Wednesday, 17th February, 2016

The House met at 1430 hours

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

__________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY MR SPEAKER

ACTING LEADER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to inform you that, in the absence of Her Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Development Planning, who is attending to other equally important Government Business, the hon. Minister of Justice, Dr Ngosa Simbyakula, MP, has been appointed Acting Leader of Government Business in the House from today, Wednesday, 17th February, 2016, until further notice.

___________

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN BWEENGWA

The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mwila): Mr Speaker, I thank you for according me this opportunity to issue a statement on the politically motivated violence that took place in Bweengwa, the Southern Province, on 13th February, 2016, at about 1800 hours.

Sir, the facts of this unfortunate incident are as follows:

(a)    His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, was in the Southern Province to check on developmental projects. On Saturday, 13th February, 2016, he addressed a public rally at Bweengwa Primary School, for which a large number of people turned up;

(b)    the President’s rally ended peacefully just before 1800 hours and the Presidential entourage left for Itezhi-tezhi;

(c)    shortly before the end of the rally, the police had received information to the effect that unknown persons believed to be United Party for National Development (UPND) supporters had blocked the Monze/Niko Road, which leads out of Bweengwa;

(d)    to protect the people who would use the Monze/Niko Road after attending the rally, the police decided to escort them in a convoy. As a result, only a few police officers remained at the venue of the President’s rally to ensure the safety of public property and officers who had to clear the venue;

(e)    realising that the people leaving the rally were protected by the police, some suspected UPND supporters started chanting slogans and throwing stones at the public officers who had remained at the venue;

(f)    the few police officers left at the site were overwhelmed and requested for reinforcements. Fortunately, the reinforcement arrived at the scene in good time and managed to contain the situation; and

(g)    by the time the police contained the situation, three police officers and some members of the Zambia News and Information Services (ZANIS) team had been injured and four Government motor vehicles damaged.

Mr Speaker, the matter is currently under investigation and I assure this august House that the Government is doing everything possible to bring the perpetrators of the violence to book. The violence witnessed in Bweengwa should, accordingly, be condemned by all well-meaning Zambians because it has no place in a democratic society.

Sir, the Zambia Police Force has deployed more officers to the Southern Province to ensure that all our people are protected from the violence being instigated by misguided political activists. The police is also currently training all the officers to ensure that they are professional in policing public gatherings.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, let me take this opportunity to urge all political party leaders to ensure that their members conduct their political activities peacefully. Democracy demands that we promote and protect the fundamental freedoms of association, assembly and speech. The police will, therefore, deal very firmly with cases of political violence without fear or favour. All political activists who use violence as a means of advancing their political goals must take this timely warning, as my Government will not condone political violence.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the statement just issued by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs. From the outset, however, I must say that we should transact our business in an orderly fashion. The doors are open for those who are not able to exercise self-restraint. If you do not leave voluntarily and disturb our business, I may have to ask you to leave.

Mr Muntanga (Kalomo Central): Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Home Affairs aware that over twenty buses ferried Patriotic Front (PF) party cadres from Lusaka and Mazabuka to Bweengwa, and that the cadres have continued going there? If he is, what is he doing about it?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I am not aware of that. However, I am aware that the people who were in those buses went to attend the rally addressed by the President.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Belemu (Mbabala): Mr Speaker, in his opening remarks, the hon. Minister said that the attacks were politically motivated. He also said the perpetrators of the violence are unknown, but believed to be United Party for National Development (UPND) members. Later, he said that the matter is under investigation. What has made him conclude that the activities were politically motivated and that the perpetrators are UPND members when the matter is still being investigated?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I said that the perpetrators are suspected UPND cadres because there is no way that Patriotic Front (PF) members can attack their fellow party members.

Sir, the tendency of defending our cadres even when they are wrong is not taking us anywhere. I want to take this opportunity to say that the attack on the police officers should not be repeated because, should it recur, we shall answer with maximum force.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kapeya (Mpika): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has just informed the House that the violence is being investigated. Were there no arrests made at the scene of the violence on that particular day?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, the attack occurred around 1900 hours. Suffice it for me to inform this august House and the nation that the investigations have advanced and that the culprits will be arrested soon.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Livune (Katombola): Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister aware that investigations can be carried out smartly without having an influx of police officers moving from one place to another or cadres masquerading as police officers moving into the areas where the investigations are ongoing? Further, there is information circulating to the effect that the cadres who are masquerading as police officers are armed with guns, pangas and all sorts of weapons, and are going in an area that is peaceful, ...

Interruptions

Mr Livune: Yes, for the police to investigate a matter properly, they are supposed to work in a calm environment without any form of interference. However, when there is an influx of armed people into an area, will the residents be able to protect themselves against such?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I said that we had enough police officers. However, some suspected UPND cadres had blocked the Monze/Niko Road. So, the police officers were split. Further, I assure this august House that no cadre will go to the area of the investigations. Only police officers will go there.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Miyanda (Mapatizya): Mr Speaker, when the hon. Minister says that no one will attack the police henceforth because maximum force will be used, I get worried. You are aware that when the President visited Kalomo District, two youths were arrested after his departure. There are also investigations in Bweengwa, where he visited, and some people may be arrested. I am also aware that the President will visit Mapatizya on 31st February, this year. Would the hon. Minister not advise him to slow down, ...

Hon. Government Members: Question!

Mr Miyanda: ... on the number of tours? I ask this because, to me, ...

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Continue, hon. Member.

Mr Miyanda: Sir, in the same way the Government has advised Members of the Opposition, can he not advise the President to slow down on his tours as well as tone down his language? If that happens, I think that there will be peace.

Laughter

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia has the right to visit any province, including the Southern Province. Further, he visits the places he visits to inspect projects. So, as Minister of Home Affairs, I would advise him to continue doing that. In fact, I would even urge him to go to Chirundu.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Mulasikwanda (Mulobezi): Mr Speaker, when I was elected, I came into this House and made my maiden speech in which I lamented the violence that had taken place in Mulobezi during the campaigns for the by-election. I also suggested that any political party found perpetrating violence must be de-registered.
 
Sir, after Independence, this country had two political parties, namely, the United National Independence Party (UNIP) and the African National Congress (ANC), and there was a lot of violence between the two parties. So, in the end, the people of Zambia sat down and, ...

Mr Belemu: What is the question?

Ms Mulasikwanda: I am coming to that.

It was agreed that one of the parties be de-registered. That decision was made at a convention in Choma, the Southern Province, and was called the Choma Declaration. Why is the Government, this time around, failing to look at where we have come from and take measures similar to those that were taken in the past to curb political violence and ensure that peace prevails in this country?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, this is a very difficult question. However, I want to say that this is a democratic country, with a Constitution that allows as many political parties as possible to exist. What is important is for both the Ruling Party and the Opposition to educate their party cadres not to engage in violence. Also, we should condemn our cadres when they engage in violence instead of defending them.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Nkombo indicated.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Mazabuka Central Parliamentary Constituency, I have a list that I am following.

Mr Nkombo resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: I have seen you. That is why I am addressing you.

Laughter

Ms Lubezhi (Namwala): Mr Speaker, I am very concerned about some of the statements being issued by the police. If one is visiting Zambia for the first time, they may think that Zambia is a rebel-held territory because of the use of expressions like ‘captured,’ ‘held hostage,’ ‘abducted,’ ‘captives’ and ‘rescued’. In what state were the ‘captives’ found? Further, were the captives taken for any post-trauma counselling after the abduction?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, around 1900 hours, there were some UPND cadres in a maize field near the venue of the President’s rally.

Laughter

Mr  Speaker: Order!

Mwila: Mr Speaker, this is not a laughing matter.

After the rally, the cadres came out of the field and captured some Government officials, together with ZANIS reporters. The captives were taken into the bush until the police rescued them.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your answer to the second arm of the question, hon. Minister?

Mr Mwila: Sir, I do not have that information.

Mr Mweetwa (Choma Central): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has indicated that the perpetrators of the attackers were suspected United Party for National Development (UPND) cadres because Patriotic Front (PF) cadres cannot attack fellow PF cadres. However, during the last by-election in Livingstone, PF cadres attacked and killed a fellow party cadre, and similar incidents have been recorded. One such incident occurred on the junction of the Airport Road and the Rufunsa Road here, in Lusaka. There has even been a court case involving PF cadres who killed fellow PF cadres. Therefore, is the hon. Minister justified to claim that the responsibility over the violence in Bweengwa can only end at the doorsteps of suspected UPND cadres? Furthermore, which law allows the police to use maximum force, which he claims the police is ready to do?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I said that the police suspect UPND cadres to be behind the attacks. However, we are not sure. That is why investigations are being carried out. So, I specifically said ‘suspected UPND cadres’.

Interruptions

Mr Mwila: As regards my statement on the use of maximum force, the police have now been attacked twice by political party cadres. Therefore, we have no choice, but to use maximum force.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. UPND Members: Using which law?

Interruptions

Mr Mutelo (Lukulu West): Sir, from the outset, I would like to state that, indeed, violence should not be tolerated in Zambia. So, I concur with the hon. Minister that Patriotic Front (PF) and opposition political parties should all condemn violence. However, the hon. Minister has just said that he received information …

Mr Speaker: What is your question?

Mr Mutelo: … to the effect that the road on which the attack occurred had been blocked. He further stated that suspected cadres hid in a maize field and attacked Zambia National Information Service (ZANIS) reporters and Government officials. Did the ZANIS reporters not have cameras when they were abducted and beaten? If so, why have we not seen some footage of the incident, as was the case when Hon. Miles Sampa was attacked in Ndola? Why have we not seen such scenes on Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) Television when ZANIS officers were among the victims?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether the ZANIS reporters had cameras at the time but, as I have said, investigations have been instituted. Therefore, if it is found that the ZANIS reporters had cameras, I will come back and inform the House.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mtolo (Chipata Central): Mr Speaker, the violence that …

Mr Mweetwa: On point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order!

Let me just guide that, due to the nature of this statement, I am not allowing points of order.

Interruptions

Mr Mtolo: Sir, the violence we are experiencing is not only disturbing our social stability, but is also actually very seriously denting the image of our country. Eventually, it will affect all of us. The owner of Breeze FM Radio Station in Chipata, which was allegedly attacked by Patriotic Front (PF) cadres, has decided to isolate himself from that station. If that continues, maybe, the radio station will close. In the same vein, I think that the Zambians in Bweengwa in the Southern Province are in total trauma because of what happened recently. So, is it not high time the Government, through the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), sponsored a Bill that will bar aspirants of any political party that is engaged in violence from contesting elections? In that way, we may just see a reduction in violence. Is it not time the Government really stopped this vice before we get to the general elections?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, that is a very good proposal. However, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) falls under the Office of the Vice-President. So, we will engage the Vice-President if there will be a need for ECZ to do that.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mbewe (Chadiza): Mr Speaker, I heard the hon. Minister mention the use of maximum force by the police three times. In the event that cadres have guns to shoot at police officers, does the police have enough bullet-proof vests for the officers’ protection?
 
Laughter

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, the role of my ministry is to maintain law and order. Therefore, the police is there to protect citizens. That is why I said, and I stand to be corrected, that if police officers are attacked, they have the right to defend themselves, including through the use of maximum force.

Sir, in preparation for the general elections, the ministry is procuring equipment, such as vehicles, riot kits and bullet-proof vests for police officers.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mutale (Kwacha): Mr Speaker, since we are currently experiencing a lot of political violence and everybody is getting concerned about the issue, does the Ministry of Home Affairs intend to engage other security wings to reinforce the police in curbing this vice?

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, currently, we do not have that intention, as the police has the capacity to bring whoever is involved in violence to book.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kasonso (Solwezi West): Mr Speaker, I heard the hon. Minister say that all of us should condemn violence regardless of who perpetrates it, whether members of the Ruling Party or the Opposition. However, yesterday, after the 1900 Hours Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) Television News, many Zambians were irritated by a statement issued by the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting and Chief Government Spokesperson. The statement condemned United Party for National Development (UPND) members over the violence that occurred in Bweengwa despite the fact that Patriotic Front (PF) members misbehave and maim Zambians who belong to other political parties without similar condemnation from the Government. So, the statements that the Government is issuing are one way of continuing the violence.

Mr Speaker: Are you asking a question?

Laughter

Mr Kasonso: Yes, Sir, I am asking a question.

Hon. Minister, do you not think that a statement like the one that was issued by the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting yesterday, before the investigations were concluded, will instigate violence among the people?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Mr Chishimba Kambwili, did well to condemn the violence. Hon. Livune condemned the violence, too, but he is a junior officer. So, we expect that …

Mr Mwiimbu: To whom is he junior?

Mr Mwila: In the UNPD.

Mr Speaker, the UPND must prove to the Zambian people …

Mr Livune indicated.

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: … that they are not …

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

Mr Speaker: Order!

Laughter

Mr Speaker: Hon. Minister, please, continue.

Interruptions

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, the UPND, as a party, must prove to Zambians that it is not violent.

Hon. UPND Members: Ah!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I have cited …

Mr Muntanga: What about the PF?

Mr Mwila: … one specific case in which our Provincial Chairperson on the Copperbelt was involved in acts of violence. The matter is before the courts of law and the Chairperson has been put on his defence. So, we condemn violence.

Mr Mwiimbu: Where?

Hon. Government Members: Yes!

Mr Mwila: We condemned our Provincial Chairperson.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will now take the last round of questions from the hon. Members for Mumbwa, Kalabo Central, Monze Central, Gwembe, Mazabuka, Liuwa, Mafinga, Kaoma and Kapiri Mposhi.

Mr Ntundu: Sir, I also indicated to speak.

Laughter

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for statement he has issued. However, why has the Bweengwa incident compelled the hon. Minister of Home Affairs to issue a statement when there were similar acts of violence, and breach of peace and order at the Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport, but he did not issue a similar statement? It is reported that suspected Patriotic Front (PF) cadres invaded the runway, thereby preventing one of their members from disembarking from a Proflight plane. The incident at the airport had negative effects on our country’s reputation.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid, I have to step in here.

