DAILY PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FOR THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE TENTH ASSEMBLY

Wednesday, 30th March, 2011

The House met at 1430 hours

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER

___________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY MR SPEAKER

ERROR IN THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL VOTING BY THE HOUSE ON THE SECOND READING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAMBIA BILL, 2010 ON TUESDAY, 29TH MARCH, 2011

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to bring to your attention that there was an error in the results of the final voting by the House on the Second Reading of the Constitution of Zambia Bill, 2010, which took place yesterday, Tuesday, 29th March, 2011. The result of the final vote was announced as follows: Ayes – 93, Noes – 0 and Abstentions – 20.

Further verification has now revealed that, in fact, the correct result of the voting was Ayes – 91, Noes – 0 and Abstentions – 19. I wish, therefore, to sincerely apologise to the House and the nation for this inadvertent arithmetic error.

I further order that the records of the House be amended accordingly.

I thank you.
____________

REPRIMAND OF DR GUY SCOTT, MP

Mr Speaker:  I have a ruling to make.

I order you, Dr Guy Scott, Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central Parliamentary Constituency, to go and stand behind the Bar of the House.

Dr Guy Scott was escorted to the Bar by the Sergeant-At-Arms.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

I also instruct the Sergeant-At-Arms to take the Speaker’s Mace and go and stand behind the hon. Member.

The Sergeant-At-Arms stood behind Dr Guy Scott.

Laughter

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: I said order!

Hon. Members will recall that, on Wednesday, 23rd February, 2011, when the House was considering Question for Oral Answer Number 205, and the hon. Member of Parliament for Luena Parliamentary Constituency, Mr C. Milupi, MP, was asking a supplementary question, the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. G. Sichilima, MP, raised the following Point of Order:

“Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to you for disturbing your deliberations and, indeed, the hon. ‘President’ who is on the Floor. However, I rise on a very serious point of order concerning a column in The Post No. 5241 of Wednesday, 23rd February, 2011, on page 18, entitled, “From Somewhere is Cyberspace,” which read:

“Dear Hon Esther Banda, MP,

“You are the only MP in good standing with the PF who has been appointed to the Select Committee to scrutinise the appointment or reappointment by President Banda of Irene Mambilima as Chair of the ECZ.

“To establish the status quo, you, as a committee, would have to call as many witnesses as possible out of the following: Judge Florence Mumba …

“It might, though I doubt, be useful to have the Vice-President, George Kunda, who is alleged to have involved himself on his tribesman Kalale’s behalf.

“I am sure you can think of some more yourself. Please try and ensure that the clerk of the committee has properly informed the media about its proceedings, and try to persuade the committee that, as much of the proceedings, if not all, should be in the public domain.

“You are, no doubt, aware that the phrase ‘rubber stamp’ is an example of unparliamentary language. The best way to avoid inadvertently using it is to avoid acting like one. If you are unhappy about the direction things are taking, then stand your ground. If you think Judge Mambilima will be unable to ride the tiger, that is, the ECZ, for whatever reason, then give her the thumbs down. History will vindicate you.

“Yours in the struggle against “gon’ga” democracy,

Laughter

“Guy Scott
Vice President.”{mospagebreak}

Hon G. Sichilima, MP, continued to state as follows:

“Mr Speaker, you have guided some of us who are senior hon. Members of this House that there are laid down procedures to be followed by this House. Why should the hon. Member suggest inviting witnesses to the Committee when the laid down procedure demands privacy in some cases? I need your serious ruling, Sir.”

Hon Members, in my immediate remarks, I stated as follows:

“The hon Deputy Minister of Home Affairs has raised a point of order with regard to what, in the profession, is known as an open letter from one hon. Member of Parliament to another Hon. Member of Parliament on a matter that has been summarised by the hon. Deputy Minister.  From what the point of order contains, there could be several issues involved in the whole matter. There are times when I would rule that I first have to establish a prima facie case before I can take the matter any further. However, in this particular case, a prima facie case has been established for me by the author of the open letter. As such, I hereby refer the point of order to the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services for consideration. This appears to be a straightforward matter which should be dealt with expeditiously since there is only one witness who is the author of the open letter himself.

