Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 44
  • File Size 497 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date October 14, 2015
  • Last Updated November 12, 2021



Wednesday, 14th October, 2015

The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.


(MR. SPEAKER in the Chair)



  1. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House of the changes to

Committee membership as follows; Hon. Chipato is to serve on the Portfolio Committee on ICT Postal and Courier Services,  Hon.

Mashonganyika to serve on the Portfolio Committee on Small and Medium Enterprises and Corporative Development, Hon. Nkatazo to serve on the Portfolio Committee on ICT Postal and Courier Services, Hon. Shumba to move from the Portfolio Committee on Industry and

Commerce to the Portfolio Committee on Finance and Economic

Development, Hon. Seremwe to move from the Portfolio Committee on Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development to the Portfolio

Committee on Lands, Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development ...

Hon. Chamisa having been talking to another hon. member

          Hon. Chamisa, could you please pay attention.  Hon. Ziyambi to serve in the Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal and Parliamentary

Affairs, Hon. Vutete to be removed from the Portfolio Committee on

Lands, Agriculture Mechanisation and Irrigation Development.


  1. SPEAKER: I also have to inform the House that the rescheduled Capacity Building Workshop on Economic Literacy for Chairpersons of Parliamentary Committees and members of the

Parliamentary Legal Committee will be conducted from the 16th to the 17th of October, 2105 at Pandhari Lodge.  The programme will be circulated to the hon. members and all Chairpersons are expected to be there.


  1. SPEAKER: May I remind all hon. members who have not

yet confirmed their attendance at the Pre-Budget Seminar to be held in Victoria Falls from the 30th October to the 3rd of November 2015, to do so with the Public Relations Department so that adequate arrangements can be finalised before the 16th of October.  Gatecrashers will only be entertained at their own expense.  Hon. members from Matebeleland South and North, Bulawayo, Masvingo and Midlands Provinces are advised to drive to Victoria Falls, while hon. members from the rest of the provinces will use scheduled and chartered flights from Harare.


  1. SPEAKER: All ZANU PF Members of Parliament are requested to attend a ZANU PF Caucus meeting tomorrow at 8 o’clock at ZANU PF Headquarters.


  1. MUTSEYAMI: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
  2. SPEAKER: What is your point of order Mr. Mutseyami?
  3. MUTSEYAMI: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, good afternoon

Mr. Speaker.  I stand to raise a point of order with regards to the required presence of ministers in this House for Question Time to help the nation.  As a result Mr. Speaker Sir, I am sure you can simply see that the majority of ministers are not here, we just see four Deputy Ministers and one Minister. All the Ministers; just for a record, I have seen them on television.  They are in Rushinga attending a ZANU PF rally whilst we have this Government business here – [Laughter] – Mr. Speaker, I propose that probably we can put it on record so that we have this programme at a later date when ministers are more committed to this country – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear]

Mr. Chamisa having stood up.

  1. SPEAKER:  You want to make another point of order?
  2. CHAMISA: Yes.
  3. SPEAKER:  But I have not ruled on the first point of order.

How do I deal with two points of order when the Chair is not double barreled – [Laughter] – I am trying to –[AN HON. MEMBER: You can reinstate those who were fired.] – [Laughter] –

An hon. member having stood up.

Order, order, I thought you understood my response to hon.

Chamisa.  Hon Mutseyami, I hear your request, I partially agree with it.  Perhaps what we can do is to proceed with the notices of motion and hopefully that they will be here in time to answer respective questions –

[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear] –  Mr. Chamisa having stood up.

  1. SPEAKER: You want to overrule the Chair?
  2. CHAMISA: No, not to overrule the Chair.
  3. SPEAKER: You want to assist the Chair?
  4. CHAMISA: In fact assisting the Chair.
  5. SPEAKER: Okay, go ahead.
  6. CHAMISA: In fact, it is not just a question of accommodating or trying to bear with the circumstances which are not availed to the Parliament. In terms of our Standing Orders and in terms of our Constitution, I have looked at the Constitution, Section 107 (2).  It gives a peremptory obligation on Vice Presidents and Ministers to attend Parliament without fail.  In the event that they want to absent themselves, they have to write to the Speaker, applying for a leave of absence so that Parliament will grant them that leave.

Now, in the absence of that leave in terms of Standing Order 63 (3), a Minister who fails to attend in terms of the relevant Sub Section that I have mentioned without leave is supposed to be charged with contempt of Parliament.  I think the charge is the Contempt of Parliament charge so that our ministers know that Parliament is more important – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear] – a rally is important but Parliament is more important.  It is good to attend meetings but we do not want even to go to that because that is partisan.  What we want is our ministers to be accountable to the people of Zimbabwe because they are driving Mercedes Benz, they have salaries from the taxpayer; we have a duty to defend those tax payers in this House.  If they choose to continue to be delinquent and cantankerous, we have a duty to deal with them –

[Laughter] –

  1. SPEAKER: Order, order, let me make some few corrections for Chamisa. Firstly, your quotation of Section 107 is incomplete because it includes Deputy Ministers, agreed?
  2. CHAMISA: Yes.
  3. SPEAKER: Yes, the Deputy Ministers are here. Secondly, I am not sure how someone who is not present can be cantankerous. I am not sure whether my learned Hon. Chamisa actually understood the use of that word – [Laughter] – cantankerous refers to someone who is exceptionally talkative but those that are absent cannot talk.  Further, even if the ministers are all here and the Chair is not defending them, not all of them will be subjected to questions. Therefore, raising contempt of Parliament can be misdirected because it is the mere presence only that is critical but also the question of the questions being directed to specific ministers.  Are we together Hon. Chamisa – [MR. CHAMISA: Yes, Sir.]

– You are busy talking to your colleagues there.

So, I want to suggest that we go to notices of motion and the Hon. Leader of the House and Vice President is here.  Hon. Vice President, the House is disappointed that a number of Cabinet Ministers are not here to answer questions and we did not receive any indication by way of the demands of the Standing Orders and the Constitution that X number of Ministers will not be available. There are only four Deputy Ministers who have tendered their apologies who are out of Harare. We thought this should be brought to your attention hon. Vice President as Leader of the House. So, I was going to suggest that in future, in terms of avoiding to break the Constitution and our Standing Orders, just a notice to indicate that several Ministers will not be there will suffice in terms of justifying absences. I therefore, indicate that with the leave of the House, we move to notices of motion and allow time for hon.

Ministers to come in at the end.


MNANGAGWA) Thank you hon. Speaker. I have a Minister and there are several Deputy Ministers. I am not responsible for their lack of counting by the other side. I am stating what I see but indeed, I take note of what Mr. Speaker has said. I am not aware as to whether they are out of the country or they are around. I am sure that the Ministers must have briefed them where they went. So they should know what has happened. –[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]- As long as I am the Leader of the House and on this side of Government, I will state my official position that I am not aware whether the Ministers are here or are outside the country. It is possible that some may still be coming but as it is, we are sufficient to execute Government business.

  1. SPEAKER: Order, Order. The hon. Vice President has

objected to the two points of orders and I hope he takes the responsibility to answer all questions in the absence of other Ministers.

So, we proceed with Questions Without Notice.


  1. MANGAMI: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. My question is

directed to the Deputy Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Services. What is Government policy regarding the benefits that are given to the elderly in Zimbabwe in respect of monetary issues? When are they supposed to be vetted for one to get those benefits?


Mr. Speaker Sir. We have several programmes that are currently running targeted at the vulnerable in society. Right now, we have a programme which is reaching a total of about 60 000 on behalf of the harmonised social cash transfer. So, that programme is currently running. We agree that it is probably not reaching out to as many people as it is supposed to be doing, but we are engaging private voluntary organisations to increase the catchment area where we can address them.

  1. D. TSHUMA: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir. My

supplementary question is to the effect that, while you are doing a programme for the pensioners, what are you going to do about trying to increase the monetary value because right now, I have seen pensioners coming to receive their pensions. For instance in Bulawayo, someone is coming from Tsholotsho to receive their pension and their pension is just enough to take them back again by bus. After that, they have nothing to write home about. So what are you doing about that? Thank you.

ENG. MATANGAIDZE: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I think the

hon. member has addressed two issues. There is the issue on benefits which is not related to pension which I spoke about earlier on. The issue which he now brings on is concerning pension and I think that falls under the purview of the Ministry of Finance and Economic

Development. I would ask the hon. member to address that question to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

  1. MLILO: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. My question is

directed to the Minister of Home Affairs. I would like to find out what the policy is on qualifying a residential area to be upgraded or uplifted to police station status? I would also like to find out what the policy is on the ratio of the number of police officers to the ratio of the number of residents in an area? Last but not least, I would like to find out what

your Ministry is doing to combat the ever increasing crime rate in

Cowdry Park? Thank you.

  1. SPEAKER: Order, you cannot ask two questions at the same

time. So the last question is dropped.


MGUNI): Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity. I think I have to give the hon. member time to write down his questions, and then I will bring correct answers because they need calculations and verifications. I thank you.

  1. CHINANZVAVANA: Thank you hon. Speaker. My question

was directed to the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education. In his absence, may I redirect the question to the Leader of the House, the hon. Vice President? Hon. Vice President, could we ascertain the feasibility of the proposal to have our ‘O’ level graduants going on industrial attachment considering that our industries are so overwhelmed and we cannot even afford to have places for university graduants? I thank you.


MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I congratulate the hon. member for asking such a timely question. It is an issue that is under debate. There is no policy that has firmed on what course to take but it is debate which we would want hon. members like her to contribute to, so that collectively, we can come to a decision accepted by all. I thank you.

  1. SPEAKER: Are you sure you want a supplementary from

such a clear answer?

          ENG. MUDZURI:  Why should I not be sure?

  1. SPEAKER:  The supplementary question, with all due respect Hon. Mudzuri, does not arise because the Hon. Vice President has said – “when the Speaker is speaking you take your seat.  Thank you”.   He said the policy is still under formulation.

          ENG. MUDZURI:  That is where my supplementary is arising from.

  1. SPEAKER:  You want to contribute to that; I will indulge you provided you are within the rails.

          ENG. MUDZURI:  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.  My

supplementary question to the Hon. Vice President is that while he has said the policy is still under review, is he going to ensure that all members are allowed on TV and radios to debate the issue, because certain members are not allowed to debate on TV.

