DAILY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TENTH ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, 21st August 2007

The House met at 1430 hours

[THE SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

____

ANNOUNCEMENT

COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE HON. MEMBER FOR NAMWALA CONSTITUENCY, MAJOR ROBBY CHIZHYUKA AGAINST THE HON. MEMBER FOR NKANA CONSTITUENCY, MR MUSENGE MWENYA

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, on 25th January, 2007, the Member of Parliament for Namwala Parliamentary Constituency, Major Robby Chizhyuka, MP, lodged a complaint against the Member of Parliament for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr M. Mwenya, MP.

In his letter of complaint, Major R. Chizhyuka, MP, alleged that Mr M. Mwenya, MP, threatened him with violence and assaulted him by pouring beer on him at the National Assembly Member’s Motel on 18th January, 2007.

Major Chizhyuka’s letter of complaint states as follows: Quote.

“I write to complain that Hon. Musenge, MP for Nkana Constituency threatened me with violence and poured beer on my body at the Parliament Motel. He alleged that I had insulted the PF President by calling him a dog.

“He furthermore accused me of having called the President of PF a Madman. He demanded an apology from me for all what I had debated during my contribution time at the Seminar. Madam Clerk, I was ridiculed, humiliated and threatened with physical violence. However, I did not retaliate.

“As a Member of Parliament, my understanding is that all debates which took place during the Seminar were with Parliamentary Immunity. However, with or without Immunity, I wish to vehemently deny that I had insulted the PF President. My verbatim transcript can be accessed and read over and over. I strongly deny that I insulted the PF President. He also threatened that sooner or later PF would deal with me effectively outside Parliament. All what I have stated above was witnessed by Hon. R. Muntanga, MP. I am still in a state of shock. Never did I think that my life could be in such a danger, especially within the precincts of Parliament. Hence, I seek Parliament’s protection.

“When the Seminar came to an end, the Hon. Madam Deputy Speaker commended all participants for exchanging views frankly and that the Seminar had come to a good end. Why, then should my life be threatened for what I never said. I firmly request that the administration should take appropriate action against Hon. Musenge for the unfounded allegations levelled against me and for posterity purposes, in case I am attacked outside Parliament by unknown people.”

In accordance with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in line with the principle of natural justice, the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to Mr M. Mwenya, MP, requesting him to exculpate himself from the allegations levelled against him by Major Chizhyuka, MP. The Office of the Clerk also wrote to Mr R. Muntanga, MP, a witness mentioned in Major Chizhyuka’s letter of complaint, to find out what he knew about the incident.

In his letter of response to the Clerk, Mr Mwenya, MP, admitted the allegations by stating as follows:

“I wish to respond to the allegations as follows:

“On 18th of January, 2007, during our last session of the seminar, Hon. Major Chizhyuka severely provoked the hon. Members of the Patriotic Front when he verbally insulted our Party President, Mr M. C. Sata, who is not a Member of the House and could, therefore, not defend himself. This brought an uproar, anger and tension amongst the PF Members in the House.

“Later in the evening, at the National Assembly Motel Lounge, a good number of us (Patriotic Front) were seated and taking drinks when Hon. Zulu called Hon. Chizhyuka to our table. Hon. Kambwili humbly advised Hon. Major Chizhyuka to avoid that kind of attack on our Party President and advised him to leave as we were still angered by the comments made in the House. I stood up to calm Hon. Kambwili when suddenly, Hon. Major Chizhyuka interrupted, commented and I quote:

‘I stand by what I said and I can say it again now, tomorrow and even after one year, I could say the same. Your President is mad.’

“Mr Speaker, I could not stomach it, and reacted by splashing a glass of wine on him and not beer, as indicated in the letter. I agree that I lost myself because of the provocation. This situation could have been avoided if Hon. Major Chizhyuka, understanding our feelings after he had provoked us, later in the day, eased the tension instead of re-igniting it.

“In retrospect, I regretted having lost my temper to a point of pouring wine on a fellow Member of Parliament.

“The following morning, I approached Hon. Muntanga to try and reconcile with my fellow Members of Parliament and apologised. I got no response. I, again, approached Hon. Nkombo to facilitate reconciliation. He came back and reported that Hon. Major Chizhyuka was not willing to talk. I personally confronted him in the presence of Hon. Lubinda. Again, he rejected my advance.

“Mr Speaker, from the above, I have tried to register what my regrettable action caused and harmonise our relationship. Five years is a long way to avoid one another.

“I have personally approached and apologised to all the following hon. Members of Parliament who witnessed the incident for the embarrassment my regrettable action caused them:

 Hon. Kambwili;
 Hon. Zulu;
 Hon. Lubinda;
 Hon. D. Mwila;
 Hon. Kanyanyamina; and
 Hon. Muntanga.

“I further wish to unreservedly apologise to you, Sir.”

Mr Muntanga, MP, in his letter of response to the Clerk, stated as follows:

“On 18th January, 2007, at 2200 hours, I was having supper in the restaurant when I received a phone call from Hon. Major R. Chizhyuka who wanted me to accompany him to his son’s Kabwata house to have supper with him. I informed him that I was actually having my supper already, and asked him to instead come to the restaurant to join me. He acknowledged that it was rather late to go out and accepted to come to the restaurant to have supper. We were three of us at the table with Mr M. Mushili, Member of Parliament for Ndola Central.

“After supper, we all went out of the restaurant and sat in the foyer at seats direct in front of the television. We discussed there for sometime. Major R Chizhyuka then decided to go to bed. I immediately also decided to go to bed. As Hon. Major R Chizhyuka walked a few paces in front me, I heard Mr Zulu, Member of Parliament of Bwana Mkubwa calling Major Chizhyuka to go where a group of other Members of Parliament were seated. Major Chizhyuka, MP, looked back and hesitated. Mr Zulu, MP, insisted that Major Chizhyuka should turn back and go to him.

“Major Chizhyuka turned back and was given a seat next to Mr Zulu, MP. Since Major Chizhyuka had actually come to join me for supper, I also decided to turn back and stood close to where Major Chizhyuka was seated. Mr Zulu then told Major Chizhyuka that he had been made to understand that Major Chizhyuka was simply a home guard and not a regular Army officer.

Laughter

Mr Speaker:

“Major Chizhyuka, MP, smiled at the statement and said that it was a joke. I then concluded that the two were to discuss their friendly matters. I decided to ask Hon. A. Mwamba, Member of Parliament for Lukashya, that I needed to discuss other matters with her. Hon. Mwamba and I left this group and sat on the other seat nearer the reception. We might have chatted for about five to ten minutes, when I heard Mr C. Kambwili, Member of Parliament for Roan, who was standing facing Major Chizhyuka shouting that Major Chizhyuka should leave their group immediately for stating that he could repeat what he said in Parliament. He said this several times, nearly shouting with a high voice.

“I saw Mr M. Musenge, MP, standing in front of Major Chizhyuka, face Mr C. Kambwili and heard him tell him to stop shouting and keep cool. As Mr Kambwili lowered his voice and kept quiet, I heard Mr Musenge then shout while pointing at Major Chizhyuka that: ‘You are a dog. How can you call my President a madman? You are a dog.’

“All this time, Major Chizhyuka remained seated. It appeared as though Mr Musenge was ready to hit Major Chizhyuka, when one other Member of Parliament held him back. At this point, I stood up from where I was seated and went to pull Major Chizhyuka away from there. However, before I reached Major Chizhyuka who was then standing, a number of Members of Parliament joined to either restrain Mr Musenge, MP, who had then pulled away from someone holding him, picked up a glass containing some drink he was taking and came from behind Major Chizhyuka who was by then facing the doorway to go away, and poured the contents of the glass over Major Chizhyuka’s neck and shoulders. Some Member of Parliament went to hold him and many Members of Parliament joined in the fracas on control. The police officers on duty had by then come on the scene.

“I confronted Mr Zulu, MP, whether his calling back Major Chizhyuka who was going to bed was intended to attack him as they did. I advised that there was no need for fighting for matters that had arisen from a debate in the Chamber. I remember Mr D. Syakalima, MP, Mr D. Mwila, MP, Mr A. Simama, MP, and a few others, helping to control the situation. Major Chizhyuka went to bed and I left for bed as well.”

From the foregoing, hon. Members, the House may wish to know that the complaint raised by Major Chizhyuka, MP, against Mr Mwenya, MP, raises the question of breach of Parliamentary Privileges, etiquette and contempt of the House. Molesting a Member on account of what he or she says on the Floor of the House is, as I have cautioned time and time again, an offence punishable by the House.

As cited before, M N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, in their book entitled: “Practice and Procedure of Parliament”, Fifth Edition, on Page 285, states that:

“It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to obstruct or molest a Member while in the execution of his duties, that is, while he is attending the House or when he is coming to or going from the House. Similarly, to molest a Member on account of his conduct in Parliament is a breach of privilege.”

Further, Kaul and Shakdher, on page 287 state that:

“Any attempt to influence a Member otherwise than by way of argument which has its motive the intention to deter him from performing his duty constitutes a breach of privilege. Thus, an attempt to intimidate Members by threats with a view to influencing them in their parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege.”

Furthermore, Erskine May, in his book Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, on page 144, states as follows:

“To molest Members on account of their conduct in Parliament is also a contempt. Correspondence with Members of an insulting character in reference to their conduct in Parliament or reflecting on their conduct as Members, threatening a Member with possibility of trial at some future time for a question asked in the House, calling for his arrest as an arch traitor, offering to contradict a Member from the gallery, or proposing to visit a pecuniary loss on him on account of conduct in Parliament, have all been considered contempts.”

Hon. Members, Section 3 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, states that:

“3. There shall be freedom of speech and debate in the Assembly. Such freedom of speech and debate shall not be liable to be questioned in any court or place outside the Assembly”.

In addition, Section 23 (a) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, states that:

“Any person shall be guilty of an offence who assaults, obstructs or insults any Member or officer going to or from the precincts of the Assembly.”

From the facts stated above, the Committee observed that:

(a) the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr M. Mwenya, MP, misconducted himself by pouring the contents of whatever he had been drinking on the hon. Member for Namwala Parliamentary Constituency, Major R. Chizhyuka, MP. Mr Mwenya, MP, admitted this and indicated that he had made several attempts to apologise to Major Chizhyuka, MP; and

(b) in their debates on the Floor of the House, hon. Members must be factual, clear and precise. Hon. Members must avoid innuendos, insinuations or riddles in their debates to avoid being misunderstood.

Hon. Members, after an extensive study of the evidence submitted before them and in light of the relevant authorities, the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services established a case of breach of parliamentary privilege, etiquette and contempt of the House against the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr M. Mwenya, MP, for assaulting the hon. Member for Namwala Parliamentary Constituency, Major R. Chizhyuka, MP, by pouring on him whatever he was drinking from the glass. Accordingly, the Committee resolved that the hon. Member for Nkana Constituency, Mr M. Mwenya, MP, must be admonished.

Hon. Members, it is clear that Members enjoy freedom of speech in the House as stated by the provisions of the law and the various authorities on Parliamentary Procedure and Practice which I have already referred to. The freedom of speech enables Members of the House to debate freely without fear of being harassed thereafter. According to the authorities, no person or Member should question a Member outside the Assembly on account of what the Member says or does on the Floor of the House. A Member who wishes to question another Member on things said or done in the House must do so in accordance with the established rules of parliamentary procedure and practice.

Similarly, Members of the House, as I have already stated, are protected against molestation and insults on account of what they say in the House or in any Committee of the House.

Hon. Members, I have noted, with dismay, how some hon. Members have chosen to willfully contravene the rule of this august House. The conduct, such as was exhibited by the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr M. Mwenya, MP, falls far below the expected minimum standards of dignity and decorum of a Member of this House. The hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr Mwenya, MP, informed the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services that he had conducted himself in the manner he did under provocation.

Hon. Members, this House cannot accept provocation as an excuse for misconduct on the part of any Member of the House. As a national leader elected to this House by the Zambian people, the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr Mwenya, MP, is expected to be tolerant and exercise self control even under provocation. Otherwise, there will be no difference between the conduct of a distinguished Member of this august House who is referred to as honourable and that of an ordinary man on the street.

However, the House may wish to note that the Committee chose to be lenient with the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr Mwenya, MP, because they observed that at the time of the breach of the said parliamentary privileges, etiquette and contempt of the House, Mr Mwenya, MP, was relatively new in this House and many not have acquainted himself fully with the rules of this House. In addition, the Committee noted that Mr Mwenya, MP, had admitted that he had assaulted Major Chizhyuka, MP, and had several times attempted to extend his unreserved apology to Major Chizhyuka, MP, but his apology had on all occasions been turned down. It is in view of these reasons that, in considering the appropriate penalty to be meted out on him, the Committee chose to be lenient. This, notwithstanding, I wish to seriously warn the hon. Member for Nkana Parliamentary Constituency, Mr Mwenya, MP, that a repeat of any breach of the rules of this House will attract a more severe penalty against him.

With regard to the issue of provocation, I wish to remind the House that hon. Members should debate issues and not personalities. I have on several occasions reminded Members that they should only deal with facts. The rules of the House do not permit innuendos, riddles or insinuations.

When you use innuendos, riddles or insinuations, you depart from the rules of the House and you risk being misunderstood. This is how matters of this nature have arisen.

Further, hon. Members, I take this opportunity to seriously remind the House to desist from extending debates in the House to persons outside the Chamber. This is a serious breach of Parliamentary privilege, etiquette and contempt of the House. All issues raised on the Floor must be resolved and concluded on the Floor of the House in accordance with the established rules of debate. No matter how sensitive an issue may be, hon. Members are expected to restrain themselves in their debate and to resolve the issue on the Floor honourably and within the confines of the walls of this Chamber. There should be no spill over of debates. You either deal with the matter on the Floor of the House or you forever remain silent. That is the established rule of debate in this House.

Hon. Members should also take note of the definition of “Assembly” and “Precincts of the Assembly Chambers” as defined in the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2005. I, further, take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the rules of parliamentary etiquette contained in Chapter 5 of the National Assembly Members’ Handbook must be properly observed. This is so because certain rules of parliamentary etiquette relate to the Chamber per se, while others apply to the precincts of Parliament in general.

Hon. Members, when we refer to parliamentary etiquette, we are referring to the way hon. Members ought to conduct themselves within parliamentary precincts.

Finally, hon. Members must seriously take note that the Members’ Motel is also part of the parliamentary precincts and, as such, Members should at all times conduct themselves in a manner befitting that status.

I thank you.{mospagebreak}

___________

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

REIMBURSEMENT OF FUEL LEVY COLLECTED FROM THE RAILWAY SYSTEMS OF ZAMBIA

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Mr Magande): Mr Speaker, I wish to express my sincere thanks for giving me this opportunity to issue a statement to this august House on a matter related to an assurance made, through my ministry, on the reimbursement of the fuel levy collected from the Railway Systems of Zambia.

Mr Speaker, as hon. Members are well aware, the railway infrastructure in Zambia had deteriorated to a very unsatisfactory state. This greatly compromised the standard and efficiency of services provided to customers. The situation led to the failure by the railway company to play its pivotal role in supporting the efforts of the Government to grow and develop the economy through timely transportation of people and goods. With limited utilisation, the company could not even generate adequate resources for recapitalisation.

It is for this reason that the Government invited the private sector to participate in this transport sub sector so that the railway system could be modernised and improved. Among the options offered by the private sector was that of concessioning, which is a long-term lease of the infrastructure without permanent loss on the part of the Government. The Railway Systems of Zambia, a consortium of foreign companies, was therefore, given a concession period of twenty years.

In doing this, the Government was convinced that the operations of the company would improve as the concessionaire would bring in new money for investment in capitalisation of the hard infrastructure and rolling stock. An attractive and impressive investment plan was presented during the negotiations and this made the Government give the Railway Systems of Zambia the concession.

The timing of this agreement was important as it was strongly believed that the implementation and firming of good economic policies by the New Deal Administration would result in the revival of the economy. This would, in turn, see the movement of heavy and large volumes of cargo. As per prediction, this is what has happened as new investments are being made in the country. It is a well known fact that heavy cargo should always be conveyed by railway while light traffic goes on the roads. This saves the cost of maintaining the roads on a frequent basis.

Mr Speaker, as a gesture of good will, the Government indicated that it could consider other measures that would augment the foreign capital brought into the country by the concessionaire. A notion to refund the fuel levy paid by the company was put forward to the Government. The Government saw sense in the above proposition by the Railway Systems of Zambia because the improvement of the railway infrastructure would divert the transportation of heavy cargo from roads to railway, thereby extending the lifespan of roads and reducing the cost of road maintenance.

I must say that at the time I made the assurance to this House, it was thought that the idea could be implemented immediately even though the details of the implementation had not yet been developed. When supervising the implementation of the concession arrangement, it was discovered that the promised levels of recapitalisation were not being made and the railway line was getting into a worse condition. More and more cargo was getting onto our roads, requiring huge amounts for frequent and costly maintenance using the fuel levy. The ministry, therefore, decided to seek the approval of Cabinet for such a policy shift which had serious revenue implications. In developing the Cabinet Memorandum, discussions were held with the Railway Systems of Zambia on the possible use of the fuel levy to be refunded to the company. The proposal would entail shifting financial resources from the roads sub-sector to the railway sub-sector.

