RULING BY THE HON MR SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY HON A CHITEME, MP, MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ON FRIDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER, 2020, AGAINST HON J J MWIIMBU, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION AND MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR MONZE CENTRAL PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY, ON WHETHER HE WAS IN ORDER TO REFER TO THE PATRIOTIC FRONT PARTY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FROM THE COPPERBELT AS CRIMINALS IN HIS DEBATE WITHOUT LAYING THE EVIDENCE ON THE TABLE OF THE HOUSE

 

Hon Members will recall that on Friday, 27th November, 2020, when the House was considering the adoption of the Report of the Committee on Media, Information and Communication Technologies and Hon T S Ngulube, Deputy Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Kabwe Central Parliamentary Constituency was on the Floor, Hon A Chiteme, Minister of National Development Planning raised the following Point of Order:

 

“Hon Chiteme: Mr Speaker, I know that, as Hon Members of Parliament, we are accorded privileges to rise on Points of Order, especially when we feel that there is a breach of the Standing Orders. In this case, I am referring to Standing Order No.53, which reads as follows: 

 

“53. (1) A member shall, in debating any matter, ensure that the information he or she provides to the House is factual and verifiable.” 

 

Mr Speaker, further, Chapter No. 3 of the 2006 National Assembly Members’ Handbook, at page 13, states as follows: 

 

“Members must not allege specific matters of fact as being true unless they are able to substantiate them.” 

 

Mr Speaker, in his contribution to the debate on Head 21 – Loans and Investments – K13,555,860,128, Hon Mwiimbu called the Hon Members on your right thieves and criminals who have gone round acquiring buses and throwing around money to the people in their constituencies. The Hon First Deputy Speaker, who was the Chairperson of the Committee at that time, restrained him.  Firstly, she said, “I will not allow that. Withdraw your statement, on two accounts. Number one, because we do not debate ourselves.” Secondly, he was told that he would be called upon to adduce evidence that we were, indeed, thieves; that we were throwing around money recklessly; and that we are a party that has more money than the Government. 

 

Mr Speaker, he was stopped and ordered to withdraw what he had said, and given extra time in which to do that. He came back on the Floor and further said, “Actually, I have substantial evidence that the Hon Members of Parliament for Chililabombwe and Nkana –” 

 

Hon Member: Yourself?

 

Hon Chiteme: Mr Speaker, yes, myself, thank you very much.  He alleged that we are the ones who have stolen to buy the said buses and flashed money to the people in our constituencies. He further said that he was going to lay the evidence on the Table.  Mr Speaker, is Hon Mwiimbu in order to disrespect the decorum of this House by going against the Standing Orders and calling Hon. Members on this side criminals and thieves?  Mr Speaker, this is the fourth time that Hon. Mwiimbu has come to this House. He has been in this House for twenty good years. 

 

Mr Speaker, is the Hon Member in order to make all these false accusations without providing the needed evidence or even just going to Higer Bus to get the names of the said Hon Members of Parliament who have acquired buses? 

 

Mr Speaker, let me just quickly conclude. To get a bus from Higer, it is K4,000 per month.  

 

Is he in order, Sir? 

 

Mr Speaker, I need your serious ruling”

 

In my immediate response, I reserved my ruling to enable me study the matter carefully, especially the verbatim record of the proceedings, so that I could render a measured response.  In addition, the House may wish to note that, on the same day that the Point of Order was raised, my office received a letter of complaint from Hon A Chiteme, MP, on the same matter. The letter of complaint was expressed in the following terms:

 

“RE: COMPLAINT LETTER AGAINST HON JACK MWIIMBU, MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The above matter refers.

 

Sir, I am a Member of Parliament for Nkana and currently Minister of National Planning and Development.

 

Sir, during the debate in the House on the Committee of Supply, the Hon Leader of the Opposition alleged that I, as Member of Parliament for Nkana Constituency together with other Members of Parliament, had no capacity to buy buses but that we had bought buses for the community. He also alleged that he had evidence which he was going to lay on the table of the House.

 

I wish to state that I did not purchase any bus and have not distributed any bus to the community. The said statement was so misleading and not factual.

 

Sir, was the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in order to mislead the House and the nation when he knew that he had no evidence whatsoever of what he was referring to.

