RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY PROF G LUNGWANGWA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR NALIKWANDA PARLIAMENTRAY CONSTITUENCY AGAINST HON CHILANGWA, MP, MINISTER FOR LUAPULA PROVINCE ON HIS ALLEGED DISRESPECTIFUL CONDUCT TOWARDS THE HON MADAM FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER SITTING AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY ON TUESDAY, 20^TH NOVEMBER, 2018

________________________________________________

I order Hon N Chilangwa, MP, Minister for Luapula Province to go and stand behind the bar of the House. I also instruct the Sergeant-At-Arms to take the Speaker’s mace and to go and stand behind the Hon Minister.

Hon Members, I wish to bring it to the attention of the House that on Wednesday 21^st November, 2018, I received a letter of complaint from Prof G Lungwangwa, Member of Parliament for Nalikwanda Parliamentary Constituency, against Hon N Chilangwa, MP, Minister for Luapula Province.  In his letter, Prof G Lungwangwa, MP, alleged that the Hon Minister for Luapula Province exhibited the highest level of disrespect to the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, Catherine Namugala, sitting as Chairperson of the Committee of Supply on Tuesday, 20^th November, 2018. Prof Lungwangwa, MP’s letter of complaint was couched in the following terms:

“Dear Sir

COMPLAINT AGAINST HON MR N CHILANGWA, MP, PROVINCIAL MINISTER FOR LUAPULA PROVINCE

I humbly bring to your attention a disturbing incident of the highest level of disrespect to the Chairperson of the Committee of Supply, the Deputy Speaker, Hon Catherine Namugala, MP, displayed by Hon N Chilangwa, MP.  Hon Chilangwa tried in vain to get a point of order against Hon Mweetwa, MP.  When Hon Chilangwa was ordered to leave the Chamber because of his unruly behavior he stood up and started shouting at the Chairperson and continuously pointing his finger at the Hon Deputy Speaker.  This was highly disrespectful to the Hon Deputy Speaker and should not be condoned in the August House.

Sir, the decorum rules of the House are very clear.  All Hon Members are expected to show respect to the Presiding Officers at all times.  Hon Chilangwa’s behaviour was a violation of the decorum of the House.  His behaviour was unbecoming for a Hon Member of the House.  I am launching a complaint over Hon Chilangwa, who as a Provincial Minister is expected to exhibit the highest degree of integrity both inside and outside the House.  If such behavior as displayed by Hon Chilangwa is not corrected through appropriate disciplinary measures, the House risks degenerating into disorder of unacceptable proportion.

It is my prayer that the Hon Mr Speaker will take disciplinary measures against Hon Chilangwa for his unruly behaviour.

Yours faithfully

Hon Prof. Geoffrey Lungwangwa, MP

NALIKWANDA CONSTITUENCY”

In line with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to Hon N Chilangwa, MP, requesting him to state his side of the story regarding the complaint lodged by Prof G Lungwangwa, MP.

In his letter of response, Hon N Chilangwa, MP, Minister for Luapula Province, deviated from the subject matter of the complaint and instead raised issues of alleged disorderly conduct by the complainant and the other members of the United Party for National Development (UPND).  He further complained against the manner in which the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, Catherine Namugala was presiding over the affairs of the House.  He concluded his response by urging the Committee to dismiss the complaint.

Hon Members, the complaint by Prof Lungwangwa, MP, raises the issue of a Member exhibiting disorderly conduct on the Floor of the House and showing disrespect to a Presiding Officer.

The National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap 12 of the Laws of Zambia, is instructive in this regard. It provides, in section 19 (d) and (e) as follows:

“19. Any person shall be guilty of an offence who-

(d)    shows disrespect in speech or manner towards the Speaker; or

(e)    commits any other act of intentional disrespect to or with reference to the proceedings of the Assembly or of a committee of the Assembly or to any person presiding at such proceedings.”

Further, eminent authors on parliamentary practice and procedure, M N Kaul and S L Shakdher, in their book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Seventh Edition, (New Delhi, Lok Sabha, 2016) on page 341, have this to say:

“Members should not make use of expressions which are offensive, or attribute motives to the chair.”

Furthermore, Hon Members, it is noteworthy that this House had occasion to consider a similar matter in the case of Vernon Johnson Mwaanga v Major Robbie Chizhyuka (National Assembly Parliamentary Debates, 16^th January – 27^th March 2009, at pages 3446-3451).

In that case, Major Robbie Chizhyuka, then Member of Parliament for Namwala Constituency, was ordered to withdraw from the House for conducting himself in a disorderly manner, and making loud interjections in the House while seated.  Major Robbie Chizhyuka walked out of the Chamber shouting continuously whilst looking at the Chair.  Subsequently, Hon V J Mwaanga, MP, Government Chief Whip, as he then was, lodged a complaint against Major Chizhyuka for his disorderly and unparliamentarily conduct in the House.

The matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services for consideration.  The Committee found that Major Chizhyuka had breached the rules of parliamentary etiquette.  The Committee further found Major Chizhyuka guilty of disorderly conduct, and showing disrespect to the Speaker and recommended his suspension from the service of the National Assembly for sixty (60) days.  The House, by resolution, upheld the decision of the Committee and the Member was accordingly suspended.

Hon Members, in this case, I referred the complaint by Prof G Lungwangwa, MP, to the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services for consideration.  The Committee met and deliberated on the matter.  During its deliberations, the Committee had recourse to the relevant Parliament Television footage, and the verbatim record of what transpired on the material day.  Prof G Lungwangwa, MP, as well as Hon N Chilangwa, MP, also appeared before the Committee to augment their written submissions.  Hon N Chilangwa, MP, admitted having breached the rules of the House and expressed regret at his conduct.

Hon Members, after considering the television footage, verbatim record, and submissions from the two parties, the Committee established the following matters:

1. That the Hon Minister for Luapula Province did, in fact, point his finger and retort at the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, Catherine Namugala, as he was leaving the Chamber after she had directed him to do so; and

1. That the Hon Minister for Luapula Province admitted to have misconducted himself and expressed regret for it.

In view of the foregoing, the Committee found that by continuing to retort, and pointing a finger at the Presiding Officer when he was ordered to leave the Chamber, Hon N Chilangwa, MP, Minister for Luapula Province, had conducted himself in a disorderly manner and had shown disrespect to the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, Catherine Namugala.  The Committee found that he was, in this regard in contempt of the House contrary to the provisions of section 19 (d) and (e) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

Hon Members, the Committee further noted that the offence committed by Hon N Chilangwa, MP, was grave and was one that had, in the past, attracted the severe sanction of suspension.  However, when the Committee took into account the fact that the Hon Minister had admitted committing the offence, and had expressed regret about it, resolved to exercise leniency.  Further, the Committee opined that the Chizhyuka case, supra, was distinguishable from the case of Hon Chilangwa, MP, because the misconduct in the case of Hon Chilangwa, MP, arose from the refusal of the presiding officer to allow him to raise a Point of Order which tendency the Committee noted, had become prevalent among presiding officers, and infringed on the right of a Member to raise a Point of Order.

Consequently, the Committee resolved that Hon N Chilangwa, MP, be given a formal warning in accordance with section 28(1) (a) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.  

Hon Members, I considered the recommendation of the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services on the matter and wish to inform the House that two issues arise.  First, the propriety of the recommendation of the Committee in light of a precedent that provided for a much stiffer punishment of suspension.  And second, the avenue available to a Member to challenge the decision of a presiding officer by way of a substantive motion.

Hon Members, I shall now address the two issues seriatim.

1. First, the propriety of the recommendation of the Committee in light of a precedent that provided for a much stiffer punishment of suspension

Hon Members, the doctrine of precedent is one of the fundamental principles that underpin common law. Generally, the doctrine is a legal concept applied in common law jurisdictions. Bryan A Garner, Editor-in-Chief of the Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, (USA, Thomson Reuters 2009), defines precedent, at page 1295, as follows:

“… a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues.

In law, a precedent is an adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as furnishing a rule or authority for the determination of an identical or similar case afterwards arising, or of a similar question of law. The only theory on which it is possible for one decision to be an authority for another is that the facts are alike, or, if the facts are different, that the principle which governed the first case is applicable to the variant facts.”

The doctrine of precedent has been extended to parliamentary practice and procedure.  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 on 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. The Speaker’s rulings, as already stated, cannot be questioned except on a substantive motion…’’

Additionally, Hon Members, the learned author of Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24^th Edition (London: Lexis Nexis, 2011), at page 62 have this to say:

“The Speaker’s rulings constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members, and officers are guided.”

In light of the above, Hon Members, it is very clear that the doctrine of precedent is an integral part of parliamentary practice and procedure in commonwealth jurisdictions.  and entails that the decisions of the Speaker shall guide subsequent Speakers, members and officers when dealing with matters of a similar nature.

(b)    Second, the avenue available to a Member to challenge a decision of a presiding officer.

Hon Members, as regards the issue or question of challenging the decision of a presiding officer, Standing Order 62 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2016 is instructive, and provides as follows:

“62. (1) Subject to standing order sixty-four, a member who wishes to challenge the decision of the presiding officer shall do so by moving a substantive motion.

(2) The motion shall be referred to the Committee responsible for privileges of members for consideration.

(3) The motion shall not be debated in the House unless the Committee responsible for privileges of members resolves that the motion be tabled for debate by the House.”

The rationale for the above provision is adumbrated by Audrey O’Brien and Marc Bosc, the learned authors of a book entitled: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, who state as follows at page 313:

“When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent.  He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.  The actions of the Speaker may not be criticised in debate or by any means except by way of substantive motion. Such motions have been moved against the Speaker or other presiding officers on rare occasions. Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker – an allegation of bias, for example – could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.”

From the preceding authorities, it is clear that where a Member is aggrieved by a decision of a presiding officer, he or she is at liberty to challenge such decision through a substantive motion.

Hon Members, in the Chizhyuka case a precedent was set that where a Member commits the offence of intentional disrespect to a presiding officer, a sanction of suspension is meted out.  From the preceding discourse on precedents, it is clear that the House in disciplining a Member, who commits an offence of utter disrespect to a presiding officer, must be guided by the Chizhyuka precedent.

Further, as regards the manner of challenging a decision of a presiding officer, our rules, and, indeed, general parliamentary practice and procedure in the Commonwealth, prescribe that where a Member wishes to challenge the decision or ruling of the Speaker, he or she shall do so by way of a substantive motion.  In this regard, any Member who, for instance, is dissatisfied with a decision by a presiding officer not to grant a Point of Order is at liberty to challenge the decision through a substantive motion.

In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services was not terra firma to depart from a ruling of the erstwhile Hon Mr Speaker, Mwanamwambwa and resolution of the House, which prescribed sixty (60) days suspension.  This matter is practically on all fours with the Chizyuka precedent.  Needless to state that the Committee was at liberty to recommend, if it was so inclined, a suspension of a shorter period.

Let me also say this in passing, as regards the relationship of the Office of the Speaker and the Committee on privileges in the discharge of its functions.  Section 28B (1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act is expressed in the following terms:

“28B (1) There is established a Committee on privileges, which shall assist the Speaker in determining all matters of privileges and immunities of the Assembly and Members.”  [Emphasis ours]

Hon Members, the import of this provision is that the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services exists to assist the Speaker in determining all matters of privileges and immunities of the Assembly, and Members.  In so doing, the Committee makes recommendations for the consideration, and where appropriate, adoption by the Speaker.

In view of the foregoing, and in keeping with the precedent in the Chizhyuka case, I have not been persuaded by the recommendation of the Committee that Hon N Chilangwa, MP, should be formally warned because, at any rate, of the alleged tendency by Presiding Officers to infringe on the purported right-purported, in contradistinction to privilege of the Members to raise Points of Order.

In declining the recommendations of the Committee, I have decided that Hon Chilangwa, MP, be suspended from the service of the National Assembly for a period of seven (7) days, beginning from today, Wednesday 20^th March 2019.

I now turn to address Hon Chilangwa, MP.

Hon Chilangwa, MP, your conduct of showing disrespect in speech and manner towards the Hon Madam First Deputy Speaker, Catherine Namugala, is unbefitting the conduct of a Member of Parliament, and moreover a Minister of the State.  Further, as a senior member of this August House, you ought to know that this is a House of honour, decorum and dignity, and, as such, your conduct ought to be exemplary and above reproach.  Ordinarily, your conduct would have attracted a more severe punishment, but due to the fact that you readily regretted your conduct, I have elected to exercise leniency on you.  I wish to reiterate that I will not tolerate gross indiscipline and misconduct from any Member of this House.  The honour, decorum and dignity of the House must be protected and preserved at all times.  I do trust that you will reflect seriously on your conduct and, in future, desist from conduct unbefitting a Member and moreover a Minister.

Thus, in accordance with section 28 (2) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, which requires a resolution of the House to suspend a Member from the House, I now put the Question:  The Question is, that the House suspends Hon Chilangwa, MP, for a period of seven (7) days with effect from today, Wednesday, 20^th March, 2019.

As many as are of that opinion say ‘Aye’;

Of the contrary say ‘No’;

I think the ‘Ayes’ have it. [pause]. The ‘Ayes’ have it.  The question is resolved in the affirmative.

Hon Chilangwa, MP, before you take the walk of shame through the main entrance door of the Assembly Chamber, I wish to inform you that in accordance with section 28 (3) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, during the period of your suspension, you shall not:

(i)     enter the precincts of the Assembly and this extends to the National Assembly Motel;

(ii)     participate in any activity of the Assembly or any committee that you are assigned in, in your capacity as Member of Parliament; and

(iii)   be paid a salary or allowance that you are entitled to as a Member.

I now order you, Hon Chilangwa, MP, to take the walk of shame and leave the Chamber through the Main Entrance of the Chamber, on seven (7) days suspension with effect from today, Wednesday, 20^th March, 2019 to Wednesday, 27^th March, 2019.

I thank you.

OR

As many as are of that opinion say ‘Aye’;

Of the contrary say ‘No’;

I think the ‘Noes’ have it. [pause]. The ‘Noes’ have it. The question is negatived

Hon N Chilangwa, MP, you may resume your seat.