Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 44
  • File Size 306 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date February 18, 2016
  • Last Updated November 13, 2021

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 18 February 2016 42-37


Thursday, 18th February, 2015

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


(THE HON. SPEAKER in the Chair)





First Order read: Committee: Adverse Report of the Parliamentary

Legal Committee on the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill, [H.B.3A, 2015].

           HON. SAMUKANGE: If it pleases you Mr. Speaker, I stand here

to withdraw the Adverse Report on the basis that the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs who is also the Vice President of the country has conceded that the Adverse Report and the recommendations that we had made were valid and they have accepted.  I do not want to consider it as a defeat but I think it is justice in a democratic State where the Minister sees light – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections] -.

Can I finish….

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, address the Speaker. What is your problem?

- [Laughter] -.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  What is your problem?

HON. SAMUKANGE:  I do not know whether you can hear me

Mr. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. SAMUKANGE:  I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members who supported the decision made by your Committee, the PLC. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister in particular, for not arguing with the law.  More importantly, in view of the fact that our highest court, the Constitutional Court, had struck out Section 121 and for someone mischievously deciding to bring it through the back door; it is my humble submission that it was unconstitutional.

With those few words, I thank you Mr. Speaker and I move that the Adverse Report be withdrawn.

Motion put and agreed to.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.



MNANGAGWA):  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I apoligise for the slight delay, but I was listening in the car as I was coming here when the Hon. Member, Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Committee was saying that he has defeated us.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  It was the other way around.



MNANGAGWA):  He is repeating it just now.  He says that he does not consider it as a debate.  Just the fact that the concept of defeat comes into his mind and yet the real issue is that the role of the Parliamentary Legal Committee is to make sure that Bills that come into this House are not in conflict with other laws or the Constitution…

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  I think the Hon. Members at the back there were not following because of some background noise.

Please, can we hear the Hon. Vice President.







MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, following the withdrawal of the

Adverse Report of the Parliamentary Legal Committee, I seek leave of the House to have Clause 6 that had been put and agreed to and a new

Clause 30 recommitted for consideration by the Committee of the Whole

House.  The reasons are to address the concerns raised in the Adverse

Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Criminal

Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill [H.B. 2A, 2015].  I thank you.

HON. CROSS:  Mr. Speaker Sir, the amendments to the original draft are substantial and I thought it would be more appropriate to refer this back to the PLC for consideration before it comes back to us here.  I am thinking particularly of the new section replacing Section 6 of the draft.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon. Cross.  I hear you, but you have jumped the gun.  Just wait for the proceedings to go on.

Motion put and agreed to.







MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, I am surprised by the views expressed by the Hon. Member because we agreed yesterday about what to take out and what remains.  However, I move that Clause 6 that had been put and agreed to and a new Clause 30 recommitted for consideration by the Committee of the Whole House.

HON. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA:  I would want to follow

Hon. Cross’s point because I think there are some issues that whilst they were raised in principle by the Vice President yesterday and we agreed, we have issues with some of the issues that have also been brought in that amendment and I am not sure whether it would not be better to recommit it to the PLC and bring it back to the House.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  You are also jumping the gun.  Just


HON. MISIHAIRABWI-MUSHONGA:  I thought you asked for

debate, Mr. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Not on what you are saying.

Motion put and agreed to.



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


First Order read:  Recommittal to Committee:  Criminal

Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill, [H.B. 2A, 2015].

House in Committee.


order! Hon. Members on my right side, order!

On Clause 6:


MNANGAGWA): Thank you Madam Chair.  On page 5 of the Bill, we are deleting Clause 6 from lines 23 to 32 and substitute the following:

The new section substituted for Section 16 of the chapter given.  Section 16 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following is substituted.

“Certificate of Prosecutor-General that he or she declines to prosecute -

(1) Except as is  provided in sub-section (4), it shall not be competent for any private party to obtain the process of any court for summoning anyone to answer any charge, unless such private party produces to the officer authorised by law to issue such process a certificate signed by the Prosecutor-General that he or she has seen the statements or affidavits on which the charge is based and declines to prosecute at the public instance, and subject to the conditions set forth in subsections (2) and (3), in every case in which the Prosecutor-General declines to prosecute, he or she shall, at the request of the party intending to prosecute grant the certificate required.

(2). The Prosecutor- General shall grant the certificate referred to in subsection (1) if –

(a) there is produced to him or her by the private  party, a written request in the form of a sworn statement from which it appears to the

Prosecutor-General that the private party –

  • is the victim of the alleged offence, or is otherwise an interested person by virtue of having personally suffered as a direct consequence of the alleged offence, an evasion of a legal right beyond that suffered by the public generally; and
  • has the means to conduct the private prosecution promptly and timeously; and
  • will conduct the private prosecution as an individual (whether personally or through his or her legal practitioner) or as the representative of a class of individuals recognised as a class for the purposes of the Class Actions Act, [Chapter 8:17] (No.10 of 1999) and

(b) no grounds exist in terms of subsection (3) for withholding the certificate.

(3). The Prosecutor General may refuse to grant the certificate referred to in subsection (1), upon any one or more of the following grounds, namely –

  • that the conduct complained of by the private party does not disclose a criminal offence; or
  • that on the evidence available, there is no possibility (or only a remote possibility) of proving the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; or
  • whether the person to be prosecuted has adequate means to conduct a defence to the charge (in the case of a person who, but for the fact that the Prosecutor-General has declined to prosecute him or her, would have qualified for legal assistance at the expense of the State); or (d)      that it is not in the interest of national security or the public interest generally to grant the certificate to the private party.

(4)     When the right of prosecution referred to in this Part is possessed under any statute by any public body or person in respect of particular offences, subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall not apply”. I so move.


Chair. I must say I am a bit disappointed because yesterday, we understood that what we had agreed was the principle, and the principle was basic and simple. That principle was to say, in the event that the Prosecutor-General assesses and says I do not think this is a case I want to prosecute, he is obliged to; and it is a matter of right not privilege. It is not a privilege for somebody to get the private prosecution. It is a right for somebody to get a private prosecution certificate because in his wisdom, the Prosecutor General has said I am not going to proceed to do prosecution.

I am concerned that we still do not provide particularly Section

(2)”…has the means to conduct the private prosecution promptly and timeously. All he needs to do is to say, here is a private prosecution certificate. What that particular individual does with it is their own issue, but you as Prosecutor General, have washed your hands from doing the prosecution. Let us deal with the practical issue Madam Chair because this issue has been to court and we all know what happened with it. The case in which the private Prosecutor was asked by the courts to provide or to give a certificate for private prosecution was on the basis that he said, I as a Prosecutor-General; do not think that there is an issue around Dr. Kereke.