A point of order was raised in the House yesterday, hon. Member for Mumbwa. In my ruling on that point of order, I asked the hon. Minister to issue a statement, ...

Hon. Government Members: Yes!

Mr Speaker: ... and once I make a ruling, the hon. Minister is compelled to follow it.

Mr Mwamba: Tabaliko!

Mr Miyutu (Kalabo Central): Mr Speaker, when people do not know doom, they will play around with it. The hon. Minister is very close to my heart, but the phrase he has used has shaken me.

Mr Miyutu: If that statement has reached the ears of the police, I expect an escalation …

Mr Muntanga: Of police brutality.

Mr Miyutu: … of police brutality because the statement has been made by a full Cabinet Minister.

Mr Mwaliteta: What is your question?

Mr Speaker: Hon. Mwaliteta, do not interject.

Interruptions

Mr Miyutu: Mr Speaker, when the hon. Minister says that the police will resort to using maximum force, he implies that this has not been done before. What, exactly, does he mean by ‘maximum force’?

Mr Belemu: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, all Zambian citizens expect protection from the police. So, if party cadres, whether from the PF or the Opposition, start attacking the police, then, we will have a problem. So, the police command is listening to what I am saying, which is that we shall use maximum force on whoever will attack the police, and I mean that police officers will use any and all means to protect themselves.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Mr Speaker, when statements similar to the one that has been made by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs have been made by leaders in other countries, extra-judicial killings by the police have occurred. In other words, the hon. Minister of Home Affairs has issued a command to the Zambia Police Force to carry out extra-judicial killings.

Hon. Government Members: Hmm!

Mr Mwiimbu: That is what he has said.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Monze Central, resume your seat.

Hon. Government Members: Order!

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member, let us be factual. You know that the use of maximum force and extra-judicial killing do not mean the same thing.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: In fact, I am …

Interruptions

Mr Muntanga: It means the same.

Mr Speaker: The Speaker is speaking.

Extra-judicial killing is term of art.

Mr Muntanga: What does that mean?

Mr Speaker: It means killings that are done outside the law or judicial system.

The hon. Minister, who has been speaking not only in front of the House, but also to the nation, has not suggested extra-judicial killings, let alone, expressly stated so. Your allegation is that the words you have uttered came out of his mouth, but I am sure that all these are witnesses (pointing at the Members of the House) to the contrary.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, I hope that I will be able to explain because you curtailed my …

Mr Speaker: Well, that is within the rights of the Speaker.

Laughter

Mr Mwila: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Sir, the point I am making is that when the police kill a person who is alleged to have committed an offence, that is extra-judicial killing.

Interruptions

Mr Mwiimbu: Sir, the hon. Minister has said that the police will use maximum force. Please, take judicial notice of the fact that to use maximum force means what I said.

Mr Nkombo: To terminate.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Mwiimbu, please, resume your seat.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: I am not prepared to take any judicial notice because you have imputed a statement to the hon. Minister that he has not made. Anyway, my ruling ...

Mr Muntanga: Who is debating now?

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Kalomo Central, leave the Assembly Chamber.

Interruptions

Mr Muntanga remained in his seat.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Monze Central, you are still free to ask your question. I was just clarifying that the hon. Minister did not issue a statement calling for extra-judicial killings. That is the position, and the record is clear.

Hon. Member for Kalomo Central, please, leave the Debating Chamber.

Mr Muntanga remained in his seat.

Mr Speaker: I am asking you to leave now because we will not proceed until you do so.

Interruptions

Mr Muntanga: I will come back.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow.

Laughter

Mr Muntanga left the Assembly Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Monze Central, you may continue.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, can the hon. Minister explicitly state what he meant by ‘maximum force’? The police officers have a handbook on how to handle suspects. However, if the measures in that book fail, they have to use maximum force, which implies that they can even shoot to kill.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I stated that if party cadres continue to attack the police, the police will find ways to defend itself. This is what I meant.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka Central): Mr Speaker, one hon. Member asked the hon. Minister a question regarding video footage of the Bweengwa incident. Another hon. Member asked whether he was aware that his Government incarcerated me in Livingstone for allegedly killing a Patriotic Front (PF) cadre, but it turned out that the man had been killed by fellow PF cadres. He has not addressed those two questions. Connected to that is the fact that someone is six feet under after having been killed by PF cadres on the Airport Road.

Sir, my substantive question is, now that the hon. Minister is saying that the police will use maximum force, does he know that people power is much greater than police power? An example is when people rioted in Mazabuka and his Government had to summon a small person like me to help quell the insurrection. Does he know that the statement he has made today is a blank cheque for the police to do whatever they wish to those whom they feel are not on the same political page with the Government? Will he take responsibility if anything of that sort occurs as we get closer to the elections?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, if the statement I made on the Floor of this House only concerned the UPND, there would be a reason for UPND hon. Members to worry. However, the statement encompassed all the political parties.

Sir, regarding the footage of what might have taken place in Bweengwa, I said that I have to investigate the matter and come back to the House with the answer. On what happened on the Airport Road, the culprits were arrested, taken to court and convicted.

Mr Nkombo: Mr Kamba is still a free man.

Mr Mwila: Yes, but this is the information I have.

Hon. Opposition Member: No!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Dr Musokotwane (Liuwa): Mr Speaker, …

Sir, the hon. Minister is not listening to me.

Mr Speaker: Just continue, hon. Member.

Dr Musokotwane: Mr Speaker, would the hon. Minister like to withdraw the phrase ‘maximum force’ and use another more appropriate one? I ask this because, as another hon. Member has said, police brutality might actually cause more violence, which might overwhelm the police and all other security forces in the country. In fact, it might turn some defence and security officers against their fellow officers, as was seen in Egypt and many other places where maximum force, whatever the term means, was used.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I said that police have to find ways of protecting themselves.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: There is a tendency for party cadres to attack police officers and the time has come for the police officers to protect themselves.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Namugala (Mafinga): Mr Speaker, does the hon. Minister not think that it is high time we revisited the training that our police officers undergo? It appears to me that our police officers are so poorly prepared for duty that, in the recent past, we have seen them abused by PF cadres and even get disarmed by students at the University of Zambia (UNZA).

Laughter

Ms Namugala: Now, we hear that they are actually being abducted ...

Laughter

Ms Namugala: ... by political party cadres.

Hon. Opposition Member: Kubochafye.

Ms Namugala: Are our police officers ready to protect the citizens of Zambia? So far, it appears that they are not. Can he confirm that we are safe?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, Zambians are safe and I assure this House that the police is there to protect all Zambians.

Hon. Member: Question!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, that said, I have already stated that police officers are being retrained to enhance their professionalism. We will also increase on the number of police officers because they are very few. Once those currently being trained graduate in March, 2016, we will be able to increase the number of police officers and that should help matters.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Antonio (Kaoma Central): Mr Speaker, after what happened in Bweengwa, the President asked the police to stop the violence in the country. He also said that if the police failed to stop the violence in the country, he would ask its officers to step aside and let Patriotic Front (PF) cadres deal with the matter. He said in Bemba, “Seleni tubombeko.”

Hon. Government Members: Ah!

Mr Antonio: Mr Speaker, is that not an endorsement of violence in the PF by His Excellency the President? Has the President not just confirmed that violence is a priority in the PF?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, when we say, “Sela Tubombeko,” ...

Mr Speaker: Order!

What does it mean?

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, it means that people should allow us to work so that we can deliver the development that the people of Zambia want.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, ...

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: … I excuse the hon. Member’s ignorance about the term because he does not come from Luapula or the Northern Province. He comes from Kaoma.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Lufuma (Kabompo West): Mr Speaker, it is said that violence begets violence. So, all well-meaning Zambians must condemn violence in the strongest terms. We, in the United Party for National Development (UPND), are in receipt of intelligence reports indicating that the Patriotic Front (PF) deliberately arranges for its cadres to perpetrate violence in areas deemed to be UPND strongholds so that the UPND can appear to be a violent party in the eyes of the citizens of Zambia. That is why each time PF cadres perpetrate violence, such as they twice did on the Copperbelt Province, arrangements are made for PF cadres dressed in UPND attire to perpetrate violence in UPND strongholds, such as Nalolo and Mapatizya, ..

Hon. Opposition Members: In Choma!

Mr Lufuma: ... so that people are hoodwinked into thinking that the perpetrators of the violence are UPND members. Can the hon. Minister confirm that arrangement. The PF Government should stop its smear campaign against the UPND.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, I will not talk about the UPND intelligence because I am not a UPND member, first and foremost, and, secondly, I do not represent the party. The Secretary-General of the UPND represents the party and is here to respond to all those allegations. I am Minister of Home Affairs.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Musonda (Kapiri Mposhi): Mr Speaker, I commend the hon. Minister ...

Hon. Opposition Members: Ah!

Mr Musonda: Mr Speaker, I want to commend the hon. Minister, ...

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Musonda: … who is an advocate against violence.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Musonda: Each time I have asked him a question on violence, he has answered by condemning the vice.  

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Musonda: This is how it should be. Violence must be condemned regardless of whether it is perpetrated by Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), United Party for National Development (UPND) or Patriotic Front (PF) members.

Sir, my question is: Does the hon. Minister have a deliberate programme to educate members of the PF, UPND, MMD and other parties that I do not know on how they can stop violence in this country, especially now that we are heading towards elections?

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order!

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, that is a very good question.

Sir, the police command has started inviting all political parties, that is, the UPND, Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), PF, Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD) and others for discussions on how to prevent party cadres from engaging themselves in acts of violence. That exercise is still ongoing.

I thank you, Sir.

__________

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

LOCAL COURT MAGISTRATES FOR SHEMU LOCAL COURT

292. Mr Sichula (Nakonde) asked the Minister of Justice when Local Court Magistrates would be deployed to Shemu Local Court in Nakonde Parliamentary Constituency.

The Deputy Minister of Justice (Mr Mukata): Mr Speaker, there were Local Court Magistrates stationed at Shemu Local Court. However, in October, 2015, a group of men covered in masks and armed with home-made guns and machetes attacked the local court, which caused the officers to flee out of fear, leaving the court unmanned. So, we can only redeploy officers to the station after getting an assurance that their lives will be protected. For now, additional security personnel are yet to be deployed to the area and the Ministry of Home Affairs is being engaged to facilitate the process as expeditiously as possible.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Sichula: Mr Speaker, the local court has not had a magistrate for almost three years, and this was not due to the attacks that the hon. Minister has mentioned, but because it was being rebuilt.

Mr Speaker: I will have the next question.

NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CONCESSION

293. Mr Lufuma (Kabompo West) asked the Minister of Transport and Communication:

(a)    whether the Government had signed the North-Western Railway Concession;

(b)    if not, when the Government would sign the Concession; and

(c)    when construction of the railway line would commence.

The Deputy Minister of Transport and Communication (Mr Kapyanga): Mr Speaker, the Government has not yet signed the North-Western Railway Concession. However, the ministries of Finance, and Transport and Communication have generated a Cabinet Memorandum, which will be circulated by the first week of March, 2016, for comments before submission to Cabinet after it is cleared. The Cabinet Memorandum will, then, be presented before Parliament in the form of a Bill in the next session of Parliament in April, 2016.

Mr Speaker, the concession contract for the construction of the railway line will be signed in July, 2016, and construction of the railway line will begin in 2017.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Lufuma: Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the implementation of this project is taking so long. The project is very essential, especially given the location of the North-Western Province, where we have mines. Our roads are being damaged by the large trucks that use them to transport heavy minerals. The Solwezi/Chingola Road, for example, is getting damaged because of this. When the railway line is built, it will be an alternative mode of transport that will lighten the burden on our roads. Why is it taking so long to implement the project when implementing it is the best thing we can do to encourage trade between Zambia and Angola?

Mr Kapyanga: Mr Speaker, the project is not taking too long. It just appears to have taken long because there are certain procedures that have to be followed. For instance, for construction to commence, detailed feasibility and environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies have to be undertaken. For the second phase, a social survey is also required. Further, production of engineering designs, review of the feasibility study report and engineering designs for Phase II and land advocacy have to be done. In a nutshell, the Government has taken keen interest in ensuring that all procedures are followed.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Shakafuswa (Katuba): Mr Speaker, the railway line project is privately sponsored, but the Government has agreed to it and guaranteed the loan. I am aware that when the Government guarantees a loan and the contractor, for instance, defaults on the contract, the Government ends up paying the sponsors of the project. So, has the Government only guaranteed the loan or will it actually adopt the project?

The Minister of Transport and Communication (Mr Simbao): Mr Speaker, the hon. Deputy Minister’s response did not touch on the issue of the Government’s guaranteeing of the loan. The Government has simply come in because the land on which the railway line will be built belongs to the State. That huge tract of land, from Chingola to Solwezi, is a very large capital.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Hamudulu (Siavonga): Mr Speaker, I believe that the railway line will link Zambia and Angola. Is the hon. Minister in a position to share with this House the feelings of the Angolan Government towards the project?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, the Government of Angola has no problem with the project. However, I hope that the hon. Member understands that it is always important to have alternative solutions to a problem instead of relying on one solution. We have not yet linked the two countries, but we wish to do so. However, we want to have other options for exporting our copper in the event of there being a problem with the Angolan route.  

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muchima (Ikeleng’i): Mr Speaker, the project has been on the drawing board for a long time, and I declare interest because the planned route passes through my constituency.