Sir, my ministry took the matter to Cabinet, but a decision could not be made immediately as more information was required. The required information included the company’s compliance with the concession agreement. This information was vital for Cabinet to be clear in making a well-informed decision. While this issue was being discussed, the Government was also monitoring the performance of the concessionaire, the Railway Systems of Zambia. As most of us might have seen in the public media, the performance of the concessionaire had raised some serious concerns to both the Government and the general public.

These are serious developments and the Government is looking at them with a view to coming up with some appropriate decisions. As a result of these negative developments, the assurance that I had made before this House remains unimplemented.

Mr Speaker, in view of the current situation, the Government, and particularly my ministry, wishes to shelve, indefinitely, the plan to go ahead with the proposed idea of considering the refund or remission of fuel levy paid by the Railway Systems of Zambia. These funds are currently being used to maintain the road infrastructure so as to facilitate the positive economic trends in our economy. The Government will review the situation at an appropriate time once the concerns on the operations of the company have been addressed.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: The hon. Members are free to raise questions on points of clarification on the statement which has been given by the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning.

Mr Sikota (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, having seen that railways also uses fuel, has the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning also considered channelling part of the fuel levy to upgrading and maintaining the various railway lines that we have in the country?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, this was what we intended to do, but since the concessionaire is an investor who promised to take certain actions to improve the railway systems, until we see him meeting the conditions of that concession agreement, we are not going to divert the resources that we are using on the current road network to assist the concessionaire in implementing his investment plan.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze): Mr Speaker, it is a matter of public notoriety that the current concessionaire of Zambia Railways has failed the people of Zambia. Is there any timeframe that the Ministry of Finance and National Planning can give the nation in which they are going to review the concession agreement?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, I will not be able to make a definite date at the moment, but we are looking at the concession agreement. However, since the concessioning or privatisation of the railways had involved some technical assistance from donors, – in fact, we got a lot of money from the World Bank to pay off terminal benefits for the redundant staff – we resorted to requesting the World Bank to joining the team that is studying what Hon. Mwiimbu says has been a failed attempt by the concessionaire.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning aware that in their quest for quick profits, the Railway Systems of Zambia has continued to refuse taking long haul freights and are concentrating on short freights? This has led them to refuse inter-mine freights on the Copperbelt and also the movement of copper from the Copperbelt to Kapiri Mposhi for onward transmission to Dar-es-Salaam, thus causing further damage to our roads on the Copperbelt and between Copperbelt and Lusaka. Would the hon. Minister take this into consideration when it comes to giving this concession to the Railway Systems of Zambia?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank Hon. Milupi for posing that technical question. Obviously, his proposal that we look at this matter is very important. These are some of the issues that are making us believe that this agreement is not working. Our copper is supposed to be taken, at least, up to the border, but we find that a lot of copper, right now, is going by road. As a result, our roads are being battered and we have to repair them every so often. Therefore, we are aware and will take this into account.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning tell us which countries members of this consortium come from and what measures were taken to screen them in order to protect our own interest?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, the problem we face when we are seeking information on any company is that, even if you see the nationality of directors, they might not be residents in the country that they have indicated. They might have grown up next door. Therefore, it might not be useful even if I knew a managing director who is around sixty years old to state where he was born because he might have that nationality, but he grew up in Zambia. Nevertheless, it is a consortium of foreign companies and not Zambian companies.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka): Mr Speaker, could I find out from the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning why he did not wait to present this statement to this House before collecting an opinion from what he called, “the technical and legal minds” in order to give us a way forward regarding the establishment of the Railway Consortium of Zambia (RCZ).

Sir, I ask this question because, clearly, they are in breach …

Mr Speaker: Order! You are debating

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, when this question was raised in this House by Hon. Muntanga, Member of Parliament for Kalomo, I still recall that the debate then was, “we know that the Government is remitting fuel levy for the Tanzania-Zambia Railways (TAZARA). Why and what are you doing about giving the same concession of remitting or refunding fuel levy to the Railway Systems of Zambia?’

In my answer, I said, “We are considering doing so.” There was no guesswork involved. It was a straight question and I answered it straight because we do not guess.

Mr Speaker, during the negotiations, we realised that TAZARA was given this concession. Therefore, we felt that, if the Railway Systems of Zambia came forward indicating that their cash flow would be assisted by remission of fuel levy, the Government was going to consider it.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chimbaka (Bahati): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister to what extent the inactivity of the Railway Systems of Zambia has affected national development, and if it could be quantified, what percentage of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been affected?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, we have not quantified the effects of the operations of the Railway Systems of Zambia. However, as Hon. Milupi said, we are aware that because of taking short haul cargo, there are delays in getting our exports to the ports through to the markets and also getting our imports where they are required. We have not done the exercise as Hon. Chimbaka is proposing.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Njobvu (Milanzi): Mr Speaker, could I find out the time limit of the concession from the hon. Minister.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member was not listening. I heard twenty years.

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Speaker, there are reports that the Railway Systems of Zambia’s prime business is not rail business, but copper ore. They are using our railway system to transport their ore from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to South Africa. Is the hon. Minister also aware that there are reports that the Railway Systems of Zambia has compromised some private media not to report negatively about their dealings?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I have to refer to your recent ruling on a case which you just reported to us. You emphasised that innuendos shall not form part of our discussions. It is not for the Government to investigate whether the Railway Systems of Zambia has an agreement to move copper from the DRC. However, we are supervising the concession agreement between the Zambian Government and the Railway Systems of Zambia. Therefore, we will not interfere with their other businesses which are not our concern.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Zulu (Bwana Mkubwa): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the Minister of Finance and National Planning, what complications can be there if the concession was terminated, now. Additionally, is he aware that it would be cheaper to terminate the concession and repair our rail line than to wait for a long time?

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, there will be complications if we do not follow the exit strategy that we agreed with the concessionaire. We will end up paying much more than what we would gain. That is why we want to follow the agreement and provisions for terminating the concession.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Mr Speaker, you will recall that sometime this year, hon. Members of Parliament raised concerns about the performance of the Railway Systems of Zambia. The then hon. Minister of Transport and Communications ably defended the system and created the impression that it was doing extremely well. I would like to find out from the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning whether the Government has now withdrawn the perception that was created by the former hon. Minister so that we take it that the Railway Systems of Zambia is a limping entity.

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, since I cannot remember that former hon. Minister, I am not able to say exactly what he said. However, if that was said, that is why we have come to this House to indicate that the Railway Systems of Zambia came to the Government with the request that they were not investing as much as they had intended and wanted the Government to assist them by refunding the fuel levy. Therefore, I cannot imagine that we said the Railway Systems of Zambia was doing very well.

I thank you, Sir

NATIONAL CULTURAL CENTRE

The Minister of Community Development and Social Services (Ms Namugala): Mr Speaker, allow me to adopt the style of the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning and speak from where I am standing.

Sir, I wish to thank you for allowing me to address this august House on the assurance made by my ministry in 1992 that it would embark on the construction of a National Cultural Centre which was expected to house a multi-purpose theatre, a national art gallery, and cultural museum as well as other facilities. A national cultural centre is supposed to be a facility for skills training, production and marketing of creative arts and cultural industries.
Mr Speaker, I wish to state at the outset that my ministry appeared before the Committee on Government Assurances recently, to report to the Committee on what progress had been made towards the construction of the National Cultural Centre. In the report submitted to the Committee, my ministry stated that no progress had been made towards the construction of the National Cultural Centre since 2005 when the architectural plans where drawn.

Sir, due to low resource allocation to the project, it would have taken a minimum of six years to complete the construction of the National Cultural Centre. The Government, through my ministry, thought that it would be more prudent to construct provincial cultural villages at the cost of K2.5 billion each in order to provide immediate benefits to artists in those localities.

This consideration is in keeping with the safeguarding of culture and provision of venues for training, production and marketing of creative arts and cultural industries, where the majority of cultural practitioners, artists, and entrepreneurs are found. In this regard, I wish to report a change in strategy by my ministry to focus the available resources on the construction of cultural villages in provincial capitals while soliciting for resources to construct the National Cultural Centre.

Mr Speaker, finally, let me take time to report on some of the progress in the provincial cultural villages. The construction of the Maramba Cultural Village commenced with the construction of the multi-purpose theatre, which is the first building to be constructed on the site.

So far, the stage, dressing rooms and other backstage facilities have reached the roof level. What remains is the amphitheatre and roofing for the whole multi-purpose theatre. However, funds have been set aside in this years’ Budget to meet expenses for its completion.

For the Yuka Cultural Village, the construction of the conference hall is now complete. Meanwhile, the construction of the conference hall at Kapata Cultural Village in Chipata has gone a stage further and is now receiving final touches.

These conference halls will be used by artists for training in skills for various artistic and cultural activities.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members may ask the hon. Minister questions which may enable her to clarify some points she made in her ministerial statement.

Mr Chimbaka: I would like to find out from the hon. Minister if a site for the construction of a provincial cultural village in the Luapula Province has been found and, if so, in which Boma or township is it?

Ms Namugala: Mr Speaker, we are in the process of locating the site in the Luapula Province.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister of Community Development and Social Services whether she is now happy with the quality of work at the Maramba Cultural Village, taking into account the condemnations she made on the contractor.

Ms Namugala: Mr Speaker, it is true that I raised concern about the quality of work concerning the structure that the hon. Member is talking about. However, the Provincial Administration is working closely with the contractor to ensure that he makes good the issues that were raised.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr Katema (Chingola): Mr Speaker, I would like to know which Government department will be running these provincial cultural villages. If it is a council or any department, has a Budget line been put in to enable them maintain these cultural centres?

Ms Namugala: Mr Speaker, my ministry has recruited Provincial Cultural Officers in all the provinces. These will be supervising the running of the cultural villages in the provincial centres. The officers will be reporting to my office, through the Provincial Administration.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muntanga (Kalomo): Mr Speaker, the statement made by the hon. Minister arises from the assurance that they will build a National Cultural Centre. Has she, therefore, withdrawn the earlier assurance and if there is a modification, how is it going to address the issue of building the National Cultural Centre?

Ms Namugala: Mr Speaker, the assurance of 1992 has been withdrawn.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, the creation of cultural villages is an attempt to replicate our traditional villages. Could the hon. Minister, therefore, consider a change of strategy from that of constructing cultural villages in provincial centres and consider chiefs’ villages as a place where she can locate these new cultural centres?

Ms Namugala: Mr Speaker, this country has 286 recognised chiefs. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Government to finance the construction of cultural villages in each chiefdom.

I thank you, Sir.

____

QUESTIONS

RELIEF FOOD IN LUENA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY

860. Mr Milupi asked the Vice-President when the Government would send relief food to Luena Parliamentary Constituency in view of the serious crop damage caused by the floods.

The Deputy Minister in the Vice-President’s Office (Ms Lundwe): Mr Speaker, I wish to state that hon. Members of Parliament need to know that the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) does not consign relief food to parliamentary constituencies per se, but to District Administrative Centres, targeting food insecure wards.

The House may, therefore, wish to know that Mongu District, in which Luena Constituency falls, was one of the twenty-one districts in which the Vulnerability Assessment Committee (VAC) carried out food and security assessment in December, 2006. This assessment established that 811 metric tonnes, 16,220 x 50 kg bags of relief maize would be needed for a period of two months, February and March, 2007 to cushion the effects of the hunger situation in the affected communities.

Mr Speaker, acting the Vulnerability Assessment Committee Report, the Government has, so far, dispatched 763 metric tonnes, that is, 15,206 x 50 kg bags of relief maize, for the months of February to April, 2007, which has since been distributed by the contracted implementing partner, People’s Participation Services (PPS).

Sir, I further wish to inform the House that the Vulnerability Assessment Committee has just completed the In-depth Vulnerability and Needs Assessment Report, following their field visits to forty-five districts. The report indicates that a further 2,736 metric tonnes, 54,720 x 50 kgs of relief maize, is required to mitigate the effects of hunger and the situation in the affected communities from September, 2007 to February, 2008.

Mr Speaker, the required resources are being mobilised and we will, as soon as possible, be going to Mongu District for onward distribution to the affected wards.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, is His Honour the Vice-President aware that in Mongu District where Luena Constituency is, the vulnerable families have so far only received relief maize once and in some cases, only a full bucket of maize? In a place where there was a total 100 per cent loss of the crop, how are people expected to live from February to now when they have only received one bucket of maize per family?

The Vice-President (Mr R. Banda): Mr Speaker, as we stated in our reply, we are still in the process of mobilising the resources in order to start delivering relief maize to Mongu District and indeed, to all the other districts that the assessment has indicated require further support.

Sir, it may not be sufficient, but, as you know, this is a continuous process. We have just had some meetings with the relevant ministries. As soon as we get the resources mobilised and we hope very soon, we will start delivering relief maize.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Sinyinda (Senanga): Mr Speaker, our people out there are starving. Does His Honour the Vice-President realise that the fact that this question is repeatedly asked in this House almost on a weekly basis shows the seriousness and the urgency in which this matter should be solved?

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, of course, I do realise the seriousness of this situation by the fact that it is raised on a weekly basis in this House. As I stated earlier, we need to have the resources to deliver this maize. This has been a special year because we did not have enough resources allocated to this item. We have had to negotiate with the relevant ministry for support.

Everybody is listening to what the hon. Members are saying and I am sure the resources will be made available to us so that we can deliver to the country.

I thank you, Sir.

EXPATRIATES AND STAFF ESTABLISHMENT AT KONKOLA COPPER MINES PLC. AND LIFE SPAN OF KONKOLA AND NCHANGA OPEN PIT MINES

861. Mr Chella (Wusakile) asked the Minister of Minerals and Minerals Development:

(a) how many expatriates were employed at Konkola Copper Mines Plc. in 2006;

(b) what the life span of Konkola and Nchanga Open Pit Copper Mines was; and

(c) what the total staff establishment at Konkola Copper Mines Plc was.

The Deputy Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Mr M. Mwale): Mr Speaker, a total of thirty-one expatriates were employed at Konkola Copper Mines Plc. in 2006.

Mr Speaker, the life span of Konkola and Nchanga Open Pit Copper Mines are as follows:

(i) the life span of Konkola Copper Mine is up to 2035; and

(ii) the life span of Nchanga Open Pit Copper Mine is projected up to 2020/21.

Mr Speaker, with regards to Konkola Mines Plc., the House may wish to know that without the Konkola Deep Mining Project (KDMP), the operations at Konkola would have come to an end in 2012.

Further, the total labour force at Konkola Copper Mines Plc. is 18, 983 broken down as follows:

 (i) Expatriates        119

 (ii) Zambians   18,864

Mr Speaker, the categories of employees are as follows:

 (i) Permanent   10,143

 (ii) Fixed-term contract       203

 (iii) Contractors     8,634

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr C. K. Banda, SC. (Chasefu): Mr Speaker, granted that copper is a wasting asset which once extracted, is never replaced. What measures is this Government putting in place to ensure that we maximise our returns from our mines?

Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

The Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Dr Mwansa): Mr Speaker, we fully realise that copper is a wasting asset. Everything is being done to ensure that we get maximum returns from our mining industry.

One of the ways in which we are doing this is by ensuring that we take advantage of the current good prices on the world market by opening up one large-scale mine in every province. The other thing we are doing is to try and diversify from copper-based mining to other mining activities such as nickel, phosphates, and coal.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Chella: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister what the economic benefit has been for the people in areas where KCM is operating.

Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, we have, time and again, come to this House and presented, in Ministerial Statement or question form, what the mining companies are doing in areas where they are operating.

Mr Speaker, in Chingola, where KCM is conducting business, they are doing a lot of community work, supporting schools and hospitals. Right now, they are rehabilitating roads in the compounds, as well as support social activities such as football and other amenities, including rehabilitation of sports infrastructure. The list is very long, and if the hon. Member is interested, we can give him a run down of these activities.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chongo (Mwense): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has indicated the number of those that have been engaged on fixed-period contract. Is the hon. Minister aware that such an arrangement has actually worked to the disadvantage of those in employment, who cannot go further or be promoted because the companies have resorted to retaining retirees on fixed-term contract?

Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, I appreciate the concern by the hon. Member, however, there is a good side to this. These individuals who are on short-term contract are retired miners who possess very special skills. The mining company in question, in this case KCM, decided to retain this labour force for a specific period of time, either to do very special and specific jobs or to train others for those jobs. Therefore, it is not that they are displacing others, but doing a commendable job. It is not a very bad idea at all.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mwenya (Nkana): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister how many expatriates were denied work permits in 2006 to allow the Zambians, who were understudying them, to take over.

Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, it is not possible that in here, I can dig out that information and give it to the hon. Member. If he wants that information, he can pose a question and I will research it.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, at the time that the new owners of KCM took over, after the Anglo-American Corporation left, the copper price was at 85 cents per pound, and the production cost was brought down by Anglo-American Corporation to 69 cents per pound. In view of the fact that the copper price is now 3 to 4 dollars per pound, and we have been told that the new owners have brought in technology to improve production, would the hon. Minister explain why, so far, not only KCM, but other existing mines, have not generated sufficient profit in order to declare dividends to the Government?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}

Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to correct the hon. Member that the price of copper, now, is not 3 dollars, but 7 dollars per tonne.

