Wednesday, 28^th April, 2021

 

The House met at 1430 hours

 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

NATIONAL ANTHEM

 

PRAYER

 

______

 

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

 

WANTON DETENTION OF MR ACKSON SEJANI AND OTHERS

 

175. Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central) asked the Minister of Home Affairs:

 

1. why the Zambia Police Service wantonly detained Mr Ackson Sejani, Mr Fines Malambo, Mr Javern Simooloka and Mr Vincent Lilanda for over 30 days before taking them to court;
2. whether any action will be taken against any officers for failure to take the suspects to court within the prescribed time; and
3. what measures the Government is taking to stop the illegal detentions of suspects by the police.

 

The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Kampyongo): Mr Speaker, on 16^th February, 2021, the Zambia Police Service received a report of the alleged offence of abduction involving Pheluna Hatembo and Milton Hatembo of Choma District. A relative to the victims reported the matter at the Zambia Police Service Headquarters in Lusaka. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Zambia Police Service immediately instituted investigations that led to the apprehension of Mr Ackson Sejani and Mr Fines Malambo on 22^nd March, 2021, and Mr Javern Simooloka and Mr Vincent Lilanda on 23^rd March, 2021.

 

Sir, on 20^th April, 2021, the four accused persons were formally arrested and charged with abduction, contrary to Section 253 as read with Section 256 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 87 of the Laws of Zambia. Section 253, on the definition of abduction, reads:

 

“Any person who by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”

 

Mr Speaker, Section 256 reads:

 

“Any person who kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.”

 

Sir, on Thursday, 22^nd April, 2021, the four accused persons were arraigned before the Choma Magistrate Court for plea and released on bail. The House may wish to note that last year, one of the abductees complained at the Zambia Police Service that a named individual had fraudulently acquired their family farm in Kalomo District. The House may also wish to note that in the course of investigations on serious crimes or capital offences, which are life-threatening, or in which a suspect may jeopardise police investigations, the Zambia Police Service may confine the suspects while investigations are ongoing.

 

Mr Speaker, no disciplinary action will be taken against the officers, as they were discharging their lawful duties.

 

Sir, the Zambia Police Service is closely working with other State agencies to enhance the dispensation of justice in the country.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: Is there something strange that I need to deal with?

 

Hon. Member for Mumbwa, do you wish to raise a point of order?

 

Mr Nanjuwa: No, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: My screen is showing that there is a point of order.

 

Mr Kambita (Zambezi East): Mr Speaker, the spirit of the first part of the question concerns the reason the police wantonly chose to detain people beyond the prescribed days in which people can be detained before being taken to court. In his response, the hon. Minister seems to suggest that the law gives liberty to the police to detain people in custody for longer periods than prescribed if the former fear that releasing the latter would affect investigations. Are we saying that we will disregard the laws in order to suit these politically-motivated charges? I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether the police will continue disregarding what the law prescribes in terms of detentions.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I was very clear in my response in indicating that the police can detain people whilst investigations are going on depending on the gravity of the matter they are dealing with.

 

Sir, abduction is a serious felony. We are talking about people who have not been seen yet and end up being victims of murder or manslaughter. So, the gravity of the matter the police are dealing with determines how long they keep the suspect. The hon. Member should know that although there is a requirement to produce suspects before court in forty-eight hours, it depends on the case. If the police detain you for murder, for example, they can keep you until you appear in court or are sentenced.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, I am alarmed by the statement made by the hon. Minister of Home Affairs on the question I asked. He has not responded to the questions I asked.

 

Sir, with your permission, in case the hon. Minister is not aware, I inform him that the matter involving Mr Sejani and three others was before the High Court of Zambia and it was determined in favour of the four accused. The High Court indicated that the police have no authority to detain anybody beyond the period permitted for the sake of investigating. If the hon. Minister is aware, is he disagreeing with the judgement that was made by Hon. Mulife to the effect that the detention of the four accused without trial for more than twenty-nine days was unlawful? I will lay the document on the Table.

