Debates- Tuesday 16th July, 2002

Printer Friendly and PDF


Tuesday, 16th July, 2002

The House met at 1430 hours

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]




Mr Speaker: Unless there is a Member or Members who wish to say something on the Order of the Day, I would proceed, as I understand, widely consulted. Any Member who wishes to take the Floor?

Mr Sichinga (Kafue): Mr Speaker, we assemble in this House today on a very historical occasion, indeed, a momentous occasion. The matter that is before this House has never appeared before it. Accordingly, we will need to examine this matter, and the associated procedures that go with it, in the light of what our masters, who have sent us to this august House, would have us discharge.

Mr Speaker, our Constitution, very clearly, stipulates in the preamble that we, the people of Zambia through our representatives. Therefore, all we can be is be representatives. It is important that whatever steps we take today should stand the test of time, not only for today, but also for tomorrow and for posterity.

Sir, the subject matter that His Excellency the President addressed before us is a very grave one. It is so grave that we have an unprecedented situation. Never, in the life of this Parliament, has this Parliament been picketted and urged by citizens of this country. 

Let me use this occasion, Sir, to state this one thing. The hon. Members assembled in this House have no other duty, but to deliver what our citizens expect us to do. The President’s Speech indicated to us very grave issues of the nation. It is only fair that as we examine these issues, we should bear in mind the need for equity, justice and compliance with our Constitution, defective as it may be.

Mr Speaker, I also want to urge this House that because the issue is unprecedented, we may find it necessary to dispense with some of the proceedings and procedures that this House normally observes. We stand to be guided. However, the subject matter is contained in Article 43 of our Constitution and I want to make reference to it. Article 43 (1) of our Constitution found on page 60 says and if you allow me, I would like to quote the entire Article because it is important for us to understand where we are, and I quote:

‘43 (1)    No civil proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the person holding the office of President or performing the functions of that office in respect of which relief is claimed against him in respect of anything done or omitted to be done in his private capacity.’

Sub-section (2) says, and I quote:

‘A person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall not be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State.’

Therefore, Sir, the question before this august House is: what would be the interests of the State? That is what the law says. There are various options that are available to us, at the moment. I can think of are two. One option that we have is to go by the route that this House normally uses, which is usually by select committees, that a select committee be constituted for hon. Members of this House to examine the presentation by the President. After having exhausted the submissions from interested groups, this select committee will report back to the House and advise the whole House what their findings are and then allow this House to debate the submission or the report of that select committee. That is our normal procedure.

Mr Speaker, there is another procedure we follow in this House. That is through a motion that is raised by the leadership of the House or the Government and moved by, which does not require any particular notice upon which this whole House then debates.

Sir, those are the two options that are open to us now. If we go by the first option, it is likely to take some time. Understanding that our masters feel so agitated about the allegations, I think it is in the interest of this House to examine those two options in the context of what has taken place around us.

Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to mention that the thirteen plus hon. Members, who are in this House and had also sat in the previous House, will remember that in the year 2000, a motion that was moved by none other than Hon. Patrick Kalifungwa was curtailed in this very House on account of the fact that certain members were greater in number than others. Despite our submissions that it was important to examine those issues, that did not happen. Our masters outside have also made several submissions, including some articles and advertisements that are in the newspapers today. I have brought copies of them, urging us in this House that they want answers quickly. That is what is before us.

The challenge before us, Sir, is that we are going to take some unprecedented measures. On the part of my party, I want to emphasise the fact that the issue before us is not a partisan issue. It is a national issue.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichinga: We must put national interests before anything else. I have been mandated by my party to make it very clear to this House that all of us are expected to act in the national interest. For now, we believe that the national interest is better saved by allowing for an open submission of any information that is required because we do know that the President’s Speech only touched, but a tip of a huge iceberg that would sink a thousand titans. What else, Mr Speaker, have we got? 

This House, Sir, has, before it, several resolutions on the submissions of the Public Accounts Committee; the Economic and Labour Committee; and several other committees which, in the past, indicated, very clearly, there was a plunder of national resources. Our people are saying the House may soon become irrelevant unless they respond to the call of the people. Yet, I must submit that we must not act under pressure or be prejudiced, but we must act in the interest of the nation.

For my party, Sir, I wish to request the Chair to allow sufficient debate here on the Floor of the House before any of the options are taken. I think it is important for us to be fully conversant with what needs to be done. The President gave us his speech and we have all received copies.

I have in my possession, Sir, if you allow me, the speech that was given by the former President, Dr Frederick J. T. Chiluba on Sunday, 14th July, 2002, which hon. Members may not all have a copy of. I wish to request the Chair to allow me to lay this on the Table of the House so that it is available to all of us to understand what was said. However, despite what may have been said or not said, both speeches could not cover the issues that this House needs to consider in order to determine whether lifting of immunity is in order or not. 

However, without lifting immunities, Sir, there would be no way we would find out the full details - not only are we talking about removal of immunity of the former President. This House also needs to resolve that the oath of secrecy by officials that may have been given instructions on what to do need also to be lifted so that whichever investigative wing or instrument that this House chooses to use can have full access to what took place so that we can start the healing process.

Let me now talk as a Christian. First of all, Mr Speaker, the first issue about healing is that there must be an acknowledgement of wrong-doing. Subsequent to the acknowledgement of wrongdoing must be a process of either seeking forgiveness or justice. Once that has been done, the next process is to go to the stage of pardon or justice being dispensed. We must allow for a process of restitution. For those who do not go to Church, I wish to explain that restitution means to reinstate whatever damage has been done to the extent possible. Then, the healing process can start.

For those who do not believe in the Gospel - and I could hear my colleagues from the left hand side - I wish to say that we are here because some hon. Members of the MMD failed to reason with us when we said so before. Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity, Sir, to say that we, from the Opposition, have no problem whatsoever with our colleagues in Government. I believe that I speak for everybody here. We have absolutely no difficulties whatsoever to lift the immunity of the former President.

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

Mr Sichinga: We would like the truth to prevail. When we know the truth, then we can move forward.

I would like to allow my colleagues to contribute on this issue, but before I do so, Sir, allow me to lay on the Table of the House information that could be useful to this House.

Mr Hachipuka: That is their business.

Mr Sichinga: My colleagues here have informed me that this is not our business.

Mr Hachipuka: Yes, that is not our business.

Mr Sichinga: I seek your guidance, Sir, on what we need to do to move forward. Suffice to say that our mind is very clear on the way forward. We would like to do it in a manner that would be judicious and would render this House a credible and august House.

Thank you, Sir. 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: I notice that the previous contributor did not lay any document on the Table of the House.

Mrs Masebo (Chongwe): Sir, I would like us to get back to the reasons why we are here today. I do not want us to confuse ourselves as hon. Members of Parliament.

Our task today is very simple, Sir. It is to consider the President’s Speech. In the speech, there are allegations against the former President. The issue at hand today is for us to decide whether we want to lift the former President’s immunity based on the President’s Speech or not.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, we are going round using too many English words, when the people who sent us here want us to do one thing, to decide, as Parliament, whether we want to support corruption or not.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, I do not want myself to be part of the group of people that play with too many words meaning nothing. I would like to use simple English. I am Soli and I also speak Nyanja and Bemba. I would like to submit that I am not very good at English. So, the message from my constituency is very simple, ‘Go out there, and remove the immunity from former President Chiluba, allow Dr Chiluba to reveal everything else’.

In the process, we know many of us might be included. But at that stage let the process of the law take its own course. I do not believe that we are conversant enough as hon. Members of Parliament to be able to investigate and even know whether what is contained here is right or wrong. At least, a prima facie case has been established that there is something that went wrong. Therefore, for us to allow the security arms of Government to begin the investigative process, we need, as Parliament, to assist them by ensuring that we do what we are being called upon to do and to simply vote on the removal of the immunity of the former President.

We know, Mr Speaker, as politicians, that there is a lot going on outside Parliament and we do not want to be confused. We do not want to be judged harshly by our people. I am not here in this Parliament on my own. The people of Chongwe voted me and they have told me what to do. So, I beg to move to my colleagues that we should not be too smart here and confuse ourselves when the matter is simple. The matter is straightforward. I do not want us to waste time on matters which have already disadvantaged the people of Zambia. All of us here know that the previous administration misappropriated funds. We all know that people in Zambia today are poor because of the same wrong things. 

In fact, many of the parties here in the Opposition won because of the agenda of fighting corruption. There was no big debate. We just simply said that if they elected us, we were going to ensure that those who had stolen our money were going to be prosecuted and the money brought back. That is how come some of us won. Some parties did not do very well because they were associated with the previous administration. Those of our colleagues who had nothing to do with the previous administration had an easy way of convincing the Zambian people. Today, we are called upon to make a decision on behalf of the people, not to use too many words. I want to appeal to my colleagues. Let us move forward. 


Mrs Masebo: First things first. Let us not confuse ourselves with so many issues. We have read so many things in the papers and we have been told that many things are going on, even among ourselves as Members of Parliament. My submission is that we should not confuse ourselves. We must deal with what it is at hand now. I am not insinuating that the former President or the current President might be clean. All I am saying is that we should deal with the matter at hand so that we do not confuse ourselves. After that, if there are any other issues or if anybody has any evidence, they can still come here. Motions can be moved by hon. Members. The people are waiting. We cannot stay here for three hours and use so many words meaning nothing.

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mrs Masebo: I think that the President’s Speech is very clear. And there is no need to start booing me. We can just vote if you want to vote because we are here to decide what the people have told us to do.


Mr Speaker: Order! Only the Chair can grant an hon. Member an opportunity to debate. And as far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for Chongwe has been granted the Floor to contribute on an important matter. May the House, please, allow her to make her contribution. If any hon. Member has anything else to say, which may be contrary to what she is saying, that hon. Member will be given an opportunity also to contribute. There is freedom of speech in this House and this Chair will grant that freedom. 

Will the hon. Member for Chongwe continue, please.

Mrs Masebo: In conclusion, Mr Speaker, my submission on the President’s Speech is that grounds for this Parliament to move to remove the former President’s immunity have been set. We are not conversant ourselves to go into those details. But, we can assist the security arms of our Government by lifting Dr Chiluba’s immunity so that he can vindicate himself and in the process explain what he was trying to explain at his Press conference so that if he is right, the arms of Government that are responsible for such matters can clear him. And I am sure he will continue enjoying his immunity after that.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Patel (Lusaka Central):Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. I am reminded of what Chairman Mao once said, ‘May we live in interesting times’, and certainly we are. 

I would first like to pay tribute to His Excellency the President, Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC, for his honesty and brevity to have come to this House in an unprecedented fashion and submit to us a case he believes is prima facie and suggest that we lift former President Chiluba’s immunity. I would like to believe that we are not a court of law. We do not have the extensive experience of complex investigative mechanisms or the ability to unravel complex money laundering schemes and so on. Our job is simple; it is to consider not to accuse the former President. Our job, I believe, and I stand to be corrected, is to lift the immunity so that the former President can defend himself against these accusations. That is all. We are not here to convict at all. 

I would have, therefore, thought that an open debate on the speech of the President, and if necessary vote at the end of the debate to resolve the matter, is the way to proceed. If we enter into the concepts of select committees, then we could possibly be accused of not calling adequate witnesses or missing out some. We could be accused of not taking into consideration the evidence presented to the committee. We do not want to embroil ourselves in such issues. The President showed leadership by coming to this House and I would have thought the Government would have moved a step further by moving a motion that the House do now resolve to remove the immunity of the former President and then we go for debate.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Patel: I am always astounded that you take the first step and then you step back again, your Honour the Vice-President. I would have thought that this is how we could have proceeded. It is the practice of this House not to repeat what other hon. Members have said. I think I have made my point.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Sichilima (Mbala): Mr Speaker, I have very few remarks to make. Hon. Members, I wish to contribute to the motion on the Floor. Hon. Sichinga proposed two options. I do not think we will have enough time and resources to go for the first option of select committee because the same money that we would want to use, my constituency would want to use it for development. I think we have enough people who are able to do the job after we resolve here to throw the case to them. 

Mr Speaker, like the previous speakers have already said, we need to be guided by the Chair to see if we can proceed in good time.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mukwakwa (Zambezi East) Mr Speaker, the State President, in his speech, specifically stated what the former President is alleged to have committed, together with his cronies, …


Mr Speaker: Order! The hon. Member is free to debate, but pay attention to parliamentary language. The word ‘cronies’ belongs to the streets out there not in the House.

Will the hon. Member, please, debate using polite language.

May he continue, please.

Mr Mukwakwa: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the guidance. I withdraw the use of the word.