As a person who wants to proceed, you can proceed and do private prosecution. That is all we are asking. I am not sure where all this is coming from because if we look at Section 16 (3) (a), that the conduct complained by the private party does not disclose a criminal offence”.. I do not understand this. This is the basis in which he has refused to give a certificate in the first place. If he thought that there was a criminal offence, he should have proceeded with prosecution.

So, he did not proceed with prosecution because in his wisdom, he felt that there was no criminal offence. Why are you giving him a second bite of making a decision of whether there is a criminal offence or no criminal offence? In my opinion, that does not make sense. (b) “that on the evidence available…”

THE CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Members, I have recognised

Hon. Misihairabwi and I am expecting you to listen to what she is debating. Can you please lower your voices?


evidence available, there is no possibility or only a remote possibility of proving the charge against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt or whether the person or Prosecutor has adequate means to conduct a defence, are to be charged in the case of any person who, but for the fact that the Prosecutor General has declined to prosecute him”. All I am coming back to is that this is the basis on which the Prosecutor General has refused to prosecute.

So, why are we bringing this issue again for discussion? I thought it was simple. The Prosecutor General has a right to say, I as a

Prosecutor General will not, from a public point of view, prosecute. However, because I cannot prosecute, I am therefore issuing you a certificate for private prosecution. I thought that was the agreement yesterday. I am not sure why we are having these discussions. I understand from other conversations that there is still a provision that the High Court has inherent powers of review.

Even in the event that somebody has been denied the private prosecution certificate, they can still go back to the High Court. Why are we asking people to go back to the High Court and get a review when we the courts, have established that fact already? If you cannot prosecute, let somebody go for private prosecution. I do not understand and this is why some of us have insisted that before we debate this as a whole House, let it go back to the PLC. If the PLC thinks that this new amendment is in line with the Constitution, then we will come back and debate the report of the PLC, but to turn us into a PLC Committee, I think it is a bit unfair.

Let this be recommitted to the PLC and let the PLC come back and let us have this debate. If the PLC in their wisdom, come back and says they think that these amendments are within the constitutional ambit, it is fine. Some of us will have no choice, but as it is right now, I think it just does not make sense. Thank you Madam Chair. –[HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear]-

HON. CROSS: Madam Chair, I do not want to delay matters. I want to strongly support my predecessor. I think she has absolutely justified what she says and I think that the House should consider this seriously. –[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear]-

HON. MNANGAGWA: The arguments by the Hon. two

members do not disclose legal or law conflict. We have accepted that the

Prosecutor General, where he declines to prosecute, he ‘shall’, not he ‘may’. He shall issue a certificate for a private person to prosecute.

Under Section (3), we have stated expressly where he cannot issue a certificate for prosecution and the grounds are given. If the person is still aggrieved, you go to review. I will read the section again for the benefit of the Hon. Member on the other side.

(3)     “The only condition is where the Prosecutor may refuse, not

shall’, to grant the certificate referred to in Section (1) upon any one or more of the following grounds namely:-

  • that the conduct complained of by the private party does not disclose a criminal offence or;
  • that on the evidence available, there is no possibility of proving the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt


( c)         whether the person to be prosecuted has adequate means to conduct a defence to the charge and;

(d) that it is not in the interest of national security or public interest generally to grant the certificate to the private party”.


It does not end there. This is the view which the Prosecutor General is allowed to take, but the party can take the matter for review to the High Court. Otherwise, wherever the Prosecutor General, in any matter outside these articulated, has to issue a certificate for private prosecution. We debated this as lawyers and we agreed that this is what it is both in South African jurisdiction and in the Namibian jurisdiction which we looked at, that is how it is structured.  We think that is huge progress in terms of what existed before in this country. I thank you. –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]-     

The Temporary Chairperson having put the question that the amendment be now put.

  • [HON. MEMBERS: No, divide the House.]-
  • [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]-

          THE CHAIRPERSON: Order, Order, Hon. Members!  -

[AN HON. MEMBER: By the majority]-        HON. MARIDADI: On a point of order Madam Chair.

THE CHAIRPERSON: What is your point of order?

HON. MARIDADI: Madam Chair.


HON. MARIDADI: Madam Speaker, -[AN. HON. MEMBER:

Divide the House.]- Madam Speaker I think it was difficult to determine the decibels from those that said ‘Ayes’ and those that said ‘Noes’. I think in this case you may kindly divide the House. I hope when the

House is divided people sitting to your right will not be whipped. I thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Munengami! Order! Order

Honourables from my left side! – [Inaudible Interjections]- order hon. members! Hon. Zindi, Hon. Zindi, Hon. Munengami –[AN. HON. MEMBER: vamwe vari kurohwa.]- I shall now direct that the Bells be rung for seven minutes. Hon. Zindi, Hon. Zindi, Order! I divide the House, I divide the House. Order Hon. Members! Hon. Chibaya, Hon

Chibaya, Hon. Zindi, Order!



MNANGAGWA): For the sake of progress in the House we need to debate this clause in a dignified manner. I would suggest that this clause be referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee to discover –[HON.

MEMBERS: . V.P wedu, V.P wedu President wedu, President wedu,

President wedu, President wedu]

THE CHAIRPERSON: Order! Order! Hon. Murayi, Hon.

members from my left side.

HON. MNANGAGWA: I am confident Madam that when this is

referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee which is constituted by lawyers, then it is a team which will say yes, there is conflict or there is no conflict. We as lawyers see no conflict at all so let us have it examined by lawyers rather than the rowdy participation here in

Parliament. – [AN. HON. MEMBER: Thank you, thank you.]-         THE CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Members. Order!

HON. MNANGAGWA: Madam Chair, I move that you report

progress and seek leave to sit again at Committee Stage today.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: Thursday, 18th February, 2016.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee

Committee Stage:  With leave, today.

HON.  MUNENGAMI: On a point of order Madam Speaker.  We

just want to seek clarification.  When you say the Committee will sit today, which Committee, because the Bill is going back to the PLC.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Hon. Member, the PLC will

sit today and thereafter the Committee of the Whole House will also sit.

HON. MUNENGAMI:  Thank you Madam Speaker, that is the

clarification that we wanted.   




          Second Order read: Adjourned debate on motion in reply to the

State of the Nation Address by His Excellency, the President of Zimbabwe.

Question again proposed.

HON. MHLANGA:  I rise to wind up debate on the State of the

Nation Address that was given by His Excellency, the President of the

Republic of Zimbabwe and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Cde. R. G Mugabe - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible

interjections.] -

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order, I asked for debate but there was nobody who wanted to debate, so I had to acknowledge her  - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - Order Hon. Members, order.  It was Hon. Mhlanga who brought in this motion and now she wants to wind it up.  She is allowed to do so.