 

Sir, is the hon. Minister disputing the judgement of the court on the illegality of the detention based on the fact that there were no grounds on which the suspects were charged?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, that is rather shocking coming from the learned counsel. The hon. Member’s question is very clear and I responded to it in the context he posed it to my ministry.

 

Sir, is the hon. Member also not aware that the four accused appeared in the Choma Magistrate’s Court where bail was granted them? I responded to the questions he posed. If he is disputing my response, that is another matter. What is correct is that the four suspects appeared in the magistrate’s court where bail was granted to them. So, I am not disputing any judgement.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Dr Malama (Kanchibiya): Mr Speaker, first and foremost, allow me to congratulate His Excellency the First President of the Republic of Zambia, Dr Kenneth David Kaunda. I also appreciate the Coat of Arms that he adopted, which represents both males and females having equal participation. His aspiration for –

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Kanchibiya, I have given you the liberty to pass the congratulatory message, as is the custom of the House, but we need to put a limit to that and do our business as well.

 

Dr Malama: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for that guidance. I just want to appreciate that women are standing up in appreciation of the call the President made in Monze for them to participate equally. I am very grateful to see that in Kanchibiya and other parts of the country.

 

Sir, Hon. Kambita, the Member of Parliament for Zambezi East, insinuated in his question that the case is politically motivated, and I note that the hon. Minister has not responded to that. Was the case politically motivated? I ask because our people in Lavushimanda, where there was a case of abduction not too long ago, are concerned that there is another case in the Southern Province.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Kanchibiya, you have been given the opportunity to clarify the statement made by the hon. Minister. The difficulty I have with your question is that you are now engaging your colleague who has made a certain suggestion or, as you call it, an insinuation. I think it will be open to the hon. Minister eventually but, unfortunately, Hon. Kambita has exhausted his opportunity to pursue that line. Do you want to clarify something specifically from the statement?

 

Dr Malama: Mr Speaker, I leave it at that, but I was concerned when I heard someone say that this case was politically motivated.

 

Mr Mbangweta (Nkeyema): Mr Speaker, could the hon. Minister tell us in a layman’s language the clause in the law that he says gives the police powers to detain people beyond the stipulated period we know?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, Cap 87 under which the accused people were charged provides for the police to conduct investigations. Like I said, there are various cases that the police investigates. In keeping suspects, the police is alive to the provisions of the law and they look at the gravity of the cases they are dealing with.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Minister, the hon. Member for Nkeyema – and this might assist us to abbreviate these proceedings – is trying to find out whether there is a law that permits the Police Service to detain persons beyond the period of, as I followed the question earlier, forty-eight  hours. That is the law he wants you to refer to.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I have just referred to the law under which the suspects we are talking about were charged; it was under the Penal Code Act, which is Cap 87 of the Laws of Zambia.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Muchima (Ikeleng’i): Mr Speaker, it appears as though investigations are not exhausted at this stage, yet suspects are being picked here and there. Following what the hon. Minister just said, it is because the case might end in murder or man slaughter. In light of the video clips that are making the rounds on social media, how does the police rate its investigations and the suspects it is taking to be answerable?

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Ikeleng’i, the subject that you have referred to is not part of the hon. Minister’s statement. What you are referring to might, of course, be related to the statement, but we are guided in our interrogation of this subject by the scheme of questions that have been put by the hon. Member for Monze Central, which are very specific. I do not think we should now treat this as an omnibus opportunity to ask all manner of questions relating to the case in general.

Mr Nanjuwa (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for his response. However, is he able to confirm that the suspects were charged within forty-eight hours?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I have given the dates on which the suspects were apprehended and the ones on which they appeared in the courts of law. It is not for me to start deciding on the issue of period. If there are preliminary issues concerning how long the suspects were kept in custody that may be raised in the courts of law, as this matter is still before the courts of law, the accused party can raise them.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Minister, maybe, you would assist the House if you stated whether the charging was done within forty-eight hours after the arrest.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, it was after more than forty-eight hours.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: Very well.

