DAILY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FOR THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE TENTH ASSEMBLY

Wednesday, 3rd November, 2010

The House met at 1430 hours

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

______

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MR SPEAKER

WORKSHOP ON PERFORMANCE, INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND FORENSIC AUDITS

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have authorised the Office of the Auditor-General to conduct a two-day sensitisation workshop on Performance, Information, Technology, Environmental and Forensic Audits for all Members of the General Purposes and Portfolio Committees. The workshop will also be attended by clerking officers of all Committees.

This workshop will be held on Saturday, 6th and Sunday, 7th November, 2010, in the Auditorium, here at Parliament Buildings, starting at 09:00 hours. All Members of the General Purposes and Portfolio Committees are invited to attend this very important workshop.

Thank you.

ELECTION OF MR DAVID MATONGO, MP, AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ACP PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY AND CO-PRESIDENT OF THE ACP-EU JOINT PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to inform the House that Mr David Matongo, MP, Member of Parliament for Pemba Constituency, was endorsed as President of the African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) Parliamentary Assembly and Co-President of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and European Union Joint Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA) by the Bureau, which is the governing body of the Joint Assembly. This was during the 21st Session of the ACP Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-sessional Committee Meetings of the ACP-EU JPA that took place from 27th to 30th September, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium.

Hon. Members, you may remember that Zambia was elected to hold this prestigious position during the 18th Session of the ACP-EU JPA that took place in Luanda, Angola, from 25th November to 3rd December, 2009. This position was held by Mr Charles L. Milupi, MP, Member of Parliament for Luena Constituency, until his resignation as an Independent Member of Parliament in May, 2010. I thank Mr Milupi on your behalf and my own behalf for ascending to this position. This marked the first time Zambia has held this high office with honour and dignity.

Mr Milupi: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Furthermore, you may wish to know that the Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) has two co-presidents, one from the EU and the other from the ACP, who, in this case, is Mr David Matongo, MP. The hon. Member’s tenure of office will run up to December 2011, when Zambia will hand over the presidency to the next region in the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.

Hon. Members, on behalf of the National Assembly of Zambia and my own behalf, I congratulate, Mr David Matongo, MP, on his well-deserved endorsement as Co-President of the ACP-EU JPA. This is an honour not only for this House, but also for the Zambian people as a whole. I, therefore, call upon all hon. Members to support him in this regard.

Thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

_________

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

KALENGWA/KABIPUPU ROAD

142. Mr Kamondo (Mufumbwe) asked the Minister of Works and Supply:

(i) who the contractor engaged to rehabilitate the Kalengwa/Kabipupu Road was;

(ii) what the total contract sum was; and

(iii) why the contractor abandoned the project.
 
The Deputy Minister of Works and Supply (Dr Kalila): Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the contractor engaged to rehabilitate the Kalengwa/Kabipupu Road was Mpasim Contractors. The contract sum for the works was K954,122,207.50 and the contract was terminated due to non-performance by the contractor.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Kamondo: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister what the scope of works in the contract was, how much work was done and how much money had been paid.

The Minister of Works and Supply (Mr Mulongoti): Mr Speaker, some of the details being asked for cannot be provided through the question being asked on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Member needs those details, they will be made available to him. However, I would like to state that the contractor was just unable to even get the contract started and that is why it was terminated.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mooya (Moomba): Mr Speaker, how was the contractor awarded this contract in view of his non-performance?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, the contracting process involves a number of stages. Tenders are advertised, bid for, evaluated and the Zambia Public Procurement Authority (ZPPA) then approves. When all that is completed, the contractor is selected and awarded.

There is, however, a difference between bidding and performing. Some put in bids thinking that when they win it, they will be able to hire people with equipment to help them. When they win the tender, they find that the people they counted on have their own projects as well.  As a result, when they get there, they find there is no equipment and they fail to perform. At the time they bid, they show all indications that they had the capacity but, ultimately, it is discovered that they are not able to perform. In this case, they revert to the clauses in the contract that allows them to terminate it if they do not perform.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Beene (Itezhi-tezhi): Mr Speaker, when will the Government consider contracting another contractor to do the work which was not undertaken by the previous contractor?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, there are two positions. If a contactor does not perform and the contract is terminated, it must be re-tendered. Above all, there must be funding provided in the Budget for the same contract again. As you know, all monies that are not spent in a year are returned to the Treasury by the end of the year. In order to access that money, you need to go back to the same tendering process.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Zulu (Bwana Mkubwa): Mr Speaker, was there any performance bond provided for by the contractor?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, it is a legal requirement that all contractors put in performance bonds.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mushili (Ndola Central): Mr Speaker, will the ministry reconsider the procedure involved in the replacement of a contractor whose contract has been terminated due to non-performance?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, although the question was not very clear, let me say I mentioned that it is not obvious that as soon as a contract is terminated, you can pick anybody you find in the street and give them the contract. You have to go through the tendering process so that there is transparency and people are able to see those who have won the contract.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka Central): Mr Speaker, I would like to know whether this contractor has put in bids for more jobs after failure to perform on the Kalengwa/Kabipupu Road and if that is the case, I would like to know what the Government position has been on the matter.

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, failure to perform on one contract does not mean the contractor is banned because, sometimes, this is due to circumstances. The question of regulating the contractors is the responsibility of National Council for Construction (NCC) and if a contractor has been reported for non-performance, of course, after being given an opportunity to improve, they can be deregistered. Once they have been deregistered, that is when you cannot allow them to participate. In a single case like this, it would be difficult for us to tell whether, on account of that, the contractor must be banned.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr D. Mwila (Chipili): Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister be specific regarding when they will engage a new contractor since, last year, they budgeted for that project, but in the 2011 Budget, there is no allocation for it? 

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, the inclusion of a project in an annual work plan is dependent on the recommendations that come from the district to the province and forwarded for inclusion in the Budget. If, in the following year, they do not request for its inclusion and it is not indicated in the Budget, there is nothing that we can do.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister said that if a contract is terminated, they have to restart the tendering process. Tendering is a process that goes with costs.

Mr Speaker: Order! Go straight into your question.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, once a contract is terminated, why can they not just pick the second competitive bidder instead of incurring further costs?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, the law passed by this House does not allow for that process. The process must be recommenced and another contractor selected.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

SESA BRIDGE

143. Mr Chongo (Mwense) asked the Minister of Works and Supply:

(a) when Sesa Bridge across Mununshi River, between Mwense and Mwansabombwe Parliamentary Constituencies, which was washed away in December, 2008, would be reconstructed; and

(b) what measures the Government had taken to enable pupils and patients access Sesa School and Kapesa Health Centre which were situated in Mwense and Mwansabombwe constituencies, respectively.

Dr Kalila: Mr Speaker, a minimum intervention cost estimate amounting to K740 million was carried out and the works are awaiting funding. The cost estimates were sent to Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) for consideration of funding the project.

Currently, a very temporary crossing has been provided by the local community. The community is using logs to cross the river. The measure is temporary and consultations are going on between the ministry and the Defence Forces to install a Bailey bridge at the crossing point.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chongo: Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister indicate which works …

Mr Milupi: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. It relates to the procedures governing the conduct and work of this House. The work of Parliament includes, among others, legislation, appropriation, holding the Executive to account and representation.

Mr Speaker, Parliament carries out the representative role through, among other functions, questions for both oral and written answers, Motions on the Floor of this House and petitions. Clearly, petitions to Parliament are an integral and important part of our democracy. We may not always like what petitioners have to say, but we serve ourselves well, as a country, by listening to what they have to say.

Mr Speaker, is it in order for this Government, through the hon. Minister of Home Affairs, to turn these Parliament premises into a garrison by surrounding it with police officers, some of them armed, and yet others on horseback, merely to stop female members of an opposition party from presenting their petition to this House?

Further, is the hon. Minister in order to display discrimination in who he allows to petition in this House, bearing in mind that, some two weeks ago, petitioners to this House were allowed to present their petition which was received by the hon. Member for Chipangali, Mr Vincent Mwale, MP?

Mr Speaker, I seek your serious ruling.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order!

The Hon. Member for Luena has raised two issues in his point of order. The latter issue has been disposed of. With regard to the first issue, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs is in order to ensure that there is law and order in any part of the Republic, including the precincts of Parliament.

With regard to the detail of whether this prevents a petition, a demonstration or puts pressure on you, I do not want to go into it.

The hon. Member for Mwense may continue.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chongo: Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister indicate, specifically, which measures were taken on which K740 million was used, since there is no other crossing point on this bridge, but for the tree which fell on the other side, and which people are probably expected to use to get to the other side? 

Mr Mulongoti: In our response, we said an assessment was conducted to see how much it would cost. This is how we arrived at the sum of K740 million. I did not say that the money was spent. An assessment was carried out and sent to the DMMU at the Office of the Vice-President for possible funding. Unfortunately, funding was not available and that is why the works were not done.

Secondly, it is clear that community initiative brought about the idea of a temporary bridge made of logs. We are not saying that we did anything about it. I wish to state, however, that we have K35 billion for washed-away bridges that are awaiting funding and this particular bridge has been included in this budget.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Machungwa (Luapula): Mr Speaker, if I understood the hon. Deputy Minister and the hon. Minister correctly, they said the assessment added up to K740 million, which was sent to the DMMU for possible funding. Considering that the bridge was washed away in 2008, is it not advisable for the Ministry of Works and Supply to budget for this bridge instead of going to the DMMU? I say so because, at the time it happened, it was an emergency but, now, it ought to be budgeted for by the relevant ministry rather than the DMMU.

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, I said we have K35 billion that needs to be sourced for various bridges washed away around the country. When this money is made available, I can assure this House that Sesa Bridge will also be attended to.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chisala (Chilubi): Mr Speaker, to cut down on the bureaucratic procedures, would it not be wise for the Government of the Republic of Zambia to place such disasters directly under the Office of the Vice-President rather than involving the Ministry of Works and Supply?

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, assessing the damage and what is required, surely, does not necessarily have to go to the Office of the Vice-President. This is why, as ministries, we are given the mandate to determine what is needed.

However, because there is a possibility of funding under the DMMU, some of these cases are referred to it. If, however, the Office of the Vice-President has no money, the problem still comes back to us, and if we have the money, we will attend to the washed- away bridge.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chitonge (Mwansabombwe): Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister be specific and tell the people of Mwansabombwe and Mwense Parliamentary constituencies when his ministry will start constructing this bridge, unlike giving us old stories of when funds will be made available.

Interruptions

Mr Mulongoti: Mr Speaker, as soon as the hon. Member of Parliament participates actively in implementing these projects, it will be possible.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Mr Mulongoti: However, as far as I am concerned, in the past or currently, he has shown no intention at all to debate this issue or even remind us about it. He has only now talked about it in the House.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear! 

LUAPULA BASIC SCHOOLS

144. Dr Machungwa asked the Minister of Education:

(a) when classroom blocks being constructed at the following basic schools in Luapula Parliamentary Constituency would be completed:

(i) Mweshi;

(ii) Kasomalunga; and

(iii) Kabulu; and

(b) when the teachers’ houses would be constructed at the above schools.

The Deputy Minister of Education (Mr Musosha): Mr Speaker, construction of the classroom blocks at the above schools shall be completed in December, 2010. All that remains to be done at Mweshi and Kasomalunga is fixing the doors. At Kabulu, all that remains to be done is glazing and screeding. 

Mr Speaker, teachers’ houses will be constructed when funds are made available.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Machungwa: Mr Speaker, how does the ministry expect teachers to conduct lessons if they do not have accommodation and they do not know when funds will be made available?

Mr Musosha: This is an on-going exercise. Just like classroom blocks are being constructed, equally, houses will be considered.

I thank you, Sir.

________

BILLS

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

[THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the 
Chair]

THE PROHIBITION AND PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING (Amendment) BILL, 2010

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3 – (Amendment of Section 2)

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 3, on page 4:

(a) in lines 2 and 3

by the deletion, immediately after the words “whether or” of the words “realised directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission” and the substitution therefor of the words “not the property is proceeds”.

(b) in line 14 by the deletion, immediately, after the words “ownership of” and the comma, of the words “proceeds of any illegal activity” and the substitution therefor of the words “proceeds of crime”; and

(c) after line 18 by the insertion of the following paragraph:

“(a) wholly or partly derived or realised directly or indirectly, by any person form the commission of a crime”.

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5 – (Repeal and Replacement of Part V)

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment after Clause 5, in line 30 on page 6 by the insertion of the following new clause:

   Repeal and Replacement of Section 29

6. The principal Act is amended by the repeal of section twenty-nine and the substitution therefor of the following:

Jurisdiction 

29. (1) This Act shall have effect within as well as outside Zambia and notwithstanding where any offence is committed by any person, that person may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it has been committed within Zambia.

(2) Any proceedings against any person under this section which would be a bar to subsequent proceedings against such person for the same offence, if such offence had been committed in Zambia, shall be a bar to further proceedings against that person under any written law for the time being in force relating to the extradition of persons, in respect of the same offence outside Zambia.

Title agreed to.

THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE BILL, 2010

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 – (Interpretation)

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2, on page 7:

(a) after line 6 by the insertion of the following new paragraphs:

(b)  the Zambia Security intelligence Service established under the Zambia Security Intelligence Service Act;
     
     Cap. 109

(c)  the Immigration Department established under the 
  Immigration and Deportation Act, 2010; and

Act No. 18 of 2010

(b) in lines 10 to 17 by the re-numbering of paragraphs (b) to (f) as  paragraphs (d) to (h), respectively.