Mr Speaker, this is a grave issue for the nation. I call upon our colleagues on the other side who may not have the courage …


Mr Speaker: Order! If the hon. Member continues to use unparliamentary language, he will find that the Speaker will appear to be interrupting his trend of debating. The Chair does not wish to do so. There is no hon. Member in this House who is a coward. I believe you have been elected to the House because you are all brave and courageous men and women.  That is why you are here. So, you may not call any hon. Member as one who lacks courage. In other words, you may not call a Member of Parliament a ‘coward.’ 

May you continue. Please, debate politely and the House will listen to you.

Mr Mukwakwa: Mr Speaker, the President of the country has got investigative wings under his Government. It is on the basis of the information which he has received from the investigating agencies that he brought the information to this House.

So, what else should we go on about? The Executive, through the President, has brought the information to this House. Are we saying that we are going to doubt his information? If you are going to do that, which other agencies are you going to use other than the agencies, which the President is using? So, on that basis, Sir, what is at hand now, and forgive me if I use words, which you may think are wrong but I am talking in terms of ‘The Profiles of Courage’, a book written by one of the former American Presidents, Mr Kennedy which says, ‘There comes a time in the history of a nation when men and women must stand up to defend their country and not individuals.’

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mrs Wina (Nalolo): Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me these few moments to contribute to the debate. When the State President gave his speech to this House, he revealed a lot of glaring malpractices, abuse of power, corrupt activities by the previous Government and there is no way this august House, can condone corruption and malpractices. This House, therefore, has been challenged to fulfill one of its very crucial constitutional obligations and that is the lifting of the immunity of the past President. There is no way this House, which is a citadel of all the collective views, perspectives and aspirations of the people of Zambia, can be a sanctuary for those who want to hide under the veil of presidential immunity.

I, therefore, subscribe to the lifting of the immunity of the former President, Dr F. J. T. Chiluba, and to seeing to it that all those who have been mentioned or associated with the plunder of the resources of this country are taken to the courts of law. It is only the courts that can make it possible to recall our stolen assets and it is only through the courts of law that fat bank accounts owned by some of these culprits can be frozen.

So, Sir, I do not see why we have to go round in circles instead of facing the issue before the House.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I will come back to you (Opposition Members), let me hear what the hon. Minister for North-Western Province has to say.

The Minister for North-Western Province (Mr Mushala): Mr Speaker, I thank you so much for allowing me to contribute to the debate on the Special Address by His Excellency the President which was delivered to us last Thursday, 11th July, 2002. I know it is the first time that we are faced with such a problem in Zambia. Probably, it could also be the first time that it is happening in a Commonwealth country. 

The speech that the President delivered to this House, in itself, Sir, was not new because even in previous years, special sessions of Parliament have been called. Let me, from the onset, try to remind the House that everyday when the House is sitting, there is one very important serious business that we do and that is sing the National Anthem. I hope everyone understands the words in the National Anthem. Then, we proceed into the prayer and I hope everyone understands what is in the prayer. We always ask for guidance from God and I think he is guiding us on a daily basis. We have got the interest of the Zambian nation to consider at all times and that is why we ask for wisdom from God. Over the past few days, Christian and non-Christian Members of Parliament have been trying to reflect on that prayer. We have now come today to look at the address. We would need some guidance on how to proceed and how we are going to move.

However, it is very clear that the issues raised by the President are very important to the Zambian nation. He began by touching on the mining topic, we all got him clear and then he moved to agriculture or food shortages and then economic affairs, but I think what is more at test today is when he touched on the political and economic situation in the country. 

I would like to propose to the House, as we debate, that my opinion is that we should revoke the immunity of the former President today.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Patel: Hanjika!

Mr Mushala: Mr Speaker, when the President was concluding, he said, and I would like to quote in the last paragraph:

‘This House will be aware that in terms of Article 18 (2) (a) of the Constitution of Zambia, a man is deemed innocent until the court holds otherwise. Mr Speaker, it is not, however, necessary that the House should be satisfied beyond any standard of proof that an offence has been committed or that there is abuse of office before it can exercise its power to remove the presidential immunity. If it is satisfied that a strong case is made out or that there is a public outcry that a prosecution is necessary, the power should be invoked. I stress that Article 43 (3) of the Constitution only requires that the contemplated proceedings ‘would not be contrary to the interests of the State.’

At this juncture, I am calling upon the House not to hesitate because we have heard so many outcries from Zambians that we need to revoke the immunity of the former President. 

I would also like to mention here that it is a very sad situation, Mr Speaker, when you consider that even our school children have left school instead of learning. I want to beg and request them to get back to school. This is a task they have given us, as Members of Parliament, and we are very capable and very able to handle it. The time they are wasting giving us their support must be spent in class because they will not be able to recover the time they are wasting by coming to Parliament. That is my appeal to the students.

Mr Speaker, we have got their message and, as their representatives, we are going to decide because that is why they sent us to this House. It is important that you guide us on whether we will go into committee or a motion will be proposed so that we vote right away on this matter. We need to move fast with the business.

The President spoke at length and we have had enough time to go through his speech. I would like, at this juncture, to say that we should not speak for too long over things that are already known. Mr Speaker, I request you to guide us as we move to revoke the immunity of the former President.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Speaker: Order! We have been here since 1430 hours; and it is now 1512 hours. All I have heard is debate on the procedure to arrive at a decision. It is not the function of the Chair to direct this House on how it intends to resolve an issue. This House, itself, must resolve the issue before it now or at any other time. 

However, to do so, you have to prepare a motion. There is no motion before the House at the moment. The House is merely debating the Presidential Address of 11th July, 2002. So, if hon. Members wish to make progress, the Chair is prepared to suspend business so that you, the hon. Members of the House, work on a suitable motion to deal with this issue.

I have heard two options mentioned by the hon. Member for Kafue (Mr Sichinga) who was the first one to speak this afternoon. He said there was the select committee route and a direct route by which you, yourselves, can prepare the motion and vote on it. There are advantages in following either route. There may also be disadvantages. So, it is up to you to decide. There is no way I can put the question when there is no motion before the House. We can go on debating, but when you decide, the Chair is ready either to go the direct route, if there is a motion, or to appoint a select committee now. Either way, I am ready.

Mr L. L. Phiri (Chipangali): Mr Speaker, I do not want to be irrelevant on this important issue before this august House. What we have learnt under your leadership is that you deal with what you are given before this august House. 

Mr Speaker, before I say anything, very briefly, I still put it to the Government that after the House adjourned on Friday, the Leader of the House, or the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning or the hon. Minister of Legal Affairs, was supposed to come up with a motion which should have been seconded by the Opposition. This was not done, deliberately, because the Government has senior Members who have been with you for a long time. Why should they torture us and yet they know what to do?

Mr Speaker, a motion was moved by the Opposition, but was not tabled before this august House. Now that the President came on Thursday and addressed us, it is up to the Government this afternoon to come up with a motion which will be supported. It is simple and straightforward. Let the Government come up with a motion in fifteen or thirty minutes’ time so that we dispose of this matter.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Chitalu M. Sampa (Kalulushi): Mr Speaker, the speech of the President contains very serious allegations which this House should consider seriously because if we rush, we may, in future, laugh at ourselves.

Almost everybody is saying Dr Chiluba’s immunity should be removed. Even we, ourselves, here, are saying legal immunity should be removed from Dr Chiluba, but we must use the right procedure. Mr Speaker, this Parliament has previously set up select committees to decide on important issues like this one. In this respect, I would support Hon. Sichinga if he insisted that a select committee be established so that after the findings, we can debate in detail. After all, even Hon. Sichinga said there were a lot of things which were involved. Therefore, this Parliament should be given an opportunity to scrutinise these matters so that we come up with something …

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

Mr Chitalu M. Sampa: Please, keep cool. You will be given a chance to debate.


Mr Chitalu M. Sampa: In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to say that I prefer a select committee, which can bring its findings for us to debate so that we can come up with a conclusion. Otherwise, all of us are in favour of having Dr Chiluba’s immunity removed so that he can exculpate himself in view of allegations such as the US $12 million, which Roan Antelope Mining Company of Zambia (RAMCOZ) paid to the receivers, who acknowledged receipt of the money, but it is claimed that Dr Chiluba misused that amount. At the same time, it is said that US $35 million was paid, but nobody knows where it is. So, all these issues must be scrutinised so that we can come up with recommendations to remove Dr Chiluba’s immunity. All of us are in agreement on this matter.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hachipuka (Mbabala): Mr Speaker, I am a little disappointed with the procedure here and I need your guidance. I need clarification and advice from you whether the President of this country is not a Member of Parliament. If the answer is that he is, then we have a motion on the Floor.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hachipuka: The President came here and, in his speech, proposed a motion with detailed supporting documentation. It is very clear to me that in his presentation, he is asking us to remove Dr Chiluba’s immunity. If he has asked us to do that as a Member of Parliament, and he can do so in this Parliament, then we have a motion on the Floor and should proceed to remove the second former President’s immunity.

Mr Speaker, the people of Zambia expect results this afternoon.

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

Mr Hachipuka: We are waffling here. We are not pointed. Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House is familiar with procedure and knew that there was no motion to be presented. Knowing the feelings of Zambians, he should have assisted us and provided a motion.

Mr Speaker: Order! The hon. Member for Mbabala may recall that in the adjournment motion moved by the Hon. Leader of Government Business in the House last Thursday, he said that this House should adjourn that day to give you, hon. Members of Parliament, an opportunity to study the Presidential Address of 11th July, 2002.

The Order Paper today is very clear. It says, ‘Special Presidential Address of 11th July 2002’.This clearly tells you that you are debating the Presidential Address. He did not present any motion. 

The issue of whether or not the President is a Member of Parliament does not arise. Why? We met on 11th July 2002 as ‘Parliament’ with him here. You are meeting today as a ‘National Assembly’ without him. Why? It is because the President has no permanent seat in the House. When he is not here, there is a Leader of Government Business in the House who takes over. By the way, let me clarify this, do not use the phrase ‘Leader of the House’. It means something else. Use the phrase, no matter how long it is, ‘Leader of Government business in the House ...’

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: … because the Leader of the House is the Speaker.


Mr Speaker: So, I have assisted you. If you want to resolve this, do not blame anybody. Formulate a motion.

Hon. Members: Long live the Chair.

Mr Speaker: I have said that I am prepared to suspend business for you to go and formulate your motion.


Mr Speaker: His Honour the Vice-President, at some point today, in his capacity as Leader of Government Business in the House, should advise the House how he intends to proceed. I have provided a venue and you are all here and are free to debate. But you must debate something you can substantiate. 

The hon. Member for Mbabala may continue and, thereafter, we will hear from His Honour the Vice-President.

Mr Hachipuka: I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your guidance.

In that case, I will move the motion if the Leader of Government Business in the House is unable to do that. I was assuming that after the President had given us his address, he had a caucus with his team.


Mr Speaker: Try again.


Mr Hachipuka: It was power failure, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your guidance. My submission is that the Leader of Government Business in the House must quickly move a motion so that we get on with business. The people’s expectations are very high. 

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President (Mr Kavindele): Mr Speaker, the nature of the subject being debated is such that Government is of the view that as many hon. Members of Parliament as possible should be given an opportunity to debate. The Government does not have a problem with moving a motion. We know what we want to do.


The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, just as I sat here, I have received more information regarding this very subject. So, we do not have any problems in moving this motion, if I may emphasise. We believe that every hon. Member of this House has his or her own views and the more views we get, the better for the Government. This is not like the normal motion that we have when the President opens Parliament at the beginning of the year. This is a special motion that we will be moving and it has never happened before. Therefore, it has to be debated with cool heads.

Mr Speaker, as Government, we are aware of what could transpire if this matter is handled carelessly. So, it is Government’s view that many hon. Members of Parliament be given an opportunity to debate. You have only heard from one member of the Government. We do have the hon. Minister of Legal Affairs who also would like to guide the House on the technicalities that are involved.


The Vice-President: As Government, we will not just be moved because there are people wanting us to take action in a particular direction. Suffice to say that we are all agreed on this matter.


The Vice-President: Two hon. Members of the House, including a member of Government, are of the view that the immunity of Dr Chiluba should be removed. 

So, there is no disagreement here. All we would like to see is that all hon. Members of Parliament are given a chance so that we hear the way forward.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order! I note that there are more than twenty hon. Members from the opposition side who would like to debate. I have also seen one or two hon. Members on the Government side wishing to do so. To systematically deal with this issue, I will improvise a way even though we have rules. The Clerks-at –the-Table will take down the names of all those hon. Members who would like to speak. I will call them in the order they have indicated. 

Stand in your places to let your names be taken down so that we may make progress.


Mr Speaker: All right, do I take it that all hon. Members who want to contribute have had their names taken down? Is that correct? Give me the list now.

The Minister of Legal Affairs (Mr Kunda): Mr Speaker, what we are doing today is unprecedented not only in Zambia, but I can say in Africa as a whole. In future, people will be asking for a precedent from Zambia and, therefore, it is important that we deal with this very serious matter in a proper manner. What we have done from yesterday and today is to make consultations with Parliament; we have also taken into account the mood in the nation, what people want and the need to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

Now, the Government has no problem with raising a motion, ...

