- Home
- About Parliament
- Members
- Committees
- Publications
Debates- Wednesday, 15th August, 2007
DAILY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TENTH ASSEMBLY
Wednesday, 15th August, 2007
The House met at 1430 hours
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]
NATIONAL ANTHEM
PRAYER
______
QUESTIONS
CONSTRUCTION OF GWEMBE DISTRICT COURT
828. Mr Ntundu (Gwembe) asked the Minister of Justice:
(a) when the Government would construct a District Magistrate’s Court at Gwembe;
(b) how many court cases from Gwembe were referred to Monze Magistrate’s court from 2002, to-date; and
(c) how many of these cases had not been concluded due to lack of transport for the officers handling the cases.
The Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, the Judiciary has no 2007 budgetary provision for the construction of a subordinate court in Gwembe District. However, the Judiciary plans to include the area in future budgets. At present, the district is adequately catered for by the Monze Magistrates.
Sir, regarding part (b) of the question, there were 212 cases from Gwembe District which were referred to the Monze Magistrate’s Court from 2002 to date, broken down as follows:
Year No. of Cases
2002 31
2003 30
2004 46
2005 46
2006 34
2007 25
Sir, regarding part (c) of the question, there are twenty pending cases which have not yet been concluded.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Ntundu: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether he has any plans to introduce a temporally court in Gwembe District.
Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, that is a matter which the hon. Member can pursue through writing to the Judiciary copied to me and we will explore that possibility.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
GOVERNMENT WORKERS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS ISSUED WITH DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS
829. Mr Ntundu asked the Minister of Home Affairs:
(a) which category of Government workers had been issued with diplomatic passports; and
(b) which category of private citizens had been issued with diplomatic passports and for what reasons.
The Minister of Home Affairs (Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha): Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the category of Government workers who have been issued with diplomatic passports under the Passport Act No. 22 of 2003, Section 11 (1) and (2) are as follows:
(i) His Lordship the Chief Justice;
(ii) Speaker of the National Assembly;
(iii) Their Lordships, the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court;
(iv) Hon. Ministers and Deputy Ministers;
(v) Hon. Members of Parliament;
(vi) The Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly;
(vii) Secretary to the Cabinet;
(viii) Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet;
(ix) Special Assistant to the President;
(x) Selected Permanent Secretaries;
(xi) Clerk of the National Assembly;
(xii) Service Chiefs;
(xiii) Governor for the Bank of Zambia;
(xiv) Senior members of the Zambia National Trade Union;
(xv) Senior members of the clergy;
(xvi) Government officials appointed to serve at the Zambia missions abroad and their spouses;
(xvii) Deputy Governor for the Bank of Zambia; and
(xviii) Zambian officials serving as executive directors in international organisations outside Zambia to which the Zambian Government is a signatory.
Mr Speaker, to answer part (b) of the question, there are only four people who have been issued with diplomatic passports in the category of private citizens.
Mr Speaker, the category of private citizens includes individuals who have rendered distinguished service to the nation and hold the passports with the pleasure of the President.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Ntundu: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether the Government has any intentions to extend this facility to spouses of the diplomatic passport holders.
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, there are no intentions to extend the issuance of diplomatic passports to spouses. Special considerations are always given to the spouses whose work involve the support of their husbands and the President gives them at his pleasure.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr D. Mwila (Chipili): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister when the Government made a decision to issue diplomatic passports to senior union officials.
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, the issuance of passports to senior union officials has been there for a considerable period of time. This is in order to allow them to facilitate and represent the nation at conferences such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) where they are ambassadors of Zambia.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister alluded to the fact that there were only four private citizens who had been given diplomatic passports. Is he in the position to disclose the names of those four private citizens? Furthermore, is he able to state whether the list he has read excludes the former Presidents of Zambia who are entitled to diplomatic passports?
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, the disclosure of the names of the four private citizens is a new question. The former Presidents have had diplomatic passports and they still have them to date.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Sikota (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, I heard the hon. Minister state that selected permanent secretaries have been given diplomatic passports. I would like to find out who the selected ones are and what criterion is used in selecting some permanent secretaries and leaving out others.
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that we are unable to publish the list of selected permanent secretary because that is a new question. Some have been given these passports because their work in the ministry requires them to travel more than the others who may not be required to travel as often.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, if this facility is extended to the clergy, could the hon. Minister tell this House on what basis this is done and why the same facility is not extended to chiefs?
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, a number of the clergy, who require travelling, has indeed received passports at the President’s pleasure. The chiefs, who travel or who wish to travel, can apply and consideration of their application will be made by His Excellency the President.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr C. K. Banda, SC. (Chasefu): Mr Speaker, when will the Government consider issuing diplomatic passports to senior citizens such as Hon. Grey Zulu and others in his group who served this nation very well and in many senior capacities?
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, all those hon. Members who had served the country honourably had been requested to return their passports at the end of their term of service. In cases where they have not returned them, and they apply, they will be allowed to have diplomatic passport to travel, if they are able to travel.
I thank you, Sir.
Laughter
Mr Chilembo (Chama North): Mr Speaker, could I find out from the hon. Minister whether there has been any abuse of these diplomatic passports by any category of people issued with such passports?
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, in the past, there were cases of abuse that were recorded before the MMD Government came into power. After the MMD Government came into power, there are no records of abuse.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Kambwili: Chipili!
Mr Muntanga (Kalomo): Mr Speaker, I heard the hon. Minister say that the spouses of Ministers and those holding diplomatic passports would only qualify if they ascertained that they were supportive to their husbands. Would the wife of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs who travels every time not qualify? Or would she be deemed unsupportive to her husband in his job if she wanted to accompany him?
Laughter
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, in answering the hon. Member of Parliament for Kalomo, I wish to say that he should not forget that I used to be Minister of Foreign Affairs at one time and there are very few instances where the President allows the wife to travel. In that fact, when there is a need for her to travel with the husband, arrangements are made for her to travel on an ordinary passport to accompany the husband.
I thank you, Sir.
Dr Machungwa (Luapula): Mr Speaker, in answering the supplementary question raised by the hon. Member of Parliament for Livingstone, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs stated that diplomatic passports are issued to the permanent secretaries who travel frequently. Can the hon. Minister confirm this, now that frequency of travel has become one of the criterion to determine whether one gets a diplomatic passport or not?
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, to address the issue that the hon. Member of Parliament for Luapula has raised, I wish to state that he is trying to put words into my mouth. The frequency of travel is not the criterion used. Before I introduced, the phrase “frequency of travel”, I said that it is the work that the permanent secretary is involved in that requires the frequency of travel. So, the work that the permanent secretary is going to do outside the country and how many times he is going to do that work are the criteria used for issuing diplomatic passports.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kambwili (Roan): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister stated that there has been no report of abuse of diplomatic passports since the MMD Government came into office. The former Minister at State House, Webby Chipili, was reported to have abused the diplomatic passport and told Immigration Officers that the President uses him on special assignments. Is that not inconsistency or is it not a form of abuse of diplomatic passports?
Ms Mumbi: Hear, hear!
Lieutenant-General Shikapwasha: Mr Speaker, our record does not show Mr Chipili having been arrested for abuse of a passport.
I thank you, Sir.
Laughter
PLANTING AND HARVESTING OF PINE AND EUCALYPTUS TREES BY ZAFFICO
830. Mr Simama (Kalulushi) asked the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources:
(a) how many compartments for the following trees had been planted by ZAFFICO from 2001 to 2006:
(i) pine; and
(ii) eucalyptus; and
(b) how many compartments for the following trees had been harvested during the above period:
(i) pine; and
(ii) eucalyptus.
The Deputy Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (Ms Tembo): Mr Speaker, the total number of compartments for pine planted by the Zambia Forestry and Forest Industries Corporation (ZAFFICO) from 2001 to 2006 is 100. The details year by year are as follows:
Year Pine
Compartments
(No.)
2001 11
2002 06
2003 21
2004 20
2005 20
2006 22
Total 100
The total number of compartments for Eucalyptus planted by ZAFFICO from 2001 to 2006 is forty-four (44). The breakdown year by year is as follows:
Year Eucalyptus
Compartments
(No.)
2001 04
2002 03
2003 09
2004 09
2005 11
2006 08
Total 44
During the same period, a total number of 708 compartments of pine were harvested by ZAFFICO. The detailed breakdown year by year is as follows:
Year Pine Volume
Compartments Harvested
(No.) (Cubic Metres)
2001 93 170,000
2002 106 190,000
2003 140 250,000
2004 112 260,000
2005 123 285,000
2006 134 310,000
Total 708 1,565,000
Year No. of Eucalyptus Volume Harvested
Compartments (cubic meters)
2001 19 11,000
2002 40 30,000
2003 33 20,000
2004 45 30,000
2005 25 15,000
2006 30 17,000
Total 192 123,000
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Simama: Mr Speaker, the figures indicate that only 100 pine compartments were planted, and 700 pines were harvested. Is the hon. Minister still assuring me that the trees will not be depleted? Despite the 100 pine compartments which have been planted, ZAFFICO has no fire protection and as such, they are vulnerable to being burnt.
Mr Speaker, as for the 708 compartments, I do not think it is a true figure for the whole year because at the moment, CFC only harvests two compartments in a day while other sawmills harvest, in a day, …
Hon. Government Members: Question!
Mr Simama: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister should come out in support of tree planting by ZAFFICO and other departments …
Mr Speaker: Order! Please take your seat. The Chair will allow hon. Members to ask questions as necessary, but I wish to guide that they should avoid repeating questions which have already been dealt with.
The House will recall, I believe in the course of last week, a question very similar to this one was answered by the hon. Minister and I believe that a similar supplementary question which is being asked now was also asked. This is repetitious. I will allow the hon. Member to continue, but, please, be to the point.
Ask your supplementary question.
Mr Simama: Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister assuring me that the trees will not be depleted?
The Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (Mr Pande): Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Hon. Simama for the keen interest he has shown in the field of forestry. It is well known that his background is in forestry. I extended an invitation to him to work with us because he has ideas on issues regarding forestry. I still extend that invitation and I am grateful to him for the interest he has shown. I wish everybody could have interest in the forestry industry.
Mr Speaker, coming to the question, I would like to say that the assurance that trees will not be depleted will depend on how we work as a nation and not just the Ministry or the Government alone. Like I said early last week or this week, to conserve our forests, we need concerted efforts, especially from leaders, including all of us here because we have realised that deforestation is a threat to the nation.
Mr Speaker, the leaders and the citizens who understand global warming and the effects of deforestation should work together with us so that we stop it. Otherwise, as a nation, if we do not do anything, the trees will be depleted.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Mr Speaker, there have been instances when hon. Members have reported incidents of some companies that have been over harvesting the trees, but action has not been taken against them. What else can we do, as hon. Members, apart from reporting to the hon. Ministers who do not take action?
Mr Pande: Mr Speaker, I must state that to my knowledge, no hon. Member has been to see me to report on a matter on which I have not taken any action. I know that at the moment, in the Northern Province the Forestry Department and the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) have moved in to take action on people who have encroached on a forest.
I thank you, Sir.
Dr Katema (Chingola): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has said that about 100 compartments were planted and well above thousands of compartments were harvested. Does the Government have intentions of formulating a deliberate policy which will compel the companies harvesting to plant an equivalent number of compartments harvested?
Mr Pande: Mr Speaker, I think the hon. Member got mixed up with the figures. The ones which are in thousands are not the compartments harvested, but cubic metres that were harvested.
However, Mr Speaker, there is a policy that stipulates that for any number of trees harvested, an equivalent number of trees must be planted. In most cases, it has to go beyond the number that you have harvested. I have stated here before that at the moment, we only issue a licence if there is a plan for replanting.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, from the answers given and the realisation that the plantations that were planted during President Kaunda’s governance are depleting, I would like to know if this Government, through the ministry, will consider the re-introduction of industrial plantations that brought about all the plantations that we are harvesting at a fast rate because that is the only way we avoided getting the Swazi Pine in preference to the pine that was planted by the industrial plantations.
Mr Pande: Mr Speaker, a concern has been raised which is also a good suggestion. I can say that we will take the suggestion into consideration, but in the meantime, there are new plantations coming up. For example, there is a new plantation of rubber in Luapula which is coming up.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Sinyinda (Senanga): Mr Speaker, does the hon. Minister realise that by allowing people to settle in Game Management Areas, they are cutting trees at such an alarming rate that unless something is done, all the trees will be depleted?
Mr Speaker, in the Kafue National Park, the rate at which timber is being cut is alarming. I would like the hon. Minister to comment on that.
Mr Pande: Mr Speaker, first of all, we are not allowing people to settle in Game Management Areas or National Parks. Once people move into Game Management Areas or National Parks, we take it that they are moving in illegally. There are instances where the Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA) and the police have moved in to evict such illegal settlers, but we are aware of what is happening in the Kafue National Park and remedial measures are being taken.
Mr Speaker, usually, these people move in with the permission of chiefs. Therefore, we have had audiences with some of the chiefs who have realised that we need the game parks or forests and that is why we are moving in to evict the illegal settlers.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Chimbaka (Bahati): Mr Speaker, currently, the Zambia Electricity Supply Company (ZESCO) and the Rural Electrification Authority are facing problems of inadequate poles to implement their projects and programmes. Can the hon. Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources inform this House and the nation what problems he is facing in supplying sufficient poles to let these programmes carry on?
Mr Pande: Mr Speaker, the problem has not been brought to my attention. However, currently, the poles are being supplied by a private company which secures them from ZAFFICO. There are other companies that are providing poles, but if there are any problems, I would like to know them because nobody has ever brought them to our attention as a ministry.
I thank you, Sir.{mospagebreak}
STAMPEDE AT KONKOLA STADIUM DURING THE ZAMBIA AND CONGO BRAZZAVILLE MATCH ON 2ND JUNE, 2007
831. Mr D. Mwila asked the Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development:
(a) what led to the stampede at Konkola Stadium, resulting in the loss of twelve lives after the football match between Zambia and Congo Brazzaville, on 2nd June, 2007;
(b) what measures the Government had taken to avoid a similar tragedy in the future; and
(c) how much compensation would be given to each bereaved family.
The Deputy Minister of Sport, Youth and Child Development (Ms Cifire): Mr Speaker, following the unfortunate incident in Chililabombwe, an Administrative Committee was constituted to investigate what might have caused the stampede.