HON. MHLANGA:  Thank you Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Members –

HON. ZINDI: On a point of order Madam Speaker.  Some of us have not debated on this speech.  So, I am kindly requesting Hon. Mhlanga if it is possible that she defers the winding up of the motion.  I have been preparing to contribute to this motion and I am kindly requesting to be given the opportunity to do so.

HON. MHLANGA:  I will defer the winding up of the debate

Madam Speaker.  I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. MUNENGAMI:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Tuesday, 23rd February, 2016.



Third Order read:  Adjourned debate on motion in reply to the Presidential Speech.

Question again proposed.



MNANGAGWA):  I move that the debate do now adjourn.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Tuesday, 23rd February, 2016.





(HON. PROF. J.N. MOYO):  Madam Speaker, yesterday during

Questions Without Notice, an issue arose over a programme that the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology

Development has launched to support 2016 A’ Level STEM students.  In

particular, the issue was whether there is conflict between itself and its counterpart Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.  During that debate, the Speaker advised that we as a Ministry, issue a Ministerial Statement.

On the 27th January 2016, the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary

Education, Science and Technology Development launched the 2016 A’ Level STEM initiative.  This initiative seeks to encourage O’ Level school leavers who took their O’ Level examinations in 2015 and obtained Grade C or better in Mathematics, Biology, Physics and

Chemistry to take a combination of these STEM subjects at A’ Level or lower six in 2016.  Where the 2015 O’ Level school leavers register for a full combination of these STEM subjects, the Ministry will pay tuition fees, levies and boarding fees at Government, Mission and Council schools.

Madam Speaker, students who register at public schools as I have indicated, will stand a chance to win a trip of a lifetime to Microsoft and other Silicon Valley STEM companies in the United States.  This category will have ten winners, one each from the country’s ten provinces.  There will also be draws for 100 STEM laptops, ten each from the country’s ten provinces and 100 STEM ipads, again ten each from the country’s ten provinces.  All high schools, whether public or private that register full complements of STEM classes will stand to win a state of the art 30 seater STEM bus or $100 000 in cash to support STEM activities or infrastructure at the school.

Madam Speaker, registration under the 2016 A’ Level STEM initiative started on Monday, 15 February, 2016 under the auspices of the Ministry’s Science and Technology officers at provincial centres supported by ZIMDEF’s regional officers across the country.  ZIMDEF has set aside $4 million to fund the initiative.  Today, ZIMDEF has paid $31 653 for 106 students and processed 388 applications for payment first thing tomorrow morning.


The objectives of this initiative are:

  • To increase the number of STEM students who will enroll in

STEM degree programmes at the country’s universities in 2018;

  • To stimulate interest in Mathematics, Biology, Physics and

Chemistry as foundational pillars for STEM competence;

  • To promote STEM careers in response to ZIM ASSET’s value

addition and beneficiation thrust;

  • To train and develop cutting edge skills to meet Zimbabwe’s industrialization quest and make the country competitive globally.

Madam Speaker, against this backdrop, the question that has arisen is whether the Ministry and its counterpart, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education are complementing each other in light of the submission by Hon. Maridadi in this House yesterday, to the effect that the two ministries issued two advertisements in newspapers, contradicting each other.

Madam Speaker, I wish to place on record, the fact that at no time did the two ministries publish or run advertisements contradicting each other.  It is factually incorrect to assert that such a thing ever happened.  Instead, there were two newspaper articles, published on the same day in two different newspapers that contradicted each other about the position of the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.

One report appeared in The Herald of 9 February, 2016, headlined, “We have nothing to do with STEM.”   This article was attributed to the

Ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Dr. Silvia Utete – Masango. On the same day, 9 February, 2016, there was another article in Newsday headlined, “Dokora denies sabotaging STEM Programme,” which quoted a spokesperson of the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education saying that there was no quarrel on STEM between the two ministries.  For the record, in light of the fact that Hon. Maridadi actually said there were two advertisements – (showing the articles to the House) – in fact these are the two articles and they are not advertisements, they are just newspaper articles.  It was a question of newspaper articles in the language of the Hon. Member contradicting each other.  That is the position Madam Speaker.

Whereas there have been attempts to trigger a quarrel between the two ministries, those attempts have failed because there is no quarrel.  For the avoidance of doubt Madam Speaker, I wish to table for the record, correspondence from the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, acknowledging and approving the initiative on the 25th of January, 2016, before it was launched on the 27th of January, 2016.  There is, in fact, official correspondence acknowledging and approving the programme.   

Madam Speaker, the mandates of the two ministries are very different such that they cannot be confused, but they are of course complementary.  The Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development has the mandate to train and develop the country’s human capital to serve and service the entire economy.  This task of the Ministry Madam Speaker, starts with O’ Level school leavers.  After students have taken their O’ Level examinations, they become the business of the Ministry.  For example, in 2014, 316 000 students took their O’ Level examinations.  Their destination after O’ Level was as follows; see table below:

A – Level 30,614 9.69%
Tertiary Education (12

Teachers Colleges and 8


19,006 6.01%
3 Industrial Training Centres 1,276 0.40%
Unskilled Citizens 265,104 83.89%
TOTAL 316,000 100%


Interestingly and tellingly, out of 316 000, 265 104 of them or 83% are unskilled Zimbabweans, have nowhere to go in terms of our formal structure of education.  These are the majority. This was the case in

2014; it is the case with the 2015 O’ Level students whose results were published last week.

Madam Speaker, with 2014 as the example, only 9.49% of the 316

000 students who took their O’ Level examination proceeded to ‘A’

Level.  These were 30,614.  Out of this group, only 13% Madam

Speaker or 2500 were STEM-qualified for admission into our universities last year in 2015.

This fact, that was presented to us by our universities during extensive consultations with them between July and December last year, jolted us Madam Speaker.  It jolted us into finding ways of encouraging O’ Level school-leavers who have a grade C or better in

STEM subjects to take a full combination of these subjects at A’ Level.  As a Ministry, we have a direct interest in this issue because there is no other reason for anyone to enrol in A’ Level courses other than to prepare for university.

Madam Speaker, A’ Level courses are pre-university courses.

That is why you have heard some well established traditional High Schools like Goromonzi claiming that they are sub-universities.  It is because when you do your A’ Level, you are basically preparing for university and in a number of instances, you get credit for that at some universities.

Madam Speaker, it is in the national interest to do what we can to increase or grow the pool of A’ Level students who will be applying for admission for admission to our universities in 2018 from the paltry 13% of 2014 to hopefully 20% and 25% to begin with.  Madam Speaker, in the end, when we have transformed the entire system of education, we must have 75% of all our students doing STEM.  At least this is our expectation but we are far from that.

