DAILY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FOR THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE TENTH ASSEMBLY

Friday, 15th October, 2010

The House met at 0900 hours

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

______

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I rise to give some idea of the business the House will consider next week.

Sir, on Tuesday, 19th October, 2010, the business of the House will commence with Questions, if there will be any. This will be followed by presentation of Government Bills, if there will any. Thereafter, the House will consider the Second Reading Stage of the following Bills:

(i)    the Agricultural Credits Bill,  2010; and

(ii)    the Veterinary and Paraveterinary Professionals, Bill, 2010.

After that, the House will consider the Committee Stage of following Bills:

(i)    the Lands Tribunal Bill, 2010;

(ii)    the Lands and Deeds Registry (Amendment) Bill, 2010; 

(iii)    the Lands (Amendment) Bill, 2010; and

(iv)    the House Statutory and Improvement Areas (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

Then the House will continue with the policy debate on the Motion of Supply. 

On Wednesday, 20th October, 2010, the Business of the House will begin with Questions, if there will be any. This will be followed by presentation of Government Bills, if there will be any. Then the House will consider Private Members’ Motions, if there will be any. Thereafter, the House will consider the Second Reading Stage of the Citizens Economic Empowerment (Amendment) Bill, 2010. After that, the House will consider the Committee Stage of the following Bills:

(i)    the Occupational Health and Safety Bill, 2010; and 

(ii)    the Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

The House will then continue with the policy debate on the Motion of Supply on the 2011 National Budget.

Mr Speaker, on Thursday, 21st October, 2010, the Business of the House will start with Questions, if there will be any. This will be followed by presentation of Government Bills, if there will be any. Thereafter, the House will continue with the policy debate on the Motion of Supply on the 2011 National Budget. The House may also consider any other business that may be brought before it.

Sir, on Friday, 22nd October, 2010, the business of the House will commence with His Honour the Vice-President’s Question Time. Then the House will consider the Questions, if there will be any. This will be followed by presentation of Government Bills, if there will be any. The House will then continue with the policy debate on the Motion of Supply and, thereafter, deal with any other business that may have been presented before it earlier.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

_________

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

The Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services (Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha): Mr Speaker, on 7th October, 2010, during my contribution to the debate on the speech by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Rupiah Bwezani Banda during the Official Opening of the Fifth Session of the Tenth National Assembly, I did allude to the point that the shortwave transmission by the Zambia National  Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) was being worked on so that both Radio 1 and 2 signals could be put on satellite. 

Mr Speaker, on 12th October, 2010, the hon. Member of Parliament for Mpika Central, Mr Mwansa Kapeya, raised a point of order in which he asked for clarification regarding the following points:

“Mr Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order. As you are aware, in fact, at one time, you were responsible for the ministry in charge of broadcasting in this country. Radio broadcasting played a pivotal role especially in developing countries such as Zambia in the area of information dissemination, education, entertainment and other developmental programmes. The rural areas of Zambia have been denied the services of the only national broadcaster, ZNBC Radio from 1st February, 2010, when the shortwave transmitter collapsed to date.

          “On Thursday, 7th October, 2010, at 1645 hours, the hon. Minister responsible      
           for Information and Broadcasting Services, when debating on the Floor of the  
           House, announced that the ZNBC Radio 1 and 2 signals will be available to rural   
           areas through the satellite system. I wish to quote what he said in part:

       “ ‘Shortwave is being aligned and put on satellite in order for Radio 1 and 2 to reach 
           the people of Zambia.’

       “Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister in order to mislead the nation by announcing that   
        the signal will be provided by satellite without giving further details as follows:

(i)    how listeners in rural Zambia will capture radio signals from the satellite into their radio sets; and

(ii)    the date when the satellite will start providing the said ZNBC Radio 1 and 2 signals to the Zambian rural listeners.

Mr Speaker, I need your serious ruling.”

The hon. Mr Speaker responded as follows:

“The hon. Member for Mpika Central did debate among other things, during the debates on the President’s Address, the very issues he has raised in his point of order. What he has quoted was the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services’ reply to his original debate. Obviously, the hon. Member for Mpika Central is still not satisfied with the explanation that was given by the hon. Minister responsible for broadcasting services, especially the technical aspects of what the hon. Minister said.

“Normally, I would have guided that the point of order awaits the time when the House will consider the Estimates of Expenditure for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services, but I believe, that is a bit too far in the future. Therefore, under the circumstances, I call on the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services to come to the House sooner than later to go over what he had said so as to amplify what he said in technical terms as to how, among other measures, the listeners in rural Zambia will be able to access the shortwave signal via satellite. If that is not what he meant, the hon. Minister will then inform the House as to what kind of transmission he meant would be accessed by the people of Zambia via satellite. This kind of information does not require fourteen days notice. Therefore, I believe, and I am satisfied, that the hon. Minister is able to advise the House on the matter not later than Friday this week.”

Mr Speaker, in line with your ruling, I now wish to provide further information on the issue at hand to this august House. The House may realise that from inception, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) and its predecessor has been providing radio services on a shortwave system which has been generating an analogue signal. The shortwave system has, therefore, been used to provide radio services to the rural population through transmitters installed at provincial centres. 

Sir, shortwave transmission, at the time when the equipment was relatively new served our people very well and the signal could be accessed both during the day and at night. This was the most suitable system because the shortwave signal is powerful and able to reach far, except in areas with hilly terrain where the signal gets disrupted. The rationale behind this is that radio signals travel in a straight line. For the signals to circumvent hills or mountains, there is need for booster stations in certain strategic points. The shortwave transmitters at the ZNBC were once replaced with the assistance of the Chinese Government. Otherwise, the corporation has been maintaining the transmitters with financial subventions from Government.

Mr Speaker, in 2008, the corporation replaced the antennas for shortwave transmission with a view to improving the signal. Service was generally improved, but another problem arose when it was discovered that the tuning mechanisms which had aged started failing to work properly, meaning that listeners could only receive a good signal during the day and not at night. The Government, therefore, provided the required resources to the tune of US$100,000 in 2009 for the purchase of spares, which enabled the corporation to switch to a particular frequency during the day and to another one in the night. 

Sir, however, in December, 2009, due to lack of funds to maintain these transmitters and due to the old age of the transmitters, the transmitter at Shorthorn in Lusaka West that was carrying the Radio 1 signal broke down. The corporation had no backup spares which would have enabled them to make the service continue. Radio 1 programmes, therefore, were placed on the Radio 2 shortwave transmitter. 

Shortly, afterwards, in February, 2010, even the Radio 2 transmitter broke down leading to a complete black out in areas that received their radio reception through the shortwave system. Places that are found in the rural areas were affected the most. Areas that had frequency modulation (FM) frequency transmitters continued to receive Radio 2 programmes. These transmitters are only in provincial capitals while other major parts of the country remained uncovered. 

Mr Speaker, when I told the House that the shortwave Radio 1 and 2 signals were being aligned so that people could access them via satellite, I had in mind the efforts that this working Government is making to take the radio signals on satellite, either through the partnership with Multi-Choice Zambia in which ZNBC holds a percentage of 49 per cent shares or the acquisition of satellite space by the corporation itself. I wish to inform the august House that if the hon. Member of Parliament for Mpika Central was just a little patient, he would have seen from the proposed 2011 Budget that the ministry has made a proposed provision for resources to enable the ZNBC rent its own satellite space on which it would carry the Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 4 signals and the ones for  ZNBC TV and TV 2.

Mr Speaker, speaking in technological terms, this will entail that the corporation will place the signal on satellite and will put up FM transmitters in all transmission points for the down linking of the signal from the satellite. This arrangement is going to be similar to the Rural Television Project in which Multi-Choice Zambia currently carries the ZNBC signal on satellite. The signal is then down linked to transmitters installed at transmission points. The signal is then distributed terrestrially (that is on the land) to individual television sets. 

Mr Speaker, I need to mention that this project is an on-going project and we hope that we shall be able to touch all the parts of the country by next year. As we are speaking, two signals are available on satellite, courtesy of Multi-Choice Zambia. The procurement process for the rural FM transmitters is almost complete with the delivery and installation of the first five sets of transmitters expected to be completed before the end of this year. This is to service Mwinilunga, Katete, Kaoma, Kawambwa and Mpika. All these things are part of our plans and are not happening because the hon. Member of Parliament for Mpika Central talked about the Radio 1 and 2 signals. These are the first five districts that are going to receive Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM reception beyond provincial centres and, indeed, beyond the line of rail. 

Mr Speaker, the Government has proposed for resources to the tune of K15 billion in the 2011 Budget to enable the ZNBC secure satellite space for five years and to purchase forty-eight FM transmitters for installation in rural areas in 2011. It is envisaged that this programme will cover the whole country in order for all the parts of the nation to receive FM transmission. The exact date cannot be given at this stage when this process shall commence because of the procurement processes. Our wish, however, is that as soon as the Budget is approved, these processes can immediately start so as to ensure that this project comes to a conclusion by the end of 2011 or, at least, before the end of 2011.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased, however, to inform this House that spare parts for the shortwave transmitters that failed in December and February have now been procured. These had to be specifically manufactured for our equipment, hence, the time it has taken for the corporation to acquire these spares. Orders were made in June, 2010 and the manufacturer had indicated that it would take 120 days for the spares to be manufactured. I need to announce that these spares will arrive at the end of this month and that, God willing, we should be able to put up the transmitters very quickly.

Mr Speaker, what this means is that while ZNBC will be installing FM transmitters to enable satellite transmission, the shortwave transmitters will be in use and the areas that are currently blacked out will be able to receive the transmission signal.

Mr Speaker, the Government is mindful that the majority of our people, especially in rural areas, depend on ZNBC Radio to follow the developments taking place in the country. As such, the Government is doing its best to ensure that our people are not starved of information. Moreover, FM transmission is digital and as the world moves from analogue to digital transmission, both in terms of radio and television, it is just right that ZNBC moves with the times.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members may now ask questions on points of clarification with regards to the contents of the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting Service’s statement delivered on the Floor of this House.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, the absence of the ZNBC transmission in rural areas is a serious matter. The hon. Minister said that the shortwave spares broke down in December, 2009 and February, 2010 and that the orders were placed in June, 2010. Why did the placing of the order take so long? 

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, the placing of the order took long, firstly, because the ZNBC had to find huge sums of money to remit to the manufacturer. Secondly, since the spares are analogue, the manufacturer would only start working on the order upon receiving money in the account. This is why it took so long. 

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kapeya (Mpika Central): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has confirmed that it is not possible to transmit shortwave radio from satellite and I thank him for that. Now, what will happen to those areas which will not be covered by FM? Mpika is a vast district and the FM will not be able to cover all of it. What will happen to areas that FM will fail to cater for? 

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, there is no failure in technology. The failure is in implementation of the technology. Like I explained, the FM signal will be transmitted from a satellite to transmitters on the ground. The signal will then be distributed on land. Where there may be obstacles such as mountains, another repeater station can be put up in order to repeat the signal to the next area until a larger area is covered. 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chisala (Chilubi): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has confirmed that the transmitters broke down in 2008. I would like to know why he lamentably failed to come to this august House to inform the nation about this sad development. 

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, there was no lamentable failure because immediately the signal collapsed the first time, the entire nation was informed by the ZNBC. I am sure that if the hon. Member had his ears to the ground, he would have heard many announcements both on radio and television informing the nation of the failure in transmission until repairs had been undertaken. There was, therefore, no lamentable failure. 

I thank you, Sir. 

Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Mr Speaker, was it not possible for the ZNBC management to use the appropriation-in-aid facilities to address this matter as quickly as possible instead of waiting too long?

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, the corporation decided to find the quickest possible way to raise the amount of money needed to bring in spare parts. It did this via the system of asking for the money from the parent ministry and, indeed, the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. The money was raised, but what took long was the actual manufacturing of the spare parts because this factory no longer manufactures analogue spare parts. They have all gone digital. 

When an order is placed for analogue, they have to reset their manufacturing plant to manufacture analogue spare parts. They do not have them on the shelf. You cannot find them anywhere in the world where they can be bought quickly. They have to be manufactured. This is what is causing the delay.

Mr Speaker, I thank you. 

Ms Kapata (Mandevu): Mr Speaker, in view of the non-availability of the ZNBC transmission in rural areas, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister what his ministry is doing to see to it that the private sector comes in to open up radio stations because the people of Zambia have the right to information and they need to be well-informed.

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, cognisant of the fact that information is a right and that the people of Zambia need to be informed, my ministry and Government have gone ahead and provided facilities to open up the broadcasting industry. At the moment, there are forty-eight radio stations dotted all over the country starting from Mwinilunga to Chipata and from Mbala all the way down to Livingstone. All these radio stations, whether community or commercial, are there to provide information. At the moment, about 100 applications are being processed in order for people to receive their licences. This is what this Government and my ministry, in particular, are doing.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Chanda (Kankoyo): Mr Speaker, since the Zambia Telecommunications Company (ZAMTEL) has been privatised, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister if the ZNBC will not find it difficult to link far-flung areas which ZAMTEL may not find profitable to pursue. 