“The Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services will, without prejudice, determine the offence, if any, that the hon. Member for Lusaka Central may have committed. Again, without prejudice, the Committee will be free to determine the penalty or penalties or punishment, if any, that will be meted out on the Hon. Member for Lusaka Central if he is found guilty. In accordance with the laid down procedure, the Committee will bring its report here containing its observations and recommendations for the decision of the House.”

Hon. Members, in line with parliamentary practice and procedure, and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly wrote to Dr G. Scott, MP, requesting him to confirm or deny whether the article in question and its contents were correctly attributed to him.  The hon. Member’s letter of response reads as follows:

“Dear Madam,

I write in reference to your letter of 24th February, 2011, your Reference No. NAS/11/17/2 Conf to confirm that the words contained in The Post article of 23rd February wrongly headlined “From Somewhere is Cyberspace” (should be “From Somewhere in Cyberspace”) are, indeed, mine.

Yours faithfully,
Guy Scott, MP.”

The Office of the Clerk also wrote to the Editor-in-Chief of The Post requesting him to state whether the article and its contents were correctly attributed to Dr G. Scott, MP.  The House may wish to know that no response was received from The Post.

The House may wish to note that the point of order made against Dr G. Scott, MP, raises the question of breach of parliamentary privileges and contempt of the House vis á vis the following issues:

(i) premature publication of information pertaining to the proceedings of a select committee;

(ii) a Member attempting to influence a committee and intimidate its Member with the intention of deterring the Committee and the Member from performing their parliamentary duty independently;

(iii) a Member interfering in the work of a select committee by suggesting its witnesses;

(iv) a Member misleading the public on the proceedings of a select committee dealing with the scrutiny of Presidential appointments; and

(v) A Member using derogatory remarks in reference to the National Assembly.

Hon. Members, the following are the authorities on these breaches:

1. Breach of Privilege vis-à-vis Premature Publication of Information pertaining to the Proceedings of a Select Committee

Section 25 (a) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, provides:

“25. Any person who publishes, save by the general or special leave of the Assembly, a report of any proceedings of the Assembly or any Committee when such proceedings have not been held in public shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand penalty units or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both.” In addition, M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, in their book, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, sixth Edition, page 297, state:

“It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish any part of the proceedings or evidence given before, or any document presented to a parliamentary committee before such proceedings, evidence or documents have been reported to the House.”

2.  Breach of Privilege Vis-À-Vis Attempting to Influence a Committee and Intimidating its Member with the Intention of Deterring the Committee and the Member from Performing their Parliamentary Duty Independently

Erskine May, in his book entitled Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, on page 147, states:

“Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt.”

Further, M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, in their book, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 6th Edition, on page 301, state:

“Any attempt to influence a member otherwise than by way of argument which has as its motive the intention to deter him from performing his duty, constitutes a breach of privilege. Thus, an attempt to intimidate members by way of threats with a view to influencing them in their parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege.”

In addition, Section 23(b) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, states:

“23. Any person shall be guilty of an offence who –

(b) endeavours to compel either directly or indirectly, any member by force, insult or menace to declare himself in favour of, or against, any Bill, resolution, matter, rule or thing submitted to, or intended to be submitted to, the Assembly.”

3. Breach of Privilege vis-à-vis a Member Interfering in the Work of a Select Committee by Suggesting its Witnesses

Standing Order 132(2) of the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2005, states:

“Portfolio, general purposes and select committees shall have the power to invite submissions from the members of the public and interested persons and institutions on any matter within their terms of reference.”

4. Breach of Privilege vis-à-vis a Member Misleading the Public on the Proceedings of a Select Committee Dealing with the Scrutiny of the Presidential Appointments

Section 25(b) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, states:

“Any person who publishes any false or scandalous libel on the Assembly or any report which willfully mispresents in any way any proceedings of the Assembly or any committee shall be guilty of an offence and shall be libel on conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand penalty units or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to both.”