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

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

Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,  27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 40 – (Communication with foreign competent authorities)

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 40, on page 26,

 (a) after line 23 by the insertion of the following new paragraph:

(a) the Director considers the disclosure necessary to enable the foreign designated authority to discharge its functions of receipt, requesting, analysis and dissemination of suspicious transaction reports;

(b) in line 30 by the deletion of the word ‘and’ and the substitution therefor of the word ‘or’; and

(c) in lines 24 and 31 by the re-numbering of paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

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

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

SCHEDULE

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in the Schedule, on page 32,

(a) after line 16 by the insertion after paragraph 2 of the following new paragraph:

Tenure of office and vacancy

3(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a member shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of appointment and may be re-appointed for a further period of three years.

(2) A member may resign upon giving one month’s notice in writing to the Minister.

(3) The office of a member shall become vacant-

(a) upon the death of the member;

(b) if the member is absent, without reasonable excuse, from three consecutive meetings of the Board, of which that member has had notice;

(c) if the member is declared bankrupt;

(d) if the member has a mental disability which makes the member unable to exercise the functions as member; or

(e) if the member is removed by the Minister.

(4) The Minister shall, where the office of a member becomes vacant before the expiry of the term of office of the member, appoint another member in place of the member who vacates office, and such member shall hold office for the remainder of the term.

(5) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a member shall, on the expiration of the period for which the member is appointed, continue to hold office until another member is appointed to succeed that member.

(b) in lines 20 and 25 by the re-numbering of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively.

Amendment agreed to. Schedule amended accordingly.

Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title agreed to.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

THE ANTI CORRUPTION BILL, 2010

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 – (Application Cap. 88)

Mr Simuusa (Nchanga): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2, on page 6, in lines 7 to 9 by the deletion of Clause 2.

The Chairperson: Hon. Members, I wish to advise you that it is better to say, ‘with words as circulated’ when you are moving an amendment. We will go faster that way than you reading the entire amendment.

Mr Simuusa: Madam Chairperson, I just want to give the reason I want this clause to be deleted. This is the part of the Bill which states that all offences under this Act are to be enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and any other parts of the written law. What this calls for is that this Act will be subject or subservient to another law in the Constitution. I think that should not be the case. Let me borrow the argument which was there when we were discussing the Occupational Health and Safety Bill in which the hon. Minister was required to specify a statutory instrument which defined what a disease was. This is ultra vires and not necessary. With that thought in mind, I suggest that we remove Clause 2 from the Bill.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I am surprised with this kind of amendment. The clause which the hon. Member wishes to delete says, “All offences under this Act shall be inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and any other written law”. What this means is that all offences must be tried in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code which is the only law which prescribes the procedure for trying criminal offences.

Madam Chairperson, we are merely repeating what is in Section 2 of the current Act. If we delete this clause, what procedure are we going to use to try offences? There is only one procedure prescribed for trying criminal offences under any written law. I strongly object to this proposed amendment because it is meaningless.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Question that Clause 2 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3 – (Interpretation)

Mr Simuusa: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 3, on page 7, in line 10 by the deletion of the word ‘before’ and the substitution therefor of the word ‘at’.

Madam Chairperson, this amendment is, again, intended to make the law clearer. The clause says that the total value of assets contributed by that person before or after the creation of the trust, amounts, at anytime to not less than twenty per cent of the total value of the assets of the trust. The argument is, how do assets go to that trust fund before it is created? It is, therefore, just a question of making the law clear by putting the word ‘at’ where there is the word ‘before’. Contributions will only be made after the fund is created and not before, otherwise, how do you contribute to a trust fund before it is created?

I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I object to this amendment. The way this Bill has been drafted is good. The hon. Member is talking about semantics which are very difficult to understand.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.{mospagebreak}

Mr Lubinda (Kabwata): Madam Chairperson, I do not think this is a matter of semantics at all, but a matter of making the clause more clear. I would like to draw the attention of His Honour, the Vice-President and Learned Minister of Justice to the fact that it is not possible to make a contribution to a trust before it is established. The intention is clear that we want people to make contributions at the time of the establishment of the trust fund or after it has been established. You certainly cannot make any kind of contribution to an entity before it is conceived. Therefore, from that perspective, one can tell that it is not just a matter of semantics.

Madam Chairperson, my colleague is just trying to improve the law and, as such, I do not think that his proposed amendment should be a matter of contention whatsoever. I submit that this is an innocent amendment aimed at making the law clear.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Sikota, SC. (Livingstone): Madam Chairperson, it is normal and usual for contributions to be made even before an entity has been put together.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota, SC.: This is because quite often, you will need funds which will help you to create the trust. The contributions have to be made before the creation. This is a necessary provision which is not alien to the law because even in companies, people, sometimes, subscribe to a company before it is incorporated. Legally, this practice is sound.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Question that Clause 3 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to standard part of the Bill.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move a further amendment in Clause 3, on page 7, in line 33 by the insertion, immediately after the word “inducement” of  the words “or the misuse  or abuse of a public office for private advantage or benefit contrary to section ninety-nine of the Penal Code”,

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I would like to put it on record that this amendment by His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice is what the people are asking for, a progressive amendment meant to improve the law. I support it, save for the fact that there is some mischief that we read when he makes reference to Section 99 of another piece of legislation.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon.  Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 3, on page 7, in line 17 by the insertion immediately after the word “value” of the words “not exceeding the equivalent of 1,000 penalty units”; and

(b)  on page 9 
 (i)  in line 18

by the insertion immediately after the word “body” and the comma of the words “including a person that has been selected, appointed, or elected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or a public body or in the service of the State at any level of its hierarchy, including the legislative, executive and judicial branch of the State”; and

(ii) in line 20

 by the deletion of the words “includes a Member of Parliament”.

The Chairperson: Mr Lubinda, any more explanation?

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I have moved my amendment. Unless there are arguments, I am very happy to proceed.

I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I strongly object to these proposed amendments.

Hon. Opposition Members: Why?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: As regards the first amendment where he says the value of casual gifts should be limited to 1,000 penalty units, when you talk about penalty units, it is like talking about punishment. Instead, we talk about fee units. Again, assuming that these were 1,000 fee units, it would mean that one cannot receive a gift which is more than K180,000 in value.

Madam, at the moment, the law is that the determination of what qualifies to be called a casual gift is left to the court. This is because it is subject to interpretation by the court. Therefore, if you put an arbitrary figure for a gift to be K180,000, it is unrealistic in our environment and contrary to our cultural values …

Mrs Phiri: Question!

Laughter

Interruptions

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Even when we pay homage to traditional leaders’ hospitality, it would be unrealistic for one to give a gift worth K180,000. This is because, in the Zambian setting, one can give, for example, a cow or a goat and these are worth much more than what the hon. Member is talking about here.

Madam, I know that this kind of law is targeted at civil servants. We should not target public officers as such. On the contrary, we should make laws which are not discriminatory. Therefore, we object to this.

Madam Chairperson, as regards the second amendment on defining public officers, in the manner that it is proposed, almost everyone in Zambia who is associated with the Government or does anything for the Government will be interpreted as a public officer. Therefore, in this proposed amendment, the definition of a public officer is just too wide. We should go by the definition that we know of a public officer.

Again, why is the hon. Member excluding hon. Members of Parliament? What is the mischief here? A perception has been created that corruption can only be investigated against hon. Ministers. This is not correct. All hon. Members of Parliament must be made accountable.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Chairperson, therefore, I am surprised that the hon. Member wants to exclude himself and the other hon. Members of Parliament. We must all be subject to the law and to investigation for corruption.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Therefore, we do not accept this kind of discriminatory amendment which the hon. Member is moving against hardworking civil servants throughout the country. We are killing the spirit of enterprise. People should be free to receive casual gifts without any limitation of amount but, of course, we leave it to the court to decide what a casual gift is and what it is not.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Madam Chairperson, I think the amendment by Hon. Lubinda is well- meaning. We are aware that hon. Members of Parliament are also public servants. What mischief are we curing by just picking on hon. Members of Parliament in the wording by saying, “including Members of Parliament?” Will it be right to say, “including judges or the Speaker?” The Vice-President must just be reasonable. We are all public servants, but there is no reason for anybody to pick on a particular public servant by their title. That is all that Hon. Lubinda is saying and I do not find it a problem.

It is a well-meaning amendment and, I think, it is not contentious. His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice must just accept this amendment.

I thank you, Madam.

The Minister of Works and Supply (Mr Mulongoti): Madam Chairperson, the lawmaker does not only make laws to apply to others, but also makes those that apply to him or her.
 
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulongoti: Why should there be an objection to this law that is covering the lawmaker? It is a matter of morality. You must be ashamed of yourselves for wanting to exclude yourselves.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

The Chairperson: Order!

Do not use the word ‘ashamed’ here.

Interruptions

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, it must not be forgotten that even hon. Ministers are hon. Members of Parliament.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulongoti: Thus, when hon. Members are included in the clause, it includes even hon. Ministers in their capacities as hon. Members of Parliament. I would have expected Hon. Lubinda to have distanced himself from such a clause.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Laughter

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, I am so disappointed.

I thank you, Madam.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, the law must not be ambiguous. It must be clear to a learned counsel, as it must be to members of the public, marketers and street vendors. The law must not be couched in such a way that its interpretation is left to the discretion of an individual.

Hon. Government Member: That is a lie.

Mr Lubinda: Let me explain what I mean.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, the definition of ‘casual gift’, which I propose to improve upon, is open to misinterpretation because it simply says, “Means any conventional hospitality on a modest scale or unsolicited gift of modest value.” Who will say what modest is, …

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: … especially, given that, even in this House, people misapply words to suit themselves? For example, people say others should be ashamed when, in fact, they say themselves how shameless they are.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Chairperson: Order!

 Mr Lubinda, I think I intervened on that matter and, therefore, you cannot refer to it.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, we have to ensure that the law is clear. If, indeed, His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice thinks that K180,000 is nothing, he is at liberty, now, to tell us, in his words, the definition of modest so that all of us here know what a modest gift is. Would he say to me that his level of modesty, in terms of value, would be at the same level as that of Bill Gates?

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: When the Government says that we leave it to the Judge to decide what a modest gift is, what parameters are we giving the Judge to decide what is of modest value and what is not? There are some people who have given away houses as gifts. Is that a modest gift? Is a Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) or Jaguar a modest gift? All we are asking for here is for us, as Parliamentarians, to be responsible and craft the law in such a way that even the judges will be able to interpret it fairly and equitably.

I also would like to comment on a matter on which I have been called names, although I am not allowed to repeat them. Unlike those who think that I am distancing myself from this law, I am actually trying to ensure that everybody who holds public office is bound by this law. I have stated before that I am always surprised to hear some people debate as though they are the only ones who went to school to study law. They talk as though nobody else has studied it. Let me explain what I mean.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: Madam, the definition that I propose is one …

The Chairperson: Order! Order!

 Mr Lubinda, I think that the purpose of your debate now is to seek clarification. Therefore, do not go beyond merely making clarification. Can you …

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

… clarify what you mean rather than go beyond that.

You may continue.

Mr Lubinda: Madam, in clarifying what I mean, let me remind my colleagues on your right that one of the objects of this Bill is to domesticate international and regional conventions on the fight against corruption. In so doing, one would like to borrow, wherever possible, definitions that are provided for in other statutes. To show those who think that I am excluding hon. Members of Parliament from this definition, I want to remind them of the provision of the definition of ‘public officer’ as provided for in the United Nation’s Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which states as follows:

“A public official shall mean:

1) any person holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office of a State, whether appointed or elected, whether permanent or temporary, whether paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.”

Madam, if you look at the proposed amendment that I circulated, I am suggesting that the words ‘public officer’ include a person who has been selected, appointed or elected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or a public body or in the service of the State at any level of its hierarchy, including the Legislature, which includes myself and Hon. Mulongoti, the Executive, meaning the people on your right, and the Judicial branch of the State.

Madam, my proposal is also in keeping with the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. This convention also provides a definition which is similar to the one I have proposed. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol against Corruption also provides for a definition of a public officer which is all- encompassing.

The question that Hon. Kambwili raised is very important. If, in the definition of a public officer, we specifically include hon. Members of Parliament, we must also say whom we have excluded. All we are suggesting is that we should not have exceptions. Let us include every person who handles the public purse. Every person in public office must be bound by this law.

Madam Chairperson, regarding this matter, hon. Members on this side of the House are willing to call for a division because we are trying to strengthen the law on the fight against corruption.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Those who want to be selective are the ones who are indicating that this law includes a councillor …

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Lubinda: … or an hon. Member of Parliament …

The Chairperson: Order! Order!

You have made your point. It is not time for general debate. This is …

Mr Lubinda: How?

The Chairperson: Order!

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

 We are at Committee Stage. You had the time to debate the Bill at the Second Reading stage. All you have to do now is simply make clarifications. Therefore, you cannot go on debating the rationale behind the entire Bill. It is right on …

Mr Lubinda interjected.

The Chairperson: Order!

 I think enough has been said.

Hon. Government Members called for a division.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

 As the bells are ringing, for the sake of the new hon. Members in the House, I want to take this opportunity to go through the procedure, once again, before we start the actual voting.

 The instructions will still be given at the time of voting. Nonetheless, hon. Members who are fairly new may ensure that their cards, at the moment, are inserted in their card holders. I am specifically referring to the hon. Members for Mpulungu and Chilanga.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: The hon. Member for Chilanga’s card never left the gadget.

