RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON THE POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY MR K SIMBAO, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR SENGA HILL PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY ON WHETHER THE MEMBERS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO SCRUTINISE THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA (AMENDMENT) BILL NO. 10 OF 2019 WERE IN ORDER NOT TO SUPPORT THEIR REPORT DURING THE SECOND READING STAGE OF THE BILL ON WEDNESDAY, 24TH JUNE, 2020

Hon Members will recall that on Wednesday, 24th June, 2020, when the House was considering the Second Reading stage of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019 and Mr M Mawere, MP, Member of Parliament for Chipata Central Parliamentary Constituency was debating, Mr K Simbao, MP, Member of Parliament for Senga Hill Parliamentary Constituency raised the following Point of Order:

“Mr Speaker, my point of order is against Members of the Select Committee who were privileged to scrutinise the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10, 2019 on our behalf and for our consumption as a whole House. 

Mr Speaker, I note that the Select Committee sat for twenty days plus, which is unprecedented in terms of Select Committee sittings. What I know is that traditionally, Select Committees do not sit beyond ten days. 

Mr Speaker, in those twenty days, I did not hear the voice of the Church or, indeed, that of the Opposition, particularly the United Party for National Development (UPND), who are now in the forefront of stopping the progression of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10, 2019 in the House. For twenty days, the Hon Members of the UPND on the Committee continued to deliberate the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, No 10 of 2019. Mr Speaker, I wonder why these Hon Members were not pulled out from the Committee during this time.

Mr Speaker, I have also heard views from other sources of repute like Prof Ndulo arguing that we operate on similar lines to the British Parliament, I believe, in an effort to try to hoodwink the masses in Zambia that we are doing something wrong.

Mr Speaker, I refer you to the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2016. I am not aware of any other later version of the Standing Orders other than these. I am sorry I do not have the Standing Orders, 2016 with me right now. However, Standing Order 145(3) on page 58, talks of a Member of a Committee not staying away and not refusing to vote on the Report that the Committee has presented to the House. Are the Members of the Select Committee, therefore, in order to abandon their Report which they had panel beaten so heavily that they removed all the things that were really important? They removed the mettle of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No.10, 2019 and only left the filler. All the controversial issues have been purged out and only issues not worth creating anarchy about have been left. Are your Select Committee Members in order not to support their own Report when Standing Order 145(3) of the Standing Orders compels them to do so?”

Hon Members, in my immediate response, I reserved my ruling to enable me carefully consider the Point of Order, in light of the issues raised. I have studied the matter and will now render my ruling. 

Hon Members, the Point of Order raises the issue of whether a member of a committee considering a Bill who does not support the Bill during the Second Reading stage, of the Bill, breaches Standing Order 145 (3) of the Standing Orders.

For avoidance of doubt, Standing Order 145 (3) provides as follows:
 “145 (3) A member of a Select Committee shall not dissent from or vote against the recommendations of his or her own report in the House.”

Hon Members, I have rendered several rulings on this matter and will not belabour the point any further. Suffice to mention that there is a clear distinction in procedure between reports presented to the House by committees for adoption and reports on Bills. 

I rendered a ruling on a similar matter on a Point of Order raised by Mr J J Mwiimbu, Member of Parliament for Monze Central Parliamentary Constituency against Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights, Gender Matters and Child Affairs, who voted against their Reports (Parliamentary Debates of the First Meeting of the Fifth Session of the Eleventh National Assembly, 18th September - 10th December, 2015, pages 3341-3342). The question for determination in that Point of Order, was whether, it was in order, for a member of a Committee tasked to consider a Bill to vote against the recommendations of the Committee on the Bill.

In addressing the question, I stated, at pages 3341 to 3342, as follows:
“Once a Committee presents its report to the House on the Bill, the House proceeds to consider the Bill as presented by the mover of the Bill, in this case, the Hon. Minister of Justice. The report of the Committee on the Bill, therefore, is not the subject of discussion, but is merely used to assist the House understand the ramifications of the Bill. Hon Members will recall that this was the spirit of the parliamentary reforms that introduced the system of referring Bills to Committees. Therefore, although the Committee’s report is referred to in debating the Bill, the subject of debate still remains the Bill, not the report. It is for this reason that no Motion is moved on the Floor of the House to adopt such a report and no question is put to the House to adopt it. The question put to the House following the debate is whether the Bill should be read for the second time. This procedure is clearly distinguishable from the one used to adopt a report of a Select or Portfolio Committee, in which the subject of the debate on the Floor of the House is the report.”

Ultimately, I therefore, ruled that the Members of the PF and MMD who voted contrary to the recommendations of their Committee reports on the two Bills were not out of order. 

Similarly, in this matter, the question that was before the House at the time some Members of the Select Committee walked out, was whether the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, N.A.B No 10 of 2019 should be read a second time and not whether the report of the Select Committee should be adopted. The report of the Committee that considered the Bill was not brought to the House for approval or adoption, but merely to assist Members as they debate the ramifications of the Bill.

Hon Members, it is, therefore, clear that the Members of the Select Committee who walked out were not out of order because it was not the report or its recommendations that were being considered by the House, but the Second Reading stage of the Bill.

I thank you.
___________________