The report has been given to the ministry, but we are still clarifying some points with the Chairperson of the Committee before the report can be presented to Parliament.
Sir, at an appropriate time, I will present a detailed report to the House on what transpired on that fateful day. I beg that the hon. Members be patient so that we could receive a full report.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr D. Mwila: Mr Speaker, I would like the hon. Minister to state the timeframe because we are talking about lives of people here. The hon. Minister should inform this House when we are going to get this report?
Ms Cifire: Mr Speaker, if I may repeat, we are in receipt of the report, but we are clarifying issues with the Chairperson of the Committee before we bring the report to Parliament in the shortest possible time.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Mooya (Moomba): Mr Speaker, could the hon. Minister give an assurance that the report will not be another Gabon Disaster Report which, to date, has not been brought to the House.
Ms Cifire: Mr Speaker, the two incidents are completely different. I have just stated that we are looking at the Chililabombwe disaster report and we will bring it to the House in due course.
I thank you, Sir.
MINERS WHO DIED FROM PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND DISMISSALS AT KONKOLA AND MOPANI COPPER MINES PLC. FROM 2000 TO 2006
832. Mr D. Mwila asked the Minister of Mines and Minerals Development:
(a) how many miners died from pneumoconiosis at Konkola and Mopani Copper Mines Plc. from 2000 to 2006, year by year; and
(b) how many employees left employment at Konkola Copper Mines Plc. through dismissals from 2000 to 2006, year by year.
The Deputy Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Mr M. Mwale): Mr Speaker, during the period under review, Konkola Copper Mines Plc. and Mopani Copper Mines Plc. did not record any deaths resulting from pneumoconiosis.
A total of 1,049 employees were dismissed from employment from 2000 to 2006 broken down as follows:
Year No. of Employees Dismissed
2000 119
2001 157
2002 200
2003 140
2004 152
2005 143
2006 138
I thank you, Sir.
Mr D. Mwila: Mr Speaker, pneumoconiosis is not a curable disease. It has stages until someone dies.
Hon. Opposition Members were making noise.
Mr D. Mwila: I would like to find out from the hon. Minister …
Mr Speaker: Order! I cannot hear. There is an hon. Member in the House over there who is making it impossible for this House to proceed. May the Whip in that party, please, care to pick that particular Member of Parliament? This House is here to conduct serious business.
Hon. Member for Chipili, please, continue.
Mr D. Mwila: Mr Speaker, I was saying that pneumoconiosis is not a curable disease and it has stages until someone dies. I would like to find out from the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals Development whether there are any plans to review the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act.
Mr Speaker, you will find that people …
Mr Speaker: Order! You are now debating.
The Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Dr Mwansa): Mr Speaker, the proposal to look at relevant legislation is welcome. We can look at that, but what I would like to say now is that we understand that pneumoconiosis is a serious disease and that it may not be curable. However, through the Occupational Health and Management Board, we carry out surveillance of all former miners to ensure that they turn up for yearly medical X-rays to see whether they have any traces of the disease. If any traces are found, they are put on medication and care.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, pneumoconiosis is a disease that is caused by inhaling dust particles from the crushing of rocks. Would the hon. Minister be in a position to state how many non-miners who reside in and around mine shafts such as Kankoyo and Butondo in Mufulira and Wusakile and Nkana West in Nkana have been affected by pneumoconiosis?
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, I confess that we are not able to give the statistics now, but what we can say is that the new technology that all mining companies are using to mine and process the minerals mine is less harmful than the previous technology and it gives fewer harmful emissions.
As I said earlier, all former miners are examined to ensure that they are helped when the disease occurs. It is very difficult to determine the figure from the general population. We need to conduct a thorough survey to come up with a definite figure.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Ngoma (Sinda): Mr Speaker, considering that this disease is incurable, what is the Government doing to impress upon the mining companies to not just reduce, but eliminate the production of chemicals that are harmful in the atmosphere?
Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier that all miners and ex-miners are examined annually to ensure that they have not picked up the disease. If they have, then help is given to them. However, in terms of helping the general population, I earlier stated that the technology now in the mining industry has improved considerably and emission of harmful substances has minimised.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka): Mr Speaker, some of us have just learnt about this pneumoconiosis disease. The fortunate part is that there are mining investments in our constituencies. What has the ministry done so far to ensure that the people of Mugoto whose land was licensed to Albidon Mine for mining activities, are not subjected to dust emissions from the mine?
Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, the dust from the mine that the hon. Member has referred to, is not the dust that can give rise to cause pneumoconiosis. Before the licence was given for that particular mine, the Environmental Council of Zambia and Mines Safety Department carried out a survey to ensure that the mining there would not impact negatively on the lives of the people. However, if it is found that the mining area will be too close to the villages, plans are there to resettle people outside the mining area. That has been done by Albidon.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Order! The hon. House is repeating itself. Any new question?
Mr Kambwili raised his hand.
Mr Speaker: I see a hand up there which is never done. The hon. Member for Roan.
Laughter
Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, I thank you for always catching your eye.
Sir, it is a requirement under the Pneumoconiosis Act for all miners that have been exposed to scheduled areas to continue going for examinations for a period of ten years after retirement. This is not being done now after the privatisation of the Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines (ZCCM). I would like to find out why and who is responsible to ensure that these retired miners are examined?
Dr Mwansa: Mr Speaker, I earlier informed the House that the Occupational Health Management Board, formerly known as the Pneumoconiosis Bureau, monitors all former miners through the Ministry of Health. This board is assisted annually with funding to ensure that former miners wherever they are, travel to Kitwe to be examined every year. If they are found with traces, as I said earlier, help is found. Therefore, we are carrying on this task in accordance with the relevant legislation.
I thank you, Sir.
ABOLISHING DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
833. Mr Chisala (Chilubi) asked the Vice-President whether there were any plans to abolish the post of District Administration Officer in the Office of the District Commissioner.
The Deputy Minister in the Vice-President’s Office (Ms Lundwe): Mr Speaker, there are no plans of abolishing the post in question.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Chisala: Mr Speaker, since the job description of the District Administrative Officer overlaps that of the Town Clerk or Council Secretary, this causes conflicts between the two offices. What measures has the Vice-President taken to ensure that they correct the situation?
The Vice-President (Mr R. Banda): Mr Speaker, I would like to say that if there are conflicts in the hon. Member’s district, then it is a local issue. We have not received that kind of report from the rest of the country.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Mwiimbu (Monze): Mr Speaker, the situation obtaining in Chilubi is not any different from what is happening in Monze. At one time when the Head of State …
Mr Speaker: Order! Ask the question.
Mr Mwiimbu: That is what I am trying to do.
Sir, at the time of opening Parliament, the Head of State categorically stated the qualifications for the District Commissioners that would be serving the country. When are you going to implement the directive that all District Commissioners have a degree and above?
Mr Speaker: Order! I shall allow that question as an exception because the question was about the District Administrative Office.
The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, the question was about the District Administrative Office and not District Commissioners. Therefore, I think it is a new question.
I thank you, Sir.
Laughter
CONSTRUCTION OF THE KAZUNGULA BRIDGE
834. Mr Ntundu asked the hon. Minister of Works and Supply:
(a) when construction of the Kazungula Bridge would commence;
(b) what the estimated cost of constructing the bridge was; and
(c) whether the bridge would be totally funded by the Government.
The Deputy Minister of Works and Supply (Mr Tetamashimba): Mr Speaker, the ministry wishes to inform the House that whenever a project of this magnitude for bridges and roads is to be implemented, there must be a feasibility study undertaken to verify whether that project will be viable or not followed by a detailed engineering design.
Sir, in respect of the Kazungula Bridge, we wish to inform the House and the hon. Member of Parliament for Gwembe that the African Development Bank (AFDB) has approved a grant of US$3 million for funding the feasibility study.
Mr Speaker, in answer to part (a) of the question, I wish to state that the feasibility study which will lead to the tendering to be conducted between October, 2008 to March 2009, and the money for the project being available then, the project may start in June, 2009.
Sir, with regard to part (c) of the question, the 2000 feasibility study had put the construction cost at US$70 million. However, this figure is likely to change after a new feasibility study which is under process with financing from the African Development Bank (AFDB).
With regard to part (c) of the question, the bridge will be co-financed by the Government of the Republic of Zambia, the Government of Botswana and the Government of Zimbabwe. If the hon. Member meant the Zambian Government in his question, I would like to state that Zambia alone will not totally fund the bridge.
Mr Speaker, lastly, I would like to inform the House that SADC and Africa, like other countries overseas, are now for the one-spot border post where one vehicle will drive from a country of origin and only be subjected to the normal border requirements in the country of entry. The Kazungula Bridge will be similar to the Chirundu Bridge on border crossing facilities.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Ntundu: Mr Speaker, the Kazungula Bridge has been a song sung by the Government. They have been singing about the Kazungula Bridge for six years now. The hon. Minister is on record …
Mr Speaker: Order! You are now debating. Can you ask your question, please?
Mr Ntundu: The question is: When will this Government stop singing this endless song about the Kazungula Bridge? When is the Government going to start constructing the bridge?
Hon. PF Member: Tomorrow.
Laughter
Mr Tetamashimba: Do not worry about the hon. Member of Parliament. That is why he wins.
Mr Speaker, first and foremost, we have to realise, as hon. Members, that the Government programme cannot only be tailored to one particular project. I am sure if the hon. Member investigated or visited us to find out what projects we are doing in the Southern Province, he would realise that since this Government came into power, the Southern Province has had a very big lion’s share. We can give you that evidence if you come to the Ministry of Works and Supply.
Coming to the hon. Member’s question, I stated clearly in my answer that the construction of the bridge, all being equal, shall only commence in June, 2009.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Kasongo (Bangweulu): Mr Speaker, since funds have already been committed by the international bank, is it not possible for the Government of the day to shorten the commencement period instead of 2009?
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, unfortunately, as much as we would want to shorten the time, the hon. Member of Parliament and, of course, Hon. Mooya, will agree with me that a feasibility study cannot be made in two months. There must be enough time for the engineers to be sure that what they are putting on paper and giving Zambians is going to stand the test of time.
After that has been done, the whole design is put on paper and the engineers have to believe and conclude that what they are now giving to the Government, through the consultants, is what they believe will help the people. The project is from August, 2007 to June, 2009. I do not think this is a long time.
Sir, we know that we do not have money available to start constructing the bridge, but there is money for feasibility studies. After it is approved by our colleagues that it is viable, then the donors can be interested to fund the project. If it is proved by the engineers that it is not viable, then there might be no money to construct the bridge.
I thank you, Sir.
Mrs Musokotwane (Katombola): Mr Speaker, is this the first feasibility study that they are conducting on the Kazungula Bridge? If not, what has happened to the other feasibility studies? Why not use them now to start constructing the bridge so that we finish this chorus of the Kazungula-Kasani Bridge?
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, I know that the hon. Member wants the bridge so that she can easily win the next elections.
Laughter
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, you and, obviously, Hon. Mooya will agree with me that feasibility studies expire. A feasibility study can be conducted, but if it is not implemented within two or three years, the life span will entail that it must be reviewed whether the costing is the same or not.
Secondly, I would like to state that the original plan for the bridge was to move from Zambia into Botswana, but there was an element of touching the Zimbabwean land on the other side. As a result, we had to start thinking and asking our professionals to redesign something that will include the three countries. You may also wish to know that the three countries have agreed through our Presidents. It is possible that it can take a long time to conduct a feasibility study and if it lapses, you may have a problem of trying to make a new one again. Traffic levels also may contribute to this programme.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Mooya: Mr Speaker, last week, there was a report that Zimbabwe had a problem in getting a loan from the African Development Bank. Now, will that not affect the programme?
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, I know the engineer is always following up these issues wherever they are. Yes, there was that issue when we were in Livingstone. The money that was given by the African Development Bank came at a time it was thought that the bridge was going to move from Zambia into Botswana.
However, because of what I said earlier, we need to have three border points, in Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Yes, the Zimbabwean Government requested that they be given some money for a feasibility study for their own infrastructure, but that did not mean that if they do not acquire that loan, it will delay the process.
Our meeting with the Zimbabwean delegation in Livingstone stated categorically that if the African Development Bank did not give them a loan, they were willing to put the money on the table for the programme to proceed. Therefore, there will be no fears about their capacity.
I thank you very much, Sir.
DEREGISTERED AND REREGISTERED OF SOCIETIES
835. Ntundu asked the Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry:
(a) how many societies had been deregistered from 2002 to date, province by province;
(b) what were the reasons for their deregistration; and
(c) how many of those at (a) above appealed and have since been re-registered.
The Deputy Minster of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Ms Siliya): Mr Speaker, in responding to the question by the hon. Member of Parliament for Gwembe, Hon. Ntundu, I just wish to state from the onset that we believe that this question was misdirected to the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry. However, we did liaise with the right ministry, which is the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the response is as follows:
(a) The deregistered societies since 2002 to date, province by province are:
(i) Associations and Clubs
Province No. Deregistered
Lusaka 676
Central 56
Copperbelt 18
Luapula 3
Southern 9
Eastern 1
Northern 1
Western 4
North-Western 3
Total 871
(ii) Churches
Churches No. Deregistered
Minor churches, in Lusaka 66
Muslim organisations, in Lusaka 14
Baptism churches, in Lusaka 8
Total 88
(iii) Political parties 11
(b) The reasons for the cancellation or deregistration was non-submission of annual returns and not furnishing the Office of the Registrar of Societies with information on the status of the registered societies and organisations.
(c) The following societies appealed and were re-registered:
(i) Societies, in Lusaka 4
(ii) Churches, in Lusaka 3
(iii) Political parties, in Lusaka 3
Total 10
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Ntundu: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister for pointing out that my question was meant for the Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, through her ministry, I would like to find out why this Government gave back the Certificate of Registration to the Universal Church which was suspected to be a satanic church. Are they promoting Satanism?
Laughter
Mr Speaker: Order!
Ms Siliya: Mr Speaker, as I stated in my prepared statement, the question is supposed to be directed to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Therefore, the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry is not in a position to provide the hon. Member with an answer. Maybe he can resubmit the question or make a follow up with the Ministry of Home Affairs.
