Ruling by Hon Mr Speaker on the Point of Order raised by Hon Prof Luo, Minister of Livestock and Fisheries against Mr. R Kang'ombe, MP for Sesheke on a Statement made against her on Prime Television

RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON THE POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY HON PROF N LUO, MP, MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND LIVESTOCK, AGAINST MR R KANG’OMBE, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR SESHEKE PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY ON WHETHER A STATEMENT HE MADE AGAINST HER ON PRIME TELEVISION STATING THAT THE HEAD OF STATE FAILED TO MENTION HER NAME WHEN HE SPOKE ON TRIBALISM, WAS DEFAMATORY AND MALIGNING

Hon Members will recall that on Tuesday, 10th March, 2020, when the House was considering Question No 235 on the Order Paper and Mr D Livune, Member of Parliament for Katombola Parliamentary Constituency was about to ask a follow up question, Hon Prof N Luo, MP, Minister of Fisheries and Livestock raised the following Point of Order: 
“Mr Speaker, I just want to emphasise that I rarely rise on points of order, but this one is very compelling because it borders on maligning people and a defamation of character. I am raising this point of order on the Hon Member of Parliament for Sesheke.

Sir, before I raise my point of order, I want to say that I have spent all these years building my name professionally and politically. Thus, I take great exception for any Hon Member of Parliament in this House to start maligning my name. 

Mr Speaker, I was watching a television clip on Prime TV in which the Hon Member of Parliament for Sesheke said the following: “When the Head of State spoke on tribalism, he failed to mention the name of Prof. Luo.” Prime TV is watched by many people. Is the Hon Member of Parliament for Sesheke in order to malign my name without any evidence of tribalism? Is that the reason the United Party for National Development (UPND) brought a Private Member’s Motion to this House to try and cleanse its name? I seek your serious ruling Mr Speaker on whether the Hon Members of Parliament are going to be in order to be maligning other people’s names.”

In my immediate response, I reserved my ruling to study the matter. I have studied the matter and I will now render my ruling. The Point of Order raises the issue of whether matters discussed outside the House, and which are unrelated to specific business of the House can be a subject of a Point of Order.

Hon Members, I must hasten to state, from the outset, that this Point of Order should not have been raised at all, because it relates to an issue that arose outside the House. I want to reiterate what I have said in this House on several occasions that, what transpires outside the House should not be brought to this House, but should remain and be concluded outside the House. In this regard, Members should be aware that this House will only entertain a Point of Order on an issue occurring outside the House, if it relates to a specific matter discussed in the House, and amounts to a breach of parliamentary privilege and in contempt of the House. 

Hon Members, I had occasion to guide on matters discussed outside the House in my ruling on a Point of Order Raised by the then Minister of Youth and Sport, Mr C Kambwili, MP, Against Mr C Mweetwa, MP, Member of Parliament for Choma Central Parliamentary Constituency, (Parliamentary Debates of the First Meeting of the Fourth Session of the Eleventh National Assembly, 19th September – 17th December, 2014, at pages 833-834). In that matter, I ruled, at page 834, as follows:
“I want to repeat what has been said in this House many times before that matters that occur outside should not be brought to this House, but should remain and be concluded outside the House. I understand that the statements by Hon Kambwili were made on a live call-in discussion programme on UNZA Radio.  This being the case, Hon Mweetwa had the opportunity to raise his views on Hon Kambwili's statements during the programme. The hon Member decided not to do so. Instead, he raised a point of order in this House which has led to a contest on facts whose material allegations I was not privy to. Hon Members, this kind of situation presents difficulties to presiding officers to rule on.

I, therefore, urge all hon Members to refrain from drawing the House into discussing matters that take place outside the House because presiding officers are not privy to such discussions. As a result of these points of order, we are compelled to go out to ascertain facts of those discussions which, at any rate, are not relevant to the business of the House.  In future, I will simply not entertain any point of order which brings discussions outside the House.”

Hon Members, I reiterated this position in the case of Hon N Chilangwa, MP, Minister for Luapula Province Against the then Member of Parliament for Roan Parliamentary Constituency, Dr C Kambwili (Daily Parliamentary Debates of 13th December, 2018).  In that case, Hon N Chilangwa, MP, alleged that Dr C Kambwili had gone on a rampage, peddling falsehoods to the nation that Ministers had their salaries increased.  In that regard, I stated in my ruling that in addition to not indicating where the falsehoods were being peddled by Dr C Kambwili, the statements that were referred to in the Point of Order were made outside the precincts of Parliament, and could therefore not be a subject of debate in the House. 

Hon Members, in this Point of Order, Hon Prof. N Luo, MP, asserted that Mr R Kang’ombe, MP, made a statement during a programme on Prime Television, where he allegedly maligned her name by linking her to tribalism.  What is clear from this Point of Order is that the statement being referred to was made outside the House during a Prime Television programme. It can, therefore, not be a subject of debate or a Point of Order in the House. 
In any event, I take cognizance of the fact that, the subject of tribalism has been discussed at length both in the House and outside by various political and non-political players in the press, on social media and in public debates. The subject was, therefore, in the public domain and Members of Parliament and the public at large, were free to comment on the topic.

Further, the House has no jurisdiction to determine whether a Member has been defamed, because the power to dwell into the defamation of individuals is vested in the courts of law. In this regard, any person who alleges that his or her character has been defamed, is at liberty to institute a court action.

Therefore, Hon Members, in line with the guidance and precedents set in the cases cited, I find that Mr R Kang’ombe, MP, was not out of order.

As I conclude, I wish to emphasise my guidance to all Hon Members to refrain from drawing the House into discussions occurring outside the House. The House is not an avenue for settling political battles occurring outside the House. Such political battles, should be concluded outside the House. 

I THANK YOU.

Ruling Date: 
Thursday, July 9, 2020