Laughter

The Chairperson: When the time comes …

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order, Hon. Members!

… I will ask you to remove the card from the unit after hearing a paging sound and then reinsert it. After the card has been identified and the word ‘present’ appears on your gadget, press the button corresponding to the word ‘present’ if you are voting.

I am sorry, I think I stated the wrong instructions. Nonetheless, three options will appear which will be ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘abstain’ …

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order, hon. Members! I also would like to talk.

The three options will appear after you reinsert your card and an umber light will be flickering on each option. Press the button of your choice out of the three options. After pressing one button, the flickering light on the other options will go off and that will mean that you have voted. I will repeat the procedure as we vote.

Mr Sikota, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I notice that there are three separate proposed amendments and when we were debating the amendments, they were all done at the same time and even when the question was put, it was on all three. I have difficulty in that there are some that I would like to vote for and others I would like to vote against. Therefore, if they are all considered at the same time, I will be in a quandary.

The Chairperson: That question sounds legitimate. However, I think you have seen that we have gone through this very slowly. All these amendments we have done since we started on this Bill have been on Clause 3.

Hon. Member interjected.

The Chairperson: Yes, Clause 3 has had several amendments from Mr Simuusa and we voted on that one and the amendment fell off. We moved to His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice and it went through.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Do not waste the time of the House. We are, now, dealing with the two amendments from Mr Lubinda and are voting on those two amendments in Clause 3. And so, I do not know whether you think there will be confusion in choosing this one. The others have either fallen off or gone through. In fact, these are the two last amendments on Clause 3.

Mr Sikota, SC.: Madam Chairperson, if I may clarify. There is (a) which is about the penalty units and there is (b) which is about the definition of the members for the public officials. I am in a quandary because I am in support of one of them, but not the other. If we vote on the two at the same time, I will be forced to abstain as I will be nullifying my views on one or the other.

The Chairperson: If you remember Mr Lubinda did not follow this order when I requested it, but it is alright. I think on that question, there is no...

Mr Lubinda interjected.

The Chairperson: Order, Mr Lubinda! Order!

Mr Lubinda rose.

The Chairperson: Can you sit down, please? There are two amendments. There is (a) and (b) and (i) and (ii). Therefore, we will vote on both, that is (a), separately and then (b) (i) and (ii) together so that there is more clarity.

Hon. Members should now get ready to vote.

Question that Clause 3, on page 7, in line 17, be amended by the insertion immediately after the word “value” of the words “not exceeding the equivalent of 1,000 penalty units” put and the House voted.

Ayes – (43)

Mrs Banda
Mr Beene
Colonel Chanda
Mr Chazangwe
Mr Chisala
Mr Chitonge
Mr Chota
Mr Habeenzu
Mr Hachipuka
Mr Hamududu
Mr Hamusonde
Mr Kambwili
Mr Kamondo
Ms Kapata
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kasoko
Dr Katema
Mr Katuka
Ms Limata
Mr Lubinda
Mr Lumba
Dr Machungwa
Mr Malama
Mr Milupi
Captain Moono
Mr Mooya
Mr Mukanga
Mr L. P. J. Mulenga
Mr C. Mulenga
Mrs Phiri
Mr Muntanga
Mrs Mwamba
Mr Mwango
Ms Mwape
Mr Mwenya
Mr Mwiimbu
Mr D. Mwila
Mr Nkombo
Mr Ntundu
Mr Nyirenda
Mrs Phiri
Dr Scott
Mr Sejani
Mr Syakalima

Noes – (73)

Mr Akakandelwa
Mr A. Banda
Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.
Mr I. Banda
Mr W. Banda
Mr Chanda
Ms Changwe
Mr Chella
Mr Chilembo
Mr Chimbaka
Mr Chinyanta
Mr Chipungu
Mr Chisanga
Dr Chishya
Mr Chongo
Ms Cifire
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kachimba
Mr Kaingu
Mr Kakusa
Mr Kalenga
Dr Kalila
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe
Mr Kasongo
Dr Kawimbe
Dr Kazonga
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato
Ms Lundwe
Mr Lungu
Professor Lungwangwa
Mr Mabenga
Mr Machila
Mr Mangani
Mr Mbewe
Mr Mbulakulima
Mr Misapa
Mrs Chitika-Molobeka
Mr Mufalali
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti
Mr Mung’omba
Mr Munkombwe
Dr Musokotwane
Dr Musonda
Mr Musosha
Mr Mutati
Mr Muteteka
Mr M. B. Mwale
Mr V. Mwale
Mr Mwanza
Mr Mwapela
Mr B. Y. Mwila
Ms Namugala
Mr Namulambe
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata
Mr Phiri
Professor Phiri
Dr Puma
Ms Sayifwanda
Mr Shawa
Mr Sichamba
Mr Sikazwe
Mr Sikota, SC.
Ms Siliya
Mr Simama
Mr Simbao
Mrs Sinyangwe
Mr Sinyinda
Mr Taima
Mr F. R. Tembo
Ms V. Tembo

Abstentions: (2)

Mr Mwansa
Mr Shakafuswa

Question that Clause 3, on page 7, in line 10 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question that Clause 3,

 (b) on page 9
 
  (i) by the insertion immediately after the word “body” and the comma of the words “including a person that has been selected, appointed, or elected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or a public body or in the service of the State at any level of its hierarchy, including the legislative, executive and judicial branch of the State”; and

  (ii) in line 20, by the deletion of the words “includes a  member of     Parliament” put and the House voted. 
Ayes – (43)

 Mrs Banda
 Mr Beene 
 Colonel Chanda 
 Mr Chazangwe 
Mr Chisala 
Mr Chitonge
Mr Chota
Mr Habeenzu 
Mr Hachipuka 
Mr Hamududu 
Mr Hamusonde 
Mr Kambwili 
Mr Kamondo 
Mrs Kapata 
Mr Kapeya 
Mr Kasoko 
Dr Katema 
Mr Katuka 
Ms Limata 
Mr Lubinda 
Mr Lumba 
Mr Malama 
Mr Milupi 
Captain Moono 
Mr Mooya 
Mr Mukanga 
Mr C. Mulenga 
Mr L. P . J. Mulenga 
Mrs Phiri 
Mr Muntanga 
Mr Mwamba 
Mr Mwango 
Ms Mwape 
Mr Mwenya 
Mr Mwiimbu 
Mr D. Mwila 
Mr Nkombo 
Mr Ntundu 
Mr Nyirenda 
Dr Scott 
M Sejani 
Mr Sikota, SC. 
Mr Syakalima

Noes – (71)

Mr Akakandelwa 
Mr Banda 
Mr A Banda 
Mr C. K. B. Banda 
Mr I Banda 
Mr Chanda 
Ms Changwe 
Mr Chella 
Mr Chilembo 
Mr Chimbaka 
Mr Chinyanta 
Mr Chipungu 
Mr Chisanga 
Dr Chishya 
Mr Chongo 
Ms Cifire 
Mr Imasiku 
Mr Kachimba 
Mr Kaingu 
Mr Kakusa 
Mr Kalenga 
Dr Kalila 
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe 
Mr Kasongo 
Dr Kawimbe 
Dr Kazonga 
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato 
Ms Lundwe 
Mr Lungu 
Professor Lungwangwa 
Mr Mabenga 
Mr Machila 
Mr Mangani 
Mr Mbewe 
Mr Mbulakulima 
Mr Misapa 
Mrs Chitika-Molobeka 
Mr Mufalali 
Mr Mulonga 
Mr Mulongoti 
Mr Mun’gomba
Mr Munkombwe 
Dr Musokotwane 
Dr Musonda 
Mr Musosha
Mr Mutati
Mr Muteteka 
Mr M. B. Mwale
Mr V. Mwale  
Mr Mwapela 
Mr B. Y. Mwila 
Ms Namugala 
Mr Namulambe 
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata 
Mr Phiri 
Professor Phiri 
Dr Puma 
Ms Sayifwanda 
Mr Shawa 
Mr Sichamba 
Mr Sikazwe 
Ms Siliya 
Mr Simama 
Mr Simbao 
Mrs Sinyangwe 
Mr Sinyinda
Mr Taima 
Mr Tembo 
Ms Tembo

Abstentions – (2)

Mr Mwansa 
Mr Shakafuswa

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order! Can we be together?

CLAUSE 8 - (Reports and Recommendations by Commission)

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 8, on page 12, after line 28, by the insertion of the following new paragraph:

 “(3) The head of an appropriate authority which fails to make a report in accordance with sub-section (2) commits an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand penalty units or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both.”

 “(4) In addition to the penalty prescribed in subsection (3), the head of an authority which fails to make a report in accordance with subsection (2) shall be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal from office by the relevant authority.”

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, it would be better if the hon. Member explained the rationale behind this amendment. If it makes sense, we may concede to it.

I thank you, Madam.{mospagebreak}

Mr Lubinda: Madam, this is an innocent amendment in the sense that it tries to do exactly what is provided for in Clause 7(1) which has to do with instructions of the commission. The Bill suggests that if a head of a public body or an authority does not comply with the instructions of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), such a head will face some penalties that are provided for in Clauses 5, 6 and 7.

In this regard, the amendment is also to ensure that recommendations of the ACC are respected by heads of public institutions. For the sake of making it clear to my colleagues, the Bill, in Clause 8(1) says that the commission may, after an investigation into an offence under this Act, depending on the findings made, make such recommendations as it considers necessary to an appropriate authority.

Madam Chairperson, Clause 8(2) says that an appropriate authority shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a recommendation of the commission under subsection (1), make a report to the commission on the action taken by the appropriate authority.

 That is couched in the same way as how instructions must be handled, save for the fact that for instructions, there are penalties to be suffered by a head of an institution who does not comply. With recommendations, there is no penalty to be meted out against a head of an institution that does not make the report within thirty days. We are, therefore, just replicating the penalties provided for flouting instructions so that there are also penalties for failure to submit a report within the specified thirty days.

It is, therefore, a very innocent, but highly progressive amendment.

I submit and I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, these are administrative matters. To penalise people for this kind of thing by sending them to jail for one year is too stiff. We object to this amendment.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, in which case then the Vice-President is suggesting that he proposes an amendment to also delete the penalty on failure to follow instructions of the ACC. If it is alright for a person to be punished for not abiding by the instructions of the ACC, it should also be correct for a head of a public institution to be punished for failing to make a report in accordance with the law. Why put the law in place if you do not have penalties to ensure that it is abided by? This law suggests that if a head of an institution is given recommendations by the ACC, within thirty days, he/she must report back and say what kind of action he/she had taken. This is to ensure that the recommendations of the ACC are respected. Otherwise, you declare recommendations of the ACC totally useless if people are not going to be held accountable for failure to report on their action.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, I do not think the intention of lawmaking is to send everybody to prison. Surely, you can reform people without sending them to prison. In an administrative setting, I do not think that the best option is that anybody who breaks the law must go to jail. Do you want to spend all the money building jails?

I thank you, Madam.

The Chairperson: Address the Chair, hon. Minister.

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, I am sorry.

I thank you, Madam.

Question that Clause 8 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9 – (Director-General)

Ms Kapata (Mandevu): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 9, on page 12:

(a) in lines 34 to 36 , by the deletion of sub-clause 3.

(b) in lines 37 and 42 and in line 7 on page 13, by the re-numbering of sub-clauses (4), (5) and (6) as sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5).

The Chairperson: What is your explanation?

Ms Kapata: Madam Chairperson, the reason for moving this amendment is that we want to open the Office of the Director-General to other qualifications beyond the legal qualification.

Interruptions

Ms Kapata: Madam Chairperson, the first duty of the ACC is to prevent corruption. The second one is about public awareness and the third is about prosecuting offenders.

Madam Chairperson, the ACC has three fully-fledged directorates which include the Director for Prevention and Education, Director for Investigations and Director Legal. These directors are conversant with the work of their departments and are able to advise a Director-General who is not a lawyer.

Madam Chairperson, I submit.

I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, we strongly object to this amendment …

The Chairperson: Order!

Business was suspended from 1615 until 1630 hours.

[THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the Chair]

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, before business was suspended, I was just about to give our reasons for objecting to this amendment. I was saying that if the qualifications required for this office were removed, that is, being a Judge of the High Court or holding a high judicial office,  it means that we will leave it open, without any criteria, whatsoever, for anybody to get appointed to this position. Normally, in Zambia, the practice has been that, sometimes, we transfer Judges from the High Court or Supreme Court to occupy this position because these people will be making decisions on matters of life and death. These are matters that have to deal with lives or careers of other people and issues of prosecutions.

For instance, in South Africa, this is done by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Even here, in Zambia, this Act is tailored in such a way that even the provisions relating to the removal and appointments are equivalent to those of Judges or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, it would be dangerous to just leave it open, without providing any qualifications at all.

Therefore, we object to this particular amendment.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this amendment. I tend to support Hon. Kapata’s views on this issue because we should not be creating higher positions for a certain category of qualifications. It is like the way it used to be in the councils, in the past, when it was a requirement for a town clerk to be a lawyer but, today, there are people who are not lawyers who are performing very well in the councils.

Madam Chairperson, the job of the ACC is basically prosecution. Unless the Government is saying even the head of the Zambia Police Service and all the officers-in-charge must be lawyers, but this is not the case today. In this case, I do not support the idea of creating a position, specifically, for a certain qualification because even an accountant or a doctor can do this job. Why can we not just leave it open for anyone who has the ability to perform in this office to be appointed?