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, this is one area that my ministry has been dealing with ever since it became aware of the fact that ZAMTEL would be privatised. We, as a ministry, have sat down to work out our contracts with the new owners to ensure that we continue to use some of their towers. I can assure the nation that the privatisation of ZAMTEL will not affect us.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mukanga (Kantanshi): Mr Speaker, due to the massive investment required to improve operations at the ZNBC to afford the listeners countrywide a better and efficient service, has the Government considered privatising the corporation?

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, on two occasions now, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Rupiah Bwezani Banda, has addressed this august House. In the last address, he indicated what areas of privatisation the Government was thinking about as regards the print media. 

Mr Speaker, the ZNBC serves as a national broadcaster. We have gone ahead and given licences to many other television and radio stations to provide for whatever gap is missing. The corporation is very professional and it is doing a wonderful job …

Mr Kambwili: Question!

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: … to ensure that the people of Zambia receive the best service.  

Mr Speaker, only recently, TV2 was opened. It is working well and being rated one of the best …

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: …not only in Zambia, but also in Africa.

I thank you, Sir. 

Mr Sikota, SC. (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister said the nation at large had been informed, in 2008, about the breakdown of the service via ZNBC. I would like to find out how this was possible since what we are talking about is the breakdown of the ZNBC transmission. How was the nation informed through a broken down service?

Laughter 

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, that is a lawyer’s kind of questioning.

 Laughter

Lieutenant-Generals Shikapwasha: His Honour the Vice-President told me that even when a person is very sick and about to die, a lawyer is always available. When I asked why it was like that, he told me that it was called ambulance chasing.

 Laughter

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: This is the kind of question.

Sir, in my statement, I said that we first had a breakdown on radio one. When this happened, we used Radio two to combine with Radio one and informed the people about the break down. When Radio two broke down, we used ZNBC TV and the media to inform the public.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Laughter

_______

HIS HOUNOUR THE VICE-PRESIENT’S QUESTION TIME

Mr Sichamba (Isoka West): Mr Speaker, knowing that His Honour the Vice-President is the hon. Member of Parliament for Muchinga Constituency, what is the impact of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in the rural communities?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, that is a very important question.

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: We are all familiar with the CDF and how useful it is in our constituencies. You do not have to follow laborious procedures to access the CDF. As such, it is being utilised in constructing schools, hospitals, purchasing of grinding mills and several other projects.

Mr Speaker, this particular fund is having an impact on rural communities in terms of development. That is why, as a Government, we have been increasing it systematically over the years.  We will continue to do that so that we can take care of the problems which the people in the rural areas may be facing.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr D. Mwila (Chipili): Mr Speaker, you will recall that I had posed a similar question to His honour the Vice-President on the British Government’s intention to move its mission from Zambia to South Africa and the answer was that it was not the case. Since the British Government has changed the system of obtaining visas as they now have to be obtained from their Pretoria Office, I would like to find out what the position of the Government is.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, that is a sovereign issue. As opposed to issuing visas from Lusaka, the British Government has decided to do so regionally. I understand that it is not only Zambia which has been affected. Therefore, it is up to the British Government to issue visas as it pleases.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lubinda (Kabwata): Mr Speaker, estimates of wheat production in Zambia, this year, are at 210,000 metric tonnes, which is only 10,000 metric tonnes above the requirement for local consumption. In the meantime, there is an import ban on wheat. I would like to find out from His Honour the Vice-President why his Government has allowed two traders to buy all the wheat for export purposes and thereby, increasing the local price of the commodity to the detriment of millers and jobs in milling companies. Furthermore, this has been done at the expense of consumers of flour products such as bread and biscuit. What is the rationale behind this which is not even benefiting the farmers who are the producers of wheat, but only benefiting two traders?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I am hearing about that for the first time. Perhaps, the hon. Member can give me more details in writing because that is a serious matter. That is the way we should approach serious matters as hon. Members of Parliament instead of just raising them in that fashion. However, importantly so, I have taken note of what you, the hon. Members have said. Let us have the details so that the hon. Ministers of Agriculture and Co-operatives and Commerce, Trade and Industry can look into that serious issue.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from His Honour the Vice-President whether, indeed, it is true that the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) Party has two militia groups, one in Kitwe called the crack squad and the other one in Lusaka called the Jumbo squad. If so, why has His Honour the Vice President or his President not condemned or suspended the people behind the two militia groups?

 Mr D. Mwila: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that the Ruling Party, the MMD, is a very responsible party.

 Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: …and does not engage in criminality or establishment of militia groups. That is illegal under our statute books and it is not allowed under the Penal Code. Political parties, not only the MMD, but also other political parties should discourage violence. We should try to do that instead of encouraging it.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Mr Lumba (Solwezi Central): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from his Honour the Vice-President how much the Government is paying the private company subcontracted to manage the uniform petroleum pricing.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, my understanding is that the system is self-financing. Therefore, there is no such engagement.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Sikota, SC. (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, arising from the recent rock fall and trapping of thirty-three miners in Chile, a situation which possibly could happen in Zambia, what lessons has the Zambian Government taken from that incident? Also, what sharing of information has there been with the Chilean authorities and how prepared are we, as a country, should we meet such an unfortunate set of circumstances.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, indeed, the entire world has learnt something from the Chilean experience. Zambia is a leading copper producing country and should, therefore, take a leaf from that. I believe that the ministries of Mines and Minerals Development and Labour and Social Security will continue to look into the issue of safety standards as this is a wake-up call for us

Sir, in Zambia, we have had experiences of our own. For example, in 1970, we had a serious accident in Mufulira. Apart from that, we have had these experiences because we have been mining copper continuously. We do a lot of mining here and, therefore, we should continue to share information on issues of safety and engineering related to that.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr V. Mwale: Mr Speaker, I would like to find from His Honour the Vice-President what the Government is doing to strengthen the fight against money laundering. 

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: You should ask learned questions like that one.

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, there is a tendency in this country for people to only talk about corruption, but issues of money laundering are just as serious and related to corruption. There are people who have been getting money from Taiwan and countries like that.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Money launderers!

Interruptions

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: That is a serious offence of money laundering.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: There are some people getting wealth from crimes and that is what money laundering is there to curb. Therefore, what we are doing is not only reviewing the law on fighting corruption, but also money laundering. Unexplained wealth can be tackled through money laundering laws. This is what we are doing. We are reforming the law on corruption and money laundering. We have introduced forfeiture of assets legislation. That is also part of the fight against money laundering.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Kapata (Mandevu): Mr Speaker, I have been in this Parliament for five years …

Hon. Government Members: Aah! Four years!

Ms Kapata: … four years, …

Ms Kapata laughed.

Ms Kapata: … and my cry has been for the welfare of the people of Mandevu, particularly, the people of Mazyopa. Several letters have been written to the Government ministries to assist in the relocation of the people of Mazyopa, but no answer has been given. May I find out from the His Honour the Vice-President when the people of Mazyopa are going to be moved and when the remaining part of Mazyopa is going to be legalised?

Mr D. Mwila: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I believe the ministries of Local Government and Housing and Lands are looking into that issue. Of course, if necessary, the Office of the Vice-President’s Resettlements Department can also be contacted so that we can look into that issue. 

I am aware that recently, some settlements around the airport were relocated. That is what we want to see in our city so that we can resettle our people properly.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that both His Excellency the President and the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, in their recent addresses to this House, did not mention the holding of elections under a new Constitution and the costs associated with the referendum, can His Honour the Vice-President assure this House and the country at large that the 2011 Elections shall be held under the new Constitution?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, the Constitution review process is on course. The Draft Constitution was presented to me. As recommended by the National Constitutional Conference (NCC), we should make amendments and clauses on which we did not agree, including the Bill of Rights, should be referred to a referendum. Therefore, what we are working on now is the Draft Constitution, which I will present to Cabinet in due course. 

The reason is that this Constitution has financial implications. We will create a new court system, a court of appeal, expand the National Assembly in terms of membership and several other new provisions. Therefore, there is a need for Cabinet to study these particular provisions. Once we decide on that, we will bring it to Parliament so that we can enact the Constitution.

Mr D. Mwila: When?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: There is still a lot of time. 

According to the practice and procedure, we have to publish the Constitution for about thirty days before it comes here. That is the course which the Government is going to follow, and the nation will be informed as we move through all the stages.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Beene (Itezhi-Tezhi): Mr Speaker, the past by-elections have been marred by a lot of violence by the participating parties.

Hon. Opposition Members: MMD!

Hon. Government Members: Nkombo!

Mr Beene: May I find out what concrete measures His Honour the Vice-President will put in place in the two up-coming by-elections in Mpulungu and Chilanga to ensure that people are not intimidated and those people distributing money and blankets are stopped by police officers.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, the responsibility of ensuring that there are peaceful elections lies on all the participating parties.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Some of the parties have violent formulae such as the Mapatizya Formula.

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, members should be discouraged from engaging in acts of violence and this should be done not only by the United Party for National Development (UPND), Patriotic Front (PF), Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), Alliance for Democracy and Development (ADD) and United Liberal Party (ULP). We should all discourage our members from engaging in acts of violence. That is all I can say. 

In fact, we have been discussing issues of the Code of Conduct for these elections and so, we should work together in ensuring that violence is eliminated in elections.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Chisanga (Mkushi North): Mr Speaker, the people of Luano Valley are appealing to you if they can be considered by providing them with the flying doctor services. After the killing of the pilot, the Flying Doctor Services have refused to assist the people of Luano Valley.

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, we are working on the issue of insecurity in the Luano Valley. The police and paramilitary are on the ground in trying to flush out the criminals there. We are concerned about that particular area and we would like to retain peace once again. Therefore, we are working on it.

I thank you, Sir.

Mrs Sinyangwe (Matero): Mr Speaker, sometime back, this Government instructed that only people about twenty-five or thirty years of age should be driving Public Service Vehicles (PSV). Yesterday, there was an accident in my constituency in which people died and the driver was only twenty years old. What laws is this Government putting in place to ensure that these laws are strengthened and prevent the deaths of people who die everyday?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, if it is a question of traffic laws, I think we have adequate laws to deal with the safety of the passengers on buses. The police are there to ensure that people observe the law and traffic regulations. There are adequate laws on that. If it is a question of implementation, the hon. Minister of Communications and Transport is there to ensure that if there are any short-comings, they are dealt with.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Mr Speaker, the Government recently extended the Voters’ Registration Exercise, but up to now, there is noticeable absence of the Department of National Registration, especially in rural areas where this exercise has been extended.

  I would like to find out why the Government has dispatched officers from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) to continue registering people who have no national registration cards (NRCs) and why itr has not correspondingly sent people from the Department of the National Registration to issue NRCs via the mobile exercise as is the case in Zambezi West.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, sometimes, that could be due to limitation of funds, but we have some fixed centres where the NRCs are issued. I agree with the hon. Member that in an ideal situation, we should have this mobile registration of NRCs and this is something we are looking into so that it is addressed.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chitonge (Mwansabombwe): Mr Speaker, in 2008, the President made pronouncements, during a press briefing at State House, that one of the entities, The Post Newspaper to be specific, had pocketed US$30 million and investigations were instituted there and then. May I know whether these investigations have been abandoned due to lack of evidence or could it be that it was just a mere pronouncement?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, when you are dealing with sophisticated crime, especially white collar crime, it is not easy to investigate and, sometimes, what is involved requires investigations in other countries. To smash this kind of criminality, it is important that we have dedicated officers who can investigate, taking into account international law. 

Mr Speaker, the police are doing their best to ensure that the culprits are brought to book because US$30 million is a lot of money which can benefit the institutions from which that money was siphoned, for example, the Development Bank of Zambia, and NAPSA. These are public funds and we will not forget about this because the Zambian people need an explanation. This will be pursued until justice is done.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr W. Banda (Milanzi): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from His Honour the Vice-President the benefits that we stand to gain, as a nation, from the creation of farming blocks.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, these are development-oriented questions.

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, farming blocks are very important in the economic development of this country. We have realised, as a Government, that we need to create farming blocks in as many parts of the country as possible. We started with the Nansanga Farming Block where we have supplied electricity, made dams and we constructed roads. This is because the idea is to set up a farming block such as the one we have in Mkushi which has attracted a lot of investment. This will also happen in Serenje through the establishment of the Nansanga Farming Block.

Mr Speaker, in Luapula Province, there is the Luena Farming Block which we are developing. This year, we have allocated K4 billion to K5 billion for the development of that farming block so that we attract more investment and have the out-grower schemes like the ones we have in Mazabuka where there is the sugar industry and where many farmers are creating jobs. Creation of jobs is the most important aspect to the creation of farming blocks.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hamusonde (Nangoma): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from His Honour the Vice-President whether the Government has plans to improve the standards at the Nitrogen Chemicals of Zambia (NCZ).

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, we gave the NCZ a contract to procure 20,000 metric tonnes of fertiliser and will continue to assist that industry and determine its future. We have been doing some studies on it and once they are ready, we will come up with the position on its future. In the meantime, we have ad hoc arrangements to assist the company to operate.

I thank you, Sir.