Hon. Members: Raise it.

Mr Kunda: ... but it is important that we appreciate that even if the motion is raised by the Government, the decision which will come out will be the decision of this House.

Hon. Members: We know that!

Mr Kunda: And, therefore, it is important that this House is apprised of what is involved in the two options that have been made available to this House.


Mr Kunda: Now, the first option would be to table a motion, which we can do after a short adjournment, and then we debate it and then reach a decision. The second one is to appoint a select committee...

Hon. Members: No!

Mr Hachipuka: The option of a select committee will be our second motion.

Mr Kunda: I am a lawyer here and I must tell you the legal position.


Mr Kunda: At least, have all the facts on the basis on which you can make a decision, which will be a decision of the House.


Mr Kunda: The second option is that of constituting a select committee. With the consultation of Parliament, we have analysed it and it has advantages and disadvantages.

Mr Hachipuka: I have said that will be our second option.

Mr Kunda: Yes. You see Parliament is dealing with the immunity of a person who is not here. We are deciding on his future and fate and it will have a lot of impact on a person who is not in this House. So, we are determining his fate and, because we do not allow strangers here, the only way in which strangers can be heard in this House is through a select committee. Matters of this nature go to court and, therefore, this House must make a decision, which is valid in law and will not embarrass it at the end of the day.

We now have these facts. The rules of natural justice, which we all talk about, must be considered and if there is a way in which proceedings of a select committee can be expedited, it will be under the control of the House. So, we have these two options, which Members of this House have to decide upon. If we decide that we debate the motion of removal today, we are ready to move a motion ...

Hon. Members: Move it!

Mr Kunda: But the important thing is that we will have, as Government, acquitted ourselves and explained the pros and cons and the two options which are available.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Hachipuka: Move the immunity motion first and the select committee later.

Mrs R. C. Banda (Milanzi): Mr Speaker, this House has heard enough about the remarks on these two options. As you can see, we are all for the opinion that we debate this subject today and remove the immunity today because we have enough evidence submitted by the President in this House. If the apprehension of the Government is that they would like to come and be vindicated later on, let them do so, but today we have to remove the immunity. We have enough evidence.

Some evidence is very clear. For example, on the Presidential Housing Initiative, how can Dr Chiluba be innocent even if he knows how to play games? It is not possible because he established this institution without following legal procedures. The way he talks is such that people cannot even notice that he is cheating.


Mr Speaker: Order! ‘Lying’ and ‘cheating’ are unparliamentary words. May the hon. Member use other palatable words apart from the words ‘cheating’ and ‘lying’. 

Will the hon. Member continue, please.

Mrs R. C. Banda: Mr Speaker, I apologise for the use of the words. 

Mr Speaker, and all hon. Members, let us look at the mood of the nation. These revelations started a long time ago and this is the last resort and the only hope that the nation has and it is this afternoon when things should happen. My sister, Hon. Masebo, has already said that English words will not help here. The man did not do well and as such, we should just remove his immunity.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ng’uni (Chama South): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very historical problem we have in this country. It is common knowledge that there is rampant abuse of office and misuse of resources for our country. And so, what we are calling for today is what I would refer to as unity of purpose.

Mr Speaker, we are from various parties, but I think we need to be very united here to stamp out corruption in this country. I have constantly been telling people and reminding the House, from time to time, that natural justice will always be hovering over our heads. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If my mother has stolen and there is a penalty, she must be subjected to it. I am not saying that I have capacity to judge Dr Chiluba. But why are we jittery about the whole scenario? If the man is innocent, there are courts of law that will acquit him at the end of day. There is no element of vengeance here. We are talking about putting things right. 

This country has been robbed of meagre resources that could have gone to better things that would have brought development to this country. We would like, for example, to be told – I stood up at one time in this House asking why only our country’s fuel price was higher than those in all our neighbouring countries, which are literally landlocked like Zambia. Nobody gave me any substantial reason here. Then, I should be told that tankers were stolen! Zimbabwe benefited from our fuel and we started subsidising it. Was it not enough during the federation that we took all our wealth to Zimbabwe? Must we continue subsidising it? We need a proper explanation. This can only be done through the courts of law.

Mr Speaker, on RAMCOZ, we must go stage by stage. Certain people who failed to run ZCCM suddenly became experts. They picked a company called Binani when they were actually shareholders. We need an explanation for that.

Sir, Dr Chiluba and the law are still in existence. What we should be looking at right now is, perhaps, that our learned fellow Members should look at how we can remove the immunity and have a watertight case. 

Mr Speaker, there are criminals who have plundered this economy. They plundered Meridien Bank, but were given licences  by the Bank of Zambia .to continue running financial institutions. I do not think that the people of Chama South would like me to come here and waste time. We want all those people who have soiled their hands with corruption to face jail sentences so that, maybe, the rest of us can draw lessons from there.

Mr Speaker, UNIP stood for a very noble cause. We did not have sophisticated thieves like the ones we have had recently. I want UNIP to be vindicated for what it did. This has come out now. At the end of the day, we must be mature, sober and logical. The moment we lose direction, we will have lost everything that God permitted us to have. After all, the majority in this House are Opposition Members and we want to abuse that by wanting to take sides!

Sir, I would like the immunity to be removed. This is why we have got learned people here to guide us. Before we go, I would like to lift the immunity and make a watertight case.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Nzowa (Kabushi): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this chance to debate. In this House, we are of different political parties and usually those from the Heritage Party are not given chance to speak.

Hon. Members: Aah!


Mr Nzowa: Mr Speaker, I want to say that the writing on the wall is very clear. The people of Zambia have heard too much. All they want is the immunity of the former President to be lifted so that he can face the law.

Now, the Leader of Government business in the House and his colleagues are not doing us a favour.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Nzowa: They are playing delaying tactics. The motion should have been moved. The Minister of Legal Affairs has also joined the same path. He is not assisting this House. Why are we delaying? Why should a hundred people speak when we can adjourn for fifteen minutes and prepare the motion? You have been given a chance, but you just want delay. We want to make a decision. Hon. Minister of Legal Affairs, please, do not lecture to us. We want things to be done today. If you are scared, why did you start it?


Hon. Opposition Member: We would have done it ourselves!

Mr Nzowa: I am convinced that some of the people now realise the gravity of the matter. They will be caught very soon, whether they are here or outside because they know that Dr Chiluba was not alone. So, let us adjourn for fifteen minutes and move the motion so that we do not waste time.

Thank you, Sir.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr  L. J. Ngoma (Sinda): Mr Speaker, I rise as a very serious person, to thank His Excellency the President, Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC. , for his speech which was inspiring to this House.

Mr Speaker, this country has, for a long time, lacked role models; people whom young men and women of this country could point fingers at and say, ‘I would like to emulate that one.’

Sir, what the President did on that great Thursday in the history of this country was like putting his entire life in danger. What the President needs at this point in time is total support of every Zambian who cares.

Mr Speaker, the allegations that the President brought before this House, the plunder and the wanton stealing of public resources are somewhat analogous to genocide. In other countries, right now, the heads of those who committed these crimes would have rolled. 

Sir, Zambia has been taken for granted for a long time. I rise to say that the immunity of the former President should be removed today without excuses. To debate and debate is uncalled for.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Samukonga (Chawama): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment on this very important issue.

First and foremost, I would like to commend His Excellency, President Mwanawasa, for the revelations that he made to this august House. Mr Speaker, you may wish to know that those revelations were so grave that on Thursday, I went on hunger strike.

Hon. Member: Aah! Who was there?


Mr Samukonga: Forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I look very weak. I from my Rhodespark residence to Chawama to join my people there so that we could reflect on this issue. We have been having prayers since then to try and see how God can redeem this nation because those revelations were so grave that people really felt aggrieved.

Mr Speaker, I am a bearer of a message from the people of Chawama. When I woke up this morning in Chawama, they all escorted me. They were hanging around somewhere waiting for this afternoon and they are, even at this moment, outside Parliament. If we do not remove the immunity this afternoon, I do not know how I am going to drive out of these premises. Unlike what I have heard from the Government side that they are not moved by the people who are waiting outside Parliament, to the contrary, I am very moved by the people that are gathered outside because they are the people who sent me here and I just want to do what they have asked me to do.

Mr Speaker, some of the issues that the President spoke about were known to some of the hon. Members of this House. I recall when I tried to touch on one or two issues last session, I was told to sit down as the former President was not here to defend himself. I would like to believe that this House is the highest court in the land where we are supposed to debate all issues freely and enjoy our immunities. But somehow we were suppressed. I also recall that my colleague, Hon. Dipak Patel, was at one time even threatened by someone right here in this House when he tried to speak on some of these issues.

The kind of corruption that took place did not need the President to come and explain to us. It was so evident that anybody could see it with the naked eye because some of the things were done without the sophistication of stealing if I may say so. They were bluntly done.

So, we are here, Mr Speaker, with so much evidence that instead of going round in circles trying to confuse ourselves, all we have to do this afternoon is to move a motion. If the motion has not been moved, let it be moved by whichever person so that we vote on it because that is what the people are waiting to hear. Some people have travelled from as far as Copperbelt Province. So, we have a very big responsibility to make a decision, which will be in the interest of the nation.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Pwele (Roan): Mr Speaker, we are here as a House elected by the people. The people outside are the ones who are for the removal of the immunity. It is not the President of the State. It is the people of Zambia who need the immunity removed so that they can know the truth. The most important point to remember is that the people elected us to this House. We make and amend laws and, therefore, we have to do what the people need.

We are not against Dr Chiluba. We do not want to crucify him. The point is he has to exculpate himself. There is no way you can accuse Mr Chanda and he, in turn, points a finger at the former President. That is unfair because it means you are choking justice itself. His immunity must be removed so that if Mr Donald Chanda is telling lies, Dr Chiluba will defend himself. But, I ask the House, Mr Speaker: if we are not removing the immunity, then what are we trying to do? We are trying to assist Dr Chiluba by removing his immunity so that he defends himself.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Nyirenda (Kasenengwa): Sir, first of all, I would like to say that I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the Leader of Government business in the House is not ready to move the motion. Therefore, I propose that we break for fifteen minutes so that the Opposition can move the motion. We are ready to do that.

Mr Speaker, I did not want to say much, but I would like to quote this verse, which the people of Kasenengwa told me to read to the House. I know we have learned Members in here, but we have also got religious people. I would like to quote from the Bible to indicate what type of leadership we want both from outside and inside here. I will quote from Isaiah 32 :1-4, and I quote:

‘Some day, there will be a King who rules with integrity and national leaders who govern with justice. Each of them will be like a shelter for the wild and a place to hide from storms. They will be like streams flowing in a desert, like a shadow of giant rock in the barren land. Their eyes and ears will be open to the needs of the people. They will no longer be patient, but they will act with understanding and will say what they need.’

Mr Speaker, I will strongly ask this House that we must say what we mean. People there have spoken. Section 43 (3) of the Constitution of Zambia requires us to act in the public interest, as long as there is a public outcry, and all of us have seen the public outcry. I, therefore, strongly request that we break for fifteen minutes and move a motion to remove the immunity of the former President today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwale (Chipata): Thank you very much, Sir, for giving me this rare opportunity.

Today marks a historical day for this small, fledgling democracy. The people in the communities, churches, universities, streets and everywhere have spoken. They have demanded one thing - the removal of the immunity of the former President.

The burden of performance lies on this House today. We have got to perform. If we are representatives of the people, we shall follow what the people have asked us to do.

I would like to take this House back a bit. In the First Session of the Ninth Assembly, most of us, if not all, on this side and quite a good number over there, tried to bring up this issue. We unanimously agreed that we should remove the immunity of the former President. I do not see anything that has changed fundamentally today for us to change heart. We have got to remove his immunity.

I would like also to say that our founding fathers when they were putting up this provision in the Constitution of Zambia had a good heart. They meant well. But, I think that this provision has been grossly abused and it is no longer serving the purpose for which it was intended. In removing this immunity, we are not trying to be vindictive, but we are trying to put a deterrent for serving and future Presidents for the sake of the future of this country.

Mr Speaker, I think that, in fact, because of the wanton plunder of the economy of this country, this country is now in dire need of reconstruction and removal of this immunity is the first step in this reconstruction process.

I speak very briefly, Sir, but in ending my presentation, I would like to tell this House that failure for us to remove the immunity today, renders all of us redundant and I think we should quit.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order! Before I call on the next hon. Member to contribute, let me guide the House properly.

A motion for decision of this House could be prepared and circulated in the House today, but for debate tomorrow. Those are the procedures. I do not mind who wishes to move that motion, but again, in accordance with the requisite etiquette, it ought to be the Leader of Government business in the House.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order! I have to state he is not scared. That I will state.