Sir, if the Cabinet Memorandum goes through and the concession is signed, how long will it take to complete this huge project? Further, how much money will be involved?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I cannot state how long it will take to construct the railway line. As regards the cost, judging from how much it cost to construct other rail lines, it will be between US$2 million to US$3 million per kilometre. It is quite a capital-intensive undertaking.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Simuusa (Nchanga): Mr Speaker, on the Chingola/Solwezi Road, after the Chililabombwe Turn-off, there is a rail line that was started, and it is purported to be the North-Western Railway. There was even a ground-breaking ceremony. Is that rail line the same North-Western Railway Concession that Hon. Lufuma has asked about? If so, why has its construction not proceeded beyond the current level?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, as everyone knows, this project initially started purely as a private undertaking. However, the Government has since taken interest in ensuring that the project comes to fruition.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Konga (Chavuma): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister indicated that a Cabinet Memorandum will be drafted in the latter part of the first quarter of this year and concluded in the second quarter. He further indicated that although the project was a private undertaking, the Government has since taken an interest in it. Is he able to tell the House and the nation at large what form the Government interest in the project will take? How will it participate in the project other than just ensuring that the studies are undertaken? Will it hold a stake in the company?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I have answered this question, and my answer was that the huge tract of land on which the rail line will be laid is State land. The land taken up by the project will be 15 m on each side of the rail line multiplied by over 100 km.

I thank you, Sir.

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, I am aware that the Government has allocated huge tracts of land to other projects. Why is it being hesitant to do the same for this very important project?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I have not understood the question because ...

Laughter

Mr Simbao: I have said that the Government has offered the land required, and that is why it has taken an interest in the project. So, I do not understand how the hesitancy that the hon. Member is talking about comes in.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Namugala (Mafinga): Mr Speaker, we are all very worried because the project has taken too long to be implemented. Indeed, it is supposed to be a private-sector project. However, the hon. Minister has said that the Government has taken interest without specifying the extent of that interest. Will the Government have a stake in terms of shareholding? To what extent is the interest that the Government has taken? Is it just a way to further delay the project?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, as we speak, there are many discussions still going on between the private sector and the Government. Therefore, the form that the partnership will take has not yet been decided. All that the Government has done is try to get the project going. That is why it is working on the Cabinet Memorandum.

I thank you, Sir.

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, what weaknesses has the hon. Minister identified in the current laws governing the railway sector to warrant the presentation of a new Bill to the House as a precondition to the concession’s taking off?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, this project will be a partnership between the Government and the private sector, which is not the case with the present railway system. So, we intend to base the project on a structure that is different from that used by the Zambia Railways. That is the aspect on which we seek the advice of hon. Members of Parliament.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Musokotwane (Liuwa): Mr Speaker, over 100 years ago, the imperialist Cecil John Rhodes constructed a railway line from Cape Town going to the north. Although he did not have computers, global positioning systems (GPS) or electricity like we do, he managed to construct the railway line quickly because he made decisions quickly. Given the fact that we already have laws that govern railways and public-private-partnerships (PPPs), when will my good friend, Hon. Simbao, sanction the implementation of the project?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I am glad that the questioner considers me his friend.

Laughter

Mr Simbao: Sir, the hon. Member knows that decisions of this nature have to be sought from the Cabinet through a Cabinet Memorandum. We have begun that process. As I have stated before, this was a private project, but the private sector appealed to the Government for it to create a conducive environment for the project. We are all aware that the Cabinet has to discuss the issue before the Government can take part in it. However, the project already has a lot of support from the Government, and it is for this reason that we are able to set dates on which we believe the project can start.

I thank you, Sir.

DEPLOYMENT OF MILITARY PERSONNEL AT THE ZAMBIA-DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO BORDER

294.    Mr Namulambe (Mpongwe) asked the Minister of Defence:

(a)    whether the Government had any plans to deploy military personnel along the Zambia-Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Border, considering that the DRC had military personnel manning its side of the border; and

(b)    if there were no such plans, why.

The Deputy Minister of Defence (Mr Mulenga): Mr Speaker, the Government has deployed troops in various areas on the Zambia-Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Border. The deployments are based on the threat levels, which are periodically reviewed in order to determine the need to reinforce, reduce or maintain the same troop levels.

Sir, the Zambia Army has also established a Marine Unit in Kawambwa to ensure security on the water bodies shared between Zambia and the DRC.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Namulambe: Mr Speaker, we have relatives who live on the border between Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and cross the border often due to intermarriages, as the border line is artificial. When they do so, some of them get harassed by the Congolese military personnel. However, when people from the DRC come to visit their families in Zambia, they are allowed to move freely. What is being done to protect our people when they cross the border?

Mr Mulenga: Mr Speaker, Zambia interacts with the DRC through the Joint Permanent Commission (JPC), to which the Ministry of Defence is party. The JPC takes care of transnational security concerns and seeks to resolve issues amicably. We also recently held a meeting with representatives from the DRC in Ndola and these concerns were discussed.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, ...

Mr Mwiimbu: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise on a point of order pertaining to the veracity of the statements made on the Floor of this House.

Sir, the hon. Minister of Agriculture made a statement on the issuance of electronic vouchers (e-Vouchers) in which he assured the nation that the system was progressing with no hurdles. He further stated that in order to ensure that there is equity, the Government would increase the amount of money allocated to the farmers benefiting from the system. However, the situation in Monze Central Constituency, as of last week, was that 5,400 farmers who had paid the requisite deposit had not benefitted from the system. Further, ...

Mr Lubinda: Wabeja!

Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Minister!

Please, do not interrupt the hon. Member.

Hon. Government Members: Wabeja.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, further, the farmers have not been credited the K700 that they were eligible to receive from the Government under the Farmer Input Support Programme (FISP). Today is 17th of February, 2016. So, even if the farmers are given that money, they will not be able to access the requisite inputs.

Sir, is the Government in order not to tell us what problems it is encountering in the implementation of the e-Voucher System, which is leading to our people’s failure to achieve their targets in the agricultural? Further, is the hon. Minister of Agricultural sector in order to have misled the House?

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: My ruling is that I will give the hon. Minister of Agriculture an opportunity to update the House and the nation at large on the subject. I will not give him a deadline, but he should do it as soon as possible. I have no doubt that he will get back to us sooner than later.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was about to inform the hon. Deputy Minister Zambian citizens have been suffering from the actions of our colleagues who control the Congolese side of our shared border for a long time, yet he has stated that there is a Joint Permanent Commission (JPC) that was established to resolve these problems. Will the Government not seek a permanent solution to the problem so that our people on the Zambian side can be free to cross over to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) just like Congolese nationals are free to cross into our country?

Mr Mulenga: Mr Speaker, the people who live on the mentioned border share a common ancestry and have lived as a community for a long time. So, they know one another. If you go to Nkweto or Lupiya, for example, you will find that the people there are under the same chief and speak the same language. Therefore, it is very difficult to identify who is a Zambian and who is not. That is why I talked about the JPC being the best platform on which to resolve issues like this one. The body is well-recognised and interacts with both countries to resolve the border conflicts. Further, the Government has done everything possible to resolve this issue and will continue take up the challenge of resolving all matters that are reported to it.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Konga: Mr Speaker, I am aware that the border between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia is quite long, stretching from the North-Western Province through the Northern Province to Luapula Province. Would Zambia have the capacity to deploy soldiers on such a long border if such a need arose?

Mr Mulenga: Mr Speaker, indeed, the border between Zambia and the DRC is the longest of Zambia’s borders, at about 1,300 km. However, the fact that we have not had many skirmishes on that border is evidence enough that we have managed it very well. So, yes, our Defence Force has the capacity to man the border even if it is quite long. Our people should be assured that this Government has the capacity to man that border adequately.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Chansa (Chimbamilonga): Mr Speaker, let me capitalise on the question by the hon. Member for Mpongwe.

Sir, since the Nsumbu Border was identified as a best site for the Marine Unit to be based, when will the unit be deployed to that area?

Mr Mulenga: Mr Speaker, His Excellency the President launched the Marine Unit in Luapula Province last year. The unit is meant to man all the water bodies in that region, including Lake Tanganyika in the Northern Province. I assure the hon. Member of Parliament that we are establishing the unit at Kala, the former refugee camp in Kawambwa. We have converted the camp into a marine camp and are building the infrastructure there. The marines will conduct their operations from there to all the areas where we have water bodies.

I thank you, Sir.

SINKING OF BOREHOLES IN MALAMBO CONSTITUENCY

295. Mr Shuma (Malambo) asked the Minister of Local Government and Housing:

(a)    how many boreholes were sunk in Malambo Parliamentary Constituency in 2015;

(b)    how many boreholes were earmarked for sinking in 2016;

(c)    when the sinking of the boreholes would commence;

(d)    how many boreholes and wells were earmarked for rehabilitation in the same period; and

(e)    when the exercise at (d) would commence.

The Deputy Minister of Local Government and Housing (Mr Kafwaya): Mr Speaker, thirty boreholes were drilled in Malambo Constituency in 2015.

Sir, twenty-two boreholes are earmarked for sinking in Malambo Constituency in 2016.

Mr Speaker, the drilling will start after the rainy season.

Sir, seventeen boreholes and six wells have been earmarked for rehabilitation in 2016.

Mr Speaker, the procurement process is currently underway and the contractors will be selected soon.

I thank you, Sir.

Ms Lubezhi (Namwala): Mr Speaker, how much money did the Ministry of Local Government and Housing give to each constituency for the sinking of boreholes?

The Minister of Local Government and Housing (Mr Kampyongo): Mr Speaker, certainly, that is a new question. The hon. Member is free to file it in so that we can get those details and respond at an appropriate time.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Miyanda (Mapatizya): Mr Speaker, have the contractors for the project already been identified? If they have, who are they?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, if the hon. Member followed the response from the hon.  Deputy Minister, he heard him say that the procurement process is currently under way. As we speak, the process is at the evaluation stage, at which the technical team evaluates the bids. Once they conclude their work, then, they will name the successful bidders, and those are the ones who will be awarded the tenders to drill the boreholes. At that time, the ministry will be in a position to avail the names of the contractors.

 I thank you, Sir.

 Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, clean water is a must for Zambia and many boreholes have been sunk at a great cost. Has the ministry done a performance audit on the boreholes that are being sunk throughout the country to know those that are functional and those that are not so that we know whether we are doing a good job or not?

 Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I agree with the hon. Member that our people need access to clean water.  

Sir, on the question of audits, yes, the ministry might know how many boreholes have been sunk in various locations. However, as people’s representatives, like the hon. Member for Malambo stated, it is our collective responsibility, as hon. Members, to make sure that the boreholes that are sunk in our various constituencies are functional. Where there are defects, we should quickly bring that to the attention of the ministry so that it can work on them.  It is our collective responsibility to take part in ensuring that the public infrastructure on which so much money is expended performs to the expectations of our people.

 I thank you, Sir.

Ms Kalima (Kasenengwa): Mr Speaker, my concern has always been about how much it costs the Government to sink a borehole compared with how much it costs the private sector. What progress has the ministry made with regard to the questions that I asked on this matter? Are we making any progress in reconciling the K7,000 and the K35,000 it costs the private sector and the Government, respectively, to sink a borehole?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for that question.

Sir, during the last sitting, I made the undertaking that my technical team would engage hon. Members of Parliament to share the processes that the ministry follows when identifying the contractors, how it arrives at the cost and how it accepts certain costs from the drilling companies. I assure the hon. Member that the undertaking is still active and I see how the ministry can make actualise it during this session so that our hon. Members of Parliament can have their issues addressed by my technical team.

  Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 Mr Lufuma: Mr Speaker, it is said that water is life and, really, communities appreciate when the Government sinks boreholes for them. However, the communities are complaining about the K1,500 that the Government has made mandatory for them to contribute before a borehole is sank. Is the ministry amenable to a change in that policy, especially when it sinks boreholes in rural communities, so that the rural population can be assisted to have access to water?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for that follow-up question.

Indeed, Sir, ideally, the Government would want to sink boreholes without any contribution from the rural communities. However, in as much as we would want to do that, we all know that there is a cost that goes with the projects. Additionally, we want to ensure that the communities take ownership of such projects. When people contribute something towards any project, they assume ownership and there is a guarantee that the infrastructure will be protected. When they get projects free of charge, on the other hand, they do not care and the infrastructure does not last. So, there is the interesting issue of balancing. All the same, we will see how we can meet our people half-way.

  I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mbewe (Chadiza): Mr Speaker, in a situation in which a dry borehole is drilled, how many attempts does the ministry make to ensure that the water level is reached? Additionally, in such cases, does the ministry pay the full amount to the contractors?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, when contracts are drawn between the contractors and the ministry, such matters are taken care of. When water is not found, the terms of the contract will dictate how many times the contractor should drill. However, what is important is to ensure that water is found when a borehole is drilled.

 I thank you, Sir.

CLASSROOM BLOCKS FOR SCHOOLS IN SIKONGO COSNTITUENCY

296. Mr Ndalamei (Sikongo) asked the Minister of General Education:

(a)    when the construction of classroom blocks at the following primary schools in Sikongo Parliamentary Constituency would be completed:

(i)    Ngombe;

(ii)    Nene;

(iii)    Likaka; and

(iv)    Nakapungu; and

(b)    when the construction of a 1 x 2 classroom block at Simbuu Primary School would commence.
 
The Deputy Minister of General Education (Mr Mabumba): Mr Speaker, the mentioned schools are at varying levels of construction. The biggest problem has been limited resources. In terms of completing the projects, our officers in Sikongo are trying to secure funding from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). The Ministry of General Education is also committed to including some of the schools its 2016 Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP).

 Sir, the construction of the 1 x 2 classroom block at Simbuu Primary School is expected to commence in 2016.

 Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 Mr Ndalamei: Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister aware that the projects were not completed because the funding was not enough due to high transport costs? If he is, is the ministry considering funding rural projects more rather than, for example, allocating the same amount to projects in Lusaka and those in Sikongo?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, it is good that the hon. Member is aware that high transport costs were one of the major contributors. Obviously, when resources are made available, it will be important that the ministry takes into account such factors.

 I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, indeed, this is amazing. These projects were budgeted for in the Yellow Book, yet the hon. Minister has stated that they have not been completed because of a lack of funding. What has happened to the money that was allocated to them, which was for their full execution, from start to completion?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, some of the projects actually started way back before we came into power.

Mr Mushanga: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: However, we are committed to completing them. For example, in the 2016 Budget, K100 million was allocated to the primary sub-sector, granted, it was not enough to cover all the incomplete projects.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, like I said when I was answering another question, in 2016, we will strategically focus on all the incomplete projects, the inadequacy of the K100 million notwithstanding.