Mrs Kawandami (Chifubu): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out when the Copperbelt will be able to access the much publicised TV2.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I have been informed by the operatives and the Minister of Information and  Broadcasting Services that the matter is under consideration and that as soon as we are able to transmit the signal, TV2 will be available to the Copperbelt.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Simuusa (Nchanga): Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary by-elections for Chilanga and Mpulungu were gazetted and set for 28th October, 2010, but were deferred to 30th October, 2010. I wish to find out from His Honour the Vice-President why he has allowed the ECZ to bring the by election date forward to 25th October, 2010 when by natural justice and logic, it should have just been brought back to the 28th October, 2010 which was the gazetted date.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, what I know about that particular issue is that our children are sitting for exams in the various schools which we use as polling stations and, therefore, the ECZ had a difficult exercise of coming up with a compromise to find a suitable date which takes into account the interest of better education and Seventh Day Adventists since we are a Christian nation and must worship on the Sabbath Day. All those issues had to be considered and, so, we should accept that we will have these elections on the 25th October, 2010.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Msichili (Kabushi): Mr Speaker, the Independence Stadium has been closed for sometime for renovations and rehabilitation. I would like to find out when these renovations will be completed.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, there is a contractor who will be going on site to reconstruct the stadium so that we can have two modern stadia in Ndola and Lusaka. Some work has been done although more work still has to be carried out.

Major Chizhyuka (Namwala): Mr Speaker, I am exceedingly worried about the land issue in the Southern Province. Chief Macha has lost 3,500 subjects through displacements. However, I would like to find out if there is anything that can be done for the people even though the High Court has ruled in favour of the investor, considering that some of these titles were obtained at 13 shillings and 6 pence?

Laughter 

Mr Speaker: His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice will be allowed to conclude the answer.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I will not comment on this matter which involves residents in the Southern Province because it is in court. What I can say is that as Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU), we are assisting those who have been disadvantaged by that action. I do not want to start going into issues that are before the courts but, of course, if there is any other information, the hon. Members are free to come to my office; the doors are always open. Please, let us have more information or suggestions on how best we can handle this particular issue. There is a need for us to resettle people and, where necessary, find land for them to resettle on.

I thank you, Sir.

__________

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

MOBILE PHONE OPERATING LICENCES

100. Mr D. Mwila (Chipili) asked the Minister of Commutations and Transport: 

(a)    why the Government introduced restrictions on the issuance of mobile phone operating licences;

(b)    what the economic benefits to the country have been as a result of the restrictions; and 

(c)    when the Government would liberalise the issuance of licences.

The Deputy Minister of Communications and Transport (Mr Mubika): Mr Speaker, the introduction of entry restrictions into the mobile telephone services market is necessary to safeguard market failure. The House may wish to note that in order to provide mobile telecommunication services, huge investment is required over a period of time, during which market forces begin to bear on existing operators. This results in the reduction in service prices and improved quality of service as well as provision of advanced services such as 3G services. It should be noted further that market entry restriction is part of regulation and is standard practice in all countries in the world.

Mr Speaker, no investor would want to invest in a country where there is free for all entry. It should be noted that providing certainty helps the investors to plan ahead and this, in turn, brings more money into the country. You may appreciate that in view of the above, the flow of foreign investment into the country has a direct bearing on the economic performance of a country, especially infrastructure development.

Mr Speaker, upon advice from the regulatory authority on the performance of the market players, the Government may wish to issue a policy directive to the Board of Regulators to further liberalise the ICT sector in the country.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr D. Mwila(Chipili): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister how many companies have applied for licences and are waiting for a response from the Government and the names of the companies.

The Minister of Communications and Transport (Professor Lungwangwa): Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Chipili should be a little clearer because there are different types of licences for which different business interests apply for. Therefore, he should make clear what he wants to know.

Hon. Opposition Member: Mobile telecommunications services.

Professor Lungwangwa: If it is mobile telecommunications services, the question has been answered. At the moment, there are restrictions on the issuance of licences for mobile telecommunications services. 

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Ntundu (Gwembe): Mr Speaker, there is a shift …

Mr Kambwili: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order! 

A point of order is raised.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity to rise on a point of order. Is His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice in order to mislead this House in answering the question from the hon. Member of Parliament for Solwezi Central where he stated that there is no arrangement or anybody who has been appointed as a Uniform Petroleum Price (UPP) Manager for the uniform petroleum pricing?

Mr Speaker, I have with me a letter written by Ashfield Resources (Z) Limited who are appointed as managers for UPP which I will lay on the Table, and I quote from the letter:

"Implementation of the Uniform Petroleum Price. Following the flagging off of the uniform petroleum pricing by the Energy Regulation Board (ERB), we seek your urgent indulgence to provide us with the under listed information so that we may roll out the programme.” 

The letter is signed by Mr Mabvuto C. Nyirenda who is the UPP Manager. Is His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice in order to mislead the nation and the House that there is no UPP Manager? I need your serious ruling, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: In the first place, what was the question and who asked that question?

Mr Kambwili: The hon. Member for Solwezi Central.

Mr Speaker: What was your question? Do you remember what your question was?

Mr Lumba (Solwezi Central): Mr Speaker, my question was about how much the Government was paying the UPP Manager. In answering, His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice said there was no such arrangement as a UPP Manager.

Interruptions 

Mr Speaker: Let me guide the House. This is the pitfall for waiting until matters have been concluded before you rise on a point of order. It is very likely that he may be unable to remember exactly what he said. However, the record tomorrow or any other day will show. Now, I have always guided hon. Members that. If you want to raise a point of order on a matter that is on the Floor, be alert and raise a point of order. That point of order could even have been raised immediately His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice sat down, following the reply you say he gave erroneously.

Interruptions 

Mr Speaker: You were not alert until someone gave you a letter then you stood on a point of order. As presiding officers, we have nothing here to cover up. That is not the point, but you were too late to raise your point of order. However, your point of order has recorded something. It is very likely that His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice will now look into this matter and see what can be done about it. It could be that he was fed with a misleading answer and you had to do something about it.

Interruptions 

Mr Speaker: From the letter that has been read, I did not hear any amount of money being mentioned as part of whatever arrangement have been suggested. The question was how much money the manager was paid. However, a point has been made and I am sure even His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice will look into this matter.

May the hon. Member for Gwembe continue.

Mr Ntundu: Sir, I was saying that there is now a shift in the way the Government is answering questions regarding this issue. When Vodacom (Pty) Limited showed interest in coming to invest in Zambia, the then hon. Minister of Communications and Transport said, in his answer to a question in this House, that there was no more room for new frequencies in order to allow more mobile phone network providers onto the market. I would like to find out from the Government what the correct position on this matter is because the hon. Minister has just said that investment in mobile network provision is not free for all and is restricted to only three providers at a time. What is the correct position on this matter? Is it that there is no more room for new frequencies to give more providers or the Government just wants to restrict it to only three …

Mr Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Members do not get it. Do not debate your question. Just ask a straight forward question.

Professor Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, the correct position is that there is a restriction at the moment on the issuance of mobile telecommunications licences. When the regulator finds it suitable to issue more licences, that will be done.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Major Chizhyuka (Namwala): Mr Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the hon. Minister being on the Floor to find out what advantages there are in the current information and communication technology (ICT) reforms, given the fact that his ministry is laying a lot of cables underground covering the entire country. Can the hon. Minister clarify this issue? 

Professor Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a number of very important issues to the House in terms of what this Government is doing in the area of ICT reforms and the benefits that are accruing to citizens.

Mr Speaker, to begin with, I would like to say, indeed, it is true that at the moment we are engaged in major ICT reforms in Zambia. These reforms are going to be of tremendous benefit to the individual consumer, business houses, the Government and various other stakeholders in our country. 

At the moment, we are all beneficiaries of reductions in the cost of communication.

Mr Shawa: Hear, hear!

Professor Lungwangwa: For example, we have seen in newspapers and various media that the costs of international calls have been reduced in some cases up to 70 per cent. That is a major benefit to all of us. Some domestic telephone or mobile phone calls have been reduced in some cases by up to 60 per cent and that is a benefit to all of us. We have also seen those operating in the ICT industry introducing new technologies. At the moment, we have the Third Generation (3G) technology which is on trial and our mobile operators are introducing it on the market. For example, those with 3G enabled mobile phones can see (producing a phone from his pocket) …

Mr Speaker: Order!

Professor Lungwangwa: It is off.

Mr Speaker: Order! 

The messengers will take care of that phone now.

Laughter 

Professor Lungwangwa handed over the phone to a House Messenger.

Mr Speaker: Meanwhile the hon. Minister will continuer answering.

Laughter

Professor Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, I was using it as an illustration.

Laughter

Professor Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, for example, we have 3G technology currently on trial by mobile operators. When we compare the trials that have been made in Zambia, Malawi and Zimbabwe, we see a lot of improvement and efficiency in the commercial delivery of this technology in our country. Clearly, this is going to be of benefit because those of us already accessing this particular facility are able to benefit from the data, sound as well as voice convergence on mobile phone services and this is an advantage.

Mr Speaker, in addition, we have other advantages such as the optic fibre infrastructure backbone that we are constructing. This is going to connect us to the undersea cables, especially in the east coast of the continent and we will see a lot of improvements in our communication. Zambia is increasingly becoming attractive as a centrally located country and is providing opportunities for eastern, western, northern and southern countries in ICT connectivity. Therefore, this is a tremendous opportunity for business houses. As a result, Zambia is increasingly becoming a conducive investment destination. 

Of course, all of this is the outcome of the ICT reforms which this Government is putting in place. These reforms are forward looking in terms of benefits to our country and soon we shall see a lot of positive spillover effects in the areas of commerce, banking, e-governance, e-agriculture, e-health and so on and so forth. For example, in education, we are already seeing connectivity between the University of Zambia (UNZA) and Copperbelt University (CBU) via optic fibre connectivity and various educational programmes are being transmitted between the two universities. These universities are being connected to universities in India and people are benefiting from that. Soon we shall see tele-medicine connectivity between the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Zambia and hospitals in India, whereby our people will be able to access tele-medicine services. All these are very important reform benefits which this Government is pursuing for the interest of our country and uplifting our country into the 21st century.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

101. Mr Mukanga (Kantanshi) asked the Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry how much Foreign Direct Investment was recorded in the manufacturing industry in the period 2006 to 2009, year by year.

The Deputy Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Dr Puma): Mr Speaker, in 2006, the country received a total of US$615.8 million in foreign direct investment (FDI) out of which US$429,603,263 was total pledged investment for the manufacturing sector.

Out of the total actualised FDI of US$2.24 billion recorded during the period 2007 to 2009, the manufacturing sector recorded a total of US$875,115,339. 

Mr Speaker, this represented 39 per cent of the total FDI recorded. The year by year break down is as follows:

    Year              Amount in US$

2007    340.013

2008      288.78

2009    246.315

Sir, hon. Members of the House will note that there was a decline in investment levels during the period referred to due to the global economic crisis.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mukanga: Mr Speaker, what significant new technologies were brought into this country as a result of the FDI during the period under review?

The Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Mr Mutati): Mr Speaker, there are three examples of innovations that have been manufactured in Zambia through the use of technology that was brought in the manufacturing sector during the period under review. There is a company that is making transformers and transmitters in Ndola while there is another company which is making cell phones in Lusaka.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Mr Speaker, does the hon. Minister have information which shows a disagregation of these investment figures into enterprises which essentially provide the services that are outsourced by the mines such as those that engage in businesses like motor rewinding and so on and so forth, and those that target consumers who are independent of the mining sector?

Mr Mutati: Mr Speaker, yes, we do have information that shows the investments split by sector and in some cases by product.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, how many jobs were recorded in the period under review due to the investments that we are looking at?

Mr Mutati: Mr Speaker, there were slightly over 6,000 direct jobs created in the three years under review.

I thank you, Sir.

______________{mospagebreak}

BILLS

SECOND READING

THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL, 2010

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now red a second time.

Mr Speaker, the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010 seeks to continue the existence of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and provide for its powers and functions, provide for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of corrupt practices and related offences, so as to bring the law into conformity with the provisions of the regional and international conventions to which Zambia is a party and to repeal and replace the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996.

Mr Speaker, in addition, the Bill seeks to implement the National Anti-Corruption Policy, 2009 which provides direction on measures to be undertaken in the fight against corruption. It is an undeniable fact that the law as contained in the Bill will provide a strong legal framework for the fight against corruption. I say so because the Bill contains numerous new offences which currently are not contained in the Anti-Corruption Act of 1996. The new provisions will enable us to effectively and efficiently deal with corrupt practices.

Mr Speaker, hon. Members of this august House are well aware that this House recently passed numerous pieces of legislation which include the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act No. 4 of 2010. The rationale for the enactment of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act, 2010 was to provide for the confiscation of any proceeds of crime in order to deprive any person from benefiting from those proceeds of crime and to enable law enforcement officers to trace and seize any proceeds, benefits or property derived from the commission of a crime including corruption. On the other hand, the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act was enacted in order to protect individuals who exposed wrong doing and crime such as corruption from reprisals arising from such disclosure. 