I thank you, Madam.

Mr D. Mwila: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, in augmenting the arguments presented by my two colleagues, Hon. Jean Kapata, who, when she was submitting, somebody rudely referred to her by her qualification as a nurse.

Laughter

Mr Lubinda: I would like to stress what she said that even as a nurse, she qualifies to be a Member of this House.

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Lubinda: In addition to that, …

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Lubinda, that did not come to the attention of the Chair. Therefore, you cannot spend time debating that. Please, debate the substantive matter.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, the substantive matter is that, any other qualification should be good enough for the Office of Director-General. Firstly, like Hon. Kapata said, the ACC is not only about prosecution, but also about systems and organisational development. Therefore, an expert at systems development and organisational development would be well qualified to be Director-General because he would advise public institutions on how to develop systems that close loopholes for corruption.

Madam Chairperson, secondly, the institution to which His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice subscribes, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), I am sure that when it submitted to your Committee, also made reference to that. The Transparency International of Zambia (TIZ), in its submission to your Committee …

The Chairperson: Order!

I think that we are going back into the actual debate.

Mr Lubinda, you are a very senior Member of this House. We cannot go into general debate. You simply qualify your argument. The report was debated and so, we cannot debate in that way because it becomes repetitive. You are qualifying why you want to remove that line and not what was debated in the general debate of the Bill.

You may continue.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, let me conclude by saying that these arguments that are being presented are shared by many people and not just the three who have debated. That is the reason we encourage His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice to listen to this very innocent amendment. We are making reference to what many people have suggested to this House.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Mr Sikota, SC.: Madam Chairperson, I do not agree with the proposed amendment. That is because if one is to look at the powers of the Director-General in Clause 11, it is quite clear that the person who will be occupying this position will have to make what could almost be termed as judicial decisions. You do need somebody who has a legal mind for him/her to effectively and fairly exercise the powers that are envisaged under the Act.

Madam Chairperson, I should have begun by declaring interest that I would qualify for such a job.

I thank you, Madam.

Laughter

Question that Clause 9 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10 – (Tenure of Office of Director-General)

Mr Chota (Lubansanshi): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 10, on Page 13:

(a) in line 21 by deletion of the full stop after the word “misbehaviour” and the substitution therefor of a colon.

(b) after line 21 by the insertion of the following proviso:

Provided that the Director-General shall not be removed from office except by the resolution passed by the National Assembly.

(c) in lines 22 to 44 by the deletion of sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5) and the substitution therefor of the following sub-clauses:

“(3) if the National Assembly, by resolution, supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all Members of the National Assembly, resolves that the question of removing the Director-General ought to be investigated, the Speaker of the National Assembly shall send a copy of such resolution to the Chief Justice who shall appoint a tribunal consisting of a Chairperson and two other persons to inquire into the matter.”

“(4) The Chairperson and one other member of the tribunal shall be persons who hold or have held high judicial office.”

“(5) The tribunal shall inquire into the matter and send a report on the facts to the President and a copy to the National Assembly.”

Madam Chairperson, I am happy with the amendment that I have moved, but I do not know about the Government.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, in all fairness, if the hon. Member has no reasons or rationale to advance, he should withdraw this amendment so that we move on.

Interruptions

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam, we reject such amendments. The President should initiate the removal of a Director-General in the same way that we have provisions which are similarly related to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or Judges of the High Court. The Director-General is not an officer of Parliament like the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General reports to Parliament. However, the Director-General is appointed by the President and the President should be able to initiate his/her removal. That is why the provisions which we have provided, which protect this office, also provides for the President as is the case with the DPP or a Judge of a High Court to initiate the removal proceedings. Therefore, we object to this amendment. Perhaps, the hon. Member can withdraw it.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Mr Chota: Madam Chairperson, the appointment of the Director-General is ratified by Parliament. Therefore, we cannot give all the powers of appointment, removal and calling of commissions to the President. He should not be so powerful.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Hon. Members, I know that we are moving these amendments, but it is very important that we read correctly so that we are all guided properly. There are things that we are leaving out such as the tribunal.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, I think I support Hon. Chota’s view. The problem that we have in Zambia is that there is no separation of powers because everything is done by the President. Why can we not, for once, make laws where people can be removed by institutions and not the President? These people tend to have allegiance to the appointing authority. Let us suppose the corruption is at State House, how does a person who is supposed to be removed and appointed by the President investigate issues independently at State House? Therefore, it is a well-thought-out amendment. Let us remove the President from this issue so that people operate freely.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Madam Chairperson, under the existing Act, we have a very good provision where the Director-General’s removal is dependent on or can be instituted by the commission itself, the board or the commission. This is an adequate provision. There is no need for us to draw the President into every appointment. This also centres on the autonomy and independence of the ACC. If the Director-General is subjected to removal by the President, he will be working with fear and favour. That is not what we want to see happen to the ACC. We must provide for its independence and autonomy, even in appointments and removals of the Director-General.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Madam Chairperson, we want to make laws that will serve us well. In making these laws, we must recognise the history and the present time. The Executive headed by the President are the ones who utilise the resources of this country which are voted for by Parliament. So far, if you look at what is happening in terms of abuse of resources as is shown in the Auditor-General’s Report, this goes back to the Executive. That is a fact. Therefore, if you appoint the Director-General of the ACC, most of the resources are utilised by the Executive. In order to protect the Office of the Director-General, there is a need to listen to what Hon. Chota has recommended as an amendment so that there can be an element of independence. It is about the utilisation of the resources of this country and not politics.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi: The suggestion by Hon. Chota is not political. I think that, for once, we should do that which is necessary to move this country forward.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services (Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha): Madam Chairperson, first of all, I find very little merit in Hon. Milupi’s debate and all those who are saying that the President must not be involved in the appointment of the Director-General.

Madam Chairperson, in order to remove a Judge the President gets involved by putting in place in a tribunal. Why can it not be the same for the Director-General? Why is Mr Milupi misinforming the nation that we should not involve the President when he is aware, being a president of a party, …

Laughter

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: … unless he his giving us a taste of his ignorance, …

Laughter

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: …that the President is involved in the removal of judges ...

Hon. MMD Member: And the DPP.

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: … as well as the DPP. There is no merit in the argument from the other side that the President should not be involved in the appointment of the Director-General.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I would like to take heed of your guidance when you say that we should be factual.

Indeed, in being factual, Madam, I would like to draw His Honour the Vice-President and Learned Minister of Justice’s attention to Clause 9, sub-clause 2, which says that the Director-General shall be appointed by the President, subject to ratification by the National Assembly.

Madam Chairperson, this means that the President shall appoint the Director-General and that appointment shall be subject to the approval of the National Assembly.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, furthermore, there is merit in what Hon. Chota is proposing because it is also provided for in the 1996 Anti-Corruption Act. In the Act of 1996, the procedure for the removal of the Director-General on the basis of infirmity or a non-sound mind is well stipulated. What Hon. Chota is suggesting is that this Parliament should be given the authority to decide whether or not the Chief Justice must institute a tribunal to investigate natters regarding the Director-General and not leave it to the Office of President.

This is the reason Hon. Milupi advised you to be careful with the way you do things. The chief executive of those who are spending public money should not also be the one to decide on whether the Director-General of such an important institution must continue to be in office or not. We would like to ensure that there is a separation of powers so that the people’s representatives, gathered in this House, have a say in the continued stay of the person holding such an important office in this land.

Madam Chairperson, I end my submission. 

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Machungwa (Luapula): Madam Chairperson, I think that it is important to recognise that there is a separation of powers between the Legislature and Executive.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Machungwa: Madam Chairperson, in appointing people to high offices such as judges of the High or Supreme Courts, the Executive makes the appointments which are ratified by Parliament.

As Hon. Shikapwasha said, in the removal of people who hold such constitutional offices, a tribunal is involved. The President is not free, for instance, to dismiss a High Court or Supreme Court Judge or even the DPP. For this to be done, a tribunal has to be constituted. This is what is being proposed here. This is what exists in our laws. It is not anything new. I think that it is extremely difficult now to remove the powers of the Executive and transfer them to Parliament.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, the difficulty is that some people do not appreciate that management is important in anything. The President never goes on leave. He is on duty twenty-four hours, twelve months a year.

I would like to pose a question to you. When Parliament is on recess and the Director-General of the ACC misconducts himself or herself, how will the situation be handled? Would it be possible to summon Parliament for the purpose of disciplining the Director-General? Let us be realistic. There are certain issues that must be handled administratively. 

I pity Hon. Kambwili because the only issue he debates is …

The Chairperson: Order!

Debate through the Chair.

Laughter

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, I am talking about the administrative process. It would not be possible for Parliament, when in recess, to take care of the misconduct of the Director-General. The officers in the Office of the President can be quickly summoned and be able to advise the President on how to deal with the issue that will have arisen. The Office of the President is not just made up of the individual occupying the presidency. I find difficulties in you saying that Parliament must handle such issues. Administratively, it is not possible. Let us not politicise a straight-forward matter.

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Question that Clause 10 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.

Interruptions

Hon. Government Members: You are late!

The Chairperson: Order!

A division is called right there and then.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

You know the procedure when calling for a division. We just voted on another clause. Immediately I started talking, people stood up. You do not wait until I have concluded for you to rise up. It is not done that way.

Let us move forward, hon. Members.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12 ― (Deputy Director- General)

Mr Beene (Itezhi-tezhi): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 36, on page 24, in line 15, with the words as circulated.

The Chairperson: Order!

I think that on this particular clause, it is Hon. Lubinda who is supposed to move the amendment.

The hon. Member for Kabwata may present his amendment.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, in view of our not being granted a division, …

The Chairperson: Order! No!

Hon. Lubinda, debate. You have your amendment to present.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, my amendment cannot not be of any use since the division was not granted because it is a consequence of the previous one.

 I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Question put and agreed to. Leave granted.

Amendment, by leave, accordingly withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14 – (Declaration of assets)

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 14, on page 16, in line 20 by the insertion immediately after the word “Act” of a comma and the words “and within thirty days after each anniversary of their appointment to the office concerned, and not later than three months upon termination of the appointment”.

Madam, Chairperson, I am very satisfied with the amendment because it is very clear unless, His Honour, the Vice-President has any reason against it.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, he must give the rationale behind the amendment because the fact that we have not included it in the Bill means that we do not want it. Therefore, let him justify his amendment.

 I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 Laughter

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, Clause 14 of the Bill proposes that the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, Secretary and officers of the ACC shall make a declaration of their assets and liabilities upon appointment. What the proposal wishes to do is include that, besides making declarations at appointment, these officers must also be compelled to make declarations on an annual basis and that they must include, in their declarations, their incomes, especially at termination of appointment so that the first declaration makes sense. To make a first declaration and not make subsequent declarations makes the first declaration totally redundant. We want them to declare at appointment and thereafter so that we can see whether they have not enriched themselves illicitly. That is the reason for that provision. I am sure His Honour, the Vice-President is aware that all those officers who follow the Ministerial and Parliamentary Code of Conduct, are required to make a declaration upon appointment and annually thereafter.

 I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Mr Sikota, SC.: Madam Chairperson, indeed, what Hon. Lubinda has stated does make sense. It would be more useful if there were declarations annually so that if there is anything untoward that is happening, it is nipped in the bud very quickly and not years after the act.

Madam, we have seen that the Auditor-General’s reports which used to come years after the offences had been committed were ineffectual. Therefore, I believe this is a well-meaning amendment and I urge everybody to support it.

 I thank you, Madam.

Mr Milupi: Madam Chairperson, I think making a declaration at the commencement of one’s tenure in office is for the sole purpose of clearly indicating what wealth one has. The reason the law is asking for this declaration to be made is that if there is unexplained accumulation of wealth during one’s tenure in office, it can be nipped in the bud or exposed. Clearly, the proposal to have annual declarations is in line with the spirit of the law.

Madam Chairperson, furthermore, at the end of one’s tenure in office, it also makes perfect sense that one declares his or her wealth so that those in authority can investigate whether or not there has been undue accumulation of resources. I would, therefore, urge the House to support this provision because it makes common sense.

 I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, the problem we have with this proposed amendment is that its mover did not consult us about it in any way.

 Hon, Opposition Members: Aah!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: This amendment will have an impact on the other amendments that have been made because it shall also lead to all public officers to start filing their declarations. We need to plan for these things. If you say that all ACC officers should file their declarations every year, it means that we are now opening up this provision of the law to other public officers. Where are we going to keep all these annual returns? I am sure you remember what happened when Hon. Lubinda brought a similar amendment and failed to present it at the right time. I foresee a similar situation recurring. What happened is that we objected to it because we were not consulted about it. If the returns are to be kept by the Chief Justice, how many returns will he have for all Public Service workers in his office?  Have we provided for all those issues? We need to consult when it comes to such things. We will reject the amendment based on principle. If it will be necessary, such an amendment can be introduced by the Government after consultations have taken place at the right time. At the moment, we shall reject this amendment.

 I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

 Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, the desire for consultation was well met when members of the public, including hon. Members of Parliament, used the institution that is meant for such consultations, which is a Committee of this Parliament. Your Committee received submissions from various stakeholders, including myself, on this matter. Therefore, it is not good for us to just be arrogant because of our office and say we ought to be approached individually.

Hon. Government Members: Aah! Arrogance!