I thank you, Sir.

Ms Lubezhi: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister said that the education authorities in Sikongo are trying to secure funding from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) to complete the projects. Which CDF is he referring to when Sikongo Constituency has received neither the 2015 nor 2016 CDF?

Mr Ndalamei: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I said that one of the financing mechanisms would be the CDF and our education authorities are already liaising with the council authorities. The other option is to include some of the projects in the ministry’s 2016 IDP. As to the non-disbursement of the CDF, I am sure that the ministry in charge of that would be able to respond.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mufalali (Senanga): Mr Speaker, why is the Ministry of General Education in disarray in terms of infrastructure? I ask this because most schools in Sikongo are incomplete. Is there something wrong with the ministry’s Department of Planning?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, since I am in the Ministry of General Education, it is up to our colleagues to assess our performance. However, we have tried our level best.

Our ministry is the largest employer in this country and 70 per cent of its budget goes to personal emoluments. That only leaves us with 30 per cent, of which only 15 per cent goes to projects. Obviously, that is not enough. However, even against this background, we have demonstrated our commitment to providing education services to our people in rural areas, and we will continue doing that. So, the problem is not one of being in disarray, but of inadequate of funding. If the funding was adequate, we would be able to complete all the projects. However, using our phased approach, I am sure we will still be able to complete the projects in Sikongo and other districts.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

USER FEES IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS

297. Mr Miyutu (Kalabo Central) asked the Minister of General Education:

(a)    why primary school children were required to pay user fees; and

(b)    whether the Government had any plans to regulate the user fees set by schools so that pupils from vulnerable families are not disadvantaged.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I urge hon. Members to pay particular attention because we are all concerned stakeholders in the matter of user fees and this question is usually asked in various schools.

Sir, all school children from Grades 1 to 7 are not required by Government policy to pay any user fees. However, the parent-teacher associations (PTAs) charge parents some project funds that they agree upon during their annual general meetings (AGMs). Such decisions do not affect learners in any way.
    
Sir, the ministry had noted, with concern, the rising fees that were being levied on learners in grant-aided and public secondary schools, and has since issued a circular regulating the amounts to be charged.

Sir, the General Certificate of Education (GCE) fees are as follows:

Fee        Amount (K)

Centre        100

Practical Subject    50

Tuition per Subject    50

So, pupils who register for the GCE Examinations should not pay more than the stated fees.

Sir, the user fees for boarding schools …

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1615 hours until 1630 hours.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was answering part (b) of Hon. Miyutu’s question. Let me continue from where I ended.

Sir, user fees for boarding secondary schools have been set at between K700 to K1,000 per term. For day secondary schools, they are between K250 to K500 per term.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Miyutu: Mr Speaker, the policy of not charging user fees is not enforced in rural schools. The parent-teacher associations (PTAs) just rubber stamp decisions of the school managements. A school like Lukona Basic, for example, charges its pupils K150. Adding insult to the injury is the fact that most pupils do not attend classes for not paying the fees. As you know, the people of Kalabo are among the poorest in the countries. What will the hon. Minister do to ensure that teachers do not send away pupils who fail to pay user fees?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I said that all school children from Grades 1 to 7 are not required by Government policy to pay any user fees. However, the school management and the PTA can agree to charge a certain amount during their AGM. That said, we have also said that no pupil should be turned away for failing to pay school fees. We have even suggested that the fees be paid in instalments or in kind. For example, if a parent has no money, but has maize, then, the school should get maize equivalent to the value of the fees.

Sir, in the enforcement of Government policies and implementation of its programmes, hon. Members of Parliament are key stakeholders. So, my appeal is that we work together. If Hon. Miyutu has the challenges he has mentioned at Lukona Basic School, why has he not called me so that I can ask the headteacher and the PTA chairperson why they are charging more than what has been stipulated? The circular we issued is meant to protect the vulnerable in communities. In a day secondary school, the user fees are between K250 and K500 only. So, the school can charge any amount in that range. Again, I ask my hon. Colleagues to work with us in enforcing Government policies. They are well-intended for the people. If they choose to be spectators, then, we will continue complaining.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Shakafuswa: Mr Speaker, some parent-teacher associations (PTAs) charge large amounts because they do not get any funding from the Government. So, the funds are meant to maintain the schools and keep them running. Is the Ministry of General Education able to come up with a policy of prioritising schools like Lukona when allocating funds? The Government knows the places that are very poor and those that are affluent. Can we not give more money to schools in places where people are more vulnerable?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon. Shakafuswa’s sentiments. That is why we have given a user fee structure with a wide range that allows school managements in rural areas to charge user fees that are affordable to the people in their communities. For example, rural schools can charge K250 instead of the K500 ceiling. Hon. Shakafuswa’s suggestion is something that the ministry has been thinking about. So, going forward, if our budget improves and we are able to give better grants to our schools, we will implement it. However, for now, given the large number of projects that we are implementing, we have financial limitations. When we scale down on the projects, that might be the way forward.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, a number of us, who were born between the 1950s and 1970s, enjoyed truly free education. Today, everything has been politicised. We talk about free education, yet it is not a reality. Does the ministry have this country’s poverty statistics, which show what really happens in the typical rural areas like Lukona and Jimbe? In those areas, people cannot even raise K5, yet the stubborn teachers in the schools keep chasing the children who fail to pay the user fees. The hon. Deputy Minister has asked us to help in such situations and, as hon. Members of Parliament, we have tried. Unfortunately, the teachers do not listen to us, especially since we are in the Opposition. They want hon. Members in the Ruling Party to talk to them. Has he taken the trouble to go visit the schools where teachers have continued chasing children who fail to pay the user fees? If not, when will he do that? That practice has to stop because it has troubled us for a long time.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, we do take the trouble. For example, after we issued the circular on the user fees, the hon. Minister, Dr John Phiri, toured the Northern, Muchinga and Luapula provinces last month. I also visited the Copperbelt, after which I joined him on a tour of Central Province. We have not gone to the other provinces, but we intend to do so. In the places we visited, we held meetings with PTA committees, teachers and all the key stakeholders to tell them that we did not want user fees to be a barrier to access to education. For example, even after the issuance of the circular, some secondary schools were still charging above K1,000 and I have taken the trouble of calling some headteachers to ask why they were doing that. I did the same in my constituency. I told them that we could not go that way. So, when the hon. Members give us information, it will help us. I want Hon. Muchima and everybody in this House to be part of the monitoring mechanism. If they do not give us the information, how will we know the schools that are charging more than the recommended fees? Zambia is a big country.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Imenda (Luena): Mr Speaker, the schools re-open during the time we are on recess and, as hon. Members of Parliament, we go through a lot. For instance, people just flock to us asking for money to pay school fees for their children because they think that the hon. Minister of General Education gives us some automated teller machines (ATM) to dispense money.

Sir, I am aware that Limulunga Day Secondary School used to charge K600, but now charges K900. I also saw parents struggle to take their children to Kambule Secondary School because they were told to deposit the full amount in the bank and, then, take the deposit slip to the school. Is it not the ministry that sanctioned the increase?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, as far as I am aware, Limulunga Secondary is a day school. Therefore, the fees charged are supposed to be between K250 and K500 per term. If the school charges more than that, I will speak to the headteacher tomorrow and ask him or her to revise the fees downwards. The circular on user fees is official and that is the ministry’s position.

I thank you, Sir.

Bishop Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha (Keembe): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for sending out the circular. However, it is necessary for us to have a mechanism for enforcing it. There are many other areas that should be rectified. For example, here, in Lusaka, there are teachers’ days on which children pay K10 to the teacher to wear ordinary clothes instead of their uniform. Unfortunately, other schools are also copying that practice, which puts an unnecessary burden on the parents. So, it is necessary to have a mechanism against all these things so that poor children in both rural areas and towns are not disadvantaged. Currently, in my constituency, more than 65 per cent of children in the few secondary schools come from towns. Therefore, the rural children are being disadvantaged.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I thank Hon. Bishop Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha for bringing up this issue.

Sir, when I visited one of the schools in Lusaka, I found that the user fee charged was more than what we have stipulated. So, I went to the Permanent Secretary (PS) and asked the same question the hon. Member has asked. That is why the hon. Minister and I decided to have key stakeholders’ meetings in each province so that the PTAs and school managements could be guided on this matter. So, all the schools in the provinces we have visited were told how much money they are supposed to charge per term while those in areas where we have not been to have received the circular. Therefore, if there are schools charging more than the amounts we have set, we would be very grateful to have that information so that we can take appropriate action. So, the hon. Member should know that we are looking at coming up with a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the circular.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Musokotwane: Mr Speaker, it has been said, over and over again, that education is the best route out of poverty.

Mr Muchima: Hear, hear!

Dr Musokotwane: I think that many of us seated in this House represent that truth.

Sir, when the Patriotic Front (PF) was campaigning in 2010 and 2011, it claimed to be a party for the poor people of Zambia. However, the PF Government is now charging villagers, such as those in Liuwa, K250 per child in day school, which they cannot afford, yet it still calls itself a party for poor people. If the PF is serious about being a party for the poor people, why does it not just abolish the user fees, as was the case during our school days? That will allow the people of Liuwa, who have a long tradition of academic excellence, to go back to school.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, the Patriotic Front (PF) is truly a party for the poor.

Interruptions

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ng’onga: Bwekeshapo, mwana.

Mr Mabumba: If Hon. Dr Musokotwane is not aware of that, let him know now. We have built the Mongu/Kalabo Road in the area he comes from, which has been the most expensive road project in the history of this country, because we want to open up that area.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, for many years, we had given the mandate of setting user fees to the offices of the District Education Board Secretary (DEBS) and PTAs. However, since we are a party that is about the poor, we decided to start regulating the user fees. That decision was made partly in response to the many questions from hon. Members of Parliament on why the user fees were so high, which was detrimental to access to education.

Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon. Dr Musokotwane that education is an equaliser and a public good. You cannot take it away from the people. So, to protect our vulnerable people in constituencies like Liuwa and Ikeleng’i, we have decided to lower the user fees charged in schools, for now, as we cannot abolish them. I am sure that my hon. Colleagues agree with me that those in Liuwa who may not be able to pay the K250 are able to pay in kind. As I have said, we do not insist on cash payments only and schools are not allowed to chase away children who do not pay. I reiterate that if there are schools chasing away children, please, let us know. Some of us are ever in the field, and can go to any place and hold a stakeholders’ meeting.

Mr Speaker, we may not abolish the user fees for a number of reasons but, for now, we have limited the amount a school can charge. That demonstrates that we are a party for the poor.

I thank you, Sir.

Ms Lubezhi: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has just told us that we are all stakeholders in the implementation of Government projects. However, I feel very sad to hear the hon. Minister talk like that because the Government does not involve us in the commissioning of projects in our constituencies, even those that we initiate. For example, I initiated the Namwala Mothers’ Shelter using the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). However, the Republican President went to commission the project, which cost K304,000, on Saturday without involving me. Therefore, is the hon. Minister sincere in saying that we are all stakeholders?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, hon. Members of Parliament are key stakeholders in the implementation of Government policies and programmes. We have had situations in which hon. Members of Parliament have been invited, but they shunned away and, ...

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: … because of that, sometimes, it is very difficult for the Government to extend an invitation to them. Nonetheless, they are most welcome to get involved. When I go to Namwala, I will invite the hon. Member because, as far as I am concerned, she is a key stakeholder. However, she should not shun my invitation.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mufalali: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has implored us to report what is happening in our constituencies to him. So, I will inform him that the levels of poverty in Senanga, Lukulu and Liuwa constituencies are so high that people just depend on relief food, of which they only get a 12 cm cup of maize each.

Laughter

Mr Mufalali: Therefore, where can they get the food to pay the schools in place of cash?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I was just telling the House the two modes that a parent can use to pay user fees, namely, through cash or in kind. Obviously, I also recognise that the poverty levels in some districts are too high. However, I will not lie to my hon. Colleagues that we can completely abolish user fees. In the primary sub-sector, which is Grades 1 to 7, there are no user fees, unless there are exceptional grounds for charging the pupils. In the secondary sub-sector, however, we charge a bit of money. In fact, to explain further, that is why we will upgrade 220 primary schools into day secondary schools. We have recognised that the fees charged in the primary schools that we have upgraded are quite low. I am aware of some schools that charge K100.

Sir, for now, we cannot cheat hon. Members that the ministry will abolish the user fees …

Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Minister!

We do not employ the word ‘cheat’ in this House.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, thank you for guiding me and I withdraw that word.

Sir, what we are trying to say is that we cannot afford, at the moment, to abolish user fees because there are many competing needs. Otherwise, we would put pressure on the Treasury to cover the financing gap that would be occasioned.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, since some schools are still charging exorbitant user fees, has the ministry made any effort to sensitise the public, through radio, television (TV) or newspapers, on how much they are supposed to pay?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I discussed the issue the hon. Member has raised with the PS in the ministry after discovering that some schools have not abided by the circular we issued and we concluded that we needed to put an advertisement in the newspapers so that the public knows how much the pupils are supposed to pay.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Ndalamei: Mr Speaker, what measure is the ministry putting in place to discipline headteachers who chase away pupils who cannot afford to pay user fees?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, when we were in Kabwe with the hon. Minister, Dr John Phiri, the message we had for the school authorities was that they were not supposed to chase away pupils who failed to pay user fees from the school system. The hon. Minister went further to tell the headteachers that they would be dealt with in accordance with the disciplinary code of the Public Service if found disobeying the circular that we have issued on the user fees by chasing away pupils. So, hon. Colleagues, we will follow up the issue of headteachers chasing away pupils who fail to pay user fees. If there are headteachers whose behaviour is contrary to our instructions, please, give us their names and we will deal with them.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Prof. Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has contradicted himself in several ways. Firstly, he has said that user fees are not supposed to be charged at the primary school level and, at the same time, he has complained that the Ministry of Finance does not give adequate grants to schools. How, therefore, does he expect the schools to run? Secondly, and this is my central question, the K700 to K1,000 range that the ministry has prescribed within which the charges in boarding secondary schools should fall is extremely high for parents in a number of rural areas, whose annual income is less than K200, yet they have more than two children in secondary school. So, the amounts are not pro-poor. Did the hon. Minister conduct any research on the variations in the poverty levels across the country so that his policy took them into account? That way, he could have arrived at reasonable prescriptions for fees to be charged in schools across the country, granted that even doing so would still be wrong because centralised decision-making in matters of user fees is wrong.