In addition, during this sitting, we will consider a Bill that will amend the Prohibition and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2001 in order to strengthen the law against money laundering. This is because there is a close relationship between money laundering and corruption. Some stakeholders have observed that money laundering schemes make it possible to conceal the proceeds of corruption. On the other hand, corruption is a source of money laundering as it generates large sums of money which can be laundered. 

It is important that hon. Members of this august House consider all the cited laws collectively because they form a formidable weapon in the fight against corruption. At this point, I want to refute the erroneous view that has been advanced by some institutions and persons that the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010 has weakened or will weaken the fight against corruption by repealing Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1996. Such a view has no basis as to the contrary, the Bill enhances the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of corrupt practices and related offences. The Bill has several provisions on offences related to corrupt practices. I will give a few examples.

Mr Speaker, the Bill prohibits a public officer who being concerned with any matter or transaction falling within or connected with that officer’s jurisdiction, powers, duties or functions from abusing their official power by corruptly soliciting, accepting or obtaining or agreeing to accept or attempting to receive or obtain any gratification in relation to such matter of transaction.

Mr Speaker, this Bill also prohibits a person involved in a sporting event from corruptly offering or agreeing to give to another any gratification as an inducement to influence or as a reward for influencing the run of play or the outcome of a sporting event. The Bill also prohibits a foreign public official from corruptly soliciting or agreeing to accept any gratification as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do anything in relation to any matter or transaction with which any foreign public body is concerned with.

Sir, this Bill further prohibits any person from corruptly offering any gratification to a foreign public official as an inducement or reward to that foreign public officer for doing or forbearing to do anything in relation to the transaction which a foreign public body is concerned.

Mr Speaker, this Bill places an obligation on a public officer to whom a gratification is corruptly given, promised or offered to make a full report of the circumstances of the case to an officer of the commission or a police officer within twenty-four hours. This Bill prohibits a person from soliciting, attempting or obtaining any gratification from any person as an inducement or reward for the withdrawal of a tender or refraining from the making of a tender for any contract with a public or private body for the performance of any work or provision of any service.

Mr Speaker, this Bill also authorises an investigating officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that any movable or immovable property, which is derived or acquired from corrupt practices, to seize that property if it is the subject matter of an offence or is evidence relating to an offence under this law.

Mr Speaker, the Bill also empowers the Director-General of the ACC to direct, by written notice, a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under this section against whom a prosecution for an offence has been instituted, not to dispose of any property that is the subject of the investigations.

These examples are evidence that the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010 is a very good and strong law against corruption. 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, during the process of reviewing the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1996, it came to light that the provisions of Section 37 were at variance with Article 18 (7) of the Constitution which provides that a person who is tried for a criminal offence shall not be compelled to give evidence at the trial. However, Section 37 (2) provides, inter alia, that any public officer who after due investigations carried under sub-section (1) is found:

    (a)    to maintain a standard of living above that which is not commensurate                 
                         with his present or past official emoluments; or

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

… shall, unless he gives a reasonable explanation, be charged with having or having had under his control or in his possession pecuniary resources or property reasonably suspected or having been corruptly acquired or having misused or abused his office as the case may be and shall, unless he gives a reasonable 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. 

Mr Speaker, the wording of Section 37 (2) is inconsistent with Article 18 (7) of the Constitution which says that a person shall not be compelled to give evidence at his trial. It is our considered view that by requiring an accused person to give a satisfactory explanation to the court or be pronounced guilty of the offence, the section takes away the constitutional protection given to an accused person not to be compelled to give evidence at the trial. If an accused person exercises his or her right to remain silent, when charged with an offence under Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996, the accused is automatically guilty of the offence as charged in terms of Section 37 (2).

It is with a settled principle of our law and legal system as per Commonwealth standards that an accused person has the right to remain silent when charged with an offence if he or she elects to remain silent, and not adduce any evidence at the trial. When that happens, the court’s conviction of an accused person should be based on whether or not in the evidence adduced during the trial, the prosecution have proved their case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt. A conviction can never be made by a court purely on the basis that an accused person chose to remain silent as stated in Section 37(2). 

In view of the above observations, Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996 cannot remain part of the Zambian Statute books.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Some stakeholders have argued that Article 18 (12) (a) counters the above argument. However, the provision cited relates only to the presumption of innocence contained in Article 18(2) (a).

On the other hand, there is no exception or derogation to Article 18 (7) whereby a law can provide for a situation where an accused person is compelled to give evidence during a criminal trial as is the case in Section 37(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996. 

Mr Speaker, this august House may also wish to note that the United Nations (UN) Convention against Corruption provides on illicit enrichment in Article 20 as follows:

    “Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as     may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence when committed intentionally     illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official     that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income.”

In making this provision for offences relating to corruption, care should be taken to ensure that such legislative provisions are consistent with our Constitution and the fundamental principles of our legal system. This is what is required under the convention. It does not require us to go against our own Constitution. Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996, is not consistent with the Constitution or the fundamental principles of our legal system. 

Mr Speaker, in case some hon. Members of this august House wonder why the above observations on Section 37 (2) have not been made before now when the provision has been part of the laws of Zambia for a long time, in response, I would say that the provision has lasted this long because no person has challenged this illegality in view of such a clear constitutional provision as contained in Article 18(7). 

Hon. Members of this august House will recall that provisions relating to corporal punishment were part of our laws for a long time until a convicted person challenged the legality of corporal punishment in light of Article 15 of the Constitution which protects individuals against torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or other like treatment. The High Court ruled that corporal punishment was inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution. The Penal code and other laws were subsequently amended by this august House to make them consistent with the Constitution.

 It is, therefore, not unusual that while revising the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996, observations where made about Section 37 as I have pointed out.

In conclusion, the Bill as presented to this House conforms to the provisions of the UN Convention Against Corruption which requires state parties to establish or maintain a series of specific criminal offences including not only long established crimes such as various forms of bribery and embezzlement, but also conduct such as trading in official influence and other abuses of official functions.

Mr Speaker, the United Nations Convention against Corruption further provides that the State parties must criminalise specific acts such as the concealment, conversion or transfer of criminal proceeds through money laundering activities, all of which have been done in this Bill. I also wish to mention that Section 99 of the Penal Code, which relates to abuse of office, will remain in our statute books.

Further, as I stated earlier, we already have legislation on forfeiture of proceeds of crime and we are also strengthening anti-money laundering laws so that if there is unjust enrichment, it can be taken care of by these other laws.

Sir, this Bill is very progressive and it is excellent legal framework on anti-corruption and I urge hon. Members of this august House to whole-heartedly support it.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chota (Lubansenshi): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to present your Committee’s report on the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010.

Sir, it is an internationally recognised fact that corruption increases the cost of doing business in any economy and takes resources away from developmental activities. In this vein, there is considerable interest and co-operation among members of the international community aimed at ensuring that corruption and its offshoots are apprehended.

Zambia is a State party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol against Corruption and the African Union (AU) Convention on Prevention and Combating Corruption. These conventions established international frameworks of agreed rules and standards for countering corruption in addition to serving as an expression of high level political commitment. They are intended to produce better policies and practices in and among member States on the prevention, detection, investigation and sanctioning of acts of corruption.

Sir, Zambia’s efforts at combating corruption are guided by the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 1996. In 2009, the Government launched the National Anti-Corruption Policy, which is expected to provide direction on measures to be embarked on in the fight against corruption in both civil and criminal proceedings. The Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010, seeks to implement the National Anti-Corruption Policy, 2009.

Sir, during its deliberations, your Committee noted that almost all stakeholders who appeared before it commended the Government for including some very progressive provisions in the Anti-Corruption Bill. However, your Committee also raised various issues of concern over the provisions in the Bill.

Mr Speaker, one key concern expressed was that the definition of corruption in the Bill was not consistent with the definition used in UNCAC as well as … 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chota: … in the SADC Protocol against Corruption, the AU Convention against Corruption and even the Zambia National Anti-Corruption Policy …

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1045 hours until 1100 hours.
 
[MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Chota: Madam Speaker, before business was suspended, I was saying that one key concern expressed by members of your Committee was that the definition of corruption in the Bill was not consistent with the definition used in UNCAC, the SADC Protocol against Corruption, the AU Convention against Corruption and even the Zambia National Anti-Corruption Policy, which was launched by the Government in 2009. Specifically, it was worrisome that the Bill proposed to omit the element of “abuse of public office” from the definition of corruption. 

Madam, your Committee is happy that …

Interruptions

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Chota: … there is commitment from the Executive to revisit the definition with a view to harmonising it with these other instruments.

Madam, many stakeholders expressed concern that …

Interruptions

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, please, try not to obstruct the Chair from the hon. Member speaking. I think this is a known fact. 

The hon. Member may continue. 

Mr Chota: … the Bill, while declaring that the Anti-Corruption Commission would be an independent and autonomous institution, actually, makes provisions that seriously undermine the very independence it seeks to provide for. 

Of particular concern are provisions vested in the President, the power to initiate the removal from office of the Director General of the Commission and the appointment of a tribunal to look into the matter. Further, the Bill also proposes to vest the power in the President to appoint the Deputy Director General and Acting Director General. In the current Act, this power lies with the commission.

In addition, the Bill seeks to empower the President to make regulations for the commission and to approve the commission’s money by way of grants, donations and raising of loans. Additionally, the Bill confers unqualified power on the President to allow the Director General to continue in office after attaining the retirement age of sixty-five. As the law currently stands, this power is vested in the commission.

Madam Speaker, your Committee strongly recommends that the current provisions in the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, regarding the power of the President, be retained to protect the independence and autonomy of the commission.

Madam Speaker, there was also concern expressed with regard to provisions on declaration of assets. Your Committee is of the view that this requirement should cover all public officers and such declaration should be done upon taking office annually and at termination of employment. Further, the commission should be empowered to check the ferocity of the declaration so made. This would ensure accountability of all public officers. 

Madam Speaker, some stakeholders who appeared before your Committee strongly oppose the proposal in the Bill to remove or modify Section 37 of the Act relating to abuse of office as they felt that the offence of corruption hinged on abuse of office. They contented that, if anything, the provision needed to be tightened, for example, by the inclusion of abuse of office by private officials as well as public officials. They were of the view that much as the offence of abuse of authority of office was provided for in the Penal Code, the provision under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act was more comprehensive as it covered circumstances where a public official was found to be in possession of unexplained property. Thus, it allowed for prosecution where a public official failed to account for what he or she possessed. 

Further, they argued that the provision in the Penal Code was inadequate as the offence created therein was a misdemeanour which attracted weak sanctions and penalties. They also noted that the Zambia Police which was charged with enforcing the Penal Code suffered from capacity constraints while the Anti-Corruption Commission was a specialised entity in the fight against corruption.

Mr Speaker, as regards the argument that Section 37 in the current Act shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution and placed it on the accused, it was argued that the provision merely required a public officer to explain how he or she utilised his or her office or acquired wealth. They contended that those who aspire for public office must be ready to explain any suspicion of corruption and that, in any event, such a provision was acceptable in terms of Article 18 (12) of the Constitution of Zambia. This provided inter alia that nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 18 (2) (a) on the presumption of innocence to the extent that it was shown that the law in question imposed upon any person charged with a criminal offence the burden of proving particular facts. Therefore, the provision of Section 37 did not constitute a shift in the burden of proof, but merely a constitutionally accepted qualification of it.

Mr Speaker, stakeholders also stated that the abuse of authority clause had proved its efficacy as evidenced by the fact that a number of prosecutions based on the provision had been sustained in the courts of law. They argued that it was not the number of convictions that determined the efficacy of provisions, but the fact that an action could successfully go through the judicial system. Besides, it was argued that the provision had acted as a deterrent to would-be offenders since public officers were aware that they could be questioned if they accumulated wealth not commensurate with their official earnings. It was stressed that corruption being a clandestine activity for which direct evidence of commission was difficult to obtain, such a provision was necessary. 

Madam Speaker, in contrast, other stakeholders who appeared before your Committee submitted that it was necessary to repeal Section 37 of the Act as its provisions at Subsection (2) were at variance with Article 18 (7) of the Constitution which provided that a person who is tried for a criminal offence shall not be compelled to give evidence at the trial. They argued that there is no qualification to the right of an accused person to remain silent. It is absolute, therefore, that no law can make a provision that would have the effect of compelling an accused person in a criminal trial to give evidence during such trial. This is what the provision of Section 37 (2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act seeks to do. It is, therefore, an unconstitutional provision.

Madam Speaker, it was also pointed out that a State party to the convention against corruption was enjoined, through the provision of Article 20 of the Convention, to adopt necessary measures to establish illicit enrichment as a criminal office. Significantly, these measures could only be adopted subject to that State party’s constitution and fundamental principles of its legal system. In this regard, it was stated that the Government had a duty to ensure that the provision at Section 37 was removed in order to make the law consistent with the Zambian Constitution and the fundamental principles of the Zambian Legal System.

Madam Speaker, additionally, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act had their genesis in the Leadership Code in the first republic under the One-Party State when public officers were prohibited from engaging in any other type of activity to earn supplementary income. In that context and at that time, the provision was logical, but it has since become redundant in the advent of the liberalisation of the economy which permits entrepreneurism and economic initiative. 