I thank you, Sir.{mospagebreak}
REFUNDING OF TERMINAL BENEFITS WRONGLY DEDUCTED FROM DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS IN KASAMA FROM 2001 TO 2003
836. Mr Chisala asked the Vice-President when the Government would refund the former District Administrators in Kasama their terminal benefits which were wrongly deducted from 2001 to 2003.
The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, the Government does not owe any former District Administrator in Kasama any terminal benefits.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Chisala: Mr Speaker …
Mr Sichilima: On a point of order, Sir.
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Mr Sichilima: Mr Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member of Parliament for Chilubi to ask a question without declaring interest when he is a former District Administrator and wants the money? I need your serious ruling, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Unless the hon. Member for Chilubi is the former District Administrator mentioned here, he would not necessarily have to declare interest, but if he is the one, he would have to do so.
Mr Chisala raised his hand.
Mr Speaker: What are you doing with that hand up?
Laughter
Mr Speaker: If he is referring to himself in this particular question, then he was required to declare pecuniary, meaning monetary, interest in this question. Are you the former District administrator mentioned in this question?
Mr Chisala: Mr Speaker, I was District administrator in Chilubi Island and not in Kasama.
Mr Speaker: In this case, the hon. Member is saying that he is not the one being referred to in this question.
Can the hon. Member continue with the supplementary question.
Mr Chisala: Mr Speaker, is His Honour the Vice-President aware that this wrong act of deducting huge sums of money from the former District Administrators came into being due to poor recording keeping and incompetence in the Below-the-Line section at the Office of the Permanent Secretary in the Northern Province …
Mr Tetamashimba: On a point of order, Sir.
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, before I raise the point of order, may I read his question which reads:
“to ask the Vice-President when the Government will refund the former District Administrators.”
Not one, but many, which includes the hon. Member of Parliament. Is he in order to bring questions so that we can start debating ourselves, having been in those positions, without declaring interest? I need your serious ruling, Sir.
Mr Shakafuswa: Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker: Order!
The hon. Member has responded to the Chair’s question on whether he was referring to himself in this question. The response I received was that Chilubi is not in Kasama. On that score, I agreed with him, but the hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply says that because of the plural term that the hon. Member has used, he is included in this question, after all.
Laughter
Mr Speaker: I give the hon. Member an opportunity to either declare interest or abandon this question. You have a choice.
Laughter
Mr Chisala: Mr Speaker, I oblige.
Laughter
Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Kasama has abandoned that question.
Laughter
PROFITS AND LOSSES AT INDENI OIL REFINERY
837. Mr Ntundu asked the Minister of Energy and Water Development:
(a) how much profit or loss were recorded by Indeni Oil Refinery from 2001 to-date, year by year;
(b) whether there were any plans to privatise the Refinery;
(c) how much money, on an annual average, the Government put in to subsidise the operations at Indeni;
(d) how much crude oil Indeni stocked at any given time on average; and
(e) how much purified oil Indeni stocked at any given time on average.
The Deputy Minister of Energy and Water Development (Mr Sichilima): Mr Speaker, the answer is quiet technical, so the hon. Member need to be attentive. The answer is as follows:
The profit and losses made by Indeni since 2001
In 2001, the losses were K51.140 billion and were attributed to a processing fee not sufficient to cover operational costs and the sufficient feedstock for continuous processing.
In 2002, the loss was K13.399 billion. These were attributed to a processing fee not sufficient to cover operational costs and insufficient feedstock for continuous processing.
In 2003, the profit was K27.69 billion. This was attributed to the K17.5 billion that was a ride back of the 2002 figures for excess processing loss and K10 billion was due to the implementation of the new pricing structure, which was cost reflective.
In 2004, there was a loss of K35.682 billion which was attributed to the pricing mechanism, which might not have been cost reflective and insufficient feedstock for continuous processing.
In 2005, the profit was K47.910 billion and this was due to the exchange gains as a result of the Kwacha appreciating.
In 2006, the loss was K153.782 billion. This was attributed to the current pricing mechanism not being cost reflective, exchange losses as a result of Kwacha depreciation. Other reasons for the losses were as a result of the following:
(i) the effect of the 1999 fire that caused a shut down of the refinery for 18 months. It has taken the refinery a long time to recover from the financial losses attributed to the long shut down;
(ii) instability of power supply. To remedy this, Indeni has recently installed diesel gentzels. This has improved power supply; and
(iii) technical losses at Indeni were high at 16 per cent with the on-going rehabilitation programme. However, the technical losses have been reduced to around 8.4 per cent. The aim is to further reduce losses to 7 per cent;
Mr Speaker, there are no plans to privatise Indeni. However, the two shareholders resolved to diversify the shareholding of the company by inviting an equity partner to take up 30 per cent of the company shareholding. After the next general shut down, the plant will be revalued after which an equity partner will be invited.
The Government does not subsidise the operations of Indeni. As shareholders, however, the Government and Total Autré Meer are currently making available to Indeni funds to recapitalise the refinery, following the legal, financial and technical audit carried out to determine the measures to improve operational efficiency of the refinery. The shareholders have, in this regard, agreed to a total re-investment amounting to US$65 million.
In 2006, the Government and Total Autré Meer each made available US$11.5 million to Indeni. In 2007, both the Government and Total Autré Meer will make a further US$11 million available for the recapitalisation of Indeni. Using its full capacity, the refinery can store twenty-three (23) days worth of crude feedstock. However, due to supply constraints, the refinery usually stores about 7 days worth of stock while the rest is pumped on a daily basis by the Tanzania-Zambia Mafuta (TAZAMA).
The amount of finished products at the refinery varies from time to time, depending on the prevailing situation. When the refinery is operating well, it has the capacity to store the following amounts of fuel:
(i) 40 days stock of petrol;
(ii) 17 days stock of diesel;
(iii) 100 days of kerosene of which some storage can be assigned to jet fuel;
(iv) 100 days of heavy fuel oil; and
(v) 15 days of liquefied petroleum gas.
Mr Speaker, due to problems of supply usually experienced by the refinery, average stored fuel amounts will be as follows:
(i) 30 days stock of petrol;
(ii) 7 days stock of diesel;
(iii) 30 days stock of kerosene;
(iv) 20 days stock of jet fuel;
(v) 50 days stock of heavy fuel oil; and
(vi) 30 days of liquid petroleum gas.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Ntundu: Mr Speaker, I am surprised today to hear the hon. Minister for the first time giving a satisfactory answer.
Laughter
Mr Ntundu: However, could I find out why his ministry is allowing some companies that import oil such as Petroda to also retail the oil?
The Minister of Energy and Water Development (Mr Konga): Mr Speaker, licences to import finished oil products and to retail them are issued by the Energy Regulations Board (ERB). Therefore, those firms or institutions that meet the requisites of the ERB to import and retail are issued with licences because there are no restrictions so far.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Mwansa (Chifunabuli): Mr Speaker, from the hon. Minister’s statement to the House, it is very clear that in the two years, 2003 and 2005, when profits were made, the profits are not attributable to the sales that Indeni made, but rather to exchange gains and things like that.
In addition, the hon. Minister has told this House that they are recapitalising a company that has been making losses all these years. Could the hon. Minister tell this House why he is allowing a monopoly to continue milking Zambia’s wealth when they can negotiate for other investors in the industry?
Mr Konga: Mr Speaker, the hon. Deputy Minister has given an elaborate response which the hon. Member for Gwembe has appreciated. It is true that Indeni recorded a profit of K27 billion and K48 billion. This profit was attributed to the appreciation of the kwacha more than anything else. That is the correct position.
Indeni, as you heard, has been beset by a lot of operational problems, especially emanating from the fire that gutted the refinery way back. It has taken time for the company to get back to its feet.
The hon. Deputy Minister has also made known to this august House the fact that the Government and the other shareholder are still recapitalising the institution. We hope that the institution will finally get back on its feet after the recapitalisation has been completed. Only after this will Indeni be able to declare profits from its operations. At the moment, there are many other things that have not been concluded. As result, its operations are still not to expectation.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Simama: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister who provides the management for Indeni Oil Company, considering that its ownership is 50 per cent Total Autré Meer and 50 per cent Zambian Government? If the management is provided by Total Autré Meer, what measures has the hon. Minister put in place to make sure that output figures are not manipulated?
Mr Konga: Mr Speaker, it is true that the present shareholding for Indeni is 50 per cent Republic of Zambia and 50 percent Total. It is also true that the management of Indeni is presently provided by Total. That not withstanding, the financial figures that are provided are not manipulated. I can assure the hon. Member this, because there are independent auditors who monitor the books of accounts of Indeni who verify the accounts to ensure that no figures are manipulated at all.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Mukanga (Kantanshi): Mr Speaker, the understanding of the general public is that they have been paying for Indeni’s inefficiencies. When, therefore, is the Government going to remove the K152 per litre that was slapped as a matter of raising oil reserves in the country and has contributed to the bottom cost of fuel?
Mr Konga: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for that very good question from the hon. Member for Kantanshi Constituency. It is true that there was a K152 per litre levy which was introduced to contribute towards the creation of the national strategic reserves. This will be removed once the reserves have been established. To date, the reserves have not been established. Motorists, therefore, will still have to pay this K152 per litre levy.
I thank you, Sir.
Mr Kanyanyamina (Kanchibiya): Mr Speaker, it is a well known fact that technology is improving day by day and this Government is known to boast about that. It is clear that Indeni has outlived its time. Why can the Government not put up a new plant to that will be up to standard because at one time Hon. Mpombo was a casualty of that refinery?
Laughter
Mr Konga: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for that very interesting question from the hon. Member for Kanchibiya. I would like to assure this august House that Indeni has not outlived its usefulness. At the moment, Indeni is refining the oil that is used in this economy. Had Indeni outlived its usefulness, we would be getting no oil of any form from it. Indeni is still with us and will still produce oil to be used in Kanchibiya Constituency and any other part of the country.
I thank you, Sir.
Laughter
____________
BILLS
SECOND READING
ANTI-TERRORISM BILL, 2007
The Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, terrorism is a threat to both our national and personal security. Although it has long been in existence, the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and on the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on 11th September, 2001, revealed a side to terrorism that was unprecedented. From that fateful day, terrorist attacks have been the order of the day.
Following the tragic 9/11 attacks, as they are known today, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution Number 1373 which is targeted at deterring the formation of terrorist organisations and suppressing terrorist activities. Resolution 1373 calls on the United Nations Member States to ratify international conventions on terrorism and encourages them to share any information that they may have vis-à-vis terrorist groups in order to curb international terrorism.
The resolution also establishes the Terrorism Committee. This Committee is tasked with monitoring member States’ compliance with the provisions of the resolution. The resolution is binding on all member States, including Zambia.
Today, a number of countries have enacted anti-terrorism laws. However, Zambia, at present, does not have any anti-terrorism law in place. Notwithstanding that, she is a party to various conventions on terrorism.
Although Zambia has not yet been subject to terrorist attacks, it is imperative that she enacts anti-terrorism legislation.
Mr Speaker, the enactment of this anti-terrorism legislation will enable Zambia comply with the provision of Resolution 1373. It will also provide Zambia with a national legal framework for fighting terrorism and give effective implementation at the national level to various international conventions on terrorism.
Mr Speaker, the legislation will go a long way in preventing Zambia from becoming a haven for terrorists and terrorist organisations as it adequately provides for the detection of terrorist activities. In addition, it will make Zambia share with other States any knowledge necessary to fighting terrorism.
Sir, this legislation, which seeks to prevent and prohibit the carrying out of terrorist acts, will result not only in better protection of the people of Zambia against terrorism, but also enhance the confidence of the international community in Zambia and boost international economic trade and trade ties essential for national development. The legislation is also tailored on the United Nations and Commonwealth models.
Mr Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs that was mandated by you to consider this Bill. The recommendations by the Committee are invaluable and in many respects, constructive.
Sir, I wish to inform this august House that appropriate amendments will be made to improve the Bill in the light of some of the recommendations made by the Committee.
Mr Speaker, I wish to state categorically that the need for anti-terrorism legislation cannot be over emphasised. This legislation will reaffirm Zambia’s commitment to the fight against terrorism and terrorist activities. I, therefore, urge the hon. Members of this august House to support the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Mr Speaker, thank you …
Mr Speaker: I beg your pardon. You will come next. Let us follow procedure and have the Chairman of the Committee that dealt with this Bill debate.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}
Dr Chishya (Pambashe): Mr Speaker, I sincerely thank you for according me this opportunity to brief this august House on matters that pertain to the Anti-Terrorism Bill, N.A.B. 24/2007, which was referred to your Committee for scrutiny.
Mr Speaker, during the consideration of the Anti-Terrorism Bill, N.A.B. 24/2007, your Committee had interactions with various stakeholders that included representatives from Civil Society Organisations, the private sector and Government wings. Notwithstanding the brevity of time, your Committee received tremendous response and hope that hon. Members will find the Committee’s report helpful as they debate the Bill.
Sir, may I take this opportunity to say that as a result of this interaction, your Committee managed to come up with pertinent observations on salient matters contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill, N.A. B. 24/2007.
From the outset, I wish to inform the House that the stakeholders with whom your Committee had the opportunity to interact registered their profound concern for a lack of adequate consultations on the Bill. However, they all expressed their support for the principle of the proposed Bill and agreed that the Bill is, indeed, a move in the right direction.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Chishya: Mr Speaker, before I highlight the contents of the report, let me state that your Committee was aware of the fact that the Bill that is before the House is a complex one as it involves the security of our nation. Therefore, its importance cannot be overstated. However, if not properly handled, the consequences would be highly destructive to the very foundation of our democracy and the moral fibre of our society as it might be prone to abuse and misinterpretation.
Sir, in supporting the Bill, the witnesses raised a number of concerns for the attention of your Committee. The concerns are recorded in your Committee’s report for reference by the hon. Members of this House as they debate the Bill.
Mr Speaker, allow me to now look at specific aspects of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, the Bill seeks to domesticate United Nations Conventions that relate to the fight against terrorism and terrorist activities. Zambia, being a member of the United Nations, is obliged to come up with a national legal framework to enable us combat terrorism. Your Committee are aware that the fight against terrorism is a global one and that Zambia needs to put in place legislation that will align her with international practices and at the same time, enable her contribute meaningfully to the fight against global terrorism.