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa has said that I contradicted myself. If I did that, I am here to make myself very clear.

Sir, firstly, I did not say that the Ministry of Finance does not provide grants. So, the user fees charged are meant to supplement the schools’ revenue bases. What I must say, however, is that the grants are sometimes not disbursed on time. Please, underline the phrase, “Not disbursed on time.” All schools in Zambia, including those in Nalikwanda, receive monthly grants. However, a school might receive its grants a month later.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, I am sure that Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa, having been a Minister of Education, is aware that schools receive grants because the grants have been given to Zambian schools many years before the PF came into power.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: I would be surprised if Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa did not know that schools receive grants.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, secondly, the user fees that we charge …

Prof. Lungwangwa: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Let the hon. Minister continue responding.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwila: Hammer!

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa asked about whether we conducted research before setting the user fee structures. I would like him to know that the fees stipulated in the circular were arrived at after consultations with the Head Teachers Association and the unions.

Sir, we are aware that the poverty levels in Nakanya in Nalikwanda Constituency are different from those in Kabwe. That is why we prescribed a range instead of a specific uniform amount. That entails that a school in Nalikwanda, for example, Nakanya Primary School or the secondary school, when operational, is expected to look at the two ranges and charge a fee suitable for their communities, taking into account the social and economic environment. I do not expect Nakanya Secondary School to charge K1,000 because the living conditions in Nakanya will make it impossible for people to afford that. So, I expect it to start with the minimum, which is K700.

Mr Speaker, that is the clarification I can give.

I thank you, Sir.

SAFE TRANSPORT ON LAKE TANGANYIKA

298. Mr Chansa asked the Minister of Transport and Communication:

(a)    what measures the Government had taken to promote safe water transport on Lake Tanganyika;

(b)    whether the Government had any plans to procure a passenger vessel to operate on the lake between Mpulungu and Nsama districts; and

(c)    if so, when the vessel would be procured.

Mr Kapyanga: Mr Speaker, the Government is conducting a feasibility study for the modernisation of Mpulungu Port, which will improve the physical facilities and contribute to the effective monitoring of vessels of all types.

Mr Speaker, the Government also plans to procure a passenger vessel to operate on the lake.

Sir, the supply and delivery of the vessel will only be made once an initial payment has been made by the ministry to the supplier. Currently, the ministry has not done that due to financial constraints.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, as we are talking of water safety, I would like to know where coxswains are trained.

Mr Kapyanga: Mr Speaker, that is a new question. So, the hon. Member should file it in so that we can provide the necessary information.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Milambo (Mwembeshi): Mr Speaker, how many passenger vessels operate on Lake Tanganyika?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I can mention the specific number of passenger vessels on the lake. However, I know that there are passenger boats that operate on the Mpulungu/Kasaba Bay Route and the famous SS Liemba, which operates among Zambia, Tanzania and Burundi.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mufalali: Mr Speaker, how long will it take to conclude the feasibility study that the ministry is conducting?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, I thank Hon. Mufalali for that question.

Sir, we are trying to make water transport a very important sector. In fact, if possible, we will make it comparable to road transport. We have realised that we have neglected this sector for too long, yet it is the cheapest means of transport. We hope to have all the information we need to make different decisions on this sector by the end of March, 2016.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Ms Lubezhi: Mr Speaker, on a balance of probabilities, what is the population of passengers between the two districts.

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, that is a very good question, but I am sorry because I do not have the answer. Maybe, we will collect the figures on the movement of people between the districts.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Sing’ombe (Dundumwezi): Mr Speaker, is there any rescue team on Lake Tanganyika?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, we are in the process of establishing patrol units on all the big water bodies. Currently, there is a skeleton rescue team on Lake Tanganyika, but the ministry is about to establish a very big one to guarantee safety on all the big water bodies in the country.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Muchima:  Mr Speaker, this is 2016 and the Budget has already been passed. How does the hon. Minister intend to purchase the vessels and when will they come?

Mr Simbao: Mr Speaker, the vessels are budgeted for, and we hope to receive and deploy them to all the designated areas by mid-2016.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

LEVIES COLLECTED DAILY FROM LUSAKA CITY MARKET

299. Mr Mbewe asked the Minister of Local Government and Housing:

(a)    how much money, on average, was collected daily from the Lusaka City Market in form of levies on traders in farm produce;

(b)    whether the Government had any plans to control the vending of farm produce on the streets in Lusaka; and

(c)    what measures the Government had taken to curb illegal meat vending in the markets in Lusaka.

The Deputy Minister of Local Government and Housing (Mr N. Banda): Mr Speaker, on average, the Lusaka City Market collects K1,600 per day from people who sell fruits like bananas and pineapples, and potatoes, and K1,200 from chicken traders.

Mr Speaker, the Government has plans to control the vending of farm produce on streets in Lusaka by building a shed specifically for fruit and vegetable traders at the New Soweto Market. The council has also created space in the other two sheds at the market to cater for those vending farm produce outside the markets. The Lusaka City Council (LCC) has since started the process of relocating people trading in fruits and vegetables, particularly those trading near the market sheds at Soweto Market to the New Soweto Market.

Sir, the LCC is taking the following measures to curb the illegal vending of meat in the markets:

(a)    sensitising the marketeers on general food hygiene, which includes provision of clean water, wearing of protective clothing and conducting of medical examinations for food handlers;

(b)    ensuring that the marketeers trading in meat and other food products purchase them from recognised abattoirs; and

(c)    sensitising the residents against buying meat on the streets.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, as you are aware, Lusaka has been hit by a Cholera outbreak. Does the hon. Minister have any intentions to ban the sale of foodstuffs in the street?

Mr N. Banda: Mr Speaker, it is regrettable that Cholera has broken out in parts of Lusaka and the Government has plans to ban the sale of sensitive foodstuffs on the streets, especially in overcrowded places and those with poor sanitation.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, Soweto Market is one of the biggest in Zambia and its trade volume is over K5 million per day. What mechanism has the ministry put in place to collect more revenue from the market, which is currently openly going into the hands of cadres instead of the council? That money could be used to expand the trading space in the market.

Mr N. Banda: Mr Speaker, the LCC is employing some new methods, including the ones I mentioned in my earlier response, to encourage traders to trade in designated places, such as the sheds that we have constructed. We have also introduced a system of direct payment of taxes for traders so that we can reduce on the hand-to-hand exchange of money paid in levies to the local authority. However, the system is still in the pilot phase and we are assessing whether it can add value to the collections at the market. We are aware that not all the money that is meant for the LCC is remitted. There is a lot of pilferage that takes place and that is why the revenues are low.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mufalali: Mr Speaker, someone somewhere is not doing his or her job and is being irresponsible The K1,200 that the council collects on average implies that we, the farmers, pay K1 as market levies at the City Market, but that is not the case. So, why is the hon. Minister allowing people to get the money from farmers so freely? Why is he allowing daylight robbery when the council has no money?

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, it is gratifying to know that the hon. Member who has asked the question is also a farmer and trades at the market.

Mr Speaker, I assure the hon. Member that we have taken corrective measures. As of last weekend, I was at the market to see what is obtaining and ensure that those who have been depriving the council of the chance to collect revenue are stopped and that the council moves in and puts measures in place to ensure it collects all the revenue it is supposed to collect. As the hon. Deputy Minister has said, we erected a shelter at that market to make sure that people trade in designated areas instead of parking their trucks at some corner and selling their produce there. So, as Minister, I am doing everything possible to stop the situation and maximise revenue collection from that market.

I thank you, Sir.

REHABILITATION OF BRIDGES IN MALAMBO CONSTITUENCY

300. Mr Shuma asked the Minister of Works and Supply when the following bridges in Malambo Parliamentary Constituency would be rehabilitated:

(a)    Lupande Bridge on the Mkhanya/Msoro Road;

(b)    Lusandwa North Bridge across the Lusandwa River in Msoro area;

(c)    Lupande Bridge across Lupande River in Nsefu area;

(d)    Msandire Bridge in Nsefu area; and

(e)    Mtetezi Bridge on Nyakatokoli Road in Msoro area.

The Deputy Minister of Works and Supply (Dr Mwali): Mr Speaker, the bridges mentioned in (a), (d) and (e) will be considered in the 2017 Road Sector Annual Work Plan (RSAWP), subject to the availability of funds and the priorities that will be set by Mambwe District Council while those mentioned in (b) and (c) are earmarked for construction in the second quarter of 2017 under the Acrow Bridge Programme. We intend to engage a consultant to design the bridges under this programme in the Eastern Province before April, 2016.  

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, all the bridges are in a national park that generates a lot of money from tourism. Seeing as we want tourists to visit as many areas as possible, does the hon. Minister have any plan to work with the hon. Minister of Tourism and Arts and source money to build these bridges immediately so that we can make more money from those areas?

The Minister of Works and Supply (Mr Mukanga): Mr Speaker, the hon. Member might wish to know that we have already been discussing how we can improve most of the crossing points in the Eastern Province with the hon. Minister of Tourism and Arts. For now, I can only assure him that the Acrow Bridge Programme will do a lot to make most crossing points passable.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muchima: Mr Speaker, the state of our bridges in this country is very critical, especially during the rainy season. Not long ago, I saw washed-away bridges in Hon. Livune’s constituency.

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Mr Muchima: Will we inconvenience the people by waiting until 2017 to rehabilitate the bridges when the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU), under Her Honour the Vice-President’s Office, can rehabilitate them this year? Does the hon. Minister not think that he is inconveniencing the people throughout the country by pushing the rehabilitation of the bridges to 2017?

Mr Mukanga: Mr Speaker, the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) has moved in to attend to crossing points that have broken down and negatively affected the surrounding communities. However, the DMMU is doing this to mitigate the immediate and short-term effects of the infrastructural breakdowns before the long-term rehabilitation works begin in 2017.

I thank you, Sir.

INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN ‘NEW KITWE’

301. Mr Mutale (Kwacha) asked the Minister of Local Government and Housing what infrastructure development was planned for the ‘New Kitwe’ area in Chatente Ward of Kwacha Parliamentary Constituency, considering that the construction of the Mufuchani Bridge was nearing completion.

Mr N. Banda: Mr Speaker, the ministry, through the Kitwe City Council (KCC), plans to develop the ‘New Kitwe’ area in Chatente Ward of Kwacha Parliament Constituency into a modern township and is working on a development plan that will include the development of the following infrastructure:

(a)    housing, including medium and high-cost units;

(b)    commercial holdings;

(c)    roads;

(d)    water supply and sanitation;

(e)    markets and bus stations;

(f)    fire services;

(g)    health facilities; and

(h)    schools and other social amenities.

I thank you, Sir.

__________
    
MOTION

THAT THE HOUSE AMMENDS THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT

Mr Mweetwa (Choma Central): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House urges the Government to amend the Public Order Act, Cap 113 of the Laws of Zambia, to align it with the Bill of Rights.

Mr Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

Dr Kalila (Lukulu East): Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking you for allowing me to present this Motion on the Floor of this august House.

Sir, from the outset, allow me to place on record the fact that my submission this afternoon is inspired by and heavily dependent on the writings and teachings of my former lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Zambia (UNZA), the late Prof. Alfred Chanda, may his soul rest in eternal peace.

Sir, the subject of this Motion is already very familiar to this House and all our citizens around the country. Its import sits at the core of the idea of a functioning democracy.

Mr Speaker, in urging the Executive to cause amendments to the Public Order Act, Cap 113 of the Laws of Zambia, in order to bring it in line with the Bill of Rights, I will begin by reminding the House that doing so was one of the key campaign promises of both the Patriotic Front (PF) and the United Party for National Development (UPND), the then opposition political parties, in the run up to the 2011 General Elections. Therefore, this Motion is non-controversial, harmless and a timely reminder to all of us, the political leaders of our great country, that when citizens vote for us on the basis of our promises, a contract is created ...

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: ... between the electorates and us, and that contract obliges us to dutifully deliver on our pledges.

Mr Speaker, allow me to quickly highlight the importance and function of the freedoms of expression and assembly, which the Public Order Act regulates in Zambia.

Sir, the freedom of people to assemble in public and to express their views on political matters is generally regarded as an essential element in a free and open society, and are recognised in international human rights instruments like the United Nations’ (UN’s) 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR).

Purposes Served by Freedom of Expression

Mr Speaker, freedom of expression serves many purposes, inter alia, helping individuals to attain self-fulfilment.

Sir, rational individuals need information and an opportunity to express themselves so that they can grow into responsible citizens who fully understand and participate in civic matters. It also assists in the discovery of truth.

Mr Speaker, in the case of Abrams v. the United States, 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated the following:

“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Therefore, the Government must not interfere with dialogue, no matter how unpleasant it is.

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Only when social order is drastically threatened is the Government allowed to punish the speaker, and I am not referring to you, Sir.

Laughter

Mr Mweetwa: Sir, Justice Brandeis, in another American case, Whitney v. California, 1927, outlined the importance of free expression in the following words:

“Those who won our independence ... believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; ... Only an emergency can justify repression.”

Mr Speaker, freedom of expression also enhances the capacity of individuals to participate in a democratic society. Alexander Meiklejohn, a renowned jurist and free speech advocate, argues that freedom of expression is essential not only to individual choices and the development of a person’s rational faculties, but also to effective government, the proclaimed ideal of a democracy. He says:

“When men govern themselves, it is they ― and no one else ― who must pass judgment upon unwisdom and unfairness and danger. And that means that unwise ideas must have a hearing as well as wise ones, unfair as well as fair, dangerous as well as safe, un-American as well as American. Just so far as, at any point, the citizens who are to decide their issues are denied acquaintance with information or opinion or doubt or disbelief or criticism which is relevant to those issues, just so far the result must be ill-considered, ill-balanced planning for the general good.”