Mr Lubinda: We ought to use institutions that are established by law and not individuals. The issues in this amendment were brought before your Committee and are now being presented here in the people’s Chamber. Where else do we want to go and discuss these issues, if not here? I wish to acknowledge that His Honour, The Vice-President sees merit in this amendment. The only difficulty he might foresee regards its implementation. If he wishes, we have a lot of experts who can give free advice to him and that can work.

 I thank you, Madam, Chairperson.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, the trend that I am seeing developing in this Housing is worrisome. It is not a question of winning or losing, but one of being reasonable. How does His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice say that, in future, we can consider such an amendment? Why not consider it now because this is the appropriate time?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Why should we start preparing other documents for amending this Bill, in future, and yet we can do it on the Floor of this House now? It appears His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice has a habit of rejecting suggestions which come from the Opposition. He must realise that we are partners in the development of this nation. I think this habit must come to an end.

This amendment is appropriate and must be made. If he is talking about the issue of keeping the declarations, he should see to it that computers are bought. Why do you want to stick to manual systems, and yet we are in a computer world? Therefore, his argument cannot stand. We insist that this amendment be made.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Mulongoti: Madam Chairperson, Hon. Lubinda is the President of ABNAC …

Hon. Members: APNAC!

The Chairperson: It is APNAC.

Mr Mulongoti: … African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption (APNAC) …

Laughter

Mr Mulongoti: … that is fighting corruption. I am sure even the declaration states that everyone is a participant in the fight against corruption. I am aware that the police and the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) are involved in the fight against corruption. If you want to include the ACC, then you must involve all those who are fighting corruption. Unless you are saying only the ACC officers must be made accountable for their wealth, the police and the DEC officers, who are also involved in the fight against corruption, must be let free. This is why His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice is saying that there must be consultation. He is looking at a neat way of doing it. We should not be seen to target individuals as you are doing it.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.{mospagebreak}

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.

Question that Clause 14, on page 16, in line 20, by the insertion immediately after the word “Act” of a comma and the words “and within thirty days after each anniversary of their appointment to the office concerned and not later than three months upon termination of the appointment” put and the House voted.

Ayes – (40)

Mrs Banda
Mr Beene
Colonel Chanda
Mr Chazangwe
Mr Chisala
Mr Chitonge
Mr Chota
Mr Habeenzu
Mr Hamusonde
Mr Kakoma
Mr Kambwili
Mr Kamondo
Ms Kapata
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kasoko
Dr Katema 
Mr Katuka
Ms Limata
Mr Lubinda
Mr Lumba
Mr Malama
Mr Milupi
Mr Mooya
Mr Mukanga
Mr C. Mulenga 
Mr L. P. J. Mulenga
Mr Munaile
Mr Muntanga
Mr Muyanda
Mr Mwamba
Mr Mwenya
Mr Mwiimbu
Mr D. Mwila
Mr Nkombo
Mr Ntundu
Dr Scott
Mr Sejani
Mr Sikota, SC.
Mr Simuusa
Mr Syakalima

Noes – (78)

Mr Akakandelwa
Mr A. Banda
Mr C. K. B. Banda
Mr I. Banda
Mr W. Banda
Ms Changwe
Mr Chella
Mr Chilembo
Mr Chinyanta
Mr Chipungu
Mr Chisanga
Dr Chishya
Ms Cifire
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kachimba
Mr Kaingu
Mr Kakusa
Mr Kalenga
Dr Kalila
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe
Mr Kasongo
Mr Kawimbe
Dr Kazonga
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato
Ms Lundwe
Mr Lungu
Professor Lungwangwa
Mr Mabenga
Mr Machila
Dr Machungwa
Mr Malwa
Mr Mangani
Mrs Masebo
Mr Mbewe
Mr Mbulakulima
Mr Misapa
Mrs Chitika-Molobeka
Mr Mubika
Mr Muchima
Mr Mufalali
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti
Mr Mulyata
Mr Mung'omba
Mr Munkombwe
Dr Musokotwane
Mr Musonda
Mr Musosha
Mr Mutati
Mr Muteteka
Mr Mwaanga
Mr .M .B. Mwale
Mr V. Mwale
Mr Mwanza
Mr Mwapela
Mr B. Y. Mwila
Ms Namugala
Mr Namulambe
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata
Mr Pande
Mr Phiri
Professor Phiri
Dr Puma
Ms Sayifwanda
Mr Shawa
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha
Mr Sichamba
Mr Sikazwe
Ms Siliya
Mr Simama
Mr Simbao
Mrs Sinyangwe
Mr Sinyinda
Mr Taima
Mr Tembo
Ms Tembo

Abstentions – (01)

Mr Mwansa

Question that Clause 14 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

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

The Chairperson: A point of order is raised.

Mr Mwiimbu: Madam Chairperson, is it procedural, in this House, to allow people to vote when the results have already been announced? What has happened is that you have announced the results and then asked somebody to vote and this is the issue I am raising.

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu: We should have allowed Hon. Musosha to vote before the results were announced. The results are being shown on the board before he votes.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

The hon. Member who has raised the point of order will actually realise that although we vote through these units, the results are declared by the Chair. We do not direct hon. Members to read from the screens. Furthermore, the hon. Member who is voting manually was standing away from his seat to the side of the noes and I informed the House of the development. We have already gone through this and the House knows that the hon. Member has a faulty gadget. There is nothing on which an issue should be raised here.

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Clauses 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

(AFTER CLAUSE 36)

Mr Beene: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment after Clause 36, in line 15, on page 24 by the insertion of the following new Clause:

(Possession of unexplained property)

36. (A) Director-General, the Deputy Director-General or any officer of the commission authorised, in writing, by the Director-General may investigate any public officer where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such public officer –

(a) has abused or misused his office position or authority to obtain property, wealth, advantage or profit directly or indirectly for himself or any other person;

(b) maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;

(c) is in control of possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or

(d) is in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act.

(2) Any public officer who, after due investigation carried out under subsection (1), is found to –

(a) have misused or abused his office, position, or authority to obtain advantage, wealth, property or profit directly or indirectly;

(b) maintain a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;

(c) be in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or

(d) be in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act; shall, unless he gives a reasonable explanation, be charged with having or having had, under his control or in his possession, of pecuniary resources or property reasonably suspected of having been corruptly acquired, or having misused or abused his office, as the case may be, and shall, unless he gives satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control or into his possession or, as the case may be, how he came to enjoy the benefit of such services, be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where a court is satisfied in proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) that, having regard to the closeness of his relationship to the accused and to other relevant circumstances, there is reason to believe that any person who was holding pecuniary resources or property in trust for or otherwise on behalf of the accused, or acquired such pecuniary resources or property as a gift or loan without adequate consideration, from the accused, such pecuniary resources or property shall, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by or on behalf of the accused be deemed to have been under the control or in the possession of the accused.

(4) In this section, “official emoluments” include a pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits.

Madam Chairperson, this is a very important insertion to the Bill, if the Bill is to be meaningful to the country. As we sit here, we should know that we have a responsibility of upholding positive stewardship to the jobs which we do in our offices. The money from the National Budget should be accounted for by all in office.

The Chairperson: Order!

I urge the hon. Member to clarify his amendment rather than give a general debate.

Mr Beene: Madam Chairperson, I wish to state that this insertion is relevant and I urge His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice to support it.

I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, this particular Clause was debated and is equivalent to Section 37 in the current Act. We have argued that this is outdated and archaic and backward and, therefore, we do not need it in our statute books.

Madam Chairperson, why are we targeting civil servants? We have to be fair by encouraging people to invest genuinely. If they earn their income in a genuine manner, whether they are public officers or not, they should be allowed to invest. If we adopt this kind of law, we will just be legitimising a police State where people will be pursued, every now and then, over whatever they acquire from travelling allowances, sitting allowances and other emoluments.

Madam Chairperson, the Clause on abuse of office has been replaced by recognising that Section 99 of the Penal Code, which is on abuse of office, will be used to prosecute offences of abuse of office. There is also Clause 21 in the current Act which is, again, on the abuse of office. If we allow such kind of amendments, we are merely duplicating offences.

Madam, the proposed amendment suggests that a person can be presumed guilty until the contrary is proved. Under our Constitution, people are presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Again, under the Commonwealth legal system, a person cannot be compelled to give evidence in a trial and this is consistent with our Constitution.

However, this particular clause requires somebody to give an explanation to the court. If he does not do so, he is convicted. That is unconstitutional. Therefore, we reject this particular amendment in its totality.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, leadership is about looking after the people whom you lead and if the Zambians have said they do not want the removal …

Hon. Government Members: Which Zambians?

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: If the Zambians have said like they have said …

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: Mulongoti icongo.

The Chairperson: Order!

 Mr Kambwili will be very calm as he makes his points and concentrate on the Chair.

The Chairperson: You may continue.

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, thank you.

The people of Zambia have spoken and posterity will judge you very harshly.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: I am telling you people seated on the right hand side of the Chairperson that what you are about to do is tantamount to inflicting atrocities on the people of Zambia.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: You know what you are hiding and if you are not hiding anything, there is no reason why you would want to remove the Abuse of Authority Clause. Anyhow, only God knows. However, for sure, His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice is being inconsistent. On one hand he says we do not want to pursue people for abuse of authority, but on the other hand he is saying, there is a law under Section 99 of the Penal Code. Now, if there is a law under Section 99 of the Penal Code, why are you removing the other one? This is because the other one would complement the other law ...

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mr Kambwili: … and they will be in concordance. There is absolutely no reason to do this unless you people have skeletons in your cupboards. Then, you will remove this clause.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, I would like to appeal to His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice, having been at the same school at Mpatamatu Secondary School, …

Laughter

Mr Kambwili: … to think of the people in Section 21, where he used to live, Section 23 and Section 24, who want their taxpayers’ money protected. Do not just think of the people who are seated with you on the right hand side of the Chairperson.

The Chairperson: Order!

Speak through the Chair. Do not speak directly to the …

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, through you, I would like to request His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice who was a head boy and being a head boy, …

Laughter

The Chairperson: Order!

Laughter

The Chairperson: Order!

One thing we should try not to do is debate ourselves in that manner. I know you may be saying good things, but even good things can become very dangerous. Debate and speak through the Chair to His Honour the Vice-President and Learned Minister of Justice. Do not debate personal issues here.

Mr Kambwili: Madam Chairperson, what I was trying to say is that we were both head boys and I think we should feel the same ...

Interruptions

Laughter

The Chairperson: Order! I have ruled already. Any further debate?

Mr Kambwili: No, I am still not through.

The Chairperson: Order! You …

Mr Kambwili: I would like to appeal to His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice to use …

The Chairperson: Order! Your time has expired.

Mr Kapeya (Mpika Central): Madam Chairperson, the amendment on the Abuse of Office should be maintained. The Church has spoken against the removal of this clause.

Interruptions

Mr Tembo: Tefyabukaya, iwe!

Mr Kapeya: Madam Chairperson, the Church …

Hon. Government Members: Which church?

Mr Kapeya: Quiet!

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Kapeya, there is only one Chairperson and if you need protection, it will be granted. For now, you are still very safe. You can speak, but do not tell anybody to keep quiet. Withdraw that one.

Mr Kapeya: I withdraw the phrase ‘keep quiet’.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mr Kapeya: Madam Chairperson, the Church represents the heavens on earth. Therefore, when the Church says no to that, remember that the heavens have spoken.

Laughter

Mr Kapeya: And if you go against the heavens, you will be in trouble.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Laughter

Mr Kapeya: Madam Chairperson, we are told that the MMD …

The Chairperson: Order in the House! Let us listen to the heavenly talk.

Mr Kapeya: … is a listening Government. For this reason, they must listen to what the people of Zambia and the Church are saying.

Interruptions

Mr Kapeya: Madam Chairperson, if really, you are a listening Government, listen to what the Zambian people are saying.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Interruptions

Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Madam Chairperson, thank you very much for according me this chance to debate. Any Bill that is intended to exclude Zambians from participating in the economic development of this country must be rejected, ….

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: … hence the rejection of this proposed amendment. We have come this far to empower Zambians and we should not take Zambians backward. We must be forward looking.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: For example, my colleagues and I have respect for those who have spoken in favour of this clause because they are aware that their backgrounds are very rich. They own property and came to this House from that wealthy background. Assuming that one of them became Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, today, are they suggesting that he would abandon that Namakau Industry, …

Laughter

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Kasongo: … simply because he will be accused of abusing his office?

The Chairperson: Order!

Mr Kasongo: Because that is the implication …

Mr Kasongo continued speaking.

The Chairperson: Order!

You have no microphone. Do not talk about Namakau here. We have said we avoid debating each other personally. The hon. Member may withdraw his contribution about Namakau and debate further on abstract.

Hon. Opposition Members: Withdraw it!

Mr Kasongo: I withdraw the name ‘Namakau’.

Madam Chairperson, assuming that I am a supplier and was appointed to a position of authority, am I going to abandon my trade as a supplier simply because I have become a Minister and will be accused of abusing my office? We should not allow retrogressive clauses. The danger of trying to empower foreigners to the exclusion of Zambians means that we will continue to be destitute in our own country.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: Who is going to strengthen this economy if, for example, you exclude Zambians from owning property?

Hon. Opposition Member: Which clause is that?

Mr Kasongo: Mr Chairperson, is it going to make any sense for a former Permanent Secretary, for example, to be appearing in court for failing to retire imprest?

Hon. Opposition Members: Yes.