Madam Speaker, this is what the 2016 A’ Level STEM initiative seeks to do in a very particular way.  It would be irresponsible for us to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing about the poor pool of STEM students at A’ Level as if we do not see or understand the detrimental effect of the current situation on our higher and tertiary education, science and technology development.

Madam Speaker, ultimately, the poor STEM pool at A’ Level, means that the skills deficit for Zimbabwe’s much needed

industrialisation will remain unattended, while we continue to make self indulgent excuses.  In the circumstances and given the paltry 13% pool of A’ Level STEM students who were eligible for university entry into STEM degrees in 2015, it is clear that the STEM campaign that is going on is not in any way harmful to the so-called holistic education that includes humanities, arts and commercial studies.  If there were only 13 percent ‘A’-level STEM students for university entry in 2015, then it means 87 percent were in humanities, arts and commercial studies.  That remains the case as we speak today; 87 percent of our students are doing humanities, arts and commercial studies.  Surely, this cannot be consistent with the requirements of a modern, knowledge – based society poised to industrialise and to be globally competitive.

Madam Speaker, we have a responsibility to stemitise our education system, not only with respect to STEM subjects proper but also with respect to the entire gamut of humanities, arts and commercial studies; they too need to be stemitised.  We have been quite surprised to hear people saying, no we are doing arts, music and such subjects and we do not need mathematics.  At the very least, we should be able to count even as you do your arts.  These fields must be stemitised.  How we propose to do this in higher and tertiary education, science and technology development is work in progress but nearing its end.  We intend to produce a green paper for Cabinet consideration and approval after which we will subject it to public debate and input before finalising it and drawing policy and legislative fundamentals from it.

In the meantime, we found it necessary to get started with the 2016 ‘A’-level STEM initiative through ZIMDEF, to address the low pool of only 13 percent and in 2014, this 13% was only 2 500 out of 30 614 students going for university.  We think that kind of situation is unacceptable and we are fortunate that as Government, we have ZIMDEF as a readymade instrument that gets contributions from industry to play a positive, progressive, intermediary role while we look for a long term or a lasting solution.  I thank you Madam Speaker.

 HON. MANDIPAKA:  Thank you Hon. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister whether he sees any possibility of taking STEM to lower levels.  By this, I mean to even primary and secondary level.  I thank you.

HON. MUNENGAMI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  Firstly, I would want to thank the Minister for the noble programme which we hope will come to its fruition.  Just a few questions Hon. Speaker...

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:  One question at a time, there are other members.

HON. MUNENGAMI:  I think it would have been better so that I am just done one time.


HON. MUNENGAMI: It is okay, I can ask one question.  Hon.

Minister, it is unfortunate that maybe the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education is not around because the challenge which students are facing at the moment and you know very well how Government departments work.  They work through directions through circulars and it is very unfortunate that as students, even though they are registered under STEM, most schools are not accepting those students because they have not yet received any circular from their parent Ministry which is in this case the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.  This is making it very difficult for those students who want to register for

STEM because they are supposed to have the headmaster’s signature.  It has to be on the STEM sheet and the stamp of that school has to be on the STEM form.  They cannot do that because they are still to receive your circular from their parent Ministry.

HON. MARIDADI:  Firstly, I wish to thank the Minister for his prompt response to my enquiry yesterday.  I wish to put it on record that Hon. Minister, there was no attempt on my part to impose a battle between the two ministries.  The fact of the matter and that is the reason why you came here this afternoon, there was an advert placed by your Ministry in a newspaper, in the Herald in which you reproduced a letter of authority granted by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education allowing  you to go and fill for purposes of making STEM adverts.  The reason for you to reproduce that letter is because the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education had issued a statement to the effect that they did not know anything about STEM and this did not come out in private newspapers.  It was in a Government controlled newspaper, the Herald and it was on the second page for the record, and it was in bold.

Also Minister you are on record as having said a Permanent Secretary for Information phoned ZBC to remove STEM adverts unilaterally and yet STEM was a project approved by Cabinet.  Minister, it was for that reason that I made that enquiry and I am glad you have come to clarify it.  But I do not think that aspersions should be cast on me for trying to impose a battle because I have nothing to benefit by having a battle between the two ministries.  Actually, I have moved a motion to say there must be harmony in Government.  So why would I want to impose a battle between you two Ministers because I do not benefit from that?  I thank you Hon. Minister.

HON. MUDARIKWA:  Madam Speaker, I thank you very much.

Hon. Minister, good afternoon to you Sir.  I want to thank you Hon. Minister for STEM because all nations that have developed - Japan,

Germany et cetera, have incorporated STEM.  I went to my constituency

Uzumba, STEM has been accepted left, right and centre.  Their only concern is, will we get somewhere where we can get a budget for internal connections because we have got buildings that are empty and we are calling those laboratories?  So, could we get some internal connections as well as chemicals to use because we are out there in the rural areas.  We would also want to be on the same wave length with schools that have developed like Goromonzi which has been mentioned.

Also, this House must also incorporate STEM; yes, we are BBC meaning we are born before computers.  We must incorporate computers and everything so that we move in the same wave length. Thank you very much Madam Speaker.

*HON. MAPIKI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  In Shamva, we

are very glad because we have this STEM project but unfortunately, most of the equipment is found in private schools and public schools have nothing.  Therefore, I want to urge Government to give money to public schools.  We are also saying the amounts disbursed to these institutions should be equal, both to private and public.


talk yesterday about the registration of the children and we were told that they have to register at one place for both provinces, that is Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South. My request and plea is that, may you please decentralise and put these registration offices in all the districts so that when you are putting your next advertisement, put the provincial offices physical addresses so that people find it easy to register. Unfortunately at the moment, everybody has to fork out some transport fees to go to Bulawayo for registration. Therefore, please decentralise.

HON. HOLDER: I just want the Hon. Minister to clarify this point, is this Government funded or is it USAID where you are getting the resources? That is all I wanted to know.

HON. ENG. MUDZURI: I think we should applaud Government

for a good programme but I want to hear from the Minister; he has mentioned that students who qualify will go into competition and end up getting to Silicon Valley and doing other things. I did not hear him spell the programmes which are likely to benefit students who do science, that is, engineers, physicist and mathematicians in their numbers in Zimbabwe – what programmes they are giving to ensure that these students are of a benefit to Zimbabwe’s industrialisation?