5. Breach of Privilege vis-à-vis a Member Referring to the National Assembly in a Derogatory Manner

M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakder, in their book entitled Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 6th Edition, on page 293, state:

“It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to make speeches, or to print or publish any libels, reflecting on the character of proceedings of the House or its committees …

“Speeches and writings reflecting on the House or its committees or Members are punished by the House as a contempt on the principle that acts will tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them.”

As hon. Members will recall, in my immediate ruling on the point of order, I stated that a prima facie case had been established for me by Dr G. Scott, MP in his open letter and I referred the matter to the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services.

I wish to inform the House that the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services met to consider the point of order raised by Hon. G. Sichilima, MP. Dr G. Scott, MP, who appeared before the Committee to make his oral submission on the matter. The Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. G. Sichilima, MP, also appeared before the Committee to clarify his point of order against Dr G. Scott, MP.

After examining the written and oral submissions of Dr G. Scott, MP and the verbal submission of the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. G. Sichilima, MP, the Committee established that:

1. by authoring and causing to be published the article in which the hon. Member revealed the name of Mrs E. M. Banda, MP as a member of a select committee and of Justice Ireen Chirwa Mambilima as a nominee who was being scrutinised by the select committee for appointment as the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), Dr G. Scott, MP, prematurely published the proceedings of the select committee. This is so because the proceedings of such a select committee are confidential until its report is tabled on the Floor of the House;

2. by causing the article to be published in The Post where all the members of the select committee could access it and by directing the Committee on what to do when, among other things, he wrote:

“To establish the status quo, you as a committee, would have to call as many witnesses as possible out of the following Dr G. Scott, MP, attempted to directly influence the Committee and its members in the discharge of their parliamentary duty.”

Furthermore, as a senior member of the Patriotic Front (PF), he particularly attempted to influence the manner in which Mrs E. M. Banda, MP, performed her duty as a member of the select committee by not only addressing the letter to her, but also telling her to ensure that the concerns of the Patriotic Front were taken into account by the Select Committee. This can be seen from the following excerpt of the article:

“Dear Hon. Esther Banda, MP,

“You are the only MP in good standing with the PF who has been appointed to the select committee to scrutinise the appointment or reappointment of Ireen Mambilima as Chair of the ECZ. I, therefore, am writing to you to ensure that you understand the PF’s concerns and ensure that they are attended to during meetings and in the report of the Committee.

Guy Scott
Vice-President.”

3. by directing the Committee on whom to invite as witnesses, Dr G. Scott, MP interfered with the power vested in the committee’s understanding of Order 130(2) of the National Assembly Standing Orders, 2005 to decide which witnesses to invite to assist in its functions;

4. by directing Mrs E. M. Banda, MP to ensure that the clerk of the Committee had properly informed the media about the proceedings and to persuade the Committee to ensure that, as much as possible, if not all the proceedings of the Committee were in the public domain, Dr G. Scott, MP, misled the public that the proceedings of such a select committee are open to the public when, in fact, they are held in camera;

5. Dr G. Scott, MP, signed off his article with the words:

“Yours in the struggle against gong’a democracy.”

For those who may not be aware, the word ‘gong’a’ means fake.

Hon. Members may wish to know that Dr G. Scott confirmed to the Committee that the words ‘fake democracy’ were in reference to the ECZ and the three arms of Government, namely the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature. In this regard, the Committee found that referring to the National Assembly as part of a fake democracy was derogatory and amounted to disrespecting and ridiculing the House.

Hon. Members, on the basis of these findings, the Committee established that the hon. Member for Lusaka Central Parliamentary Constituency, Dr G. Scott, MP, was in breach of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House. Further, the Committee observed that the breaches of parliamentary privileges committed by the hon. Member were serious in the sense that, at least, three of the five breaches I have just outlined are indictable offences under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia.

The House may wish to know that two of these offences carry a penalty of a fine not exceeding five thousand penalty units or imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to both.