Mr Speaker, the reason they have not declared dividends is not that they do not want to do it. We have said in this House that in the last three or four years, the mining companies have been doing expansion works by rehabilitating infrastructure and buying new plants and generally developing their mines before they can start making profits. We are very confident that within the next year, the situation will be different because much of the rehabilitation and the acquisition of any equipment would have been done, and then we would expect profits and the declaration of dividends.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Speaker, at the time of privatisation, we were told that the mines were being privatised in order to create jobs and sustain the mines. The hon. Minister has just indicated to this House that there are 18,983 employees across KCM operations, which is Nampundwe, Nchanga, Nkana, and Konkola. In ZCCM, just between Nkana Division and Nchanga Division, there were more 20,000 employees. Where is the creation of employment? And what measures has the Government put in place to prevent these investors at KCM from running away should the copper prices continue falling?

Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, the whole picture is not as bad as the hon. Member is trying to paint it.

Currently, there are 48,000 people employed in the mining industry throughout the country and just about 2,000 short of ZCCM at its peak. ZCCM had about 50,000 employees nationwide. We are almost at 48,000. Therefore, it is not as bad at it is being portrayed. We are very confident that with the opening of new mines in the next few years, this figure could easily double.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Mwansa: With regard to what we are doing to ...

Sir, I did not get the last question.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Anyway, one question.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

_____

BILLS

SECOND REANDING

THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE BILL, 2007

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

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, on 17th April, 2003, His Excellency the President, Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC, in exercise of the powers vested in him by the Inquiries Act Cap. 41, appointed by Statutory Instrument No. 40 of 2003, a Constitution Review Commission, chaired by Mr Wila Mung’omba, to review the Constitution of Zambia, obtain submissions from the people of Zambia, in accordance with the commission’s terms of reference, for inclusion in the Draft Constitution and make recommendations thereon to the President. The Commission carried out its work over a period of two years and submitted its report to His Excellency, the President in December, 2005. The report was accompanied by a Draft Constitution.

Mr Speaker, one of the terms of reference of the Constitution Review Commission (CRC) was to recommend whether the Constitution should be adopted, altered or re-enacted by the National Assembly, a Constituent Assembly, a National Referendum or any other method. The Commission was further required to recommend ways and means of implementing the recommendation in view of the existing constitutional provisions.

Sir, in its report, the Commission acknowledged that the Constitution vests legislative power in Parliament, the Constitution defines the powers of the National Assembly to pass ordinary and Constitutional Bills and the process through which bills become statutes after Presidential assent and that the Constitution does not recognise the concept of adoption which is not part of the practice of the Zambian Parliament.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, at Page 799 of its report, the CRC reported as follows and I quote:

“An overwhelming number of petitioners submitted that the Constitution should be adopted by a Constituent Assembly, a Constitutional Conference or any popular body that would present the views of the people. For this submission, 2,166 Zambians submitted likewise. The reasons advanced for a Constituent Assembly or other popular body included that Parliament is not representative enough of all the various social interests in the country, the formulation of a new Constitution should be more inclusive broad based, gender representative and encourage the participation of citizens in order to give the Constitution making process legitimacy.”

Mr Speaker, therefore, a National Constitutional Conference is within the submissions made to the CRC by the people of Zambia. In any case, it is now generally accepted by various stakeholders who submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs that the name “National Constitutional Conference” could be used for the body that will adopt the Constitution. All that is required is for the body to be broadly representative.

Mr Speaker, in presenting this Bill, the Government is responding to the recommendation of the Constitution Review Commission and submissions of the people of Zambia that a popular body be established to adopt a Draft Constitution.

The Bill makes provision for the establishment of a National Constitutional Conference, states the composition of the conference and defines its functions. The Bill gives the members the power to debate the entire Constitution and to decide whether to submit the entire Draft Constitution to a referendum or only those provisions which propose to amend Part III or Article 79 of the Constitution or those provisions on which there is no agreement reached by the members in accordance with the Act. The members will also have the power to decide whether all those provisions on which they have reached agreement and which do not require a referendum should be enacted without submitting them to a referendum.

Mr Speaker, in other words, the Bill provides for a very democratic process of reaching consensus.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: These alternative powers have been given to the conference to enable the conference expedite the enactment of all those clauses which hon. Members of this august House have been calling for enactment. Among the provisions which might be considered for this option are those relating, for instance, to the time of presentation of the National Budget, its implementation and related matters, enhancement of gender representation, increase in the number of constituencies, the 50 plus 1 majority vote system of electing the President, introduction of a Parliamentary Service Commission, etc.

Sir, I wish to commend the Committee which considered the Bill and to thank them for their valuable and constructive observations and recommendations. I wish to inform this august House that, in fact, I have already circulated necessary amendments which will address some of the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Speaker, as you can see, almost 90 per cent of the recommendations from this particular Committee have been taken into account.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, His Excellency, the President, has already announced in Ndola that I will make amendments to the Bill and that these amendments will include the election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons by the members of the conference.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 Mr Kunda, SC.: The Bill also removes any references to recommendations to be made to my office.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: The composition of the Conference will also be adjusted to take into account some of the recommendations of the Committee. As a listening Government, we wish to remedy the growing perception that if a National Constitutional Conference Bill is submitted to my office, we will undermine the will of the people. It was never the intention of the Government to undermine the will of the people and so, appropriate amendments should be made to reassure our people of the good will and intentions of the Government.

Mr Speaker, the Bill is progressive and I urge all hon. Members of this august House to give it their full support.

Sir, I beg to move.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze): Mr Speaker, thank you for according me the opportunity to debate the National Constitutional Conference Bill, No. 26 of 2007.

Sir, in considering the National Constitutional Conference Bill, No. 26 of 2007, your Committee invited submissions from various stakeholders, including inter alia the civil society, church, mother bodies, political parties and Government institutions.

May I take this opportunity to inform you, Mr Speaker, and the august House that, as a result of the interactions with the witnesses, your Committee managed to appreciate pertinent observations on the proposed National Constitutional Conference Bill.

Sir, as the august House will no doubt be aware thereto, major constitutional amendments have been made by first appointing a Constitution Review Commission pursuant to the Inquiries Act, Chapter 41 of the Laws of Zambia. Pursuant to the said procedure, Constitution Review Commissioners are appointed to collect views from the Zambian public and the commissioners are accordingly required to make recommendations to the President under Section 5 of the Inquiries Act. The procedures have been objectionable because the Republican President had to act on the recommendations of the Constitution Review Commission.

For the current attempt for the Constitution Review to be successful, it will be important to recognise that the legitimacy of the Constitution-making process is just as important if not more important than the contents of the Constitution itself. To achieve the ends of an inclusive and legitimately people-driven constitutional making process the National Constitutional Conference Bill should in all its provisions, endeavour to manage public perceptions and instil confidence in the process by eliminating any perceived or actual control of the process by the Executive arm of Government.

It is in the light of the aforementioned that we implore the stakeholders to cherish the wise words of the Republican President who called for dialogue over the constitutional process.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: It is important to note that the Constitution-making process is not a partisan matter. The nation and Parliament in particular have been endowed with the honourous task of enacting a National Constitutional Conference Bill without being influenced by prejudices.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Posterity shall judge us harshly if we collectively fail the Zambian people.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Your Committee further sought the counsel of the Hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General who appeared before them to clarify issues that had been raised by stakeholders.

Sir, notwithstanding the brevity of time, your Committee had the privilege of hearing a number of issues that were raised by Zambians. I am happy to note, Mr Speaker, that some of the pertinent issues that were raised by the stakeholders have been addressed in the proposed amendments by the Hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear! Quality!

Mr Mwiimbu: However, there are still some very pertinent issues that need to be addressed by this House.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: The issue of composition is cardinal …

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mtonga: Zoona!

Mr Mwiimbu: … in the deliberations pertaining to the National Constitutional Conference Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wish to state that your Committee was alive to the fact that the Bill that is before the House raised serious national debate and is a very important matter. If not properly handled, it could derail the very foundation of our young democracy.

Mr Mtonga: Zoona!

Mr Mwiimbu: It is, therefore, an opportunity for this House to enact a good law that can assist the nation come up with a Constitution that will stand the test of time.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, your Committee, through the process of interactions, heard the various issues the members of the public raised over the Bill. I now hereby submit some of the very salient and pertinent points that were raised by members of the public.

We are recommending to this House, Sir, that the Bill may be supported provided the amendments we are recommending are addressed.

Mr Mtonga: Zoona!

Mr Mwiimbu: I have noted that some of them have been addressed by the hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: These are:

(a) All the people who made submissions to your Committee have recommended that the ten recommendations to the Minister of Justice must be substituted with the word ‘submit’, and I am happy to note that the hon. Minister has accepted that cardinal amendment to this Bill.

(b) It has been argued by other political players and stakeholders that the number of political representatives who are going to sit on this conference should be equated to the numbers representing the three church mother bodies.

They have recommended that the number representing the mother bodies should be increased to six each. The argument is that the three mother bodies, in most respects, have constituents bigger than political parties. So, there is no way that political parties should have a bigger representation on the conference.

Hon. Government Members: No way!

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu:

(c) We also recommend that the Bill should provide for two modes of dissolution of the conference, that is, by the conference itself or where it is not possible, for the conference to dissolve itself, by the Republican President, there is a condition and the condition is failure on the part of the conference itself to wilfully fail to perform and dissolve itself, as the case is with Parliament.

(d) We recommend that representatives from each security wing be reduced to one each. It is argued and it is a fact that wherever there is a commander, subservient officers cannot raise objections.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwiimbu: So, we should only have the commanders sitting in the conference and not subordinate officers. We recommend that the number of civil servants be reduced from ten to four, based on the same arguments and rationale that a Permanent Secretary or whichever officer cannot argue against a superior officer be it a Minister, Permanent Secretary and any other subordinate persons.

(v) We recommend that the decision to refer the whole, or part thereof, of the adopted Draft Constitution to a referendum, be the preserve of the conference itself;

(vi) The Chairperson and vice-chairpersons should be appointed by the conference itself; and here I have noted that the hon. Minister of Justice has acceded to this proposal;

(vii) The criteria for determination of senior citizens, eminent Zambians and freedom fighters was not defined and your Committee recommend, and we are happy to note that the hon. Minister of Justice has agreed with us, that:

(a) One freedom fighter from each province of Zambia who should have played a role in the freedom struggle and should not be below the age of sixty-five years at the date of appointment;

Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu: We have noted some people who have been claiming to be freedom fighters, but are less than forty years old.

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker,

(b) One senior citizen from each province of Zambia who must have held public office and should not be below the age of sixty years at the date of appointment;

(c) On eminent persons, we are recommending one eminent person from each province who has distinguished himself or herself in a particular field for a period of not less than ten years of continuous service.

(viii) We are proposing and recommending very strongly to this House that the Bill provides that the conference should, among its powers, have the authority to add to whatever was recommended by the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission. It has been found that some very pertinent issues that affect the operations of the Government and the lives of the people are not in the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission Report. So, we are saying that the conference itself must have the power to add where they realise that there is a lacuna in the process.

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker,

(ix) We are also saying that the representatives, according to the recommendation, from any other church mother body should be qualified in the following words:

“Any other church mother body registered under the Societies Act, provided that such mother body had been in existence for a period of not less than ten years. We do not want dubious church mother bodies to be springing up for the sake of this conference.

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu: Lastly, Mr Speaker, we strongly recommend that the Chief Justice not be part of the conference as his ability to adjudicate on matters arising therefrom might be compromised.

I have noted, once again, that the hon. Minister of Justice has agreed with that recommendation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichilima: The hon. and Learned Minister!

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu: The hon. and Learned Minister, like me, has agreed.

Mr Speaker, on the issue of composition …

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1615 hours until 1630 hours.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, when business was suspended, I was making reference to church mother bodies and  for ease of reference for those colleagues who are not aware which these church mother bodies are, I would like to mention that the three church mother bodies that are recognised in Zambia are:

(i) The Zambia Episcopal Conference, which represents the Catholic Church;

(ii) The Christian Council of Zambia which represents a number of churches in this country; and

(iii) The Zambia Evangelical Fellowship which is a grouping of various churches.

Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate the submission of our committee that these three mother bodies should be given the opportunity to send six delegates each. We need God’s wisdom …

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu: … and guidance at the conference. There is no mischief that is going to be created. There will be no injury that will be created. If anything, we will be enhancing the representative character of the National Constitutional Conference by having these people of God to be amongst us.

Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I would like all of us to be level headed as we debate this Bill. If we do not handle this Bill correctly, and in the interest of the nation, the harm that will arise will be too ghastly to contemplate.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, your Committee wish to express their gratitude to you specifically and to the Clerk of the National Assembly for the assistance rendered to your Committee. We are also grateful to the various witnesses who came to testify before us. This Bill is not like any Bill. This Bill is intended to create a new vision for Zambia and I have no doubt in my mind that the majority of us are visionary and we shall do accordingly and protect the interest of the nation.

I thank you, Sir.{mospagebreak}

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Mr Speaker, I thank you for according me this opportunity to debate the Bill. My party is particularly keen that this Bill works and that we obtain one of the two possible outcomes. There are two possible outcomes of this pursuit.

The first one is a divided House and a divided country resulting from the railroading of this Bill …

Mr Mtonga: Zoona.

Dr Scott: … in a manner which the Railway Systems of Zambia may not be capable of, from what we heard earlier from the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning, …

Laughter

Dr Scott: …but which this Government, having the technical majority, if you like, is capable of pushing through.

The other alternative is to have a united and unanimous House and a united and unanimous country. The Chairperson of the Committee mentioned the word legitimacy from the start. This National Constitutional Conference will be legitimate if its existence, composition and powers are acceptable to the majority of serious people with a track record of constitution making and constitution involvement in this country.

Mr Speaker, let me just digress slightly because I think some people forget to seek the history of this country. When I was 13 years old, I went with my family to Rome, Italy, in 1957.

Hon. Government Member interjected.

Dr Scott: To Rome, Italy, in 1957.

The Vatican tracked down my father and invited us to meet Pope Pius the XII for one reason only. The Catholic Church, at that time, was against the Federation and was trying to break it up and my father was a possible ally. We were not Catholics and we are still not Catholics. It was strictly a political gesture. The same churches that we are asking as to who they are today, brought us together in 1991 and told us to stop posturing over alterations to the Constitution …

Mr Mtonga: Zoona!

Dr Scott: … and that we needed to introduce multi-party democracy.

In 2001, it may be recalled by this House that the then President of MMD started, or people started on his behalf - let us not be argumentative at this stage - the so-called Third Term Bid. The idea was that the Constitution could be changed in order to allow a President to continue as it happened in many other African countries. The fight against that, I remember Dipak Patel, at that time, used to come to me and scrounge for a million kwacha to carry out his campaign of cartoons in The Post against the Third Term Bid. Eventually, he stopped getting money from me because the Civil Society momentum, by this time, had grown to the point where the funds were flowing in and it was no longer necessary to take a poor person like me to contribute to this campaign.

Mr Speaker, the horning above all others that was associated with that Green Ribbon Campaign was the Oasis Forum’s. It is the Oasis Forum - I will not diminish the impact of the twenty-two people who resigned from the MMD - the decisive factor, in my view, and that of many other people at that time was that the Oasis Forum and its companions, such as churches, had put an end to the Third Term Bid.

In fact, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives will remember well, as I came to find him at his thatched-church south of Ndola, close to his farm where he was reading something that had been circulated by the Bishops in a pastoral letter. I remember him say to me, “You know, this is the end of Chiluba’s Third Term Bid.” I do not know whether he remembers, but I remember well.

These people created the New Deal. None of you would be sitting there if it was not for the Oasis Forum.

Hon. Government Members: No, Awe!

Dr Scott: In this country, we would have had Chiluba’s third term and we could now be having his fourth term. There would have been a Reverend Shikapwasha and a General Shikapwasha, but no Hon. Shikapwasha. Likewise, the hon. and Learned Minister of Justice might be honourable and he might be learned, but he would not, by now, be honourable and learned. The Vice-President would be an eminent farmer in the Eastern Province …

Laughter

Dr Scott: … and a potential member of the National Constitutional Conference both as a freedom fighter and as an eminent citizen ...

Laughter

Dr Scott: … of a province, but he would not have been the Vice-President with all the motor cycles. We must be careful to know that there are people in this country who have a track record of involvement in taking care of the constitutional destiny of this country. These are people we cannot just railroad, ignore and replace with new substitutes like the Zambia Centre for Inter-party Dialogue which is, of course, welcome to come on the scene, but we cannot say we can substitute for the long tradition of human rights concerns and constitution concerns of people like the churches and their various arms like the Oasis Forum.

Mr Speaker, what we are saying is that, if we time this thing properly; if the hon. and Learned Minister of Justice, and courtesy of the Oasis Forum, can find a way to time and place it properly; we can get consensus outside and inside this House and we can go forward to an acceptable Constitution review position.