Mr Kasongo: Are you going to be happy?

Hon. Opposition Members: Yes.

Mr Kasongo: There are cases, for example, as His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice has ably put it, of Cabinet Ministers and civil servants who travel a lot and who may use the money from the trips to invest in a number of commercial and economic activities.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah! Zambians! Banabo.

Mr Kasongo: Why should you make investigations based on rumours? The point I am trying to make is that this clause must be rejected because it has the potential of empowering non-Zambians to the exclusion of Zambians. You people should be proud of being Zambian. You should be proud of activities that empower Zambians.

The Chairperson: Address them through the Chair.

Mr Kasongo: The economies of other countries such as Kenya, which is just nearby, are strong because the indigenous people are involved in various commercial activities. However, here we are, pretending that we are leaders, but saying that when we come into power, Zambians will not be allowed to own property. What type of leadership is that?

Interruptions

Mr Kasongo: Madam Chairperson, this amendment must be rejected 100 per cent.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Dr Puma): Madam Chairperson, I will be very brief in my contribution.

Mr Lubinda: Tell us how many years you have been sleeping.

Laughter

Dr Puma: This amendment should be rejected.

Mr Kambwili: Question!

Dr Puma: When you read through this amendment, you find that it is assuming that those in employment can only get money from their official source of income. In fact, it even goes further to include pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits in its definition of official source of income. However, we have seen public workers such as teachers and police officers who are very innovative and run private businesses such as shops or tuntembas. Would the revenue from such ventures be classified under official emoluments?

Mr Lubinda: Of course not.

Dr Puma: Of course not. Therefore, if we allow this amendment to go through, we will revert to the mentality that was there in the days of the United National Independence Party (UNIP). We will bring back the UNIP Leadership Code and start to glorify poverty. People who have some wealth will start living in fear, while those who have completely nothing will be very happy to be poor.

Laughter

Dr Puma: I think we should not go back to that mentality.

Laughter

Dr Puma: At the same time, if we allowed this amendment, we shall discourage entrepreneurship. All the civil servants who have shops in Soweto and Chilenje markets, for example, and have employed people to sell on their behalf whilst they are at work, will close their businesses down because that will not be considered as unofficial sources of funds. This is why this amendment should be rejected if this country is to move forward.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: Madam Chairperson, the amendment being moved by Hon. Beene is very simple and straight forward. We have had a history of fighting corruption in Zambia and our history tells us that the Zambia Police Force has no capacity to deal with issues of corruption. We created the ACC because corruption is a very delicate and specialised crime. We need people who are specialised in handling corruption to deal with this matter.

Madam Chairperson, as you are aware, the Penal Code is mostly applied by the police, who, in this case, have no capacity to handle issues of corruption. Therefore, it is just correct that this amendment be included in the ACC Act so that the commission can have the authority and capacity to deal with corruption.

Madam Chairperson, I am saddened by the debate of some hon. Members who are saying that this amendment will make public officers not to engage in business. I have not come across any clause in the proposed amendment that is stopping civil servants from owning businesses. That is a total misunderstanding of the proposed amendment. For example, a public servant can get a mortgage from the Zambia National Building Society and the transaction will be traceable. What is wrong with that? However, if a public servant starts building a mansion in Chalala which even an hon. Minister cannot build, how can one explain such accumulation of wealth?

Madam Chairperson, it is also totally misleading on the part of His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice, who is a learned counsel, to say that this amendment on abuse of office is against the provisions of the Constitution. If, indeed, it is against the provisions of the Constitution, then what about the Penal Code in which the Government wants to maintain the same provisions of this proposal? Surely, one law cannot be in conflict with the Constitution when the other law, which has the same provisions, is not. If, indeed, the argument is that this amendment is against the provisions of the Constitution, then even the Penal Code should not stand as it is. Therefore, I totally support the amendment being moved by Hon. Beene and urge the House to also do the same.

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}

Mr Mwenya (Nkana): Madam Chairperson, this clause is very important and surely needs to be retained. I do not think the party in power, today, should really champion the removal of the abuse of office clause. When we look at the history of this country, especially in connection with the plunder and looting of this country’s resources, there have been a lot of cases where there have been serious allegations of abuse of office. There have been a lot of matters and cases in court, all pointing to senior leaders in Government having participated in plundering the economy of this country.

Madam Chairperson, are we trying to remove this clause to protect our misdeeds? Are our colleagues on your right trying to create an impression here that they are aware that the Government might change next year and, therefore, know that the law cannot be applied in retrospect when we decide to reintroduce it? The issue at hand here is about integrity. As representatives of the people, we have to know what is best for this country and the Zambian people. All of us, hon. Members on both sides of the House, have to, convincingly, ask ourselves whether what we want to do is right.

Madam Chairperson, as the previous speaker mentioned, we have already seen that the abuse of office is so rampant in this country. We know of cases of abuse of office such as those at the Ministry of Health and Road Development Agency (RDA). All these are serious issues and if we remove the clause on abuse of office, we are opening a Pandora’s Box and allowing every Jim and Jack to now loot and turn this country into a play ground. It is important that this clause is retained for the betterment of this nation.

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

The Deputy Minister of Justice (Mr Chilembo): Madam Chairperson, Section 99 of the Penal Code, where there is a clause which deals with abuse of authority of office, is similar to the one in the ACC Act. However, the difference is that under the Penal Code, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not on the accused. That is the rationale behind us retaining the clause in the Penal Code. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that is what our Constitution says. However, under this proposed amendment, which is similar to Section 37 of the current Act, the accused is presumed guilty unless the contrary is proven. That is not the way we make laws.

 That is not the way to make laws. Laws must be fair and comply with the acceptable international standards. We are not under a French legal system which operates on the presumption of guilty of an accused. With us, the accused is innocent. Therefore, there are reasons we are saying Section 89 in the Penal Code is sufficient. This is why we rely on it. It will work very well with Section 21 in the current Bill on abuse of authority. The only problem we have now is that we have just picked one item. We should read everything together to see the effect. I also note that we would like civil servants to be presumed guilty when they have something good, but we have heard arguments from hon. Members of Parliament refusing to be part of the term which will constitute public officers. Why ...

Interruptions

Mr Chilembo: ... run away from this? If this is done, then you will end up punishing the civil servants, but you will be rich.

Laughter

Mr Chilembo: Why are you like that? Can you stop that?

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Laughter

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.

Question that after Clause 36, in line 15, on page 24, by the insertion of the following new clause:

Possession of Unexplained Property

36. (A) Director-General, the Deputy Director-General or any of the Commission authorised in writing by the Director-General may investigate any public officer where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such public officer –

(a) has abused or misused his office position or authority to obtain property, wealth, advantage or profit directly or indirectly for himself or any other person;

(b) maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;

(c) is in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or

(d) is in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act.

(2) Any public officer who, after due investigation carried out under subsection (1), is found to –

(a) have misused or abused his office, position, or authority to obtain advantage, wealth, property or profit directly or indirectly;

(b) maintain a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments;

(c) be in control or possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments; or

(d) be in receipt of the benefit of any services which he may reasonably be suspected of having received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act;

shall, unless he gives a reasonable explanation, be charged with having, or having had under his control or in his possession of pecuniary resources or property reasonably suspected of having been corruptly acquired, or having misused or abused his office, as the case may be, and shall, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control or into his possession or, as the case may be, how he came to enjoy the benefit of such services, be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where a court is satisfied in proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) that, having regard to the closeness of his relationship to the accused and to other relevant circumstances, there is reason to believe that any person who, holding pecuniary resources or property in trust for or otherwise on behalf of the accused, or acquired such pecuniary resources or property as a gift, or loan without adequate consideration, from the accused, such pecuniary resources or property shall, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by or any behalf of the accused, be deemed to have been under the control or in the possession of the accused.

(4) In this section, “official emoluments” include a pension, gratuity or other terminal benefits put and the House voted.

Ayes – (38)

Mrs Banda
Mr Beene
Colonel Chanda
Mr Chisala
Mr Chitonge
Mr Chota
Mr Habeenzu
Mr Hamududu
Mr Hamusonde
Mr Kakoma
Mr Kambwili
Mr Kamondo
Ms Kapata
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kasoko
Dr Katema
Mr Katuka
Ms Limata
Mr Lubinda
Mr Lumba
Mr Malama
Mr Matongo
Mr Milupi
Mr Mooya
Mr C. Mulenga
Mr L. P. J. Mulenga
Mr Muntanga
Mr Muyanda
Mrs Mwamba
Mr Mwenya
Mr Mwiimbu
Mr D. Mwila
Mr Ntundu
Mrs Phiri
Dr Scott
Mr Sejani
Mr Simuusa
Mr Syakalima

Noes – (78)

Mr Akakandelwa
Mr A. Banda
Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.
Mr I. Banda
Mr W. Banda
Ms Changwe
Mr Chella
Mr Chilembo
Mr Chinyanta
Mr Chipungu
Mr Chisanga
Dr Chishya
Mr Chongo
Ms Cifire
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kachimba
Mr Kaingu
Mr Kakusa
Mr Kalenga
Dr Kalila
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe
Mr Kasongo
Dr Kawimbe
Dr Kazonga
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato
Ms Lundwe
Mr Lungu
Professor Lungwangwa
Mr Mabenga
Mr Machila
Dr Machungwa
Mr Malwa
Mr Mangani
Mr Mbewe
Mr Mbulakulima
Mr Misapa
Mrs Chitika-Molobeka
Mr Mubika
Mr Muchima
Mr Mufalali
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti
Mr Mulyata
Mr Mung’omba
Mr Munkombwe
Dr Musokotwane
Dr Musonda
Mr Musosha
Mr Mutati
Mr Muteteka
Mr Mwaanga
Mr V. Mwale
Mr M. B. Mwale
Mr Mwanza
Mr Mwapela
Mr B. Y. Mwila
Ms Namugala
Mr Namulambe
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata
Mr Pande
Mr Phiri
Professor Phiri
Dr Puma
Ms Sayifwanda
Mr Shawa
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha
Mr Sichamba
Mr Sikazwe
Ms Siliya
Mr Simama
Mr Simbao
Mrs Sinyangwe
Mr Sinyinda
Mr Taima
Mr F. R. Tembo
Ms V. Tembo

Abstentions (1)

Mr Mwansa

Question that Clause 36, in line 15, on page 24 put and negatived.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Chairperson: Order!

Clauses 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 (Corroborative Evidence of Pecuniary Resources or Property)

Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment after Clause 61, on page 34:

In line 10, by the insertion of the following new clause 61. A:

Corroborative 61. A  In any proceedings in respect of an offence under Part IV, the fact evidence of that an accused person is in possession, for which he cannot satisfactorily pecuniary account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known resources or sources of income or that he had at or about the time of the alleged property offence, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for
which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and may be taken into consideration by the court as corroborating the testimony of any witness in such proceedings that the accused person accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain the gratification and as showing that such gratification was accepted or attempted to be obtained corruptly as an inducement or reward.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an accused person shall be deemed to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property, or to have obtained an accretion thereto, notwithstanding that such pecuniary resources or property is held, or such accretion thereto is obtained, by any other person as to whom there is reason to believe, having regard to his relationship to the accused person or to any other circumstances, that he is holding such pecuniary resources or property or has obtained such accretion thereto in trust for, or for or on behalf of, the accused person, or has obtained such accretion thereto in trust for, or for or on behalf of, the accused person, or as gift from him unless the contrary is proved.

Mr Kakoma: Madam Chairperson, this is a straight forward insertion. We are merely trying to strengthen the law and improve on the provisions so that corroborative evidence by witnesses is taken into account during prosecution.

Madam Chairperson, some people try to hide their corruptly obtained properties through children and relatives. When witnesses testify on this, the courts of law should consider such evidence.

I thank you, Madam.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: For the sake of fairness to the House, the hon. Member should have withdrawn this amendment …

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: … because, in its current form, it is hanging. This is supposed to be read with what we have rejected in Clause 36.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: This is because it talks about being in possession of property disproportionate to sources of income. This is equivalent to Section 50 in the current Act which we have also removed. It was supposed to be read with Section 37 of the Act which we have now removed.

Therefore, this amendment has no place in the Act. It does not make sense and should, therefore, be withdrawn. We object strongly to this amendment and reject it because it distorts the Bill.

I thank you, Madam.

Laughter

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, this amendment should not be trivialised. Let me show that some of the arguments that were given in opposition to this and the sister clause which was rejected, were extremely defective, ill-thought through and not fit to be advanced in such an honourable House. What do I mean?

Madam, these amendments have been called names, including retrogressive, archaic, and draconian. This amendment is to protect society against people who acquire wealth illicitly. This particular one talks about a person who has wealth that they cannot account for. It does not say that whoever has wealth above their official earnings, no. It says that anyone who has property disproportionate to his known sources which they cannot account for.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: If a person has some business somewhere and they go to court, he/she can show the court that he/she accumulated the wealth as a result of his/her business and the court should accept that.

The reason I say that some of these arguments are extremely petty and not befitting of this House is that this is a very recent law, not draconian or archaic, because it is being applied in many advanced economies, some of which are more advanced than ours. They include countries that we aspire to emulate which include China and Malaysia.

Madam Chairperson, illicit enrichment in the UN Cap states that:
 
 “Every state party shall come up with measures to establish a criminal offence when committed intentionally illicit enrichment that is significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income”.