 

Dr Musokotwane (Liuwa): Mr Speaker, I thank both the one who asked the question and the hon. Minister for the responses.

 

Sir, the hon. Minister is known for always using the Floor of this House to warn the people out there to not break the law because, otherwise, the law will visit them. Now, the hon. Minister is struggling to justify why detained suspects were not charged within forty-eight hours as the law says, and everybody knows that. Why is the hon. Minister, who is always warning people to not break the law defending his Government for breaking the law so clearly?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I appreciate the follow-up question from the hon. Member of Parliament for Liuwa. Indeed, it is our responsibility to advise people to not break the law, and we shall continue to do that for as long as we have the responsibility to do so.

 

Mr Speaker, the matter we are dealing with is of public interest, and I wish the hon. Member of Parliament was equally concerned about the people who are still missing as he is about those who were detained. There are two individuals who are still missing; whom the police are yet to determine whether they are still alive or no more. So, the passion with which I expect hon. Colleagues to care about those who are missing is even more than that with which they have cared about those who were detained.

 

Sir, I am not defending my police officers for any wrongdoing. The officers have a job to do in safeguarding the interests of both rich and poor people. In this case, the victims of the very unfortunate circumstances are very poor people. So, I know that the police are doing everything possible to secure the lives of those citizens and reunite them with their families.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, let me provide guidance here.

 

The question asked by the hon. Member for Monze Central is a very narrow one. I do not want to jump into the arena, but let us confine ourselves as far as possible, especially to part (a) of the question, as parts (b) and (c) are consequential.

 

Ms Kucheka (Zambezi West) was not available.

 

Mr Kamboni (Kalomo Central): Mr Speaker, the High Court judged that the police was wrong to detain those people for more than forty-eight hours, that is, for thirty days, and commanded that the detainees be released. The charge for which they were given bail in Choma, abduction, was made after thirty-two days. The question that begs me answer is: Is the hon. Minister saying that the police can disobey the law of the country, which is the Constitution of Zambia? We know that the Constitution of Zambia is the highest law of the land. So, is the police above the law for it to defy the law that says that people must be taken to court within forty-eight hours?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, at the expense of repeating myself, let me say that I have responded to the question by Hon. Jack Mwiimbu, and I do not want to be drawn into discussing a judgement I am not privy to. I have explained everything, and the hon. Member of Parliament has just confirmed that those people appeared before the Magistrate’s Court in Choma and that they are on bail. So, I do not know which matter he wants me to discuss apart from the scope of the question. I know that our police officers are acting within the confines of the law. For it to be said they are acting otherwise, that can only be determined by the courts.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Minister, I think we can make progress on this subject very quickly. The gist of the matter is this: It is being said that the suspect should have been charged and brought before the court within the forty-eight hour period, and there are limited questions around that. Was that done? If it was not done, was it not a breach of the law? I think this is a bottom line. Address it so that, maybe, we can then move on.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I totally understand the question, and I indicated, when you posed the question on whether the persons were charged within forty-eight hours, that they were not. I also explained that after looking at the gravity of the matter, where practicable, the police can charge a person within forty-eight hours. However, without taking you back to your other part of life, you know how these matters are in a practical sense. The police was dealing with people who were alleged to have abducted other people, the alleged victims are still missing and the investigations were going on. The suspects were apprehended on different dates, not on the same day, and investigations have continued. Further, the case the police was dealing with is very interesting and sensitive. So, they deemed it fit to keep the suspects for the period they did. 

 

Mr Speaker, like I said, where practicable, people are charged within forty-eight hours. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, we should not spend the whole afternoon on such a narrow issue. The suspects in question were not charged within forty-eight hours. The hon. Minister has categorically confirmed that much. He has gone further, as I understand his explanation, to indicate that because of the gravity of the case, the continued missing of persons and other factors, the police found it necessary to detain the suspects beyond forty-eight hours. This issue is settled. Therefore, as you seek further clarification, bear in mind those basic premises so that we do not repeat ourselves. I rarely do this kind of thing, but I am also responsible for managing the use of time on the Floor of the House. I do not want us to go round in circles.    