However, I for one, am not going out of this House having voted for this Bill and say to the people, who have expressed serious doubts about the legitimacy of this process, that I am sorry that, on your behalf, I judged that this National Constitutional Conference was okay, I did not have to consult you. We need consensus in this country. The honourable and Learned Minister himself withdrew the NGO Bill the other day for exactly the reasons that I am advancing. The consensus had not been achieved …

Interruptions

Dr Scott: … and for the consultation he talked about for the development of the Bill. So, what we are suggesting from this side, this party, PF, with its forty-three members, is that this Bill be deferred. We are not saying withdraw it.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Dr Scott: We are asking the hon. and Learned Minister to be mature and magnanimous. We are not trying to pressurise him the way he is trying to pressurise us. He can bring it back fixed and agreed by everybody in November. That is what we suggest as a possible alternative.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Dr Scott: If we can find some time for consultation, it is to adopt the amendments wholesome as produced by the Committee Chairperson and then we will have something we can defend to the people of Zambia because we did not just bring ourselves here by our own brilliancy as independent political voices. We brought ourselves here because many networks of people and many associations of people campaigned for us and put us here. There are issues which would have been, in my view, properly developed if we had the time. Let us look at the question of provincial representation of eminent citizens. How would you represent the Eastern Province with one man or one woman?

Hon. Government Member: Why not?

Dr Scott: If you went to Petauke you would get a Nsenga; if you go to Chipata you will get a Ngoni; if you go to Lundazi you will get a Tumbuka and if you go to Katete you will get a Chewa.

Interruptions

Dr Scott: Surely, if you went to Lusaka Central, you would even get a muzungu, but how does he represent the whole of Lusaka?

Laughter

Dr Scott: How do I represent Chongwe? How do I represent Kafue? Therefore, these are some of the issues which have not been given enough thought and enough time which we ought to be debating further.

Mr Speaker, let us not have another Green Ribbon Campaign. Let us not have people co-opted on to a National Constitutional Conference concerning issues which they have not agreed. They are likely not to boycott the attendance of that conference that may still result in technical victory. Does the hon. and Learned Minister want a technical victory or does he want a victory for the people of Zambia?

That is the question he should ask himself. He should also ask the man on his left whether the MMD side of this House wants to inflict a technical victory over this House and the people of this country or whether it wants to show that it is magnanimous, listening, and all other things it likes to advertise itself to be.

Mr Speaker, with those few words, I would like to ask the His Honour the Vice-President and the Minister of Justice to rethink their strategy before it is too late.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba (Chienge): Mr Speaker, allow me a few minutes of reflection before I address myself to the substantive aspects of this Bill. This is a very important Bill and perhaps, hon. Members as they come to this House, must feel the pressure that I do so that when we stand up and speak, we address ourselves to these issues very seriously.

Sir, all politics must be therapeutic to be worthy of real social impact.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Dr Kalumba: Zambians have for years now yearned for a good Constitution that will stand the test of time. In general, our experience has been that of frustrations, which have been expressed in various corners. This is a general frustration with the way we have conducted ourselves in the past regarding the formulation of the Constitution in Zambia.

However, Sir, although the terrain of frustration regarding the issues on the current Constitution may be vast, the simple law in every instance of frustration, the basic structure underlining that frustration, is how a people’s wish comes in conflict with the basic and unyielding reality. Leaders worth their salt have to help members of the society overcome the tendency to respond to that frustration through rage, anxiety, paranoia or even self righteousness. We, as political leaders, are required to be therapists, in some way, to help our society heal. It is a danger to democracy if leaders foment tensions.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: It is a danger to society if leaders cannot look for compromises. It is a danger to society if leaders are extremists.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Muntanga: Then they are terrorists!

Laughter

Dr Kalumba: Mr Speaker, meanwhile, some Members are members of what I might call a political society. Through the structures we have given ourselves in our Laws, we organise ourselves as political parties. These political parties in Zambia, both inside this House and outside, realised that our country could not take on the tension anymore. For one and half years, almost eighteen months, this country was faced with the major Constitution impasse, unable to find a compromise.

The party presidents of the parties presented in Parliament and outside decided to come together, a rare event. Imagine, putting a Mr Sata next to a Mr Mwanawasa in one room.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: It was a great feat of leadership that they accepted to bury their differences and come under one roof for the sake of Zambia.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: They accepted to efface their ambitions for popular support for the sake of Zambia. In that room at the Mulungushi Conference Centre, they were not looking for popularity or votes. They were looking for peace, and therefore, sought consensus.

Sir, our party presidents, the people who lead the parties that have sponsored us to this House, sat together in one room and agreed upon the need to bring this Bill to this House.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: It was not an organisation. The entire institution of our political leadership in Zambia will realise that they have a responsibility to harmonise differences and look for common ground, and they did.

Mr Speaker, in every event of consensus, we do not seek for 100 per cent victory. That is the rule of politics. We do not look to defeating the enemy 100 per cent, or rub his nose in the dust. That is bad politics. In consensus, we make compromises. There are no perfect solutions, but realistic goals that we look forward to.

Sir, I am surprised, but not too much really, that we have few individuals, perhaps in this House that have not done enough. Perhaps they have not consulted enough or maybe that is true on their part, they have not. However, the process that led to our President getting into that conference hall required that all political parties go out, full throttle, to consult their constituents, ordinary Zambians and all the civil society organisations that respect their ideologies. If we, as political parties, have failed our people, let us stand up and say so. We did not consult them even when we had the chance to do so.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: Mr Speaker, speaking for my party, with the resources that were made available to all of us in this House and our political parties, we went out to consult.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. PF Members: Aah! When!

Dr Kalumba: Sir, under the auspices of the Zambia Centre for Inter-Party Dialogue, each political party was funded to go and consult.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: Without exception, Sir.

Interruptions

Dr Kalumba: Therefore, I have faith that this House, at this point, is magnanimous enough through its leadership to heal the land of the anxiety and tensions of frustration that have befallen us for so many years. We need to heal the land by taking the first step.

Sir, beyond the Mulungushi Conference Centre, the most important step now is to get the people together to talk about their Constitution. It should not be a privilege of only the few of us who will become leaders to run around, consulting forever. Let the people now talk.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: It is their time and hour to talk. Give them a chance. Do not mistrust their intelligence. When given a chance and brought together, our Zambian people come through. I have no fear,

I have no fear regarding the Zambian people, but once this Bill goes through, Zambians will now start going into that hall with a common vision to come out with a people-driven and accepted Constitution.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: The issues that have been raised along the way have been real and have been addressed by this very hon. Learned Minister of Justice.

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

Dr Kalumba: Hon. Minister, there are few left in the world like you who assumes political office and exercises it prudently.

He has been tenacious in listening not only to us as members of the political society, but he also made the draft memorandum available to the civil society organisations before it got to this House. I have seen hon. Ministers and leaders before who have said do not take this Bill to the public before it comes to Parliament. This hon. Minister was magnanimous enough to go to the public as demanded by our party leaders.

I recall at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre when, hon. Leaders, the President of a very important party in this House, PF, said to his colleague, President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC, “take the Bill to the House now”. That was a demand. What is the matter? Where is the problem?

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: Address the issues of the Oasis Forum.

Dr Kalumba: Where is the problem? At what point do we say enough is enough? Let us do what the people want. We have a Bill, let them sit down and debate it. Consider the recommendations of the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission and decide on what to do with it. If we are looking for a popularity contest, this is not the time.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: This is a time for the ordinary Zambian people to have their say. Politicians have talked enough. They have been heard. This should be our last year before we get into that conference hall. Let the Zambian people go to that hall and talk. Do not be political hit men, people who want to prevent the ordinary folks from having their day because you want to be quoted everyday. They also have to be quoted. They are looking for an opportunity to be heard. Do not block them.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: Mr Speaker, this Bill has addressed all the major concerns that the Zambians have. I have listened and heard that we need to consult a little more. Who has not been consulted? Who has a grievance that needs to be addressed? Why did you not bring the amendment if you are listening to them? If you are listening to that constituency, why did you not bring them to speak to that Committee of Parliament? What are you doing? What leadership are you providing? Political parties are supposed to harmonise public opinion. They are supposed to harmonise divergent interest. What are we doing? We are polarising issues. That is not …

Mr Kambwili: Chawama tawakatekepo.

Dr Kalumba: I do not even think about that.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order! Address the Chair.

The hon. may continue, please.

Dr Kalumba: I thank you, Sir. The hour is right for us to remember that our country has been yearning for years. There are many times I have been on the wrong side of history, but this is not one of them. This Constitution is right. Let us give our people a chance to give themselves a Constitution they will be proud of and not one minute later. We are too late as it is. The yearning for a good Constitution has been there for decades, Hon. Dr Scott. You cannot come today and tell us it is too early. No, Sir.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC. (Chasefu): Mr Speaker, I find myself with no option, but to support this Bill because it is progressive.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, we have been yearning for a good Constitution for a long time. The Constitution Review Commission was appointed four years ago, and yet we have taken no positive step to ensure that we create an institution which should be given the legislative power to take this step forward. This Bill is a step in the right direction.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: What is wrong in constituting a National Constitutional Conference whose mandate will be to debate the Draft Constitution as recommended by the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission? What is wrong with that? Is the Draft Constitution not handed down by the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission, a product of submissions from the people? Are you belittling the people who make submissions? I submit that time is now. We must be bold enough, as leaders, to take decisions and the time for decisions is now.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: This Bill, Mr Speaker, has made provision for wide representation. The churches are represented. The hon. Minister of Justice has been gracious enough to bring up amendments to enhance their representation. What is wrong with that? The political parties will be represented. Our women and mothers will be represented. What else do we need? Time for irrelevant politicking is long gone. This is a time for decision making.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: Not only that, Mr Speaker, this Bill has given power to the National Constitutional Conference to come up with a Draft Constitution which will be a product of deliberations by the people’s representatives, including hon. Members of Parliament. What is wrong with that? Is it wrong for you, hon. Members of Parliament, who are the people’s representatives, to sit down with others and come up with a good and acceptable Draft Constitution? Is it wrong for you, hon. Members, together with other hon. Members of this National Constitutional Conference to be given the power to recommend the content of a Draft Constitution? What are you afraid of?

Interruptions

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: Mr Speaker, whatever will come out of this National Constitutional Conference will be a product of consensus. It will not be imposed. What is wrong in allowing you to agree?

Mr Speaker, there are a number of issues which this Bill has addressed. The first issue relates to the product that will come out of this National Constitutional Conference. You, as members of this National Constitutional Conference, have been given a mandate to recommend either for a referendum to approve the Draft Constitution Bill that will emanate from the conference. That is your preserve. Alternatively, you have also been given the power here to decide whether you want those parts of the Constitution which do not touch Part III that deals with the Bill of Rights as well as Article 29 to be passed without the necessity of holding a referendum. You have been given that power. Is it wrong for you, the people’s representatives, to be given this power?

Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this Bill …

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: … because for the first time, we are taking a serious step to ensure that Zambians have a good Constitution.

People have been talking about consultations, the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission submitted its recommendations in December, 2005 and since 2005, numerous stakeholders have been holding seminars throughout the country conscientising people on the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission Draft Constitution. Were those not consultations?

Hon. UPND Member: They were.

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: Do we need another two years to consult people? Do we want to come up with a new constitution a year before the next elections? Will we not be the people who will be complaining that the MMD is trying to take us for granted?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.: Mr Speaker, this is a Bill we have all been waiting for. With these few words I support this Bill with all the amendments.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to add my voice to this debate. First of all, we must understand the process which we have started for ourselves. There are many who have said that the process of adopting a new constitution is more important than its content. I beg to disagree because it is the content that is more important. For a long time in this country, the people have yearned for a good constitution. We have for a long time tinkered with various constitutions, but this was meant to satisfy certain whims within the nation.

I can give several examples. The First Amendment was sold to us as that which was required to maintain unity in the country, and yet in the end it was a constitutional amendment to perpetuate certain people’s stay in power.

Even the famous amendment of 1991 was, but a tinkering with the Constitution to provide for regime change. It was good for us then because we were able to come up with multi-party democracy, but in essence, we did not have a fundamental change to our Constitution.

The constitutional changes of 1996 were again made to perpetuate certain people in power. As a result, we ended up with a stateless former president, with chiefs that could not stand for political office and a simple majority continuing to rule.

I have heard the debate on this issue in this country and I notice one danger such that if we are not careful, we can, again, be led on the road to tinkering with the Constitution to achieve what certain individuals want.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear! 

Mr Milupi: When I look at the debate of certain individuals and organisations, one issue stands out. They have sat down and looked at what they need to achieve power and have looked at certain clauses in the Constitution e.g. the fifty plus one per cent. I want this myself, but not for the sole purpose of creating conditions for regime change.

Mr Speaker, the time has come for us to recognise the importance of the journey on which this country has embarked upon. We need a good constitution. If a train is travelling to Kabwe, regardless of how good the driver is or his desire to go to Mumbwa, he cannot take the train to Mumbwa on his way to Kabwe. He needs to follow the railway line.

Mr Munaile: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi: Similarly, the Constitution is that railway line that sets us on the straight and narrow path. It is the contents of this Constitution that will ensure that no leader will divert us to doing things according to his whims.

I support this Bill …

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi: … and the reason I support it is that it deals with the content of the Constitution. The process is good, but it is the content that we must dwell upon. We should shift the debate from the process and concentrate on what elements we want to change in the Constitution.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi: We should come up with a constitution that will stand the test of time. For a long time, this country has suffered. We are a poor country, and yet we are in the midst of plenty. Foreign companies, the so-called investors, are in this country and reaping the rewards of that which God gave us. We need a constitution that will ensure that the people of this land will share the resources in this country. We need a constitution that will ensure that whoever is in Government performs and works for the people of this land.

Mr Munaile: Tiye, mudala!

Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, it is because of the need to focus on the content that I say this Bills is good. First of all, we will have a cross section of the community represented in the National Constitutional Conference.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Milupi: It is because of this wide representation that we shall get ideas from all the people. When I look at the various groupings of the people who will participate at this conference, I feel very happy. I disagree with those that say that there has not been wide enough consultation.

 At my own cost, unlike what Hon. Dr Kalumba said that certain groups and parties were funded, perhaps, he forgot that there are certain political representatives here known as independent …

Interruptions

Mr Milupi: … I was not given a single ngwee. I went to my constituency and held meetings in various wards and spoke about the Constitution. The people there also told me what they wanted. I have respect for some Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) for the work that they do in this country in terms of civic education and advocacy, but sometimes, when it comes to political representation, they need to look at those that put themselves up for election; it is the people here. The National Constitutional Conference, to which we will have a minority as politicians, allows other forms of representation to come in i.e. the churches, NGOs, traditional leaders and others so that we can together craft for ourselves a constitution that will drive this country forward.

When we talk about the Vision 2030, from Hon. Magande and company …

Laughter 

Mr Milupi: …and the aims of the Fifth National Development Plan and so forth, can only happen in a situation where there is consensus and when we are able to give ourselves that which we want. What are the issues we want in the Constitution? For a long time, Zambians have said that our current Constitution does not provide for the principle of equal, but separate powers of the various arms of Government. These and other issues are the ones we should be addressing.

Our country is developing, but the rural areas are left behind. There is poverty, disease and lack of good quality education and health facilities. The system we have set for ourselves in the last forty-two years has failed us. That is why we are anxious to embark on this road so that we focus on content. I am thankful to the hon. Learned Minister of Justice because for the first time, he has listened and made amendments.

He has listened and has made amendments. That is why even the Chairman of the Committee had difficulties because …

Hon. UPND Members: Learned!

Laughter

Mr Milupi: … a number of their recommendations had already been taken into account.

I would like to urge you, hon. Learned Minister of Justice that for all Bills, you must take into account the views of various stakeholders as you have done in this case. This is what we want. We do not want to delay you any further. In this regard, we support you and I hope that other hon. Members of this House will support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo (Chama North): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to debate this very important Bill.

Mr Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that today is not a day for winners nor is it a day for losers. It is a day for the people of Zambia who want a constitution they have been waiting for, for too long. We cannot start imagining deferring such an important Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo: We must remember that there was a Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission that went round the country consulting Zambians to get their views. After that, we had the Non-Governmental Organisations and the Oasis Forum talking. As for political parties, for a while, one would say they were quiet and not heard. Personally, I was getting concerned.

However, I believe that was a sign of leadership and as such, I will not look at it as a weakness. It was meant to allow people express themselves on the various aspects of the Constitution.

Furthermore, time came when politicians took the initiative to meet and come up with a position on the way forward for this Constitution. I was taken aback that the consensus came very quickly for us to have a National Constitutional Conference in place. The fact that we are meeting within a short time, debating this Bill means that we are making progress.

Mr Speaker, I remember there were voices saying that the Government was doing nothing in trying to come up with a new Constitution. Now that the Government has taken a move, some people are developing cold feet. What is the problem?

Laughter

Mr Chilembo: Is this going to be a profession to debate without getting anywhere? Let us make progress. What we require is consensus because we are talking about a national document. It is neither for an individual nor a political party. The document that we are talking about is for the people of Zambia who have already expressed themselves on this Bill. Let us now move forward as there is nothing controversial in it.

Mr Speaker, already the signs are very good coming from the hon. Learned Minister of Justice. Most of the concerns raised by various witnesses who included the churches, Law Association of Zambia, the Oasis Forum and some political parties have been taken into account.