Mr Speaker: He could prepare a suitable motion for circulation today. You should study it overnight and come back tomorrow and deal with it. Those are your procedures. Otherwise, you will have to amend them. But I do not think you have time to amend procedures right now. You do not have the time. There is a reason why there is this time lag. And if that were done today, by tomorrow, you will appreciate as to why there is this time lag. But had you wished to go the select committee way, I am ready. 

So, under the circumstances, in terms of your wish to go by the direct route to resolve the matter before the House, let the motion be prepared and circulated as you debate the Presidential Address. When you decide that you have sufficiently dealt with the Presidential Address, I will adjourn the House and you will come back tomorrow to deal with the direct route motion. Understood!

Mr Liato (Kaoma): Mr Speaker, my contribution will be very brief. Considering what has already been said by other hon. Members, I just wish to add that the contents of the President’s Speech were elaborate and very clear. Most of us who are in the House, and many other Zambians who are outside this House, know not only what was contained in the President’s Speech, but many other issues that relate to the previous Government that whose tenure of office ended in December last year. 

I think what is before this House is not whether we are going to try Mr Chiluba or not. What is before this House is the question of whether we can remove the immunity or not. And the rules of natural justice will not be infringed upon in any way because he will be given an opportunity to answer when he is tried before the rightful courts of law or whichever forum will try him. This Parliament is not going to try Dr Chiluba. We are simply trying to open up so that he comes from a house, which is surrounded by this term we call ‘immunity’. Let him come out of that house so that the nation can access him and ask him questions and then only will he be able to answer. If we remove this immunity even without him appearing before this House, we are not breaking any rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice will only be broken if we try him without being heard and we are not trying him. 

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I want to agree with other hon. Members who have spoken that the right thing for us to do is to move quickly. And I thank you for giving us guidance that we can prepare this motion now. I would like to believe that the Government would move this motion timely and circulate it so that tomorrow we can decisively deal with this matter. I will definitely deliver the message from Kaoma Constituency and this is to lift the immunity of the former President.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Captain Moono (Chilanga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to debate the President’s Speech. 

I am sure many of those who were in the previous administration are shivering. No wonder we are failing to get the motion in time. This, indeed, is a lesson to us, politicians, to learn to live within our means. What has happened, indeed, is very embarrassing not only to this country, but to Africa as a whole. We have shown that we are not able to look after ourselves. We have been looking for donor funding and aid and yet, Zambia has been giving aid to politicians privately.


Captain Moono: I want to thank the Zambian people, especially the students from the university, for the solidarity they have shown us their leaders. Because without their voice added to this House …

Mr Speaker: Order! Proper procedure - and we must learn very quickly - does not recognise strangers in this House. Reference to outsiders is reference to strangers. Debate! The voters have sent you here. You are resident here. Debate on behalf of the people. 

May the hon. Member for Chilanga, please, continue and leave out strangers.

Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, I am a bearer of a message from my constituency that wants the removal of immunity from Dr Chiluba. Indeed, the removal of this immunity will be meaningless if relevant Government organs will not move in as the President said. They have been dilly-dallying, that is according to his speech, on the pretext that there is political interference. And the President said that he was now giving every organ that was supposed to perform independence to do so and he assured us that there would be no political interference. 

Sir, if we remove the immunity from Dr Chiluba today or tomorrow, I expect the former President to be arrested immediately. Otherwise, our coming here and removing the immunity will be meaningless if those who have plundered our economy will still be on the streets. This is a serious matter in the history of this Parliament. For the first time, the MMD hon. Members of Parliament will be required to vote with us…


Captain Moono: … and we will enjoy being with you.


Captain Moono: On several occasions, you have always toed your party line, instead of the interest of the nation. 

Mr Speaker, the inertia that has been exhibited today by the Executive cannot go without comment. The people of Zambia are anxiously waiting for us to deliver and take home what they require us to do. But, unfortunately, since the President addressed this House, nothing has been done. And I am sure you should learn from this that the removal of the immunity from Dr Chiluba will entangle a lot of you who have dirty hands and we shall ensure that whoever socialised with those who plundered this economy also socialise with those who will be arrested in prison.


Captain Moono: We are tired of being bundled together and called names that politicians are not honest. No wonder the former administration did not care about getting their salaries. Some salaries were stolen without their knowledge, while they were busy plundering this economy and externalising our money.


Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, the President also mentioned that, in this House, some of us have dirty hands and we know that not only from this House, but people from churches and some traditional leaders were feted at State House. This is a lesson to everybody to start realising that receiving stolen money is an offence.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Captain Moono: My appeal to those who got the money, before we embarrass them, is that they should bring back the money honourably.


Captain Moono: You should, from today, hon. Members, learn a lesson not to drag the churches and our traditional leaders into politics by bribing them and plundering our economy. It has become almost a tradition that each time you have a political question, you say traditional leaders are behind you after you give them some envelopes. This, indeed, is degrading our traditional leaders.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Captain Moono: And unknowingly, now, they will be netted. We shall have no Chiefs and there will be no prayers.


Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, I am not a very happy Member of Parliament today to say these things. I am a Christian, but I think some Christians have gone too far. They use the excuse of being a Christian nation to rob our nation of a lot of money. While we close our eyes to pray, they are busy running away with the money.


Captain Moono: I am proposing, Sir, that the phrase ‘Zambia is a Christian nation’ be removed because it has lost meaning. How could a devil make such a declaration? It was wrongly declared. Let the rightful body declare Zambia a Christian nation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, the removal of immunity from the former President should not take us years because I can see everyone from the ruling party smiling and I am sure they are going to vote with us and it should be an open ballot so that those who are going to vote otherwise are noticed and we shall immediately know that they benefited.


Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, this issue of corruption by the MMD was brought up in the last sitting and I am informed that some people who helped this House to give evidence have been fired by this Executive sitting here, and you told us …

Mr Speaker: Order! The Chair will give the hon. Member for Chilanga the necessary latitude to debate, but he is not allowed to accuse other Members of Parliament without prima facie evidence. You may debate the President’s Speech freely, but be courteous in the manner you accuse other Members of Parliament. They have the immunities and rights to be protected by the Chair. If any of them is found, as you infer, to be netted in the dragnet, that will be for the courts to decide and not for this House. 

You may debate and debate very freely.

Captain Moono: Sir, the President’s Speech …

Business was suspended from 1615 hours until 1630 hours

Captain Moono: Mr Speaker, when business was suspended, I was saying that during the speech by His Excellency the President, he mentioned his concern about roads. He mentioned that around April, the Government did release K12 billion for the rehabilitation of the feeder roads. I want to put it on record that this K2 billion per province has not been utilised for the intended purpose. Is it a perpetuation of the plunder we are discussing? If not, where is the money? 


Captain Moono: And in which bank account? Is it Zamtrop?


Captain Moono: Our people are crying for better infrastructure and yet, despite the Presidential directive, there is still inertia by those who are charged with the responsibility to deliver services. This cannot be left to continue. I am now warning those who are impeding development that the law will catch up with them in a similar manner it is about to catch up with the former President.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr  Kakoma (Zambezi West): Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate on the President’s Speech to this House.

Mr Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the issues that were raised by the President in his speech to this House. First of all, I am happy that the President unveiled the secrecy around the accounts that are operated by the Office of the President. In the past, we have tried, as Members of Parliament, to unearth some of the thefts of public funds going through the Office of the President, but this has been difficult because of the secrecy that surrounds the operations of the Office of the President. 

Now that the President has given authority to this House to freely and openly debate the accounts of the Office of the President, we think that all the thieves that are stealing money through these accounts will be caught. I believe that what the President tried to do was just to give us examples of the plunder of public resources through Zamtrop. I would like to believe that the Zamtrop account in London was not the only one used for the plunder of national resources. 

I would, therefore, like to suggest that we should not only look at the Zamtrop account when we are scrutinising expenditure for the Office of the President. We should extend it to other accounts that are held by the Zambia Intelligence Security Service because there could be other accounts that were used to siphon money from this country. Therefore, if we confined ourselves to the Zamtrop account, we would leave out a lot of public funds that were stolen using other accounts. 

For example, somebody informed me that there are other accounts held by some ministries abroad with single signatories. The Ministry of Health is one such ministry, which has an account in Johannesburg with one signatory from the Ministry of Health and this, of course, can be abused. I, therefore, think that we should not confine ourselves when we are scrutinising the scandals related to corruption only to the Zamtrop account.

Mr Speaker, the President gave us cases of the alleged abuse of office or corruption or theft of public funds. In those examples, some names were revealed, some relating to relatives or friends of the former President. I would like to believe that although the argument by the former President is that these were for security reasons, I wonder what security can be performed by a child of a President or, indeed, by a person like the Chief Justice, unless he was spying on other judges. I would also like to believe that there is no security work that can be performed by the F. J. T. Institute for Democracy and Industrial Relations Studies that required them to be paid. I think not. It was just a way of siphoning public funds from this country, a way of stealing public money. I think that since we have evidence that the F. J. T. Institute was and is still being constructed from public funds, that institute must be confiscated and given to the rightful owners, the University of Zambia. After all, it is being built on University of Zambia land.

Mr Speaker, there are also suspicions that the Office of the President could have been used to buy vehicles for the ruling party and I think that it is important, as a nation, that we clear this suspicion surrounding the vehicles for the ruling party, MMD. I think by inspecting all the accounts of the office of the President, we may be able to find that they were either purchased using Government funds or not. If they were not, then we should allow them to freely drive them around, but if they were purchased using public funds, then I think they must be forfeited to the State. If they are forfeited to the State, I would like to propose that these vehicles be allocated to the offices of Members of Parliament in various constituencies.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr  Kakoma: Mr Speaker, the President has created those offices in each constituency, but there is no transport. We need to use those vehicles to carry out developmental work.

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

Mr  Kakoma: Mr Speaker, I also wish to refer to the President’s mention of the purchase of military equipment. First of all, it is surprising that a country can prefer to deal with an individual rather than a reputable company to supply important military equipment to this country. Under normal circumstances, a country is not supposed to deal with an individual; it should deal either with other nations or with a reputable organisation in the supply of sensitive items such as military equipment. As the President implied, it has now become clear that the individual who was entrusted to supply military equipment to this country has turned out to be a swindler. I would like to appeal to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs to bring this swindler to Zambia to stand trial. For the first time, my cousin, Hon. Mapushi, must be able to stand up and tell the President that his directive to declare this person a prohibited immigrant is not in the interest of this nation. He must be brought here, even if it means using Interpol or other means, to stand trial together with the other swindlers who facilitated the swindling of the Zambian economy.

I think it will be a bad precedent if each time we deal with an individual who is a crook or who is acting against the interests of the State, you find that such an individual is deported. We should avoid such actions as was the case in 1991, when we had a drug trafficker, Issa Galedou, who was deported when he was threatening to spill the beans.

Mr Speaker, I would like to believe that the case of Katebe Katoto that the President mentioned is just one of the cases of military supply or purchase of military equipment by Zambia. There are and could be many cases of the purchase of military equipment. We have the Auditor-General’s report concerning the Zambia Defence Force purchase of military equipment and other requisites that revealed a lot of irregularities. 

I think this House would be doing injustice if we confined ourselves to the President’s Speech in which he only named the purchase of military equipment from Katebe Katoto. We must widen the net and look at all the cases that involved the purchase of military equipment for this country.

Mr Speaker, I would also like to make an observation concerning the RAMCOZ saga as mentioned by the President. In his speech, the President indicated that he wanted to set up a commission of inquiry to find out where the money for RAMCOZ went. However, I would like to believe that the President was just giving RAMCOZ as an example. The nation is asking where the money from the privatisation of all the parastatals is. I think that if a commission of inquiry is to be established, it will be a waste of time and resources to confine it to RAMCOZ. Such a commission of inquiry must be able to look at all the cases of privatisation of parastatals in this country and try to establish where the proceeds from the sale of these parastatal companies are.

Mr Speaker, the major thrust of the President’s Speech was the issue of immunity of the former President. I would like to be put on record as agreeing that there is need for this House to lift the immunity of the former President. However, the question that I would like to pose is: after the lifting of his immunities, what next? I think that there is need for Parliament to make a resolution for the establishment of a public tribunal where every Zambian, including those who are serving under oath can go and testify for or against the allegations that have been levelled against the former President and, indeed, any other cases of corruption involving either the existing leaders in Government or those in the Opposition or any other person in this country. 

I think it is important that the public be given an opportunity to have a say regarding corruption in this country. I think it would be wrong to confine an important matter like this one only to Parliament or to courts of law because not everybody can come to Parliament and speak. We should, therefore, facilitate the creation of a forum where every Zambian can openly go and contribute to the case that we are debating today. This is important because in our quest to root out corruption, we would not achieve much if we confined ourselves to only arresting one person or imprisoning him. Corruption involves a lot of people and if we are to have a lasting solution to corruption in Zambia, we must widen the net so that a lot of corrupt people are nabbed.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Nangoma?