Further, it was contended that the provision is discriminatory as it ignores the private sector corruption which is also a reality. It was stated, further, that the provisions in the Bill adequately cover all the corruption related offences that are in the Anti-Corruption Commission Act of 1996 and has even introduced new offences. In light of these submissions and after serious reflection, your Committee recommended that Section 37 of the current Act be retained in its entirety and, if anything, be strengthened to cover the acquisition of wealth by private operators, officials in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and churches among others, provided it is not inconsistent with the constitution. Further, your Committee recommended that Section 50 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act also be retained in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, there was also concern expressed with regard to provisions on declaration of assets. Your Committee is of the view that this requirement should cover all public officers and such declaration should be done upon taking office annually and at termination of employment. Further, the commission should be empowered to check the ferocity of the declaration so made. This would ensure accountability of all public officers. 

Madam Speaker, some stakeholders who appeared before your Committee strongly opposes the proposal in the Bill to remove or modify Section 37 of the Act relating to abuse of office as they felt that the offence of corruption hinged on abuse of office. They contented that, if anything, the provision needed to be tightened, for example, by the inclusion of abuse of office by private officials as well as public officials. They were of the view that much as the offence of abuse of authority of office was provided for in the Penal Code, the provision under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act was more comprehensive as it covered circumstances where a public official was found to be in possession of unexplained property. Thus, it allowed for prosecution where a public official failed to account for what he or she possessed. 

Further, they argued that the provision in the Penal Code was inadequate as the offence created therein was a misdemeanour which attracted weak sanctions and penalties. They also noted that the Zambia Police which was charged with enforcing the Penal Code suffered from capacity constraints while the Anti-Corruption Commission was a specialised entity in the fight against corruption.

Mr Speaker, as regards the argument that Section 37 in the current Act shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution and placed it on the accused, it was argued that the provision merely required a public officer to explain how he or she utilised his or her office or acquired wealth. They contended that those who aspire for public office must be ready to explain any suspicion of corruption and that, in any event, such a provision was acceptable in terms of Article 18 (12) of the Constitution of Zambia. This provided inter alia that nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 18 (2) (a) on the presumption of innocence to the extent that it was shown that the law in question imposed upon any person charged with a criminal offence the burden of proving particular facts. Therefore, the provision of Section 37 did not constitute a shift in the burden of proof, but merely a constitutionally accepted qualification of it.

Mr Speaker, stakeholders also stated that the abuse of authority clause had proved its efficacy as evidenced by the fact that a number of prosecutions based on the provision had been sustained in the courts of law. They argued that it was not the number of convictions that determined the efficacy of provisions, but the fact that an action could successfully go through the judicial system. Besides, it was argued that the provision had acted as a deterrent to would be offenders since public officers were aware that they could be questioned if they accumulated wealth not commensurate with their official earnings. It was stressed that corruption being a clandestine activity for which direct evidence of commission was difficult to obtain, such a provision was necessary. 

Madam Speaker, in contrast, other stakeholders who appeared before your Committee submitted that it was necessary to repeal Section 37 of the Act as its provisions at Subsection (2) were at variance with Article 18 (7) of the Constitution which provided that a person who is tried for a criminal offence shall not be compelled to give evidence at the trial. They argued that there is no qualification to the right of an accused person to remain silent. It is absolute, therefore, that no law can make a provision that would have the effect of compelling an accused person in a criminal trial to give evidence during such trial. This is what the provision of Section 37 (2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act seeks to do. It is, therefore, an unconstitutional provision.

Madam Speaker, it was also pointed out that a State party to the convention against corruption was enjoined, through the provision of Article 20 of the Convention, to adopt necessary measures to establish illicit enrichment as a criminal office. Significantly, these measures could only be adopted subject to that State party’s constitution and fundamental principles of its legal system. In this regard, it was stated that the Government had a duty to ensure that the provision at Section 37 was removed in order to make the law consistent with the Zambian Constitution and the fundamental principles of the Zambian Legal System.

Madam Speaker, additionally, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 37 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act had their genesis in the leadership code in the first republic under the One Party State when public officers were prohibited from engaging any other type of activity to earn supplementary income. In that context and at that time, the provision was logical, but it has since become redundant in the advent of the liberalisation of the economy which permits entrepreneurism and economic initiative. 

Further, it was contended that the provision is discriminatory as it ignores the private sector corruption which is also a reality. It was stated further, that the provisions in the Bill adequately cover all the corruption related offences that are in the Anti-Corruption Commission Act of 1996 and has even introduced new offences. In light of these submissions and after serious reflection, your Committee recommended that Section 37 of the current Act be retained in its entirety and, if anything, be strengthened to cover the acquisition of wealth by private operators, officials in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and churches among others, provided it is not inconsistent with the constitution. Further, your Committee recommended that Section 50 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act also be retained in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, your Committee wishes to place on record its gratitude to you for your guidance throughout its deliberations. It also wishes to thank the Clerk of the National Assembly for the assistance. 

Additionally, your Committee is indebted to all the witnesses with whom it interacted in relation to this Bill. The stakeholders provided very useful input in the process of scrutinising the Bill and without this input, your Committee’s work would not have been concluded in the successful manner it did. 

Madam Speaker, I thank you.{mospagebreak}

Mr Mukanga (Kantanshi): Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to add my voice on this important Motion on the Floor. 

Madam Speaker, firstly, I would like to appreciate your Committee for a very good job done on the issues that they have brought out. I will try to be very brief so that I give a chance to other people to debate. 

Madam Speaker, I would like to state that I am not in support of the current Bill which seeks to remove the clause that deals with abuse of office.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: This amendment should not be supported because we need to fight corruption in its entirety. We should not be seen to be using a cover up as we are fighting corruption. The fight against corruption should be fought with all the zeal, hope and power that we have. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: Madam Speaker, if we put in clauses that suit us today because we are in office and remove them the next day, we are not doing justice to the people of Zambia.  

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: One day, other people who will think differently from you will sit where you are now. They will abuse those offices and this Government will have no power to take them to court. It is for this reason that I say the best thing to do is maintain Clause 37 as it stands in the old Act and make an addition to re-enforce it. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: It needs to be re-enforced and not weakened. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: If we weaken the fight against corruption, we will not achieve anything. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: It is for this reason that I will not support the Bill as it stands today. The people of Kantanshi would wonder what sort of Member of Parliament they have if I did.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga: I want to represent the people and their views. 

Madam Speaker, I do not want to continue talking. I have made my point. I am not supporting this Bill unless that inclusion is made. 

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo (Kafulafuta): Madam Speaker, before I debate, I would like to define myself as a hard, coiled spring MMD Member, …

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: …who is more loyal than Hon. Michael Mabenga. 

Laughter 

Mr Mpombo: Madam Speaker, I want to support the recommendation of your Committee and its stance on Clause 37. The removal of this clause must not be entertained. Doing so will amount to an obnoxious piece of legislation. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: It will open floodgates for corruption. If this clause has lasted this long, and some tangible progress has been recorded, why must we be in a hurry today to remove it? We will be doing this at our own peril. Zambia has stood as a shining country on a hill in its fight against corruption. We will, therefore, be judged harshly if we go ahead with this. 

The interpretation by the people if we move in this fashion will be that, as leaders, we have amassed so much wealth for ourselves and do not want to be questioned about how we got to be in possession of it. We should be prepared to be scrutinised. What has changed so radically that this thing should come up now?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: The MMD has been in Government since 2001. Why have we not, in all this time, changed the clause? Who has challenged this clause?

Madam Speaker, I would like to be very free in stating that this move is pregnant with serious political consequences. 

Laughter 

Mr Mpombo: Why should we do this in an election year when controversial issues should not come up? You are supposed to move smoothly because you need everybody. Winning is about numbers. The role of the Government is to ensure that it protects the political future of hon. Members sitting here. If we antagonise non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the people and the Church, I can assure you that we are going to tumble so badly.

Laughter 

Mr Mpombo: We will face very severe consequences. 

Madam Speaker, I have been on my own for fifteen months now. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: The tendency is that if a Member of Parliament loses office, he or she starts changing within the first eight months. 

Laughter 

Mr Mpombo: Madam Speaker, this kind of governance is very bad. 

In 1990, I was District Governor. In 1991, around March, we realised that the MMD had become forceful and would take over Government. We quickly passed a law in this House called Leaders’ Pension. The first thing the MMD Government did when it came into office was repeal the law and the United National Independence Party (UNIP) got nothing.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: Likewise in this particular case, this is an exercise in futility ... 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: …because any Government that comes into power will, first and foremost, move an amendment to repeal this law and everybody will be captured. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: Madam Speaker, a lot of things change when you lose an election. 

When we lost the 1991 elections, at about 0600 hours in the morning, a police officer came knocking at my door. When I opened the door he said I was wanted at the police station and because it was 0600 hours in morning I told him to tell the officer-in-charge that I would be there at 0800 hours. I was a very cantankerous District Governor. 

Laughter 

Mr V. Mwale: You are still cantankerous!

Mr Mpombo: Madam Speaker, at 0800 hours, I went to the station with my hands in my pockets. I found this police officer, small in stature, who asked me to take a seat. When I sat down, he pulled out some papers and said “Mr Mpombo, on 17th July, 1991, you tore campaign posters of President Chiluba”. This had happened eight months earlier. 

Laughter 

Mr Mpombo: I was arrested but luckily, they did not put me in jail because my lawyer,   Julius Sakala, was very good and my brother, the late Dawson Lupunga, who was a key witness, could not testify against me. What I am trying to say is that these things can work against us. We should not compromise or entertain this kind of hurriedness.

Madam Speaker, we should never give excessive powers to sitting Presidents because if you give power to the President in the running of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the commission can be used as a tool to relentlessly and mercilessly pursue specific political enemies.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mpombo: Anyone of us could fall into that trap. Therefore, I want to support the stance that has been taken by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ). LAZ is a very respectable body and we must, therefore, support what the LAZ has said. LAZ has said that it is disturbed by this development because it thinks if this clause is removed, it will be a big setback to the fight against corruption and that this will also demean Zambia’s standing on the international platform. Therefore, it is very important to follow and move in this particular direction.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hammer!

Mr Mpombo: Madam Speaker, I will move an amendment …

Interruptions

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Can the hon. Member speak through the Chair? Hon. Members have the freedom to debate without interference. 

Can the hon. Member for Kafulafuta continue.

Mr Mpombo:  I would like to thank you for your protection.

Actually, I was saying that sometime around next year, I will move an amendment to repeal Clause 37 if it goes through.

Interruptions

Mr Mpombo: I want to end by saying that I am not a lawyer, but there are a lot of legal semantics. If you have ten lawyers, then, you have forty positions. This one will say London Law and the other one will say Chicago Law and only end up confusing you. What is important to know is that once you bend a law, it collapses.

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Mwamba (Lukashya): Madam Speaker, most of the things that I wanted to say have been said by Hon. Mpombo and I appreciate his debate. 

Just to add on what he has said, I wish to say that while we appreciate that law is dynamic and that it can be amended at any time, we must remind ourselves that law must not be changed at the whim of individuals or a group of people for selfish reasons.

 Mr D. Mwila: Hear, hear!

Mrs Mwamba: Madam, in the past, we have seen where amendments to the laws of this country have been done to fix certain individuals. That is not the purpose of law. The purpose of law is justice.

Madam Speaker, I do not want to start thinking that our colleagues or whoever moved the amendment is thinking of removing such an important section from the law because he/she has something to hide in case the tables turn next year and he/she feels that he/she should be protected by doing away with that section. As Hon. Mpombo said, a law can be changed. Even if you change it, it will be repealed and will still catch up with you.

 Mr D. Mwila: Hear, hear!

Mrs Mwamba: Therefore, when we bring amendments to this House, we must be thinking of the bigger picture. We should not be thinking of the moment or our current situation, but the bigger interest that we have which is to serve the people of Zambia.

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 The Deputy Minister of Justice (Mr Chilembo): Madam Speaker, most of the serious points have already been made by His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice. 

Let me make a comment on what the Committee said in conclusion:

“Your Committee recommends that Section 37 of the current Act be retained in its entirety and, if anything be strengthened to cover acquisition of wealth by private operators, officials in non-governmental organisations and churches, among others, provided it is not inconsistent with the Constitution.”

Madam Speaker, the Committee did not go further to show that what it was recommending will be consistent with the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, His Honour the Vice-President ably showed how unconstitutional Section 37 has been and is and that, today, we want the Constitution to be respected.

 Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo: None of the people from the Opposition who have debated so far, including Hon. Mpombo, have made any effort to deal with this serious Constitutional issue which His Honour the Vice-President ably articulated. Accused persons in this country have rights and all of us here are potentially accused people.

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear! 

Mr Chilembo: Some of the people on the other side of the House have been accused and cry for justice. Therefore, we are bringing this justice to you by simply saying that your right to remain silent is cardinal. Therefore, if somebody feels very strongly on these issues, he or she can raise his/her arguments focussing on the constitutionality of this clause. It has nothing to do with fearing that somebody will arrest the other. The laws that we have in this country are adequate.