  1. MNANGAGWA:  My colleague used to sit next to me and he is fully aware that Government has a platform where Government policy is debated.  Once concluded, only then, through the procedures of Parliament, gazetting and so on, is the entire nation informed.  There is a window of 30 days for the nation to be informed, before the Bill or any policy comes into Parliament for debate.  That is the procedure that we are going to follow.  I am so surprised that so shortly, he has sort of forgotten.
  2. SPEAKER:  This is why I had said to you Hon. Mudzuri that it was unnecessary from your experience as Cabinet Minister. -


  1. T. KHUMALO:  In the absence of the Minister of Tourism, I will direct my question to the Hon. Vice President.  I would like to know what culture we are introducing in Zimbabwe after the festival where our women walked naked.  Also, how much revenue did that bring into the country and what was achieved by getting our children drunk?


MNANGAGWA):  I am so certain that outside the Chamber, she liked the carnival but of course in here she has to say what she has said.  The principle of carnivals is for nations to exhibit their cultures.  As Zimbabweans, we do not have a culture of nakedness.  Ours is a different culture altogether.  Other nations may have that as their culture and we have no business interrogating the cultures of other nations.  In turn, they also do not have any business interrogating our own culture.

So, we should accept that nations have different cultures.  If a culture is repugnant to our own situation, obviously we will make sure it does not get imported into Zimbabwe.

*MR. ZVIDZAI:  I have a supplementary question to the Hon. Vice President.  Currently, we are in the season of rain making ceremonies ‘mukwerera’ and when we are doing these ceremonies we need to stick to our tradition in order for our ancestors to answer our requests.  Now, in view of what we are being exposed to, for example

‘bare buttock tourism’ do you think the ancestors can answer our requests?

  1. MNANGAGWA:  I heard what the hon. member said about

mukwerera but what I did not hear is whether those participating in the carnival went to the rain making ceremonies and disrupted the event.  Secondly, I did not hear whether they rejected the money brought in by these people or if the money was left behind, they do not want it.

+MR. J. TSHUMA:  My question is directed to the Minister of

Transport.  I want to ask about the issue of NRZ.  I realise that it has been about two years and people from my constituency, Matshobane, Iminyela, Mpopoma including Sizinda, which is outside my Constituency who work for NRZ are not being paid.  This means they are unable to look after themselves and their children.  What plans does your Ministry have to rectify this issue and relieve the people from this burden.  They have sent me to get a response from you because they want to know when they can get their money so that they can develop and solve these problems.

+MR. SPEAKER:  Let me correct you a little bit.  You should ask about policies that the Ministry of Transport has.  What is the policy

Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development?



point is that NRZ is run by a board and I would not know the circumstances prevailing that have made them fail to pay their staff

          I therefore, ask the hon. member to put that question in writing so that I can give a full and satisfactory answer to that question. I thank you.

+MR. SPEAKER: I thought that Hon. Gumbo is from

Matabeleland. I was going to speak in Ndebele.


Speaker Sir. My question is directed to the Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa. What I want to ask is; we have heard that the Government wants to bring back a law such that all children who would have finished form 4 can only go to higher education if they have Mathematics and Integrated Science. My question therefore is that, we know that if you look at people from Matabeleland, there are a few schools with Science subjects. How are you going to treat this issue? Is it not what we talked about in the Constitution that we should not choose particular people who would have come from particular areas where Science subjects are taught? We know that in Matabeleland, Science subjects are not there. I thank you.



MNANGAGWA): We are not supposed to be forced to speak in a language we are not conversant with. I am aware that something has been passed in relation to that issue. I am aware that there has been some statements issued to that effect and I believe that debate is continuing. If a policy is settled on, I have no doubt that the House will be informed about any decision of that nature. I thank you. – [HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.] –

  1. SITHOLE: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. My question is directed to the Vice President Hon. Mnangagwa. I would like to know the Government policy regarding expenditure on accommodation for senior Government officials. This is actually on the background of reports that Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko has been staying in an expensive hotel since 14 December 2014. I would want to know the expenditure policy in terms of accommodation for senior Government officials? I thank you. – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear. Hear.] –



MNANGAGWA): Hon. Speaker Sir, I would like to tell you that some of these issues are for the elderly and should not be spoken about. We are working on this issue and we are looking for a house so that the Hon.

Vice President can be accommodated. I thank you. – [HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –

+MR. CHAMISA:  I understand that the Hon. Vice President

[Laughter]- is trying to speak in Ndebele. Let me use English so that the Vice President does not lose track of what I am saying. Mr. Speaker Sir, my question to the Hon. Vice President has to do with the fact that, we know that the Deputy Speaker was staying in a hotel. Is it a stated and settled Government policy that we would use the meagre resources we have for an expensive mode of accommodation like a hotel instead of or in place of other cheaper forms that we could find? Are we not able to then use that money for other necessities like electricity or water that are very pertinent to circumstances of our country?

  1. MNANGAGWA: Mr. Speaker Sir, I am not fully informed about the facts of the matter the hon. member has raised about the Deputy Speaker. I may be incorrect or correct but I believe that Parliament has regulations governing how the Speaker shall be looked after when the Speaker is in Harare during the sitting of Parliament. The regulations are not that of Government but of the legislature, so we need to look at that in order to see whether they have been violated or not. So, I cannot off the cuff, indicate as to the precise situation relating to the matter raised by the hon. member. I thank you.

*MR. CHIDHAKWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. My question

would have been directed to the Minister of Health and Child Care. I will now reroute it to the Vice President Hon. Mnangagwa. Hon. Mnangagwa, is it Government policy that Ministers of Government go about distributing aphrodisiac and sex enhancers at rallies and such aphrodisiac medication is even given to elderly people? By so doing, are we not promoting sexual offences such as rape? Are we not fighting against our policy of a safe country?



MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I think that may be this hon.

member is bitter because he did not get any aphrodisiac medication. As far as we know, Government policy or legislation is passed in this august House and becomes an Act and hence we do not have such a law in the country. If you feel there is such an instance which could have happened, please write down your question and indicate where this thing happened. I feel very hurt that an hon. member can ask such a question knowing perfectly well that Government does not have such a legislation.

*MR. SPEAKER: We cannot have a supplementary question because as far as we know there is no Government Act which talks about distribution of aphrodisiac, such a law does not exist. Order can we hear  the hon. member?   

  1. MHONA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. My question is directed to the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement, Hon. Dr.

Mombeshora. What is the Government policy with regards to the provision of land to those that were minors during the pinnacle of the land reform programme in year 2000 that did not benefit so as to fulfill the fundamental human rights as enshrined in our Constitution, Chapter

4 in particular, Section 72 which talks of the right to agricultural land?



Sir.  I would like to thank the hon. member for asking that question because I meet such questions almost on daily basis.  First and foremost, Government has set the age of 21 years as the age when one can be allowed to own a piece of land.  There are processes of applying for a piece of land.  For those who are still below that age, obviously they cannot be allowed to own a piece of land.  The land reform is an ongoing process.  In other countries, they have maximum farm sizes of around 75 hectares.  We will be guided by the demand of land whether to go further and embark on further downsizing the farms that we have to ensure that more land is availed.  In reality, not everyone who wants to be a farmer can be a farmer.  As we proceed, we should come up with a policy which allows transfer of land in one way or the other. Currently, what I can say is, if you are still below the age of 21 years, you cannot own a piece of land.  You can only apply when you are above 21 years and land will be availed to you if it is available.  Thank you.

  1. MHONA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. Maybe, the Hon. Minister did not get the first part of my question. I said to those that were minors during the year 2000, by now they are majors; they are no longer minors.
  2. MOMBESHORA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I thought

that part of the question is answered. If one is above the age of 21 years, you the legislators actually set that age and it is allowed; those who are interested in land can apply.  Those applications will be processed.  We cannot say everyone who was below the age of 21 years and is now above 21 years should be allocated a piece of land.  It depends on the demand.  Thank you.        

  1. WATSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I have to address my question to the Hon. Vice President and Leader of the House, in the absence of the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development. Is there a sustainable policy for Air Zimbabwe to run to schedule as their lack of ability to run to schedule is having direct consequences for business and tourism? Thank you.



MNANGAGWA):  I thank Hon. Watson for the question. Obviously, you cannot set up an organisation to do disappointing things.  As Government, we would want Air Zimbabwe to do those things that would attract more customers to Air Zimbabwe.  The fact that it has the habit of occasionally not keeping to time, those are the things that make sure that customers will shun Air Zimbabwe.  When Air Zimbabwe was created, the intention was that it must do the best in the market in competition with others and making sure that the passengers would choose Air Zimbabwe because of good service, including keeping times as pronounced.

There is no policy in the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development allowing Air Zimbabwe to be committing such a misconduct which works against attracting passengers. I believe that the hon. member might have been disappointed when Air Zimbabwe delayed taking off to or from some other country.  I plead with her that the will to make Air Zimbabwe a better Air Carrier is there, both the politically and commercially.  Other things may come in, constraints and resources, but the will is there.   I thank you.          

  1. NDUNA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development, in his absence to the Leader of the House, the Hon. Vice President who also chairs the Cabinet Committee on

Infrastructure Development.  My question is about the dualisation of the

Norton to Kadoma highway which has been on the cards for some time, premised on the $147 million DBSA loan which would have come about after ring fencing the petrol…

  1. SPEAKER: What is the question?
  2. NDUNA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, but I thought I should preface my question…
  3. SPEAKER: No, no, please ask the question?
  4. NDUNA: Mr. Speaker Sir, my question borders on the dualisation of the Kadoma to Norton highway. What is Government policy on that road, seeing it has been on the cards for the past five years? I thank you.



MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, I thank the question by the hon. member.  Obviously, he has interest in that area.  The Government interests are broader than his interests. The policy is not to dualise the road from Norton to Kadoma - no.  It goes beyond Kadoma to Kwekwe then Gweru, Bulawayo, Plumtree, Hwange, Victoria Falls: Bulawayo- Beitbridge; Norton - Harare up to Mutare dualising.  That is the overall view of the Government.  It is not limited to Norton and Kadoma.

It is a question of resources, even if the resources; come in, it is the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development who would decide as to whether it shall continue from Norton to Kadoma or begin from Plumtree coming here or from here going to Plumtree.  That is not something that we decide in the House, it is by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development.  Overally, I am totally in agreement with him that there is absolute need, and we have recognized it. In fact, there is already a dualised road from here to Norton which shows that we are already awake to the issue of dualising our highways but it is not limited to what he has interest in. There are other areas in the country as important as Kadoma and Norton.  I thank you.

*MS. MUZONDIWA:  My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Child Care but in his absence, I am directing my question to the Vice President.  I would want to know the plans that Government has with regards to people who do not have money to pay hospital bills?

This is because when you visit hospitals, you are told that you have to pay card fees before you are attended to.


MNANGAGWA):  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I will ask Dr. Mombeshora to give a reply. Perhaps he knows what precisely happens,

I am not so sure.  I do not want to mislead the House.