                                                         

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, with your permission, and considering that the hon. Minister has said that the police were within their powers to detain the individuals for a period longer that what is usually required, may I just read what the court said against the police, for ease of reference?

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I want to be clear what you now want to establish by using that judgment.

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has said that the police have the right to detain anybody longer than the permitted period, provided the offence is grave. Now, I want to read what the court said pertaining to the conduct of the police.

 

Mr Ngulube: On a point of order, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 

Mr Ngulube: Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to raise this point of order.

 

Mr Speaker, I am aware that there is a specific question on the order paper and, in that question, the issue of the judgment does not arise. By bringing in that judgment and asking a question or reading what is not on the order paper, is the hon. Member for Monze Central in order to bring extraneous matters that were not processed by the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly or by this House? Otherwise, what will stop me from also picking a newspaper and reading it when the issue on the order paper is specific?

 

Mr Speaker, the hon. Member asked a specific question, and he must be restricted to the question that he posed. This new question that he is introducing away from the order paper should not be allowed.

 

I seek your serious ruling on this matter.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, this is a fairly straightforward issue, at least, it is factual, as I see it.

 

I guided previously that the hon. Minister of Home Affairs has indicated and confirmed that the charging did not take place within forty-eight hours.

 

The gist of your question, hon. Member for Monze Central, is that you wanted to find out why the Zambia Police detained the affected persons over a period of thirty days before taking them to court. That is your question. So, I think we should keep ourselves to that question. I took notice of the proceedings, of course, because they are in the public domain, and I am aware that there was an application for habeas corpus and other steps were taken. Presumably, that judgment – I have not seen, but you have indicated that you will lay it on the Table – ensued, including what you are referring to and issues of legality. I just want us to confine ourselves to your question. What would you like to be clarified in relation to your question, hon. Member for Monze Central, so that we can make progress?

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, if you read the first part of my question, it says, “Why the Zambia Police Service wantonly detained Mr Ackson Sejani, Mr Fines Malambo, Mr Javern Simooloka and Mr Vincent Lilanda for over thirty days before taking them to court.” The hon. Minister has indicated that police has the power to do that. That is why I am now trying to show that what the hon. Minister has told the nation and this House is not correct.

 

Mr Speaker, we have a responsibility, through the hon. Minister and the Government, to state the correct position of the law. If the hon. Minister is not sure, he should say so because the court has made a pronouncement on the conduct of the police, and that is what I wanted him to –

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member, can you summarise that position and put a question to the hon. Minister.

 

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, yes, I will. The hon. Minister may not be aware about the decision of the court. So, this is what the court said, and I will pose the question afterwards:

 

“5.12. In concluding here, I reiterate that the Zambia Police Service have breached Article 26 of the Constitution and thereby violated the applicants’ requisite fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 11 and 22 of the Constitution.

 

“5.13. Turning to the second issue, it is as well established that as at the time of hearing this writ, the applicants had been detained for twenty-seven days without a charge and without appearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. With this background, I am inclined to believe the applicants averment that they are being detained for purposes of the police conducting investigations about them. If it were not so, the detaining authority would have presented the applicants before court to answer to the charges.

 

“5.14. This conduct is a breach of section 33 of Cap 88 because the provision prescribes that a person arrested without a warrant must be presented before a court of competent jurisdiction within twenty-four hours after he was taken into custody. Otherwise, he or she must be released on bond.”

 

Mr Speaker, that is what the court said and that is what the law says.  Is the hon. Minister still insisting that the police has the right to detain anyone without the prescribed provisions?

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I will still repeat that, yes, it is not unusual for the police to keep people, depending on the circumstances, as long as the investigations are going on. I take note of the hon. Member’s copy of the judgment, which I have not had the chance to read. However, I also want to confirm that the suspects were taken to court and that they are on bail, as things stand.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Zimba (Chasefu): Mr Speaker, I seek clarification on whether all the suspects were detained for the case of abduction? If so, for what charge were they given bail?