Hon. Members: He is not in the House.

Mr Speaker: He is not here. Then the hon. Member for Mongu can take the Floor. 

Mr Simenda (Mongu): I thank you, Mr Speaker for affording me this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I must state, from the beginning, that I am very disappointed as I stand here at this point in time. 

Mr Speaker, when we adjourned on Thursday, 11th July, 2002, I thought that the Leader of Government business was going to consult with his colleagues and come up with a motion this afternoon, which would have enabled us to debate meaningfully. Now, we are debating in the wild and I think the public, including the people who were in the galleries have gone away because they are disappointed. We are not debating the real issues.

Mr Speaker: Order! I shall not hesitate to point out that there can be no reference to strangers in this House and that includes the reference to strangers in the galleries. They do not have any bearing on how you debate and resolve national issues. You are leaders and must lead and debate and resolve freely. 

Will you debate the speech before the House.

Mr Simenda: I thank you, Sir, for your guidance.

The Republican President told us on Thursday how much money has been stolen, how much has been embezzled, including various crimes that have been perpetrated. The issues that we have are very grave and I am worried about the manner we are debating because I think we are trying to water down the gravity of the problems that we are experiencing at the moment. 

The offences that have been committed, in my view, are crimes against humanity similar to what the former President of Yugoslavia, who has been indicted by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, committed. We are talking about murder. People have died because we have had no medicines in hospitals. People have left schools because there were no materials and teachers were not being paid and so on. We are talking about economic sabotage. So, really, what are we here for?

I would like to propose, Mr Speaker, that we have a motion tabled this afternoon.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Simenda: We should resolve this matter today.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Simenda: It will be embarrassing for us to walk out of here without reaching a conclusion. We want to go.

Mr Speaker, I would like to say that if our colleagues in the Government are not able to do this, could you, please, tender your resignations today...

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Simenda: ... so that people who are serious can govern the affairs of this nation.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Simenda: There was a reference to motions requiring notice. You will guide me, Sir. I am looking at Standing Orders 33, on page 17, and I would like to read and lawyers should guide me if I am wrong:

‘Every motion requires notice except motions: 

(c) raising, at the earliest opportunity, a matter involving a prima facie case of breach of privilege’. 

Is this not what we are talking about here? 

Hon. Member: No!

Mr Simenda: The motion should be tabled today and we should debate it today and vote on it. As for the people of Mongu, they have told me that we should lift the immunity of the former President Chiluba.

Mr Speaker: Order! I know you are all consulting your Standing Orders. Regrettably, it does not work. I tried, too, to consult my book here and I have not found any exception. These rules were meant to guide and enable this House freely within the time stipulated to resolve issues. The issue referred to by the hon. Member for Mongu is on privileges; your privileleges here, and not privilege elsewhere. We have searched, there is no provision.

I can, however, say that I believe that His Honour the Vice-President is polishing up on the motion to be circulated during the course of today for debate and, if you so wish, resolution tomorrow. I believe that is happening.

The Vice-President: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I am told this is happening. So, let us debate in preparedness for a decision tomorrow.

Mr Moonde (Bweengwa): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

In the first place, I would like to say that we are all unanimously agreed here that the immunity of the former President should be removed. I think there is no doubt about that. Having said that, I wish also to express my indignation over the way the Government has handled this matter, especially the Leader of Government business in this House.

I think if we are serious to resolve this matter, we can resolve it today. The ruling party had all the weekend from Thursday last week, they had all the caucuses and they should have brought a motion for debate and resolution today, so that we do not start fumbling about here now.


Mr Moonde: So, the Government is directly responsible for delaying this matter to be resolved ...

The Vice-President: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

The Vice-President: Is the hon. Member in order to blame the Executive for non-presentation of the motion...

Hon. Members: Yes, yes!

The Vice President: ... when he knows fully well that the President came here on Thursday and we did not meet on Friday and that the regulations of this House require that we give you notice overnight? That is what the Speaker has been saying all along. Is it in order, therefore, for that gentleman to blame us?


Mr Speaker: Order! The hon. Member for Bweengwa may continue, bearing in mind that informative point of order.

Mr Moonde: I thank you for your protection. 

Sir, having said what I have said, I think everybody should move along to have this matter resolved once and for all. On my part, I have been sent by the people of Bweengwa to demand not only the removal of immunity, but that the money that has been taken away must be brought back. They have also said that if there are people within the Executive who are in Parliament now who helped in looting the economy of this nation, those must also be brought to book as well. This is what the people of Bweengwa want. 

Mr Speaker, as UPND, we have also resolved that the immunity be removed. But allow me also to ask the Executive to take immediate action on issues which do not need the lifting of immunity on the former President because in the speech by the President, there are several issues of criminal nature which do not necessarily need the House to remove the immunity of anybody because the prosecution could be started by the law enforcement agents. 

So, I think it is high time those issues were tackled. I was also of the view that today, we suspend if there are any relevant Standing Orders that we need to suspend, so that we can deal with business and resolve this matter once and for all. We can even sit up to 0200 hours tomorrow morning because the nation is boiling in anger and they do not want us to come to Parliament all the time without resolving the matter.

I would have loved a system whereby we can sit, have a motion drafted and brought for consideration of this House so that we can deal with this matter once and for all. I would, therefore, ask you to use your discretion and see whether as lawmakers, we can have this matter resolved once and for all. I think if we resolve it today, it will be better than waiting until it is too late. The nation is pregnant with a lot of anger and I am happy, for the first time, to see Hon. Mundia Sikatana strongly agreeing with me.


Mr Moonde: I think this is what should be done. So, regardless of what has been said, I would like to beseech you that something be done. The motion should be circulated today, ready and debated and a decision made. I think we can find a leeway somewhere. This is my appeal.

I thank you, Sir.

The Deputy Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services (Mr Chipili): Mr Speaker, in contributing to the debate on the speech made by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia to this House, I would like to restate here that the Government brought the matter to Parliament and the Government will go all the way to defend and ensure that the immunity is removed for fair play. Our position is very clear on this one. The reasons are simple and straightforward. The nation has been made to speculate, allegations have been made and that is not healthy for a country. It is becoming dangerous. It requires that these matters be investigated by competent bodies of the Government so that those allegations can either be proved or disapproved. This will also help the former President to walk with his head high if, indeed, he did not commit those offences. This will redeem the MMD Government.

We came on the platform of telling the people that we will not condone corruption and theft and we will not allow anybody in our midst to do that. In keeping with that, every sincerity is subject to proof and this is our proof. Therefore, …

Mr Hachipuka Interrupted.

Mr Chipili: Hon. Member for Mbabala, you will do fine to keep quiet and listen. When I am talking, you keep quiet. 


Mr Chipili: The Speaker only gives chance to one hon. Member to speak at a time. That is the regulation here. 

Mr Speaker, it is important that the process is undertaken, of course, legally because this is Parliament where laws are made and we have procedures that are well documented. As such, we believe that the matter will be dealt with diligently and accordingly so that the nation can move forward.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal (Namwala): Mr Speaker, I would like to agree with a number of hon. Members of Parliament who would like the immunity of Dr Chiluba to be lifted today. 

I concur with the hon. Member for Bweengwa (Mr Moonde). Four days ago, we were asked by the State President to remove the immunity of Dr Chiluba. Now, we are being told that we have to go with procedure. Why did the Government Bench not do what they were supposed to do over the last four days? During the Budget debate, we worked until 2200 hours. I for one am prepared to be here to resolve this matter. I am getting the impression that, maybe, the Government Bench does not agree with the State President.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal: You may say that it is an internal matter, but you have a big problem. The President asked us to remove the immunity today, yet I do not hear any cheering from your side.


Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal: You did not even do your homework to give us the motion today. Would you like to change sides?

Mr Speaker, the President asked us to remove Dr Chiluba’s immunity. We, on this side of the House, are ready to do so. What should go on record and what the people of Zambia should know is that President Mwanawasa has been let down by his own bench.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal: Also, this exercise could have been done months ago. However, let me remind His Honour the Vice-President that he actually threatened Hon. Dipak Patel. Now, the President of the nation came to Parliament to address us, yet it seems the Government is not taking it seriously.

Mr Speaker, I am a new Member and I do not know how valid the regulations you have mentioned are.


Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal: I would also like to say that I am very disappointed that we are leaving this House without resolving this issue.

I thank you, Sir.

The Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives (Mr Sikatana): Mr Speaker, I take the matter before this august House to be one of the most important ones this country has ever faced since Zambia was born.

Hon. Opposition Member: Since you were born!

Mr Sikatana: No, I was born long before.


Mr Sikatana: For the moment, I feel that what we should address first is the procedure. Mr Speaker, because of the gravity of the situation, not because of any fears of any crowds that may be surrounding any premises, but because of the importance the people of this country attach to this issue, this matter deserves to be dealt with expeditiously.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Now!

Mr Sikatana: I have already declared my interests. I am for lifting of the immunity. I am also positive that the Constitution has taken care of the rights of any person that may be affected by any moves by Parliament to remove the immunity of any person that held the office of President.

Mr Speaker, if we looked at the article pertaining to the protection of the office of the President, it is obvious that the laws of this country protect any person that is involved. Even if you lifted the immunity of Dr Chiluba today, the institution that deals with his rights under the criminal laws of this country is the court and not the National Assembly.

Sir, it is very clear that the reading of the provision that protects a person that held such office relates to the interests of the State and not of the person. Article 43 (2) says, and I quote:

‘A person who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President shall not be charged with a criminal offence or be amenable to criminal jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held the office of President, unless the National Assembly has, by resolution, determined that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State.

Mr Speaker, my humble interpretation of this is that what is paramount about one’s rights is contained in another part of the Constitution that deals with your right when it comes to criminal charges against you. You still continue to be innocent until proved guilty. This House will make no findings attached to Dr Chiluba, but will only concern itself with the interests of the State. One of those paramount interests of the State is to deal expeditiously with allegations contained in the speech by the President.

Now, can we do it today? I say, we must.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sikatana: Do we have a provision? I say, we do. I stand to be corrected because I am a new man here.


Mr Sikatana: Standing Order 33 (f) reads as follows:

    ‘Every motion requires notice, …’

Meaning that you have got to give notice to come to debate the following day.

    ‘…except motions:

(f)    ‘ in regard to which notice is dispensed with by the leave of the House.’

Now, I take it, Mr Speaker, that this matter is so important that …

Hon. Opposition Members: Move the motion!

Mr Sikatana: That is my diet as you are aware.


Mr Sikatana: Unless we do so, we should not give any excuse whatsoever because this provision enables this House to suspend orders, grant leave and so on. Here is an opportune moment where we are not giving ourselves powers. They are already there.


Mr Sikatana: In the circumstances that we are, let us be fair to this country. There are people who have died fighting for this country. Their bones would be turning, Mr Speaker, if we let them down. The people have spoken. Let the people’s representatives now speak. The longer we procrastinate, the more we will prove to the nation that there are people that are prepared to betray Zambia and I am not one of them. I take this to be serious and there are no jokes about it.

I, therefore, move this motion …

Hon. Opposition Members: hear, hear!

Mr Sikatana: … that this House dispense with the provision requiring notice with respect to the motion that the Government is preparing to place before this august House, in order to enable the House to have the motion circulated, debated upon and determined tonight.

Thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order! The hon. Member for Kafue has already spoken.

Mr Sichinga: I am raising a point of order.

Mr Speaker: It is too late to raise a point of order.

The Chair would like to guide the Executive to consult on these matters. It does not help for hon. Members of the Executive to have different opinions on this matter. You have to consult and work as a team. So, it does not help to debate in the manner that you have without a motion being available in the House.

Miss Sialumba (Mapatizya): Mr Speaker, I believe I am the one on the Floor. So, could I be protected and let my colleagues listen to me because I have been listening to the earlier speakers. I believe I deserve to be listened to as well.

Mr Speaker, I stand here as a very disappointed mother. I thought when we came here, we were all going to come and do one thing. I do not want to dwell much on that one because so many people have made their own statements that befit them.

Mr Speaker, I wish to make reference to page 24 of the President’s Speech, and I quote:

    ‘Investigations in the operations of the two companies have revealed that the Directors/Shareholders for both MISSL and MISSL Associates are Mr Attan Shansonga currently Ambassador (USA) and Mr Faustin Kabwe of Access Finance.’

Now, I wish to find out, Mr Speaker, whether this Mr Shansonga is still serving as our Ambassador in the United States of America.

I will also move towards the last paragraph on the same page, and I quote:

    ‘Only two properties have been identified as belonging to Mofed Limited in England.’ 

It also says there are no details as to how these directors were appointed and 
how much they were being given.