Speaker.  Let me just clarify on the policy.  When you seek treatment at a Government hospital, those below the age of five are treated for free and those above 65 years are also treated for free.  Those between the age of five and 65 are supposed to pay for treatment in Government hospitals.  However, there are also special groups like the blind, the disabled and those who are registered with the Social Welfare as vulnerable.  Those who cannot afford are also supposed to be taken care of through the Social Welfare.  We understand that at times some hospitals are charging fees like card fee.  Ideally, that should not apply to those under the age of five, those above 65 and the groups that I have mentioned.  Otherwise, all the other able bodied, that is, those who can work and can afford to pay are supposed to pay.  Thank you.

  1. TOFFA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  My supplementary

question is, is the Minister saying that with all children under the age of five years, parents should not pay their fees when they go to

Government hospitals?  Thank you.

  1. MOMBESHORA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Precisely, that

is the policy.  Those under the age of five are supposed to get free treatment in Government hospitals – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – That is the policy, maybe I can explain further.  We have seen reports at times in the media that people are being charged or children are being detained before they have paid the fees; that is illegal.  The Minister has said it, it is illegal and all such cases must be reported to the Ministry. I thank you.

  1. MASIYA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  My question is directed to the Minister of Information Communication Technology, Postal and

Courier Services, Mr. Mandiwanzira …

  1. ZVIDZAI:  On a point of order Mr. Speaker, I had a supplementary question that I thought was important, riding on what the Acting Minister of Health and Child Care said.
  2. SPEAKER:  I thought the answer was explicitly adequate.  Hon. Dr. Mombeshora said if there are cases, otherwise these should be reported to the Ministry.  I do not think there can be any further answer beyond that.
  3. ZVIDZAI:  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.  The Acting Minister of Health and Child Care clearly pronounced the position with respect to age groups outside five and 65.  My supplementary question is about in-between.  The corollary of what he has pronounced now that if you are between five and 65 and you are deemed to be able, then you have to pay.  The corollary to it is that the policy of Government is that if you are unable, then you are consigned to death because there are a lot of people between five and 65 who are unable.  Is it Government policy therefore, to corollarily say if you are unable and you are within that age group, you are consigned to death?
  4. MOMBESHORA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I thought I

really explained that those who are not able are supposed to be covered by Social Welfare. So it is up to the individual if you feel you are not able to register with Social Welfare and those are the people who will interview you and get satisfied that you are not able.  It is not the

Ministry.  Once you are registered with them, the Ministry will bill Social Welfare, so it will no longer be your responsibility but the screening part of it is not done by the Ministry of Health and Child Care.

  1. MASIYA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  My question is directed to the Minister of Information Communication Technology, Postal and

Courier Services, Mr. Mandiwanzira.  What is the Ministry’s work plan to ensure total coverage of cellphone network coverage around areas, especially in the far areas like the bordering areas with Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia?  As it stands, we sometimes go 50 to 100 kilometres without any network.


MANDIWANZIRA):  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir.  I would like to thank the hon. member for that very important question.  The Government policy in terms of mobile phone coverage is that of universal access.  We believe that all areas of the country must have universal mobile phone coverage.  However, the investment in infrastructure for mobile telephone is limited to the extent of commercial viability by the companies.  We do have under the Postal and

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority a fund called the Universal Services Fund, whose responsibility is to invest in those areas that mobile networks do not find commercially viable to invest in. We are working on mobilising resources to ensure that infrastructure is deployed to some of those areas that the hon. member has mentioned. In addition to that, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (POTRAZ) is currently working on regulations that will insist on all mobile operators in this country sharing their infrastructure, which includes roaming services so that if you are in an area where only one network is available and you are not subscribed to that network, you can still use the infrastructure of that network.

That is the principle of infrastructure sharing that we are promoting and that the regulator has just finished putting together the regulations for review by the Ministry and then forwarding to the Attorney General so that they can be published. I thank you.

*RTD BRIG GWANETSA: My question would have been

directed to Hon. Minister Mushowe and I realise that he is not in the

House. Nonetheless, I will direct my question to the Vice President, Hon Mnangagwa. Since the Supreme Court ruling on the 17th of July 2015, radio announcers and producers of Shangani language which is widely spoken in Chiredzi and Mwenezi were all fired from their jobs. There are no longer any television and radio programmes in Shangani. As

Government are you going to recognise this language and secondly,

what was the reason behind the sacking of all these announcers and presenters?



MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, what was heard by the hon.

member was not heard by me and therefore I would urge him to put his question in writing so that I will go and make an informed research.

*MR. MACHINGAUTA: My question would have been directed

to Minister Patrick Zhuwao but in his absence, I will direct it to the Hon. Vice President. I will try and be specific. When we go to Section 17 of our Constitution, it talks about the empowerment of the youths. I will only talk about the youths and not about women. When we look at the current Cabinet, there are no youths that occupy ministerial positions despite the fact that the Constitution states that the youths should be elevated to higher echelons in Cabinet. Are we not violating our own Constitution by not having any youths in the current Cabinet?



MNANGAGWA): I am very glad because this hon. member holds me in high esteem. There are a lot of Acts numbering to about 400 and you have mentioned only one which you think I should know. I would kindly request the hon. member to put his question in writing so that I may answer the question correctly because this segment is for policy questions only. When Government policies are being crafted they do not belong to it but they have to be followed by everyone in the country and this is making it difficult for me to respond to such a question.

  1. MARIDADI: On a point of order Mr. Speaker Sir. It is clear that in the absence of ministers we are not able to get good answers. This is why we say when ministers are not here, the Hon. Vice President cannot be expected to understand every ministry and as such when ministers are not here we must defer Questions Without Notice because it appears the Hon. Vice President is not doing justice to our questions and it is an indictment on this House and the people that are listening at home.
  2. SPEAKER: The judgment as to whether the Hon. Leader of the House is performing well or not rests with the Chair. As far as the Chair is concerned, the Hon. Vice President has handled all the questions sufficiently. Regarding the last question, I think latitude has been given that the hon. member should put his question in writing so that he can be given a comprehensive answer. Nothing better than that can be given …

Hon. Machingauta having stood up.

Why are you standing up? I agree with the Hon. Vice President that the hon. member can put the question in writing and it will be dealt with comprehensively.

  1. MNANGAGWA: This is why it is necessary Mr. Speaker Sir to put in writing because he quoted Section 17. I have access to the

Constitution and Section 17 has nothing to do with the youths –[HON MEMBERS: Section 20.]- The hon. member quoted Section 17 instead of quoting Section 20. I am saying I was actually correct without even referring to the Constitution that it is better to put it in writing because then you know you are referring to the correct section of the Constitution. His question was based on Section 17, which is a wrong section altogether. I thank you.

  1. CHIBAYA: My question is directed to the Vice President. Is it now Government’s policy for the Executive not to abide by the ruling of our courts as is the case with City of Gweru Councillors who were awarded a determination by the courts to go back to work but the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing is actually refusing?



MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, let me assure the hon. member that Government is committed to the rule of law and Government will abide with thedecisions of the Judiciary. The hon. member has asked a specific question which will require specific attention to the facts of the issue. In this particular case, at policy level, I would want to assure the hon.

member that Government is committed to the rule of law and

Government will always obey the decisions of the Judiciary.

  1. MUTSEYAMI: My supplementary to do with the response

that has just been given by the hon. Vice President, I am sure this is a given situation; we saw a press conference and even newspapers professed to that effect, that through the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government, that he will not abide by the decision of the High Court to the effect that he advised the councillors who had won the case to stay home as they would not be accepted at Council Chambers. This is on record regardless of a specific issue. This is a national event.

  1. MNANGAGWA: Mr. Speaker Sir, this is precisely why I

have said, to the specific issue raised with specific facts, let them be put in writing. If he is asking what Government policy is, what I have articulated is what Government policy is. If there is any particular fact contrary to Government policy, put that in writing so that they can be attended to accurately.

  1. MUKUPE: My question to the Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, is what is Government policy in as far as the incarceration of minors is concerned? This is in relation to a situation we had in my constituency where we had a mother with a three day old

child put in prison overnight as a result of eviction from a farm in Caledonia.

  1. SPEAKER: Can I direct the House accordingly. Hon. members should not ask on specific issues that relate to an event. We are here dealing with general Government policy. If you refer to a specific issue, put your question in writing.
  2. MACKENZIE: My question is directed to the Leader of the House, Hon. Vice President and Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Mnangagwa. My question is, when are the other languages that are spoken in Zimbabwe going to be adopted for use in this House and how far has Government gone in making sure the languages are put to use?



MNANGAGWA): I think I may be wrong in terms of numbers; the

Constitution recognises 16 languages. It is in the Constitution. Those are recognised languages in terms of our Constitution. If we want them to be more, but at the time of writing the Constitution, the country agreed on 16 and that is what is there now. Currently, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs has so far translated the Constitution into seven languages and the process is going on. As we move around, we are distributing the Constitution in seven languages but we believe that by the end of next year, we will have produced the Constitution in 16 languages, which are languages that are recognised by the Constitution.

  1. SPEAKER: I think hon. Vice President, you did not get the question. When will some of those languages be used here in Parliament? That was the question.
  2. MNANGAGWA: Actually, in terms of the rules in Parliament, you can use any of those languages but for purposes of practicability, there is no capacity currently for translation in of certain languages Parliament. Capacitation of the staff is an on-going exercise. It is not only an issue of debating through a language. You can also debate through dance – [Laughter] -.
  3. CHAMISA: My supplementary question to the hon. Vice President has to do with the use of the sign language. We realise that a lot of our citizens would want to benefit from the parliamentary debates from hon. members and from our ministers. You would find that in Parliament, in-as-much as it is not explicitly catered for within the

Constitution, sign language is something that we want to hear from Government when they are likely to introduce it here for purposes of our citizens who do not speak this particular language.

  1. MNANGAGWA: I thank the hon. member for the question. I do not think Parliament has reached the stage where it has recruited staff with that capability, but it should do so as it is relevant that we should have people who can do sign language. For instance, in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, we are now distributing the Constitution in Braille form. We are already doing it so that the blind can read the Constitution through Braille. Sign language, I believe that we have so many people in the country with that capacity and there is no constraint except resource constraint for Parliament, Government or institutions to recruit people with that capacity or skill. I would wish that is done so that everybody benefits from debates and the goings-on in Parliament.
  2. B. TSHUMA: (Hon. member spoke in Nambya)
  3. MNANGWAGWA: I am delighted that the hon. member is not disadvantaged because he has been in Parliament for so long and has been following debate and debating in other languages other than his own language. I am aware that Nambya is also one of the sixteen languages in our Constitution, so it is recognised. There is no problem. In terms of the courts, for instance, if the police arrest somebody who speaks Chinese, the court will go out of its way to look for a Chinese interpreter so that the person is heard. If somebody speaks any other language and there is no appropriate interpreter in court. The court will not proceed until an appropriate interpreter is found so that justice is done. I thank you.