 

Mr Speaker: The hon. Minister was clear. However, for avoidance of doubt, I will ask him to respond.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Mr Speaker, I indicated that on 20^th April, 2021, the suspects were formally arrested and charged with abduction. That is the charge slapped on them.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Kabanda (Serenje): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for the responses he has given on this issue. My question is –

 

Dr Kopulande: On a point of order, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 

Dr Kopulande: Mr Speaker, this is probably the disadvantage of the new system. We are not in the Chamber physically. Hence, the ability to raise a point of order contemporaneously is lost.

 

Sir, I raise this point of order on the hon. Member of Parliament for Monze Central, who was reading a judgment delivered by a court.

 

Sir, is the hon. Member, who is fully aware of a judgment of a court and has a copy of the said determination by the courts of law, in order to bring that matter into the House for further debate when he is fully aware of the position of the court on it?

 

I seek your ruling, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member for Chembe, firstly, a court judgment is a public document. When a judgment of a court is rendered, it is deposited in the registry and is available for inspection, as it were, or perusal by any member of the public. Secondly, our own Parliamentary practice permits us to refer to documents in general on condition that once reference has been made to those documents, they are laid on the Table. In this particular case, not only did the hon. Member of Parliament for Monze Central refer to the document, but he has also undertaken to deposit it on the Table as part of practice. So, the hon. Member for Monze Central was in order to refer to a judgment which, if I may use a generic term, is a document. In fact, it is not only a document, but a public document.

 

That is my ruling.

 

Hon. Member for Serenje, you were in the process of asking a question.

 

Mr Kabanda: Yes, Mr Speaker.

 

Sir, the police require more time than forty-eight hours, the period enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution of Zambia, to investigate a matter. Does the hon. Minister not think that these matters would have been better dealt with by an amendment that was part of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Speaker: Are you through?

 

Hon. Members, the sense I am getting is that we have exhausted this matter and that we should not press it beyond this point. We will now proceed to the next Question for Oral Answer under Standing Order 30.

 

PAVE ZAMBIA ROAD PROJECT IN BWANA MKUBWA

 

176. Mr Kabamba (Kafulafuta) asked the Minister of Finance:

 

1. when funds for the Pave Zambia Road Project in Bwana Mkubwa Parliamentary Constituency will be released;
2. what has caused the delay in releasing the funds, which has led to the project being abandoned; and
3. when the two contractors for the project will be paid.

 

The Minister of National Development Planning (Mr Chiteme) (on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Dr Ng’andu)): Mr Speaker, to date, the total amount paid for the Pave Zambia Road Project in Bwana Mkubwa Parliamentary Constituency is K30.07 million. The amount was paid to two contractors and one supplier. The total unpaid interim payment certificates (IPCs) on the project amounts to K15.7 million while the balance on all the three contracts amounts to K32.7 million.

 

Sir, the Government will endeavour to release funds for the Pave Zambia Road Project in Bwana Mkubwa Parliamentary Constituency as soon as the resources become available.

 

Mr Speaker, the delay has been due to the prevailing fiscal challenges the Government is facing, which necessitated the Government’s prioritisation of releasing funds for constitutional obligations, and critical Government programmes and projects.

 

Sir, the contractors are expected to be paid once funding is made available. In the 2021 Budget, we have provided funds for dismantling arrears to suppliers and contractors, including those in the road sector.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you. 

 

Mrs Chinyama (Kafue): Mr Speaker, in light of the Government’s policy to only work on projects that are at 80 per cent and above, at what percentage is the project in Bwana Mkubwa?

 

Mr Chiteme: Mr Speaker, the project in Bwana Mkubwa is below 62 per cent.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Ng’ambi (Chifubu): Mr Speaker, I commend the hon. Minister for the response on the Pave Zambia Road Project in Bwana Mkubwa.