Mr Speaker, my fear is that if we start antagonising the hon. Minister who has listened and has given us all the amendments that are required, we may raise controversy where there is none. This is not about Government winning, but the people of Zambia wanting their Constitution. Therefore, do not make the hon. Minister or MMD Government appear to work alone in coming up with this document because at the end of the day, you may be rendered irrelevant to the history of this country.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo: I urge you to make yourself relevant today by voting beyond party lines or individual interests. Vote with the Zambians …

Mr Kambwili: Iwe, balikweba ifyakulanda!

Mr Chilembo: … who expressed themselves through the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission. If you look at the Bill itself, you will find that there is a lot of transparency in that whatever procedure that took place was publicised. Various organisations and stakeholders have been taken on board and where the hon. Minister appeared to have a lot of power, he surrendered it because what he wanted was a good Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo: Therefore, what are we fighting for?

Mr Speaker, let me say this today, that those who do not want to come with us, let us leave them behind.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chilembo: Those of us who want to march with the people, let us do so. We have started marching with the people already, but if you want to be left behind my brother and sister, remain behind.

Mr Speaker, this is a democratic Bill and in a democratic Government, you do not take 100 per cent. Sometimes, learn to give. The hon. Minister of Justice has given a lot. What are you giving? The Zambians are listening. As for me, I am ready to work and quickly come up with a constitution which the people of this country want. I would like to start talking to the people and come up with a final document.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this important Bill. From the outset, I would like to state that my party, the United Party for National Development (UPND) wants a new constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: We do not want to go to the next election in 2011 on an old Constitution. Everything must be done within our powers to ensure that we have a good constitution, a constitution that is accepted by the majority of the Zambian people, a constitution that has legitimacy and a constitution that will stand the test of time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: Mr Speaker, for a long time in this House, hon. Members of Parliament have been battling to get this Government bring the Constitution to this House. We moved motions on the Floor of this House urging this Government to bring the Constituent Assembly Bill. We did that in the last Parliament, but the people on your right rejected it.

Mr Speaker, the fact that we have taken this long to arrive at the stage where we have reached today is unfortunate because the need to have a Bill that will create the legal framework to have a legitimate body that will adopt the Constitution was decided a long time ago through the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission. But it has taken long and along the way, the Government has mismanaged the Constitution review process.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: The Government has created unnecessary suspicions over the Constitution making process and has been unnecessarily antagonistic. If you had decided a long time ago to accept and do the will of the people, the issue of the Constitution should have been decided a long time ago and we would have been looking at other things by now.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: You decided, instead, to create mistrust in the nation over the constitution making process and at every corner of the process when the whole nation thought that we were almost about to score, the MMD Government dribbled the people. That is what has created mistrust and suspicion over this process.

The MMD Government has been playing a hide and seek game.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: Mr Speaker, you will recall that prior to the general elections last year, the MMD Government, through the President, pleaded with the Zambian people to trust them because they would bring a new Constitution immediately after the election. The people were surprised that after the elections, the Government started to dilly dally and, indeed, started making pronouncements that gave signals that the Government was not ready to proceed with the Constitution making process. For example, the Government decided that instead of going for a Constituent Assembly, we were going for a referendum to decide whether or not we should have a Constituent Assembly. That created unnecessary suspicion and antagonism in the nation.

The Government went on to make statements that tended to alienate the people. For example, the Government was saying they did not need the civil society in the Constitution making process.

Mr Speaker, this Constitution is not for the Government or the MMD alone. It is for every Zambian and we cannot have a Constitution where we exclude certain sections of society in Zambia. That is why you have created unnecessary mistrust and antagonism on the process.

Mr Speaker, I will urge this Government to embrace everybody and exclude nobody in the process. That is the only approach that will make us arrive at decisions that will have consensus and the blessings of everybody. If we are going to exclude some people, who are also Zambians, in the Constitution making process, they will fight back and they are capable of derailing the process.

Mr Speaker, my party agrees with the roadmap where the Mung’omba Draft Constitution should be taken to a popularly decided Constitutional body such as the National Constitutional Conference.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: However, in doing so, we have stated, very clearly, that the only reason we have agreed to the National Constitutional Conference is that we believe it is the same as a Constituent Assembly. It will have the same meaning, powers and functions. The main purpose for the National Constitutional Conference is to adopt the Constitution. That is what we believe in and that is what we will accept. We do not really bother about the names of the body, we can call it Zango in Luvale, but it will still perform the same purpose.

Mr Speaker, we believe that after the Draft Constitution has been agreed to by the National Constitutional Conference. It must be taken for a referendum to get legitimised by the people …

Laughter

Mr Kakoma: … because it is only when a Constitution has legitimacy that it will be accepted and will stand the test of time. After the people have given legitimacy to the Constitution through a referendum, it can then be brought to Parliament for enactment. That way, we will be creating a conducive environment and process where the Constitution will stand the test of time.

Mr Speaker, coming to the Bill, we notice that …

Laughter

Mr Kakoma: … the hon. Learned Minister of Justice - I wish there were also learned economists and not just learned lawyers. The learned Minister of Justice has tried to accommodate some of the views and proposed amendments by those of us on your left. That is a commendable job and that is what he should have been doing, but he should go further because we have come up with progressive ideas and amendments to this Bill which we think, if accommodated, will go further to improve it. We need a good Bill over this Constitution making process because if the law that we will pass here is bad, it will be opposed by the people and we will not achieve anything.

I would, therefore, urge the hon. Learned Minister of Justice to take into account the concerns and amendments that we intend to move and incorporate them. For example, this Bill unnecessarily brings our Republican President under criticism because it has tended to give a lot of unnecessary power to the President, …

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: … for example, to single-handedly dissolve the National Constitutional Conference at any time.

Interruptions

Mr Kakoma: It is because you are not reading that you do not know this. What the hon. Minister of Justice, for your information, has done is include a new clause where the National Constitutional Conference will have the power to dissolve itself, but, has retained the power of the President to dissolve the National Constitutional Conference any time.

This means that on day one of the National Constitutional Conference when we disagree, and the President does not like that, he can dissolve the Conference. Why should we have such a law which gives so much excessive power to one individual to decide on behalf of the nation when, already, we have the people’s representatives assembled under a National Constitutional Conference? They must have the power to dissolve themselves with a two-thirds majority.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the hon. Minister of Justice should make an amendment to remove that remaining clause so that it removes the President from being criticised unnecessarily. This will also avoid bringing situations where people will be throwing mud at the President for nothing. As hon. Minister of Justice, it is your duty to protect the integrity of the President. You should protect the name of the President by not passing Bills that will result in people reacting negatively to the President.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments, as I said, but I count on the trust of the hon. Minister of Justice to fulfill his promises. It was just last week when he came to ask one of your Committees to trust him because he was going to move the amendments. When that time came, he said he could not move the amendments because he was annoyed.

Laughter

Mr Kakoma: Mr Speaker, can we make laws out of anger and annoyance?

Laughter

Mr Kakoma: Should we fail to pass a good law because the hon. Minister of Justice is annoyed?

Laughter

Mr Kakoma: Mr Speaker, an hon. Minister of Justice should be a learned counsel who should withstand anger and annoyance. He should present Bills to this House in his correct sober state. In this case, I would like to say that if people speak or vote against the Bill, it should not annoy the hon. Minister of Justice.

Interruptions

Mr Kakoma: Sir, the hon. Minister of Justice should not be affected because it is a right of the hon. Members of Parliament to do so.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Member: Journalists get ready.

Dr Chishimba (Kasama): Mr Speaker, by way of a preamble to my presentation, let me submit that the lawful authority which God gives the people in any nation cannot be taken away by anybody. Zambia is a Christian nation. Jesus is the Lord of Zambia and I want to assure you that no amount of draconian methods will take away that reality in our country. The philosophy of Christianity is beyond religion. As a Christian nation, we must commit ourselves to truth. There are many gallant men and women of this country, founders of Zambia, who died speaking on the need for the truth and never, never to go according to the winds of the day, but to look at where this nation has come from.

Mr Speaker, I am going to take a historical perspective, from 1890 to 1964, to look at constitutional developments in Northern Rhodesia.

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

Dr Chishimba: Then I will attempt to look at the processes of constitution making which the different successful Governments attempted to take, of course, up to the current one. Before I do that, let me probably try to define a Constituent Assembly and a National Constitutional Conference.

Mr Speaker, what is a Constituent Assembly and where has such a process been used? Firstly, I am going to start with the United States of America, which is the country with the first written Constitution, of course, which Zambia now has. The American Constitution has stood the test of time from the time it was enacted. I must state that it took two years for the people of America to sit and deliberate on the kind of constitution they wanted for their country. That is from 1787 to 1789, during which period, they decided on the kind of constitution they wanted for themselves. They sat, as a sovereign nation, to decide on the basic law, the supreme charter of their land. That is how it was used.

Sir, in Africa, countries such as Namibia and the Republic of South Africa used the same routes. They sat, as a sovereign people, in a Constituent Assembly to decide on the basic law of their land. If you looked at the Namibian Constitution, for instance, you would find that due to the fact that the people realised that the power which is vested in the Executive to deliver to them was actually too much, they decided to assume the power to pass a vote of no confidence in a minister.

If Parliament passes a vote of no confidence, the hon. Minister can be removed. That is the beauty of sitting as a Constituent Assembly where no interested party is given the power to lead the process. I say so because Zambia is a single Executive and this must sink in our minds. As a single Executive, it simply means that all Executive powers are vested in the President, which simply means that, that President, who is one man, has the potential to abuse the powers that are vested in his hands as we have seen in Zambia. I will illustrate this as I promised.

Mr Speaker, I talked about constituent developments and I am not going to necessarily look at what kind of treaties our chiefs or kings signed in a period from 1890 to 1911. What I will try to concentrate on probably is the 1924 developments to date. What constituted the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia in 1924? What constituted the Constitution were the Northern Rhodesia Order in a Counsel, the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Order in Counsel and the Royal or Brown Instructions. What do we see from the 1924 Constitution?

Sir, there was too much power vested in the Governor for the purpose of ensuring that the interests of white settlers were promoted at all costs at the expense of the indigenous people, the people of Zambia. This is why my elder brother, Hon. Major Chizhyuka, likes to talk about the need to look at indigenous needs, but we tend to sometimes take that point as a laughing matter. That is a very serious matter.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: Now, due to the too much powers vested in the Governor, what happened in 1928? In 1928, a law was passed and that was the Northern Rhodesia Crown Lands and Reserve Lands Order in Counsel, which put Africans into reserves which are not fertile where white settlers who wanted to perpetuate their rule in Africa or in Zambia in particular, concentrated in settling from Livingstone to Katanga, the regions which were rich in minerals. That was their main interest and that was the objective of giving too much power to the Governor. Whilst colonialists provided for the protection of the African interests, there are so many cases which prove that it was just in theory and not in any way to be put in practice.

Mr Speaker, in the last debate, I talked about the R versus Dijegar case, where a native or a person of Northern Rhodesia was taken to court for being in possession of four books entitled: Deliverance and others entitled: Jehovah, which, according to the colonial Government, was contrary to Proclamation Nine of 1935, which prohibited socio-religious and political literature.  He was convicted on those grounds.

According to Judge Francis, here, in Northern Rhodesia, he held that for such literature to be found with a primitive person, such as an African would lead to misconception, while for a white man, it would lead to exercising controversy, hence a native was not entitled to that. And so, you can see that when you are talking about Human Rights, they were guaranteed in that Constitution and in accordance with Common Law although in practice, our people were denied such rights.

Mr Speaker, I will not spend much time deliberating on the Federation, but I will very quickly talk about where this culture of conferences started. In 1959, the Monckton Commission was appointed by the British Government for the purpose of ensuring that a framework was developed in order to review the Federal Government arrangement in 1960. Many Nationalists, starting with Mr Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe, Dr Kaunda, and Mr Sikota Wina, among others, stood up against that. In fact, it was in the same period that the Zambia African National Congress (ZANC) was born.

We have to realise that on 1st August, 1959, ZANC changed its name to the United National  Independence Party (UNIP) for the sole purpose of vehemently campaigning against the constitutional provisions which worked against the natives.  We have to realise that.

Mr Speaker, as I said, in 1959, the Monckton Commission was appointed, and in October, 1960, the Monckton Commission presented its report, and called for the need to make provisions to increase the black majority. In December, 1960, a Constitutional Conference was called in England, and different political players were invited. They invited UNIP, African National Congress (ANC), the Dominion Party and the Central African Party, which later changed its name to the Liberal Party. All these were invited, including representatives of the African chiefs.

After the deliberations, the Colonial Secretary had the power, just like what we are seeing under the current arrangements, to make his own proposals. And in those proposals, he recommended that, finally, there was a need for the Governor of Northern Rhodesia to sit with the major political players in Lusaka and decide on the Basic Charter of the land.

You will establish that the consultations started in February, 1961, to about June, in the same year. However, because of that agenda to manipulate the local people of Northern Rhodesia, we saw the beginning of Cha Cha Cha …

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: … on the Constitution making process and some people died. It is not just about coming to this House, sitting comfortably and heckling without any kind of informed background. People died over this process.

Hon. Member: Bauze!

Dr Chishimba: During that process, Ian Macleod was forced to make proposals that were going to best suit the interest of the African people of Northern Rhodesia, as we were called then.

Mr Speaker, you will establish that during that same period, the Colonial Government bowed to pressure to give way to what the people of this country wanted. And in 1962, we finally had the first Northern Rhodesia Constitution which recognised the important role that the Africans needed to play in the political process of their own country.

 What transpired in the period between 1962 and 1964 is that, in order for the British Government to grant Zambia independence, they sat and passed an Act of Parliament called, The Zambia Independence Act of 1964, to which our Constitution was provided as an appendage. From that, you can establish that the indigenous people of Zambia did not popularly participate in the making of that particular Constitution.

Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: In 1968, when the UNIP Government embarked on an agenda, and succeeded, to remove the Referendum Clause to end all Referenda, it was only the people of the Western Province who voted against that. What was the reason for that? The reason for that was that they realised the need to protect the Basic Charter and that you cannot remove that need for a referendum, which in that particular case, gave leeway to the then Government to mutilate the Constitution at will.

And because there was too much power vested in the President, what we saw was the mutilation of the Basic Charter of the land between 1972 and 1973 when, finally, Zambia became a One Party State. You must remember that the terms of reference which were given to the Chona Constitution Review Commission were made by the President, literally guiding that person on what to do and were restrictive in nature because the provisions which were contained therein, were very clear to provide and recommend modalities of operating a One Party State. Many political parties, i.e. UPP, and ANC, among others, were outlawed, and some people were even imprisoned without trial. We must remember that during the uprising of the Lumpas in Chinsali, the Colonial Government then …

Hon. Members: Hear, Hear!

Dr Chishimba: … imposed a State of Emergency which remained in operation up to November, 1991. It was Dr Chiluba who lifted that State of Emergency. Today, when we are about to decide on the Basic Charter of the land, we see some Bills which have come in order to impose, what I would call a Silent State of Emergency in the name of the Anti-Terrorism Bill …

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: … so that whoever speaks against the Government, will be taken as an opponent of good Governance or democracy, which is not the case. Therefore, we have to learn these lessons and we must always remember that every regime is ephemeral which simply means temporary and I am a proponent of that understanding. The only permanent Kingdom is the Eternal Kingdom …

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Member: Hallelujah!

Dr Chishimba: … not the kingdom of men. You will sit there and think that you will be there forever; you will not be there forever.

Now, why am I emphasising on the need to sit as a sovereign nation to deliberate the Constitution? I am emphasising on this need because when you look at other Constitutional Conferences which were held, for instance, in the African Franco-Phone countries like Chad, Mali, and Gabon, among others, they sat as a Sovereign National Constitutional Conference. In order to claim that we are a sovereign people, we must put to an end the legal continuity associated with our Constitution, which was imposed on us by the colonialists.

We cannot afford to go through the routes where the President is empowered to appoint a Commission of Enquiry in Section 2 of Cap. 41 of the Laws of Zambia, which is, of course, the Enquiries Act. The Enquiries Act is not superior to the Constitution. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and any other law which is contrary or ultravires to the provisions of this Constitution shall, to the extent of that inconsistency, be declared null and void. Therefore, that Act has the capacity or potential to be declared null and void.

Therefore, how can someone use one particular route which only empowers the President to appoint the Commission of Enquiry on any matter, which, in his opinion, is for public welfare? We cannot afford to subject the Basic Charter of the land to the opinion of one particular man. If we are saying that we are independent, let us sit down and let the people decide because if you go through the Constituent Assembly way, what is going to happen is that every area of Zambia is going to elect representatives, including hon. Members of this august House, to sit as a sovereign people, without making reference to anything. Let us forget about all these other laws. Where there is stability, that is the route they have taken. Let us not hide in the name of legality at the expense of our sovereignty as a nation.

Mr Speaker, I must state here clearly, once again, that if you look at the same National Constitutional Conference Bill, for instance, there are some proposals such as “When we get there - if they propose that we temper with Part III of the Constitution, that is when we can go for a referendum.” We cannot afford to do that because that will be too costly. Why do we not go directly to sitting as a sovereign people and deciding on the Basic Charter of the land so that our Constitution can command the respect that it deserves. Let us not hide in the fact that all legislative powers are vested in Parliament. If you look at the preamble, it says:

 “We, the people of Zambia, by our representatives ...”.