Questions Without Notice were interrupted by MR. SPEAKER in terms of Standing Order Number 64.




  1. MR. MASUKU asked the Minister of Energy and Power

Development when the Zimbabwe Electricity Distribution and Transmission Company is going to award 160 units of free electricity to residents of Emganwini in Nketa Constituency which were awarded to other residents?


DEVELOPMENT (MS. MUZENDA): Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir

May I have question numbers 5, 6 and 7 deferred to next week because I do not have the answers on me?

  1. MUTSEYAMI: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Last week when we had the hon. Minister in this House, he requested this House to defer those questions on the pretext that he had no answers then, and he said he was going to have answers this week. Now, the Deputy Minister comes and says the same thing.  What is happening in the Executive?
  2. SPEAKER: Order, I think that Hon. Mutseyami has a point. If the hon. Minister last week asked for deferment, there is no reason to ask for another deferment again.  What is the explanation?
  3. MUZENDA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I was away and when I came back, I did not see the Minister.  I asked the officers but they had July answers.  So, may I promise that I will definitely bring the answers next week?
  4. SPEAKER: I accept the promise but we have Permanent Secretaries who must be on top of the situation, to brief either the

Minister or the Deputy Minister.



  1. MR. MASUKU asked the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Services to explain Government policy with regards to retrenchment of workers by private companies, for example, Treger

Group of Companies which is forcing workers above 55 years to accept packages equivalent to six months of employment when they have served the company for more than 30 years.



Sir, we respond as follows.  Retrenchment is at the instance of the employer.  This can arise out of operational requirements, for instance downsizing and/or technological advancement among a host of other reasons.

In terms of the Labour Act Amendment 5/2015, [Chapter 28:01], Section 12.6 provides for a minimum retrenchment package of at least one months’ salary for every two years of service.  This statutory requirement covers all private companies and parastatals.  Should an employer fail to pay the package, this would constitute an unfair labour practice which can be registered with the relevant employment council or the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Services.

However, the amended Act extends an exemption clause for companies who are unable to meet the minimum set package.

Applications for exemption should be made to the relevant employment council and in the absence of an employment council; the Ministry will be able to entertain the application.  I thank you.


  1. MR. SARUWAKA asked the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Services:
  2. to state the period it should take for former civil servants to receive their lump sum after retiring;
  3. state whether the formula for calculating the lump sum is disclosed to the beneficiaries; if so, state the formula.
  4. to reference the case of Mr. Samuel Tafadzwa Masango, I.D. No. 75 – 085536 M 50, E.C. No. 0224163 E (Education), who served as a teacher for 42 years from 1st January, 1973 till his retirement on 19th August, 2014 at the age of 65 years but has been receiving meager monthly pension payments without the lump sum.

I wish to say on part (b), I had put a correction on the question which the Papers Office did not effect.  It should state whether the formula for calculating the lump sum is disclosed to the beneficiaries.  If so, then state the formula and not the amount.  We do not wish to know the amount but the formula.



Mr. Speaker Sir.  Maybe, if I can start with the first part of the question.

We respond as follows:  The lead time for processing and paying of pension benefits as per Public Service Commission’s Service Charter is two months after the date of retirement. However, for one to receive a lump sum payment, it all depends with the financial resources availed by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.  Currently, we are paying lump sum payments to those who terminated work in august of 2014, which reflects a backlog of about a year and two months.

However, these pensioners are being paid monthly pensions as we stand.

The second part of the question which he has since amended, the hon. member has asked the Minister to state whether the formula for calculating the lump sum is disclosed to the beneficiaries and if so, to state the formula.

The benefits payable are dependent on a number of factors which differ from member to member.  For example, the pensionable service, that is, years contributed.

Secondly, the pensionable emoluments, that is salary and pensionable allowance at the date of termination.  The second requirement that he came up with requesting for the formula, this is available at the Government Printers but should you require me to submit that in the following week, I will certainly do that.

Thirdly, one’s age at the date of termination, Mr. Samuel T. Masango terminated service indeed on 19th August, 2014 and his lump sum, in line with the back payments that I have spoken about, will be paid in October 2015.  I thank you.



  1. MR. CHIWA asked the Minister of Public Service, Labour and

Social Services the following – (a) explain the Government policy on the appointment of administrators to run unions such as Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Workers Union (ZISMWU).

  • to state whether administrators have the powers to garnish subscriptions without any consultations with the workers both union and non-union members;
  • to further explain whether administrators can bargain for the workers during his/her term of office



Government’s role is to protect its citizens and in executing that role in relation to trade unions and employer organisations, the Minister is empowered through Section 120 of the Labour Act Chapter [28:01] to investigate Trade Unions and employers’ organisations, where the Minister has reasonable cause to believe that the property or funds of the said union, employers organisation or federation are being misappropriated or misapplied, or that the affairs of any trade union, employers’ organisations are being conducted in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of the generality of the membership.

In the case of Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Workers Union (ZISMWU), an investigation was commissioned after complaints were lodged by employees in the industry, who are members of the union, on the misuse of funds and non-adherence to the Constitution in the administration of the affairs of the union.

The investigations’ findings confirmed the complaints of the employees, as the executives were converting members’ funds to personal use whilst fraudulently covering the corrupt activities.  The findings necessitated the appointment of an administrator.  The appointment was made by application to the Labour Court.  The administrator’s mandate is to implement the recommendations of the investigation and to restore the union’s financial and administrative


  1. An administrator so appointed has the authority to administer the union’s affairs including overseeing the state of the membership and subscription remittances. The administrator does not garnish subscriptions but ensures that the check-off system which was suspended is resumed for union members only.  Employees have the right to belong or not to belong to any registered union.  Non-members do not subscribe to a union that they have not voluntarily joined.  Forcing non-members to subscribe to the union was one of the issues that had workers raising complaints against the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Workers Union.  However, should the administrator receive complaints from employees being forced to and had not joined, it is within his mandate to regularise those cases upon being notified by the concerned employees.
  2. The administrator is guided by the terms of reference and bargaining for conditions of service is not one of them. The executive of the union is currently engaged in collective bargaining for the review of wages and allowances.
  3. SPEAKER:  Hon. Deputy Minister, thank you for your

answers and in consultation with your staff, may we get the correction citation of the Labour Act?

ENG. MATANGAIDZE:  Sure Mr. Speaker.

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA:  On a point of order Mr.

Speaker, may I please ask that my name be spelt correctly.  I am not

Zezuru; I am Karanga so it should read Misihairabwi.  So, it is ‘bwi’ and not ‘mbwi’.

  1. SPEAKER:  Just a moment what did you say, without the ‘B’?  Without the ‘M’, okay alright.



  1. 11. MRS MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA asked the Minister of Environment, Water and Climate to  explain the Ministry’s plans in combating the spread impact of the invasive Lantana Camara plant in Matabeleland considering that it is destroying the biodiversity thereby reducing  crop yields and killing livestock such as cattle.


EDUCATION on behalf of THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND CLIMATE:  Thank you very much Mr. Speaker after that lesson on grammar and authography, I may now kindly offer the response from the relevant Minister.

Lantana camara is one of the widest spread invasive alien plant species affecting not only Matabeleland provinces but all the country’s ten provinces.  It is invasive, in other words it colonises land area at the expense of native vegetation thus destroying biodiversity and also reducing grazing land.  The plant is alien meaning that it is not native to Zimbabwe, I should use the term, not indigenous to Zimbabwe and the plant was brought as an ornamental flower from South America and has since spread through many parts of the country with animals, birds and wind as dispersal agents. It is more prominent in the Mashonaland provinces where a total of 111 863 hectares of land area have been infested.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the Ministry has been proactive by listing Lantana camara in the fourth schedule of the Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) meaning that all land owners, users and land occupiers are obliged by law to remove and clear the weed from their land.  My Ministry through the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) has mobilised communities to eradicate the weed through projects and programmes meant to destroy the weed.

The Ministry has used the chemical methods where we were using a chemical called Round-up or Glyphosate but has proved to be costly and now has resorted to the mechanical clearing methods through physical removal as the most effective community based eradication method.  Most communities have resorted to voluntary clearing after understanding the direct benefits of clearing such weed in their pasture lands such as in Ward 28 of Zaka District where they cleared 110 hectares in the year 2014.

My Ministry has also embarked on an aggressive environmental education and awareness campaign on the dangers of all invasive species including Lantana camara.

In the year 2015, a total of 44 awareness meetings and campaigns were conducted in five districts in Matabeleland (Matobo, Umzingwane, Mangwe, Insiza and Bulilima) with traditional leaders, environmental committees and subcommittees, local authorities and villagers to mobiles communities to embark on a land camara eradication.

Mr. Speaker Sir, in the year 2015 to date thirty-six orders were issued to farmers, villagers, institutions and local authorities to clear

Lantana camara from land under their jurisdiction.

My Ministry is taking the following measures: - 1.  surveillance of current and potential invasion shall continue;

  1. Public awareness and education programmes shall be carried out for communities in hotspot areas to ensure clearing of the current and potential invasion;
  2. Strengthening law enforcement on clearing of Lantana camara invaded land.

In conclusion, Lantana camara has directly impacted negatively on vegetation structure and composition through smothering and allelopathic means and indirectly through changes in soil properties.  This has negatively affected the quality and availability of forage and cover for animals and birds.  Hence without timely action and additional budget allocation from the Government towards Lantana camara, clearing the vegetation in most areas of Zimbabwe will totally be transformed by Lantana camara.

As a Ministry, we will continue with our efforts of having Lantana camara free land in Zimbabwe.  We urge all land owners to be responsible and clear Lantana camara from their farms, villages and communities.  I thank you.

  1. SPEAKER: May I be guided by the hon. Vice President and

Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs;  am I correct to say Hon. Chinamasa is out of the country on Executive Business, because there are several questions for him on the Order Paper?



MNANGAGWA): Yes, he arrived last night but he was not able to come, he is exhausted, he will be at work tomorrow. Thank you.

  1. SPEAKER: Alright, thank you.



  1. 21. MR. CHIWA asked the Minister of Lands Rural Resettlement to explain the correct resettlement status of the Lot 3 of Triangle Ranch (pension area) and Monyoroka Cheungume area of D.T.Z given the fact that the holders of A1 permits are still co-existing with Tongaat Hulett on the same piece of land.