The House may further wish to know that, in determining the punishment to impose on the hon. Member, the Committee considered invoking the prosecution of Dr G. Scott, MP. However, the Committee opted to exercise leniency and, therefore, resolved that Dr G. Scott, MP, be suspended from the service of the House for thirty (30) days, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 (1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, which provides:

“28 (1) Where any member commits any contempt of the Assembly, whether specified in section nineteen or otherwise, the Assembly may, by resolution, either direct the Speaker to reprimand such member or suspend him from the service of the Assembly for such period as it may determine:

“Provided that such period shall not extend beyond the last day of the meeting next following that in which the resolution is passed, or of the session in which the resolution is passed, whichever shall first occur.”

In view of the foregoing, and, in accordance with Section 28 (1) of the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 12 of the Laws of Zambia, and Standing Order No. 151(2), which requires a resolution of the House on a matter of this nature, I now put the question.

Question that the hon. Member for Lusaka Central be suspended from the service of the House for the Fifth Session of the Tenth Assembly as recommended by the Committee on Privileges, Absences and Support Services for a period of thirty (30) days put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: I now turn to address you, Dr G. Scott, MP.

I have to inform you that the House is extremely displeased with your misconduct of blatantly disregarding its rules and procedures by authoring and causing to be published in The Post the article in which you prematurely disclosed the proceedings of the Select Committee to the public.

Your irresponsible conduct not only interfered with the task of the Committee and of Mrs E. M. Banda, MP, as a member of that select committee, but also had the potential to injure the nominee who did not have the opportunity to defend herself.

As a senior member of the House, you should be familiar with the Standing Orders of the House which clearly set out the rules and procedures of such a select committee.

Dr G. Scott, it is difficult for me to see why you had to conduct yourself in such a demeaning manner. You are aware that although the proceedings of such a select committee are not open to the public, Members of this House have an opportunity to debate the report of the select committee in the House.  It is during this debate that you should have expressed your views and concerns, on the nominee, to the House as well as to the public.  It was, therefore, unwarranted for you to rush to the media and prematurely disclose the proceedings of the select committee.

Furthermore, your reference to the National Assembly as being part of a fake democracy did not only make a mockery of the House, but also brought it into public ridicule and disrespect.

Let me remind you, Dr Scott, that the respect accorded to this House has been built over the years and the House thus expects every hon. Member to continue building upon it. It was, therefore, highly irresponsible of you, a senior hon. Member of this House, to bring down the integrity and dignity of this House in the manner that you did.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker:  This House will not tolerate such gross indiscipline and misconduct from any hon. Member. Let this, therefore, be a warning to all other hon. Members.

So, in accordance with the decision of the House, you are suspended from the service of the National Assembly, accordingly.  I take this opportunity, furthermore, to remind you, Dr Scott, that, in accordance with Section 28(2) of the Powers and Privileges Act, Cap. 12 of the Laws of Zambia, during the period of your suspension, you will not receive a salary or allowance that you are entitled to as an hon. Member, and you will not participate in any business or activities of the Assembly and its committees, including those in which, if any, you participate outside the National Assembly in your capacity as an hon. Member of this House.

I now order you to leave the Chamber through the main entrance on a thirty (30) day suspension as resolved by the House.

I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

________ {mospagebreak}

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AGENCY

400. Mr D. Mwila (Chipili) asked the Minister of Finance and National Planning:

(a) how much money the Government of Zambia received from the Japanese     Government through the Japanese International Co-operation Agency (JICA)     in 2009 and 2010 for the following projects in Luapula Province:

(i) roads;

(ii) boreholes; and

(iii) schools;

(b) whether the money was used for the intended purpose; and

(c) what action the Zambian Government took against officials who failed to     apply the funds in accordance with the intended purpose.