Mr Meiklejohn also says that:

“The principle of the freedom of speech springs from the necessities of the programme of self-government. It is not a law of nature or of reason in the abstract. It is a deduction from the basic American agreement that public issues shall be decided by universal suffrage”.

Mr Speaker, freedom of expression provides the mechanism for establishing a reasonable balance between stability, on one hand, and social change, on the other.

Purposes Served by the Freedom of Assembly

Mr Speaker, freedom of assembly is an essential element in a democratic government. As Justice Chitoshi aptly put it in the case of William Steven Banda v. The Attorney-General, 1992, unreported:

“The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of citizens to meet peacefully for consultations in respect of public affairs. The purpose of public meetings is the education of the public and formation of opinion on religious, political and social problems. Hence, the right of assembly is intimately connected with the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 20.”

Mr Speaker, the Constitution of Zambia guarantees freedom of expression and assembly. Article 20 guarantees freedom of expression, which encompasses, amongst others, freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to receive ideas and information without interference. Freedom of assembly and association, on the other hand, is guaranteed by Article 21, and defined as the right to assemble freely and associate with other persons and, in particular, to form or belong to any political party, trade union or other association for the protection of one’s interests. However, there are limitations to the enjoyment of these rights, as they are not absolute. Uncontrolled liberty can lead to anarchy and disorder as well as the infringement of the rights of others. In this regard, the Constitution attempts to strike a balance between individual liberty and social control. Articles 23(a) and 21(2)(a) provides that nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that it is shown that the law in question makes provisions, among others, that it is reasonably required, in the interest of defence, public safety, public morality or public health and except so far as that provision or the thing done under the authority thereof, as the case may be, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

Mr Speaker, there are standards of evaluating the restrictions and ensuring that they do not go beyond what is necessary in the protection of the rights or undermine the same. In other words, to be valid, the restriction on fundamental rights must:

(a)    be prescribed by law;

(b)    be in one of the interests I have specified; and

(c)    be shown to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic state.

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, in order for a restriction to be prescribed by law, certain requirements must be met. In the case of Pumbun and another v the Attorney-General and another, 1993, the Tanzania Court of Appeal stated that:

“... a law which seeks to limit or derogate from the basic right of the individual on grounds of public interest will be saved by article 30(2) of the Constitution only if it satisfies two essential requirements.  First, such a law must be lawful in the sense that it is no arbitrary.  It should make adequate safeguards against arbitrary decisions, and provide effective controls against abuse by those in authority when using the law.  Secondly, the limitation imposed by such law must not be more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the legitimate object.  This is what is also known as the principle of proportionality.  The principle requires that such law must not be drafted too widely so as to net everyone including even the untargeted members of society.  If the law which infringes a basic right does not meet both requirements such law is not saved by article 30(2) of the constitution, it is null and void.  And any law that seeks to limit fundamental rights of the individual must be construed strictly to make sure that it conforms with these requirements otherwise     the guaranteed rights under the constitution may easily be rendered meaningless by the use of the derogative or claw back clauses of that very same constitution.”

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, the Zambian Supreme Court, in the case of Christine Mulundika and others v. the Attorney General, stated that:

(a)    “there must be adequate guidelines so that the exercise of discretion by the competent authorities should have the scoop indicated and the manner of its exercise set out in the effective law with sufficient clarity;

(b)    “there must be effective controls on the exercise of the power to grant or refuse a permit and that there must be a procedure to allow the aggrieved person to challenge the decision. Such a procedure must be reasonable, fair and just;

(c)    “fundamental constitutional rights should not be denied to a citizen by any law which permits arbitrariness and is couched in wide and broad terms; and

(d)    “the principles of fairness are principles in their own right and ought to be allowed to prevail to pervade all open and just society.”

That is the meaning of ‘reasonably justified’ in a democratic society.

Sir, the Supreme Court, in the case of Mulundika and others v. the Attorney General, identified a number of features that it described as minimum attributes of any democratic society. These are:

(a)    the availability of a government that reflects the will of the majority of the people expressed at periodic and genuine elections.

This is unlike the PF.

(b)    the power of a state should reside in the people and where this is exercised on their behalf, the mandatory is accountable;

(c)    apart from the free and informed consent and maximum participation of the governed, it is also common to expect that the people have and actually enjoy basic rights and freedoms and they are available to the majority as well as to the minority.

(d)    the freedoms of expression and assembly are crucial.

Mr Speaker, the Supreme Court cited, with approval, the case of Handyside v. UK  (1976), in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) placed high value on freedom of expression. In this case, the European Court stated:

“The court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a democratic society. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. It is applicable, not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those which offend, shock or disturb the state or any other sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.”

Sir, the Supreme Court further noted, in the case of Mulundika and others v. the Attorney-General, that:

“The requirement of prior permission to gather and to speak, which permission can be denied sometimes for good and other times for bad cause not contemplated by the constitutional derogation, directly affect the guaranteed freedoms of speech and assembly, a derogation which is so broad as to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionality cannot be upheld.”

Mr Speaker, the Supreme Court of Zambia further stated that:

“The foregoing disposes of the argument on behalf of the state that the subsection cannot be ultra vires because there is a possibility of using it strictly for the authorised purposes. Unfortunately, experience teaches and it is sadly not hypothetical that in this country, the requirement for a permit to gather and speak has been used since 1953 to muzzle critics and opponents as well as alleged troublemakers. It has also been used to deny permission on grounds that had nothing to do with securing public order and safety. For example, there was much litigation in our courts during the recent transition to plural politics engendered by denials of permits on spurious grounds.

The right to assemble and speak is too important to be conditioned upon subsection 4 as conceived and first drafted in 1953. The right to assemble and express views is so important to democracy that the Supreme Court of India was constrained to observe, rather aptly, in Rangrajan v Jagjivan ram and others (1990) L.R.C. (const.) 412 at page 424:

    “In a democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song ... Democracy is a government by the people via open discussion ... The public discussion with people’s participation is a basic feature ... of democracy ... democracy can neither work not prosper unless people go out to share their views. The truth is that public discussion on issues relating to administration has positive value.’”

Sir, I will quickly zero-in on the Public Order Act, Cap 113 of the Laws of Zambia, which regulates public order in Zambia and has been on the statute books since 1955.

Mr Speaker, since its inception, the Public Order Act has been used principally to stifle protests against the Government. The Act underwent a major amendment in 1996 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mulundika and others v. The Attorney-General already cited. I will now move to the Public Order (Amendment) Act of 1996.

Mr Speaker, Subsection 4 of the Act provides that:

“Every person who intends to assemble or convene a public meeting, procession or demonstration shall give police at least seven days’ notice of that person’s intention to assemble or convene such a meeting, procession or demonstration.”

Sir, Sections 5(5) states:

“The notice required must be in a prescribed form and shall contain an undertaking by the person intending to assemble or convene a public meeting, procession or demonstration that order and peace shall be maintained through the observance of the following conditions:

(a)    that they have been informed by the police that the site for the meeting has not already been granted to another convenor for the holding of a public meeting procession or demonstration;

(b)    that the routes and the width of the routes is suitable for the holding of the procession in accordance with the width and route specifications for such purposes as specified by the minister by Statutory Order;

(c)    that marshals of a number sufficient to monitor the public meeting, procession or demonstration are available and shall co-operate with the police to ensure peace and order;

(d)    that the commencement, duration and destination of the public meeting, procession or demonstration shall be as notified to the police;

(e)    that the public meeting, procession or demonstration shall not create a risk to inhabitants of that neighbourhood; and

(f)    that the convenors of the public meeting, procession or demonstration have been assured by the police that at the time the proposed activity shall be held, it will be possible for it to be adequately policed.”

Sir, Section 5(6) of the Act states that:

“Where it is not possible for the police to adequately police any particular public meeting, procession or demonstration, the regulating officer of the area shall, at least, five days before the date of the public meeting, inform the convenors in writing of the reasons for the inability of the police to police the public meeting, procession or demonstration and shall propose an alternative date and time for the holding of such public meeting, procession or demonstration.”

Mr Speaker, Section 5(7) states:

“Where the police notify the convenors of the public meeting, procession or demonstration that it is not possible for the police to adequately police any proposed public meeting, procession or demonstration, the same shall not be held.”

Sir, Section 5(8) states:

“If the conveners of an event are not satisfied with the reason given by the police under Subsection 6, they may immediately appeal to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs who shall decide and inform the convenors in writing of his decision on the matter within a period of five days.”

Mr Speaker, I will leave some of the sections because they have been provided.

Sir, it is clear from the provisions I have cited that most of the obvious features of the older Public Order Act have been removed. Thus, it is no longer necessary to apply for a police permit, as was reiterated in the case of Resident Doctors’ Association v. The Attorney-General. The police is no longer empowered to decide who can address a public meeting or what subject can be discussed at such a meeting. There are, however, problematic features of the Public Order Act that still require the immediate attention of this House, as it still has unacceptable features that make it difficult for people …

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order, on the right!

Mr Mweetwa: … to enjoy unhindered freedom of assembly and expression.  The requirement of seven days notification in every situation is a prior restraint on the exercise of the fundamental rights to expression and assembly. What it means is that one cannot participate in a public meeting, procession or demonstration unless one first notifies the police. There is no reasonable justification for requiring seven days notification in every case. For example, why does the police need seven days notification of a public meeting at a fixed place? That might be in contrast with the provisions of the Public Order Act (1986) of England, whose Section 11 provides that:

“1.     Written notice shall be given in accordance with this section of any proposal to hold a public procession intended-

(a)    to demonstrate support or opposition to views or actions of any person or body of persons,

(b)    to publicise or campaign, or

(c)    to mark or commemorate an event,

 unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.”

Sir, this means that people can still hold a public event without notifying the police if circumstances do not permit them to give the notification.

Mr Speaker, six days’ advance notice is required for processions, but note that three days’ notice is required for public meetings or assemblies. In Zambia, using the Public Order Act, the police is given broad and uncontrolled powers to stop a meeting from taking place. It can simply, as it often does, say that it does not have adequate manpower to police the event, and there is no way of ascertaining the veracity of such an assertion. On countless occasions in Zambia, the police has stopped people from holding rallies, processions and demonstrations on the spurious grounds that it does not have adequate manpower, yet if the rally, procession or demonstration goes ahead, hundreds of officers are mobilised at short notice to disperse it.

Sir, the amended Act does not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary police decisions. Nor does it provide effective controls against abuse of the law by those in authority when applying it. The provision for an appeal to the hon. Minister is not an effective safeguard because hon. Ministers are very partisan. It is most unlikely that the hon. Minister will overrule the decision of the police, especially where the appellants are perceived opponents or critics of the Government. In practice, there has been no recorded instance of hon. Ministers upholding an appeal.

Mr Speaker, in terms of a lack of flexibility, the seven days’ notice that must be given in every instance is obnoxious, yet there may be many instances when people may need to meet or demonstrate before the expiry of the seven days of the notice. Needless for me to say, demonstrations, processions and public meetings are often convened in response to an event, to which it is often necessary to respond quickly.

Sir, the penalty for unlawful assembly has been increased from the six months that it was previously to five years. Moreover, there is no distinction made between organisers of such an assembly or event and those who merely attend. This severe sanction has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and assembly. It is certainly not justifiable in a democratic country like Zambia to send people, who are merely exercising their human right to peacefully assemble or demonstrate, to prison for five years. Additionally, no distinction is made between peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, on one hand, and violent ones or those that are likely to disrupt public order, on the other.  Under the Public Order Act of England, a person who participates in an unlawful assembly is liable to imprisonment for only three months.

Mr Speaker, allow me, once more, to thank your office and that of the Clerk of the National Assembly for allowing me to move this Motion on the Floor of this House for its consideration by this august House.

Sir, may I, at this stage, take the opportunity to implore all those who wish to debate this Motion to do so with sobriety because this issue has been nagging the conscience of our nation for a very long time. Before the 2011 Elections, the PF Government, together with the UPND, promised the people that they would amend the Public Order Act.

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: The time has come for us to fulfil the pledges we made to our people. There is no shame at all in a reasonable act on the part of the hon. Members on your right, the PF hon. Members, to support this progressive and non-controversial Motion.

Sir, I expect all those who will debate to do so through the lens of national interest, not partisan politics.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

Dr Kalila: Now, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, thank you for granting me the opportunity to second this Motion. Considering that my colleague has extensively covered the Constitutional or legal background and framework, it is my intention to be very brief so that I can accord my fellow hon. Members the chance to participate in this very important debate.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by reminding the hon. Members of an incident that occurred around 2013, when four hon. Members of this House were arrested simply for visiting Chief Nkana on the Copperbelt. The hon. Members were, then, charged with unlawful assembly and made to spend some nights in a police cell. Some of them are still with us in this House. The serving and former hon. Members are Hon. Howard Kunda, Hon. Annie Chungu, Hon. Chishiba and Hon. Michael Katambo. These had accompanied their party President, Dr Nevers Mumba. Not only were they arrested, but the males and the female were put in the same cell, which was very sad. All that was done in the name of the Public Order Act. It is because of the draconian nature …

Ms Lubezhi interjected.

Dr Kalila: … of this law, which has no place in a democratic dispensation like ours, that I decided to second this Motion.

Mr Speaker, our argument is very simple. As we have heard, our Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly, association and movement. Considering that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it, therefore, boggles my mind that we continue to keep such a draconian law on our statute books.

 Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, there are many cases of people who have been at the receiving end of this obnoxious piece of legislation that can be cited. I know that all hon. Members, both on your left and your right, agree that it is high time we took a second look at this law in order to harmonise it with the Bill of Rights. Basically, that is our argument.

Sir, the Public Order Act continues to be a topical issue. It is for that reason that we urge our colleagues to move amendments to it.