I also want him to assure this House that the universities as they are now, are they likely to have uptake of these students with full benefits because as Hon. Mudarikwa has said, some of the schools have no proper laboratories and some of the universities have no proper equipment to train these engineers and technicians. I used to do parttime lecturing at the University of Zimbabwe and I know that certain areas in engineering have no facilities to help students to do well and you find that even in the medical field.

*HON. MACHINGURA: We thank you Hon. Minister for

introducing this STEM Programme. On paper, this is very glorious and our plea is that there should be full implementation of this programme. My second contribution is that this programme at the end of it all, should produce well equipped engineers who are very innovative because at the moment we have problems between the production of engineers and technicians. They do not seem to know what they are supposed to be doing. An engineer initiates and a technician maintains. Therefore, what we are saying is that this difference should be clearly elaborated when the graduates complete their studies.

I will conclude by including what has been said by previous speakers that we need to equip all the laboratories with enough apparatus and chemicals so that children have a feeling of what they will meet in life when they complete their studies. We know this could be belonging to different schools but all the children are the same and they need to work like what they used to do in the past whereby the Form 4 learners used to hold practical subjects and they would be examined on that. At the moment, everything is theory but practice is very important. I also want to plead with you that may we please be careful in the procurement of equipment for STEM because of the levels of corruption in the country. We may find that poor equipment is bought because somebody is corrupt. I thank you.

HON. NDUNA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir and good afternoon.

Thank you Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education for the statement. However, what I need to know is, how are you going to deal with the school kids that have left secondary school, that have passed their “A” level – that 13% that you spoke about that cannot afford to go to university that have done those science subjects that are not being catered for, which is what I thought would have been the first port of


The issue to do with infrastructure has been well ventilated. It is also my fervent view that you also need to take care of infrastructure development for the STEM that you have initiated and that you hope to take root.  The issues to do with teachers that are going to deal with the science and engineering technology, they also need to be capacitated. You need to train teachers in that route. These three key issues, I thought would take root first before you get to try and expand the cake.  It is in my view that you are trying to expand the cake or your responsibilities.

However, it is also the kids that are in the street who have not been able to go to tertiary that need to be taken on board by your institutions so that we get to make sure that we are optimally taking care of the end product. I thank you.

HON. DR. MATARUSE: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, for

allowing me to give a comment on this subject. As the Chairman of the Committee on Higher Education, Science and Technology Development, it was our recommendation in the Budget last year that the priority in the Ministry is STEM and there was really no budget on it. It was a serious problem in our universities because they could not actually perform their duties because they could not get enough students. For example, Chinhoyi University of Technology is supposed to be science and technology development university and National University of Science and Technology, it is the same but they are not getting enough students. This innovation where they have actually got money from ZIMDEF is a commendable issue. It makes life in the Ministry very important. So we actually thank the Minister for doing that. I thank you.

HON. CHIRISA: I just want to thank the Minister for this STEM programme. I just want the Minister to assure this House that there will be gender equity in making sure that both sexes get equal opportunities.


Speaker for giving me this opportunity to respond to the statement. In your advertisement Minister, you spoke in Shona and this is perplexing because we think when you are putting an advertisement across, you should put in both languages instead of just saying “ngayiende” because people do not understand what the advertisement is saying. So next time Minister, may you please put both languages in your adverts.

*HON. MUCHENJE: Thank you Hon. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to make my contribution on STEM.  My question to the Minister is: when you are talking about STEM, how many children do you think will participate in this programme and how much have you budgeted for the programme?  We realise that Government is failing to pay school fees for children who are on the BEAM programme.  Are you not biting more than you can chew because some children may not be able to continue with their education as a result of non-payment of fees by the Government since it has committed itself to many programmes such as BEAM?

*HON. MATAMBANADZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir for

giving me the opportunity to make my contribution on the motion on STEM.  I am very grateful to the Government for introducing this programme.  I also thank His Excellency the President, for appointing you to this Ministry because he is aware of your wise contribution.

Minister, may I please implore you not to deviate from your chartered course because of malcontents on the other side of the House.

*HON. MUNENGAMI:  On a point of order! I am sure you are

aware of the contributions being made in this House that we are all in support of this STEM programme.  It is a very good programme which has been introduced by the Government.  Now, what is disturbing is that we have an Hon. Member rising from this House and hurling abuse at

Members of Parliament; it is very unfair and unjust.

*THE HON. SPEAKER:  If I can express myself in Shona.  The Hon. Member is talking about others, when he mentioned that on the other side, he was not pin pointing at any individuals in this House but he is simply using a term that describes other people.

*HON. MATAMBANADZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, for

expressing my position.  When we are talking of the West, we are referring to the Europeans because they are saying there are people coming from the Western countries.  I am supporting that in whatever it is you are doing, whether it is good or excellent there are some people who will always try and despise that good thing. For example, when the President introduced free education in this country, there were people who got the Government assistance to go to the universities and yet some of the beneficiaries were also castigating that same programme and were purporting to be wiser than their benefactor – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible Interjections]-

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order! If it wrong information, is only up to the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development to respond accordingly and not for any other member.

*HON. MATAMBANADZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I am

encouraging the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, that he should keep up the good work that he has launched. He said the programme is starting this year, school fees will be paid for those who have just come from Form Four.  There are some of the beneficiaries who will be coming from poor families, these may succeed and get a chance of going to university.  So, I am pleading with you that you prepare enough funds to take them up to university level.

*HON. CHAMISA: Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to ask Minister Prof. Moyo.  When we talk of STEM, may you please promise this House and Zimbabwe that it will not be like other programmes which were introduced by Government?  I will take the example of BEAM, it was a very good programme meant to benefit the poor and the vulnerable but the implementation has been very poor because only a few people are benefiting from that.  This is stemming from non-financial support from the Treasury and we will end up having a situation like we had when programmes like ESAP were introduced.

When these programmes were first introduced they were highly praised because of their popularity, so, we do not want STEM to suffer the same.  In order for this new programme to succeed, we should have well trained teachers, enough stationery and equipment.  As far as I know, we had very few teachers of science and technology, so can you assure the nation that everything has been put in place and students will be taken care of and benefit from this programme?

I would also like to praise you Prof. J. Moyo, you are very eloquent and intelligent but we still want to see the implementation of the programmes you have launched.  In the past you started on local content but you did not go far with it.  Now, that you have started on STEM how are we going to support this programme financially? We beg you; please do not take us for a ride.  I thank you.

+HON. MALABA:  I would like to thank the Hon. Minister for taking his time to come and explain to this august House on the STEM programme.  When this  was debated yesterday, all the facts were distorted and we were left mesmerised wondering as to where we are going with this programme, but now that you have come to this august House and have given a clear explanation, we are now aware of what you are doing  as Ministry and the Government.  It is now clear that you want to help students who want to develop and study further on science and technology.