The Deputy Minister of Finance and National Planning (Ms C. M. Kapwepwe): Mr Speaker, the Government did not receive any money from JICA for projects in Luapula Province for roads and schools. However, the Government received a total of US$4,910,000 for the construction of boreholes in 2009 and 2010 broken down as follows:

Year Amount

2009 301,517,000 Japanese Yen (US$3.35 million)

2010 139,163,000 Japanese Yen (US$1.55 million)

Mr Speaker, a total of 200 boreholes were constructed successfully in the Luapula Province by JICA during the period 2009 to 2010. However, the expenditure of US$4.91 million included overhead costs like studies, technical assistance, dry boreholes and technologically enhanced mud drilling to ensure higher yield and longer lifespan.

Sir, JICA funds are not directly handled by the Zambian Government. The Grant Agreement with Japan requires that JICA awards contracts to companies that implement the projects. After completion, the projects are handed over to the Government of the Republic of Zambia which receives the final output from the project.

Therefore, it is JICA’s responsibility to take action against any officials who may fail to apply the funds in accordance with the intended purpose.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr D. Mwila: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out …

Mr Kambwili: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order!

The House is in session and there is business being transacted. May the hon. Member, please, continue.

Laughter

Mr D. Mwila: … whether the Japanese Government will continue supporting us financially after the earthquake that has happened in that country.

Ms C. M. Kapwepwe: Mr Speaker, at the moment, the position that we are aware of is that there will be no immediate disruption to the funding. Some support is in phases and certain phases are continuing. Until we are advised otherwise, we will maintain the position as it was before the calamity.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lubinda (Kabwata): Mr Speaker, taking advantage of the guidance you have given before that hon. Ministers must anticipate questions, I would like to ask the hon. Minister to indicate to this House how much, on average, it cost the Government to drill each of the 200 boreholes minus the other costs she mentioned such as training. This is so that hon. Members of Parliament, in lobbying for support, will have a concrete figure.

Ms C. M. Kapwepwe: Mr Speaker, from the figures given, it is indicative of how much each borehole costs if you subtract the cost on the other ancillary works that have to be done. Unless the question had been specific on how much each borehole cost, I am not in position to state the specific amounts. I would have gladly given a breakdown of the costs if they had been specifically required.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

LUSAKA CITY COUNCIL FUNDS

401.  Dr Chishya (Pambashe) asked the Vice-President and Minister of Justice:

(a) whether any public funds meant for cholera and other health programmes in the city of Lusaka had been deposited in personal accounts between 1991 and 1993;

(b) if so, in which banks the funds at (a) had been deposited;

(c) how long the funds had been kept in those personal accounts;

(d) how much interest the public funds accrued in the personal accounts; and

(e) whether the funds had been recovered with interest.

The Deputy Minister in the Vice-President’s Office (Mr Munkombwe): Mr Speaker, according to the records maintained by the Lusaka City Council (LCC), there were no funds meant for cholera and other health programmes deposited in personal accounts between 1991 and 1993.

Sir, there were no funds that were deposited in the banks or kept in personal accounts.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Munkombwe: Mr Speaker, since there were no public funds deposited in personal accounts, there was no interest accrued to the personal accounts.

In conclusion, Sir, there were no funds that were expected to be recovered with interest, as the records show nothing of such transactions occurring.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mushili (Ndola Central): Mr Speaker, what was the extent of the cholera outbreak between 1991 and 1993, a period in which Government Ministers found it appropriate to mitigate this epidemic?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Munkombwe: Mr Speaker, I think that is an irrelevant question because the principal question was not meant to find out how much money was spent on the mitigation of cholera. The question and answer were specific.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mukanga (Kantanshi): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out what measures have been put in place by this Government to deter hon. Ministers from putting money into their personal accounts.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Munkombwe: Mr Speaker, there were no funds put in personal accounts. If any one of the hon. Members has a specific issue to raise as regards a particular bank and hon. Minister, they can raise a particular question. However, in the meantime, that question does not arise.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Nsanda (Chimwemwe): Mr Speaker, how possible is it that a Government hon. Minister or President can put his personal money in a Government account?

Mr Speaker: Order!

That is a reverse of what is under discussion here.

Mr Simuusa (Nchanga): Mr Speaker, in the event of public funds finding themselves in personal accounts, I would like to find out which official would be responsible.

Mr Speaker: Order!

By you saying that we have not done well with regard to workshops, that is called conjecture and it is not allowed in this House.

Mr Sikota, SC. (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, may the hon. Minister categorically state that it is not in order for a Government hon. Minister or ministry to put money, which was supposed to be for the mitigation of cholera, into an account and not utilise it for the purpose it was meant for. Is that the correct position?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, before I answer that question, I want to clarify that this question was specifically on whether money was put in the account of the LCC or not. We are not talking about the money being put in personal accounts at the Ministry of Health or Ministry of Local Government and Housing. I want to confirm that, indeed, it is irregular if such a thing happened. This is a general question and we need more details. If you have more details of some irregularities you are aware of, bring us specific information and we shall provide it to the House. As regards this question, we are specifically talking about the LCC.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Mr Speaker, following the answer given by his Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice and taking into account financial procedures and regulations, will he state whether it is actually possible for an hon. Minister to put public money in his/her personal accounts?

Mr Speaker: Order!

Again, that is conjecture and it is not allowed in this House.

Interruptions

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

402. Mr Kambwili (Roan) asked the Vice-President and Minister of Justice:

(a) how much money had been spent on allowances and transport for delegates to the National Constitutional Conference (NCC);

(b) how many vehicles had been purchased for use by the NCC and what the total cost was; and

(c) how the NCC would dispose of the vehicles.

Mr Munkombwe: Mr Speaker, the membership of the conference was around 500 people with fluctuations caused by frequent changes on account of withdrawals and deaths.

Sir, a summarised position of applications of funds towards allowances from inception, in 2007, till dissolution of the conference on 31st August, 2010, on an annual basis by category, is as follows:

Fund Application  Amount
(K)

Subsistence Allowance   43,450,593,000

Daily Transport Allowance   8,936,902,000

Transport Refund   1,101,800,000

Sitting Allowance 30,460,470,000

Total 83,949,765,000

Mr Speaker, there were nineteen vehicles purchased at a total of K2, 775,320,000. The motor vehicles, which were purchased for use by the NCC, will be redistributed to Government ministries and institutions of need.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, can His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice confirm that due to this Government’s failure to negotiate with other stakeholders to come up with a Constitution, this Government has spent K83,949,765,000 on allowances for nothing because the Constitution has been rejected?

Interruptions

Mr Munkombwe: Mr Speaker, I think it is better to put facts very clear. Money has not been spent for nothing.

Interruptions

Mr Munkombwe: Sir, after six months, this Government will re-address this issue. Therefore, there was no money spent for nothing.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}

Mr Beene (Itezhi-tezhi): Mr Speaker, may His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice confirm that the allowances given to delegates were not just given to hon. Members of the United Party for National Development (UPND) who participated in the NCC and that hon. Ministers should not go on public radio …

Mr Speaker: Order!

You are debating.

Interruptions

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, whatever money was spent on the NCC process was spent according to the law made by this august House and it was budgeted for by this august House. The issue of allowances was in the law and hon. Members of the UPND, like anybody else, got the allowances. However, of course, they voted against the Bill, which is unfortunate.

Therefore, Sir, money was spent according to the law and the rich product of the NCC, for those with intellectual capacity who contributed, is still a record for us to utilise in future. We are still committed to the Constitutional Review Process.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Government Member: Hear, hear!

Mr D. Mwila: Mr Speaker, during the enactment of the National Constitutional Conference Act, where there some members of the Committee who voted against the report of the Committee and if so, what action was taken?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, is it the National Conference Constitution Act or the Bill which came yesterday?

Hon. Opposition Members: The Act!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, we know the practice and procedure in this House. You do not vote against your own report. I think that it is for this House to take action if anybody has breached the rules of the House.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Nsanda: Mr Speaker, out of the K30,460,470,000 sitting allowances, how much did the chairpersons get?