Sir, that does not render the people of Zambia functus officio because they still have a stake and, of course, interest in their Basic Charter. Therefore, in order for us to enact a Constitution which will stand the test of time, let us sit as an independent people. This way, I believe that those men and women who died during the struggle for independence will have died for a purpose and some of them, who are still living, will see fruition of their struggle. Therefore, when we sit, as a sovereign nation in truth, we are going to say we are independent and the people of Zambia are going to identify themselves with the Basic Charter of the land, which is the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, once again, let me appeal to my brothers in the Executive that that when you are deciding on such matters, we must remember that one day, we will also find ourselves on the other side.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: Therefore, let us put Zambia first, especially the young politicians.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Chishimba: It was the youths of this country who fought for our independence. Some of them were very young at the time. When I say that, I am not taking away the important role that the elderly persons played in the process, which I believe was mostly advisory, because the militancy of …

The Hon. Member’s time expired.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Several hon. Members indicated.

Mr Speaker: Order! Hon. Members, take your seats for the moment.

 You have a Bill before you. As you can see, there are still so many of you who would like to debate. If each of you looks at this digital clock and wants to speak for 20 minutes, then we need 50 hours to go through this Bill. Consider the 20 minutes merely as a guide. Therefore, from now on, I would like to appeal to those who are going to debate to be brief and to the point.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Support or decline to support the Bill. That is all we want to hear.

The Deputy Minister of Commerce, Trade and industry (Ms Siliya): Mr Speaker, I rise to add my voice to this protracted national debate on the Constitution and in particular, to the National Constitutional Conference Bill, which is before us.

Sir, from the on set, I would like to remind my hon. Colleagues in this House that this Bill that we are considering today is not a competition about who started the process and who is going to end it. I make this reference to the hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central who wanted to base his point about the contributions made by the Oasis Forum. We are not here to talk about the competition of whether it is the Oasis Forum, the Centre for Inter-Party Dialogue or the Church because as Citizens, we are all contributing to this process. At the same time, the citizens are getting confused on who is knowledgeable about this issue, who wishes to be knowledgeable and who is pretending to be knowledgeable.

Sir, if I can just borrow from the hon. Member of Parliament for Kasama Central who quoted the preamble of the Constitution in part, he said:

“We, the people of Zambia, by our representatives assembled in our Parliament …”

Those representatives are ourselves assembled here today.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Siliya: Sir, two years after the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission Report, two years after the Draft Constitution was actually presented, we are still talking about enacting a new Constitution in this country. The citizens are tired of waiting. Today, as hon. Members of Parliament, we are being faced with a new challenge. Are we the ones who are going to hold the process back or we are actually the ones, as representatives of the people, who are actually going to move the process forward?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Siliya: Mr Speaker, going by the submissions submitted in the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission as well as the subsequent submissions through the Center for Inter-Party Dialogue, there has been wide consultations. These views have been considered in a manner that even the hon. Minister of Justice, representing this Government, has succumbed to some of the amendments.

Mr Speaker, according to the Enquires Act in the current Constitution, all the Government needed to do was to call for a White Paper, bring that position to this Parliament and we would have been able to enact this Constitution, but being a listening Government, it said no, the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission recommended a popular body, not necessary a Constituent Assembly, but a popular body and this could be the National Constitutional Conference. This is the reason we are considering this Bill today. Are we going to move this process forward from today? We are not going to belabour the historical context of this issue. Today, as hon. Members of Parliament, we are faced with a challenge. Are we going to be the ones who are going let the citizens down and say that we need to defer this Bill as some hon. Members of Parliament have suggested or we are actually not going to obligate our responsibility, as representatives of the people, and move this process forward.

Mr Speaker, ultimately, we must recognise that it is the hon. Members of Parliament who are the representatives of the people and that it is the hon. Members and the President in whom the legislative powers of this country are vested. Therefore, it is because of this that the Government recognised and thought it wise to bring to this House a platform that will make it possible for as wide consultation as possible. Some of the criticisms in bringing the Draft Constitution straight to Parliament was that special interest groups would not have been considered.

Sir, the hon. Minister of Justice and this Government have heard those views, but people seem to be bogged down on the journey and not to be concerned about the contents as Hon. Milupi said. Is it the means that justify the ends or the ends justify the means? It is important that we actually consider what is the content of this Draft Constitution; what are the points of clarity; points agreement and what are the point of disagreement so that we can move this process forward instead of us just trying to gain favour from special interests out there in the public. Then, we are not going to represent the citizens adequately.

Sir, I would like to point out here that I have heard some debates like saying that “We do not trust politicians. What we are doing here to try and push forward a process for the Constitution is a political process and requires politicians, hon. Members of Parliament in this House.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Siliya: We cannot run away from that. How are we going to disregard the views of the Government? The Government’s views should not be disregarded lightly. As we heard from the hon. Member of Parliament for Kasama Central that the Government is the only institution that has the history that has accumulated knowledge on drafting Constitutions. Therefore, in that case, I would like to urge and inform members of the public and Parliament at large that the Government is a big stakeholder in this matter because this is  a political will that we are looking for which can only be translated into reality by the politician.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Siliya: The National Constitutional Conference is providing for a good representation of women in the enactment of this process. I would like to believe that the female Members of Parliament will support this Bill because the issue of the 30 per cent female representation has been taken care of.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to address a very important issue and that is, this fatalistic perception we have, almost to a point where we have resigned ourselves that we cannot do this. We are almost short of calling on the relatives of hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central (Dr Scott) to come back as donors and make the Constitution for us.

Laughter

Dr Scott: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I shall allow that point of order!

Laughter

Dr Scott: Mr Speaker, I hate to interrupt the lady in full …

Mr Tetamashimba: You are in a wrong seat!

Dr Scott: … flow and speaking so eloquently, …

Hon. Members: He is in a wrong seat!

Dr Scott: … but I think …

Mr Speaker: Order! Order!

Laughter

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central is in a wrong seat!

Laughter

Mr Speaker: The Hon. Deputy Minister may continue, please.

Laughter

Ms Siliya: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker.

I am going to end by telling the hon. Members of Parliament that it is our responsibility as true representatives of the people of Zambia, as captured in the preamble of the Constitution, and our duty to create a perception that is positive. Otherwise, we keep confusing the citizens out there. Today, it is our responsibility as representatives of the people of Zambia to move the process forward and I call upon everyone not to abrogate their responsibility, but support this Bill.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: While a few Members of the Cabinet are getting ready to reply to what has been said, I want to know if there is any hon. Member on my immediate left who has even one new point to make because there is a repetition already.

Mr Hachipuka (Mbabala): I have a new point, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I hear the hon. Member of Parliament for Mbabala has a new point to make.

Interruptions

Mr Hachipuka: Mr Speaker, thank you and as I said, trust me.

Laughter

Mr Hachipuka: Sir, this is a very important Bill.

First of all, I would like to register my appreciation of the fact that the recommendations from your Committee have wholesomely been adopted.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: Yesterday, I was in a different mood, but when I saw the amendments, trusting that the hon. Minister would move them, I was very delighted.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: That is the way it should be.

However, the point that has prompted me to speak is that, under Clause 32, there is a major debate on whether the Republican President should be allowed to dissolve the National Constitutional Conference. That is a ticklish issue.

I would like to remind this House that our existing Constitution, specifically and world over, shows that one man shall take responsibility for the affairs of each country.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: In this country and elsewhere, most countries vote for a Head of State, unlike Britain where Parliament will vote for someone else. Everywhere else, a President is entrusted with the affairs of the State.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: In Zambia, the President is the only one now, if you accept this, who the Zambians have entrusted the affairs of this country with. Why do you want to deny that this process must be, and yet the Head of State is still responsible? He must deliver the Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: Therefore, under Clause 32, we cannot go to the National Constitutional Conference and assemble and dissolve ourselves. We could go on for three or four years enjoying allowances and not delivering the Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: There must be a captain.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear! Tell them!

Mr Hachipuka: You need a leader. The Constitution recognises that fact. In every role that we create in this House, we must recognise one person.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear! Tell them!

Mr Hachipuka: I wanted to remind this House that hon. Members should not just stand up and speak. Firstly, they should think about the governing laws of this country. I am glad that the Hon. Learned Minister of Justice has included that clause. Someone must be accountable, and that is President Mwanawasa, for the deliverance of this Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: So, do not lose sight of that particular clause.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: I understand the hon. Member of Parliament for Livingstone has something new to say.

Mr Sikota (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Sir, I would like to state from the outset that I support what the Patriotic Front (PF) said not too long ago when they stated that there must be a Constituent Assembly Bill brought to the next sitting of the House, meaning this one.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: In fact, they stated that they would bring one themselves. I, therefore, support that this Sitting must have a Bill which will enact a representative body to discuss our Constitution.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: There is no need for deferment of this particular Bill because as many have stated before me, this process has been going on for far too long.

Mr Speaker, the problem we have over our Constitution-making process is the trust and suspicion which is there. In fact, the hon. Member of Parliament for Kasama (Dr Chishimba) went into a long history, talking about the mistrust just as the hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central (Dr Scott) did.

Mr Muntanga: He was talking about his father!

Laughter

Mr Sikota: I must state, Mr Speaker, that I had mistrust for this Government when the issue of the referendum was talked about, advocating for a referendum before we could have a National Constitutional Conference or Constituent Assembly. I must admit that I had those suspicions.

However, since that time, we have seen a number of things happen. We have seen the Republican President at the Summit of Presidents of the Zambia Centre for Inter-party Dialogue (ZCID) state that he was no longer going to demand that we first have the referendum. He came out and said, “Yes, please, go ahead and enact a National Constitutional Conference Bill.” He went ahead and said, “Yes, that National Constitutional Conference that you have, should be given the power to adopt.” When I saw those things happening, the suspicions that I had fell away because there was clear action on the part of the Executive, showing that they had changed the way they wanted to go about this constitution issue.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament for Kasama stated that this is a Christian nation and that we should go by Christian principles. One of the Christian principles is that of forgiveness.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: If the MMD Government had earlier on been doing wrong in respect of the constitution-making process, if they have changed, we should be magnanimous enough to forgive them and move on.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Hon. Opposition Members: Zero!

Laughter

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, in the same Bible that is being referred to, there was Paul whose history was that of a rough character, in fact, a murderer, I believe.

Laughter

Mr Sikota: He changed completely. He is now Saint Paul. He was forgiven.

Laughter

Hon. Member: Have you changed?

Laughter

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1815 hours until 1830 hours.

Mr Speaker: Order! When I suspended business, the hon. Member for Livingstone (Mr Sikota) was contributing to the debate on the second reading of the National Constitutional Conference Bill, 2007 and as he resumes debate, I also understand that the hon. Member for Roan (Mr Kambwili) has an important new point to make in a few minutes after him. Thereafter, we shall hear from a few hon. Members of Cabinet to clarify some of the points which have been made on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member for Livingstone may continue.

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, when business was suspended, I was talking about the issue of forgiveness. When you forgive, it means you have ruled a line and you are starting afresh. It means that you will not dwell on the past and that is what I am asking all Zambians to do. Let us look to the future and not always look behind.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, as we start afresh, let us start with a spirit of wanting to reach a consensus. Let us start with a spirit of trying to be bridge builders rather than people who are going to burn down bridges.

Mr Speaker, the people who will go to the National Constitutional Conference will have to have that kind of attitude and atmosphere. If we begin in this House to make the whole process controversial when there is no need, we will be undermining the very process which the people of Zambia so urgently want to start. We all have a duty not to look at this as a partisan issue and I am glad that the learned Chair of the Committee stressed that aspect. In fact, Mr Speaker, even your Committee was not a partisan one. It had representation from all the political parties who make up this House.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, this Committee had a total of fifty-six witnesses appear before it with another three who were permanent members, making it fifty-nine. In my short stay in Parliament, I have not seen a Committee which has had so many witnesses appear before it. I believe, unless I am wrong, that this is the Committee that has had the most witnesses appear before it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, when we talk about consultation, how many more people are we saying should come and be heard? Which other Committee has heard as many witnesses as this one? We must all learn to give kudos where they are deserved.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: We must do so using facts. For example, that fact of the fifty-six witnesses, nobody can controvert that. The number of organisations that made submissions is also listed in there. They all had an ample opportunity to make submissions to your Committee …

Mr Tetamashimba: Including the Oasis Forum.

Mr Sikota: Including the Oasis Forum, indeed, as the hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply has just stated. Including the churches and all the political parties, they are all listed there. So, who are we supposed to defer this Bill for in order to go and consult? Who is missing on this list?

Mr Tetamashimba: Quality! Presidential material!

Laughter

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, I did not quite hear what the hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply said.

Laughter

Mr Sikota: Unfortunately for me, this House does not allow for repetition.

Laughter

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, there are certain aspects that have come out prominently as issues that those who are against the Bill want to put forward as a reason to defer the Bill. One of them is the issue of the so-called two-step or piecemeal process of amendment or enactment of our Constitution. There is a misconception that this Bill compels the national Constitutional Conference to have either a two-step or a multi-step process. There could be nothing further from the truth.

Mr Speaker, Clause 13 (2) (b), with your indulgence, I will read it because it is not very long. It says that:

“The members shall, during their deliberations, determine whether they shall recommend the:

(b) submission to a referendum of any alteration of Part III of Article 79 of the Constitution or any provisions of the Draft Constitution in respect of which there is no agreement or of the entire Draft Constitution as adopted under this Act without the option referred to in paragraph (a).”.

Mr Speaker, clearly the hon. Minister has left as much latitude to the national Constitutional Conference as possible. He has not tied their hands to anything. He has left them free and that is what any liberal person would want, that they be free range. As United Liberal Party, we support that because that espouses our dream of liberalism.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, there has also been talk of inbuilt majority for politicians. I want to assure the people out there that there is not one view that politicians have. If, indeed, as politicians, we had one view, we would not have the lively energetic debates that we have in this House. We have those debates because we have different views and so even if we had a group of politicians, you will not have a 100 per cent consensus amongst them because some will agree and some will not. So, there is no such thing as in-built majority.

Mr Speaker, indeed, we believe that some political parties have already made solemn pledges that whatever the civil society wants, they will do.

Laughter

Mr Sikota: So, there is no in-built majority. The civil society has already locked in a large constituency. So why fear the so-called in-built majority, all we need is to have that trust. When you see any kind of debate or negotiation, it is give and take. You expect to win some issues and lose some issues. In this particular case, we have been informed that 90 per cent of the proposals from the various stakeholders have been taken on board by the amendments that the hon. Learned Minister of Justice is going to bring. Now, when you look at it from a give and take position, I would rather be on the side which is receiving 90 per cent and only giving away 10 per cent.

Laughter

Mr Sikota: In fact, the ones who are disadvantaged are the Government. They are the ones giving away 90 per cent and only retaining 10 per cent. So, in a give and take situation, I think that those who were making the proposals for amendments, if we can use the term ‘winners’, are the winners. As was stated by the hon. Deputy Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, we should not be looking at this in terms of winners and losers. We should simply be looking at it as what is best for the Zambian people. It is not about us out staging anyone else. It is about us delivering to Zambians what they wanted. When one has a close look at the recommendations of the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission, anybody who is honest will say that the Government has tried very much to be true to what was recommended by the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: That has to be recognised. Composition seems to be something that is still a sticking point for some people. If you look at the composition, as suggested by the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission, some of the people who are saying there is an issue of composition would actually end up with less representation under the Mung’omba proposals than what is being proposed.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikota: That is a fact, but they are not telling the people this particular fact. Therefore, I would like to register that I wholly support this National Constitutional Conference Bill and pray that everybody does the same.

With those words, I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili (Roan): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for according me this opportunity to contribute to this debate on the National Constitutional Conference Bill.

Mr Speaker, I would like to make it clear that when we said we wanted this Bill to be deferred, we did not say, as Patriotic Front, that we are against the Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: What we were stating is the fact that we needed certain pertinent issues that have been raised by other stakeholders to be addressed.

Hon. Government Members: Like what?

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Kambwili: For example, what we wanted in our suggestion was that the Bill should have been drafted and circulated to all stakeholders, including the civil society …

Hon. Government Members: Where were you?

Mr Kambwili: … and brought back to the hon. Minister, who should have considered the concerns of the civil society and then brought the Bill to Parliament.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: That is our concern, Mr Speaker.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: So, I want to state, clearly, that we did not imply that we were against the Bill because we have been waiting for the process of enacting a new Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, if I may quote Hon. Mulongoti in most of his addresses throughout the country, he has been suggesting that we amend certain parts of the Constitution.

Hon. Government Members: Are you sure?

Mr Kambwili: What the Zambians are asking for is not an amendment. What the Zambians want is enacting a totally new Constitution for the people of Zambia …

Hon. Government Member: Tizakuitanila Chimumbwa.