 

I seek your serious ruling on this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Hon Alexander Chiteme, MP

MINISTER OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT”

 

In line with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, on 10th December, 2020, the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, requesting him to state his side of the story. However, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, did not respond to the letter. This prompted the Office of the Clerk to write another letter on 26th January, 2021, reminding Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, to state his side of the story. Subsequently, on 28th January, 2021, Hon J J Mwiiimbu, MP, responded as follows:

 

“RE:  POINT OF ORDER AND COMPLAINT AGAINST MYSELF BY HON A CHITEME, MP, MINISTER OF NATIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

 

The above matter and your letter of the 26th January, 2021 instant refers.

 

Please be advised that the complaint and the Point of Order are contradictory. In the premises, it’s difficult for me to respond.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Hon Jacob J Mwiimbu, MP

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION”

 

Hon Members may wish to note that the Point of Order and letter of complaint by Hon A Chiteme, MP, raise the issue of a member’s duty to ensure that the information he or she provides to the House, when debating, is factual and verifiable.

 

The duty to ensure that the information a member provides to the House when debating is factual and verifiable, is a requirement that is well known to all the Members. I, therefore, do not wish to belabour the point.  Suffice to say that Members may make reference to Standing Order 53 (1) of the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2016 and Chapter 3 of the National Assembly Members’ Handbook 2006 on “Rules of Debate,” to apprise themselves of this duty.  

 

Hon Members, I have rendered rulings on similar matters on numerous occasions. And more recently, in the case of Hon R Chitotela, Minister of Tourism and Arts and Mr A L Lufuma, Member of Parliament for Kabompo Parliamentary Constituency (Daily Parliamentary Debates of Tuesday, 3rd March, 2020, pages 2 to 6), where I stated, at page 8, as follows:

 

“I would like to take this opportunity to remind Hon Members of their duty to ensure that the information they provide to the House is not only factual, but also verifiable and substantiated.  I have, however, noted with concern that, of late, Hon Members tend to make unverified and unsubstantiated statements. This is unfortunate, granted that the debates in the House, are followed not only countrywide, but also worldwide, through the radio, television, and on the internet.  It is, therefore, cardinal that Hon Members should verify information submitted to the House, in order to avoid misleading the House and the public at large.”

 

Hon Members, the essence of the foregoing authorities is that although members have freedom of speech when debating, that freedom is subject to the rules of the House. One such rule is that a member must ensure that the information they bring before the House is factual, verifiable and substantiated. In other words, a Member’s right of freedom of speech and debate in the House carries with it a corresponding duty to ensure that the information presented by the Member is not only factual and verifiable, but also substantiated with cogent evidence. 

 

Hon Members, I accordingly referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges, Absences, and Support Services for consideration. Both the complainant and the respondent appeared before the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services. Below is a summary of their submissions.

 

(a) Submission by Hon A Chiteme, MP

 

Hon A Chiteme, MP, submitted that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, had referred to him as a thief and criminal in his debate.  He contended that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s, reference to Nkana Parliamentary Constituency was a reference to him, because the Member’s Handbook provided for Members to be addressed by their constituency.  He further contended that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s, assertion that the cost of the buses was beyond the pay of an Hon Minister, implied that the funds used to purchase the buses had been dubiously obtained.  In that regard, he should have substantiated his allegation. Thus, he was compelled to raise the Point of Order and complaint against Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, because, by failing to substantiate his statement, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, had breached the Standing Orders of the House.

 

(b) Submission by Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP

 

Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, informed the meeting that, contrary to the Hon Minister’s Point of Order and complaint, the verbatim record of his debate of 24th November, 2020, does not reveal or show that he called the Hon Minister a thief and criminal.  Or that he had made any direct reference to the Hon Minister having purchased a bus for his constituency. He said that his reference to the bus that was purchased and donated to Nkana Parliamentary Constituency was not an insinuation that the Member of Parliament for Nkana had purchased and donated it to the constituency. He explained that anyone was at liberty to donate to any constituency.

 

The Committee observed that Hon A Chiteme’s Point of Order and complaint arose from Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s, debate of Tuesday, 24th November, 2020, on Supplementary Estimates for vote 21-Loans and Investments. The Committee referred to the relevant excerpt of Mr J J Mwiimbu, MP’s debate, which was in the following terms:

 

“Mr Mwiimbu: Madam Chairperson, the way we are behaving, splashing money, any lender would assume that we have deliberately defaulted. We have seen that a political party now has more money than the Government. Hon Members of Parliament are splashing money as if the economy is stable. Those trends are sending a wrong signal to the lenders – 

 

The Chairperson: Order! 

 

Hon Leader of the Opposition, withdraw the statement that hon. Members of Parliament are splashing money, for two reasons. The first reason is that we do not debate ourselves. The second reason is that I may want to ask you to adduce evidence so that we know which Hon Member is splashing money. For those two reasons, withdraw that statement. 