Laughter

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, some of the chairpersons of committees of the NCC are hon. Members of this august House and we do not debate ourselves.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Phiri (Munali): Mr Speaker, I know we are not supposed to debate ourselves, but how much was given to the hon. Ministers who sat …

Mrs Kawandami: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order!

I repeat. The House is transacting very important business. From what has gone on, so far, none of the hon. Members who have participated in the Questions for Oral Answer Session has breached any rules of procedure. That is what I am listening for. So, what point of order is that about? Everybody is in order here. The hon. Member for Munali may continue.

Laughter

Mrs Phiri: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the Learned Minister of Justice who is also the Vice-President and Leader of Government Business in this House, how much hon. Ministers were getting in allowances at the NCC. Did they get the same amount as those who did not use Government vehicles? Was it the same amount across the board?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, all the allowances were paid according to the law. Hon. Ministers are part of the House. So, we cannot debate ourselves.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sing’ombe (Dundumwezi): Mr Speaker, the NCC ended in August, last year. Today, the hon. Minister stated that the nineteen vehicles would be redistributed to Government agencies. May I know when this will be done?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that a committee has been put in place in accordance with Government regulations, which deal with distribution of Government property, and the process is underway.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Milupi: Mr Speaker, K83 billion was spent on the NCC process. Despite spending such an amount, certain processes such as holding the Referendum and taking the final report to the country was not done. Can His Honour the Vice-President and Minister of Justice inform this House why this was not done?

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, the content of the report is public knowledge. The report has been published and is available for public consumption. The Referendum was supposed to come after the enactment of the Constitution Bill which, unfortunately, some hon. Members refused to endorse even after participating in the NCC. However, this is part of democracy. We shall, of course, review the situation and re-present the Bill in future.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Simuusa: Mr Speaker, I would like to find out where these vehicles are currently.

Interruptions

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, the vehicles are in Government possession.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chisala (Chilubi): Mr Speaker, I would like to know what procedure will be followed in distributing the vehicles because, as Member of Parliament for Chilubi, I would like to ask for one because our health post has no vehicle.

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, the vehicles will be distributed according to the regulations by the committee which is in place. These regulations give adequate guidelines on how Government property should be dealt with and how it should be distributed.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Lubinda: Mr Speaker, at the time of passing the NCC Act, the intention was that, by now, the Constitution of Zambia would be amended. Given the fact that, yesterday, the MMD Benches failed to gunner the 106 magic number required to pass the amendment, could His Honour the Vice-President and Learned Minister of Justice shed some light on some allegations that have been leveled against unnamed Members of this House by first, the hon. Minister of Broadcasting and Information Services, the very Reverend Ronald Shikapwasha, and by the hon. Minister of Education, that there were some people in the House who were blackmailing the Government before passing the Constitution Amendment Bill.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Order!

I will tell you why I am reluctant to allow this question. It is part of the rules of this House that a matter that has already been disposed of cannot be returned to. Those are your rules. You voted decisively yesterday and the matter is gone. If any of you wish to make comments on this matter outside the House, I cannot stop you. You can leave it outside the House, but your colleagues will also take you on outside the House.

Interruptions

Mr Speaker: Order!

____

BILLS

FIRST READING

THE COMPANIES (Amendment) BILL, 2011

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Companies Amendment Bill, 2011. The object of this Bill is to amend the Companies Act.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Economic Affairs and Labour. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House when it completes its deliberations. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

I thank you.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (2009) BILL, 2011

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice: Mr Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Supplementary Appropriation (2009) Bill. The object of this Bill is to confirm the supplementary expenditure of monies aggregating K1,114,922,859,506 required for the services of the Republic during the financial year ended 31st December, 2009.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Estimates. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House when it completes its deliberations. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

Thank you.

THIRD READING

The following Bill was read the third time and passed:

The Fisheries Bill, 2011.

______

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE

The Vice-President and Minister of Justice (Mr Kunda, SC.): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn sine die.

Question put and agreed to.

____

The House adjourned accordingly at 1540 hours on Wednesday, 30th March, 2011, sine die.