Sir, allow me to quote the eleventh point of the Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter written on 27th January, 2016:

“We are very concerned about the selective application of the Public Order Act by the Police Service. In many cases, it is applied almost always in favour of the ruling party and those that they favour. This disadvantages the opposition political parties.”

Sir, it is a shame that, twenty-five years after returning to multi-party politics and fifty-two years after Independence, the Public Order Act is still with us by bequest of the British colonial era, which designed it for the oppression of the political opponents. What really are our law reforms focusing on? Is it not to deal with this obnoxious colonial piece of legislation? It has been made very clear, from the letter by our clergymen and, indeed, from many other stakeholders, that we, including hon. Members of this House, as I have already demonstrated, have all suffered at the hands of this obnoxious law. So, it is high time we dealt with it.

 Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalila: His Excellency President Edgar Lungu, alluded to this fact during the Official Opening of this Parliament. Unfortunately, very few steps have been taken in that regard. It is by this debate that we hope to remind our colleagues to show some movement.

Sir, on 18th September, 2015, the President said:

“I would like to re-affirm Government’s commitment to preserve the freedom of expression and association. To this end, I am directing the ministers responsible for justice and home affairs to consult widely and prepare and present a Bill to this August house to amend the Public Order Act.”

Sir, it is very clear from the quotation that both sides of this House are in agreement on the need to amend the Public Order Act. I, therefore, agree with the mover of the Motion, which is non-controversial, because we are all in agreement. The question is: Why are we not moving forward? The intentions may be there, but we are not seeing any action or steps taken. If there have been any, then, we are not aware of them, especially we, the political players. If there are any on-going consultations, we know nothing about them. Therefore, in this Motion, we are simply letting our colleagues know that we want to see the relevant amendments moved.

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to go beyond these few remarks because this is a straightforward Motion. We need the amendments …

 Ms Lubezhi: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalila: … because our Constitution guarantees the freedoms that the obnoxious Public Order Act continues to infringe upon, thereby creating bottlenecks and impediments to the attainment of true democracy. So, there can be no better time to amend the Public Order Act than this period, as we get closer to the elections.

Sir, I know that many hon. Members are itching to debate. So, with those remarks, I beg to second.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 Mr Hamududu (Bweengwa): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Motion, which has been ably moved by the hon. Member of Parliament for Choma Central and seconded by the hon. Member for Lukulu East.

Sir, I stand with a very heavy heart.

 Mr Mwiimbu: Hear, hear!

Mr Hamududu: Sir, due to the issues that we are discussing, many people have asked me what has gone wrong with me.

Mr Speaker, there comes a time when someone cannot tolerate injustice. No sane human being can die lying on his or her back while people sjambok him or her. The logical thing for people to do when they are abused is hit back even in church.      

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Hon. Government Members: In church?

Mr Hamududu: Yes, it is human to react like that. If someone does not react to oppression, then, he is not human or there is something wrong with him or her. Someone cannot not go about poking people and expect them to keep quiet. It is for this reason that people are questioning the tone of my debates, but I will continue talking in the same manner.

Sir, there are two wrong things in this country, namely, this bad law and the bad people in authority.

 Mr Mwiimbu: Hear, hear!

Mr Hamududu: Sir, when there are bad laws and bad people in authority, people will begin to stand up to defend themselves. An example is what happened in Bweengwa Parliamentary Constituency recently. I read the statement by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs, which is very remote from what happened. That is why …

Mr Sichone: On a point of order, Sir.

 Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 Hon. UPND Member: Iwe, ikalafye.

Mr Sichone: Mr Speaker, I am seated here trying to follow my brother’s debate, which seems to be one of the most difficult he has engaged in. So, he has failed to articulate issues and contribute positively. Is he in order to call those of us, who are in authority and managing this country very well, and have also managed to keep this country in one piece, bad people? Is he in order to call us bad people?

Mr Speaker: Order!

 My understanding of the hon. Member who is debating is that, so far, he has simply said that the problem at hand is both the law and those who administer it, those he calls the bad people. He has not referred to anybody in particular, at least, not yet. So, I would like to give him the space to continue debating. However, as much as I have permitted him to do so, I am mindful of the trajectory he is taking. So, I urge him, as far as possible, to be relevant in his debate by focusing on the Motion, which, in my opinion, has been presented in a very impersonal and objective manner. I hope we will keep the tenor of the Motion in that fashion. The Motion simply and plainly urges the Government to present the Public Order Act to the House for review. I suggested that there is a consensus around it.

Hon. Member for Bweengwa, please, bear that in mind as you continue.

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, I support this Motion, which urges the Government to amend the Public Order Act to align it with the Bill of Rights. In doing so, I want to give an example of why we must do so. We will not amend it in a vacuum. So, there must be examples to qualify the call to amend it.

Sir, a law is applied by people. Therefore, there must be provisions that deter those in authority from abusing it. Let me refer the House to the so-called violence that occurred in Bweengwa.

Sir, yesterday, an hon. Member, after eating chicken and chips, rose on a point of order …

Laughter

Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Bweengwa!

Please, …

Mr Hamududu: I withdraw that, Sir.

Mr Speaker: … resume your seat again.

Mr Hamududu resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: I know you want to refer to an issue that came up this afternoon because you did not have an opportunity to contribute on it. You are now trying to seize, as much as possible, this occasion that I have given you to reopen proceedings that we concluded this afternoon. There was a ministerial statement that was followed by a question and answer session, and all those who wanted to speak on that subject were given an opportunity to do so. I do not think that I will allow you to continue in that line if that is what you intend to do. I am giving you advance notice.

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, in applying the law, there should be no provocation. I want to briefly explain why public order sometimes gets disturbed, and one of the reasons is provocation.

Sir, I was in Monze when the violent incident occurred and I was in touch with the people. Most of those who were affected live in Monze, including the District Commissioner (DC). So, they …

Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Bweengwa!

I am giving you the last opportunity. You can either deflect or I will curtail your debate. There is no two ways about it. If you have nothing further to contribute, you may just wish to end your debate.

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, I will not mention any names, but will just refer to the event.

Mr Speaker: Order!

I have explained to you that we had a statement this afternoon and there was an opportunity to engage the hon. Minister. You were not present and we are now dealing with a different subject. I am following these issues, but you seem to be persisting in spite of my very clear guidance. You will not have the opportunity to bring up this subject, which appears to be unrelated, in my opinion, to the issue at hand. You want to clarify the events surrounding the Bweengwa incident, but this is not the right platform. You may have to seize another opportunity and platform. I know you want to clear the air, but this is not the right occasion. You are wasting time, hon. Member for Bweengwa.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, we must not allow one group to provoke another and claim that the people who defended themselves were violent. There is no fairness in that. There must be equality before the law. The one who provokes should not be left alone while only one side of the story is picked. For example, if a situation happens anywhere, some people should not give directives to the police to arrest some people even before they know what happened.

Mr Speaker: Order!

What has that got to do with the Public Order Act?

Mr Hamududu: The application.

Mr Speaker: In what way?

Mr Hamududu: That it must be fairly applied.

Mr Speaker: No!

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, I watched what happened in the South African Parliament. No wonder young people like Malema are rising. That will happen in this House one day.

Interruptions

Mr Hamududu: How can I sit here when some people in my constituency have run away from their homes because they are afraid of the police? Then, what is my role as Member of Parliament?

Mr Speaker: Order!

I think I have made myself clear.

Hon. Member for Nalikwanda, please, take the Floor.

Mr Hamududu: I am going.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Nalikwanda.

Mr Hamududu left the Assembly Chamber.

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate the Motion.

Sir, I also rise to support the Motion that we should amend the Public Order Act to align it with the Bill of Rights.

Sir, the Public Order Act is, to a large extent, predicated on the assumption or perception …

Ms Lubezhi left the Assembly Chamber.

Laughter

Prof. Lungwangwa: … that there are enemies of the State whose freedom of assembly, speech and association ought to be curtailed. For example, the Public Order Act of 1936 in the United Kingdom (UK) was directed at curtailing or controlling extreme political movements in the 1930s, such as the British Union of Fascists (BUF) movement. When that law was enacted, the aim was to ban the wearing of BUF uniforms in any public place or meeting. It also required extreme political movements to get police consent for them to match or assemble in any place. So, the BUF movement was viewed as the enemy of the State and its movement, assembly, speech and association had to be controlled. Its members were looked at as groups who paraded on the streets in uniforms, held flags of war and usurped the functions of the police and the armed forces.

Mr Chisopa: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Continue, hon. Member.

Prof. Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, the British Colonial Government in our country looked at the Public Order Act in the UK as a good piece of legislation. Therefore, in 1955, it also enacted the Public Order Act whose sole aim was to curtail the freedom of blacks, relegating them to the level of third-class citizens. The Colonial Government …

Mr Speaker: Order!

Business was suspended from 1815 hours until 1830 hours.

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: Order!

Before the hon. Member for Nalikwanda Parliamentary Constituency continues, let me just guide the House briefly.

The hon. Member for Choma Central and the hon. Member for Lukulu East have ably and adequately laid the background. So, as we move forward with the debate, let us focus on agreeing or disagreeing with the Motion so that we proceed in a very efficient way. I hope to allow as many hon. Members as possible to debate. As you all know, today is Wednesday. So, our evening is quite short, but I still hope that we will conclude on this Motion before we adjourn.

Prof. Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, following your guidance, I will be very brief.

Sir, before business was suspended, I was saying that the Public Order Act was enacted in our country in 1955 to protect the Colonial Government and ensure that the movement, and freedom of speech and assembly of those who were perceived to be enemies of the State were curtailed. So, this law, to a large extent, is archaic and is only used by repressive or dictatorial governments to disadvantage their citizens. It is a law directed at protecting those in leadership and views others as enemies.

Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the law was used by the United National Independence Party (UNIP) leadership to suppress critical opinions. It was also used by the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) and Patriotic Front (PF) Governments to entrench themselves in power. Ironically, the abuse of this law has actually proved to be a recipe for being kicked out of the Government.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Prof. Lungwangwa: No wonder, this Session of the National Assembly is so solemn. Our colleagues, who, unfortunately, have joined past regimes in perpetuating this law, have come to realise that it will kick them out of the Government.

Mr Speaker, what did the citizens want? Why did they, for example, vote our colleagues, who were in the Opposition for ten years, into the leadership of this country? It is because our colleagues actually spoke very strongly against the Public Order Act and convinced everybody that they would amend it when in power. Unfortunately, after twelve months of being in power, the late President, may his soul rest in peace, said that the Public Order Act was a useful law for the Government because it would keep peace and avoid chaos. Hence, our friends have kept the Public Order Act the way they inherited it.

Mr Speaker, in line with the democratic aspirations of our nation, our citizens want a Zambia in which they can assemble and demonstrate freely. They want a Zambia in which citizens will be free to receive and share ideas or information. Our citizens want a Zambia in which they can freely associate with anybody at any time and anywhere. These are the democratic aspirations of our people.

Sir, clearly, opposition political parties are not enemies of the State. There are absolutely no justified reasons, whatsoever, for enforcing the Public Order Act against the freedom of opposition political leaders. That is why I strongly agree with the proposition that the Act, which is premised on the perception that they are enemies of the State, be amended.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Mr Speaker, I thank you most sincerely for according me this opportunity to debate the Motion that has been ably moved by the hon. Member of Parliament for Choma Central and seconded by the hon. Member of Parliament for Lukulu East.

Sir, let me begin by stating that Zambia is at a crossroads due to the discriminatory manner in which the Public Order Act implemented. In order for me to demonstrate that the administration of the Public Order Act has been discriminatory, I will cite a few examples.

Sir, we have noticed, with concern, that there are two types of citizens in this country. One class of citizens belongs to the opposition political parties while the other class belongs to the Ruling Party. The Public Order Act, clearly, does not require citizens to get permission from the police before holding a procession or meeting. Unfortunately, the Zambia Police Force, under the direction of the Patriotic Front (PF), has abused this piece of legislation.

Mr Sing’ombe: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: We have noticed that the PF members do not notify the police when they want to hold rallies and processions. They can rise in the morning and start demonstrating, and that has caused consternation in the minds of Zambians.

Ms Lubezhi: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: Sir, Zambians believe that they are being discriminated against, and that is the reason they are complaining and there is a breakdown of law and order.

Mr Speaker, we are all aware of what transpired at Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport. The PF cadres, without notifying the police, had a procession from Kitwe to Ndola and harassed international travellers, tourists and political opponents. To date, the police has not come out clean on that incident. However, if the perpetrators had been members of the Opposition, the heavy hand of the law would have fallen on them. However, since the PF is the royal family, nothing has been done about it. The owners of the vehicles PF cadres used from Kitwe are known. The trucks belong to a contractor in Kitwe, whom I would have named, but for the regulations of this House that prohibit my doing so.

Mr Milambo: Name him.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, the plate numbers of those vehicles are known. The vehicles are tipper trucks and are orange in colour. However, because the owner finances the PF, the police does not want to take action against him.

Mr Mwaliteta: Question!

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: That is why Zambians are against the Public Order Act.

Mr Speaker, in Sinda, members of the United Party for National Development (UPND) were brutalised by PF cadres who did not notify the police before having a procession while the victims had abided by the provisions of the law. Why should we allow the country to have two laws; one law for the royal family and another for the commoners? We are the commoners here and our people are the ones who are being brutalised.

Mr Speaker, in Lusaka, whenever a dignitary is travelling out of the country, the whole of the Great East Road is disturbed because there are processions. Members of the public are being beaten by PF cadres who do not notify the police about their processions. Why should we allow a situation where one class of citizens is above the law?

Mr Speaker, a Commissioner of Police in Muchinga Province, who is supposed to protect the rights of all citizens, had the audacity to inform the public that the PF is above the law and that it was not regulated by the Public Order Act. What law are we implementing? What option are we giving to the unfortunate?

Mr Speaker, we had a case in which the Public Order Act does apply when our members had a meeting in their offices in Mpika, but one of them, a pregnant lady, was brutalised by PF cadres. To date, that lady is still in hospital, but nothing has happened to her assailants because they are PF members.