 

Sir, the hon. Minister may be aware that the challenges in Bwana Mkubwa Constituency affect similar projects in Kabushi and Chifubu constituencies. Are the projects treated the same? Further, what is the balance, from the total contracted amount, for the project in Bwana Mkubwa?

 

Mr Chiteme: Mr Speaker, I do not know which of the two questions I am allowed to answer.

 

Mr Speaker: The first one.

 

Mr Chiteme: Sir, the hon. Member for Chifubu should know that the situation is the same everywhere. The Government has taken the initiative to prioritise certain roads and to downscale others because of the financial situation that it is in. as I mentioned earlier, we have a constrained financial and economic situation. Therefore, the Government has set priorities as regards the importance of particular roads. For example, if we had to choose between working on the Lusaka/Ndola Road and urban roads in Chifubu or Bwana Mkubwa, I would rather the Government prioritised a truck road that serves the whole nation in terms of providing linkage because that would result in more economic returns for the Government than prioritising urban roads. Nonetheless, that is not to say that the Government is not concerned about all the other roads in the country. In this regard, we have restructured some roads and are making sure that every month, the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA) releases money to sort out some problems.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

_______

 

MOTION

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE REVISED CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION OF STUDIES, CERTIFICATES, DIPLOMAS, DEGREES AND OTHER ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN AFRICAN STATES

 

Mr Mecha (Chifunabuli) (on behalf of Mr Mwamba (Lubansenshi)): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House do adopt the Report of the Committee on Education, Science and Technology on the Proposal to Ratify the Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States for the Fifth Session of the Twelfth National Assembly, laid on the Table of the House on 23^rd April, 2021.

 

Mr Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

 

Ms Chisangano (Gwembe): Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

 

Mr Mecha: Mr Speaker, in order to appreciate the ramifications of the convention, the Committee interacted with several stakeholders who tendered both oral and written submissions before it. I have no doubt that hon. Members of this House have taken time to read the Committee’s report. Allow me, therefore, to only highlight a few critical findings of the Committee.

 

Mr Speaker, as the House may be aware, the Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States builds on the 1981 Arusha Convention, to which Zambia is a signatory. Since 1983, the recognition of qualifications across the African continent has been guided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

 

Mr Speaker, the African continent has over the years experienced numerous advancements that have affected the education sector. Hitherto, the focus has been on the recognition of qualifications, but a need has now arisen to strengthen quality assurance mechanisms and modes of training in view of technological advancements. There is also a need to address the increasing incidents of fraudulent qualifications. It is from this premise that the Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States has been developed. The objectives of the revised convention include strengthening and promoting inter-regional and international co-operation in the recognition of qualifications, and defining and putting in place effective quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms at the national, regional and continental levels to support the harmonisation of qualifications in line with the prevailing global trends.

 

Mr Speaker, let me now touch on some of the specific concerns encountered by the Committee.

 

Sir, regarding Article IV.5, the Committee observes with great concern that Zambia has not finalised the alignment of the National Qualifications Framework. This failure will negatively affect the implementation of the convention, as there will be no policy document to guide the harmonisation of qualifications, as required by the convention. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that the Government finalises the alignment of the National Qualifications Framework in order for it to serve as a policy tool for the implementation of the convention.

 

Mr Speaker, regarding Article IV.6, the Committee observes with great concern that the convention emphasises the need for timely recognition of qualifications by a competent recognising authority. While acknowledging that the accreditation process involves a number of considerations that may take time, the accreditation process of the Zambian Higher Education Authority (HEA) takes inordinately long, and that is likely to negatively affect the country’s implementation of the convention. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that Zambia puts in place mechanisms for enhancing efficiency in the registration and accreditation of programmes to ensure adherence to the provisions of Article IV.6 of the convention.

 

Sir, I urge the Executive to study and implement the recommendations in the Committee’s report for the benefit of the country.  Subject to those recommendations, I, on behalf of the Committee, urge the House to approve the proposal to ratify the Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States.