Whenever a new programme or a change is introduced, we will have some people who suffer from a pulling down syndrome.  However, I am glad and full of praise for you because you are not afraid of all these people, rather you came and explained what STEM means to the nation of Zimbabwe.  Hon. Misiharabwi-Mushonga explained some of the recommendations which I would like to elaborate on.  When we look at rural areas especially in Matabeleland, we have very few schools which are offering science subjects in these areas. As a result very few children from Matebeleland will benefit from this programme. My plea is that Hon. Minister, may you please put more support in introducing these institutions and financial support and equipment to assist Matebeleland so that learners in that area benefit.

My second concern is that when the learners are selected to study the sciences, we have noted in the past that few passes are registered from those who take up Sciences compared to the Arts. When a learner goes through in the sciences at A’ level, he will achieve eight points and they then find it difficult to enroll into any university, yet an Arts student will get 12 points and be admitted into university. My question therefore is what are you doing in order to equate the chances of getting into universities for both the Sciences and Arts students so that the Science students are not sidelined at the expense of Arts students?

*HON. JOSHUA MOYO: Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me

the opportunity to make my contribution. Hon. Prof. Moyo, I praise you and have come to empower you. Quoting from a biblical teaching, the

Lord asked amongst the people who were in Heaven and said; ‘who is prepared to go down to earth and help the people there?’ All the created beings including the angels all looked down afraid of coming down until the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the one and only begotten said he was prepared to go and die for men.

Therefore Minister, I am giving you the courage to please stand up to these people. When Satan was thrown down on earth, he came down like lightening with a team of angels to disturb the progress that was being made. I am saying be of good courage. In Zimbabwe, we need to be very inventive. For example, when people started working on mobility, they started with bicycles, went on to motorcycles and the car. We are also saying and the President is on record for saying we should progress. You have broken ground in the right direction. We praise you for that. Be of good courage. Thank you.



(HON. PROF. MOYO): Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir and I would like to thank the Hon. Members for their comments, questions and most importantly, support. Mr. Speaker and I think this will apply to a number of questions that Hon. Members have raised. As a general point, I would like to repeat what this programme seeks to do. It is specifically designed to increase the pool of ‘A’ level students and in this case, who

will be going into university in 2018.

The only reason why students who finish ‘O’ level and are called

‘O’ level school leavers want to proceed to ‘A’ level is because they want to proceed to university. It is not the only path available to them.

Others who finish ‘O’ level want to go to polytechnic colleges to get national certificates or a diploma. Some want to be teachers and go to teachers’ colleges. Others want to pursue industrial trade to be an artisan and go to industrial training centres. Mr. Speaker, I said many more have limited choices when they leave ‘O’ level and become unskilled, the majority, 84% of them, but there is just under 10% that do well and want to proceed to university.

Out of that pool Mr. Speaker, those who are semi-competent, by which we mean those who have got grades C or better in Mathematics, Biology, Physics and Chemistry are very few. I indicated that out of the

O’ level school leavers for 2014 who went to university last year, there were 30 614. Out of that, the ones that then passed and proceeded to go to university, some 19 000 or so, only 13% managed to do well in the STEM subjects so that they could be considered by our universities that are specialising in Science and Technology Development such as the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Chinhoyi

University of Technology (CUT), Bindura University of Science Education (BUSE) and University of Zimbabwe (UZ) itself.

This 13% Mr. Speaker, translated to 2 500 and what we are saying is that given the importance of STEM to ZIM ASSET’s success, especially with respect to value addition and beneficiation, which are technical issues that require science, technology and engineering skills. Given that need, 2 500 is a small pool and this is the only issue we are addressing.

If you look at the results of 2015 O’ level examinations that came out last week, we have 8 967 students who are STEM competent and can go for ‘A’ level and do STEM (Mathematics, Biology, Physics or Chemistry) subjects. What are we trying to do with this programme? We would like all of them to take STEM but it does not always happen like that. We want all these 8 967 to go and take STEM subjects at A’ level so that they can continue at university to do science, technology and engineering. That 8 967 would be a huge improvement from 2 500 last year.

The problem Mr. Speaker is that for a number of reasons, our students do not choose the STEM subjects, especially the girl-child but a major reason is that they cannot afford the fees and levies that are required. So, we are intervening to increase this pool and encourage, if we can, the entire lot of 8 967 to take science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. This is what we are trying to do. We are not addressing all these issues that Hon. Members have raised about facilities, whether more schools have laboratories and whether there are teachers who are qualified. That is a very important issue but separate; this is an issue we are addressing jointly with our sister Ministry.  Our Ministry trains the teachers, the Bindura University of Science Education is mandated to train science teachers but that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about the existing capacity, the capacity that we have, to utilise that capacity to maximum benefit.  We are saying let us make sure that we increase the pool with what we have.

Mr. Speaker Sir, they have been quite a number of suggestions about where we should start.  I indicated that as a Ministry, we are reviewing the whole Higher and Tertiary Education Science and Technology Development sector.  We will produce a green paper, take it to Cabinet for consideration and approval then we bring it back for public debate and then come up with specific proposals that will address a whole range of issues with STEM in mind.  We are not there.  We are simply addressing an obvious problem that can be resolved utilising the capacities that are in place and it is important to understand that.  When that is understood, I think most of the concerns that Hon. Members have fall away.

Mr. Speaker Sir, it is therefore important that a useful way of what we are doing is simply that we are giving a scholarship to ‘O’ level students who have passed mathematics, biology, physics and chemistry with a grade C or better.  It is a scholarship programme.  When you give a scholarship, you do not have to start building schools and training teachers because you are giving scholarships.  You give a scholarship and the recipients of the scholarships utilise facilities that are there and you would have made a difference by paying for them.

Mr. Speaker Sir, I would have thought that the question that is obvious is simply to ask that you are giving these school leavers from 2015 examinations to start in 2016 their Lower Six, are you also going to support them at Upper Six, so that they continue?  That would have been a relevant concern and now I have asked that question on behalf of

Hon. Members, the clarification is that, yes, – [HON. MEMBERS:

Inaudible interjections.]  Mr. Speaker, very quickly…..

HON. CHAMISA:  On a point of order Mr. Speaker.  The

Minister is simply supposed to respond to Hon. Members’ questions – [HON. MEMBERS: Yes] – He should not come here and insinuate that we are indociles, who do not know which questions to ask, otherwise we walk out and we leave him alone to address this Chamber, empty seats. He must respect the Members of Parliament; we raised fundamental questions because he knows something that we do not know.  It is just osmosis of ideas; do not rubbish those who are in the region of lower concentration because you are in the region of higher concentration by circumstances.  So, please Mr. Speaker Sir, we need respect.  We respect our Minister but he should not extend his Twitter stance here, we will not accept that – [Laughter].