Mr Kambwili: … and that has to be taken very seriously.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: We do not want to come to this Parliament tomorrow, Mr Speaker, when, already, people have said they cannot trust Parliament. I do not want that. I want to go on record as a Member of Parliament who can be trusted by the people that we represent.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: By going short cut on this Bill, you are making yourselves more untrusted to the outside. For once, what we required at this particular time was to bring all the people on board so that politicians can begin to be trusted.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, the composition is one sided, believe it or not. Most of the civil servants who have been drafted to sit on this are appointed by the President. Permanent Secretaries, Army Commanders and the President, it must be noted, is the Commander of the Armed Forces and in the Armed Forces orders work. So, the President is only going to order the Service Chiefs to go the way this Government wants. That is why our suggestion was that we should go beyond the Service Chiefs only sitting on this National Constitutional Conference to allow individuals, even private people, in the army to sit and air views …

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Kambwili: … in this National Constitutional Conference.

Mr Speaker, this issue of saying one eminent person in the province will represent the province, I think, is being unrealistic. We have seventy-three districts and seventy-three tribes and, in each province, there are segments of tribes. If we were to say that one person from each district, it would make more sense than having only one person from the province. This has to be taken very seriously whether you agree or not.

Interruptions

Mr Kambwili: One time, gentlemen, we must be careful. Hon. Member, and Deputy Minister, you were here the other day and Hon. Shakafuswa you were there. Tomorrow, you may find yourselves on this side.

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Shakafuswa: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I have already called him to order. That is enough.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, the Mineworkers Union of Zambia (MUZ) is one union that has a lot of members. We suggest that the MUZ be brought in as an entity on their own. The church representation must be widened so that more church representation is made in this composition. Then, at least, people will trust us for once. We do not want to enact a Constitution that, after enacting, people will still say that this is not what we submitted. We want to enact a Constitution, for once, that every Zambian is going to be happy with.

Mr Speaker, the days are gone. This Government has even been saying, no, that was MMD I and this is MMD II because of things like this. If they were doing the right thing in MMD I, they could not distinguish between MMD I and MMD II. Let us do one thing that is going to be accepted by everybody to avoid MMD I and MMD II. The composition must be looked at very seriously.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

The Minister of Local Government and Housing (Mrs Masebo): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for affording me this very rare opportunity and privilege to debate this national and important Bill which, of course, we are all agreed here, is beyond political parties.

Mr Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the Committee that came up with this report and also I want to be on record for commending the hon. Minister of Justice, who has been leading in working very hard.

Mr Speaker, I will immediately start by looking at the issue which Hon. Kambwili has raised concerning the National Constitution Conference Bill and the process of consultation.

Sir, the hon. Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Government, wrote to all stakeholders and attached a Draft Bill on the NCC to ask them for their comments before he came up with this Bill that we are now debating.

Mr Speaker, several stakeholders, including the Patriotic Front Party, responded to the letter from the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Government, and I will lay, on the Table of this House, the responses from all the stakeholders that responded to the initial Draft NCC Bill. It is important, for posterity’s sake, to set the record straight and say that this Government is, indeed, consistent and a listening Government.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, from the start, we have been sincere. His Excellency the President and his Government, in as far as the process of the Constitution-making process is concerned, has been sincere. From the beginning, we stated that we were going to respect the wishes of the people subject to the legal hurdles, including financial ones, and that we were going to go by what the people would say.

Sir, from the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission Report, we note that the majority of the petitioners submitted to the effect that a popular body, be it a Constituent Assembly, National Convention, and so on, as long as it is broad-based, represents gender equality, interest groups, and so on should be included. Therefore, this Bill before this House has responded to that request or demand by the people of Zambia.

Mr Speaker, it would be unfair for people to say that we made a mistake or we were not honest and now we have repented. There is no repentance here. We have been consistent and His Excellency the President has been consistent. We indicated, from the beginning, that we shall proceed according to whatever the people say as long as it is within the Constitution. As long as we are not being forced to abrogate the current Constitution because, if we do that, what guarantee are we going to have that even the one that we are going to produce, somebody will come and change in an illegal manner. Therefore, this Bill, today, is a response to the voice of the majority that they want a body that takes into account all various stakeholders and interest groups.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, there is an issue of the composition which hon. Members have raised on the Floor of this House. Again, the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission made proposals on the composition. The initial Draft Bill which the hon. Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Government, sent to the stakeholders, had a composition which took into account the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission recommendation on the composition. However, when that went out, various stakeholders put their minds to the composition and made suggestions. The hon. Minister of Justice in coming up with the final Bill on the NCC took into account the submissions of all those stakeholders. This is how now you have found that when you look at the composition, of everything that the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission said in their report, almost 100 per cent has been taken on board. In addition, we have gone beyond what the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission said by taking into account other interest groups that may have been left out in the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission. Even those are based on the submissions of the various stakeholders.

Mr Speaker, the issue that is being brought here, that this composition is tilted in favour of the MMD Government, is unfair and unnecessary because we are not going to go on the NCC to compete. We are going there to debate, adopt and ensure that the content of the final Draft Constitution will be quality.

Sir, other speakers here have already said that there are people that have got experience in this process and we want to gain from their expertise, knowledge, experiences, and so on. Even the request that we should have the serving service commissions or civil servants that have experience, it is because we will be debating real issues at the end of day when you go to the NCC. We are not going there for competition or to look at who has more votes and so on. No.

For me, Sir, it disappoints me to think that even those who initially said that they only wanted a body that would take into account the various interest groups, are now talking about an in-built majority; an in-built majority to compete with whom? This is a national document. We are in Government today, and we may not be in Government tomorrow. We are hon. Members of Parliament today; we might not be hon. Members of Parliament tomorrow. We know that this is a document that will serve all of us. We are not burying our heads in the sand.

Mr Speaker, His Excellency the President has made it clear that he is not standing. Therefore, this has nothing to do with protecting himself. All he is trying to do is give leadership because he is a President who has been elected by the people to guide and give leadership. It is so saddening that people want to sideline the President in such an important process.

Hon. Government Members: Shame!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, the problem that I have seen is that there is too much personal hatred. There is too much unnecessary mistrust, pettiness and, in some cases, deceitfulness and dishonesty in the process. As a result, people keep on changing or shifting the goal posts.

Sir, in the beginning, the Draft Bill talked about the President appointing members of the NCC, but even in that initial stage, it was not really the President appointing because it was clear that it was the associations and organisations that were going to nominate their own people. It was just the letters of appointment that would come from the President. They said they did not want them to come from the President. That has been removed.

The members, themselves, the various stakeholders, including some members of the civil society, recommended to the hon. Minister of Justice that in coming up with the Final Draft Bill, he must take into account the fact that the President must be given some functions of appointing the Chairman, the Vice-Chairperson from among the members who would have been elected by the NCC itself. However, they changed the goal posts and said that they did not want Mwanawasa to be the one to appoint any Chairman, or Vice-Chairman.

Now, surely, even if we, as a Government, have agreed to all those demands because we want harmony and we want this process to make progress, I think it is important, for the sake of the record, to say that it is unfair. There is too much personal hatred. This is just the first stage of the Constitution-making process. We need to allay the hatred because even if we come up with this Bill now and form this popular body, we will still debate and adopt this body. Now, if we are going to go into that body with so much hatred, how are we going to debate?

Now, you want to change the goal posts. You want to move on the point of dissolution. You know that in Kenya, for four years, they have been debating. We do not have the money to waste. Suppose you become unreasonable, somebody must close the door and it can only be the President. However, you want to say you must dissolve yourselves. How can you appoint yourselves and dissolve yourselves? We know that for some people, it is going to be business. They want to make money just like they have been talking because they are getting money from donors, they want to be talking forever. We are tired.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, this country has many problems. It is true that the process can guarantee a good content, but there must be a point of stopping. You cannot come here and say we should withdraw. Withdraw what and for what purpose? When we have an open door, we have said, we can make amendments. The President has announced. He says that he wants this process to move. If there are any points which are good, we are prepared to make amendments, but to come here, the first thing you say is withdraw and take it to where, for what? The various processes of consultations have been taken.

I have here, Mr Speaker, a letter dated 24th from the Patriotic Front in response to the National Constitutional Conference Bill and it says that the Patriotic Front takes note that there are major issues that have not been taken into account. Firstly, it talks about during the meeting and so on and so forth and they make proposals which they are asking the hon. Minister of Justice to take into account. The hon. Minister of Justice has taken those issues into account. I will lay this letter from the Patriotic Front (PF) on the Table.

The Constitution Awareness Network which consists of FODEP, ABAP and PAZA also made submissions and they say, in your letter, we have taken time to study the NCC Bill, 2007 and uplift to present to you our observations on the significant parts of the Bill as outlined below and they go on and on. On recommendations, they say, in view of the foregoing, we hereby recommend the following and they give recommendations. Sir, 90 per cent of those recommendations have been taken on board.

You have the Christians, Independent Churches of Zambia (ICOZ). They also made comments on the initial Draft Bill to the hon. Minister of Justice. I will lay all these documents on the Table so that they form part of this debate for posterity.

The Zambia Centre for Inter-Party Dialogue also made its own recommendations. Those were 90 per cent taken on board.

The Oasis Forum also said they have had an occasion to study the Draft Constitution Bill and the following are their reactions. They made their reactions. Among their reactions, some of these amendments have also been taken on board, but let me say that the issue of contention that continues to come out is on the composition and as I have already said, we have taken the whole list of the Mung’omba Constitution review Commission and added other people.

Now, it is important to note that we cannot take everybody and there has to be a limit. It is going to be expensive. Already, there are 400 people and there will be sitting allowances and you want to say nobody should stop you from talking? You just want to go on for four years talking, where is the money going to come from?

Mr Speaker, there is an issue of piece meal amendments as an area of concern. This Bill is very clear. It is talking about altering the Constitution or any part thereof. According to the definition of the alteration, it means amendments and all those things that go with dealing with the issue of the Constitution. This point of saying piece meal, I myself do not even understand where it is coming from because we will go into the conference and debate and adopt. After that, we are suggesting that the Bill will go either to a National Referendum if the members so wish or part of those areas where there is no contention, we are agreeable like simple issues like the Budget process and the 50 + 1 per cent majority vote for a president to win elections, if we all agree. Those can go straight to Parliament for enactment because it is the function of Parliament to enact.

Then the areas where there is contention can be put to a referendum. Even if people are talking about people participating, there is no participation to talk about. Even Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission Report does recognise that a referendum acts or it simply an affirmative question to say, yes or no. Are you telling me that we can take this whole document to a referendum and say yes or no to it? Is it possible? Can it be everything because even the Final Draft Constitution which Mung’omba himself has tackled where he is talking about mode of amendments in future to the final document, still recognises the need to have specific articles which will be enshrined and go to a referendum and others which can be amended by Parliament and that is what we are saying. However, if we get into that conference and we all agree that everything must go, let it go, but I think, as a Government, we thought as follows:

Suppose we take the whole document to a referendum and the people end up saying no? The whole thing will collapse. Then we will be back to the same Constitution that you are calling bad. However, there are areas where we have no problems, for example, setting the budget in October and if we all agree, we can start implementing that for the good of the country. That is all we are saying. It is very simple. We are not perfect. We are just human beings like everybody else. We can make mistakes, but the bottom line is we mean well.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, we keep quiet as people talk everyday and make us look like we do not understand issues, we are nothing and Ministers are insulted everyday like small children, but I think that debating requires mutual respect.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: We must respect the Church and NGOs and they must also respect us. We must debate to disagree and/or agree. When we have different views, it does not mean that there is something wrong with us. No. It is because at our level, as politicians, we also have an obligation to the people and also an obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and not just to say yes for the sake of it.

Mr Speaker, I would like to end by saying that in supporting this Bill, it is very important that hon. Members of this House show leadership and begin to speak in a manner that can build confidence. We appreciate the mistakes of the past Governments, but we cannot forever be held responsible for past mistakes. We have to move forward and it is about time that in the manner we debate, we must begin to reduce those differences so that when we go in the conference, we can really come up with a good Constitution that will stand a test of time.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, His Excellency the President, Mr L. P. Mwanawasa, SC. and his administration means well and that there is nothing that we have up our sleeves because we know that all of us will not be there forever and we know that even where I am standing, there will be somebody even next month or year. It is possible. We have seen even within just this administration.

We want to show or say that as elected leaders, we also have a big role to play in this process and that the President, as an individual citizen and as a national leader of this country, voted by the people, also has a voice and interest in the Constitution.

I, myself, as Member of Parliament for Chongwe, was voted by over 25,000 people more than even the people who contributed to this whole document. We must all be very careful and respect each person on the question of the people and say that in our own individual rights, we represent the people. This Government is interested to work with all stakeholders that have some following or indeed some organisation as long as they have an understanding of the subject matter. There are important issues in this document, for example, the issue of Local Government. It will be important to get people who can debate, not just to sit there and have sitting allowances. No. It is important that these members that are being proposed here in terms of interest groups bring value to the content of this Constitution.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you and again commend the hon. Minister of Justice and your Committee who have done a good job. Let us, for once, work together with all interest groups and the hon. Minister has already made it clear that if anything is of value, we can amend it, but if it is not of value, he will not amend it.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo laid the papers on the Table.

The Minister of Finance and National Planning (Mr Magande): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to join the debate and from the onset, I would like to say that I wholly support this Bill.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, we heard a representative who was saying that he represents the Patriotic Front (PF) and that they want this Bill to be deferred. Now, sometime last year, we had a procedural problem in the House. The PF is represented on the Committee that produced this report. There are five members of PF on that Committee. After going through the Bill and the Committee made a recommendation, in fact, a conclusion, which states:

“In this regard, your Committee recommends that the Bill be supported by the august House.”

However, we are told that this document is not representative of the five members of PF and there is somebody who says …

Dr Scott: On point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Dr Scott: Mr Speaker, Is the hon. Member in order to say that there are five PF members when there are actually three PF members on this Committee? Perhaps there is something wrong with the mathematics on that side.

Laughter  

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker …

Mr Speaker: I have to make a ruling. The hon. Member for Lusaka Central has disputed the PF representation on my Committee. With that information, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning may make that correction and continue.

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, if we take the membership of the Committee, there are three …

Mr Shakafuswa: There are four.

Mr Magande: There are four members …

Hon. PF members: There are three. 

Mr Magande: Ok, there are three PF members and therefore, they are more or less in the majority. The point is that after a good report, as we heard from Hon. Sakwiba Sikota, that this Committee had the highest number of members of the public make representations, the PF members who were on this Committee want to come here and say they do not support what is in this report.

Mr Speaker, last week we had a Chairman of a Committee who voted against the recommendations of his own Committee. Is this how we are going to follow our procedures in the House? Let Hon. Dr Guy Scott speak on his own behalf. We want those Members who were on the Committee and who listened to the people not to tell us that they want to go and consult. Consult who? Do they want to go and consult the three members of their party why they were not listening when the people were speaking?

Laughter

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, we cannot allow this. Let the members of PF state immediately they come here that they do not want to be on these committees to listen to the people …

Hon. Government Members: Yes!

Mr Magande: … because they have their own fora where they will do that. But, where is this fora?

Mr Speaker, the Chairman of this Committee proposes that there should be six members from the church mother bodies. In the Draft Bill, we had proposed two members. In this report, presented by the hon. Member of Parliament for Monze, there was a very strong recommendation for three members …

Mr Mwiimbu: No!

Mr Magande: This is what the report says.

Mr Shakafuswa: We are all members of churches.

Mr Magande: Yes. This is what the report says and if you want me to read it, I will. It says:

“… it was proposed to your Committee that the composition of the Conference should include the following:

(iii) three representatives from each of the church mother bodies, instead of two.”

However, the chairman comes here and mentions six. Where is this number coming from?

Laughter{mospagebreak}

Mr Mwiimbu: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, our recommendation is very clear. Is the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning in order to create unnecessary controversy over an issue that is almost resolved? We have recommended six, but why is he creating controversy?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning may continue.

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, taking a cue from the Chairman of the Committee, who is a learned lawyer, I would like to say that all the issues that have been raised here have already been taken care of by us on this side of the House.

The reason this Bill has come before this House is that when the heads of political parties met at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre, they decided to have a conference, an assembly or some popular body to draft the Constitution. The Republican President asked how we were going to spend money without Parliamentary approval if this body were constituted and were going to cost money. When this issue was brought to us, because of the amounts of money involved, we decided to bring a Bill to Parliament which was going to address the following:

(i) the role of this body; and

(ii) who was going to be paid and how much.

Mr Speaker, in this Bill, we are establishing a fund which is going to be used to manage the costs of holding the National Constitutional Conference. That was one of the most important things that President Mwanawasa considered. However, Hon. Sikota says that we seem to have repented, but everybody in life goes through a learning process in life.

We have been criticised here that one of the institutions that is doing a good job, the Task Force on Corruption, was not brought to Parliament for hon. Members to approve its expenditure. We have been told that the National Constitutional Conference or Constituent Assembly is a very important body. Therefore, in order for us not to fall into the same trap, we have decided to come to Parliament so that hon. Members can approve this body thereby defining its duties and allowing for the spending of public funds. This is why we are here.

