Hon Members will recall that on Tuesday 19^th February, 2019, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 242 and Mr L C Bwalya, Member of Parliament for Lupososhi Parliamentary Constituency was about to ask a follow-up question, the Hon Minister for Southern Province, Hon Dr E Hamukale, MP, raised a Point of Order as follows:

“Sir, I would like to apologise to the Hon. Member of Parliament for interrupting his follow-up question.

Sir, are our colleagues on your left, the United Party for National Development (UPND) in particular in order to be walking-out of the August House every time the Hon. Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, Mr Chitotela, rises up to respond to a Question.

Mr Speaker, you may be perfectly aware that it is in public domain that over the past few days, one Hon. Member from your left side of the House was arrested and before that another Hon.  Member was also being questioned in the area of corruption. Actually, one Hon. Member is arrested. Are they, therefore, in order to walk-out of the House, knowing that they also have Hon. Members of Parliament within their family who are being questioned by the authorities over corrupt practices and there is evidence to that effect? Sir, I seek your serious ruling.”

Hon Members will also recall that on the same day, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer No. 245 and Mr M Jamba, Member of Parliament for Mwembeshi Parliamentary Constituency was about to ask a supplementary question, Mr T S Ngulube, Member of Parliament for Kabwe Central Parliamentary Constituency, raised a Point of Order as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I apologise to Hon. Jamba for disturbing his line of thought. My point of order is very brief, and it is directed at the Hon. Member of Parliament for Livingstone Parliamentary Constituency who seems to be going with the wind by walking-out of the Assembly Chamber with the team whenever Hon. Chitotela rises to speak. The Hon. Members then walk back into the House anytime thereby disturbing the proceedings.  Is he in order to be doing that when he is also appearing in court on corruption charges?

Is he in order to continue disturbing the flow of the proceedings of this House when, in actual fact, he knows that he is innocent until proven guilty just like the Hon. Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Development? Why is he playing double standards?”

In my immediate reaction to both Points of Order, I reserved my rulings to enable me render a measured ruling.  Hon Members, since the Points of Order emanated from the same situation, I have decided to address them in a composite ruling.

Hon Members, these Points of Order have apparently arisen as a result of a recent trend in the House of Members of Parliament on my left, and in particular, those belonging to the United Party for National Development (UPND), walking-out of the House, en masse, immediately after the Hon Minister for Housing and Infrastructure Development, Hon R K Chitotela, MP, rises to address the House or respond to a question.

The Points of Order, therefore, beg an answer to a question whether it is against the Rules of the House and parliamentary practice and procedure for a Member or Members of Parliament to walk-out of the House as a form of protest.

Hon Members, one of my predecessors, Hon Speaker Robinson Nabulyato, MP, had occasion to rule on the subject of walk-outs, in 1992, following walk-outs from the House by Members of the United National Independence Party (UNIP).  In his ruling, Speaker Nabulyato stated at page 1527 (Parliamentary Debates of 28^th January – 11^th March 1992), inter alia, as follows:

“Hon Members, in some Commonwealth Parliaments, opposition parties, pressure groups, political factions and sometimes even ruling parties which are represented in Parliament have, from time to time, staged walk-outs from debates of Parliament. This is a political strategy to block Bills, motions or any questions, which in their opinion are undesirable, unpopular or objectionable. In some cases, walk-outs have been used by dissatisfied groups of Hon. Members to put on record their resentment.

However, the consequences of walk-outs during the business of the House have always been negative. Evidence from other Commonwealth Parliaments indicates that walk-outs have, in some instances, disrupted the business of Parliament due to lack of a quorum.  These negative trends have, at times, denied the electorate of true representation when crucial issues have been presented for debate to the House.”

Further, Hon Members, I also dealt with a similar situation in a Ruling rendered on Tuesday, 24^th November 2015, on a Point of Order that was raised by the erstwhile Hon Minister of Local Government and Housing, Hon S Kampyongo, MP, against UPND Members of Parliament on Thursday, 19^th October, 2015 (National Assembly Parliamentary Debates of 18^th September – 10^th December, 2015, pages 1868-1871).  In that Ruling I stated, inter alia, as follows:

“Let me hasten to point out from the outset, that while it is conventional for Members to walk out of the Chamber for political or other reasons, this practice, nevertheless, has the unfortunate tendency of denying the electorate their representation in the House.”

Additionally, Hon Members, on Wednesday, 9^th December, 2015, I, once again, had occasion to address the issue of walk-outs in my ruling on a Point of Order raised by the erstwhile Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon H Kalaba, MP, against Members of the UPND who walked out of the House on Friday, 27^th November, 2015 (National Assembly Parliamentary Debates of 18^th September – 10^th December, 2015, pages 3282 – 3284). In that Ruling, this is what I said, at page 3283 – 3284:

“Going by the precedent set on the matter in Speaker Nabulyato’s Ruling, walk-outs, per se, do not amount to a breach of the Rules of the House or indeed parliamentary practice and procedure.  In view of this, the Hon Members of the UPND were not out of order to have walked-out of the House. This is especially so that the Members that walked-out on that day did return to the House shortly after what appeared to be an impromptu caucus or consultation.

In conclusion, I reiterate nonetheless that there are negative effects to walk-outs for the electorate and the smooth running of the business of the House.  I therefore urge Hon Members to exercise restraint and tolerance to opposing views and maintain their presence in the House and put forth their views, if need be, instead of staging walk-outs.”

In view of the above, Hon Members, it is very clear that the House has settled precedents on the subjects of walk-outs.

Hon Members, in rendering this ruling, I wish to comment in passing, and for avoidance of doubt, on the nature and effect of the doctrine of precedent in the context of parliamentary practice and procedure.  In most commonwealth jurisdictions that apply the common law, including Zambia, of course, the doctrine of precedent has been applied or extended to parliamentary practice and procedure.  In this regard, eminent writers on parliamentary practice and procedure, M N Kaul and S L Shakdher, in a book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Seventh Edition, on pages 131, state as follows in connection with rulings of the Speaker:

“ …. The Speaker’s rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and officers are guided. Such precedents are collected, and in course of time, formulated as rules of procedure or followed as conventions.”

In light of the above, it is very clear that the doctrine of precedent is indeed, an integral part of parliamentary practice and procedure.  And simply stated, entails that the rulings of incumbent Speakers constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and officers are guided when dealing with matters of a similar nature.

Furthermore, I would like to add that since walk-outs, absent of House rules to guide their conduct, and granted at any rate, the very essence or nature of a walk-out; a means through which a Member or Members are entitled to express their displeasure on a particular matter or subject, it does not, and cannot lie on the Speaker or indeed any Presiding Officer to regulate, adjudicate or indeed, pass judgment on the raison d’être, logic, rationale or indeed, wisdom or otherwise of any given walk-out.

Therefore, Hon Members, it is self-evident from the precedents I have alluded to and elucidated, that walk-outs, per se, do not amount to a breach of the Rules of the House or indeed parliamentary practice and procedure.  In view of this, the Hon Members of the UPND and indeed, Mr Kakubo, MP, were not out of order to have walked-out of the House at the material time.

I thank you.