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I think to be more comprehensive in responding Hon. Minister; it will be good that you address the concerns within the context of your delivery so that Hon. Members are so guided accordingly; that will be appreciated.

HON. PROF. J. MOYO:  I am indebted to the Hon. Speaker for confirming that I did not insult anyone and that we can indeed now address the specific questions.  But it was very important for Hon.

Members to understand what the programme seeks to do.  I hope that now that has been clarified.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Mandipaka wanted to know whether this STEM

2016 ‘A’ level initiative can be taken to the lower level.  On the lower level, I understand it means primary level, he wanted to find out whether we have plans to include ‘O’ level and may be even lower than that.  I have explained Mr. Speaker, this is why it was important to clarify the background that this is specifically addressing the very low pool of ‘A’ level students who will be preparing to apply to universities.  Mr. Speaker Sir, as I indicated, in 2014, there were only 2 500, we want to increase that number.  So, we are not looking at a comprehensive scholarship that also caters for lower levels.

Hon. Munengami raises an important issue which he has brought to our attention that there are some instances where some school heads are not approving the applications to confirm that there are legitimate applications for funding.  I am grateful for that indication; we are going to take this matter up with our colleagues to see that in such cases, those problems are not encountered.  Our own feedback is that in an overwhelming majority of cases, this has not been happening but I am grateful that it has been brought to our attention that there are indeed some isolated cases where it is happening.  We will give it our attention.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Maridadi wanted to place on record that it was not his intention to fuel a fight. Indeed, in our statement, we did not say that he fueled a fight.  In fact, we did not refer to him as the trigger of the statement but that it was an intervention from the Speaker that we needed to clarify in light of the question that he had raised.  So, we took note of the question he raised and did not imply that by raising that question, he had triggered a fight.  I hope the Hon. Member does not leave with the impression that anyone certainly, the Ministry is blaming him.  In fact, we are grateful Mr. Speaker, that he raised the question and as a result thereof, we have been able to clarify an apparent misunderstanding.

Hon. Mudarikwa, thank you for your support, but as I have explained, we are not addressing the issue of equipment, labs or building material.  However, we do acknowledge that these are very serious challenges in our education system that need attention.  We are aware that our sister Ministry is attending to some of these.  Even the tertiary and higher education institutions face some of the challenges, but these would be attended to through different mechanisms.

In the case of higher and tertiary education, Hon. Members would be aware that last week we issued a request for proposals for a lead financial advisor to look at structuring infrastructure bonds for the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, to address some of the issues raised by Hon. Mudarikwa, as they affect higher and tertiary education.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Mapiki wondered why this initiative is not including private schools, why it is restricted only to Government, Council and Mission schools.  Well, I think the Hon. Member had an idea we share with him why this is not the case.  It is basically because a number of the very few private schools that offer A’ level have unreasonable fee structures and they are meant for people who are willing and able to pay unreasonable fees, but the Hon. Member thought perhaps, we could have come up with a flat fee which would then have subsidised these private schools.

We do not think that the issue arises at private schools, that you have students who might fail to take these subjects on account of unaffordability.  However, the private schools are included in the draws for a state of the art STEM bus and US$100 000 in cash to support STEM activities at their schools, including infrastructure projects.  That is a good thing.  The evidence is that the private schools are very excited about that inclusion.  Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there are a few private schools offering A’ Level, that their exclusion is negligible, it does not cause a serious problem.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Holder asked who is funding this and wondered whether this was Government funded.  The answer is yes, it is funded by the Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF).  I know there are two or so questions that touched on this.  ZIMDEF has set aside US$4 million initially to underwrite this programme, but if all the 8 967 students who have in fact passed O’ Level with a C or better in the STEM subjects register, we will need more than US$4 million and contingency measures have been taken to cater for that so that should that issue arise, it will not be an insurmountable challenge for ZIMDEF.

Hon. Misihairabwi-Mushonga asked a question and I am actually very gratefull for this question because we have been getting a lot of enquiries from Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North which do not have science and technology officers.  Mr. Speaker, the implementation structure is that each province is handled by a science and technology officer and the Ministry has science and technology officers only in seven provinces at the moment, but in the case of Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North, there is in fact no provision, there is no officer.  The officer there is only in Bulawayo and the contact number that has been given, both for the science and technology officer and for the ZIMDEF officer is a Bulawayo number.

This is a difficult challenge we are living with temporarily.  It is a temporary problem, but we are attending to it because as Hon. Members will recall, we had the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education on the one hand and the Ministry of Science and Technology Development on the other hand and these two were merged by His Excellency in 2013.  The Ministry of Science and Technology Development came with a structure that was incomplete and this is evidence of that.  It is one of the issues that came up when we were having our interactive sessions with the communities in higher and tertiary education and we would like to assure Hon. Members that we are going to give it priority attention.

However, from a practical point of view, I would like the Hon. Member to know that this officer in Bulawayo is a very hard working officer.  The A’ Level schools that offer Mathematics and Science subjects, namely Physics, Chemistry and Biology are known and limited in number.  He actually knows.  As the Hon. Member and others pointed out, Matabeleland North and South have very few such schools that offer these STEM subjects and have students who qualify for registration.  So, it is not an impossible task.  It is not like calling the entire population there.  He has actually contacted these few schools and they have worked out the modalities.

We have been checking on them since Monday and I can assure the honourable House that as far as this limited exercise is concerned, that aspect has been handled, but it does not do away with the well taken point that in fact, we must have science and technology officers in those two provinces.  I am grateful to the Hon. Member for highlighting an issue that has been raised by the affected communities.

Hon. Mudzuri proffered a number of interesting and useful comments but largely dealing with the university side of this equation, I suppose Mr. Speaker, because he has some experience as an engineer of teaching tertiary and higher education institutions.

I just want to reiterate that we are not dealing with those issues.  We understand and accept that there are very serious capacity issues at our universities but we are responding to a well defined and well targeted need regarding a very poor pool of ‘A’ Level students with STEM competences that qualify for university.  We are dealing with the capacity as it is and we think it is not being fully utilised.  We want to make sure that through this intervention, we can increase the number of competent qualifying students from 2 500 to even 8 967.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Machingura raised issues that are more or less similar in terms of their spirit to those raised by Hon. Mudzuri.  He then reminded us that there is a difference between technicians at our colleges and the universities - the main difference being that universities in his view, make things create things.  Well, that is the traditional view but the thrust to stemitise our higher and tertiary education is to create the possibility of making things at different levels of the sector, in fact right from the level of artisans.