MOMBESHORA): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. member for the question.  Lot 3 of Triangle Ranch (pension area) and Monyoroka Cheungume area of D.T.Z, are all acquired State land. The above areas measure approximately 8 500 hectares in extent and were all legally resettled with A1 farmers.  Tongaat Hulett was previously using the area for its grazing since it constitutes the dry land but they have been advised to cease any activities within that area so as to allow the A1 farmers to have undisturbed use of their area. Thank you.




President and Minister of National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation to explain the role of the ministry in relation to land conflicts in local communities.


Speaker Sir, this question has been on the Order Paper from the last session, last time when you were not in, I had asked the hon. Vice

President and Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Mnangagwa, to either try and confer with his colleague or to assist, or otherwise we are not getting any movement from it. Thank you – [HON.

MUTSEYAMI: Today he is an Aide in Rushinga]-

  1. SPEAKER: Hon. Mutseyami, will you withdraw that statement, unless you have got the facts to that matter?
  2. MUTSEYAMI: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker Sir.
  3. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair will try and assist in getting a response from the hon. Vice President and Minister of National

Healing, Peace and Reconciliation, so that the matter is concluded.



  1. MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA asked the Minister of

Primary and Secondary Education to explain the policy measures the Ministry has put in place to curb examination leakages of 2015 Grade 7 and ‘A’ Level examinations.


EDUCATION (DR. DOKORA): Thank you hon. Speaker and I thank

the hon. member who asked the question.  I thought the greatest leakages have been at ‘O’ Levels but apparently there is an omission at that ‘O’ Level, so I am happy that she is happy with ‘O’ Level.

As a Ministry, we have taken measures to curb exam leakage within our system.  For this year in particular, we have deployed additional personnel to ensure that spot checks are made at each and every examination centre particularly in the movement to the venues prior to the writing of those examinations.  Officers from both provincial offices and district offices and ZIMSEC contracted personnel, have made constant spot-checks on the Grade 7 examinations that are underway, which are ending on Thursday, 15 October, 2015.  So far, no reports of examination leakages have been reported.

Over and above, the Ministry has requested the Zimbabwe Republic Police to provide security during the transportation of examination materials.  Again, I emphasise that, in anticipation of the larger volume at ‘O’ Level and a smaller volume at ‘A’ Level. Similar security arrangements particularly at the larger volume and high stake examination level of ‘O’ Level, will be provided at examination collection points.  However, some of the long term measures which we proposed earlier in the year include the use of electronic security system apparatus.  Those, as I speak, are located in a process but I think the less we speak, the happier the Minister would be comfortable.  Thank you.

+MRS.  MISIHAIRABWI – MUSHONGA:  I wanted to ask the

Minister that …

The Hon. Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, Mr.

Dokora having been speaking to an hon. Minister.

+MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Minister listen to what the hon.

member is saying.

+MRS.  MISIHAIRABWI – MUSHONGA: I wanted to ask,

maybe the Minister can explain.  When we are looking at the issue of leakages, did they find out the reasons why the papers were leaking?  We did not get the answers or the response on what exactly has happened.  I thank you.

  1. DOKORA: The hon. member wants to know the process, how the exam papers are being collected from the distribution point. Until we are able to print in-house and then track electronically as well as using physical human personnel in the distribution channel, we always run the risk that leakage can occur, either at the point where printing takes place and the examination authority has no control.

The hon. Minister having been addressing the gallery.

  1. SPEAKER: Order hon. Minister, please address the Chair.
  2. DOKORA: This was part of our desire to say we should have complete control of the process from the printing through to the distribution. However, until we achieve that, which we hope to do in the coming year, we still have to rely on third parties printing for us.

Therefore, that third part could be the source and I think the nation is aware when last year the matter came to open court.  There was a matter which began to indicate that really, it was beyond the purview of the Examination Council itself and its personnel trying to distribute the papers, but it occurred very close to the printing facility.  I thank you.



  1.   MS. CHIRISA asked the Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development to inform the House on mechanisms in place to ensure that small holder farmers access irrigation equipment to sustain their productivity in view of unpredictable rainfall patterns caused by climate change.


(CROPPING) (MR. MARAPIRA):  Hon. Member, plans are already underway to develop, modernize and rehabilitate various irrigation schemes across the country.  However, implementation of the plans is hampered by the availability of funds.  In pursuant to that, the Ministry is developing a template that ensures irrigation schemes are viable and sustain themselves in order to avoid reliance on the fiscus for rehabilitation.  I thank you.



  1.   MS. CHIRISA asked the Minister of Industry and Commerce

to state the steps that the Ministry is taking to recapitalise the manufacturing industry.


COMMERCE (MS. MABUWA): Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  The Ministry of Industry and Commerce is aware that distressed companies are in need of financial assistance as there is an unavailability of affordable and long term funding which is hindering full capacity utilisation in the manufacturing sector.  These are the Distressed and

Marginalised Areas Fund (DiMAF), the Zimbabwe Economic and Trade Revival Facility (ZETREF) and the injection of fresh capital by investors into distressed companies.

In an effort to facilitate availability of financing to companies, my Ministry, through the DiMAF facility, is supporting private sector growth.  The funds are being disbursed through CABS.  DiMAF goes beyond the traditional disbursement of funds, but also incorporates capacity building and idea sharing in order to make it beneficial to the country’s industrialization effort.

As at 31st July, 2015, DiMAF funds total disbursements stood at US$28.7 million, with companies owing US$15.4 million.  The amount available for lending is US$4.6million and with a pipeline of projects worth US$4.2 million in applications under consideration

It should be noted that there were challenges under DiMAF with some companies failing to repay the loans as they had misused the funds.  In an effort to address these challenges, my Ministry has held discussions with the Institute of Accountants of Zimbabwe with a view to draw up a framework for Chartered Accountants to manage companies that would have accessed funds in order to ensure the efficient use of the funds, promote integrity and good corporate governance.

Under the ZETREF was a US$100million three-year credit facility contributed by the Government of Zimbabwe and African Export-Import

Bank (Afrexim Bank).  This facility came to an end on 31st March, 2014.

The initial phase saw Afrexim contributing US$70 million with Government contributing US$30 million.  Companies accessed funding from qualifying commercial banks.  My Ministry is now undertaking work to resume the facility under ZETREF Phase Two.  The fund will afford companies with concessionary rates as compared to the ones that are being offered by the local financial institutions.

It should also be noted that there are also other recapitalisation options available to distressed companies such as joint ventures and Foreign Direct Investments (FDI).  My Ministry is encouraging and facilitating distressed companies to look for foreign and local partners who will inject capital into their businesses.  To date, companies such as Blue Ribbon Industries, Surface Investments, Dunlop and Anchor Yeast Private Limited, to name a few, are well on their way to full capacity utilisation as they have obtained funding from FDI that they have resourced.  I thank you.

  1. CHIRISA: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Can the Hon. Deputy Minister explain to the House, the criteria that is being used in distributing the funds given that there are so many distressed companies and limited funds.  How then do you make sure the deserving companies get the funding?  Thank you.
  2. MABUWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir for this very important supplementary question.  Yes, the fund is oversubscribed but the simple methodology that we use is grounded on the ZIM ASSET where we are using the value chain approach.  When we look at particular value chain, we then want to unblock the entire value chain from root up to the end.  Take for example if we were to look at the leather sector, we then look at the value chain and concentrate on that.

We start from the agro business; we go through the whole process up to the last product.  I have just given that as an example but we use the value chain approach.

  1. GABBUZA:  The Minister was able to articulate examples of those companies that are on their feet after accessing their own offshore funding.  You have not been able to give us examples of companies that are on their feet after accessing Government programmes like DIMAF  because we have heard of these programmes, are you in a position of giving us examples of such companies?  These are companies that we deal with on a daily basis, I am sure we should not be asking for too much.
  2. MABUWA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I would like to thank the hon. member for that very important question.  Specifically looking at the positive impact that DIMAF has brought about and examples of companies, I would quickly look at Cairns,  National Blankets, Lobels, these are beneficiaries of DIMAF.  I can give you more because we have this on record.  I should also mention that there are some instances - I will give you a very good example of Datlabs, it benefitted from DIMAF and recapitalised but you find that at the moment, they are not able to use the capacity that is available to supply the whole country.  The reason is very simple in that they specialise in drips and IVs and those are being donated by the development partners.  So, in one way, whilst the development partners are helping us, they are also contributing to the adverse or low capacity utilisation of modernised recapitalised firms such as Datlabs.  We are in discussion at inter- ministerial level as well as with the development partners who are supplying the drips for them to be able to source drips locally in order to resuscitate that industry.  I thank you.
  3. NDUNA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, I fear that this facility DIMAF and other facilities might be swindled by the judiciary manager of David Whitehead Textiles in that David Whitehead got creditors to the tune of US$20 million.  The last interaction that we had with him, he said he wanted to access DIMAF to the tune of US$1.8 million.  What I need to know is how far have you gone in dealing with David Whitehead, particularly on the facility of DIMAF?  How much are you preparing to disburse to David Whitehead operations?
  4. MABUWA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I want to thank the hon. member.  I also want to let you know Mr. Speaker that the hon. has had meetings with us regarding the David Whitehead issue.  The answer is that judiciary management has got a procedure and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce does not appoint a judiciary manager, this falls under the purview of the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. If there are any interpersonal or otherwise problems between the judicial manager and the hon. member, we advise him to seek audience with the relevant Ministry that appointed the judiciary manager.  The Ministry of Industry and Commerce does not micro-manage a judiciary managed company; we leave it to the management that will have been put in place to allow the judiciary management systems and procedures to take place.  My appeal is that let us give space to the people who will have been given an assignment to do their work.  If we have anything that we see, we then write and then take the correct procedures in giving our contributions and so forth.

Mr. Speaker Sir, judiciary management can take me the whole day to explain; I went there, I am an MP, I am locked out of it and so forth.  There are procedures that have got to be followed in business.  I thank you – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections].

