporting entities and law enforcement authorities.

Mr Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity to acknowledge and address the specific issues, and recommendations raised in your Committee’s report.

Enhance and Modernise the Legal Framework

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns about not having a legal framework to supervise and monitor virtual assets and virtual asset providers in Zambia. The FIC is the supervisor-of-last-resort and, therefore, has been registering and supervising virtual assets service providers in the absence of the said framework, notwithstanding the above. The Ministry of Finance and National Planning will commence the process of amending the Finance Intelligence Centre Act to explicitly incorporate provisions on virtual assets, shell companies, beneficial ownership, transparency and expanded asset freezing powers.

Strengthening Inter-Agency Co-ordination for Prosecutions

Mr Speaker, your Committee raised concerns regarding poor conversion of financial intelligence into successful money laundering prosecutions due to weak follow-up mechanisms and limited inter-agency co-ordination. The ministry is undertaking a review of legislation to provide for a timeframe when feedback should be provided to the centre on the various intelligence reports disseminated to the law enforcement agencies. The feedback will be provided in a prescribed manner and form, including enforceable sanctions for noncompliance. Further, the centre will establish joint review teams comprising law enforcement agencies to strengthen follow-up and prosecution of money laundering cases.

Adequate Funding for Operational and Infrastructure Capacity

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns raised on the financial and infrastructure capacity of FIC. To address this concern, my ministry, in line with the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, will endeavour to allocate sufficient funding to support staff remuneration and capital expenditure for the construction of adequate and decent office space.

Investment in Advanced Technology

Mr Speaker, the Committee also raised concerns on the absence of advanced technology on anti-money laundering and counter-financial terrorism. I wish to inform this august House that the Government will prioritise investment in modern anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism technology including data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI). This is expected to enhance the centre’s effectiveness to detect emerging patterns, identify high risk transactions and proactively disrupt illicit financial networks.

Public Awareness of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Obligation

Mr Speaker, we acknowledge the concerns raised and the ministry working with FIC and law enforcement agencies will ensure that the public is sensitised on anti-money laundering and counter terrorism obligations. The sensitisations will take the form of town meetings and road shows.

Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to recognise the meticulous work of the Committee and the various stakeholders who were involved in the review of the operations of FIC. I also express gratitude for the insightful comments and recommendations that reflect considerable deliberations. The Government is committed to fighting financial crimes and illicit financial flows. It will ensure that FIC and other law enforcement agencies are adequately capacitated to execute their mandates effectively.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Committee for supporting the adoption of the report and urge other hon. Members of the House to do the same.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Dr Kalila: Mr Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Committee, I would like to express our appreciation for the contributions from the various hon. Members who have rendered an opinion on this important matter.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

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

Question put and agreed to.

_______

The House adjourned at 1805 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 9^th April, 2026.

____________

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm

Search form

You are here

Wednesday, 8th April, 2026

Order Paper

parliament.gov.zm