It is important to highlight that your Committee are privy to the fact that there is no agreed definition of terrorism in the world today. This makes the Bills complex, more so that it involves the security of nations.
Mr Speaker, your Committee are very concerned that despite the importance of the Bill, various institutions were not adequately consulted during the drafting stage. This was evidenced by complaints from many witnesses and critical stakeholders about lack of adequate consultations. The absence of adequate consultations resulted in the existence of many gaps in the Bill. The obtaining situation led to wastage of time as the witnesses were sent back for further consultations.
Sir, the House may wish to note that a Bill of this nature cuts across defence and security services and as such, it was important that all these institutions were taken on board.
Sir, notwithstanding the above, your Committee are aware that Zambia needs to put in place a national law to combat terrorism and terrorist activities. This will recreate a national legal framework that will not only enable the State effectively implement the provisions of the United Nations Conventions, but also deal with terrorism locally.
Mr Speaker, in view of the numerous concerns I have raised above, your Committee recommend that amendments to this Bill be effected. In particular, the Government should take on board the following concerns:
Sir, according to Section 2 of the Bill, Terrorism and Terrorist Acts are defined as follows:
“An act or omission in or outside Zambia and is intended, or by its nature and context, may reasonably be regarded as being intended to intimidate or threaten the public or a section of the public or compel a Government or an international organisation to do, or refrain from doing, any act, and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, ideological or religious cause and which ...”
Your Committee observed that this definition is prone to misinterpretation and abuse. We, therefore, recommend the following definition of Terrorism and Terrorist Act:
“A premeditated act or mission in or outside Zambia and is intended, or by its nature and context, may reasonably be regarded as being intended to intimidate or threaten the public or a section of the public or compel a Government or an International Organisation to do or refrain from doing, any act, and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, ideological or religious cause through violence and ….”
Your Committee are of the view that the best way to domesticate the provisions of the international conventions would be to specifically highlight the relevant provisions of the convention within the Bill or, incorporate the same as schedules. This would enable people to obtain a clear and thorough understanding of what exactly constitutes an offence, under the proposed law and avoid abuse and misinterpretations.
In addition, your Committee recommend the insertion of a sub-section to exclude such issues as protests, demonstrations and strikes, among others, in the definition of terrorism. The sub-clause should read as follows:
“any protest, demonstration or stoppage of work shall not be considered as a terrorist act if the act is not intended to result in any serious bodily harm to a person or cause damage to property or endanger a person’s life or create a risk to human health or public safety.”.
Further, your Committee recommend that the Bill should exclude industrial strike action and organisations that are involved in the liberation struggle or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces from being considered as terrorist activity or organisations.
Mr Speaker, your Committee observe that Clause 11 and 13 provide for offences of aiding, abetting, concealing and habouring terrorism, and the sentence on conviction is life imprisonment. Your Committee are of the view that courts be given some latitude to impose sentences based on a maximum sentence as provided by the Law, whilst taking care of minors under the age of eighteen.
Further, whereas the Penal Code provides for capital offences of death, the Bill gives a life sentence. Therefore, your Committee recommend the harmonisation of the two.
In addition, they recommend that this Bill be harmonised with other pieces of relevant legislation mentioned in the report.
Sir, your Committee observe that Clause 16, Part 3 of the Bill gives too much power to the Minister to outlaw an organisation so long as the Minister reasonably believes that the organisation may be involved in the terrorist activities. Your Committee are of the view that a provision be made under this clause to provide for an Anti-Terrorism Unit that shall advise the Minister on which associations should be declared a terrorist organisation.
Mr Speaker, your Committee also observe that the Bill under Clauses 31 to 35 provides for a Judge of the High Court to handle matters related to terrorism. We recommend the need to devolve some of the powers under these clauses to lower courts, since there are no high courts in rural areas to handle such crimes. As such, the lower court can handle these crimes before committing them to the High Court.
In Relation to Clauses 24, your Committee observe that the Bill does not seem to provide for any protection to the person or entity disclosing information under this clause. This provision potentially exposes institutions such as banks to legal action for breach of the Banking and Financial Services Act, Chapter 387 of the Laws of Zambia.
Accordingly, your Committee recommend that there should be a provision under this proposed law indicating or stating that disclosure of information to a police officer for purposes of this Act once enacted would not be deemed to be in breach of duty of confidentiality under other Laws such as the Banking and Financial Services Act.
Mr Speaker: Order!
Business was suspended from 1615 hours until 1630 hours.
Mr Speaker: Before the Chair suspended business, the august House was considering the Second Reading Stage of the National Assembly Bill, number 24, of 2007. The hon. Member for Pambashe in his capacity as the Chairperson of the National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee was debating.
However, before he continues, your attention is being drawn to the fact that, with regard to the abandonment of that question, I had referred to the hon. Member for Kasama as the one who had abandoned the question when, in fact, it was the hon. Member for Chilubi who did so. The hon. Member for Chilubi asked the question about Kasama. That, then, corrects the record. The hon. Member for Pambashe may resume his debate.
The hon. Member for Pambashe may continue.
Mr Chishya: Mr Speaker, the law should clearly state that no action would lie against the reporting entity from any aggrieved person, should the suspicious activity reported turn out not to warrant any prosecution under the Act, provided the report to the police was made in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
Your Committee also recommend that, the Bill should provide guidelines on the reporting procedures to be introduced, especially by the disclosing entities. These guidelines should be comparable to those provided pursuant to the prohibition and prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Bill should also deliberately designate certain officers within institutions to co-ordinate disclosure of information to police officers to ensure an orderly process, accountability and transparency.
Mr Speaker, your Committee took note that the Bill requires disclosures to be made to a police officer as defined under the Zambia Police Act, to the exclusion of other Law enforcement bodies. They recommend that the Law should provide for a special unit comprising defence and security services, specifically set up to handle terrorism and other related crimes. This would avoid duplicity of reports, especially where there is an overlap of anti-money laundering and terrorism offences. Alternatively, the Bill should extend the definition of persons entitled to receive such information to include special units such as the Anti- Money Laundering Unit.
Further, your Committee note that under the said Clause, a person who is aggrieved by the exercise of the Attorney-General’s powers under this section may bring an action in the High Court against the Attorney-General for damages or any other legal remedy.
Your Committee, therefore, recommend that there should further be a provision to the effect that if as a result of the Attorney-General’s order served on a bank or financial institution, that bank or financial institution is joined to a suit and suffers loss, the Attorney-General would indemnify the bank or financial institution as the case may be to the extent of that loss directly resulting from the order.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, your Committee observed that the fight against terrorism is an expensive venture to undertake in a country such as Zambia and that the Bill does not seem to address this handicap. Therefore, they recommend that there is a need to create a budget line in the National Budget to smoothen the operations in the fight against terrorism and terrorist activities in the country.
Mr Speaker, finally, let me take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders that responded favourably to your Committee’s invitation and requests for comments at short notice. This is an indication of the importance that the stakeholders place on matters pertaining to national security.
In this vein, let me pay special tribute to the hon. Ministers of Home Affairs and Justice for agreeing to interact with your Committee on this Bill even without prior notice. In addition, your Committee wish to express their appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the invaluable and tireless assistance rendered to them throughout their deliberations. Your Committee are hopeful that the observations and recommendations contained in their report will go a long way in helping the House make a decision on the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Dr Scott: Mr Speaker, I just wish to underline or emphasise and add to some of the most excellent points made by the last speaker who is the Chairman of the Committee.
Sir, from the outset, I would like to say that I believe this House should debate in the light of various principles one of which is that we should debate as independent Zambians. For example, we should not be saying things because this Bill will glorify us in the eyes of foreign countries, who will then, give us more money, loans, trade and more tourism. If we are going to do that, then the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry or, perhaps, the Ministry of Finance and National Planning should bring the Bill
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott: Mr Speaker, I think it is almost shameful to be talking as if our constituencies belong to the rest of the world and not Zambia. When we bring our debate, we should be debating in terms of how this Bill is good for Zambia and gives us something that we need like SADC security, a good night’s sleep or gives us less bad people. We should not be talking about Uncle Sam or anybody else.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott: Secondly, we should be thoughtful and very clear about what the words mean. It is very unfortunate about the word “terrorism.” Some of us in this House have been labeled as terrorist sympathisers in the in the recent past. Many of our own Ministerial and Presidential guests from SADC Countries have been classified as terrorists before now by the Rhodesian Government, South African Government, the Portuguese authorities and so on and so forth. Therefore, I take it that the word “terrorism”, in the context of this Bill, does not mean whoever the Government of the day happens to decide constitutes terrorism, because under that basis, as we have in Section 16, the MMD itself could be classified as a terrorist organisation.
Laughter
Dr Scott: Therefore, I will give it a thought under the next one. We must be very careful that we know that we are talking about and trying to achieve. Therefore, my understanding of terrorism in this context is international terrorism, specifically Islamic Extremist Terrorism, because that is the only kind that is making big ripples. There is also a Christian terrorism, particularly in the North Eastern part of the United States, but it has not yet gone to the point where it is an international threat. Frankly, I will be much more terrified driving down Cairo Road to meet people in a pick up truck full of explosives than to meet Osama Bin Laden. The fact is that we are not specifically targeted and trying to target a threat, ourselves, to world peace. Therefore, in so doing, we are trying to streamline the existing provisions of the Penal Code because almost all the offences spelt out here, without exception, are already offences under the Penal Code.
Sir, if I take a suitcase full of explosives and go down to Cairo Road and blow myself, the Inspector-General of Police will be interested to interview me before this Act is passed because that is murder or attempted murder. If I survive the explosion, I will be tried and get more than that. I may even get a death sentence. Therefore, it is not as if we are defining new offences. We are defining what are already offences in the Penal Code.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, Hear!
Dr Scott: I am not saying that there is no reason to bring an Act that streamlines and clarifies, but this is not creating a new form of offence. The fear is that anybody who has got past experience or has read widely bout this type of legislation and has a long memory back to the sixties, for example, is that the people who enforce laws regard laws as blank instruments to be conveniently used to take short cuts in the legal process.
Sir, I will give one good example, which I will lay on Table of the House provided that I can escape consignment when the time comes. This is from the London Newspaper, Private Eye, of 16th to 19th July, 2007. This is a half historical magazine, but also half an investigative magazine, especially into legal matters. I will quote and this is concerning Mr Stanley Tollman and his wife who were wanted by the United States Authorities on a civil charge, an income tax evasions charge. It says and I quote:
‘In March, 2003, US Prosecutors requested the extradition of both Tollmans, but did nothing to push the case until August 2004, when they were arrested and legal proceedings began. By then, the controversial new Extradition Act had come into force allowing the United States to fast track the extradition of anyone without the boring necessity required under the previous law of having to prove there was a case to answer. Since then, there has been much furore, largely generated by the NatWet Three-case about the unfairness of the system designed for terrorism, but increasingly used for white collar crime and for which a supine Labour Government obtained no reciprocity.’
Therefore, when I see that extradition agreements have been mentioned in this Bill, I see no protection for Zambian citizens, without mention that a court in Zambia must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case against that person for him to be handed over to the United States for the Income Tax charge or something which is not an offence in Zambia. Therefore, one wants to see something more Zambian in this Act. In fact, I will be very happy to find a single phrase which says that the citizens and residents of this country shall be protected against the abusive use of this law by bringing in the law enforcement people who cannot be bothered to do the job properly.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott: We should not have to mention Guantanamo Bay in this House. I should not take a lecture on Guantanamo Bay. Many countries in the world, Britain included, have spent time getting their own citizens out of indefinite imprisonment by the United States Government. The United States of America has got a case. After all, they are the ones who have lost many people in ten thousand times. But, they arrested everyone who might conceivably be of use to them, imprisoned them, tortured them and kept them in solitary confinement, insulting their religion. Eventually, when legal proceedings managed to release a few foreigners who were lucky enough to be British or some other early advanced country, there were no charges made against them. These people are now walking free, and yet this was done under the auspices of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Some of us were very concerned when a couple of years ago, we had an extraordinary rendition in Zambia on the legal and judicial process whereby the Americans just had to fly in the suspects and hand them over and fly out with no record at all. Nothing.
I was also very distressed to read, some two years ago, that it was the intention of United States of America authorities to build prison camps on the islands on Lake Kariba because apparently, your average terrorist suspect does not swim fast enough to out speed a crocodile.
Laughter
Dr Scott: However, they were certainly not getting any objections from the Zambian Government, but when they discovered how bad the malaria was on the Lake Kariba, they chickened out and went to do this in some European countries instead.
So, let us be thoughtful. Let us be Zambian. Let us be protective of our own people and let us make this Act for ourselves and not for others, …
Hon. PF Member: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott: not because you have been promised money; not because you have been promised tourism or classification as a destination for investment.
Hon. PF Member: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott: Let us be proud. Let us be honest. Let us be thoughtful.
Let me lay the paper on the Table of the House.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Scott laid the wrong paper on the Table. He went back to his seat to get the correct one.
Laughter
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Imasiku (Liuwa): Mr Speaker and hon. Members of this august House, as a Member of this Committee, Sir, I stand to support the Motion seeking to adopt the Anti-Terrorism Bill, National Assembly Bill No. 24 of 2007, moved by the Hon. Dr Bernard E. Chishya, Member of Parliament for Pambashe, Chairperson for the National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sir, the importance of the Anti-Terrorism Bill does not need any emphasis at all. If anything, it is felt that the Bill to enact this very important legislation has somehow been delayed. What is important for us now is the fact that finally, the Government is seeking the authority to enact this legislation which is embraced by the world over.
Mr Speaker, when we follow historical events, every period has its own problems to prepare for any inevitable vices or enemies of their time. It goes, therefore, without saying, that a security problem of our time is terrorism. Events of terrorism that have taken place in a number of countries in the recent past are frightening. We, therefore, cannot sit idle hoping that doomsday does not draw near. It is with this in mind that we feel that this Government means well for proposing to enact a legislation that will deter acts of terrorism on our motherland. With this legislation in place, Zambia will then be ready to handle such acts of terrorism by bringing culprits to book.
Sir, embarrassing situations such as the one we experienced some time back where we had to send a culprit of such acts to another country will now be a thing of the past.
Mr Speaker, in our view, the Bill is non-controversial and we stand to benefit as a nation when it is finally enacted, hence the need for this House to endorse it.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Imasiku: They say, if you want peace, prepare for war. This is one of the weapons that will make terrorists think twice before they can contemplate attacking or using our land for their selfish gains.