There is nowhere in this amendment where it suggests, like some people have argued, that it will preclude Zambians from being enterprising. There is nowhere whatsoever. This is only to say that if, for example, Hon. Kasongo acquires property, he must be able to say how he acquired that property if it is not commensurate with his earnings.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: That is what the law suggests. He must not be allowed to hide in his kantemba even if it is known that his kantemba does not generate the resources he claims it does. 

Madam Speaker, in addition, this law also ensures that everyone who is enterprising formalises his/her enterprise so that it is registered, known by the State and captured by the tax collector. As things are now, people go moonlighting and do not declare tax to the State. They hide behind the fact that the law has no provision for them to explain their illicit enrichment. That is the intention of this innocent law.

Madam, I would like to refer to what LAZ said on this issue …

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: … of presumptive guilt. LAZ submits as follows:

 “It has been posited that this provision of the law shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution and places it on an accused. This is not true. The provision merely requires a public officer to explain how he utilised his office …

Mr Kaingu: On a point of order, Madam.

Mr Kakoma:  Ikala panshi, iwe!

The Chairperson: Order!

A point of order is raised

Mr Kaingu. I thank you, Madam Chairperson. Is Hon. Lubinda, who has tried so hard the whole afternoon to convince us to adopt what is wrong, in order to continue debating in this manner by opening debate on this subject when we are now in the Committee Stage? I need your serious ruling, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Chairperson: Order!

The point of order raised brings out the fact that there was debate during Second Reading where all these issues came through and that, for now, we are dealing with a new insertion which should be clarified to the House by stating what it means and why it is important as opposed to going back to general debate.

That point of order is very valid. Therefore, I call upon the hon. Member debating to clarify the new insertion in Clause 61(A).What does it mean? Explain what you are saying so that people can understand it and then decide whether to agree with you or not. That is the way we are supposed to do it and not just debate a lot of different issues. Let us be specific and explain that particular insertion or amendment.

Therefore, as the hon. Member continues with his debate, he will consider the guidance and try to explain the actual insertion in Clause 61 and not to start a general debate because that was already done.

Hon. Lubinda, may you, continue please.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, I thank you for the guidance.

Madam Chairperson, the insertion is very clear because it states that an accused person shall be deemed to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property, or to have obtained an accretion thereto, notwithstanding that such pecuniary resources or property is held, or such accretion thereto is obtained, by any other person as to whom there is reason to believe, having regard to his relationship to the accused person or to any other circumstances, that he is holding such pecuniary resources or property or has obtained such accretion thereto in trust for, or for or on behalf of, the accused person, or as a gift from him unless the contrary is proved.

 We have argued that it is against the Constitution to be in possession of pecuniary property. I want to lay it bare that other fundis of law, including the body of lawyers, have stated that the arguments by the Executive against what we are saying are frivolous. It is like their arguments are standing on one leg. What they are saying is not correct and that is the point I am trying to put forward.

Madam Chairperson, in addition, I also would like to state that this country, according to the Constitution, is a Christian nation. If people want to find out who made submissions to your Committee, I want to put it on record, that the Church leaders have. I was in the Anglican Cathedral on Sunday where His Excellency was told …

The Chairperson: Order!

Interruptions

The Chairperson: Hon. Members, I think, I am extremely generous. We cannot keep going back to the issues which we have already debated. We know who said what but, at the moment, we want you to clarify the amendment on the Floor of this House. What does it mean? That is what you are supposed to be doing. I know we are going over a lot of different issues but, for the last time, try to clarify only those which you need to.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, our intention with this amendment is to ensure that we retain the provisions of the 1996 Anti-Corruption Act in so far as Clause 50 is concerned because this law has proved to be extremely important in the fight against corruption.

Mr Kasongo: Yalifwa!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Chairperson, that is my submission.

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.
 
Question that after Clause 61, in line 10, on page 34,

1 by the insertion of the following new clause 61 (A):

(1) 61. A In any proceedings in respect of an offence under Part IV, the fact that an accused person is in possession, for which he cannot satisfactorily account of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income or that he had at or about the time of the alleged offence, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and may be taken into consideration by the court as corroborating the testimony of nay into consideration by the court as corroborating the testimony of any witness in such proceedings that the accused person accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain the gratification and as showing that such gratification was accepted or obtained or agreed to be accepted or attempted to be obtained corruptly as an inducement or reward.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an accused person shall be deemed to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property, or to have obtained an accretion thereto, notwithstanding that such pecuniary resources or property is held, or such accretion thereto is obtained, by any other person as to whom there is reason to believe, having regard to his relationship to the accused person or to any other circumstances, that he is holding such pecuniary resources or property or has obtained such accretion thereto in trust for, or for or on behalf of, the accused person, or as a gift from him unless the contrary is proved put and the House voted.

Ayes – (38)

Mrs  Banda
Colonel Chanda 
Mr Chazangwe 
Mr Chisala 
Mr Chitonge 
Mr Chota 
Mr Habeenzu 
Mr Hamududu 
Mr Hamusonde 
Mr  Kakoma 
Mr Kambwili 
Mr  Kamondo
Ms Kapata 
Mr Kapeya 
Mr Kasoko 
Mr Katema 
Mr Katuka 
Mrs Limata 
Mr Lubinda 
Mr  Lumba 
Mr Malama 
Mr Matongo 
Mr Milupi
Captain Moono 
Mr  Mooya 
Mr  Mukanga 
Mr Muntanga 
Mr Muyanda
Mr Mwamba 
Mr Mwango 
Mr Mwiimbu 
Mr D. Mwila
Mr Ntundu 
Dr Scott 
Mr Sejani 
Mr Simuusa 
Mr Sing’ombe 
Mr Syakalima

Noes – (79)

Mr Akakandelwa 
Mr A. Banda 
Mr Banda C.K.B, SC. 
Mr I. Banda  
Mr W. Banda 
Ms Changwe 
Mr Chella 
Mr Chibamba 
Mr Chilembo 
Mr Chinyanta
Mr Chipungu 
Mr Chisanga 
Mr Chishya 
Mr Chongo
Mr Cifire 
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kachimba 
Mr Kaingu 
Mr Kakusa 
Mr Kalenga 
Dr Kalila 
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe 
Mr Kasongo 
Dr Kawimbe 
Dr Kazonga 
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato 
Mr Lundwe 
Mr Lungu 
Professor Lungwangwa 
Mr Mabenga 
Mr Machila
Dr Machungwa 
Mr Malwa 
Mr Mangani 
Mr Mbewe 
Mr Mbulakulima 
Mr Misapa 
Mrs Chitika Molobeka 
Mr Mubika
Mr Muchima 
Mr  Mufalali 
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti 
Mr Mulyata 
Mr Mung’omba 
Mr Munkombwe 
Dr Musokotwane 
Dr Musonda 
Mr Musosha
Mr Mutati 
Mr Muteteka
Mr Mwaanga 
Mr M. B. Mwale 
Mr V. Mwale 
Mr Mwanza 
Mr Mwapela 
Mr B. Y. Mwila 
Ms Namugala 
Mr Namulambe 
Mr Ndalamei 
Mr Nkhata 
Mr Pande
Mr Phiri
Professor Phiri 
Dr Puma 
Ms Sayifwanda 
Mr Shawa
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha 
Mr Sikazwe 
Mr Sikota, SC. 
Ms Siliya 
Mr Simama 
Mr Simbao 
Mrs Sinyangwe
Mr Sinyinda 
Mr Taima 
Mr Tembo 
Ms Tembo

Abstentions – (1)

Mr Mwansa

Question that Clause 61 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Chairperson: Order!

Clauses 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairperson: Order!

Business was suspended from 1830 hours until 1845 hours.

[MADAM CHAIRPERSON in the 
Chair]

The Chairperson: When business was suspended, the Committee was about to start considering Clause 70 in the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010.

Clauses 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 79 – (Regulation)

Mr Kapeya: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 79, on page 38, after line 29 by the insertion of the following sub-clauses:

“(3) The regulations made under subsection (1) shall provide for the annual declaration to the Chief Justice by public officers of their assets, liabilities and incomes before taking office and within three months of termination of office.”

“(4) The Commission shall ascertain the validity and accuracy of declarations referred to in subsection (3) within a period of six months from the date of submission.”

Madam Chairperson, the law should not be selective. When the law is there, it should cover all the citizens of the country. Why is the declaration of assets only limited to one class of society? Why are other Public Service officers not covered in this Act? I propose that all officers who work in the Public Service should be made to declare their assets upon entering office as well as on an annual basis subsequently and upon leaving office. The hon. Members of Parliament should also do the same upon entering this august House.

I thank you, Madam Chairperson.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Chairperson, I think we are engaging in repetitive arguments. We have already argued against this. I do not know why they are targeting civil servants. Civil servants should not be targeted in the way that these people are doing it. We want to make laws which will treat everyone equally and protect our hardworking civil servants.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: This is the type of law we want to have in this country.

Madam Chairperson, we have already argued against these particular amendments. There is no consultation. Where will they keep all these declarations? How many public officers are being talked about? Who will file all these things? We, therefore, reject this particular amendment.

Madam Chairperson, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Question that Clause 79 be amended put and negatived.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE

Mr Kakoma: Madam Chairperson, in view of the arrogance displayed by the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) Government, …

Interruptions

Mr Kakoma: …I will wait for 2011 to bring this amendment back.

I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Question put and agreed to. Leave granted.

Amendment, by leave, accordingly withdrawn.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Title agreed to. 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

_______

HOUSE RESUMED

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

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

The Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2010

The Financial Intelligence Centre Bill, 2010

The Anti-Corruptions Bill, 2010

Report stages on Thursday, 4th November, 2010.

THIRD READING

The following Bill was read the third time and passed

The Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professionals Bills, 2010

_______

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in  the 
Chair]

VOTE 09 – (Teaching Service Commission – Office of the President – K2,742,385,421).

(Consideration resumed)

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Chairperson, I thank you for the opportunity accorded to me to present this year’s estimates of expenditure for the Teaching Service Commission.

Mr Chairperson, the Teaching Service Commission was established under Article 115 (a) of the Service Commission Act Cap. 259. Section 13 (b) and 21. The same Act empowers the commission to make, with the consent of the President of the Republic of Zambia, regulations regarding its operational procedures and or to confer powers or impose duties on any other authority of the Government for the purpose of discharging its functions.

Mr Chairperson, the specific functions of the commission are prescribed under Section 122 of the Service Commission Act as follows:

(i) to make appointments to any office in the teaching service;

(ii) to make appointments on probation, confirmations in appointments, retirements and transfers;

(iii) to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in established teaching service posts and remove any persons from such offices; and

(iv) to conduct professional appraisals for teachers as well as sensitise them on their rights and responsibilities.

In 2010, the commission performed its functions with a budget of K2,593,533,057. I now present the 2011 Budget Estimates for the Teaching Service Commission amounting to K2,742,385,421.

These funds will support the portfolio functions of the commission in our continued efforts to provide efficient and effective teaching services to our youthful population.

Mr Chairperson, I, therefore, urge this august House to support this budget I have presented.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Chairperson, thank you for according me this opportunity to debate the Teaching Service Commission Vote.

Sir, first and foremost, I would like to state that the budget that has been given to this important commission is not enough. If we have to realise any meaningful contribution from the Teaching Service Commission, it must be well-funded. I have observed that, year in and year out, this commission is lowly funded. I, therefore, wish to appeal to His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice and the Government to ensure that this department is given adequate funds.

Mr Chairperson, I wish to add that the commission should also look into specific conditions of service for teachers. You are aware that teachers, at the moment, are lowly paid. Hence, this commission will do well to fight for better conditions of service for teachers.

Sir, teachers live in houses that are in a very deplorable state. The housing allowance paid to teachers can only be used to rent servants’ quarters on the Copperbelt and houses in shanty compounds in Lusaka. Therefore, I urge this commission to adequately engage the Government and the unions to make sure that teachers are given meaningful housing allowances.

Mr Chairperson, allow me to talk about the transfers concerning teachers in the teaching service. At the moment, the biggest problem that the Teaching Service Commission has is the issue of transfers. This is because the recruitment of teachers is done haphazardly. Most employed teachers are married, but they are made to apply for places in far-flung areas. For example, a married teacher on the Copperbelt may be forced to apply for a job in Shang’ombo because that is where a vacancy may be. Two years down the line, this teacher would want to join the spouse. This has caused a lot of problems and, as a result, many marriages have broken up.

Therefore, I would urge the Teaching Service Commission to seriously look into giving priority to married teachers by posting them to areas where their spouses live. This can also help to reduce the prevalence of the human immuno-deficiency virus/acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic amongst the teachers. As you may be aware, Sir, it is not normal for newly-weds to live apart, but for some of us who have been in marriage for over eighteen years ...

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: Sir, let me also talk about disciplinary issues in the Teaching Service Commission.

Two years ago, when I debated this commission, I said and I am still saying that the arrangement that applies as far as discipline is concerned in the Teaching Service Commission is not a very good one. It is extremely difficult for a teacher who is charged for indiscipline, today, to have his case heard. It takes two or three years from the date he or she commits the offence to be heard.

I have always urged this Government to introduce a system where each school or district will have human resource officers to look into disciplinary cases as quickly as possible. This is so because most head teachers are not feared by teachers because they know that, in as far as discipline is concerned, the heads have no authority over them.

Now, if a supervisor cannot handle disciplinary issues, it means that the subordinates will not follow the laid-down procedures because they know that if they are charged, today, the case will take two or more years to be heard and, at that time, it would have become meaningless. I want to urge the Teaching Service Commission to decentralise by employing officers to hear disciplinary cases in districts so that cases are disposed of quickly.