For instance, even lawyers have been questioned before if, for example, there is so much money in their client’s account. They would want to know where this money is coming from. They will have to explain and say that, maybe, my client is buying a House.  They will question you and if you cannot explain properly, then, they might find a case for you to answer. Therefore, the money laundering laws will still be there except that we are saying that the burden of proof should not be placed on an accused person. This is the general practice and it conforms to the Commonwealth practice. It is only the French laws where you are presumed guilty unless you can prove to the contrary.

As for us in this country, we are innocent until proved guilty. Therefore, we are saying that under the new Anti-Corruption Policy, we need to empower the officers and investigative wings so that they are able to get to the bottom of cases. For instance, in case where somebody’s confession is admissible and can be used to convict somebody, in practice, courts would still want the prosecution to prove this. It is very rare that they will accept confession statements made by accused persons. Therefore, there is a movement to make sure that justice is done and cases are investigated adequately. This Bill is also looking at means of preventing corruption claims. Therefore, why are we not praising what is provided for instead of picking one section?

 Interruptions

Mr Chilembo: Madam Speaker, if you look at the overall effect of the provisions …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

The Chair has guided that a certain way of making running commentaries by simply not listening to the hon. Member debating is not correct. It is important that we give each other our own liberties of debating freely so that you can respond to issues of concern that you see or hear. 

What is the point of continuously talking when somebody else is debating? If you have the Floor, you want people to listen. We are not speaking to ourselves but people and we want them to listen. Can we listen to one another.

The hon. Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Chilembo: Madam Speaker, if you look at the various provisions that are in this Bill, you will note that corruption is being checked and public officers have not been left free.

For example, Clause 19 talks about corrupt practices by public officers. Clause 21, talks about corrupt use of official power and Clause 28 talks of gratification for giving assistance with regard to contracts. This can be a very big problem in a government setting and is also targeting public officers. In Clause 27, there is also a question of conflict of interest where a public officer is expected to declare interest in a matter where he may have interest. This could be a contract or anything. So, if you look at all these provisions, the overall effect is that the public officer has not been left loose. There are sufficient laws.

Madam, coming to us, politicians, it would be unfair to say that we are trying to cover ourselves up because, every year, we have to declare our assets under the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Even Parliamentarians, by practice, are expected to also declare their assets. I know that the practice may not be very popular, but it is a requirement. All this is part of accountability. So, what are we hiding?

Interruptions

Mr Chilembo: I have filed my declaration showing what I own. Therefore, there is no way you can say that this is meant for politicians alone. Somebody cannot, through his imagination, come to power and tomorrow he wants to deal with a certain politician when we have enough controls within our laws which check on the acquisition of property by politicians.

Madam Speaker, the issue of constitutionality that has been raised is serious. We all took an oath of office that we shall uphold the Constitution. I still say to you today, that you stick to the Constitution. We want our laws to be in accordance with the Constitution. If you do that, then you will be upholding the Constitution. Do not look at the faces of people but the Constitution that is not about faces of people.

Mr D. Mwila: Mwaliba sana!

Mr Chilembo: This Government has been, is and will continue to be a government of laws and these are the laws we are talking about.

Mr Kambwili: Ulesebanya abanobe iwe!

Mr Chilembo: Demonstrate that you respect the Constitution.

Hon. Government Member: Ulelanda bwino naiwe, finshi ulelanda?

Mr Chilembo: Madam Speaker, with these few words, I submit that this Bill should be fully supported by all progressive Members of Parliament.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala (Chilubi): Madam Speaker, in the first place, I wish to register my sentiments that I will remain a man of few words because this is a straightforward issue.

From the outset, Madam, I wish to thank my colleagues who are members of this noble Committee and the staff of National Assembly who made it possible for them to come up with such an important document. This is a job well done.

Madam Speaker, in any given country, issues of this nature are supposed to be taken care of before changes are made. I say so because our brothers and sisters who are Members of the Executive, have suggested that we do away with Sections 37 and 50. They have been using this law for a long period. When the late President Mwanawasa, SC. was alive, these same people used this law and were Members of the Government. However, today, how unconstitutional are Sections 37 and 50, for them to wake up from their deep slumber and say that these are unconstitutional hence, must be done away with?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala: Where is the logic?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala: What are our brothers and sisters fearing?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala: Madam, on behalf of the people of Chilubi who I represent and, indeed, on my own behalf, I totally disagree and register my total disappointment. I had a lot of respect for this Government, but considering what has happened today on the Floor of this Chamber makes me feel that a number of these people in Government have definitely no regard for the people of Zambia.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala: You cannot do away with such an important document.

Madam Speaker, this simply means that the people who are currently working in Government offices will have the courage to touch even where they are not supposed to touch. This provision will give them strength to pilfer the Zambia’s resources.

In this regard, Madam, I humbly request the Government to withdraw this Bill and defer it to a later date when they will have had a second thought about it.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda (Kabwata): Madam Speaker, from the outset, let me correct the report of your Committee by stating that the African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption (APNAC) did submit to your Committee even if they were not mentioned.

Madam, I would like to acknowledge the fact that there are new laws that are being produced by the Government in the fight against corruption such as the one His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice referred to, the Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and we appreciate that. We would like to encourage the Government to come up with even more tighter laws in the fight against corruption. We also acknowledge the new provisions in the Anti-Corruption Bill. Nonetheless, Madam, one of the purposes of the Bill is to domesticate the United Nations, African Union (AU) Convention and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol in the fight against corruption. This is in keeping with the National Anti-Corruption Policy. However, it is not consistent with the programme of the National Anti-Corruption Implementation Plan. 

In the Implementation Plan produced by the people on your right, Madam, they suggested that before they amend the Anti-Corruption Act, they shall do what is referred to as a gap analysis. It is provided for in the Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan says that the Anti-Corruption Act shall be amended in 2011 or 2012 to allow for the process of the analysis. Many countries before us, in domesticating the UN Cap, the AU Convention and the SADC Protocol had to take that route. The reason is to ensure that we truly domesticate the provisions of such international conventions. Why have we not done the analysis? 

As a result of not having done the analysis, Madam Speaker, they have left out very important provisions of international protocols and I want to refer to just a few which are as follows: 

(i)    the need to enhance transparency in the funding of candidature for elected public officers and funding of political parties in line with Article 7 of the UN Convention; and

(ii)    the need to enhance the law on the declaration of assets, gifts, liabilities and interests by public officers in line with Article 8 of the UN Cap.

    How come that has not been done? How come we have not harmonised the definition of public officer and not introduced in the Act the provision of the UN Cap., the provision of the AU Convention on illicit enrichment? Is it deliberate that we have come up with an amendment without doing the gap analysis? 

Madam Speaker, just in case the hon. Minister of Community Development and Social Services does not read the Bills produced by the Government, I suggest to him that he reads the objects of this Bill which state that to domesticate the UN Cap., the AU and the SADC Protocol …

Mr Kaingu: On a point of order, Madam.

Mr Lubinda: That is the reason, hon. Minister, I made reference to that …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The hon. Member will speak through the Chair. Try not to listen to others. Will the hon. Member continue, please?

Mr Kaingu: On a point of order, Madam.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for your guidance. I will speak through the Chair. Through you, I would like to reiterate that the reason I am referring to the gap analysis is that the Bill before us has a purpose of domesticating international protocols. The National Anti-Corruption Implementation Plan produced by the Government points to the fact that they will conduct a gap analysis, which has not been done. As a result, very important provisions of international protocols have been left out.

Madam Speaker, another matter of concern to us is the issue of definition. His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice belaboured the matter that we are fighting corruption and when listening to him and looking across at my good friend Hon. Mike Mulongoti, I wondered to myself where that spirit is, the spirit that I heard from the then hon. Minister of Justice and Learned Attorney General during the reign of Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa. Where is the spirit in Hon. Mike Mulongoti in the fight against corruption? Has it been blown away with the wind, dead and forgotten? Today, they are rejuvenating the fight by taking away important provisions of the law?

Madam Speaker, the word “corruption” is defined by various sources and I would like to refer to five of them. These are the three international protocols I referred to and the National Anti-Corruption Policy of the Government and the definition of corruption in the 1996 Anti-Corruption Act. Those five compared to the definition of corruption in the Bill has one phrase and this is the removal from the five of the words “public office, people with authority and abuse of public office”. Why is it that the definitions of the UN Cap., other international protocols, the definition in the Anti-Corruption Policy and the definition in the Act has been watered down by removing the words “abuse of public office”.

Madam Speaker, there could only be one reason. His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice knows that when you amend laws, you are trying to cure a mischief. What mischief are you curing by taking away the words “abuse of public office”? The mischief being cured is to protect ourselves from prosecution for abuse of office.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Baliba, RP Capital.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, I will come back to that later. However, in relation to public office, is the definition of public officer. If you look at the Bill, the only addition that the His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice has given to the definition of public officer is the dismal, frustrating and embarrassing reference to hon. Members of Parliament. Once you make a pointer to one specific office, you should make pointers to all other offices. Why is the office of the hon. Member of Parliament being singled out? Is it to create an impression that other public officers are not covered by the law? What is the reason?

Madam Speaker, our proposal is that this Government must look at definitions in other provisions such as the AU Convention, the SADC Protocol and in case His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice cares to know, the definition of public officer in the AU Convention says, “public officer includes selected, appointed or elected” so that once you use those words, you are embracing everybody. We would not like you to create an impression that the Judiciary is not included.

Madam Speaker, I remember that in 2007 when I moved amendments to the Judicial Code of Conduct, the Vice-President cried out loud because he did not want that to be passsed.

Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: You run away!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, here, again, he is choosing not to include all other public officers. We, in the APNAC, are going to ensure that we move an amendment to change the definition of public officer so that we bring it in line with the provisions of the AU Convention against Corruption so that this fight is about everyone and anyone who holds public office.

Madam Speaker, there has been an argument that the use of Section 37 has made it difficult for public officers to make decisions because they are worried that if they make wrong decisions, they will be punished. Let me put this in its right perspective that why should somebody think that to serve the public is willy-nilly business? It is serious business and when you go to serve the public, you must be prepared to do so judiciously. You must ensure that you make prudent decisions. Now, you want to remove the checks and balances so that public officers can make decisions without any checks whatsoever, and yet you are still saying you are enhancing the fight against corruption? Our contention is that we are not at all.

Madam Speaker, Hon. George Mpombo spoke passionately about the issue of giving power …

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: I do not mind what the relationship is in the MMD, but when a person makes sense, they ought to be commended for doing so.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: I would like to ask His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice, when he comes to wind up debate, to tell this House and the nation what mischief the Government is curing by introducing in the law that the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission can be dismissed by the President after setting up a tribunal alone, and yet the current Act says the National Assembly is the one to determine whether a tribunal must be set up or not. Why do you want to take away that power from the people’s House to give it to one office? What is the reason?

Hon. Member: The President was elected by the whole nation.

Mr Lubinda: Secondly, what logic is there for you to have the President appoint the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission after ratification of Parliament and also the Deputy Director-General? What are you doing with the power?  

Mr Muyanda: On a point of order, Madam.

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: You cannot create so many centres of …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

I hear an hon. Member asking to raise a point of order when I cannot hear anything unprocedural.

Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, this is of national importance.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to thank you for permitting me to raise this serious point of order on a matter of national importance and this is in line with our Standing Orders.

Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Home Affairs in order to remain silent in this august House when eleven miners at Sinazongwe Mine have been shot at and seriously wounded by a Chinese investor for demanding their money?

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

Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, when we talk about the rule of law taking its course, these are precisely the issues we want it to address. Despite us being in need of investors, are these the ones we want who come here and shoot our own citizens who are not armed and defenceless for demanding for better conditions of service for the labour that they provide at the Chinese run coal mine in Sinazeze? This is not good governance and I would like once again to implore His Honour the Vice-President to kindly assist us …

Interruptions 

Mr Muyanda: … to find out what has happened. Is the responsible hon. Deputy Minister in order not to inform the nation of this sad development in Sinazongwe District at Kandabwe Coal Mine managed by the Chinese?

Hon. Opposition Member: The Chinese at it again.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! The point of order has drawn the attention of the House to what the hon. Member has said happened in Sinazeze. The Chair would have been tempted to say the hon. Member has debated the point of order. The guidance is that we all know how to raise points of order. You do not go on to debate. However, because of the seriousness of the point of order, the hon. Minister, through His Honour the Vice-President, at a time when the Government gets ready will come to inform the House hopefully next week, what exactly took place because the nation has heard about this shooting so that the House is clear as to what exactly happened in Sinazeze. The nation needs to be adequately informed on what exactly transpired. 

May the hon. Member for Kabwata continue.

Mr Lubinda: Thank you, Madam Speaker and I want to appreciate my colleague for giving me a break with his point of order.