Mr Speaker, the report by the Chairperson was elaborate as most concerns by the witnesses have been ably highlighted by the Chairperson. Notwithstanding all that had been cited …
Mr Kambwili: On a point of order, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Continue!
Mr Imasiku: Notwithstanding all that had been cited, I just wanted to re-emphasise one or two points with specific reference to the definition. As we try to come up with a legal framework that will be in conformity with the world around us, it is important to remember that the law to be enacted should bear a Zambian form.
As a nation renowned for its support for liberation movements, Sir, a cause we are still proud of, we feel that genuine liberation movements, still fighting for their emancipation from colonialism or foreign occupation, should not be included in this definition.
Hon. Government Member: Hear, hear!
Mr Imasiku: In the fold of terrorism, hence the need to insert a clause to that effect of the said definition.
On the same section dealing with the definition of terrorism, we would like re-emphasis the issue of intent or rather a criminal intention to commit an act of terrorism. As already indicated, the need to prove mens rea is paramount as this will exonerate those innocent individuals like children often used by terrorists when committing such crimes. The term therefore, should not be included.
Mr Speaker, as I conclude, it is hopeful that the Executive will try to set aside those points raised so as to come up with a law that will portray the aspirations of the Zambian Government in its quest to protect its citizens from any form of terrorism.
At the same time, we expect the hon. Members of this House to debate objectively, putting the security of this nation above all forms of personal affiliations, political otherwise.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear! Quality! Quality!{mospagebreak}
Major Chizhyuka (Namwala): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this very important Bill.
Mr Speaker, I would like to state, from the outset, that I reject this Bill and it should be abated. This is the second time that I have come out with a feeling that we have yet another Bill which does not contain the heart and mind of this Government being presented in the National Assembly of Zambia.
Mr Speaker, last time I did oppose a Bill on the Floor of this House where the Executive were stating monetary interests from foreigners as a reason for bringing a Bill or law in this country. That was the Prohibition and Stock Piling of Biological Weapons Bill. I opposed that Bill and today, we come to Parliament to debate a Bill which, according to my investigations, coming from a military background, and I am talking of a military background that was active, not a military background which is – I am talking about the correct military background of this country, I have found that there was no consultation.
Mr Speaker, even in the speech by the Committee, they stated that the hon. Minister of Home Affairs and the hon. Minister of Defence were called at short notice, an indication that consultation was limited. This is a very important Bill and I think that we should understand that Zambia is our country and we must protect it as our own country and not a country serving the interests of Uncle Sam.
Mr Speaker, you have seen how their Embassies are, you cannot get there. It is fortification after fortification and they will give you documents to prepare to hedge against an incident that may happen in their own country. We are a sovereign country. We are Zambians and we must do things that are Zambian.
Mr Speaker, as I have said, I have studied the new Bill and from the on set, I would like to say that I do not want to support this Bill and so it should be withdrawn. The definition alone puts us on a collision course with the struggling masses all over the world. The Independence of Zambia is a product of sustained support from the struggling people of this world and countries such as China and Russia. We do not want to be at variance with the people all over the world who hunger for self determination. If this law were put in place when we were liberating South Africa, would we be qualified to call the African National Congress, the Mukonto Wesizwe who we kept in this country and gave all the military support to fight for their own liberation and self determination? Would we be qualified to call them terrorists?
Mr Kambwili: Tell them!
Major Chizhyuka: Mr Speaker, ZIPRA and ZANRA through ZAPU and ZANU waged a protracted struggle to uproot Ian Smith, an Englishman, who believed an African in Rhodesia could only rule after a thousand years. Would we have been qualified to call them terrorists who now are Presidents of independent African countries? Mr Speaker, until recently, Mr Sam Nujoma was President of SWAPO and President of a country. Mr Nujoma and some of us crisscrossed as he soldiered on in the forests along the Zambezi River. Would we be qualified to call Mr Sam Nujoma a terrorist?
Mr Speaker, we have the story of Dos Santos, and Jonas Savimbi who both struggled for their own form of determination. Would we have called those people terrorists? Indeed, I can see that this Bill is borrowing from Ian Smith who called Joshua Nkomo a terrorist and ZIPRA, a terrorist organisation. I have spoken to the presenter of the report from the Committee whom I told, as we were going out, that even the definition he is modifying falls short of the basic minimum required for a Bill to be accepted as law. If this Bill and the definition is not changed, we will not sit comfortably as Zambia in international fora with our friends who are struggling for self determination in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Mr Speaker, the definition to ignore that there is State terrorism sponsored by imperialist regimes such as the United States of America (USA) and others is to define boundaries of selective reasoning. Mr Speaker, is it not true that George Bush went into Iraqi under the guise of the new infamous search for weapons of mass destruction …
Interruptions
Mr Chizhyuka: … when all they were looking for was Iraqi oil?
Mr Tetamashimba: On a point of order, Sir.
Interruptions
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, I am following the debate very attentively, but I am getting concerned when the debate degenerates into mentioning countries and Presidents of other countries. Is the hon. Member in order to continue mentioning names of Heads of State of other countries without him following the procedure that he started with? I need your serious ruling.
Mr Speaker: The hon. Deputy Minister of Ministry of Works and Supply is not comfortable with some aspects of the debate by the hon. Member for Namwala. I have been listening very carefully to what he has said and I tend to wish to benefit from that point of order by guiding the House to debate this Bill, as the hon. Member has said, as a Zambian Bill, not designed to deal with persons or states outside Zambia.
Therefore, you should debate this Bill as your own Bill. Those countries have their own laws similar to this one, but which are tailored to their needs. The hon. Member for Namwala will benefit from this.
Will the hon. Member for Namwala continue, please.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Major Chizhyuka: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear in my mind that this Bill has international ramifications. We are simply trying to domesticate an international thought that is not grown and bred in the heart of this Government.
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: I was talking about the effect of the search for weapons of mass destruction when what was being looked for by Uncle Sam, in the process of international terrorism, was Iraq oil.
Mr Speaker, look at the extent now of the destruction by the United States of America which they have inflicted on the Iraq nation. On average, 187 people are dying everyday from the United States of America-sponsored involvement in the affairs of Iraq.
The US possesses - I am talking about International State Terrorism in case someone is lost, the world’s best swift and most accurate intelligence. The intelligence system knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They went in to find them, nay, to kill in excess of one million Iraqis and two million dispersed in Iran and Syria. All this killing, insecurity, civil war, breakdown of culture and family values in search of Iraq oil sponsored by State terrorism. Is it any wonder that the Iraqis, both Sunnis and Shiites recall their cherished old days, the days of Saddam Hussein as the good old days.
Mr Speaker, I know Iraq like the palm of my hand. I lived there for sometime. I travelled along the Baghdad Metro. The underground Iran train network in those days was superior and swift. I also went to Babylon, the land between the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris. I went to see the Holy Well. I also went to see the Tower where the religious people were meant to use to get to heaven.
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: I drunk from the Holy Well at the site where the Tower was being built by the ancient religious communities as access to heaven. When I see Iraq bleed to the extent that it is, all on the account of imperialist State terrorism, my heart bleeds for the people of Iraq. State terrorism should have been defined in this Act because we say chaona muzako chapita, maba chili pali iwe.
Hon. Members: Interpret.
Major Chizhyuka: You have seen what they have done to Afghanistan. I am sure everyone understands Nyanja.
Mr Speaker: Order! It is a requirement that you interpret that phrase.
Major Chizhyuka: It simply means that what your friend has experienced, tomorrow it could be you.
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: Have you seen what they have done to Afghanistan? They will hold this Government and your entire Executive in their hands. They will dispose of you when you no longer serve their interests. Do not think that they will restrict themselves to the Middle East and Far East, tomorrow they will be on you. In any case, why have the State terrorists moved on to Darfur? It is because the people there have no economic interests for them.
Mr Speaker, the Trade Unions of Zambia, political parties of Zambia and NGOs will also be affected directly by this Act. This business of being blind to issues that look at you in your face is the reason you drafted an Electoral Code of Conduct Law that is now working against this Executive. Sir, 90 per cent of the petition losses are haunting the Executive …
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: ...who, in essence, are the ones who drafted a law which they thought would serve them, but one which has turned out to be double edged.
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: Mr Speaker, this Bill is bad. Imagine just once, if a mad person like Idi Amini were to take over the reigns of power of this country with such a law in place, all of you could easily be branded terrorists and locked up.
Hon. Opposition Member: Eeh!
Major Chizhyuka: Open your eyes and see.
Mr Speaker, our African continent has been invaded by these conflicts. Angola’s long-protracted war is nothing, but a jostling for power by the international terrorists for them to have access to the wealth of African nations. This is not our law. This Bill is not Zambian. Let us withdraw this Bill. It has no safeguard provision for anyone of you who is in Parliament today. No safeguard provision whatsoever. Why do you find it easy? I do not support Bills or laws which have foreign connotations which are not indigenous, coming from the Executive …
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Laughter
Major Chizhyuka: … or indeed any Member of this House. This is our country, Zambia, the one and only country that we have. Let us not create laws for the sake of being in good books of someone you think is going to give you money. In any case, how much money have you, the Executive, received from the time you enacted that Bill on the Prohibitions of Chemical Weapons to date? This is our country. You feel proud to be a Zambian. Feel proud to come up with laws and regulations that are going to serve the Zambian people as Zambians. This is our only country.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Sikota (Livingstone): I thank you, Mr Speaker, for according me this opportunity to debate this Bill. I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee for his observations on the Bill, equally, the Member for Lusaka Central. I will not repeat what they have stated, but try and go to areas which they may not have touched.
Mr Speaker, a Bill such as this one has to tackle two issues and balance them. That is the requirement for security and also ensuring that the individual’s liberties are not trodden upon wantonly. This is a very tricky issue and must be handled with much sensitivity and common sense.
Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice stated, in his debate, that we have not seen acts of terrorism in this country. I beg to differ with him in that we had a long line and history of terrorist activity within the country. In the 70s and 80s, we had the Mushala uprising. During the same period, we also had a spate of letter and parcel bombings which came mainly from Southern Africa, the neighbouring countries, and those quite clearly were terrorist activities which were being perpetrated.
Mr Speaker, we also had, in the 90s, the Black Mamba affair. Whether or not that was State sponsored, it still amounted to terrorism. We even had, at least, one life lost resulting from a bomb explosion during the Black Mamba time. This is not something which is alien to us. We must all accept that it is something that is within our midst and something that we must deal with, but it is how we deal with it that is important.
Mr Speaker, terrorist acts, as stated by the hon. Member for Lusaka Central, Dr Scott, are already covered in the various pieces of legislation that we have. However, I believe that the reason the Government wishes to have a specific Anti-Terrorism Act is so that all the acts that can be classified as terrorist are found in one piece of legislation, hence making it easier to carry out investigations and prosecutions of terrorist acts. I believe that is the reason. Even though most of the things are already covered in other pieces of legislation, this helps to streamline what we need to do to combat terrorism.
Like others who have spoken before me, I hope that when the hon. Minister of Justice comes to wind up debate, he will emphasise more the benefits for Zambia and the reasons Zambia should have this legislation. I would advise him, like others have, to stay very clearly off stating that this is for us to look good to other people. I will not belabour that point. I believe that he has taken note of that, and that in his sum up, he will take it into consideration.
Mr Speaker, this new Act enhances the penalties which, for certain acts, fail other pieces of legislation which would lead to sentences which were far less. Some of them were taken to be mere damage to property, etc. which did not carry the kind of penalties that are proposed in the current Act.
Sir, I also take note of what the Chairman of the Committee stated about harmonising the penalties with regard to the death penalty and life imprisonment. I believe that this Government has not been favouring the death penalty, a position which I also share. Therefore, I would propose that this particular Bill not be touched when harmonising. It should remain as life imprisonment, but the other pieces of legislation which have death penalty should be the ones to be revised and reduced to life imprisonment.
Mr Speaker, we need to have this balance of security and liberties, like I stated. I do not think any one of us can stand and say that we do not need an Act to combat terrorism. It would be irresponsible for anyone to do this.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Sikota: We need to ensure that this particular Bill does not trample on the rights of individuals. We need to put in sufficient safeguard measures so that it is not misused by the people in authority or anybody else who may come into power.
I was listening to the debate of the hon. Member for Lusaka Central, Dr Scott, who was already issuing a warning that when he is in Government, he will consider using it. So, for you out there, consider putting the safeguard measures before he is in there to use it.
Laughter
Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, when you look at the extradition clauses in this particular Bill, I will not belabour the point because it was touched on by the hon. Member for Lusaka Central, Dr Scott, but that is one of the areas where we certainly need to look at safeguard measures to ensure that Zambians cannot just be picked up as demanded by other countries to be extradited to their countries. There is certainly a need to address that. There must be some form of judicial process that will give anybody the right to challenge any extradition proposed in our Zambian Law. The laws must be very clear on what category of offences somebody can be extradited for.
Sir, there is also Section 16(3) with regard to declaring an organisation a terrorist organisation. One of the areas is where the United Nations (UN) and other international bodies have declared that this is a terrorist organisation. With such declarations, clearly, it would be difficult to give the Zambian courts jurisdiction apart from merely challenging whether or not that organisation appears on the international list. However, when it comes to Zambia declaring a particular organisation a terrorist organisation, I think that to balance the issue of security and liberties, there is a need for a clause allowing people who have been placed on such lists by the hon. Minister to challenge such listing in the Courts of law.
Mr Speaker, for this classification to be made in a manner that is meaningfully challenging, there is a need for the Government to be compelled to give the reasons and circumstances under which this particular organisation must appear on this list of terrorist organisations. This will allow the person who is placed on that list to seek legal redress and challenge. If it was wrongly or maliciously done, they will then be de-listed from such a classification.
Sir, I saw the hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply, Mr Tetamashimba, looking in my direction when I talked about legal redress. He has been pretty active in declarations of interest during this session. I wish to declare that I am a lawyer and I probably would profit if there was such a provision put in the law.
Laughter
Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, on a serious note, there is Section 31 which deals with detention of people who are seen to be engaged in terrorist activities. It gives discretion to certain categories of police officers to go to the courts, obtain an order and keep somebody in detention, initially, for fourteen days, thereafter, they can renew for thirty days, etc.