I would like to let Hon. Dr Guy Scott know that if this Bill does not go through, I, under the Public Financial Act, will not release money to anybody that will be set up. I will not have the authority of this august House and this is why, through this Bill, I am asking to be given this authority. It is from this House that all Government expenditures from public taxes are approved. This is why we have the Public Accounts Committee asking why money that was not approved was spent. Therefore, we need to have this Bill enacted so that we have the spending authority from Parliament.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, there is the issue of consultation which was well articulated by my good friend, the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing. This Bill went through stages and stakeholders were asked to make submissions. These submissions have come to the Government and the learned State Counsel, the hon. Minister of Justice, has taken time to go through them and provide for what the people want. This has been done. However, like Hon. Hachipuka said, how do we set up a body that has existed in perpetuity without the Head of State, who is the Commander-in-Chief, declaring that we are wasting public resources.

Mr Lubinda: On a point of order, Sir!

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Lubinda: Mr Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of procedure. Sir, as you might be aware, the Report of your Committee was presented to hon. Members of this House and they collected it this afternoon when they came to Parliament. Secondly, the amendments that are proposed by the hon. Minister of Justice were circulated to us this afternoon. Obviously, for hon. Members to make any informed proposed amendments, they ought to read the report of your Committee and the amendments of the hon. Minister of Justice. I wonder whether we are in keeping with the procedure when the hon. Minister has not proposed an amendment to Standing Order No. 115, which reads as follows:

“Members desiring to have a proposed amendment to Bills placed upon the Order Paper must hand them, fairly written and signed by them to the Clerk or deliver them at his/her office not later than 1430 hours on the day before that on which they are so to appear.”.

Mr Speaker, I would like to find out whether we are not breaching procedure provided for at Standing Order No. 115, given that the Report of your Committee was put in pigeon holes only yesterday and hon. Members of Parliament received them today and the amendments of the hon. Minister of Justice were only circulated today, therefore, not making it possible for any hon. Member to make any amendments because of the provisions of Standing Order No. 115.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: You were in hospital!

Mr Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member for Kabwata is now, at least, late in our dealing with the procedure. However, for that case, I wish to inform him that the procedure was complied with. This report you are referring to was tabled before the House yesterday, so were the amendments. It is possible you did not check your pigeonhole in time. Otherwise, the procedure was complied with. Some hon. Members who cared, got this yesterday. So, let us make progress.

Hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning may, please, continue.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Magande: Mr Speaker, the point of order that has just been raised is a clear indication that the hon. Members have exhausted their debate on this Bill. Therefore, I would like to invite my colleagues, especially those at the far left side to come along and support this Bill so that we can discuss the substance of the Bill. Some of the contents of the Bill have to do with how you want your Government to borrow money, while some of it is to amend the provisions on pension calculations, which, unfortunately, we cannot do for the benefit of the people because they are in the Draft Constitution.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President (Mr R. Banda): Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to add my voice to that of the hon. Colleagues who have debated this Bill before me.

In the first place, I wish to pay tribute to all hon. Members who have so ably contributed to the debate on this Bill, both from your right and left sides. Their views have helped to shed some light on the feelings of this House towards this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to the whole debate on this Bill. Firstly, allow me to commend my neighbour here, the hon. Learned Member of Parliament, Minister of Justice for drafting this most engaging Bill. I am sure the House have found this Bill a fertile piece of legislation worthy of the comments they have so passionately rendered.

The debate on the Bill has been very lively, showing the concern of the whole nation for their basic law, the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, secondly, let me assure those of my colleagues who have debated this Bill that, as Leader of Government Business in the House, I have taken note of all their observations and recommendations. We shall keep them in view as we continue to consult over this matter.

Mind you, the debate on this Bill, here in Parliament now, is not the be it all and end it all here. As Shakespeare might have said, it is, but a stage in our continuing discussions of the Constitution.

As you well know, consultations will continue even in the National Constitutional Conference to which all of you will be members, hence nobody should see any losers or winners in  this process. We are all Zambians of one family, working hard to bequeath ourselves an improved Constitution that will avoid the slippage of the past constitutional reviews, one that will stand the test of time and one in which our kith and kin will find the true expression of our national spirit.

Moreover, as I have said earlier, you, hon. Members assembled here, are party to the National Constitutional Conference that this Bill is seeking to establish. You will be joined by other key stakeholders, including representatives of all the political parties that form the Zambia Centre for Inter-party Dialogue, representatives of all major churches, including the Council of Churches and the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia and any other church mother body registered under the Societies Act.

Others will be the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Electoral Commission, the Drug Enforcement Commission, the Human Rights Commission, representatives of professional bodies, including the Law Association of Zambia, the Economics Association of Zambia, the Zambia Association of Chambers and Commerce and Industry, the Local Government Association of Zambia and the Medical Association of Zambia, etc. and other representatives who have been proposed by the hon. Members during this debate this afternoon who am sure my learned friend on my right (hon. Minister of Justice, Mr Kunda, SC.) will take into account.

Representatives of traditional healers, civil servants, students, traditional rulers from the House of Chiefs and trade unions representatives will all be there. Thirty per cent of all Members shall be women and others too numerous to mention.

All these people or their representatives will have another round of consultations on this important subject with a full Mung’omba Constitution Review Report in front of them as the basis on which the Constitution will be drafted. This Bill is, therefore, but a necessary and decisive step towards the formulation of the Draft Constitution which, in any case, will still be brought for further debate in this House.

Hon. Members, let me remind you that this institution of Parliament, under the guidance of the distinguished Zambian Speakers, has, over the years, proven to be a durable and reliable institution which has played a key role in maintaining the peace and tranquility we enjoy today.

This is the institution to which this Bill and, indeed, the Draft Constitution thereafter, will be brought for adjudication. We surely should have the highest of trust and confidence in this institution that has guided us so ably and so well in the past. It surely has the necessary competence even now to deliver on this matter. We should be able to reject those views based on selfish motives.

Mr Speaker, thirdly, I have noted that although the debates were at times emotive and passionate, they were nonetheless of one family and the ground for convergence of views has been provided by the need we all feel to have the new Constitution brought into effect sooner than later. Listening attentively to the debate on the Floor of the House, it has become quite clear to me that we are all agreeable that we must make progress on this matter.

Sir, some have submitted that they perceive difficulties in the Draft Constitution being submitted by the honourable and Learned Minister of Justice before presentation to Parliament and have taken this as an entry point for interference by the Government. I am sure hon. Members who listened to the radio programme on Sunday and looked at the amendments that the hon. Minister has made have those fears. Others have alluded to the appointment of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson by His Excellency the President as overbearing influence by the Government.

Mr Speaker, again, I am sure, hon. Members who have spoken, particularly Hon. Hachipuka, are satisfied that this is obviously not a dangerous thing for the Constitution- making process. It is therefore, in the national interest for all of us assembled here, both on your left and right hand side, to support this straight forward Bill in order to enable us make progress on the new constitution we so desire. What is left, therefore, is for me to appeal to all hon. Colleagues of this House to close ranks and accord this Bill the unanimous support it so deserves.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, for the first time in the history of this country, we are making progress. We are introducing a body which has been alluded to for a long time. We will go to this National Constitutional Conference with a view to build consensus as regards the Constitution that we want. I want to emphasise that with the current President, His Excellency, Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, we have a chance to change the Constitution and he means well. The President and us are sincere. We want to make progress on the Constitution review process. We should not be fighting all the time. It is time we made progress. The Bill is there and I appeal to all those who are calling for deferment to come along with us. We should convince the Oasis Forum and a few other organisations that are still doubting. Let us build bridges so that we can start this long overdue process.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, from my assessment, this Bill has received overwhelming support and I urge all the hon. Members to support it.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

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

Committed to a committee of the whole House.

Committee on Wednesday, 22nd August, 2007.

SECOND READING

THE FISHERIES (Amendment) BILL, 2007

The Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives (Mr Kapita): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the present Fisheries Act of 1974, Cap. 200 of the Laws of Zambia, focuses mainly on the pre-independence Fish Protection Ordinance of 1929. At that time, the fish management measures were made to conserve and manage fisheries in the then Northern Rhodesian Government, based on advice from Kenya and South Africa, who had already established fish conservation measures.

Both the Fisheries Act of 1974 and the Fish Protection Ordinance of 1929 did not address the socio-economic changes in the fisheries sector. Therefore, the proposed amendments in the Bill have taken into account a number of developments and changes in the fisheries legislation and new policies.

Mr Speaker, in coming up with the Bill, the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) made wide consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. These included traditional leaders, Non-Governmental Organisations, fisheries communities such as traders, processors and marketers. The consultative process culminated in a national consultative workshop where final inputs to the Bill were incorporated.

Mr Speaker, the object of the Fisheries Amendment Bill of 2007 is to take into account changes and developments that have taken place within the fisheries sector under the liberalised economy in our country. The Bill is, therefore, intended to bring about the following:

(i)  The need to involve all stakeholders such as rural communities, Non- Governmental Organisations, Local Government, traditional institutions and the private sector in the management of fisheries;

(ii) the development and regulation of aquaculture, which also means fish farming; and

(iii) establishment of a Fisheries Development Fund, which will be used to directly benefit the rural communities in these areas, through research, training and fish stocking.

Mr Speaker, while the Bill provides for the Director of Fisheries to issue licences administratively, this activity is undertaken by the field officers by virtue of their being authorised officers as provided for by Section 2 of the Fisheries Act Cap. 200. The small- scale fishers and other fish farmers, therefore, do not need to travel to the Fisheries Headquarters in Chilanga for them to obtain licences. They will be able to obtain these in their areas of residence.

Mr Speaker, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, 2007 provides for incentives for Integrated Fisheries Management System that will involve local stakeholders and communities in planning, decision making and implementation of the fisheries management. This will create ownership of this important national resource by local communities. In this way, local people will become more responsible for ensuring that sustainable methods of fish capture and fish farming are maintained so as to ensure that there will be fish for today, tomorrow and in the future.

Mr Speaker, the Bill also provides for the restrictions on the introduction of unregulated fish species between watersheds including exotics. This is intended to safeguard biodiversity and avoid the spread of diseases like we are hearing about in the upper Zambezi and, in some cases, predation.

Mr Speaker, during the formulation of this Bill, the ministry to into account many cross-cutting issues from other stakeholders upon realising that the fisheries jurisdiction does to necessarily lie with the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives alone. Cross-cutting issues such as land, water, environment and forestry were considered to tackle issues of common interest.

Mr Speaker, we have taken note and appreciate the stakeholders concerns contained in the Report of the Committee on Agriculture and Lands Pages 3 to 4 and we will ensure that we incorporate most of these in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Regulations.

Mr Speaker, further, we have also taken note of the additional amendments proposed by the stakeholders as contained in the report referred to earlier. In fact, we have already circulated amendments as per requirement of the stakeholders.

Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate your Committee for a thorough analysis of the provisions in the Fisheries Amendment Bill No. 29 of 2007. I would also like to thank them for their support and a job well done.

Mr Speaker, in passing this non-controversial Bill which is seeking to share power for decision making, responsibility and functions between the people themselves and the Government, we want to strengthen the Public-Private Sector Partnership in the management of the fisheries sub-sector of our economy.

Sir, I therefore, seek the support of this august House for the second reading stage of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Muntanga (Kalomo): Mr Speaker, I thank you most sincerely for according me this opportunity to present your Committee’s Report on the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill No. 29 of 2007, which was referred to your Committee on 3rd August, 2007 for scrutiny.

Sir, your Committee invited key stakeholders in the fisheries sector who included Government ministries, professional bodies, scientists and academicians to make both written and oral submissions.

Mr Speaker, although time allocated to consider the Bill was limited, the response from stakeholders was so favourable that your Committee are hopeful that hon. Members of this House will find the report useful in assisting them in their debate on the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wish to state that your Committee attached a lot of seriousness to the Bill because first and foremost, the Bill hinges on ecological aspects of the environment and management of our natural resources. Secondly, the development of aquaculture in the country requires that the industry be regulated by law.

The Bill before the House aims at providing for the involvement of local communities in fisheries management, providing for the development and regulation of aquaculture and the establishment of the Fisheries Development Fund.

Aquaculture is the cultivation of the natural produce of water such as fish and other aquatic organisms under controlled conditions. It is, therefore, distinguished from fishing because of the active human effort in maintaining or increasing the number of organisms involved as opposed to simply harvesting them from the water. The cultivation is done in ponds and cages.

The Fisheries Act, Chapter 200 of the Laws of Zambia, of 1974 is heavily based on the colonial Fisheries Ordinance of 1962 and dates from a time when commercial aquaculture in Zambia had scarcely been contemplated. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Act contains no substantive provisions relating to aquaculture.

Mr Speaker, the current Act is highly centralised, placing the authority on fisheries management in the Minister and the Director of Fisheries. There is no provision for delegation of management of fishery, either to local communities or institutions, operating in a fishery area.

This Bill, therefore, provides a good opportunity to involve local communities and traditional institutions in fisheries management.

Mr Speaker, while all the stakeholders who appeared before your Committee were in support of the Bill, they however raised concerns on certain aspects of the Bill, including the following, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has pre-empted by admitting or including certain amendments:

(a) Genetically Modified Fish – the introduction of genetically modified fish should  not be permitted under any circumstances to avoid contamination of our local species;

(b) Exotic Species – the introduction of non-native species should also not be allowed, unless for special purposes like research. This should only be permitted under strictly controlled conditions, again, to ensure non-pollution of local species;

Mr Speaker, allow me to quickly dwell more on exotic species of fish.

It has been scientifically proven that any exotic species of a living organism poses great danger to that new environment. The reason is that it will have no competitors or natural enemies and, therefore, multiply dangerously to outnumber the local species such as the Kafue weed from Brazil which is a good example.

In the case of fish, Mr Speaker, it has been found that certain species will exhibit carnivorous behaviour and eat up the rest of the fish as has been the case for the Nile Perch in Lake Victoria and Luapula River.

(c) Disease Control – there is a need to outline stringent measures to control diseases within the aquaculture facility. These measures should include surveillance and early warning systems as well as the employment of fish pathologists.

Sir, you will not that we have a serious problem in the Western Province where fish is dying from unknown diseases and there are no fish pathologists in the ministry.

(d) Licensing – the proposed licensing of aquaculture operations, as stated in the Bill, needs detailed explanations. There is a need to classify operators into their categories so that small scale operators are exempted from fees. If this is not done, the Act will prohibit small-scale farmers from entering the sector.

Mr Speaker, in view of the concerns highlighted above, your Committee is urging the Government to come up with a clear and specific regulatory framework that will facilitate the implementation of this Bill.

In endorsing the Bill, your Committee note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives and the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources are under staffed in this field.

Your Committee urge the two ministries to build capacity in human resource and be able to collaborate closely in disease control and pollution surveillance to avoid degradation and/or depletion of fish resources in our country.

Since this Bill is not controversial, your Committee, therefore, urge this House to support it.

Finally, your Committee wish to express their gratitude to you, for granting them the opportunity to scrutinise this Bill. Your Committee also wish to thank the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the support rendered to them throughout their deliberations.

Mr Speaker, the Committee also wish to extend their thanks to all the witnesses who appeared before them for their co-operation in providing their input at short notice.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you.

Professor Phiri (Kapoche): Mr Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in this august House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: Mr Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues by congratulating you, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairperson of Committees of the Whole House on your election to your esteemed positions.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: Mr Speaker, I also wish to congratulate His Excellency the President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC., on his re-election, a clear reflection of the confidence that the people have in his leadership and that of the New Deal MMD Administration.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: Mr Speaker, may I also congratulate all the elected and nominated hon. Members, hon. Ministers and hon. Deputy Ministers for you truly deserve to be hon. Members of this august House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank the people of Kapoche Parliamentary Constituency for having voted wisely.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: Mr Speaker, their vote was, indeed, an expression of the hope and trust that the people of Kapoche have in our New Deal MMD Administration. Special thanks and appreciation go to His Excellency, President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC. and His Honour the Vice-President Rupiah Banda …

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: … for not only spearheading the campaign with total commitment, but also for having been meritorious in the actual campaign. Your Excellency and His Honour, I have no words which could sum up the magnitude of your support during the campaign. All I can say is thank you.

Mr Speaker, my gratitude also goes to the entire MMD National Executive Committee leadership for having adopted me as a candidate on the MMD ticket at the recent Kapoche Parliamentary Constituency by-election and for their full support rendered to me during the campaign period.

Mr Speaker, the driving force for any campaign is usually in the hands of campaign managers. In this regard, I wish to sincerely thank the hon. Minister of Science, Technology and Vocational Training, Mr Peter Daka and the hon. Deputy Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, Ms Dora Siliya.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Professor Phiri: You, indeed, did a commendable job and I thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, my thanks also go to the hon. Minister for Eastern Province, Mr Lameck Mangani, and several hon. Ministers and Deputy Ministers, MMD hon. Members of Parliament, and party officials at the national, district, constituency, ward and branch levels, who are too many to mention by name.

Mr Speaker, some MMD party officials came from the other parts of Zambia and collectively worked tirelessly to ensure that the MMD retained its seat. In fact, there were several MMD party leaders who wanted to participate in the campaign exercise, but due to logistical problems, they were politely turned away by my campaign managers. Nevertheless, to them all, I say thank you.

Mr Speaker, I wish …

Mr Speaker: Order!

(Debate adjourned)
____________

The House adjourned at 1955 hours until 1430 hours on Wednesday, 22nd August, 2007.