Madam Speaker, another matter that we are concerned about is that His Honour the Vice-President, in his visionary leadership, has decided to introduce in the Bill that the Deputy Director General and officers of the ACC and commissioners shall make declarations of assets upon employment. Like the Chair of your Committee asked, of what use is it to make a declaration only upon employment and not make a follow-up declaration at the end after termination of employment? What use is the first declaration for? It is of no use. Over and above all this, why is it that the officials from the ACC who are supposed to be the watchdogs of all public officers are being chained  and asked to make a declaration of their assets while the people they are checking on are not asked to so? Of what sense is that? To the hon. Deputy Minister of Justice, what we are saying is that we would like hon. Members of Parliament to be compelled to declare their assets by law and not by practice. That is what we want. We want the law to be amended so that any holder of a public office makes a declaration of his or her assets upon employment, annually, thereafter, and especially at termination of employment. 

Madam Speaker, we also want the Vice-President to introduce a component in the law that is going to state what is going to happen to you as a public officer at termination of employment and your subsequent engagement in a private firm. We have, seen in this House, people who have stood here and defended certain laws and sooner upon leaving Parliament or Cabinet become board members of companies in whose interest they debated here. That is abuse of office and we should stop it. The only way we can stop it, is not by being rhetorical, but by coming up with laws that strengthen the fight against corruption.

Madam Speaker, let me also respond to some of the issues that were raised regarding the Bill which are connected to the Constitution. I wonder whether there is any provision which states that when a person becomes an hon. Minister of Justice or Vice-President, he or she becomes the repository of knowledge on the law. Who created that impression? There are many learned and eminent lawyers who made submissions before your Committee and none of them questioned what is contained in the Constitution. Why is it that this House and the nation at large must be misled by one hon. Deputy Minister of Justice?

Interruptions

Mr Lubinda: What about LAZ to which Hon. Todd Chilembo and His Honour the Vice-President are members? Do people in LAZ not know law? They provided submissions to your Committee and said that Section 37 is actually consistent with the Constitution. As the hon. Deputy Minister rightly pointed out, when a lawyer is found with money in his possession, he is asked to explain its source. Is that not what Section 37 is saying? Section 37 is simply saying if you are found with wealth that is not commensurate with your earnings as hon. Deputy Minister, the ACC must compel you to explain the source. That does not mean that your rights have been infringed upon because if you wish, you can remain silent and the Judge will pass his judgement. 

Madam Speaker, am I supposed not to prove that the car in my possession is not Hon. Mulongoti’s when the police find me with a stolen car? Am I not supposed to explain how I acquired the car in question? In keeping in line with the Constitution’s provision that His Honour the Vice-President is referring to, if I refuse to explain the source of the car in question, the court will pass its judgement. In this case as well, we are not saying that the people shall be forced to speak. What the law is saying is that, if you are found with wealth whose source you cannot explain, you must go to court and explain that, maybe, your grandfather sent you some money from the graveyard. Go and explain in court.

Laughter 

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, like the hon. Deputy Minister said, it is not right for us to amend laws with certain faces in mind. We must not weaken the country’s laws because we have certain faces including ourselves in mind. We should make laws without regard of whether or not they will catch up with us. Some of my colleagues have said to me in passing that the laws that I am pushing for will catch up with me one day. However, I say to them, yes, let the law catch up with me because I am a human being. I am fallible, but my fallibility must not make me water down the law and destroy the country for my own selfish gain.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: I must come up with laws which I know if I break them, I too will be liable and will face the wrath of the law. Had it been that we come here to make laws which only other people will be liable to and not ourselves then, I do not think that we should even go to church. I do not think we would even be reverends. 

Mr Kakoma: Reverend Shikapwasha.

Mr Lubinda: We would not have a reverend in the House. Do unto others as you want them do unto you, reverend!

Mr Kambwili: Ni reverend wa feki ulya!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, I would like to implore upon reverend to do unto me as he would like me to do unto him when he is debating.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, he should listen to my debate, even if he might not agree with what I am saying. The African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption (APNAC) has consulted widely and even provided information to your Committee on similar legislation from other countries. If you recall, there was a time in this House as shown not on the website, but in the hardcopies of the Hansard that I complained when His Honour the Vice-President went to your Committee and said laws such as the one we are debating do not exist in any civilised part of the world and yet, I produced documents from Ghana, South Africa and Uganda which showed that such laws existed in those countries. I wonder if those countries that have strengthened their fight against corruption are not civilised. I wonder whether civilisation is watering down the fight against corruption.

Madam Speaker, we are determined to ensure that Section 37 and 50 are protected and if it means us moving amendment upon amendment, we shall do so because it is in the interest of the people that we serve that we, ourselves, must put ourselves under check. We, as hon. Members of Parliament, as I said before must remove the log in our eyes before we remove the speck in other people’s eyes and I am an advocate of ensuring that even people in the private sector are brought under this law.

This law should apply even to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and churches, but it must start with us in here. In other words, we should apply the proverb of the woman in the mirror.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives (Mr Mulonga): Madam Speaker, I stand here to support this Bill.  What is supposed to be told to the nation is that this Government elected by the people represents the views of the majority of the people …

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: … and not only those who live in Lusaka. This Government is for people all over Zambia.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: Therefore, when this Government is making laws, it looks at the requirements and satisfaction of the majority of the people of Zambia. It has to protect the people of this country because it is a very responsible Government.

In supporting this Bill, I want to draw the attention of the House to page 10 of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights and Gender Matters on the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010 where section 37 is discussed and I think one of my colleagues also talked about this.  Regarding the argument that section 37 in the current Act shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution and placed it on the accused, it was argued that the provision merely required a public officer to explain how he or she utilised his or her office or acquired wealth.

Madam Speaker, you may agree with me that, of late, the majority of Lusaka-based people have been complaining about acquittals in the courts of laws.

Interruptions

Mr Mulonga: To them, anyone taken to court on allegations of corruption is already guilty even before being convicted. However, the courts of law have been acquitting most of the accused. In court, it is when the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable that the court finds someone guilty.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: It is not the responsibility of the one being prosecuted to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty. Now, if you want the accused person to prove beyond reasonable that he or she stole, surely, is he or she going to do that? This is why we are saying that this section is faulty. We must, therefore, remove it from this Act so that when we take someone to court, we have facts beyond reasonable doubt that this person is liable of a crime. We should not expect the accused to incriminate themselves by claiming that they did this and that. 

Laughter

Mr Mulonga: It is because of such expectations that the Opposition is always complaining about acquittals and so on.

Madam Speaker, I understand that some lawyers are not advocates …

Laughter

Mr Mulonga: … and there is a difference between the two.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: Madam Speaker, if we are going to be making laws just to impress a few hon. Members in here, then this Government is not protecting the interest of the people and we refuse to be party to that.  

Madam Speaker, on the same page 10, the report states that:

“The stakeholders also stated that the abuse of authority clause had proved its efficacy as evidenced by the fact that a number of prosecutions based on the provision had been sustained in the courts of law. They argued that it was not the number of convictions that determined the efficacy of provisions, but the fact that an action could successfully go through the judicial system.”

Madam Speaker, for me, such an argument is like saying the judicial system must be some kind of an academic exercise. What is being said here is that as long as a legal action successfully goes through the judicial process, it does not matter whether the accused is convicted or not.  

Interruptions 

Mr Mulonga: This is wrong because when you take a case to court, you must be convinced that the accused person is going to be convicted. What would be the point in going through the normal judicial system if the accused is not going to be found guilty? In the process, the Government is losing money in legal fees and other expenses which is supposed to be used to develop other sectors …

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: … because of going to court every now and then. Therefore, legal action that will eventually result in an acquittal is not worth pursuing. This is why I am saying the Government will not be party to the making of such laws. We want the process of fighting corruption to be smooth, convincing and…

Dr Puma: Ndiye ma lawyer aya.

Mr Mulonga: … protective to our own people. The laws on corruption should not be based on the views of one or two people in here. 

Madam Speaker, in fact, those of us in the African Parliamentarians Network against Corruption (APNAC) are going to support the fight against corruption.

Mr Lubinda: Yes!

Mr Mulonga:  However, we are to do so by following the rules and regulations of this country which are made by this Government.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Mr Mulonga: We are not going to follow any rules from outside our country. APNAC is just a subsidiary when it comes to the making of laws on corruption in this country. So, we must follow the rules and regulations of the majority of the Zambian people.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mbewe: Wamvela Lubinda.

Mr Mulonga:  Madam Speaker …

Mr Munaile: Bakakutwale naku Justice board.

Laughter

Mr Mulonga: … these are some of the things that I wanted to put on record. This is a Government of the people and for the people. Therefore, what we are doing is what the people want. The people went to vote to put the current Government in power so that it could look after them. For example, in a meeting the chairperson is the one to preside over matters instead of other members directing how issues are supposed to be discussed.

Interruptions

Mr Mulonga: A person given authority must be able to preside over matters until such a time that his or her term comes to an end.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: So, as long the mandate is still with the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) Government, it is going to listen to everyone, including those in the farthest part of the country such as Shang’ombo. We are not only going to consider views from one province or district because what may be good for one district may not be good for the majority of the Zambian people. 

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, want to repeat that this Government will follow rules and regulations in running this country, but what should be known is that this is a Government of the people because they voted it into power.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mulonga: So, which people are some hon. Members talking about when they say the people out there are listening? The people out there are the ones who said we should come here and debate on their behalf. I, therefore, do not understand which other people some hon. Members are talking about.

Laughter

Mr Mbewe: Hear, hear! Bauze!

Mr Mulonga: Madam Speaker, the Zambian people are speaking through their representative Government which they said, as for now, should preside over the affairs of Zambia through this House. This is some of the incorrectness which I wanted to bring to your attention.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, you have seen that there are still many of you that want to debate this matter. Therefore, let us not go into tedious repetitions. If your point has been raised, please, do not go into repeating it because then the Chair may have to remind you that the House has already heard that point. So, please, put new points across and try to use time efficiently so that we can move on.

Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Madam Speaker, I thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to support this progressive Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: In the same way the hon. Member of Parliament for Lukashya ably put it that laws are dynamic, it also follows that society is dynamic and, therefore, there is no way we can remain static. This Bill is intended to realign our laws regarding the fight against corruption to what is obtaining in the region and elsewhere internationally. This is very simple. His Honour the Vice-President and learned hon. Minister of Justice ably clarified all these issues, point by point, except that when some hon. Members begin their debate with some preconceptions, they may not even be listening because they have already made up their minds that whatever happens, this is what they are going to debate and this is typical of those of us who get instructions from outside.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

  Mr Kasongo: We are talking about ownership of our own laws which will be referred to as our law and not their law ...

Hon. Government Members: No.

Mr Kasongo: ... because there are people who talk about their laws. A good example that can be given is what happened recently in the United Kingdom (UK) over a similar issue.  Hon. Members who were involved were punished for false claims. If it were in Zambia, you would have blown the issue beyond proportion.

Laughter

Mr Kasongo: Now, the UK is stable. Hon. Members of Parliament simply said they had made a mistake and paid back and others just apologised. However, in Zambia, we would want to blow up the issue as if Heaven had fallen.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: That is why, Madam, Zambians, especially some of us here, are enemies of ourselves. 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: We want to progress, but other people who are funded from somewhere are pulled backwards. This country cannot develop if, for example, they are being used by other nationals. Please, remain a Zambian. The thinking must be in that context. When debating, do not debate about other people simply because you have been sent. For example, the question of appointment ...

Hon. Member: Speak to the Bill.

Mr Kasongo: Yes, I am speaking to the Bill. You are also saying the same. 

Madam, the appointment of top managers by His Excellency the President concerns the Government’s commitment to the fight against corruption. The President must have a say in what is happening in the country. When this is done, it does not mean that someone is going to be followed and for what? The present leadership is very understanding, as far as I am concerned, except that wrong pictures are sent. 

Madam, there is nothing political about this issue. We are talking about a Bill that will embrace everybody and not an individual. If, for example, you have differences with your political party, that is your problem.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: However, what we are saying here ...

Interruptions

Hon. Member interjected.

Mr Kasongo: Yes, if you have a problem, ...

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The Chair is, once again, compelled to remind the House to allow for free debate. Yes, indeed, there are ways in which we question and encourage, but not to totally outdo or outspeak the hon. Member on the Floor to an extent that the Member is forced to shout, but can still not be heard. The purpose of speaking here is to be heard and understood. 

Hon. Members, the hon. Members on the Floor do not have to say what you like, but they have the right to speak what they believe. Can we listen and if we disapprove or agree, we know how to do it, but allow for the flow of debate. The House must use the time on our hands.

The hon. Member may continue.

Mr Kasongo: Madam, I am aware that His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice, when he winds up the Bill, may make reference to a number of issues, but it is the same thing that can make you laugh. There was a contribution to the effect that declaration of assets must done upon engagement and, maybe, after but this is obvious. A declaration is made every year. What is the problem? 

Madam, I am so positive that my own brother, Hon. Mpombo, whom I have respect for, would have assisted this House on this Bill because both of us are UNIP products. He is aware of how, for example, the issue of abuse of office was twisted to mean something else. To some people, it meant no ownership of property beyond one’s legal income. That was the interpretation at that time. A leader was not allowed even to rear chickens.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mr Kasongo: I was, for example, a recipient of a letter. I put up a chicken run with the view of rearing village chickens. I received a letter that I had to make a choice as a leader. Either I continued rearing chickens or get fired.