The other information that I wanted to find out, through you, Mr Speaker, is whether this company is still in existence. There has been a lot of speculation as regards this. I also wish to inquire whether we still have the same directors or new ones are now in place.

Mr Speaker, from Thursday last week, we had a lot of speculations. In certain quarters, it is alleged that hon. Members were not interested to have the immunity of Dr Chiluba removed or revoked. I think it is a very sad situation if some of our colleagues in this House want to make us seem as if we do not know why we are here. Most of my colleagues will remember correctly that we noticed corruption by our colleagues on the other side a long time ago. Unfortunately, most people did not want to believe us. So, I am wondering why certain colleagues of ours would like to derail us. With all this evidence, I think we should, indeed, go ahead and do what we are here for. 

When we were coming this afternoon, Mr Speaker, there were many mothers and children that were standing outside and they all wanted to hear what their parliamentarians were able to do. Because of the procedure that has been given to us by the Speaker, I do not know and I wonder if there is any other way that we will be able to proceed. 

Mr Speaker, lastly, the immunity of Dr Chiluba should be removed. But then I would wish to appeal to this august House that we spread our net wider so that whoever got any money, whether it is a cent or not, should be able to account for it. I am wondering if it will spare so many of us here from both sides. Whether there will be five or six of us clean, that is what I would like to see. We should cast our net wider from the northern part of the Zambezi River to the southern part so that there will be tadpoles, frogs, big and smaller fishes and snakes in the net. Then, we will be able to pick what we are looking for. Even innocent tadpoles will also be caught in the same web. But I am sure we will be able to throw them back into the water.

Before I sit down, I think it is just right and fair for the Zambians to be able to know what type of leadership we are going to have. If, for instance, I am going to be found on that list as a beneficiary of the Zamtrop account, let me resign from this House because we are looking for a clean set of leadership. It would not be right for me to condemn one individual when I know that I am also a culprit.

Mr Speaker, we know that everyone has eyes set on this House this afternoon. His Excellency the President went through his list and unless I am deaf, he said that it was endless. So, I would like to ask, through this House, that as this motion comes to the House, we should have the full list. We do not want to start speculating. Speculations are bad. 

Lastly, Mr Speaker, this is a very serious problem that we have as Zambians. I would like the leaders of the people out there to try to look at this problem with level-headedness. If we do this thing haphazardly or, maybe, play to the gallery, we may lose track. Let us all look at it as a national problem and as people with foresight who want to stop all these ills.

Mr Speaker, if you recall, at one time, I stood in this House and talked about how mothers and children were suffering out there. So, if our colleagues, truly, embezzled these moneys, can we ask them to bring the money back. At least, out of US$80,000, I am sure we will be able to buy ambulances which we need for our mothers and children and we will be able to buy medicines that all of us will benefit from.

Mr Speaker, …

Hon. Government Members: Capwa.

Miss Sialumba: Yes, capwa, but I want to tell you, guys, that this is a very serious problem.


Hon. Government Members: No!

Miss Sialumba: I know that when finally this list comes, it will be … {mospagebreak}

Mr Speaker: Order! Will the hon. Member for Mapatizya, please, address the Chair to avoid being derailed by hecklers.


Mr Speaker: Their intention is to derail you. 

You may continue.

Miss Sialumba: Mr Speaker, indeed, there are a lot of hecklers who would like to derail me. 

The point that I am trying to make to the nation today and the world, at large, is that this is a serious problem we have on our hands. We need to look at it and resolve it amicably. I think it would be an honour as hon. Members to stand up and say, ‘I am a partaker of all these ills. Let me just move away and allow others to come in.’ I think we would be making progress.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, we can go on and on. There are eleven hon. Members who wish to take the Floor. It is up to you to let these eleven hon. Members debate or do either of the following: to study the motion that has just been circulated, satisfy yourselves, now, which normally you would do overnight, that everything on this motion is technically and legally correct. If there will be time to do so, you could then proceed to do what the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives made reference to. I am not myself certain, if I may say so, that provision applies to the situation like this. It has applied to a situation where, say, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning is moving a monetary Bill and he says because of the matters that are involved, ‘By leave of the House today, Sir.’ And then I put it to the House, ‘Is it your wish that such and such an item be handled now’? and then I put the question: ‘As many of that opinion say, ‘Aye’, and then, ‘To the contrary say, ‘No’.

That has applied to a situation like that. So far as history shows, we have not dealt with a situation like this. However, if the House, without pressure, is ready for His Honour the Vice-President to move this motion and he asks the leave of the House to do so today, and I put the question, the record will show that the question was put …

Hon. Opposition Members: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Order! Do not debate when the Chair is on the Floor. 

If the House agrees by leave of the House that this motion is to be debated and resolved today, the Chair will have no hesitation to do so, but bear in mind that the reason for any motion to be dealt with, at least, overnight, is to allow each one of you to research and scrutinise the words, language and law behind a motion to ensure everything is in order.

Let me remind the House; if you say ‘Aye’, or ‘No’ to a faulty motion, you could be disgraced. I am not in a position to tell you whether this motion is in order or faulty, it is up to you to decide whether …


Mr Speaker: It is up to you because those are the potential dangers you may have to deal with when you are setting a precedent in the Commonwealth on matters of this nature.

Mr Tetamashimba: It has not been seconded.

Mr Speaker: With regard to secondment, I am aware that a motion from the Executive needs no secondment. So, I do not think it is faulty …


Mr Speaker: … because it has come from the Executive. I am looking at the words, their meaning and legal implications which I, myself, have had no opportunity to study. 

Does His Honour the Vice-President want to move his motion?



The Vice-President (Mr Kavindele): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in terms of Article 43 (3) of the Constitution of Zambia, this House do resolve that Dr F. J. T. Chiluba who has held, but no longer holds the office of President may be charged with any criminal offence or be amenable to the jurisdiction of any court, in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of President and that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State, and further that the immunity available to him be removed.

Mr Speaker: Your Honour the Vice-President, when do you wish the motion to be debated?

The Vice-President: By leave of the House, now, Sir.

Hon. Members of Parliament applauded.

Mr Speaker: Order! You do not clap in this House. You may say ‘hear, hear’!

Is it your wish that leave be granted for the House to debate the motion now?

Leave granted

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate what is rather a very difficult motion. This motion involves a man who served this country for ten years and did perform to the best of his ability. 

However, Sir, allegations have been made against the performance of Dr Chiluba whilst in office and these allegations are extremely serious and they were the cause of the President’s Address here last Thursday, 11th July, 2002.

Mr Speaker, it is very important that in proposing this motion, people of good will look at it from the fact that this removal will make it possible for Dr Chiluba to clear his name. Indeed, the allegations made are so serious that Dr Chiluba is not able to move anywhere in Zambia freely as of now.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President: It is hoped that once he is given this opportunity and it is proved to the rest of Zambia that he, in fact, is innocent of the charges, Dr Chiluba will be acquitted and join, again, the multitudes of free people in this country and be free to carry out his business without any fear of people who may wish to harm him at all.

Trying to stop the removal of immunity from Dr Chiluba will cause us more problems because for a long time to come, people will always accuse Dr Chiluba of having done wrong things. So, it is my considered opinion, Sir, that we are not saying that Dr Chiluba is wrong. We want to give Dr Chiluba, his accusers and everyone else, the opportunity to clear his name.

Mr Speaker, it is with that in mind that I seek the support of this whole House in having the immunity granted to Dr Chiluba removed in order to enable him have the opportunity of clearing his name.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr L. L. Phiri (Chipangali): Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank you for giving me, once again, a chance to debate on the motion before this august House.

Sir, this is what we have been waiting for.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr L. L. Phiri: Sir, as Members of Parliament, we know that democracy starts from here and what we are doing should be well understood. Mr Speaker, when we are in this House, we should be the first ones to practise and understand law and we should put things right so that the nation understands what we are trying to do. 

Mr Speaker, I support this motion fully.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr L. L. Phiri: The speech of the President, which was presented before this august House on Thursday, 11th July, 2002, was well meant. It was intended to ensure that the former President became a free man in this country. The revelations in the speech are intended to clear Dr Chiluba’s clean record. No one should be afraid of what was raised. Mr Speaker, we should not pretend that what was raised are allegations against the former President.

Mr Speaker, a precedent has been set in this country and we have to adjust to the situation. Hon. Sichinga did mention two procedures of how we can look at this issue. One of them is by a select committee. But knowing that a select committee will mean inviting people, we do not know when it can finish its deliberations. It may take six months because anybody who will be called to give evidence to this select committee might mention other people. That is out. 

The good part of this motion, Mr Speaker, why we want it to be debated today, …


Mr L. L. Phiri: I am a senior Member, you listen. 


Mr L. L. Phiri: I have had people like His Honour the Vice-President who has been in UNIP and he has taught me well. I have a number of leaders like you, Mr Speaker, and my father, the Deputy Speaker, who have taught me to have that true leadership and focus on issues. I will never be derailed. I am a people’s representative and I know what I am talking about.

Mr Speaker, why we want to deal with this issue quickly is that we do not want to be misunderstood. As you have been told already, some of us are laymen and do not know the records which can be brought before us. We would like to hand over this matter to investigative agencies who can investigate properly and then let the person mentioned defend herself or himself. That is what we want your Parliament to do. We do not want to be misunderstood.

In supporting this motion, I put it to you, Sir, that the only way we can do this is to call the relevant authorities out there to investigate who is involved in all this plundering of Zambian resources. Our people are dying and young ones cannot go to school. Farming in the Southern and Eastern provinces is not there, roads have been in a bad state for ten years or more. People cannot afford to keep extended families in their homes because they do not have the capacity to be guardians or parents because some people somewhere were busy misusing Government funds. They never thought of others. So, we want to set a precedent that when you are elected to a public office, you have to know that you should give others before you take. What we are doing today will even set a base for hon. Members of the Front and Middle benches to be honest.

The Constituency Development Fund was not used as it was intended because people were eating anyhow because they knew what their leaders were doing. Fertiliser in our constituencies has never reached the farmers because of corrupt practices in the Government of Dr Chiluba.

Mr Speaker, I know much has been said that anybody whose name is being mentioned in Zambia should never be afraid. We want them to be free Zambians. We want them to be moving freely. As other hon. Members have pointed out, since some people came out of power, they can never go in one of the Shoprite shops here in Lusaka because their names have been dented. So, this process, which we have now started, will clean them to be statesmen and women.

Mr Speaker, as a leader who talks facts and who is honest, and of few words, I put it on record that I support the motion of removing Dr F. T. J. Kafupi Chabala, I do not know all those names, …

Mr Speaker: Order! The Chair calls on the hon. Member for Chipangali to name the names of the former President as officially correct as is required. 

May he do so now.

Mr L. L. Phiri: I cherish your guidance, Mr Speaker. I end by urging hon. Members here who have clean hands and clean suits to support this clean motion to remove the immunity of Dr F. J. T. Chiluba today in this august House.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister for Copperbelt Province (Lieutenant-Colonel Kafumukache): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion. I would like also to thank you for giving us guidance regarding the procedures concerning this debate.

The current state of affairs in Zambia, Mr Speaker, is a lesson to all Zambians about how we are going to choose the next President of Zambia. When we got independence, we elected Dr Kenneth Kaunda and you saw what happened during his rule. There was dictatorship. People were being detained at random. There was corruption. Let us not deny it. 

Then, came 1991, we had this problem where the President wanted to appease the nation by giving handouts and this is the result. Some of us have been telling people how to elect a President by choosing and investigating and not being emotional. I hope Zambians are learning from what is happening today and tonight.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Lieutenant-Colonel Kafumukache: I am speaking on behalf of the people of the Copperbelt and Kasempa Constituency who have suffered because of what happened during the past regime. We have retirees that have not been paid. We have companies, MINEVA, RAMCOZ, including former ZCCM, where people have not yet been paid. We have shanty compounds where people are suffering. Their water and sanitation are in a terrible state. We have people in the rural areas that can barely survive and can only have one meal per day if they are lucky. Yet, we had people in leadership who could bank or transfer millions of dollars into personal accounts. This is the type of leadership we elected. 

I am aware that a lot will be debated. One thing we must ensure, as a House, is that apart from lifting the immunity of former President Dr Chiluba, we also need to discuss how we are going to bring back the money that is banked in Switzerland and elsewhere.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Lieutenant-Colonel Kafumukache: It is not right to just take someone to court and he gets away with it. We want that money back so that we could tar some of our roads or invest in diminishing towns or cities like Ndola and Luanshya.

Sir, this is why hon. Members of the House must look into these issues so that we can make sure that we get back this money. 

I am grateful about your guidance, Mr Speaker, regarding the two options we had and I think in view of the prevailing situation in the country, we chose the right option. If we make a mistake, at least, we have passed on the required message.

I thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Ms Nawa (Mandevu): Mr Speaker, I am grateful that you have given me an opportunity to contribute on this motion. 

Firstly, I would like to commend the Republican President, Mr L. P. Mwanawasa, SC. for his boldness and courage to bring out this issue, which has affected our nation. At present, our nation is in a state of disarray. Our people are suffering and many die every day because of the few people that were very selfish and only thought of themselves and their children.

Mr Speaker, I really want to congratulate the President because he is, indeed, a true so of Zambia and a true Zambian who loves this country. We need more people like him in this country so that we can walk with our heads high when we move around in many other nations.

Mr Speaker, a lot of things have been said and I do not want to repeat, but I am a bearer of the message from Mandevu Constituency that the immunity of the former President should be lifted.

Thank you very much, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Muleya (Choma): Sir, I thank you for according me the opportunity to add my voice to this very important motion.

First of all, in agreeing with the removal of the immunity of the former President, Dr Chiluba, I would like to briefly make comments with regard to the advocacy of the President last Thursday.

Mr Speaker, with regard to mining, this country has always relied on the mining industry. However, over the last ten years, these mines have been sold, but the proceeds from those mines have not been fully accounted for. My heart grieves to note that this wonderful country can be led in such a manner as to deprive the people of Zambia of their livelihood. This cannot be accepted and it is for this reason, among others, that I support the removal of the immunity of the former President.

Secondly, Sir, as regards food relief, the people of Choma die from hunger everyday. This is not only because there has been drought, but because of the policies that were passed by the MMD Government under the leadership of the former President Dr Chiluba. We had institutions that were responsible for the implementation of agricultural policies. All those are no longer there because leaders who were not interested in the livelihood of the people superintended them. Now, the people of my constituency have no basis upon which to raise their livelihood.

Mr Speaker, I am the bearer of a message from the people of Choma Constituency and they stated that this House should resolve, without any delay whatsoever, the removal of the immunity of the former President.

Mr Speaker, the President did speak about the state of the economy and mentioned the amount of money that was diverted from this economy for dubious purposes. Today, this economy may not have been in the manner it is. Today, schools that are dilapidated could not have reached that stage because there could have been money to repair them. Similarly, the roads would have been usable.

Mr Speaker, the earlier speakers have already stated the effect and the need to have these people who benefited from State funds to be brought to book. In this respect, I would like the Leader of Government business in the House to appropriately amend this motion so that it covers the people who are supposed to be dealt with.


Mr Muleya: Mr Speaker, some of the ills were committed in his personal capacity as well as his official capacity. There is need to be conclusive to ensure that justice is done.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kabaghe (Matero): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion in its entirety. Looking at the speech delivered by His Excellency the President last Thursday, seven issues are clear why I support this motion. 

The President talked about the procurement of military equipment. This country, at this point in time, has incurred a staggering loss of US$20.5 million. He went further to talk about the Zamtrop account and, indeed, he indicated that there was a prima facie case, and that there was something wrong with the way that particular account was used. He talked about the Mofed account, both in London and in Tanzania. It is clear that there was something wrong with what really transpired, vis-à-vis the kind of allowances that were being given. 

Further, he talked about the sixty-seven fuel tankers. That is a lot of fuel for this country. He went further to talk about the complexity of the PHI. We all know and we did debate the issue when we were debating the Budget that something was seriously wrong with PHI. He further talked about the sale of parastatals, especially ZCCM. The list goes on and on.

Mr Speaker, this was just from the President’s Speech. We also do know of several other malpractices, which have made this country lose huge sums of money. There is obviously adequate information, which the President summarised as a prima facie case, which we, as Parliament, should look into so that we can actually remove the former President’s immunity. Now, no one should take this Parliament to be vindictive. This Parliament means well and this Parliament is not one which sits as a court to prosecute. This Parliament is for fairness and what we are doing here is to have the former President Chiluba account for all these allegations. That is all we are asking for. This Parliament is not qualified at all to investigate whatever transpired, nor issues tabulated here. We have proper investigative wings of Government to carry out this assignment.

Mr Speaker, this is what the people outside are crying for and this is what Parliament should do; to let the appropriate wings of Government do the work.

Mr Speaker, my heart bleeds that at this point in time, we are talking about serious hunger in this country, yet we are told that some people were able to buy or pay tailors US$1.1 million. In the meantime, the Food Reserve Agency had been crying to be funded to have food in reserve, but there was nothing because of issues such as these. Indeed, there is a prima facie case that should be investigated. Going by this, I am not saying that the former President is guilty, but that there is a case for investigation to take place. With all this, I have no choice but, indeed, to support this motion before the House.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Kalumiana (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to contribute to the debate. As I stand here, I am a very sad man because of the manner or the way the Government side has performed.

Mr Speaker, initially, a picture was painted of the Opposition. It was all in the papers and even talk around town indicated that it was the Opposition that was against the removal of former President Chiluba's immunity. But what has come out today clearly indicates that the Government side did not do its homework.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kalumiana: And this is the more reason why there were a lot of contradictions amongst the Government side. This is sad and very embarrassing. I can see a situation whereby when it comes to the remaining process of either finding the former President Chiluba guilty or not, you will stand to be embarrassed.


Mr Kalumiana: I am really wondering whether there was consultation amongst Government prior to the President coming to address us. You cannot run a Government like that. No wonder you people were sad when the President was delivering his speech.


Mr Kalumiana: That is not good. I would like to tell you that we in the Opposition are very lucky. You can imagine that amongst ourselves, we were pointing fingers at each other. Particularly my party, there was a lot of talk that UPND is against this, that they are scheming, they are doing this and that. But now we have seen who the actual schemers are.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear! {mospagebreak}

Mr Kalumiana: Mr Speaker, I want to appeal to the Leader of Government business in the House that the onus is on him to provide quality leadership that is expected of his office. We will not withstand a situation where we are called all sorts of names in the streets such as a rubber-stamp Parliament or whatever.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Opposition for a job well done. At least, the people out there know who the schemers are.


Mr Kalumiana: Who the engineers are.

Mr Situmbeko: The dribblers!

Mr Kalumiana: So, it is up to the Government to prove their case. I rest my case here.

Thank you, Sir.

The Minister of Health (Dr Chituwo): Aah! Mr Speaker,...

Hon. Member: He is caught unawares!


Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share in this debate. In the first instance, I am happy to be part of the history that this country, through this National Assembly, has made.

Mr Speaker, the motion was very clear and it is also clear that Parliament is not a court of law. What we have done this afternoon is to share in the responsibility of managing and administering the country. The Executive has played its role, the National Assembly has played its role and now it remains with the Judiciary. It has to be made very clear that these remain allegations until the former President Chiluba appears before the courts of law. And this is how it should be. We have done our job and we will have to be judged as to whether...

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1815 hours until 1830 hours.

Mr Speaker: Before I ask the hon. Minister of Health to resume his debate, I wish to announce that I still have a few hon. Members of the House who would like to debate, but I want to remind the House that we cannot go on debating in view of the fact that this House has not suspended relevant Standing Orders for the House to go on debating beyond 1955 hours. Therefore, hon. Members must remember that this House must rise at not later than 2000 hours. I would like then to urge those who are taking the Floor to be as brief as possible so that the mover may wind up his motion and a vote taken in good time. 

Will the hon. Minister of Health continue, please.

Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, when business was suspended, I had started saying that this House has done its job to strengthen the management of our country. I also said that the National Assembly was not a court of law. Therefore, it will hand over the further aspect of legal proceedings to the relevant authorities.

Mr Speaker, it is very clear that the mood of the nation is expectant. However, as we have stated here, I think we are all agreed that Dr Chiluba is innocent until proved guilty. This is what the law stipulates. Therefore, the populace would be advised that they should not do anything contrary to what is perceived to be correct under the eyes of the law. We have done so well so far and really, it should not be spoilt. The law must be obeyed.

Mr Speaker, finally, it is clear that the national interest has been put as the first priority. There is nothing like saying that the Opposition was the champion because it was the President of the Republic who set the motion going and his Executive was totally and completely behind him.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kapita (Mwinilunga West): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this rare opportunity to contribute to the motion on the Floor.

Sir, I would like to start my contribution by congratulating the MMD on being magnanimous enough to accept that there is corruption in their party.

Hon. Government Members: There was!

Mr Kapita: When did it stop?


Mr Kapita: On a serious note, Mr Speaker, our people have suffered. I am one person who has stood here consistently to talk about our lovely fruit, the pineapple from Mwinilunga, which used to feed the people of Mwinilunga and Zambia respectively. Somebody just went there, took the plant which was used for processing pineapples and sold the machines. Now, there is no industry there. We still have the same Government in power. I hope this will serve as a lesson that, really, when people complain, you should listen. We have said consistently as a party that there was too much corruption and now they agree with us. My only hope is that they will change for the better.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kapita: A lot of things have already been said and I do not intend to repeat what has already been said, but what is important is that the MMD will expect support from other parties. That can only come when they cleanse themselves because we know that there are still some people within who need to be cleansed.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Shumina (Mangango): Mr Speaker, as a nation, we have reached a crossroads. May I put it on record that, on behalf of the FDD Members of Parliament and those Zambians both home and abroad who began the anti-Third Term war and all of us present here, tribute be paid to you, for the manner in which you have handled the session of this august House this afternoon.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Long live!

Mr Shumina: It has never happened, Sir, in the history of Africa, let alone SADC that a former President is brought to an august House. The people of Zambia, with your guidance this afternoon, have proved that in spite of the problems, suffering and crises which obtain in our homes and villages due to difficulties which have been brought about by the MMD Government in the past ten years, still have hope; there are still men and women who love Zambia.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Shumina: Mr Speaker, having said that, I would like to focus on some of the issues that concern this nation with the interest of the nation at heart. Of course, it has been very clear that the dignity of this House can no longer be doubted. I am sure we shall all leave this august House as proud men and women who have the interest of Zambia at heart.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Shumina: Mr Speaker, having said that, it is cardinal for us to start looking at the manner we run our politics in this country. I came to this House about five years ago. I sat on your right side, Sir. As a back-bencher, we reminded our colleagues in the Executive that the MMD Government was destroying itself and some of our colleagues who are actually present in this House thought that we were back-benchers who did not know what we were talking about. But, this afternoon, we have seen the pressure of the will of the people of Zambia. This afternoon, we have seen that when your colleagues, regardless of their status in society, mention something that is important, you should listen to them, no matter how big and strong you feel in that office. We have seen, this afternoon, that the Executive was jittery. It is like there was no Cabinet to decide on this issue.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Shumina: Mr Speaker, we have seen His Honour the Vice-President move a motion for tomorrow and the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives comes and says we want it now. When we started debating, our colleagues on the right hand side of this House were looking at one another as if they did not know what they had come here for this afternoon.

Hon. Opposition Members: Shame!

Mr Shumina: Mr Speaker, we are saying that the Government should put their house in order because their house is the whole country. As a party, the MMD is running the affairs of everyone in this land. It is also important to state the fact that as politicians, we should have the capacity to choose our country when we are asked to choose between our offices and this nation. I strongly believe that those that sat with Dr Chiluba, if they were strong like the way some of us used to oppose the Third Term and other issues, Dr Chiluba should not have been the subject of our discussion this afternoon. I hope that even our current Republican President will learn that some of those who pretend to advise are just safeguarding their jobs.

Mr Speaker, I have seen His Honour the Vice-President is slightly uncomfortable. So, I will finally say that all Zambians should consider that today, there is no winner or loser.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Shumina: We have done what we have in the interest of the nation and all of us should now wait and see whether the allegations that have been levelled against Dr Chiluba are actually a crime that will make him enter prison or not.

Thank you, Sir.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: It is evident to the Chair, and I hope you can hear me, that the House is of one mind because I no longer hear new points coming forth. Accordingly, and for the reasons I have given, and what is likely to become apparent shortly, I have to call upon His Honour the Vice-President to wind up his motion.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Opposition Members: Long live, the Chair!

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all colleagues who have contributed to this motion. It is, indeed, a very important motion that I do seek your indulgence to bring to the attention of the House some documents which His Excellency the President, was not able to deliver because keys to the safe at the ministry had gone missing, but they have now been found.

In the address to Parliament last week, His Excellency, the President, Mr Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, indicated that he was unable to produce exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ being the agreement signed with Mr Katebe Katoto because the keys to the safe at the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, where they had been kept, had been misplaced. He indicated that he would send these to the House, through me, at a later stage. He has managed to locate some of these documents which he has directed me to table before this House with the following message, which I deliver on behalf of His Excellency the President:

‘I have managed to locate some of the contracts and I am causing to be tabled a bundle which is marked ‘Exhibit A’ which is a contract made between Terraton EAD, the supplier and the Government of the Republic of Zambia represented by Raphael Soriano. You will observe that at page 5 of this contract, Mr Raphael Soriano who is, in fact, Katebe Katoto, signed as an authorised appointee on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Zambia. Who authorised him to sign on behalf of the Republic of Zambia? In such cases, contracts like that are signed by either the Permanent Secretary or, indeed, the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning. The signature of Raphael Soriano is clearly that of Katebe Katoto.