 

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I thank all the stakeholders who appeared before the Committee. Lastly, let me thank you and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the guidance and support rendered to the Committee during its consideration of this convention.

 

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

 

Mr Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

 

Ms Chisangano: Now, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion that this House do adopt the Report of the Committee on Education, Science and Technology on the Proposal to Ratify the Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States for the Fifth Session of the Twelfth National Assembly, laid on the Table of the House on 23^rd April, 2021. In seconding the Motion, allow me to make a few comments on what the Committee was made privy to.

 

Mr Speaker, Article IV.7 of the convention provides that implementing structures and co-operation should be created. Ratifying this convention means that national implementation structures should be put in place, and this will require Zambia’s allocation of adequate funding to the relevant national structures. In this regard, there is a need for the Government to allocate adequate funding to the relevant national structures in order to successfully implement the convention.

 

Mr Speaker, Article V.1 provides, among other provisions, for the ratification, acceptance and approval of the convention. However, ratifying the convention without creating the necessary awareness among key stakeholders will only open a market in Zambia for individuals from other state parties, as opportunities will favour them for being prepared for the convention. In this regard, the Government should take concrete steps to undertake a nationwide campaign to raise awareness and buy-in among all Zambian stakeholders in order for the country to benefit from the convention.

 

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I beg to second.

 

Mr Mecha: Mr Speaker, allow me to thank the hon. Member for Gwembe for ably seconding the Motion and, especially, emphasising the fact that we need to put in place national structures for implementing the convention so that we can expedite the implementation process. Allow me to also thank all the hon. Members for quietly supporting the Motion,

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Question put and agreed to.

 

_______

 

BILLS

 

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

 

[THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the

Chair]

 

THE HIGHER EDUCATION (Amendment) BILL, 2021

 

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 4 – (Amendment of section 6)

 

The Minister of Higher Education (Dr Mushimba): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 4, on page 6, in line 9, by the insertion of the words “in consultation with relevant professional institutions” before the word “set”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 11 – (Repeal and replacement of section 20)

 

Dr Mushimba: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 11, on page 10, in line 36, by the deletion of the word “eight” and the substitution therefor of the word “five”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 16 (Insertion of Part IVA)

 

Dr Mushimba: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 16, on page 15, in line 23, by the deletion of the word “Regulator” and the substitution therefor of the word “professional institution”.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 30 (Amendment of Second Schedule)

 

Dr Mushimba: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 30, on page 24

 

1. in lines 3 to 4, by the deletion of sub-paragraph (3); and

 

1. in lines 5 to 14, by the renumbering of sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) as sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), respectively.

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

CLAUSE 31 (Amendment of Third Schedule)

 

Dr Mushimba: Madam Chairperson, I beg to move an amendment in Clause 31,

 

1. on page 24, in lines 22 to 23, by the deletion of the words “higher education institution” and the substitution therefor of the word “university”;

 

1. on page 26, in lines 40 to 42, by the deletion of paragraph (A); and

 

1. on page 27, in lines 1 to 17 by the renumbering of paragraphs (B) and (C) as paragraphs (A) and (B), respectively

 

Amendment agreed to. Clause amended accordingly.

 

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Title agreed to.

 

THE URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2021

 

Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

 

Title agreed to.

 

_______

 

HOUSE RESUMED

 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

The following Bill was reported to the House as having passed through Committee with amendments:

 

The Higher Education (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

 

Report Stage on Thursday 29^th April, 2021.

 

The following Bill was reported to the House as having paused through the Committee without amendments:

 

The Urban and Regional Planners (Amendment) Bill, 2021

 

Third Reading on Thursday 29^th April, 2021.

 

REPORT STAGE

 

The Electoral Process (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

 

Report adopted.

 

Third Reading on Thursday, 29^th April, 2021.

 

THIRD READING

 

The following Bill was read the third time and passed:

 

The Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

 

_______

 

MOTION

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Vice-President (Mrs Wina): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

 

Question put and agreed to.

 

_______

 

The House adjourned at 1551 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 29^th April, 2021.

 

____________