Laughter

Mr Kasongo: There was a friend of mine, the hon. Member for Luampa at that time, who bought a second-hand mini-bus. We could even see the smoke from point A to the next point. He received a letter to make a choice whether to become a businessman or leader. 

Madam Speaker, do not take Zambia backwards. If you want to develop this country, only indigenous Zambians will develop it.

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

Mr Kasongo: Madam, the problem that you have is to allow foreigners to amass wealth and Zambians end up destitute in their own country. Do not allow such a situation. I will be the first person to fight against such kind of a Bill. In any case, I am happy that even those who made their contributions are here. You should look at the mansions that they have. We know them, but when they come here, they pretend that they are paupers. For me, I would not like to go backwards and see my own children suffering in their own country, and yet the potential is there for them to make wealth. I am not going to allow a situation where a Bill will exclude Zambians from owning property. I will be the first person to stand up and oppose such a Bill.

Madam, I know that when you are paid by outsiders and dancing to their tune, you can do anything.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kasongo: In a nutshell, Madam Speaker, this Bill is progressive and should be supported by all of us. We do not want to go backwards and consign Zambians to poverty. Zambians must be given immense opportunity to create wealth and employment in their own country. That is the only way Zambia will develop economically.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order! 

I can see many hon. Members who want to debate. Do they really have new points? 

Hon. Members: They have.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think they are all important points, but will go in the same direction. I will just allow His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice to wind up.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Speaker, thank you. 

Madam, the issue of the definition of corruption has already been conceded. We are going to polish it up. Even when the Attorney-General and draftspersons appeared before your Committee, they conceded to this. The report on this Bill is very progressive.

Hon. Opposition Member: No.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: The report supports the enactment of this Bill. That is the position except they want certain amendments. However, those amendments have to be considered, of course, on their own merit.

The provisions which Hon. Lubinda talked about regarding the removal of the Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) are consistent with other constitutional provisions, for example, the removal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Judges. We have made the removal of the Director-General similar to those provisions. There is, therefore, nothing new which we have done here.

Madam Speaker, the offence of abuse of office is covered under section 99 of the Penal Code, with a sentence of three years imprisonment. This is a long period to be in confinement. Therefore, that is a serious offence that has already been provided for. There are other offences under the same Bill. For example, Abuse of Official Power at Section 21 and others.

As regards the UN, AU and SADC conventions which were referred to have to be adapted to our own circumstances, laws and Constitution. That is what these conventions provide. This is what we are doing and this Bill is very consistent with that provision. 

Madam Speaker, it is said that this is an election year and that we should not offend certain interest groups. I must say that this Bill is well supported by Zambians whom we represent.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Opposition Members: No!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: With regard to the opinion of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), is unfortunate …

Mr Kambwili: What is unfortunate?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: … that its opinion usually coincides with that in the Post newspaper nowadays.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Mr Kambwili: Question!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: They consistently give the same opinion. As regards submissions made to your Committee, Transparency International made more learned submissions compared to those by LAZ.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Speaker, it is disgraceful that LAZ should make submissions of this nature.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Therefore, we should dismiss the politically-coated submissions of LAZ.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: They have been not of any use to this particular process.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: We have consulted on this Bill and it is consistent with the National Anti-corruption Policy. Since the Bill has been supported by your Committee, I urge all hon. Members to support it.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Opposition Members called for a division.

Question that the Anti-Corruption Bill, 2010, be read a second time put and the House voted.

Ayes – (54)

Mr A. Banda 
Mr I. Banda 
Mr W. Banda
Ms Changwe
Mr Chella 
Major Chibamba
Mr Chilembo
Mr Chimbaka
Mr Chisanga 
Dr Chishya
Mr Chongo
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kachimba
Mr Kaingu
Mr Kakusa
Mr Kalenga
Dr Kalila
Ms C. M. Kapwepwe
Mr Kasongo
Dr Kawimbe
Dr Kazonga
Mr Konga
Mr Kunda, SC.
Mr Liato
Professor Lungwangwa
Mr Mabenga
Mr Machila
Mr Mbewe
Mr Mubika
Mr Mufalali
Mr Mukuma
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti
Mr Mulyata
Mr Munaile
Dr Musonda
Mr Mutati
Mr Muteteka
Mr V. Mwale 
Dr Mwansa
Mr Mwanza
Ms Namugala
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata
Dr Puma
Mr Shawa
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha
Mr Sichamba
Mr Sikazwe
Ms Siliya
Mr Simama
Mr Taima
Ms Tembo
Mr Zulu

Noes – (30)

Mr Chazangwe
Mr Chisala
Mr Chitonge
Mr Hamusonde
Mr Kambwili
Mr Kamondo
Ms Kapata
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kasoko
Dr Katema
Ms Kawandami
Mr Lubinda
Mr Lumba
Mr Malama
Mr Mpombo
Mr Msichili
Mr Mukanga
Mr C. Mulenga
Mr L. P. J. Mulenga
Mr Muyanda
Mrs Mwamba 
Mr Mwamba 
Mr Mwango
Ms Mwape
Mr Mweemba
Mr D. Mwila
Mrs Phiri
Dr Scott
Mr Shakafuswa
Mr Simuusa

Abstentions – (03)

Mr Chota
Mr Mwansa

Mr Nyirenda

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

Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

Committee on 3rd November, 2010.

THE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE BILL, 2010

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read the second time.

Madam Speaker, this Bill seeks to establish the Financial Intelligence Centre and provide for its powers and functions and provide for duties of supervisory authorities and reporting entities.

Madam Speaker, the Financial Intelligence Centre Bill establishes the Financial Intelligence Centre to monitor suspicious transactions and prevent money laundering on the financing of terrorism and rationalises the reporting of suspicious transactions by ensuring that such reports are made to the Financial Intelligence Centre in line with internal best practice. 

Madam Speaker, the Bill will contribute to strong and effective anti-money laundering with regime that will promote national security and financial integrity and will cartel money laundering, terrorism, financing and related illegal activities which are capable of destroying a viable financial system and the nation as a whole.

Madam Speaker, in addition, the Bill empowers the Director of Financial Intelligence Centre to order a reporting entity where the Director reasonably suspects that a transaction relates to money laundering, terrorist financing or any other serious offence or the commission of a serious offence, to freeze an account related to that transaction or suspend the transaction for a period not exceeding ten days. This is because the gravity of terrorism and money laundering offences and the complexity of financial transactions, especially in a global economy driven by advances in technology, mean that a limited power to freeze accounts is absolutely essential in order for the centre to effectively operate. 

In addition, there is a possibility of discharge of the order of the Director by the court upon the application of an aggrieved party and the power to freeze an account or suspend a transaction is limited to a period of ten days, subject to review by a court where applicable. The Bill also empowers a designated non-bank financial institution or professional or an employee of a financial institution that suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that any transaction is related to money laundering or terrorist financing to submit a report to the Financial Intelligence Centre.

Madam, the Bill further empowers a designated non-bank financial institution or a professional or an employee of a financial institution, that suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is a proceed of crime or is related or linked to, or is to be used for terrorism, terrorist attacks, by terrorist organisations or persons who finance terrorism to submit a report to the Financial Intelligence Centre, setting out the suspicions.

Madam Speaker, the financial institution is prohibited from carrying out any transaction that a financial institution suspects to be related to money laundering, financing of terrorism or any other serious offence.

The Bill imposes a duty on your reporting entity:

(i)    to exercise due diligence in respect of any business relationship with a customer which will include the maintaining of current information on records relating to the customer; and

(ii)    to have appropriate risk management systems to identify customers whose activities may pose a high risk of money laundering and financing of terrorism and to exercise enhanced identification, verification and due diligence procedures with respect to such customers.

Madam Speaker, this Bill is timely, especially when viewed in light of increased terrorist attacks in various parts of the world, including, more recently, on the African continent.

Madam Speaker, this Bill is not controversial. It is progressive and I, therefore, urge hon. Members to support it.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chota: Madam Speaker, I thank you for according me the opportunity to brief the august House on the outcome of your Committee’s deliberations on the Financial Intelligence Centre Bill, 2010.

Madam Speaker, in considering the Bill before the House, your Committee was cognisant of the fact that there is a symbiotic relationship between money laundering and corruption. Money laundering schemes make it possible to conceal the proceeds of corruption. 

On the other hand, corruption is a source of money laundering as it generates large amounts of proceeds to be laundered. Corruption may also enable the commission of a money laundering offence and hinder its detection by facilitating the obstruction of the effective implementation of the law. Anti-money laundering measures can, therefore, be used to fight corruption, trace, seize and confiscate assets or properties that are proceeds of crime. 

Further, at the core of anti-money laundering strategies is the need for transparency, integrity and accountability in all business and financial transactions. This imposes a requirement for financial institutions and other designated non-financial businesses to report transactions they deem suspicious. Due to the confidentiality traditionally attached to financial transactions and because reporting entities may not have the means to investigate and substantiate their suspicions, it may be difficult to report suspicions to the law enforcement agencies.

 At the same time, law enforcement agencies may not be very well equipped to handle complex financial and business investigations which often have a global character. In the light of the foregoing, it is necessary to create a specialised agency which will focus on processing financial information that may be related to corruption or criminal activities and disseminating the resulting intelligence to law enforcement agencies for their further action. 

In the light of the foregoing, the Financial Intelligence Centre Bill, 2010 seeks to establish the Financial Intelligence Centre and provide for its functions and powers and provide for duties of supervisory authorities and reporting entities. 

The rationale for the introduction of this legislation is to establish a Financial Intelligence Centre to monitor suspicious transactions and prevent money laundering and financing of terrorism and rationalise the reporting of suspicious transactions by ensuring that such reports are made to the Financial Intelligence Centre in line with international best practice. The Financial Intelligence Centre Bill also seeks to contribute to a strong and effective anti-money laundering regime that will promote national security and financial integrity and curtail money laundering, terrorism financing and related illegal activities which are capable of destroying a viable financial system and the nation as a whole. 

Madam Speaker, a number of concerns were highlighted by the stakeholders who appeared before your Committee and made submissions. Owing to the brevity of time, I will briefly highlight only a few of the major concerns raised and your Committee’s recommendations thereon. I urge the hon. Members to read the report for more details relating to the findings of your Committee. 

Madam Speaker, some stakeholders felt that the period provided in the Bill in which an aggrieved person whose account has been frozen, pending investigations, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, could apply to a Judge to discharge the freezing order was inadequate to allow for completion of investigations. On the other hand, some stakeholders were concerned that this provision proposed to grant unfettered powers to the director to order the freezing of an account or suspension of a transaction on reasonable suspicion that the transaction related to money laundering, terrorist financing or any other serious offence or the commission of a serious offence without providing for a safeguard with regard to the interests of the other party who had to been presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Madam Speaker, your Committee agrees with the concern that the definition of reporting entity in the Bill is not sufficiently broad as it omits groups such as precious stone and metal dealers, casinos, real estate developers and lottery operators who may not fall under a regulatory authority but, by international practice, are designated as non-financial businesses and professions. Further, it was submitted that while the financial intelligence centre prohibited the establishment of an anonymous account, there is no definition of anonymous account provided in the interpretation section of the Bill. Your Committee recommends that the definition of reporting entity be broadened accordingly and anonymous account be defined as per proposal in the report.

As regards autonomy of the centre, a number of stakeholders were concerned that the provision at Section 6 (2) negates the provision of Section 6 (1). In the same light, there were also concerns regarding the proposed composition of the board of the centre in light of the fact that the Bill does not provide for the members of the board to be nominated by the relevant institutions. This means that the members of the board will be selected purely using the discretion of the Minister. 

In the same vein, the hon. Minister is at Section 7 (2) given the discretion to determine the qualifications of members of the board outside the specified qualifications. Related to this, concerns were also expressed over the fact that the tenure of office of the board is not stated in the Bill. Additionally, there was concern over the provision that the board members of the centre be appointed by the President without ratification by the National Assembly. It was felt that these provisions compromise the independence and autonomy of the board. In this regard, your Committee is of the view that there is a need for various stakeholders to be included in the process of selection and appointment of the board of the centre through nomination by relevant institutions and ratification by the National Assembly.

Madam, of concern was also the fact ...

Mr Chota drank some water.

 Mr Chota: … that the Bill seeks to confer unfettered powers on the director with regard to the termination of appointments of officers of the centre by the provisions of Section 11 that are excessive, particularly that there is no provision for a clear disciplinary and appeals procedure. Your Committee recommends that a clear and detailed disciplinary and appeals procedure be made mandatory by the Act. The detailed procedure can then be stipulated through promulgation of appropriate regulations by the centre.

Madam Speaker, your Committee learnt that while the Immigration Department plays a critical role in combating various predicate offences such as  human trafficking which give rise to money laundering activities, the department is not …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

(Debate adjourned)

________

The House adjourned at 1255 hours until 1430 hours on Tuesday, 19th October, 2010.