Sir, this reminds me of the time when we had a permanent State of Emergency in this country in that it was possible to detain somebody for fourteen days and renew that detention. The only difference between that permanent State of Emergency and what is proposed in these laws is that with the permanent State of Emergency, there were safeguard provisions given in that the person who was detained had to be furnished with grounds within fourteen days of such detention so that they would be in a position to challenge such detention. Quite a number of people won their cases because of the grounds on which they were detained. They were able to go to the courts and prove that the grounds they were detained on were not valid; either they were malicious, totally fabricated, etc. and they won back their freedom. That was the situation under the State of Emergency.
However, we are proposing that people get detained, not under a State of Emergency, but that they do not have the same kind of safeguard provisions as during the State of Emergency. I think it is very important that those safeguards provisions are put into the legislation so that people can challenge them. That will also prohibit the Government from merely being malicious and having tramped up charges against people. That is a safeguard which is absolutely necessary and must be put into the legislation.
Dr Scott: Hammer! Do not stop.
Mr Sikota: Mr Speaker, we also need to ensure that there are stiff penalties against the people who will abuse these laws or give false information about others, leading to innocent people being locked up or detained on false accusations.
Being somebody who dealt with cases which are bordering on these kinds of offences, the Zero-Option Case and the Black Mamba Case and so forth, I was privileged to actually see the transcripts of evidence upon which people were detained. Quite clearly, in most of them, they were detained on the basis of patently false evidence which was given by people, but those people lost a lot of businesses and their liberties due to these false allegations. None of the people who made those false allegations were ever made to pay for making them and that will certainly encourage others to do the same to make false allegations against people. However, if we made it a very strict offence punishable by very stringent and harsh penalties, we could help stop people making false allegations against others. I would like the hon. Minister to consider that as he looks into the amendments that he was talking about.
Apart from making the balance within the Act, there is a need for those who will actually be superintending and implementing these laws to do so in absolute good faith. They need to use these laws very sparingly because they are very Draconian and must only be used in very clear instances. We have had too many cases of people who are detained on flimsy grounds only to be released later on and then the Government paying lots of money in compensation because there was no need to detain them in the first place. In order to save the scarce resources that we have, any government and the present Government, once this law is in place, will have to ensure that it only uses its legislation in very clear circumstances. We need to be responsible when we have power, such as, the one that we are proposing to give ourselves under this Act. We need to be absolutely responsible to the individuals, to their liberties and to our country.
With these few remarks, I wish to support the Bill subject to the heavy amendments which will balance out the issue of security and liberties.
I thank you, Sir.
Dr Kalumba (Chienge): Mr Speaker, I would like to stand and support this particular Bill.
In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the fact that, Mr Speaker, we live in a perpetually different and changed environment following the 9/11 occurrence in the United States of America. Terrorism is real not just for countries such as the United States of America or United Kingdom, but we have seen it in our own continent in East Africa where the results where devastating. The hon. Member for Livingstone has stated there have been instances in our own country, and I can say during the time when I was Minister of Home Affairs, when this country was subjected to what now could be clearly defined as terrorist acts.
Mr Speaker, terrorists are not green-looking scar-faced creatures who come from outer space. They look like ordinary folks. They are ordinary folks.
Mr Muntanga: Like you.
Laughter
Dr Kalumba: With due respect, they do not look like the hon. Member for Lusaka Central at all.
Laughter
Dr Kalumba: They are more ordinary than he is. Terrorists are not found in one country. They can mushroom in any country and the conditions that make it possible for them to mushroom in any country exist here in Zambia as they exist in most other countries.
Sir, as we consider this Bill, it is important that we also look at the challenges of terrorism prevention. How do we create conditions that reduce the chances of our people being recruited by terrorist organisations or formations? Zambia’s dual-political position makes it almost ideal for terrorist formations to occur. We are at the crossroads to the east, west, south and north. It is very likely that minds that promote terrorism can look to Zambia and come in any form, that is, religious, political and ideological formations. I believe the Government must exercise itself a little more on aspects of prevention. I am not clear in my own mind how that can be defined specifically, but I think there is a need to examine that in the context of what has happened in other countries, including East Africa. What are these particular conditions that make it possible for citizens to be recruited into terrorist formations and how can we prevent those conditions from crime? I think that, in my limited chienge.com. way, is an important question to raise.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Kalumba: The hon. Member for Livingstone has raised a point that I do not need to belabour, but I think it is important to stress. If I do not admit that it is a very complex Bill, I will be misinforming the House about how I feel about it. It is a very complex Bill and I think we need to educate our people to appreciate the extent of the power we are giving our Executive to exercise, which must inevitably imply that greater responsibilities are exercised by it in protecting those basic and fundamental rights of the people who do not generally pose a threat to national security.
I speak as an individual, Mr Speaker, who has been subjected in the past to very peculiar assessments by some of my fellow citizens. I recall one time I was supposed to have recruited Hon. R. Banda and others and take them to Zimbabwe to overthrow the Zambian Government and Hon. B. Y. Mwila can testify to that.
There are people who can accuse others of things that are not true.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Kalumba: It is important that in giving power to the instruments of the State, we also protect the innocent from the abuses of very wicked minds who sit down everyday and wake out schemes that destroy the image of other people, including their personal security. I find that there is an important balance to strike and it is incumbent upon the State machinery to ensure that balance is struck. I have experienced what I have said in the last administration and in this administration. It is possible in Zambia for somebody to cook up a story of a grievous act. Political hoaxes must be punished very strongly. A person who concocts a story against an individual or organisation which is proved to be false must be subjected to very strong punishment. However, the hon. Minister of Justice needs to protect our citizens who may be innocent in this respect.
Let us imagine a scenario, one day, when some of our leaders may have propensity to abuse their power which might result in civil disobedience or public reaction. It is very important that we distinguish acts of civil disobedience from definitions of threats to national security.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Kalumba: There are some outstanding cultural issues which, if handled better politically, can inform society and the Government how to act more prudently such as the non-resolved questions of particular regions. We do not want to wake up one day and hear that a demand by a particular region such as the Barotse Royal Establishment, which has been questioning our political history, suddenly becomes classified as a terrorist demand.
Hon. Opposition Members: Presidential material.
Dr Kalumba: These are the kind of sensibilities that, as a country, we must be very careful about and protect our citizens by acknowledging the fact that there are cultural and history issues that may emerge once in a while. We can handle them outside the context of what this Bill suggests.
Sir, let me inform the Hon. Major Chizhyuka that it would be infinitely dangerous to believe that, somewhat, this Act must be suspended or delayed because it has inclinations of external interests. We are now part of the global village and it is in our best interest to join hands with the international community to ensure that our country is not used as a breeding ground for terrorism. I have great respect for the hon. Soldier. This is an important issue where the hon. Member committed himself to defend Zambia and I hope you shall defend it forever.
This is an important Bill that will allow our Executive to exchange intelligence and in the process, prevent acts of terrorism where innocent lives of people could be lost. It was a moment of despair, during my time as Minister of Home affairs, when I witnessed bombs going off in Lusaka; one bomb went off somewhere near here while others went off in the embassy residence and near our waterway in Kafue. It can happen here.
Mr Muntanga: It has happened before.
Dr Kalumba: It has happened before, thank you. We must be proactive now. I think we are even late in putting in place legislation that allows us to tap into international resources to fight terrorism while we, at the same time, protect the dignity and liberties of our people.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Ngoma (Sinda): Mr Speaker, I would like to make it clear from the onset that I do not support this Bill. I feel it is a very scary and suspicious Bill. When the hon. Minister of Justice came on the Floor of this House to present it, he categorically stated in his opening remarks that it was about the September 11 (9/11) attack in the United States. We should not be in a hurry to bring legislation before this House because of the 9/11 incidence which happened in the United States of America. The fact that the USA was attacked ruthlessly does not mean that it will happen to this nation. The reasons why the 9/11 incidence happened are very clear for everyone to see. The United States itself promoted it.
A good example is what Hon. Major Chizhyuka was referring to, the issue of Iraq. The Americans made us believe that Iraq and Afghanistan were at the centre of terrorism. They claimed that, in Iraq, there were weapons of mass destruction being manufactured by Saddam Hussein and his allies. To the contrary, the USA, Britain and their allies did not find a trace of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction in that country. It is sad to say that at the end of the day, a Head of State was hanged. However, we come here to say that there was terrorism and are bringing legislation to prevent what happened.
Therefore, I do not support the importing and transposing of legislation into Zambia from organisations or States that I consider to have tendencies of terrorism themselves. Sir, the Chairperson of your Committee talked about the economic implications of this Bill. He said that for this Bill to be implemented, there will be a need for a lot of resources. I know that our country right now is grappling with poverty. We are unable to supply adequate fertiliser to the farmers to produce food for this country and they want to bring a very suspicious Bill which requires a lot of resources. How sensible is that?
I know that behind closed doors, somebody has promised to give them dollars because they are talking about the 9/11 incidence and the USA. This is not what we need to do for this country to develop. I, therefore, propose that we wait a bit for now. What we need to do is equip and fund our security agencies adequately. They are already doing a commendable job and I believe that if we fund them very well, we will be fine.
Let us look at sections 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 which talk about extradition. We have to be very careful with these people who want to impose this Bill on this land because they can not allow this to happen in their country. An American can never be extradited to another country even if there is clear evidence that he or she is a terrorist. However, here we are, gladly and willingly trying to enact a law to send our citizens to prisons such as Guantanamo Bay.
Let us face it, these people are of double standards.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Ngoma: Why am I saying so? This is because it is clear from what the hon. Minister of Justice said in his opening remarks, as I have said earlier, that he was talking about the 9/11 and America. In this regard, I do not support this Bill.
Mr Speaker, as we are considering this Bill, there is a need to bring amendments on the Floor of this House. I am mindful of the fact that, at times, the hon. Minister of Justice has been very progressive. Can you also be very progressive on this one by withdrawing it because you are talking of Wednesday and information has it that we might be adjourning soon? Therefore, we need more consultations.
Mr Speaker, I would like to quote what your Committee has said on page 5 under Observations and Recommendations. It reads:
“Your Committee also observe that this Bill is a complex one as it involves the security of the nation. However, your Committee note, with concern, that the Bill has some lacuna emanating from the lack of adequate consultations amongst its major stakeholders.”
Mr Speaker, are you telling me that you are going to consult those major stakeholders within two days? No, you cannot. So, be sensible enough and face the reality. We are not saying that it is wrong to bring legislation that is going to deter terrorism, but what we are saying is that we should not rush through things.
Mr Speaker, it is very important that the hon. Minister of Justice who has been very progressive moves fast by being progressive on this one.
Mr Speaker, with those few words, I thank you.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
The Deputy Minister of Works and Supply (Mr Tetamashimba): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Floor. I would like to state that I support the Bill. In supporting the Bill, I would like to appeal to my colleagues who spoke before me, especially the strong Chairman for the Indigenous Persons to let us forget about the 9/11. Remove America from this debate.
Hon. Opposition Members: You started it.
Mr Tetamashimba: Remove all the other nations that have been involved in terrorism or counter-terrorism and look at yourselves, as Zambians. That is what we must be looking at. I know and have heard from the hon. Members of Parliament for Lusaka Central and the United Liberal Party President, Hon. Sikota who raised issues of people in Government abusing power. I agree that it is not good for people in Government to abuse power.
Mr Speaker, I would like to say that since 2002, the abuse that was there in the first two Governments is not there now, but we must not take it that it will remain so after 2011. Why am I saying this? In this House, I used to sit on that side (Opposition side) with Hon. Hachipuka, Hon. Muntanga and Hon. Syakalima. We used to hear of leaders who would claim that they were Stalins; Hon. Sikota was there also.
However, this Government is composed of people who feel for human beings, the people who suffered under Dr Kaunda’s twenty-seven years of ruling and Dr Chiluba’s ten-year rule. I wish to state clearly that those people, who were detained without representation, in the two governments have …
Interruptions
Mr Tetamashimba: Yes, I will give examples. President Kaunda, Princess Nakatindi and the late Dean Mung’omba were detained; and these people …
The Vice-President: Even I.
Mr Tetamashimba: Including the Vice-President, but I did not want to debate ourselves. What I am trying to say is that the people who are governing now can stand up and say that this Government has compensated all the people who were detained under the previous governments and that is a fact. It did not happen in the twenty-seven years neither did it happen in the ten years when my colleague from Luapula was hon. Minister of Home Affairs. People were punished, but nothing was done about it. However, this Government is doing everything …
Dr Machungwa: On a point of order, Sir!
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Mr Kambwili: Balekubonfya fye.
Mr Speaker: Order!
Dr Machungwa: Mr Speaker, is the hon. Member of Parliament for Solwezi Central, the Deputy Minister of Works and Supply, who is desperately trying to convince the House that this Bill is positive at the moment and ignoring the dangers that even when he was with his colleagues here, he was chased and that the same people can use this Bill to work against him, in order to deny that it is important that the Government puts in safeguard measures for citizens? Is he also in order not to call for this Bill to be deferred so that adequate provisions are put in for us to have a proper Bill that can take the whole House with it? Instead of debating properly, he is debating the hon. Member of Parliament for Luapula. Is he in order, Sir?
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker: The ruling of the Chair on the point of order which has been raised by the hon. Member for Luapula is that if the hon. Member for Luapula so wishes, and I notice, he has been indicating, he will be given the Floor to also participate in this debate and state his case.
The hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply may continue.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the ruling. We need a Bill and law that is going to protect, first and foremost, the Zambians. The point that I am raising is that it should not be tailored to protect outsiders. This Government has been very transparent in trying to use the law. No Zambian has run away from the viciousness of this Government. We want to have this Bill in place because tomorrow, there could be people who may misuse the law, hence the need for a good law.
Mr Speaker, I was saying that it is only this Government of President Mwanawasa that has compensated people who were arrested and imprisoned in the twenty-seven-year rule of Dr Kaunda. I said that some people were imprisoned and even shot at in the last ten years. All these people have been compensated under this Government.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Tetamashimba: However, since we shall not be in Government forever, as we shall be retiring to pave way for others, all we are saying is that we do not want to see leaders such as the ones we had in the past who would arrest people without any reason. Some people were arrested on claims that there was a Black Mamba and this and that for nothing at all.