  1. SPEAKER: Order, order. I think we must maintain the integrity of the House.  The Hon. Deputy Minister has given some guidance – [AN HON. MEMBER: Eloquently] – very eloquently indeed. Let us pursue that guidance and see if we can achieve some resolutions to the David Whitehead matter – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear,


  1. GABBUZA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker, I had asked for companies that have done very well after accessing DIMAF and the Minister gave me examples of National Blankets, Lobels and Cairns.  In as far as I know, National Blankets closed shop in Bulawayo, would we say therefore DIMAF has not assisted in that regard given that some of these companies have not done well after accessing funding and how do they repay that money if it is a loan from DIMAF.
  2. MABUWA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, I still maintain that the National Blankets is one of the companies that is doing very well in Bulawayo.  What has happened, through the judicial management system, is that the judicial manager who was put in place, who I am very grateful has done a great job in resuscitating that industry, has advised the company to rent out as a resuscitation strategy to rent out some of its factories so that they restart.  As we speak now, most of the blankets that we see in shops are made in the National Blankets Company.  You can even go and place your own orders hon. members for your constituencies; you have your names put there and so forth.  They are making very beautiful blankets as I speak now.  Thank you – [HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear].

  1. SPEAKER:  I hope Hon. Deputy Minister you are not marketing the product – [Laughter]-




  1. MS. BUDHA asked the Minister of Environment, Water and Climate to state the measures that the Ministry has put in place to ensure safety of people in Matabeleland North Constituency given that their residential areas are unfenced yet surrounded by forestry dangerous wild animals.



Speaker Sir, wildlife is coming into direct conflict with communities in areas adjacent to Parks Estates especially in Tsholotsho and Hwange communal lands and this results in loss of human lives, crops destruction, and loss of livelihood, destruction of infrastructure, insecurity, reduced freedom and disease transfer (anthrax, rabbis).  A number of wildlife species are responsible for human wildlife conflicts and these are Lion, Elephant, Hyena and Baboons.

In this regard, my Ministry through Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and Forestry Commission, has put in place a number of mechanisms to try to address this challenge of Human-

Wildlife Conflict.

  1. Promoting Community Conservancies

My Ministry is currently promoting the establishment of

Community Conservancies.  These will create buffer zones between core Parks area and the community areas as well as provide communities with benefits from wildlife conservation.

  1. Land Use Planning

In terms of land-use planning, we are urging rural districts to take land use planning seriously as the first line solution to deal with problem animals.  Proper planning of settlement, agriculture and wildlife areas is important.  The emerging concept of community conservancy should be embraced as part of the land use re-organisation for multipurpose including Human-Wildlife Conflict Management.  In the same vein, there is also need to control the encroachment of settlements into core wildlife areas so as to avoid human wildlife conflicts.

  1. Shooting to Kill

Shooting to kill is one of the techniques at the disposal of the appropriate authorities such as RDC which is also used to address the challenge of problem animals in human settlement.  We constantly urge our RDC to provide own resources for problem animal control as Parks has limited resources to control HWC outside Parks estates.

  1. Public Awareness Campaigns

Public awareness campaigns are ongoing especially in the affected areas, targeting school children, community leaders.  It is also of great importance that local authorities as appropriate authorities, over wildlife work with Parks to develop and implement awareness campaigns and conservation education programmes.

  1. Creation of Benefits

Creation of benefits from wildlife conservation is another approach to cushion communities from the impact of problem animals as they destroy their crops, properties and injure or kill people.  Campfire was conceived with this in mind so that farmers derive benefits from wildlife.  Campfire districts are expected to be innovative and find ways of cushioning victims of problem animals.

  1. Capture and Translocation

Our wildlife herd remains large.  Recent counts revealed that we have an excess of 83,000 elephants in Zimbabwe.  This figure surpasses the carrying capacity of the land and therefore there is need to sustainably reduce the population.  With regard to this, we have introduced the capture and translocation strategy as a way to control problem wildlife.

In conclusion hon. members, we will continue to try and reduce incidences of Human-Wildlife Conflicts by providing sustainable and alternative livelihood options through financial support, technical guidance and other measures.



  1. MS. BUDHA asked the Minister of Primary and Secondary

Education to state the Ministry’s plans to increase the number of Secondary Schools in Matabeleland North given that there are few secondary schools resulting in the majority of students having to walk long distances to attend school.


EDUCATION (DR. DOKORA): It is the intention of the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to provide decent school infrastructure countrywide.  Currently, we have a deficit of 2056 schools and it is our hope that these schools will be delivered.

In order for us to deliver, the Ministry had put an expression of interest advertisement in August this year (2015), inviting companies and institutions which would like to enter into a joint venture for school infrastructure development.  So far, many companies have expressed interest to the Ministry.  Given our limited fiscal space, joint venture partnerships are our hope in delivering on infrastructure, including schools in Matabeleland North.


  1. MS. BUDHA asked the Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development to inform the House on mechanisms in place to ensure that small holder farmers access irrigation equipment to sustain their productivity in view of unpredictable rainfall patterns caused by climate change.


(CROPPING) (MR. MARAPIRA): Hon. Member, land issues are the

responsibilities of the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement.

However, what the Ministry has, through the Department of Livestock Production and Development is the technical know-how to advise farmers on good methods of pasture development and management.


  1. MS. ZEMURA asked the Minister of Home Affairs why the construction of Murehwa Registry Offices has not been completed in view of the fact that the construction commenced in 2007 and the roof has fallen away.


MGUNI):  The Department embarked on the construction of a number of District Registry Offices countrywide.  These projects were wholly funded by Treasury.  These included Central Registry Headquarters,

Murehwa District Registry Office, Binga District Registry Office, Insiza

District Registry Office, Goromonzi District Registry Office, Wedza

District Registry Office, Nkayi District Registry Office and Kadoma District Registry Office.  Treasury later advised that due to the dwindling revenue inflows, all projects under construction must be stopped until further notice.

Treasury also stated that it would proceed to fund a few projects at a time as dictated to by the improved financial base.  Some of the projects which were under construction then were later on completed such as Mwenezi District Registry Office, Chivi District Registry Office, Buhera District Registry Office, Mazowe District Registry Office,

Lupane District Registry Office and Mutoko District Registry Office.

During the current 2015 financial year, Treasury advised that it is only funding the following projects namely Central Registry

Headquarters, Nyanga District Registry Office, Nkayi District Registry

Office, Murehwa District Registry Office and Guruve District Registry

Office.  However, no funds were released for all these projects including

Murehwa District Registry Office except for the Central Registry


It is our sincere wish that Treasury will avail funds for the 2016 financial year to complete all the outstanding projects including

Murehwa District Registry Office.




MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I move that Orders of the Day, Numbers 2 to 4 be stood over, until Order of the Day, Number 5 has been disposed of.

Motion put and agreed to.



BILL 2015, [H.B. 2, 2015]

Fifth Order read: Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment

Bill [H. B. 2, 2015]

House in Committee.

Clause 1put and agreed to.

On Clause 2:


MNANGAGWA): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name that:

On page 2 of the Bill, in line 31, delete the definition of “medical officer” and substitute with the following:- “medical officer” means a-

  • medical practitioner; or
  • State Registered Nurse;

Employed wholly or mainly on a part-time basis by the Police Services, the Prison and Correctional Service or other organ of State, or a local authority.

Amendment to Clause 2 put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3:



MNANGAGWA): I move the amendment standing in my name that, on

page 4 of the Bill, Section 10, in line 18, delete the word “sentence”.

On page 4 of the Bill, after line 21, insert the following subsection in the new Section 10 and the existing section becoming subsection (1)-

(2) If, in the opinion of the Prosecutor-General, the accused person who has been wrongly convicted by the court, the Prosecutor General may, at any stage after conviction, make representations to the court that-

  • there is compelling evidence that exonerates the convicted person of the offence; or
  • compelling evidence incriminating a person other than the convicted person has been brought to the Prosecutor-General’s knowledge; or
  • new evidence obtained links the convicted person to a lesser offence and not to the offence for which he/she was convicted; and that the evidence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ( c) was not within the Prosecutor General’s knowledge at the time of the trial.

(3) Upon hearing the representations of the Prosecutor- General, the court may-

  • uphold the conviction; or
  • set aside the conviction and liberate the convicted person; or
  • make such order or give such directions as it deems fit.
  • If the Prosecutor-General is dissatisfied with the court’s decision in terms of subsection (3), the Prosecutor-General may appeal against such decision to a superior court.
  • On an appeal by the Prosecutor-General in terms of subsection

(4), the superior court may-

  • confirm the decision made in terms of subsection (3); or
  • remit the case to the convicting court for sentencing; or

( c) make such order or give such directions as it deems fit.

Amendment to Clause 3 put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended put and agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 put and agreed to.

On Clause 6:

  1. MAJOME: I move the amendments as drafted, but I would also like to point out that in the drafting of the proposed amendments, there was an omission by the drafters because there was the proposal for the deletion of the whole of Clause 6. The rationale being to ensure that there is fairness by removing unnecessary and undue discretion on the part of the Prosecutor-General, as well as providing for greater scope for those who might wish to seek justice by private prosecution.
  2. GONESE: I also want to support the amendment proposed by Hon, Majome. As you recall Mr. Chair, in the presentation of the report of the Portfolio Committee and the submissions made by hon.

members, the concern there is that whilst we appreciate the independence of the Prosecutor-General as enshrined in the Constitution, we have situations where, when you look at the field of law, it is not an exact science.  One might have an opinion but as you know, with all legal opinions, people might look at things differently.  Our respectful and considered view is that where the Prosecutor-General has decided in his judgment that there is no case for an accused person to answer, however, you may find that in some situations; if the matter is prosecuted, the court may come to a different conclusion.  For that reason we are respectfully suggesting that the current wording in the Act, where the Prosecutor-General is required to issue that certificate is the more desirable position.  As can be seen from the case which was cited, I think it is Maramwidze, where the Supreme Court actually came to a conclusion that the Prosecutor-General is obliged to issue that certificate.

The other aspect relates to juristic persons; our view is that companies should also be placed in the same position as individuals.  In the event that the Prosecutor-General has made a decision not to prosecute, there should be that requirement that the certificate is issued and then private prosecution can be instituted.  Ultimately, it should be up to a court of law to make the decision as to whether there is a case or not.  We are really worried by the situation where the Prosecutor- General is given absolute and unfettered discretion.  We believe that the current provision should remain and the whole clause should be deleted from the Bill.

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: If some of us remember

the debate yesterday, the Hon. Vice President kept insisting that this is about alignment.  If you go back to our Constitution part of the debate, even in the process of coming up with the Constitution, about splitting the Attorney-General and the Prosecutor-General’s role was to ensure that to some extent, you have a separation of responsibilities between the AG and the Prosecutor-General.  In this clause, you are actually making him somebody who determines the case.  I think his role is to prosecute and the court’s role is to make a determination.  Let me just give you an example; if my child is raped and the Prosecutor-General says he is not going to prosecute such a case, I think it should be up to me to seek private prosecution.  I think that right is being taken away and it violates the right to equality and non-discrimination first and to fair trial because you are stopping me from going elsewhere.  I find it difficult to understand why we are letting a case be determined by the Prosecutor- General when we have the courts to do so.  He may make a decision that he does not want to prosecute, but to stop somebody from getting a fair trial is a violation of one of the fundamental rights that we have in the Constitution.  If we are talking about alignment, I find that to be problematic.

