RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY HON T S NGULUBE, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT CHIEF WHIP AND MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR KABWE CENTRAL PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY AGAINST MR C D MIYANDA, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR MAPATIZYA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY ON WHETHER HE WAS IN ORDER TO STATE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD LEAD BY EXAMPLE ON ALCOHOL IN LIGHT OF THE HON MR SPEAKER’S GUIDANCE TO THE EFFECT THAT MEMBERS’ DEBATES MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE MOTION BEFORE THE HOUSE ON FRIDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY, 2021 

Hon Members will recall that on Friday, 19th February, 2021, when the House was considering the Motion of Thanks on The President’s Address on the Progress Made in the Application of National Values and Principles and Mr C D Miyanda, Member of Parliament for Mapatizya Parliamentary Constituency was on the Floor, Hon T S Ngulube, Deputy Government Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Kabwe Central, raised the following Point of Order: 

“Mr Speaker, thank you for according me this opportunity to rise on this very important point of order.  Mr Speaker, you have already guided this House, and I think we all know that relevance is one of the pillar stones of debates in this House. When the hon. Member debating says that the Head of State must lead by example, especially on alcohol, is he referring to the President’s Speech or is he still going back to the same thing that you have already guided us on?
   I seek your serious ruling.” 

In my immediate response to the Point of Order, I indicated that I was constrained to rule on the Point of Order until I had sight of the verbatim record. I have since perused the record on the matters relevant to the Point of Order and now render my ruling. 

Hon Members, having contextualized the Point of Order, I wish to apprise the House that the Point of Order raises the issue of a Member debating the persona of the Head of State. The National Assembly Members’ Handbook, 2006, is instructive on the matter. In this regard, paragraphs 24 (d) and (e) of Chapter Five, entitled Conduct of Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Etiquette, provides that: 

“24. While on the Floor of the House, Members should not:
(d) reflect upon the conduct of persons in high authority i.e. the Head of State or the Chair unless the discussion is based on a substantive motion drawn on proper terms; and
(e) use the name of the Head of State for the purpose of influencing debate.”

Hon Members, the import of this provision is that Members are barred from bringing in their debate, the persona of the President.   That is, Members are proscribed from making reflections on the conduct of the President or other persons in high authority as spelt out, unless the discussion is based on a substantive Motion drawn on proper terms.

Therefore, Mr Miyanda, MP, was out of order when he made reference to the Head of State, in the manner he did.  By so doing, he fell foul of paragraphs 24 (d) and (e) of Chapter Five of the Members’ Handbook. 

I THANK YOU.