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Madam Chairperson, my time is up for withdrawal. 

 

The Chairperson: No. I will allow you more time only for the purpose of withdrawing that statement.

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Madam Chairperson, I can substantiate my statement. Hon Members of Parliament have bought buses, which are not equivalent to what they are earning. That is what is happening. Madam, in Chililabombwe and Nkana constituencies, the buses have been bought, and it is in the public media, and that is the evidence. ”

 

Hon Members, upon reviewing Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s debate in the verbatim record of 24th November, 2020, and considering the testimony of the parties, the Committee observed that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, had not specifically referred to Hon A Chiteme, MP, as a thief or criminal as he had alleged.  The Committee further noted that Hon A Chiteme, MP’s Point of Order and complaint were anchored on the assumption that by referring to Nkana Constituency as having received a bus from a Member of Parliament, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, was referring to him. The Committee was of the considered view that that assumption was erroneous, because any Member of Parliament could have made the alleged donation to the constituency.

 

Hon Members, in view of the foregoing, the Committee found that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s statement did not amount to a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.  In that regard, the Committee resolved that a case of breach of privilege and contempt of the House had not been established against Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, and recommended accordingly. 

 

I have taken note of the recommendation of the Committee and the considerations it took into account in arriving at its decision. However, I have not been persuaded to uphold its recommendation. This is because this matter borders on the fundamental duty of a member to ensure that the information they provide to the House is not only factual and verifiable, but also substantiated; a duty I have belaboured, to remind members of on numerous occasions. 

 

 

Hon Members, in his debate, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, said the following:

 

“Hon Members of Parliament have bought buses, which are not equivalent to what they are earning. That is what is happening. Madam, in Chililabombwe and Nkana constituencies, the buses have been bought, and it is in the public media, and that is the evidence. ”

 

Hon Members, in his own debate, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, unequivocally stated that Members of Parliament had bought buses, which were not equivalent to what they were earning. Had he ended there, the complaint by Hon A Chiteme, MP, would not have arisen. However, by going further to indicate that “in Chililabombwe and Nkana constituencies, the buses had been bought,” Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, implied that it was the Members of Parliament for Chililabombwe and Nkana constituencies who had bought buses for their constituencies, which actions,according to Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP’s debate, were beyond their means. 

 

Hon Members, while it is true that Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, did not make a direct reference to Hon A Chiteme, MP, Paragraph 24(b) of Chapter 5 of the National Assembly Members’ Handbook 2006, on “Conduct of Members of Parliament and Parliamentary Etiquette, proscribes members from, while on the floor, making allegations or imputing motives or questioning the character or reputation of another Member, when it states as follows at page 22: 

 

“24. While on the Floor of the House, Members should not:

(b) make personal reference by way of making an allegation imputing a motive to or questioning the character or reputation of any other Member of the House unless it be imperatively necessary for the purpose of the debate, being itself a matter in issue or relevant thereto;”

 

I had occasion to apply this rule in the case of Dr S Musokotwane, MP v Mr R Mutale, MP. In that case, Mr R Mutale, MP, alleged that a former Minister of Finance who was in the House had not divulged to the nation the owner of the houses (referring to forty-eight houses that had been seized by the Anti-Corruption Commission), when he knew the owner of the houses who happened to be his relative. Dr Musokotwane being the only male former Minister of Finance in the House lodged a complaint that the statement was directed at him. Upon deliberating on the matter, the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services, found that Mr R Mutale, MP’s reference to a former Minister of Finance was, indeed, a reference to Dr S Musokotwane, MP, who was the only male former Minister of Finance in the House at the time. (Daily Parliamentary Debates of Tuesday, 10th December, 2019, pages 1 to 11).

 

Hon A Chiteme, MP, was, therefore, in order to complain in the manner that he did, because by his debate, Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, imputed and implied that the Hon Members of Parliament for Chililabombwe and Nkana had purchased buses for their constituencies through dubious means. Hon Members, since Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, made a statement on the Floor of the House that he could neither verify nor substantiate, he was out of order.

 

I am constrained to admonish Hon J J Mwiimbu, MP, granted that he holds a very senior position of Leader of the Opposition. However, as a long standing member of the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services, which superintends the observance of the rules of the House, his conduct should be exemplary.  It is, thus, regrettable that he acted to the contrary. I, earnestly, expect that, in future, he will conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as Leader of the Opposition and a senior member of this August House. 

 

I THANK YOU.

_______________________________