My colleagues have raised the issues around juristic persons but I am raising it in a case of a lot of rape cases which come and the Prosecutor-General may, by looking at it, for one reason or the other say he does not want to prosecute. In other words, you are saying that as a mother of an 11 year old child who has been raped, I have no right to proceed with that particular case and it stops at the Prosecutor-General,

I find that quite problematic.

  1. MNANGAGWA: I thank the hon. members for their contribution. However, I am in disagreement.  Private prosecution to juristic persons; there is a danger in giving corporations the power to prosecute citizens privately.  They have the means to pursue their own interests at the expense of the poor accused persons who cannot adequately defend themselves.  This is against the principle of equal protection before the law and therefore, we cannot delete Clause 6 of the Bill.

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA:  He has just dealt with

one aspect of what we have raised.  What about the aspect that we should not necessarily allow the Prosecutor-General to make the determination, even in terms of private persons?  Would he still make that argument considering the example of rape that I gave?  Is the Hon.

Vice President basically saying even in those circumstances, the Prosecutor General is not obliged to give a certificate for private prosecution. That is my question.

  1. MNANGAGWA: It is true, I hear the arguments, but we cannot constrain the Prosecutor-General and say he must do this. He has the discretion in terms of the Law to do or not to do. So, it is better he has that discretion and not to constrain him and say under these circumstances this is what he must do, that we will not allow.
  2. MAJOME: I thank you Hon. Chair and Hon. Vice President.

The issue that is troubling in this case Hon. Chair and Hon. Vice

President is not that there is no intention at all to hamstring the Prosecutor-General and telling him what he must do and what he must not do.  The issue of concern is that where the Prosecutor-General exercises his or her discretion not to prosecute a particular person, the Prosecutor-General should not, even if we look at the functions and the role of the Prosecutor- General in terms of Chapter 13 of the Constitution. The role of the Prosecutor-General is not actually to determine what happens in the courts, it is to prosecute in the public instance where he or she believes that it is the case. But where they exercise their discretion and decide not to prosecute, there is no authority at all granted either by the Constitution or even by any sense of justice whatsoever or any interest of the public. There is authority given to the Prosecutor General to bar anybody else from prosecuting. So if this Bill was allowed to go without removing the Prosecutor-General’s proposed final say on who prosecutes privately or not. The Prosecutor General would be allowed to become a dog in a manger who decides

that because they cannot eat grass, then they jump into the manger and anybody else who is hungry and who wants to eat cannot eat that hay because they have decided to be a dog in a manger.

That Hon. Chair and Hon. Vice President does not seem to accord with any sense of justice. The Prosecutor General loses nothing whatsoever by allowing citizens of this country to ably exercise their discretion and decide to pursue justice in the way that they would want to if the Prosecutor General does not wish to do so. They would not be prosecuting at his expense or in his name and it is difficult to really countenance why the Prosecutor-General would want to be the all and the end all, as Hon. Misihairabwi has proffered. If the courts of the land the Judiciary is the one that has the discretion and the authority to decide whether a matter has merit or not it should not be the ProsecutorGeneral. In the interest of justice we are imploring upon the Hon. Vice

President, to consider to allow latitude for citizens to file Public

Prosecutions. If their matters have no merit that exactly what the courts must grapple with and decide and not let the Prosecutor-General be a dog in a manger and legislated by the Legislature to be that.

  1. GONESE: Thank you. To add to what my colleagues have said before the Hon. Vice President responds, I think I have just been looking at the provisions in the Constitution on the independence of the Prosecutor General. I do not think that we have got any quarrel with that and what I want to put across to the Hon. Vice President is that we are not asking the Legislature to interfere with the independence of the Prosecutor-General. We are not saying that the Prosecutor-General should be obliged to prosecute. I think that is where we must look at the distinction. The point that we are making Hon. Vice President is that yes, we have a situation where the Prosecutor-General in his or her deliberate judgment comes to the conclusion that an accused person has no case to answer.

But, what I want to reiterate is that there may be situations where that opinion may be wrong and what we are now saying is that if we give the Prosecutor General that absolute power, it means that is the end of the matter. You can have an individual, a private citizen whose rights have been infringed upon.  You may have a situation where while the prosecutor might believe that there is no case but as a matter of fact, if this matter is tried, a court may actually come to a different conclusion. What we fear Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to have a situation where the door is completely shut, completely closed. We believe that the current provision which stipulates that where the Prosecutor-General feels that there is no case, the Prosecutor-General is then obliged to issue the certificate which then enables an individual to mount a private prosecution. This is all that we are asking for and I believe that it is in the interest of justice. It gives equal protection of the Law to everyone, because ultimately if the private prosecution is instituted, it is ultimately the court which will then come to a decision as to whether the accused person is indeed guilty of the crime with which they are being charged. We believe that we do not lose anything by reinstating that position which currently obtains so that at the end of the day an individual who feels that there is a case is allowed and is given the opportunity to actually do that private prosecution. But, now as it stands it means that once the Prosecutor General has made a decision, that is the end of the matter.

If you look at the example, which has been given-supposing you have got a daughter who has been raped, there is no other recourse because the Prosecutor-General has made a decision even if that decision ultimately turns to be wrong because you have then said this person has absolute discretion; almost like the power of life and death over us. That is what we are concerned about and we really ask the Hon. Vice President to reconsider and perhaps defer consideration of this Clause so that we can have a rethink and ultimately that is what I think might be in the interest of this country.

So, this is a very important Clause and again I would like to point out to the fact that our Supreme Court in determining a matter came to the conclusion that really I know that the matter is being challenged in court. But, us as legislators I think we must do what is right for everyone which is fair for all the citizens of Zimbabwe.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Vice President. Order …

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: Just a question those

that want to go, go…


MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: No, no but we cannot

be harassed for debating if people do not want to debate they can walk out.

THE CHAIRPESON: Order Hon. Misihairabwi …


THE CHAIRPESON: May you resume your seat. –[AN. HON.

MEMBER: Chamuchataura chii.]- 

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: Kana musinganzwisisi

chatinotaura budai, it is as simple as that.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Order please. Let us respect this Chamber please. What I am going to say hon. members is that when you stand up to debate make sure that you conclude your debate rather than repeating time and again. So, I will give you a chance to debate.

MRS. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA: Mine is just a direct

question to the Hon. Vice President. Section 56 (1), of the Constitution talks about equality and non discrimination: ‘All persons are equal before the law and they the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. In terms of the example, that I have given you. If I have the daughter that has been raped and the Prosecutor General says there is no case. Where do I go? What happens in those instances? Is that not a violation of this particular clause? I thank you.

  1. MNANGAGWA: Nothing new has come out of the

contributions of the hon. members. If we read the current amendment there, we are moving away from ‘shall’ which compels the Prosecutor General to issue to the word ‘may’. So, it is his discretion if he feels he must do it he will do it and give a certificate allowing private prosecution;  but if you say ‘shall’ it compels him whether he thinks it is not necessary he must just do it. So, I stand by the amendment. I thank you.

Amendment to Clause 6 by Hon. Majome, put and negatived.

Clause 6 put and agreed to.

On Clause 7:

  1. MAJOME: Mr. Chair and Hon Vice President, I move for the deletion of Clause 7 that would wish to burden a private prosecutor who would have succeeded somehow miraculously to go through the hurdle of the Prosecutor-General allowing them to prosecute, to then come to another ditch where they must pay security costs which if they do not pay, no further prosecution is allowed.

Hon Chair, the opposition to this particular provision is on the basis of the very reason of fairness and discrimination.  It is a notorious fact that in our jurisdiction, the State in prosecuting any matter does not at all cast even a glance to the costs of the accused persons or the opposite side. The Prosecutor-General prosecutes blindly as to the cost effects of whether or not they succeed.  If the courts were to rule in favour of an accused person and the accused person has spent a lot of money defending their matter, the costs that they incur in legal defence are not revisited at all against the State, that is the Prosecutor-General.  It is patently unfair to then, in this particular case, provide that a private prosecutor should pay security costs when costs in criminal matters are alien to our jurisdiction, especially where, as I had indicated, the private prosecutor would have survived a very serious ordeal to get to the point of being able to prosecute and then be ordered to pay costs.  This will discriminate against poor people who do not have money to put this money at the Registrar so that they can prosecute.  It is also discrimination which violates Section 56 of the Constitution because it is not justifiable that a private prosecutor be ordered to pay costs.

The only way of making this viable is to also, insert a provision providing that the Prosecutor-General places security for costs for every prosecution that they might in case be unsuccessful.  Clearly, that would also be absurd.  Source for the goose should also be source for the gander.

I therefore, move and implore the Hon. Vice President to consider being fair and removing this particular provision so that justice is accessible even to the poor who would have survived the ordeal of going through the mill of being allowed to prosecute or not to. I thank you.

  1. GONESE: Thank you Mr. Chair. I think over and above what my colleague Hon. Majome has said, I would also want to point to the Hon. Minister that during the public hearings, members of the public who came to make submissions before the Committee were really worried by this provision relating to costs. Here, we are dealing with a situation where the Prosecutor-General would have been given discretion. In the exercise of the discretion, the Prosecutor-General would then have gone ahead to issue a certificate that a private prosecution can then be instituted. In those circumstances, I would believe that there would have been a prima-facie case.

Considering that this could be a hindrance to the access to justice on the part of those people who would have been allowed, I appreciate that the provision is discretionary but not withstanding that aspect, it is my respectful submission Mr. Chairperson and Hon. Vice President, that perhaps that could place too much of an honorous burden on the part of an individual who wants to mount a private prosecution and that perhaps it will be desirable to leave that out;  particularly, bearing in mind the point that in our jurisdiction, even where a person gets acquitted where there has been a prosecution at the instance of the Prosecutor-General, there are no costs that are paid.  In that regard, I would believe that it would be fair to have a situation where in the event that a private prosecution has been instituted, you do not place this additional burden which may actually end up hindering an indigent person who would otherwise have a good case.

