Hon Members, I have a ruling to render.

Hon Members will recall that on Thursday, 13^th December, 2018, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 156, and Ms E Kabanshi, Member of Parliament for Luapula Parliamentary Constituency was asking a supplementary question, the Member of Parliament for Kapiri Mposhi Parliamentary Constituency, Mr S Kakubo, MP, raised the following Point of Order:

“Madam Speaker, I rise on a Point of Order and it is born from the questions which were asked on the Floor of this House on Tuesday, 11 December, 2018. The House was considering a question by the Hon Member for Chinsali in which he asked the Hon Minister of Finance concerning issues pertaining to the decline in reserves at the Central Bank. Particularly, I want to attach my Point of Order to the question which was asked by the Hon Member for Moomba, Mr Chaatila, when he asked the Hon Minister and I quote in part:

“Hon. Minister, would you be kind enough to tell us the major cause of the 28 per cent decline in the country’s reserves.”

In her response, the Hon Minister said, and I quote in part again:

“The decline was on account of debt service, coupon payments on the Eurobond and increased imports on petroleum products.”

Madam Speaker, you also gave me an opportunity to ask a question. My question was based on the Hon Minister's response to Hon Chaatila's question.  I explained that one of the reasons that the Hon Minister had given on that day was that the reserves were used to service the Eurobonds.  When the Hon Minister was given the opportunity to respond, she categorically said the following and I quote in part:

“We do not use reserves to service Eurobonds.  We use our own earnings to pay for Eurobonds.”

She went further and said “Osanama boza,” thereby implying that I was lying. Madam Speaker, you will notice from what I have shared with you that the Hon Minister had categorically responded to Hon Chaatila that she was using proceeds from the Central Bank to service the Eurobonds and pay the coupon which is the interest that is paid at the end of the year. However, when I asked her why the Government was using reserves to pay the Eurobonds, she changed her statement, as you can see clearly, and Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia does not allow that.  I, therefore, seek your ruling whether the Hon Minister is in order to backtrack on her own statement which she gave on the Floor of the House. Is she in order to mislead the House?  One of the two answers which she gave is definitely not correct because she responded to similar questions with two different and contradictory positions.  I seek your serious ruling.”

Hon Members, in her immediate response, the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker reserved her ruling.  I have studied the matter and I will now render the ruling.

Hon Members, the Point of Order raises the issue of a Member’s duty to ensure that the information he or she provides to the House, when debating, is factual and verifiable.

The House is aware that, the law and rules of the House circumscribe the freedom of speech and debate that Members enjoy in the House.  One such restraint, is the requirement for Members to debate factually, and in so doing avoid all manner of misleading the House.  The various sources for parliamentary practice and procedure attest to this requirement. To begin with, section 16 of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, makes it an offence for any person to intentionally mislead the House.  It states:

“Any person who before the Assembly or a Committee intentionally gives a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry which may be put to him during the course of any examination shall be guilty of an offence against section one hundred and four of the Penal Code.”

Further, Standing Order 53, of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2016, obligates a Member to debate factually. It states:

“53. (1) A member shall, in debating any matter, ensure that the information he or she provides to the House is factual and verifiable.”

Furthermore, the National Assembly Members’ Handbook, 2006, in Chapter 3 state that; “Members must not allege specific matters of fact as being true unless they are able to substantiate them.”

In addition, Hon Members, my predecessor had occasion to guide the House on the matter of a Member misleading the House, in his or her debate, in the ruling in the case of R Musokotwane and Hon M L Kaingu (Parliamentary Debates of the Third Meeting of the First Session of the Ninth National Assembly, 16^thJanuary to 27^th March, 2009), at page 3111.  In that matter, Hon M L Kaingu, MP, raised a Point of Order on the Floor of the House accusing Mrs R Musokotwane, MP, of requesting him to remove some settlers from Sichufulo Game Management Area, which was in her constituency.  However, it turned out that the statement by Hon M L Kaingu, MP was false.  Hon M L Kaingu, MP was found in breach of parliamentary privilege for making a false statement on the Floor of the House, and was admonished by the House.  In rendering the ruling on the matter, my predecessor stated as follows:

“Hon Members, while freedom of speech and action in the House are said to be unquestioned and free, there are certain restraints on the use of the right within the walls of the House.  The rules of the House demand that any information provided to the House must be factual.  It is an offence punishable by the House for any person to willfully mislead the House.

Therefore, Hon Members of the House have a duty to ensure that they carefully verify their information before submitting the same to the House.  This is important because the House, in making decisions, relies on the information submitted by Members.”

Hon Members, to get to the root of the point of order, my Office had recourse to the verbatim record of the proceedings of the House for Tuesday, 11^th December, 2018, in order to ascertain whether indeed the Hon Minister of Finance gave two (2) contradictory positions with regard to the same or similar questions.  The excerpts of the relevant debates read as follows:

The Minister of Finance (Mrs Mwanakatwe): “Madam Speaker, I wish to report to this August House that Zambia’s Gross International Reserves closed the month of January, 2016, at US$2.9 billion representing 4.2 months of import cover. Madam, by end of December, 2017, Zambia’s Gross International Reserves position had declined to US$2.1 billion representing 2.9 months of import cover.  The country’s reserves position declined by 28 per cent during the period.”

Mr Chaatila (Moomba): “Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to ask this question. Would the Hon Minister be kind enough to tell us the major cause of the 28 per cent decline in the country’s reserves?”

Mrs Mwanakatwe: “Madam Speaker, indeed, the decline is mainly on account of debt service, coupon payments on the Eurobond and increased imports of petroleum products.  I am happy to say that this decline was, however, partially mitigated by the Bank of Zambia by purchasing about US$743 million between 2016 and 2017.” 

The verbatim record further shows that Mr S Kakubo, MP, asked a supplementary question to the Hon Minister of Finance.  Mr Kakubo’s question and the Minister’s response were as follows:

“Mr Kakubo (Kapiri Mposhi): “Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the Hon Minister has given us is that the reserves were used to service the Eurobonds.  It, therefore, follows that the investments that the Government made with the Eurobonds were made in areas where the country cannot leverage and pay off the debt. Therefore, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, when is the ministry in a position to come back to the House, and give us a detailed list of how the Government spent the Eurobonds?”

Madam First Deputy Speaker: “Only if the Hon Minister is willing to give that answer. Otherwise, that matter is outside the Question.  Hon Minister, would you like to answer?”

Mrs Mwanakatwe: “Madam Speaker, we do not use reserves to pay Eurobonds. We use our own earnings to pay Eurobond interests.  The Hon Member of Parliament for Kapiri Mposhi should please take that information to his people.  I am also telling the nation now that we do not use reserves to pay Eurobond interests.  I was paying Eurobond interests last week.  My reserves were US$1.7 last week.  If you check my reserves today, they are the same. ‘Osanama boza’.  Do not tell falsehoods.”

Hon Members, Mr Kakubo, MP, raised the following specific issues against the Hon Minister of Finance, in his Point of Order:

1. Whether the Hon Minister was in order to backtrack on her own statement which she gave on the Floor of the House;
2. Whether the Hon Minister was in order to mislead the House; and
3. That one of the two answers the Hon Minister gave was definitely not correct because she responded to similar questions with two different and contradictory positions.

Hon Members, it is evident that the key words in Mr Kakubo, MP’s Point of Order are ‘backtrack’, ‘mislead’ and ‘contradictory’.  I will examine the meaning of these words in turn.

With regard to the allegation that the Hon Minister of Finance had backtracked on her own statement, I had recourse to the definition of “backtrack”. Margaret Deuter, J. Bradbery and & J Turnbull, Editors of Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Ninth Edition, (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015) define  “backtrack” at page 95 as follows:

“1. (Noun) to go back along the same route that you have just come along.

2. To change an earlier statement, opinion or promise because of pressure from somebody or something.”  

Also, Robert Allen, Mairi Robinson and George Davidson, the Editors of Chambers 21^st Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) define “backtrack” at page 95 as follows:

“1. (Verb) to return the way one came

2. To reverse one’s previous opinion or course of action”  

Hon Members, as regards the allegation that the Hon Minister of Finance had misled the House, I had recourse to the definition of “mislead”. Margaret Deuter, J. Bradbery and & J Turnbull, Editors of Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Ninth Edition, (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015) define ‘mislead’, at page 961, as follows:

“To give somebody the wrong idea or impression and make  them believe something that is not true…”

Further, Robert Allen, Mairi Robinson and George Davidson the Editors of Chambers 21^st Century Dictionary (Revised Edition) define ‘mislead’ at page 874 as follows:

“1. (Verb) to make someone take a wrong or undesirable course of action.

2. To cause someone to have a false impression or belief.”

On the allegation that the Hon Minister gave different and contradictory answers, I considered the definition of the word ‘contradictory’.  Margaret Deuter, J. Bradbery & J Turnbull, Editors of Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Ninth Edition, (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015) define ‘contradiction’ and ‘contradictory’ at page 322 and 323 as follows:

(i) Contradiction:

“1. (Between A and B) A lack of agreement between facts, opinion actions etc.

2. The act of saying that something that somebody else has said is wrong or not true”  

(ii) Contradictory:  

“Containing or showing a contradiction”

Robert Allen, Mairi Robinson and George Davidson the Editors of Chambers 21^st Century Dictionary, Revised Edition define ‘contradictory’ at page 297 as follows:

 “1. Inconsistent 2. Denying 3. Contrary”  

Hon Members, it is clear from the verbatim record that the Hon Minister of Finance gave two different positions in response to the same question.  In her earlier statement, the Hon Minister of Finance informed the House that the decline in the country’s foreign reserves was partly on account of debt service, including coupon (interest) payments on the Eurobonds.  In her later statement, she indicated that the Government did not use its foreign reserves to service Eurobonds, but that the Government used its own earnings to pay for Eurobonds. Hon Members, upon  assessing the Hon Minister’s two statements against the definitions of the words ‘backtrack’, ‘mislead’ and ‘contradict’, it is clear that the Hon Minister backtracked from her earlier statement that the payment of interest on Eurobonds had contributed to the decline in the country’s foreign reserves.  It is further evident that due to the backtracking, the Hon Minister uttered contradictory statements on the Floor of the House and, as a consequence, misled the House.

The Hon Minister was, therefore, out of order.

I thank you.