Mr Chairperson, confirmation of teachers is another issue. At the moment, I have teachers in my constituency who have worked for two years without being confirmed and some even die without being confirmed. As such, they lose out on some benefits which they would have enjoyed had they been confirmed. I wish to urge the Teaching Service Commission to expedite the issue of confirmations to enhance the performance of teachers.

Mr Chairperson, I now come to the issue of tuition in schools. I wish to state that most of the teachers in schools do not teach during the normal hours. It is like they want to deliberately produce half-baked pupils to compel them to end up in their homes or at private institutions to be taught at a fee. This is affecting the performance of a lot of children, especially those in Government schools. Therefore, I urge the Teaching Service Commission to seriously look into this issue by finding ways and means of discouraging teachings from offering private tuition.

Mr Chairperson, this whole issue squarely lies on the emoluments of the teachers because if they were well-remunerated, they would not engage in private tuition. They do this for survival, as in this way, they can raise extra money to pay for decent accommodation and take their children to school. I, therefore, urge the Government to seriously consider enhancing the emoluments, salaries and conditions of service for teachers so that we bring back the high level of education which was offered in the 1970s in Government schools.

 Today, in Government schools, it is easy for a teacher to absent himself or herself from work just by sending a pupil, relative or just anybody to tell the head teacher that he or she is unwell. There must be a systematic way of teachers getting leave from their head teachers. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the commission to put in place systems which teachers will follow to improve the education standards in the country.

Sir, it is a disturbing fact to note that, from 1970 to date, pupils still follow the same syllabus. In private schools, a lot of improvements have been made, but when you go to Government primary schools, pupils are still learning, uyu ni Kalaba, Seka ni mbwa. What has this got to do with the development of the child?

Mr Lubinda: Tell us the meaning.

Mr Kambwili: It simply says, this is Kalaba and Seka is a dog. That is an archaic kind of syllabus which should be done away with. We need the Teaching Service Commission to work together with teachers to come up with a syllabus which will develop our children.

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

The Deputy Chairperson: A point of order is raised.

Mr Chimbaka: Mr Chairperson, is the hon. Member for Roan, who is debating the Teaching Service Commission, in order to confuse the role of the Curriculum Development Centre (CDC), the Permanent Secretary and that of the Teaching Service Commission by debating in the manner he is when the role of the Teaching Service Commission is explicit?

I need your guidance, Sir.

The Deputy Chairperson: The point of order seeks to remind the hon. Member to consider the Vote before us and I would like to appeal to him to confine himself to the Teaching Service Commission.

May the hon. Member continue.

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

In conclusion, I would like to urge this Government to seriously find a way to double the budget allocation to this important commission next year.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mung’omba (Mpulungu): Mr Chairperson, thank you very much for according me an opportunity to present my maiden speech. I am the third person in the Mung’omba family to be sent to this august House.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: My brother Dean Mung’omba represented the wonderful Mpulungu Constituency in the 1990s.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: My other elder brother Willa Mung’omba was a Member of this House for seven years, representing the people of Mporokoso.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, forty-six years after the country’s Independence, it is fitting to look back and pay tribute to the great families of Zambia that have contributed to the growth of democracy in the country such as the Kaundas, Baldwin Nkumbulas, the Winas and the Kapwepwes, just to mention a few.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, I am here because of the generous and wonderful people of Mpulungu who, only last week, elected me to be their representative. They have conferred honour upon me which I must hasten to accept with humility and promise to do my best.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, even before being elected to this House, I have worked with the people of Mpulungu as a councillor, Council Planning Committee Chairman, Council Chairman, Amicaal Member and Local Government Association of Zambia, Northern Province and Law and Research Chairperson.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, I, alone, cannot provide the answers to the problems faced by my constituency, but I am pleased to be part of these honourable and gallant Members of this House, whose pledge is to overcome, among other things, development challenges.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, my constituency is, perhaps, one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. Nearly a third of Mpulungu Constituency is covered by Lake Tanganyika and, at some point, it is fed by Luvu River and several streams that span the Yendwe Valley. The Ndole and Nkamba shores are the home of the Kasaba Bay. These are incredibly beautiful places with unlimited potential for world class tourism.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Mr Chairperson, these bays are in the game park which adds beauty and richness to the lake. I am glad to mention that the Government has embarked on the rehabilitation of Kasaba Bay. A new road is under construction from Mbala to Mpulungu via Kasaba Bay and the people are very happy about this development.

Mr Chairperson, works to provide Kasaba Bay with electricity have already started, Chimbamilonga included.

Mr Sikazwe: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: These projects are creating employment to the people of Mpulungu and it is hoped that more employment will be created by Kasaba Bay and other places along Lake Tanganyika.

Mr Chairperson, at this place called Mpulungu, there is a harbour which is unique in Zambia. It is what we could call the Northern Port of the country. In order to develop it further, the Government has repossessed it so that it becomes a public utility for use by many exporters to countries up north that lie on the shores of Lake Tanganyika such as, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and other neighbouring countries in the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) Region.

In this regard, we urge the Government to work with its counterparts in the region to make Lake Tanganyika an international highway to both cargo and passenger transportation. The people of Mpulungu further wish to urge the Government to quickly come up with a port authority at Mpulungu to expand and develop the harbour. Further, Mpulungu District Council should be allowed to benefit from the economic activities of the harbour. For this reason, there is a need to build more quays to avoid unnecessary demurrage.

Sir, with improved agricultural production in the country, I can foresee an increased use of Mpulungu Harbour. As hon. Members are aware, considerable quantities of sugar, cement and, now, steel are being shipped to COMESA countries through the port of Mpulungu. An active harbour at Mpulungu will create jobs for our people who are already comfortable with the use of the lake.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Sir, the Zambian section of Lake Tanganyika also supports intensive inshore fisheries. There are also commercial fisheries comprising nearly 28 per cent fish exploitation such as kapenta and bukabuka, popularly known as ingobo. Unfortunately, there is evidence of over exploitation of some of the fish stocks of the lake and this has lead to a significant decrease in the catch per unit effort of the kapenta and other species.

We hope that appropriate measures, through the Department of Fisheries, can be taken to ensure that fishing remains the mainstay of the people of Mpulungu. It may be pointless to control bad fishing practices only on one side of the lake. In this regard, the Government should consider working out protocols with other States surrounding Lake Tanganyika to harmonise fishing practices and mitigate against depletion of fish stocks under the Lake Tanganyika Integrated Management Programme. This comprises Tanzania, Zambia, the DRC and Burundi.

Mr Sikazwe: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Sir, let me also refer to the issue of agriculture, which is also one of the major employers of the people of Mpulungu and the main source of income at the subsistence level. The Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP) introduced by the Government in recent years has gone a long way in encouraging people to grow more maize, beans, millet, sorghum and cassava.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: The plateau area of Mpulungu Constituency has also great potential for coffee and tea growing. With the certainty of good rains and quicker delivery of inputs, food production will be assured in Mpulungu. High crop yields or bumper harvests can be of no use if the system of food security is not well established. Food production must be secured with good storage facilities that are accessible to the people. If this is done, levels of malnutrition, especially amongst children, would be reduced. In other words, food security must impact on health positively and reduce hunger.

Sir, with regard to education, I wish to commend the Government for the establishment of Mpulungu High School which is known as John Mwanakatwe High School …

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: … and several other basic schools in the area. This is a reflection of the Government’s commitment towards education. Due to its multi-sectoral nature, education promotes health, agriculture and technology. In particular, it impacts well on vocational and artisan training of young people, especially in the fields of agriculture, tourism, textile and technology.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Sir, I now would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who assisted in my campaign.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: First and foremost, I wish to respectfully single out His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia and head of our party, the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), Mr Rupiah Bwezani Banda, …

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: … as well as His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr George Kunda, SC., MMD party officials at all levels in the Northern Province, hon. Members of Parliament, members of the MMD National Executive Committee (NEC) and, indeed, members of my family, especially my wife, brother, sisters, nephews and nieces. They all gave me the courage and strength to go through the by-election. To them all, I wish to say a big thank you. My victory in Mpulungu simply shows that the MMD will forever remain strong in Mpulungu and, come next year, we will win with a big margin. 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: Sir, I would be mean if, in my conclusion, I did not pay tribute to my fellow candidates from other parties who also participated in the by-election. I wish to invite them to work with me in the interest of development for the people of Mpulungu.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: I would like to pay my respects to my predecessor, the late Hon. Lameck Kauzi Chibombamilimo. He was a free and liberated man who worked tirelessly for the good of Mpulungu. As an educationist, he had passion for knowledge and the people of Mpulungu will remember him for the many schools that were constructed during his time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mung’omba: He hated to see poverty amongst his people. It hurt him whenever he saw children wandering aimlessly. The late Hon. Chibombamilimo was a building block in our effort to have a better Mpulungu and Zambia. His footprints cannot be erased from our memories. He shall be greatly missed by the people, may his soul rest in peace.

With these few remarks, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Sinyangwe (Matero): Mr Chairperson, thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Vote on the Teaching Service Commission. This is very close to my heart because I belonged to this commission, and I have a Teaching Service (TS) number.

Sir, the Teaching Service Commission is the employer of teachers and I can call it a mother of all commissions because of the large numbers of teachers it looks after. We have heard of so many teachers being employed year after year, but the funding does not correspond to the work that they are doing.

Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mrs Sinyangwe: The teachers are everywhere. We also complain of their being not confirmed on time. The Teaching Service Commission must have means of going round to meet the teachers in provinces and districts so that their problems can be listened to and they confirm them there and then if it is possible. However, one matter that drew my attention when I looked at the budget was the vote on fleet management even though I do not know what fleet the Teaching Service Commission has. I think what we need to do is buy it good vehicles that will take it around the country so that its workers can perform their duties. If they do not have proper vehicles, it will be very difficult for them to move around the country. I know that a teacher must teach for six months to be confirmed, but it takes longer because of the workload that the employees of the commission have. It is difficult for them to move around because they are overworked and receive poor funding.

The other issue which is critical to the commission is capacity building. This year, that component received about K72 million, but it has been allocated K50 million for next year. I think more money should be allocated for capacity building. Why do I say so? I think the teachers who come from the colleges do not seem to know what their conditions of service are and what is expected of them. One day, I met a teacher who was almost in tears saying that he had worked for so many years, but was not confirmed and he did not know whether when he retires, this will be a problem. Thus, the commission needs to go round and tell teachers what is expected of them. Much more, teachers must realise that they are civil servants and that is a point which they are missing. We find a lot of teachers being engaged in politics and doing wrong things when they are supposed to support the Government of the day.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Sinyangwe: If teachers start being partisan, then we are going to have a lot of problems in this country. Therefore, I urge the Teaching Service Commission to talk to the teachers regarding this issue. They must know who they are and their limits because I have seen that even when they called to go into polling stations as civil servants, they start acting otherwise. I think we need to talk to our teachers seriously so that they can keep doing the right thing.

Lastly, I would like to commend the Teaching Service Commission for the work it is doing. Its job is to find teachers for pupils and not to find employment for teachers. For as long as we have pupils, more teachers must be recruited. We should not even count the numbers. We should recruit teachers because there are pupils who need them out there.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ntundu (Gwembe): Mr Chairperson, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute on the Vote for the Teaching Service Commission.

When I look at this Vote, I take this Government to be a joker …

Laughter

Mr Ntundu: … because, as the previous speaker said, this is a key commission that needs a lot of funding. You should take time to read reports that come from the commission. Looking at the reports produced, you will find that the commission has been blamed on so many occasions, and yet the task that lies before it is not looked at.

The commission’s budget is nothing to talk about, considering the load of work that it has before it.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chota: Bwekeshapo!

Mr Ntundu: However, when compared to the budget of commissions such as the Anti-corruption Commission, who does more work? Let us be serious. I can see the Vice-President smiling. Please, let us be serious.

Laughter

Mr Ntundu: Do not take this as a joke. This is the most key commission above all the commissions that you give money. If I had my way, the budget for this commission would be over K50 billion for it to do all the work before it.

We have talked about the commission’s delay in convening sittings and confirmations, but how does it do that with K2.7 billion? What is K2.7 billion?

Laughter

Mr Ntundu: For some people, K2.7 billion is pocket money, and yet that is the money which has been allocated to a commission that has serious work to do for the country.

Sir, we know that the Government cannot give money as required, but this budget is too little for this commission. It is dangerously little. You cannot ask for good results from this commission on such a budget.

Hon. Opposition Members: No!

Mr Ntundu: Not at all.

Hon. Opposition Member: Why do you behave like that?

Mr Ntundu: Mr Chairperson, why do the people on your right behave like this?

Laughter

Mr Ntundu: If they have failed to run the Government, we can take over. We are ready to do that.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Government Members: How?

Mr V. Mwale: Take over what? The commission?

Mr Ntundu: You will see what will happen next year.

Laughter

Mr Ntundu: The reason we say that we shall change things when we take over is that we want Zambia to improve.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ntundu: You cannot improve education in Zambia with such funding.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Hon Government Member interjected.

Mr Ntundu: If we look at the money which you spend on by-elections, …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

(Debate adjourned)

_________

HOUSE RESUMED

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

(Progress reported)

____________

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice and Leader of Government Business in the House (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to

_________

The House adjourned at 1917 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 4th November, 2010.

_________