Mrs Sinyangwe: On a point of order, Sir!
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Mrs Sinyangwe: I rise on a serious point of order and I need your serious ruling. Is the hon. Member who is debating now, in order to mislead the House and make us believe that there are two MMD parties when it is the MMD Government which has been in power from 1991? Does the change of leadership mean it is a different MMD?
Mr Speaker: The hon. Deputy Minister of Works and Supply needs to satisfy the hon. Member for Matero who has raised that point of order that there is a distinction between what he refers to as the two MMD parties when he resumes his debate.
You may continue and clarify that matter.
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, I can clearly state that all the hon. Ministers and hon. Deputy Ministers in this Government where not in the first ten years of the MMD rule. All political parties cannot be said to be bad. It is the players in each political party who could be bad. The first MMD, in which the hon. Member for Luapula served, …
Laughter
Mr Tetamashimba: … is different from the New Deal MMD. It is different in that while the hon. Member of Parliament was in that Government, people were shot at and were not compensated and so on, but the New Deal Government has decided that anybody who was arrested under the previous Government must be compensated. This is the point I am trying to make and articulate.
I am saying that we should not think the people who are running the Government now will be there forever. There might be leaders who are going to be very bad who might misuse the law. That is my point. I am sure I am not being controversial.
Having said that, I agree that the law must be there to protect the Zambian citizen. Let us not talk about the 9/11 and about our colleagues the Arabs and so on. Let us talk about how the law is going to protect us as Zambians.
I was very happy with the President of the ULP when he stated that the law must be able to protect a person who has been arrested. I would want the protection of the law when I am out of the Government.
I do not want to talk about having been expelled as the hon. Member for Luapula said because that is neither here nor there. I still have a sound relationship with my colleagues although they expelled me. Let us look at the law.
I am appealing to the hon. Member of Parliament for Luapula when he comes to debate this Bill, to try and refer to what was happening in the Government that he served in …
Laughter{mospagebreak}
Mr Tetamashimba: … and whether the people who were arrested then, were compensated or not. These are the issues we should look at and this is what we mean by having leaders coming in to run the Government. I hope he will be kind enough to talk about the Kaundas.
Today, Princess Nakatindi is a lame woman because of her arrest. It is a fact. We want a law that is going to protect the Zambians whether in the Opposition or in the Ruling Party. The moment you tailor a law to disadvantage people who are in the Opposition …
Mr Kambwili: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Order!
A point of order is raised.
The Chair wants to find out if the point of order can benefit from any procedural lapses that the hon. Member for Roan may have noticed. What is the point of order that you wish to raise?
Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, I stand on a very serious point of order. Is the hon. Member who is debating in order to mislead this House and the nation that this Government has been following laid down laws in as far as dealing with citizens is concerned?
This Government wanted to deport Sharwl Fawaz on trumped up charges ...
Mr Speaker: Order!
The Chair is not benefiting from that point of order. In any case, you are aware, hon. Member for Roan, that matters that are before the courts of law should not be brought into this House. That aspect of the case is still in the courts of law. What you are raising, hon. Member for Roan, does not help the procedures of this House. In fact, you want to debate.
So do indicate, then maybe you can debate.
The hon. Deputy Minister for Works and Supply may continue.
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, I do agree that people said there must be consultation. I thought that when the Bill was first introduced in this House gave a chance to people both in this House and outside to make submissions to the Committee. I do not think it is right for a Member of Parliament to come here and start saying this and that was left out when we were given a chance to make contributions to the Committee.
Hon. Opposition Member: Then why are we debating?
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, you gave enough time to everybody, including the people outside this House to make contributions to the Committee. Even after this, there is still time for people to make amendments. Yes, one can make amendments and they will be debated.
I believe that nothing starts on a perfect note; everything starts with flaws, but the flaws are supposed to be corrected by we, the hon. Members of Parliament.
Are we just going to say this Bill must be withdrawn because some people, allegedly, are going to be paid? This Government does not want easy money from any country. We do not want money to come because we are going to present a Bill. The Bill must be for the Zambian people. If we are going to be bring foreign legislation just to get some money from donors, it means we shall be going back to the actions of some previous administration who wanted something to be put on the table when the economy was on its knees. We are not interested in that, but in what is good for us all, whether or not one belongs to the Ruling Party.
Today, you can be that side, tomorrow you will be here. Even His Honour the Vice- President and somebody else will be that side like it is now. Therefore, let us be patient in looking at what amendments we can put forward so that when we come to debate the amendments, we are able to agree to genuine amendments from whichever side they will come from.
I do not think it is the right thing to demand that the Bill be withdrawn. Let us proceed like we have always by bringing amendments and we shall debate them.
Mr Speaker, the hon. Ministers here have always accepted amendments from our colleagues on your left, sometimes without any amendments, and they only lapse when the Member of Parliament is unwell and does not come to clear it.
Laughter
Mr Tetamashimba: Mr Speaker, we are ready to support anything that is good. We have proved that before. We supported the motions because they were genuine and we are ready to continue supporting anything that is genuine. In this regard, I wish to appeal to my colleagues on your left that this is not the time for us to differ and keep arguing. There must be reconciliation, consultation and talking to each other.
Chairman of the indigenous people, I am using my twenty minutes.
Please, my colleagues on the left, including the State Counsel whom I heard supporting the neighbour that this is a good Bill, we are waiting for you to make amendments for us laypersons to learn what is good when you start explaining your amendment and not just saying the whole Bill is bad when its intentions are good for the sake of Zambia.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to add my voice to this very important Bill on the Floor of this House. I will be very brief because I believe very important points have been covered by my hon. Colleagues who have debated from both sides of the House.
Sir, Zambia is not an island. We are part of the world community and what happens in different countries does affect us.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: In so doing, we must understand that whatever we do in this House must be for the benefit of the people of Zambia and then we take cognisance of what is happening elsewhere.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: The issue of terrorism has been elaborated by my colleague, the hon. Member for Livingstone. We have had incidents of terrorism in this country. For example, when I was Minister of Home Affairs, there were incidents when certain strange people were attacking and shooting buses after the hook bridge along the Mongu Road. A number of people were killed. We investigated …
Hon. Member: Karavinas!
Dr Machungwa: Well, I do not want to call them Karavinas. I would prefer calling them terrorists to Karavinas.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: We investigated and were able to get some information. This was a very difficult situation. Therefore, issues of terrorism are within our country. In this regard, it is important that a law that is going to protect our people first and also help to bring peace in the international community be supported.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: However, I would like to say that if those laws have loopholes, the Government can use them against their own people.
Mr Speaker, when I used to sit there, on the right side, sometime back, I presented a Bill in this House. The Bill was well considered with the police and discussed with everybody, and was meant to prevent theft of motor vehicles. We wanted criminals to be locked up without bail. This Bill went through, but what happened? When our colleagues got into Government, they used this for political reasons and detained many people, including the President of Patriotic Front, for an offence that he had not committed.
Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: They locked him up and charged him with theft of a motor vehicle. The current State President himself went on air and threatened his predecessor and said that if he argued, he would lock him up and charge him with theft of a motor vehicle. That is political. What I am saying is that any law can be abused. As we consider such an important law, we must put in safeguard provisions that whoever is sitting there on the right side may not use it against his own people.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: For that reason, I would like to appeal to the Front Bench that this is an important law and we should all be convinced that we have put in safeguard provisions that will not be used against you hon. Government Members when you are sitting here on the Opposition side. We do not have enough time to look at this law. Your Committee have said that there should be some consultations.
Sir, on this side of the House, we are not saying that we do not want the Bill. We will accept this Bill if it has enough legal safeguards. We have got enough brains on this side and everywhere. This is to ensure that we have a Bill that will not only be used to support the big and powerful countries as they want, but which can be used to protect and defend our people and that individual rights of our citizens will not be trampled upon with impunity.
Sir, I urge the Government not to rush this Bill. We have only got a few days to come and make the necessary amendments that are needed. On this side of the House, we are not saying that we are rejecting the Bill. We are simply saying that you should slow it down a little bit so that a proper job can be done. If one of my colleagues is sitting there as minister, Hon. Mulongoti will be able to escape because we had in place a good Bill.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Dr Machungwa: In the past, we presented a Bill in this House which was well intentioned and which was abused, Hon. Tetamashimba, by your Government. It was politically used. Therefore, we cannot support the Bill as it is. We should give it enough time. When it comes back, we would have taken into consideration all the issues raised on both sides of the House. Even Hon. Dr Katele Kalumba, who was coming very close to being messed up …
Laughter
Dr Machungwa: … would be able to understand the importance of these issues. Speaking as a citizen, let us legislate, for once, laws that are well meaning and that will serve us in time. I would like to urge my hon. Colleagues on the other side that we will look at this law. We should give it time so that we are all satisfied. We need to protect our country against terrorism and we must put in a law that is going to support and defend our people.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Minister of Defence (Mr Mpombo): Mr Speaker, a cacophony of noise…
Laughter
Mr Speaker: Order! That phrase is unparliamentary. Withdraw it.
Laughter
Mr Mpombo: Mr Speaker, I want to stress one important fact that this Government does not intend to mortgage our sovereignty. Therefore, it would not succumb to the dictates of outside forces.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Mpombo: This Bill is aimed at protecting the country and stopping acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a cancer. It does not choose and a lot of innocent people have died, including children. Therefore, it is very important that, as a Government, we also put in something to protect our country. Several hon. Members of Parliament in this House have challenged the Government because the Government is not domesticating international protocols, including the SADC Gender Protocol. Those are issues we should know. We are in a global village and there is no way we can keep aloof from what is happening in the international arena.
Mr Speaker, it is important to bring these facts home. For example, there was a kind of terrorism that happened in Tanzania. Our High Commission was badly damaged in the process of the terrorist attack on the American Embassy in Dar-es-Salaam because they are just next to each other. A lot of people died. We had the same kind of situation in Kenya. Only two weeks ago, there was a similar attack and some people’s lives were lost. Therefore, when we talk about terrorism, it is very serious business. In this regard, we cannot afford to withdraw this Bill.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Mpombo: The Government is ready to consider amendments. We have made amendments before and we know how they come. If we say we amend the Bill, it does not mean that it is withdrawn. We also know at what stage the amendments could be moved. Therefore, we would be doing this country a great disservice if we deferred the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Dr Guy Scot raised his points and I feel his arguments are both political and more than unjustified.
Laughter
Mr Mpombo: This Government is anchored on the principle of the rule of law and therefore, the question of having a Guantanamo Bay …
Laughter
Mr Mpombo: … situation does not arise. Guantanamo Bay is a different situation all together and you must know the issues that bring that type of situation. This is to protect the interests of the Zambian people and to ensure that this country is adequately protected against acts of terrorism. As a Government, we feel that those fears are unjustified because we need to protect our people and set high standards of governance in this country. We will not proceed on a route which will intimidate or persecute our own people. It will be dangerous to do such a thing. We are moving with the fullest interests of the Zambian people at heart. Therefore, I would like to urge Hon. Dr Scott not to be afraid because he is dealing with a Government that is anchored on the rule of law.
Mr Speaker: Order!
Business was suspended from 1815 hours until 1830 hours.
Mr Mpombo: Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was emphasising the fact the fact there is absolutely no need to split hairs over a matter where people can sit down and effect amendments. Only yesterday, the Government assented to some pleas that we defer the other Bill which we deferred, and therefore, it is important that we reciprocate.
Hon Opposition Members: Aah!
Mr Mpombo: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament for Namwala, Hon. Major Chizhyuka, talked about Iraq. I would like to tell him that Iraq has no connection with we are trying to do. If you remember, the issue of Iraq began with the United Nations. The United Nations sent inspection teams to Iraq because there were suspicions that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction, and therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are trying to do.
You talked about Afghanistan, but again, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. In Afghanistan, it was a fight between the fundamentalist Talibans and some other people in Afghanistan. So those issues that you are mentioning have completely nothing to do with what we are trying do.
What the Government is trying to do is put in place measures that will safeguard this nation against any perceived terrorist attacks.
Hon. Member: Hear, hear!
Mr Mpombo: I am grateful for Hon. Sakwiba Sikota’s sober contribution, and I would like to say that I agree with him. In the past, this country has faced a circle of vicious attacks. For some of us who were around in the 1970s will remember that there were bombings in Chililabombwe, where a lot of people died, as well as the Black Mamba issue. We are always going to live in the specter of terrorist attacks, and therefore, any nation that is quite serious will sit and put up measures that will protect citizens from these kind of attacks.
Like I said, terrorist attacks are very vicious. You have seen the large numbers of innocent people who have been killed, most especially women and children. And so, as Members of Parliament, we should stand together, and put both our hands on the deck and move forward because what we are trying to do is defend our country.
Only recently, there was an issue at the Lusaka International Airport where huge quantities of gold were impounded. Terrorists acting in a similar manner, and therefore, you cannot say that we should defer the Bill.
Mr Speaker, in 1879, there was a Lamba philosopher, who said …
Laughter
Hon. Member: When?
Mr Mpombo: A Lamba philosopher in 1879, who said, “Procrastination is a thief of time”.
Laughter
Mr Mpombo: So, you have to be focused and consistent so as to make progress.
Mr Speaker, deferring the Bill will not do us any good. It is really important to …
Dr Scott: On a point of order, Sir.
Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.
Dr Scott: Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister in order to quote a Lamba philosopher in the English Language without giving us the original quote in Lamba?
Laughter
Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Lusaka Central wishes the hon. Minister to interpret the quote in Lamba.
Mr Mpombo: In Lamba, it says, ”Ingulube yalilile ninshumwandi mukuputuka”
Laughter
Mr Mpombo: Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude my contribution by asking all Members of Parliament to vigorously defend this Bill. We need to go forward and as a nation we are in a hurry. We cannot wait until fate strikes to start moving Bills of this nature.
Once again, I would like to implore everyone to give support to the Government.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Muntanga (Kalomo): Mr Speaker, the worry is; who is called a terrorist? Through whose eyes do you identify a terrorist?
Terrorism was in the country for a long time, but we were not enacting laws to control it. The Zambian Government has done well in that it was able to extradite a British national who was in Livingstone posing as a tourist, when the there was a complaint that he was a terrorist. You know about the Indian who came here. There was no such law, but we were able to effect what was necessary.
Mr Speaker, what has brought the confusion is the opening remark of the hon. Minister of Justice that, arising from the September 11 attacks, we need to do this. When Africans were suffering from terrorist actions, the First World Countries, Britain and others, were quiet. Now that an African has the powers to govern, there must be reason. I think that Africans must be proud that they are the only ones who bring reason. Now, we are talking terrorism and the Al-Qaeda. You need to read about the leader of the Al-Qaeda, and where he has come from. The man leading the Al-Qaeda is American trained. They made him and afterwards he went back to them.
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill, except that I would like a few precautions to be taken.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Muntanga: I was listening attentively to the changed debate of the President of ULP. He was very cautious. He supported the Bill, but he gave a condition that a few things be done. And as I was listening, I started thinking that he was supporting the MMD without any condition.
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: Fortunately, he turned and said that the condition should be that you incorporate safeguard measures. The problem that we have is that the definition of terrorism in inherently controversial. You will have to find out at what point one can be called a terrorist. The use of violence for the achievement of political aims is common by any State or non-State. For any political party to have its political manifesto put forward, they will undertake certain things, including violence.
As long as the violence is perpetuated by the party in Government, it is alright for the Government of the day to put forward their political inclination. When the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services stands to attack the Opposition, as long as he is doing it on behalf of the Government, it is alright.
Mr Speaker, the Smith Regime in Zimbabwe had put in place the Terrorist Act against the liberation movements. When there was a change of Government, this Act still existed in the statute. I would like to remind all hon. Members that at the time, the hon. Deputy Minister in the Mugabe Government by the name of Edgar Tekere adorned himself in military attire and went with his soldiers to kill a group of white farmers he did not like. When he was called and questioned, he said, “I was only enforcing the Terrorist Act as per statute”. There were cries from almost all the European countries that urged Zimbabwe to repeal that law in the wake of peace in that country.
Mr Speaker, to be labelled a terrorist is highly subjective. My friend, Hon. Sejani and I were chatting at his home when his son, a very young boy said, “What is this terrorism people are talking about on TV every time? I think I want to be a terrorist.”
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: What the young man was saying was that terrorism had become so important that everyone was talking about it on radio and TV. Therefore, he thought that maybe, this was a right profession to join.
Just like the hon. Deputy Minister was debating, he would be labeled a terrorist as long as he did something which is not in favour of others. What is it that is conducive to make terrorism?
Mr Speaker, there must be good governance and development for any group of people. Any section of the community that feels that they are left out in any participation, that group could plan anything. We had problems of the Hutu and the Rwanda Genocide.
Recently, we almost faced a near terrorism act when hon. Members of Parliament were told what to do at the gate. We had a group of NGOs who were demanding what hon. Members should do in a violent way. Next day, we had another group, the pro-MMD that said that they were supporting the other side, but also in a violent manner. As long as one group is supporting others, it will be deemed good.
Mr Speaker, we need to understand that the terrorism we are talking about is only subjective to what one wants to do. It could be something that would include a tact used by extremists. It does not matter whether they are church people or politicians, but they are extremists who want to coerce opponents and gain support. This would also include the use of violence by any organisation other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear amongst civilians.
Hon Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Muntanga: Sir, it would also include a global threat, human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. That could only be caused by terrorism. Has this Government put in place or addressed governance issues that will ensure that we do not have any group in Zambia that will feel left out. If we have noted certain governance issues, then, this Anti-Terrorism Act which is before the House could be a good thing because of the international terrorism would come back to us. That thing will worry us.
Mr Speaker, I worry when your Committee says they have proposed change and when they say, in the last part of their proposal, that even these particular times an Act made for the purpose of advocating a political, ideological and religious cause. In advancing a political cause, we, in the Opposition, want to remove that party there.
Mr Muntanga was pointing at the Front Bench.
Mr Muntanga: We shall advance our political cause to make sure those people come and sit here.
Major Chizhyuka: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}
Mr Muntanga: Those want those people that you protect to remain as ministers. If you remove the Vice-President today, even before he enjoys being Vice-President, he will not be comfortable. He will ensure that he puts in place measures that we, on this side of the House, are prohibited.
If you hear about tactics used by extremists and some organisations to coerce, there is nothing religious about that. There is nothing religious and social about it. Why do you want to try this particular Act if you are going to force it on us for political gain? Who are you trying to target? You should talk about the actual coercion by these extremists and not about Islam.
If you talk about religion, everybody’s mind will be on Islam. I believe that there are Moslems in the Eastern Province. There are Moslems who are good people and are not extremists. They do not even support what the extremists do.
Mr Speaker, it is on that score that I wish to submit that as we enact this particular law, we need to remove such things like targeting other political parties.
Do not even praise yourselves that since you are in Government and as a New Deal Government, you are doing well. Hon. Tetamashimba, you can only sing that song as long as you are Deputy Minister. If you are demoted and left in that particular gonakuzingwa seat, …
Laughter
Hon. Opposition Members: MMD Chingwere!
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: … tomorrow, we shall be hearing stories that are not favourable.
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: If the President makes changes tomorrow and says, “Hon. R. Banda, has been removed as Vice-President, but will remain a nominated Member on the gonakuzingwa Bench’, …
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: … the statement from the people on that Bench where we have presidential candidates and others, …
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: … he will not be comfortable.
Laughter
Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, all I am trying to emphasise is that this particular Act should not be tailored to focus on politics and religion.
I believe the Hon. Minister of Justice is listening. There is no religion in this issue. If tomorrow, the Catholics marched in protest, you would say that they are terrorists, meanwhile we think that they brought Bibles and took our land. They could not qualify as terrorists.
Mr Speaker, it is a very dicey situation. We need to go along with the international community to prevent international terrorism. As we tailor it to Zambia, let us do it knowing that our governance situation in Zambia is not right. We are far from good governance.
So, in supporting this Bill, I want to ask the Hon. Minister of Justice to amend it heavily.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kunda: Mr Speaker, from the reading of the debate, I think that almost the whole House is supporting this Bill.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, I wish to make some assurances to the House and also, on the onset, to thank and recognise the good things the hon. Members have said about me, that I am a progressive hon. Minister who is willing to listen and to accommodate various views.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kunda, SC.: Mr Speaker, we are not going to withdraw this Bill, but what we have done, and I must assure this House that I have already given instructions, arising from the report which I received from your Committee, to start making amendments.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Kunda, SC.: Therefore, amendments will be made to the Bill. Mr Speaker, there are some safeguards which I want to explain in this Bill and hon. Members are free to suggest safeguards instead of making sweeping statements. We should propose safeguards and this is what I told your Committee when I appeared before them that we benefit from committee reports. We benefit from the consultative process which we have introduced through our reforms and, on this particular Bill, there is no exception.
Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Lusaka Central (Dr Scott) was saying that Zambians can be extradited and that there are no safeguards in this Bill. He must have been referring to Clause 45. He was arguing as a lawmaker, and he is entitled to argue like that, but when you look at Clause 45, it refers to the Extradition Act and so the hon. Member for Lusaka Central should read this Bill together with the Extradition Act.
Mr Speaker, the Extradition Act has safeguards for Zambians. I was Attorney-General of the Republic of Zambia and I know that there is a provision that a Zambian cannot be extradited. It is there and it protects Zambians. The extradition talked about in Clause 45 will be conducted in accordance with the Extradition Act under which the Attorney-General has certain powers. Mr Speaker, even in international instruments and conventions which we have signed, a State is recognised in International Law and the fact that a national is a citizen of a particular State is a ground on which a country can state in an international convention that it will not extradite its citizens. Now, this Clause 45 merely says that conventions relating to terrorism will be regarded as extradition agreements and, therefore, we are already covered and there is no need for us to be apprehensive.
Mr Speaker, this particular Bill has been done by experts. We have Zambian experts in the United Nations, Organisation of African Unity, the Commonwealth and in SADC and so these particular conventions, as much as we may borrow them from other countries, are not foreign laws because we participate in them. We participate in the deliberations of the United Nations and African Union. The African Union has conventions on how to fight terrorism and we have bound ourselves to pass laws which will safeguard us against terrorism. In this particular Bill, you will see that to get a detention order, for example, you will go straight to court to get an order meaning that the person you are detaining will already be in the jurisdiction of the court. Is that not a good safeguard? If there are any other safeguards which you may wish to bring in, please, bring them in.
To the hon. Member for Namwala who is very passionate about our indigenous status and things like that, we appreciate, but if he is advocating that Zambia should not borrow from other countries, I do not agree with him. I do not agree with him that in the name of being indigenous, even if a law has a trans-national application, we should just sit in Namwala and start drafting a Bill.
Laughter
Mr Kunda: I do not think that we should operate like that. Terrorism is international in nature and it was explained to us here that terrorism is there in Zambia. So, I do not think your views about the extent to which we should take the indigenous principles are correct. Zambia is not an island. I must also reveal to you, hon. Members of Parliament, that other countries borrow laws from Zambia. The Laws of Zambia are being used in other countries. Sometimes, they learn from our experiences. So, why can we not learn from other countries? On the issue of Bills and that we are going to abuse this law, any law, as they said, can be abused, but this law is being passed in good faith. We want to protect this country from acts of terrorism. The issue of 9/11, unfortunately, is a fact, and we have to mention it. That is what opened our eyes on terrorism. This terrorism is now much more prominent because of such events.
Hon. Government Member interjected.
Mr Kunda: Yes, and I am told that some Zambians even passed away in that particular incident. So, why should we not emulate international best practices especially that, Mr Speaker, if you go to the record of the last Parliament, we have been urged to domesticate international conventions and this is what we are doing. I must also thank Hon. Sakwiba Sikota for the manner in which he made suggestions on how to improve on this particular Bill. I must also thank your Committee, once again, for having come up with very constructive suggestions which will enable us make some improvements on this particular Bill.
Mr Speaker, this Bill has been developed as a joint effort and Cabinet Memoranda have been introduced among the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Justice, as part of governance. It has gone through all the normal consultative processes and we have also benefited from Parliament as regards the particular suggestions which have been made. On this Bill, the Government is not proceeding because of monetary interests as it has been insinuated. This Bill is about protecting Zambians.
We do not want to pass laws in a panic state, for example, if acts of terrorism overwhelm us. This is the right time to pass this particular Bill and I thank the hon. Members for the support which they have given to this Bill and for reminding us to proceed with caution and we shall proceed with caution. I just ask for your support to this Bill.
I thank you, Sir.
Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Speaker: I put the Question. The Question is that the Bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say “Aye,” …
Hon. Government Members: Aye!
Mr Speaker: … of the contrary say, “No,” …
Hon. Opposition Members: No!
Mr Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
Interruptions
Hon. PF Members rose and called for a division.
Mr Speaker: Order! What are you doing standing up when I am still on my feet. Do you not understand procedure? I said the Ayes have it. Let me sit down and then you can do what you want to do.
Mr Speaker resumed his seat.
Mr Kambwili called for a division.
Mr Speaker: A division has been called. Let the bell ring. Let the lobbies be cleared. The tellers for the Ayes are Hon. A Cifire, MP and Hon. C K B Banda, Mp. For the Noes, Hon. Major R Chizhyuka, MP and Hon. L Changwe, MP. As usual, the Ayes will go to the lobby on my right and the Noes in the lobby to my left.
As you cross, wherever you may wish to go, please, avoid tagging at each other. Therefore, the Ayes on the right and the Noes on the left.
Question that the Anti-Terrorism Bill, 2007, be read a second time, put and the House voted.
Ayes – (56)
Mr Akakandelwa
Mr A. Banda
Mr R. B. Banda
Mr Bonshe
Ms Changwe
Mr Chilembo
Mr Chinyanta
Mr Chisanga
Ms Cifire
Mr Daka
Mr Hamir
Mr Imasiku
Mr Kaingu
Mr Kalenga
Dr Kalumba
Mr Kazonga
Mr Konga
Mr Kunda
Mr Liato
Mr Mabenga
Mr Magande
Mr Malwa
Mr Mangani
Mr Mbewe
Mr Mbulakulima
Mr Misapa
Mr Mpombo
Mr Mubika
Mr Muchima
Mr Mufalali
Mr Mulonga
Mr Mulongoti
Mr Mulyata
Mr Musosha
Mr M. B. Mwale
Mr V. Mwale
Mr Mwangala
Dr T. K. Mwansa
Mr Mwanza
Mr Mwapela
Mr Namulambe
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Nkhata
Mr D. B. Phiri
Professor F. Phiri
Dr Puma
Mr Sichamba
Mr Sikazwe
Mr Silavwe
Ms Siliya
Mr Simbao
Mr Sinyinda
Mr Taima
Mr F. R. Tembo
Ms V. Tembo
Mr Tetamashimba
Tellers for Ayes:
Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.
Ms Cifire
Noes – (48)
Mr C. K. B. Banda, SC.
Mr Beene
Mr Bwalya
Mr Chanda
Mr Chazangwe
Mr Chella
Mr Chimbaka
Mr Chisala
Dr Chishya
Dr Chishimba
Major Chizhyuka
Mr Chongo
Mr Chota
Mr Hachipuka
Mr Hamusonde
Mr Kambwili
Mr Kanyanyamina
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kasoko
Mr Kasongo
Dr Katema
Mr Katuka
Ms Limata
Mr Lubinda
Dr Machungwa
Ms Masiye
Mr Matongo
Mr Mooya
Mr Msichili
Mr Mukanga
Mr C. Mulenga
Mr L. P. J. Mulenga
Mr Muntanga
Mr Mushili
Mrs Musokotwane
Ms Mwamba
Mr Mwansa
Mr Mweemba
Mr Mwenya
Mr Ngoma
Mr Kombo
Mr Sanda
Mr Nyirenda
Dr Scott
Mr Simama
Mrs Sinyangwe
Mr Syakalima
Mr Zulu
Tellers for Noes:
Ms Changwe
Major Chizhyuka
Abstentions (6)
Mr Chimumbwa
Mr Milupi
Mr Munaile
Mr B. Y. Mwila
Dr Njovu
Mr Sikota
Question accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.
Committed to a committee of the whole House.
Committee on Thursday, 16th August, 2007.
_______________
MOTION
ADJOURNMENT
The Vice-President (Mr R. Banda): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Question put and agreed to.
___________
The House adjourned at 1930 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 16th August, 2007.