You will observe from page 2 of this agreement that the payments were to be 20 per cent down payment, 20 per cent after inspection of goods by letter of credit, 60 per cent after delivery of goods by letter of credit.

I further enclose, marked as ‘Exhibit B’, an agreement dated 11th September, 1999, made between Mr Raphael Sariano and the Government of the Republic of Zambia. In this agreement, Mr Raphael Soriano who is described as the lender undertakes to give a facility to the Government of the Republic of Zambia, which is described as the borrower up to US$100 million, which was to be repaid in accordance with close to US$2.2 million for an initial ten-year period.

There is a further agreement that was made between the hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning and Katebe Katoto under which Mr Katoto agreed to advance to the Government a sum of US$15 million. This is marked as ‘Exhibit F’.

It suffices to say that if the US$100 million was to be advanced by Mr Katoto, the question of Zambia failing to pay for the military equipment hardly arises because Mr Katoto had undertaken to pay this money on behalf of the Government. It is clear that he did not make the payment just as he did not advance the US$15 million, which is mentioned in ‘Exhibit A’.

I am unable to find another agreement that was presented to me and made between Raphael Soriano and the Government of the Republic of Zambia under which, somehow, the Zambian Government was requested to raise US$35 million as an advance payment, but out of which US$15 million was offered to ‘Exhibit B’ advanced by Soriano to the Government. That advance was not made either. The fact remains that the sum of US$20.5 million was paid by the Zambian Government and as I said, it has never been recovered and the military equipment has never been delivered. There are other interesting letters and documents that are annexed to this bundle, which I leave to the House to study.

You will notice that in the letter of the Attorney-General dated 11th March, 1999, he advised against signing this facility for the reasons that he gave. That advice does not appear to have been complied with.

There is also a letter written by Mr James M. Mtonga, the then Secretary to the Treasury dated 11th September, 1999 to Mr Raphael Soriano in which he undertakes to remit to Mr Soriano, a down payment needed to make the above mentioned agreement effective, that is, the agreement regarding the US$100 million for the supply of military equipment signed on 11th September, 1999. It is copied to Hon. Eric Silwamba, MP. Why should it be copied to Hon. Silwamba? The House will need to analyse this aspect …


The Vice-President: 

… with the statement by the former Republican President that he had nothing to do with this procurement since, according to him, it was a matter between the defence forces and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. 

Since the delivery of the speech to Parliament, I have received representations from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning reading as follows:

Payment to Leonardis Purpotis – US$800,000 Zamtrop account. In 1999, the former President, Dr F. T. J. Chiluba entered into an oral agreement with Mr Purpotis for the purchase of the Black Velvet property. The agreed purchase price was US$1.3 million, although the property is estimated to be valued at just about US$100,000. Upon being interviewed by the auditors, Price Waterhouse & Coopers, Mr Purpotis has confirmed receipt of the total amount of US$800,000 broken down as follows: on 2nd March, 1999 – US$300,000; and on 17th August, 1999 – US$500,000.

The two payments were made from the Zamtrop Account No. 58C/40/070185/01. Surprisingly, the property is still registered in Mr Purpotis’ name despite receiving the US$800,000 …’

Mr Speaker: Order! Sir, you are re-opening debate and it is advisable that you wind up the debate. The fact that you are going to lay the documents on the Table of the House will do. Any hon. Member who wants to follow this up can actually go to the usual places and study these issues. So, I request that you wind up your motion and we make progress. I think it is good for the nation to hear, but I suggest that you lay the papers on the Table so that we wind up your motion and make progress.

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, I thank you so much. In fact, I was winding up. The other documents are those that I am going to deliver. I just have three more documents.

‘Ms Stella S. Chibanda and an officer from Access Finance travelled to the USA to finalise the deal. Most payments were raised by Ms Chibanda’s secretary for payment into Account No. 58C amounting to US$8 million. A company called Sibilis Limited, a subsidiary of Access Finance, has also participated. Directors are yet to be confirmed. 

A company called Wilbaning Incorporated, which was paid US$1,750,000, does not exist as company name search both in the UK and USA have yielded nothing. There is no evidence that maize was received from Southern Pacific Limited for the amount of US$17 million they received. The records at all the borders have been verified and are now available. Ntambabashila, a subsidiary of Chani Fisheries, received US$100,000. Directors are Raphael Soriano who also appears as a director of Sokoma, the Congelese company that wanted to buy Ndola Lime at the instruction of State House. A letter from Mr Donald Chanda, former Special Assistant to the President, to the ZPA Chief Executive is available. 

A loan from Finance Bank of US$4 million was obtained in September, 2001. This loan was paid as follows: Supla Holding, a subsidiary of Astro Holding, – US$1 million; B.K. Belgium Facility of Raphael Soriano – US$2 million; and Zamtrop Account – US$1 million.

The Government now owes in excess of US$20 billion. This loan was negotiated for by Mr Bede Pande, contrary to the normal Government procedures of entering into loan agreements. 

The Government had paid US$11.4 million to the African Development Bank (ADB) between 1st January, 2000, and 1st January, 2001, as debt service. Considering that Zambia had qualified to the enhanced HIPC Initiative in December, 2000, the ADB in June, 2001, refunded the money. After the Government received this money, Mr Boniface Nonde issued instructions to Zambia National Commercial Bank on 13th July, 2001, directing that US$7 million out of the US$11.4 million meant for HIPC be transferred to the B.K. Account in Belgium. 

The Government borrowed funds from the World Bank under the Public Sector Reform and Export Promotion Credit. Of these funds, US$3.5 million was also sent to the B.K. Bank in Belgium in 2000 under payment authority No.124/2000. 

In my address, I had spoken about a personal-to-holder motor vehicle which was bought for Mr Chanda at K120 million and then sold to him at K2.5 million within three months. I wish to tender my apologies for misleading the House. The motor vehicle was actually bought on 1st March, 1999 at K101,929,000 and sold to Mr Chanda on 19th November, 1999, which was some eight and half months afterwards at K2 million. I now table before this House a copy of the vehicle card as Exhibit ‘G’ disclosing these transactions. 

I should mention that the same thing was done to Mr Richard Sakala who had a similar personal-to-holder motor vehicle, which was sold to him on 16th November, 1999, at K2 million. I produce a copy of the vehicle card as Exhibit ‘H’. The beneficiary being referred to as B.K. is Mr Katebe Katoto.’


The Vice-President: 

‘When I produced Exhibit ‘C’, I had unfortunately omitted other ledger statements. I am causing these to be tabled before this House as part of Exhibit ‘C’. 

Further, since my address to this House last week, I have been handed by patriots two letters written by Mr Richard Sakala, Chairman of PHI both dated 25th November, 2001, to Standard Chartered Bank with other bank documents in which he requested that the bank remit, from the PHI bank account, US$68,625.25 and US$26,025 to Jessie Channel Island and to Zimbabwe respectively. I am causing copies of these documents together marked Exhibit ‘I’ to be tabled before the House.’ 

Mr Speaker, that is the message from His Excellency the President, which completes his documentation that he delivered on Thursday.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues who have supported the motion. As you can see, this is just the beginning. Figures are now getting bigger. So, I hope that the Zambian people will take this in the stride that it is and leave this matter in the hands of the appropriate authorities to investigate. If we, the untrained people try to get involved in this, we may mess up what is, in fact, a strong case. It would appear that Mr Katoto was a beneficiary of a lot of funds, including those from HIPC and, perhaps, that money should find its way back to Zambia for the Zambian people.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, I wish to move an amendment to the motion that I presented as circulated.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Your Honour, you may have to assist the House properly, amend your motion in the places you were referring to because the House will then have to vote on an amended motion. 

May you tell us exactly where the amendments are to be effected.

The Vice-President: Mr Speaker, the motion is the removal of legal immunity in respect of former President Mr F. J. T. Chiluba. Amendments are made in lines 4 and 7 by the deletion of the word ‘shall’ and the substitution therefor of the word ‘may’ and the deletion of the word ‘interest’ and the substitution therefor of the word ‘interests’ respectively.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Let me guide the House. Ordinarily, the House, through a voice vote, determines a motion, unless a Member rises to demand a division, especially when not less than twelve Members standing in their places support that Member. This, hon. Members, is not an ordinary motion. It is necessary, therefore, since this House is setting a precedent, that each one of you be recorded in the manner he/she will have voted on this motion.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: The Chair, therefore, directs that a division be done on this motion as it is unprecedented. Under the circumstances, I would call for the bell to be rung and the bar area to be closed. 

Question that in terms of Article 43 (3) of the Constitution of Zambia this House do resolve that Dr F. J. T Chiluba, who has held, but no longer holds, the office of President may be charged with any criminal offence or be amenable to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of any act done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while he held office of the President and that such proceedings would not be contrary to the interests of the State, and further that the immunity available to him be removed, put and the House voted.

Ayes – (140)

Mr Appel
Mr Badat
Mr A. Banda
Mr C. R. Banda
Mr. R. J. Banda
Ms R. C. Banda
Mr Y. H. Banda
Mr Bwalya
Mr Chambeshi
Mr Chewe
Mr Chibamba
Mr Chibanga
Mr Chikoti
Mr J. S. Chilufya
Mr S. Chilufya
Miss R. Chipampe
Mr S. B. Chipampe
Mr Chipili
Mr Chisala
Miss Chisupa
Mr Chitala
Mr Chitanga
Dr Chituwo
Mr Chola
Mr G. C. Chulumanda
Mr R. K. Chulumanda
Mr A. J. D. Chungu
Mr E. K. Chungu
Mr Filamba
Mr Gray
Mr Haakaloba
Mr Hachipuka
Mr Imenda
Miss Jere
Mr Kabaghe
Lieutenant-Colonel Kafumukache
Mr Kakoma
Miss Kakoma
Mr Kalifungwa
Mr Kalumiana
Mr Kalunga
Mr Kamwendo
Mr Kangwa
Mrs Kangoma-Kapijimpanga
Mr Kapita
Mr Kasoko
Mr Kasonde
Mr Katema
Mr Katoka
Mr Kavindele
Mr Kayaba
Mr Kazala-Laski
Mr Kombe
Mr Kunda
Mr Lembalemba
Mr Liato
Mr Lubinda
Mr Lungu
Colonel Makumba
Mr Manjata
Mr Mapushi
Mrs Masebo
Mr Masowe
Mr Mazimba
Mr Moonde
Captain Moono
Mr Mooya
Mr Mpombo
Mr Mtonga
Mr Mubiana
Mr Mudenda
Mr Mukuka
Mr Mukwakwa
Mr Mulela
Mr Mulenga
Mr Muleya
Mr Muliokela
Mr Mumba
Mr Mungo
Mr Muntanga
Mr Musanya
Mr Mushala
Mrs Musokotwane
Mr Musonda
Mr Mutati
Mr Muyanda
Mr Mwaba
Mr Mwaimba
Mr Mwale
Mr Mwanza
Mr Mwape
Mr Mwiimbu
Mr Mwila
Mr Nakalonga
Mrs Nalumango
Mr Namakando
Miss Namugala
Mr Nangomba
Miss Nawa
Miss Nawakwi
Mr Ng’uni
Mr L. J. Ngoma
Mr P. A. Ngoma
Mrs Nkumbula-Liebenthal
Mrs Nsingo
Mr Ntundu
Mr Nyirenda
Mr Nzowa
Mr Patel
Mr I. M. Phiri
Mr L. L. Phiri
Mr P. G. Phiri
Mr Pwele
Mr Sakeni
Mr Sambwa
Mr Chiti M. Sampa
Mr Samukonga
Mr Shakafuswa
Mr Shemena
Mr Shepande
Mr Shumina
Mr Siakalima
Ms Sialumba
Mr Sibetta
Mr Sichilima
Mr Sichinga
Mr Sikatana
Mr Silavwe
Mr Simbao
Mr Simenda
Mr Sinkala
Mr Situmbeko
Mr Sokontwe
Dr Sondashi
Mr Tetamashimba
Mrs Wamulume
Mrs I. M. Wina
Mr Zimba
Major-General D. Zulu
Mr P. M. Zulu

Tellers for Ayes:

Mrs Masebo
Mr Sichilima

Noes (0)

Question put and agreed to.



The Vice-President (Mr Kavindele): Mr Speaker, I thank the whole House for their overwhelming support. I now wish to adjourn the House, but let me remind hon. Members of Parliament that we shall have the normal sitting beginning Tuesday, 23rd July, 2002.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1941 hours until 1430 hours on Tuesday, 23rd July, 2002.