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

Mr Mwiimbu: Sir, the Public Order Act is applied in a discriminatory way, and that is why I do not like its current provisions. I agree with those who assert that it is not the law, but  the leadership that is bad.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: It is the implementers of the law who are bad.

Mr Speaker, we have a bunch of copies of notifications to the police for us to have meetings and processions. If I had the opportunity, I would have brought a sack of them. However, the police has been saying that we are not allowed to be in Muchinga or the Northern provinces and when we go ahead with our meetings, we are brutalised. What audacity! What impunity!

Mr Speaker, Zambia is at a crossroads. Even if we amend the Public Order Act, as long as we have people on your right who do not respect the rights of others, it will be an exercise in futility. However, there is no way we will continue being denied our rights just because somebody is abusing the Public Order Act.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: It will not make sense.

Mr Speaker, this House has passed laws that very clearly state that people intending to convene a meeting or demonstrate need to notify the police, but the police wants them to apply for permission. Why should they do that? We have letters in which the police told us that we could not hold meetings because it was Christmas and asked us to postpone them to the following year. Why should we allow that?

Mr Speaker, currently, there is a state of emergency in Monze, where there are battalions of police officers. What have the people of Monze Central done? They cannot even move freely because of the laws that are being applied arbitrarily. As my colleague said, if you catch a tortoise and there is nothing else it can do, it will fart on you.

Laughter

Mr Mwiimbu: The PF should not take the people of Zambia for granted.

Hon. UPND Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: It should apply the Public Order Act fairly. Even its partner, the President of the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), was he not brutalised in Lundazi despite having been given the so-called permit? The police brutalised somebody who had followed the law. Even the PF members, if one of them decides to leave the party, the cadres will beat him or her up the next day.

Laughter

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

Hon. UPND Member: Miles Sampa.

Mr Mwiimbu: Why should we allow impunity to reign in this country? Why should we allow party cadres from the Copperbelt to go to Monze and Bweengwa in trucks to attack the people of those areas? I am not talking about the police officers, but party cadres. If the people of Bweengwa react, they will be accused of being lawless.

We should not allow that, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, we will continue to look to you to provide guidance on the Floor of this House. The statements made by the Government must be factual. We are headed towards the elections and, for the first time in this country, we all shudder at the prospect of not having peaceful elections because of the conduct of our colleagues.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwiimbu: They want to cause chaos deliberately through the Public Order Act, but the people of Zambia will not allow them to do that.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Imenda (Luena): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion that the Public Order Act be amended.

Sir, the Public Order Act, in its current form, is obnoxious, repressive and not in conformity with the democratic era in which we are. Let me give examples of events in which some people became victims of the Act.

Sir, the abuse of the Act started during the rule of the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD), which has now realised that it planted thorns and that the thorns are now pricking its members.

Mr Speaker, on 14th January, 2011, police officers were unleashed on innocent people in Limulunga and Mongu, and a number of people ended up in prison while others were brutalised. A pregnant woman was kicked while another woman who was cooking nshima had her pot kicked off the fire.

Laughter

Ms Imenda: Mr Speaker, these things happened, and they give an idea of what happens when police officers are given leeway to exercise uncontrolled powers over the people. They can be very extreme in the way they handle issues.

Sir, in 2013, innocent youths who called themselves Linyungandambo marched in Mongu. Even though the police had not given them a permit to do so, they had satisfied the requirements of the law by notifying the police of their intention to march. However, police officers were unleashed on them and some of them were taken to Mwembeshi Prison. I think we all know about that case.

Mr Speaker, in 2015, the Linyungandambo, Imilema and others were celebrating an annual event.  Again, they were arrested and taken to Kabwe. Why?

Sir, in 2013, after a new district was created in the Western Province, there was an argument about where the Boma was to be sited. Some said it should be in Nangula while others wanted it to be in Ushaa or Kaate, respectively. Those are areas in Limulunga District. Somebody imposed the decision that the Boma should be located in Kaate, but the people of Ushaa and Kaate did not want the Boma to be in that place, and they had reasons for not wanting it there. So, they called their hon. Member of Parliament to go and arbitrate in the argument, but somebody, whose name or post I do not want to mention, had the audacity to say that the hon. Member of Parliament was supposed to get a police permit before going to moderate that argument.

Hon. Opposition Members: Ah!

Ms Imenda: What audacity! What cheek!

Mr Speaker, sometimes, the police ignite situations just to bring about some disorder, probably because they have nothing to do, but want to be seen to be working. The example I gave involving the Linyungandambo is one such situation. Often, you will see a group of people standing by some minibuses. Those are the ones who start the violence. They will say, “Ni chani, iwe?”, using a language that is foreign to that area.

Mr Speaker: What does that mean?

Ms Imenda: It means “What is it?” (In a rude voice).

Laughter

Hon. Mbewe interjected.

Ms Imenda: No, that language is not used there.

I also remember one incident in Kanyama where some political party was supposed to have a rally and had notified the police, quite alright. However, the following day, the day the rally was supposed to take place, there were uniformed men in green, sealing off the area. So, who provoked the situation there? Was the Public Order Act meant for that? When people see such a situation, they can react, only for them to be accused of being violent.

Sir, may I remind you that revolutions are, sometimes, brought about by draconian laws and their discriminatory application.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Interruptions

Ms Imenda: If you do not know what I am talking about, read A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Member!

Please, continue addressing me.

Ms Imenda: Sir, if my colleagues do not know what I am talking about, they should read the book.

Mr Speaker, when the Opposition wants to hold rallies, they inform the police, which issues them a permit. Suddenly, however, the royal family, as Hon. Mwiimbu called it, goes to the same place and claims that it wants to also hold a rally there and the Opposition are asked to leave. Do you know the royal family to which the hon. Member of Parliament for Monze Central referred?  

Bishop Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha: No. Who are they?

Interruptions

Ms Imenda: The members of the Ruling Party.

Laughter

Ms Imenda: For example, I wanted to have a Christmas party in my constituency at a particular place, which I had done before. I did not notify the police, of course, because I do not need to do that when I am in the constituency to meet my people. Suddenly, however, somebody who is not even a Government officer, but an aspiring candidate on the Ruling Party ticket went to that place and declared that he would also host a Christmas party there. Being a law-abiding citizen, I let him have the place because I knew that I could still organise a New Year’s celebration. Had I not given in, we would have fought over the place and brought problems.

Mr Speaker, the Public Order Act, as Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa said, was meant for blacks during the colonial Government because the whites did not want blacks to have freedom of expression, freedom of movement and political activism. It is reminiscent of the state of emergency that was declared then to curtail political activity, leading to the incarceration of the likes of Former President, Dr Kenneth Kaunda, and his colleagues. However, surprisingly, when Zambians took over the Government, they fell in love with the Act, including some individuals whose names I will not mention.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Imenda: Mr Speaker, we have seen how the Public Order Act has been applied over the years and calls have been made for it to be repealed or amended.

Ms Lubezhi: Hear, hear!

Ms Imenda: Sir, people have promised to repeal the Act while in the Opposition, but renege as soon as they get into power and discover how sweet it is to enforce it. It is a very disappointing situation.

Sir, when a leader of an opposition political party went to a hospital to visit the sick, the police showed up and tried to stop him. The same thing happened when he went to the market, probably to buy some kapenta. All that was a result of the Public Order Act. So, this Act should be amended or completely done away with.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Imenda: However, I would not go to that extreme because when applied correctly, it is meant to protect law-abiding citizens.

Mr Speaker, we need to train our police officers in human rights issues. In this regard, I appeal to the hon. Minister of Home Affairs to facilitate the design of a human rights curriculum for police officers to cover when they go to Lilayi Police Training College.

Sir, I believe that the Zambia Police Force changed its name to Zambia Police Service because of human rights issues.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Prof. Lungwangwa: Tell them!

Ms Imenda: However, some of the vocabulary used by the Government, of late, makes me shudder. For example, encouraging a police officer to use maximum force could bring problems.

Mr Speaker, my appeal is: As we draw closer to the elections date, let us repeal this law because it can be used to intimidate voters.

Sir, could you, at some point, ask the hon. Minister of Home Affairs to publicly withdraw the use of the words ‘maximum force’ in this House.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Ms Imenda: Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mwila): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Member of Parliament for Choma Central, Mr Mweetwa, for seeking the Government’s position on the Public Order Act. In the same vein, I thank all the hon. Members who have debated the Motion.

Sir, allow me to state very clearly, once more, the Government’s position on the Act.

Mr Speaker, in December, 2015, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, directed my ministry to work in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice and all stakeholders to review the Public Order Act and address the concerns that it impedes the right to peaceful assembly of our citizens.

Sir, consultations with stakeholders within and outside the Government are currently on-going. Nevertheless, the consultations have, so far, suggested that the Act is essential for the management of good public order and protection of freedom of peaceful assembly. This is because most of our people still find it difficult to tolerate opinions and views that are different from theirs. The consultations also suggest that the main problem around the Act lies in its implementation or administration. Officials in the ministries of Home Affairs, and Justice are, therefore, looking at how to improve that aspect to achieve good public order and uphold freedom of peaceful assembly.

Sir, the consensus among stakeholders throughout the country is that the Public Order Act is essential to the maintenance of good public order and preservation of our democratic gains from extremist elements. That is evidenced by the fact that nearly all disruptions of good public order experienced in Zambia are politically motivated. Even the complaints about the administration of the Act are a preserve of politicians and politically-inclined organisations.

Sir, as I have already stated, the Public Order Act is essential to the maintenance of good public order. It will, therefore, be with us for many years to come. However, the Government is committed to improving its administration. To that end, we have asked all stakeholders, including the hon. Members of this august House, to submit proposals. They should not use threats because doing so will not help us.

Mr Speaker, let me end by appealing to all the hon. Members of this House and stakeholders across the country to submit proposals to my ministry or the Ministry of Justice so that we can improve the Public Order Act. I also want to specify that the relevant Bill will be presented to the House in the next sitting, which will be before the General Elections. The position of my Government on the Public Order Act, therefore, is simply that no one should push an open door. The review of the Act has already begun. So, as a Government, we will not entertain the Motion on that account.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, I let me take this opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who have taken time to share their opinions and views on this Motion.

Sir, in my earlier debate, I indicated that open discussion is the hallmark of an open society, and that views, even those that shock or disturb persons, including the State, no matter how obnoxious they may be to the listener, should be given an opportunity to be heard. I think that what has transpired this afternoon is the result of a desire to have an open discussion while maintaining divergent views. So, I feel honoured to have moved this Motion. We, certainly, are entitled to state our opinions.

Mr Speaker, the Motion is properly couched. It is meant to ‘urge’. Therefore, if the Government intends to do what the Motion proposes, why is it refusing to be urged? Its hon. Members have been accusing the Opposition of not supporting them on the Floor of the House yet, each time they move a progressive Motion in the House, the Opposition has supported it. They, on the other hand, have chosen to be partisan each time we have moved a progressive Motion since 2011.

 Mr Speaker: Order, hon. Member for Choma Central!

 Are you still on the same Motion?

Laughter

Mr Mweetwa: Yes, Mr Speaker.

 Mr Speaker: You seem to have gone to another Motion. You are winding up your Motion.

 Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that a Motion like this is harmless and reasonably expected to be supported by all reasonable hon. Members of this House.

 Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Therefore, it is illogical for them to say that they will not support this Motion. However, I understand them because, on the other side of the House, sometimes, they have linguistic challenges in understanding what we are saying.

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mweetwa: Mr Speaker, with those words, I thank you.

Laughter

Hon. UPND Members called for a division.

Question that this House urges the Government to amend the Public Order Act, Chapter 113 of the Laws of Zambia, to align it to the Bill of Rights put and the House voted.

Ayes – (25)

Mr Antonio
Mr Belemu
Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo
Mr Habeenzu
Ms Imenda
Mr Kasonso
Mr Katuka
Mr Livune
Mr Lombanya
Ms Lubezhi
Mr Lufuma
Mrs Mazoka
Mr Milambo
Mr Miyanda
Mr Miyutu
Mr Mufalali
Dr Musokotwane
Mr Mutelo
Mr Mweetwa
Mr Mwiimbu
Mr Ndalamei
Mr Ngoma
Bishop Lt-Gen Shikapwasha
Mr Sianga
Mr Sing’ombe

Noes – (72)

Mrs E. Banda
Mr I. Banda
Mr N. Banda
Mr W. Banda
Mr Bwalya
Mr Chabala
Col. Chanda
Mr Chansa
Dr Chilufya
Mr Chishimba
Mr Chisopa
Mr Chitotela
Mr S. Chungu
Mr Evans
Ms Kabanshi
Mr Kafwaya
Mr Kampyongo
Brig-Gen. Kapaya
Mr Kapeya
Mr Kapyanga
Mr Kasandwe
Col. Kaunda
Mrs Kawandami
Ms Kazunga
Mr Kosamu
Mr Kufuna
Ms Limata
Mr Lingweshi
Mr Lubinda
Dr E. Lungu
Prof. Luo
Mr Mabumba
Mr Mushili Malama
Mr Mwimba Malama
Mr Masumba
Mr Mbulu
Mr Monde
Mrs Mphande
Mr Mpundu
Mr Mubukwanu
Mr Mukanga
Ms Mulasikwanda
Mr Mulenga
Mr Mumba
Mr Mushanga
Mr Musukwa
Mr Mutale
Mr Mvunga
Dr Mwali
Mr Mwaliteta
Mr Mwamba
Mrs Mwanakatwe
Mr Mwango
Mr Mwenya
Mr Mwewa
Mr Mwila
Mr Ng’onga
Mr Njeulu
Mr P. Phiri
Mr Sata
Mr Shuma
Mr Siamunene
Mr Sichalwe
Mr Sichone
Mr Sichula
Mr Sikazwe
Mr Simbao
Dr Simbyakula
Mr Tembo
Prof. Willombe
Mrs Wina
Mr Zimba

Abstentions – (0)

Motion accordingly negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

The Vice-President and Minister of Development Planning (Mrs Wina): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.

__________

The House adjourned at 1918 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 18th February, 2016.