  1. CHAMISA: Thank you, just to implore on the wisdom of the Hon. Vice President to delete and expunge this; mainly motivated by the fact that it is not in the interest of justice to commercialise it where it is unnecessary. More importantly, in-as-much as there is the use of the word “may”, that discretionary option and window is likely to be abused to shut the doors of justice to those who are indigent and those who are lily-livered financially. We really want to implore the Hon. Vice

President to come to the party on this one and really leave it out.



wisdom persuades me to uphold this amendment because it grants the court and not the person prosecuting.  If you read, it says, “…where a private prosecution is being or has been instituted by a person other than the public board, thus the Prosecutor-General other than the public body, that is the Prosecutor General or persons described in Section 14D, the court may order him or her to give such security as the court may direct for the payment of costs. That is pertinent justice being administered by the court. The decision is that of the court, if they think it is not necessary, they will not do it but where the court thinks it is necessary this is where jurisprudence is being applied correctly. I uphold the amendment.

Amendment to Clause 7 by Hon Majome, put and negatived.

Clause 7 put and agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 11 put and agreed to.

On Clause 12:



MNANGAGWA): I move the amendment in my name that on page 7 of

the Bill, to insert the following subsection in the new Section 39B

(“Police officers may restrain, etc, persons in certain circumstances without intention to arrest”)-

“(3) Whenever the police exercise their powers in terms of subsection (1), the police shall, as soon as possible, record in their occurrence book as defined under Section 47, the particulars of the detained person and the reasons for such detention.”

  1. MAJOME: Honourable Chair, I thank you for your indulgence and giving me this opportunity to move that the Bill be amended as proposed on the Order Paper “to delete Clause 12 on criminalizing voluntary attendance at police station.”

The proposal is on the basis that it is manifestly unfair and prejudicial to empower the police to detain on the excuse that the person is drunk or that they are of unsound mind and be able to deprive them of their liberty for 24 hours when the Constitution itself firstly prohibits a person from being detained without trial but also secondly, where the police are not generally equipped to evaluate peoples psychiatric health and mental state and when in any event there already exists adequate provisions on our statute books to curtail possible harm that may be caused by people who may be mentally ill in terms of the Mental Health


It is in light of those concerned to consider to expunge this particular provision that appears on page 7 of the Bill, paragraph 15 to 25 in order to protect the right to liberty but also to recognise the inherent human dignity and the quality of people who may be ill mentally because this will clearly just criminalise anybody who is mentally ill yet the legislature, in its wisdom, previously saw it fit to also provide in a separate Act for the proper treatment and handling of situations where a person may be posing a danger to themselves and to others because they are mentally ill. I so move and implore upon the Hon. Vice President to consider this in the interest of justice, fairness and equity.

  1. GONESE: I also want to associate myself with the remarks made by Hon. Majome in relation to this Clause. The first point I want to make is that if you look at the wording, the formulation of the Clause itself, it is a cause for concern. Hon Vice President, you will find that under this Clause, the second part of it, it says “police officers may detain or restrain persons in certain circumstances without intention to arrest.”

Our worry and the concern also raised by members of the public is that you have a situation where the police have no intention to arrest the person. The person has not probably committed any offence and the fear is that this provision may be abused. Where persons are drunk and where they violated provisions of the Liquor Act, the police have powers to deal with them. Where someone is mentally challenged as rightly pointed out, you also have the Mental Health Act which can be used to deal with those situations.

We are dealing with a situation where the police can just detain somebody for 24 hours. After the 24 hours then say, you can now go home. This is giving too much power to police officers and I would want the hon. Vice President to explain to us the rationale or motivation for bringing such a provision. Seriously, if you have got a situation where somebody has committed a crime or is suspected of having committed a crime, we have no problem with that. Here we are dealing with a situation where the police do not intend to arrest the person. In other words, the person is not even suspected of having committed a criminal offence. At least, that is the way it appears on the surface and we wonder as to why you would want to give the police such wide powers, and we respectfully ask the hon. Vice President to delete that provision.

The second part of the clause, the concern which was raised in the deliberations of the Committee is that we now have a situation where someone might have been tipped to attend at the police station and really, to have the tables turned against that person and the statement might be used. The concern was that let us do away with that first part of the clause as well. We really implore the hon. Vice President, at least for once, to consider the submissions which we are making in this regard and delete those provisions, which we are saying we do not see the reason why they are being inserted and as to what they are intended to achieve.

  1. MNANGAGWA: Mr. Chairman, I implore hon. members to

realise that there is need to have order and this is intended to protect the individual as well as other members of society. It is a condition that any person detained under these circumstances, there must be a record defining why the police have done so. If the police see a person who is drunk and sleeps on the highway, they cannot just leave him. They must lift him because he is a danger to himself and the public. So they must lift him and put him aside, but they must record why they have lifted him. This is what is there. It is a question to protect the person who is bringing about nuisance to himself as well as the public. So, this must remain there. I so move.

Amendment to Clause 12 by Hon. Majome, put and negatived.

Amendment to Clause 12 by the Vice President put and agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended by the Vice President, put and agreed to.

Clause 13 put and agreed to.

On Clause 14:


MNANGANGWA): I move the amendment standing in my name that

on page 12 of the Bill, in line 43, delete the words “blood, saliva or tissue” and substitute with “bodily”.

  1. MAJOME: I move that Clause 14 be amended in Clause 14

(2) by the deletion of Clause 14 (2) on presumption of understanding the English language.  Section 41(2) should be deleted so that it is not presumed that if a person who is arrested has been told of their rights in the English language, they are presumed to have been told of their rights in the language that he or she understands for the obvious reasons Mr. Chair and hon. Vice President, that not every Zimbabwean is conversant in the English language. The testimony is no further than this very House. In this very august House, hon. members elect to speak in various languages. Not all hon. members can speak and debate in English or choose to do so, and that is because they do not have to because English is only one of the 16 officially recognised languages.

The fact of the matter is that not everyone understands English. If the representatives of the people themselves who are voted here, do not themselves understand English all the time, how should it be presumed that when a person is arrested, they are suddenly presumed to have been informed of their rights in the language that they understand. That would, hon. Vice President, be an exercise in legislative hypocrisy if we were to allow this clause to pass without it being amended. English is simply not a language that will be understood miraculously by an accused person simply because they have been arrested when they might not understand it.

Furthermore Mr. Chair and hon. Vice President, sign language is also one of the 16 officially recognised languages. If this clause was to proceed and not be deleted, it would also wreak havoc and grave discrimination on people who use sign language and are not able to speak. I say so because once a police officer tells them with their voice of their rights in sign language, even that person who is not capable of speech and uses sign language is also presumed to have understood someone speaking in English when they cannot hear or speak at all. So, hon. Vice President, I implore you to exercise some consideration and delete this clause because for the House to pass this, as I indicated, will be an exercise in legislative hypocrisy because not everybody, including hon. members understands English.

  1. GONESE: Mr. Chair, we have come up with a very good Constitution where we have recognised more languages. In the past, we had a situation where the officially recognised languages were English, Ndebele and Shona. We have now expanded it so we have other languages. We now have got Venda, Ndau and so on, including sign language and I do not understand the necessity of having a presumption because if we have got all those languages, I do not understand what the magic is. Why should we place the burden on a person to have the onus to prove that they also do not understand the English language? I believe that there is nothing lost in leaving the provisions as they are without any presumption so that there is an obligation on the law enforcement agencies to explain to an accused person their rights in a language that person understands. If that person understands Chewa, let it be explained in Chewa. If that person understands Tonga, let it be explained in Tonga. I appreciate that this is only a presumption but, my difficulty Hon. Vice President, is why do we need to have this presumption.

Also, when we were having the Second Reading debate of this Bill, the impression that we got was that some of the concerns were going to be dealt with when we come to Committee Stage.  We are now at the Committee Stage, but our concern is that from the part of the Executive, it appears that they are not amenable to any proposals which are coming from us as Members of Parliament.  The Minister, in his reply to the debate, indicated that some of those issues would be looked at when we are at this particular stage.  We are now at that stage but it appears as if none of the concerns or issues being raised by hon. members is being taken into account   It appears that it is now a question of what has come from the Executive is actually cast in concrete and that it cannot be changed at all.  We then wonder as to what is the purpose of raising some of the issues if none of them are going to be considered.


The reason why we are getting mixed up on this section where we are is because we feel like we are being rushed and people feel agitated.  I am not sure whether there is a rule in some political parties that people cannot be allowed to go home if they so wish because it is very difficult to debate when people are restless.  I think that if they are being forced to stay in the House, please can they be allowed to go so that we can actually debate this properly.   I think it is only fair.

I am also going to speak on Clause 14.  I want to put a proposal to the hon. Vice President. ….

  1. CHAMISA:  On a point of order Mr. Chair.  I am pained to raise this point of order but, hon. Chair, we do not seem to have the quorum that is required in terms of the Standing Orders.  I think that what we have done, we have done it with the absence of the sufficiency of a quorum.  I am not just raising issues without due consideration hon. members.  I have looked at the figures and the numbers that are required in terms of the Standing Orders and it is so clear that we do not have a quorum.  Unless and until we have a quorum, we may not be able to proceed.  I hope that this point will be addressed so that we are able to deal with the issues.  Thank you.
  2. MNANGAGWA:  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chair

reports progress and seek leave to sit again.

  1. GONESE:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Before the hon. Vice

President moved his motion for the Chairperson to report progress, I thought that the first issue to be addressed was the issue raised by Hon.

Chamisa.  If the House is indeed inquorate, that has to be dealt with first.

If we are inquorate, then we deal with the procedures as outlined in the Standing Rules and Orders.  The hon. Vice President cannot then move that the Chair reports progress before we have addressed that particular point.

[Bells rung]

          House divided.

And notice having been taken that there were fewer than 70 members, the bells were rung for seven minutes and a quorum being still not present, the Temporary Speaker adjourned the House without putting any question at Ten Minutes to Six o’clock p.m. pursuant to provisions of Standing Order, Number 171.

 Note:  The following members were present when Parliament adjourned:

Chamisa N.; Chibaya A.; Chigudu M.; Chikuni E.; Dziva M.; Gonese I.;

Gumbo S.; Khanye N.; Khumalo M.; Madubeko J.; Majome J.;

Mandipaka O.; Mangami D.; Maridadi J.; Matimba K. M.; Matuke L.;

Mawere R.M.; Mawere R. N. S.; Mkandla M.; Misihairabwi-Mushonga

P.; Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa E. D.; Moyo J. N.; Mpofu B.;

Mpofu M. M.; Mudarikwa S.; Mudau M.; Muderedzwa R.; Mudyiwa

M.; Mutsvangwa C.; Ncube H.; Nduna D.; Nyere C.; Rungani A.; Ruvai

E.; Sibanda C. C.; Toffa J.; Tshuma D.; Tsomondo C. V.; Uta K.; Watson N. J.

The House accordingly adjourned at Ten Minutes to Six o’clock p.m.










Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment