RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY DR M MALAMA, MP, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR KANCHIBIYA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY, AGAINST MR STEPHEN KATUKA, SECRETARY GENERAL FOR THE UNITED PARTY FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (UPND) FOR THREATENING TO DISCIPLINE UPND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO REMAINED IN THE HOUSE, DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) BILL NO. 10 OF 2019 ON THE ORDER PAPER, WHEN THEIR COLLEAGUES WALKED OUT

Hon Members will recall that on Thursday, 5^th December, 2019, when the House was considering Estimates of Expenditure under Head 68: Ministry of Tourism and Art, and Prof G Lungwangwa, Member of Parliament for Nalikwanda Parliamentary Constituency was on the Floor, Dr M Malama, Member of Parliament for Kanchibiya Parliamentary Constituency raised a Point of Order.  The relevant excerpt of the Point of Order is as follows:

“Sir, in today’s Zambia Daily Mail newspaper, dated Thursday, 5^th December, 2019, there is an article which reads: “MP dares UPND to discipline him”. Specifically, I will go to the paragraph which reads:

“It is not me alone to decide. The MPs have a leadership in Parliament, the Whips. So we will seek their advice on what course of action to take,“ Mr Katuka said.

Mr Chairperson, it further reads that:

“However, the Leader of the Opposition in the House, Jack Mwiimbu, told journalists at Parliament yesterday that the UPND will not discipline the two MPs because ‘they were exercising their rights they enjoy in the House’.”

Earlier it reads:

“Mr Kasonso has warned that should UPND discipline him, he will deal with the party.”

       “They can go ahead and discipline me if they so wish and I   will deal with UPND”, he said.

“Professor Lungwangwa was not available for comment”

Earlier, UPND Secretary General, Steven Katuka, said the party will discipline the two for remaining in the House when their colleagues walked out.”

Mr Chairperson, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia is very clear that these two Members of Parliament and all Members of Parliament, for that matter, have the right to express themselves and to be protected. Is the Secretary-General of the UPND in order to threaten Members of Parliament when they are exercising their role?”

In his immediate reaction to the Point of Order, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker, sitting as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole House, reserved his ruling in order to gather more information surrounding the matter. I have since investigated the matter and I will now render the ruling.

Hon Members, the Point of Order raises the question of an outsider intimidating or interfering with a Member in the performance of his duties as a Member of Parliament.

The relevant authorities in this Ruling are as set out below.

The National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia, is instructive in this regard.  Thus in terms of section 23 of the Act, it is an offence and serious breach of parliamentary etiquette for a person to threaten or deprive a member of a benefit in the course of his or her duties.  Section 23 (e) is expressed in the following terms:

“23. Any person shall be guilty of an offence who – (e) assaults, insults or threatens a member or deprives a member of a benefit on account of the member’s conduct in the Assembly or a committee"

Further, prominent writers on parliamentary practice and procedure, Audrey O’Brien and Marc Bosc, in their book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 108, state:

“Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any Member … on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament.  Any form of intimidation…of a person for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.”

Hon Members, may wish to note that the Point of Order is based on an article that was published in the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper on Thursday, 5^th December, 2019 under the caption “MP dares UPND to discipline him”.  Thus, 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 both Mr S Katuka and the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper, requesting them to confirm whether or not the statements alleged to have been made by Mr S Katuka in the article were correctly attributed to him.

1. RESPONSE BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ZAMBIA DAILY MAIL NEWSPAPER

The Managing Director of the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper confirmed that the alleged statement was correctly attributed to Mr S Katuka as reported by Mr Steven Mvula, Senior Reporter, who talked to Mr Katuka in a telephone interview on 4^th December, 2019.

1. RESPONSE BY MR STEPHEN KATUKA

In his response, Mr S Katuka indicated that his party had a clear position about not interfering with the manner in which its members conducted themselves during parliamentary business.  He further submitted that the party had also a clear position regarding certain Bills presented to Parliament without usurping the powers of Parliament.  He also noted that he is a former senior parliamentarian, who had served the Zambian Parliament for ten (10) years.  Mr S Katuka concluded by saying that the article in the Zambia Daily Mail, was a misrepresentation of his interview with the newspaper.

Hon Members, it is self-evident from the foregoing, that the responses by the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper, and Mr Katuka, are conflicted.  In order to resolve this conflict of versions, the Office of the Clerk wrote to the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper requesting for a copy of the recording of the interview with Mr Katuka.  In response, the Zambia Daily Mail Newspaper informed the National Assembly that the recording had been inadvertently deleted, but still maintained, that the article was factual.

Hon Members, since the Point of Order was based on a statement allegedly made by Mr Katuka, which the newspaper alleges was obtained through an interview, and the said interview cannot be accessed in order to verify whether or not the statement was correctly attributed to Mr S Katuka, it was difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion that the article was accurately attributed to Mr Katuka.  Moreover, Mr Katuka alleged that the article was a misrepresentation of his interview with the Newspaper.  A recording of the interview, whether audio or video, would have certainly supplied conclusive evidence, not only that Mr Katuka was interviewed by the Daily Mail Newspaper, but would also have established the content of the interview.  In the absence of such independent, and cogent evidence proving that, indeed, Mr Katuka made the statement, I am constrained in holding Mr Katuka culpable of threatening the Hon Members as alleged.

Consequently, I am unable to conclude that Mr Katuka breached the Members’ privilege.

I thank you.