In our country, we have a tradition that our skilled workers actually make things.  It depends on what is being made.  Certainly, our technicians who are produced by our polytechnics have shown through examples from colleges like Harare Polytechnic that they have a capacity to do reverse engineering. Let me go back to the main point that, we are not yet there.  We are going to come here with a comprehensive blueprint on how we propose to deal with tertiary and higher education institutions with science and technology being the reference point for their reform.  Otherwise, we are only looking at the ‘A’ level pre-university pool.

Hon. Nduna also made some interesting points but felt that we are focusing on a wrong priority which he understood to be the expansion of the cake although I do not think I understood which cake he was talking about.  If the Hon. Member understood us to be saying we want to expand the pool of ‘A’ level students who would be going to university in 2018 and if that pool is the cake, then we are talking about the same thing.  Then he needs to understand that we consider it of fundamental importance that we increase and grow that pool from 2 500 in 2014 to a possibility of 8 967 in 2016….

HON. NDUNA: Mr. Speaker, can I clarify on that point?  The expansion that I spoke about is in terms of his responsibilities.  That he is expanding his responsibility.  I totally did not agree with the assertion that he is talking about expanding the pool of those wanting tertiary education in terms of STEM. It is his responsibilities I am talking about that would he not rather deal with the tertiary issues; those kids that are not finding themselves into tertiary that already qualify for STEM.

HON. PROF. MOYO: Thank you Mr. Speaker.  I am pleased that

there is agreement on the importance of expanding the pool.  As to whether I am expanding my responsibilities.  I do not know how and where that arises from because my responsibilities, are assigned to me by His Excellency, the President.  I cannot assign myself responsibilities that are outside that mandate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to repeat what we said in our statement that, school leavers ‘O’ level school leavers, when students take the ‘O’ level examinations after they have finished, they are immediately our business as a Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development.  We have been given a responsibility to plan, train and develop the human capital requirements of our entire economy.  When the kids finish the examinations, we already gave you the numbers that in 2014, 310 000 took those examinations.  Out of that, only 30 000 were able to go for ‘A’ level.  Those who go for ‘A’ level are immediately our responsibility because they are going for ‘A’ level to come to university.  They are not going to ‘A’ level to do anything else, but to come to university.  They are pre-university.

Our 16 universities right now, eight polytechnics and 12 teachers’ colleges become interested in these.  What I also flagged out and did not address, which I thought would be a talking point is that out of the 310

000 who took the ‘O’ level examinations in 2014, some 267 000 did not qualify to go either for polytechnic, teachers’ college, industrial training centre or for ‘A’ level, but they remain our responsibility because they are unskilled workers.  They require skills for their own livelihood and also contribute to our economy.

It comes as a surprise that anyone would suggest that this pool of our citizens who come from our basic education system and suddenly – now have drivers’ licences, they now must begin to firm up on their carrier paths, are not our responsibility.  No, that is the critical core of our responsibility. If you do not understand that ‘O’ level school leavers are the basis for manpower training and development, then we are not talking the same language and you have not understood the task that is before us. There are no expanded responsibilities. In fact, we are determined to make sure that we do our job very well with regard to this issue. When we come back with our blue print, our green paper, you will find that we will be particularly focusing on that issue because we have the excluded majority who has not been given the facilities to empower them from a human capital development point of view.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Mataruse who is the Chairperson of our Portfolio Committee put the issue succinctly. One of the direct reasons why we are doing this 2016 ‘A’ level STEM project is because of what

Hon. Mataruse’s Portfolio Committee raised with us and tabled before this Hon. House. Their report was adopted by this House, which is that our ‘A’ level school system is not producing enough students to do Science at our very few universities that were set up for Science. These are NUST, Bindura University of Science Education and Chinhoyi

University of Technology. These universities in particular, but along with the University of Zimbabwe, in January 2015 competed for 2 500 students who were Science proficient, qualifying to do the STEM degree programmes. Only 2 500, but what happened is that the majority of those students who were produced by our system left the country.

This is because if you do well in the Science subjects, Mathematics, Biology, Physics and Chemistry, you also increase the possibilities of being offered a scholarship by various universities outside the country. So, out of the 2 500 students, the majority of them left the country leaving our universities with an even smaller pool. NUST is supposed to have 70% Science and Technology, 30% Humanities, Arts and Commercial Studies. As we speak, it is the other way round. You go to CUT; it is the same issue Mr. Speaker. The reason is because our school system is producing a small pool of Science. What are we doing to do that?

We are sponsoring all the schools enabling them to take every student coming from ‘O’ level who has got a ‘C’ or better in

Mathematics, Biology, Physics and Chemistry, to take these same subjects a combination of  these subjects and not to do French, Arts or Humanities which they also do. When you try and find out why this is so, a major reason is, we cannot afford. Taking these subjects is also more expensive than taking the other subjects.

So, the first structure to identify this problem was the Committee led by Hon. Mataruse. We are responding to that in our view in a way that is certain to make a huge difference, only focusing on existing capacity so that when we start addressing capacity issues in future, we believe we would have sought solid foundation for dealing with these. We are most grateful Mr. Speaker to our Portfolio Committee and we will continue working with them in a constructive way.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Chirisa raised an important issue that we should ensure equal opportunities. It is a very fundamental one. It is consistent with Section 17 of our Constitution. We are committed to achieve that very important aspiration.

Hon. Misihairabwi-Mushonga also raised another issue that is very important about the pay off line. Perhaps in all of the adverts and campaign messages, she asked why we are having the line ‘Ngazviende mberi’, and why is that not in English, Tonga, not in the other 16 languages, although she restricted herself to one. The reason is that this line is composed by the artist Jah Prayzar. You should listen to the song.

It is a line taken from the song and the song says, ‘Ngazviende mberi’.

One thing that we have learnt is that there are some artistic expressions which are lost in translation the moment you put them in 15 other languages. We thought the fact that and I am sure this is not a disputed fact, that Jah Prayzar is one of the best artists in this country; people appreciate him as Jah Prayzar. If you start saying sing in 16 languages, I am sure it will not come out well. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. No one can fault the spirit of the question or behind the question. We are committed to celebrating all our languages. We are also committed to giving Zimbabweans as individuals from whatever language group they come from, an opportunity to excel and inspire other Zimbabweans.

We have no doubt that Jah Prayzar is an inspiration to many Zimbabweans. We accept that because this is a long journey and we want to travel together on this important journey. We will give IYASA and all these others an opportunity to come up with their own creations and we will not demand that those creations be translated into English.

Hon. Speaker, I am very grateful to Hon. Matambanadzo. He is correct that for quite some time the Government under His Excellency the President provided, supported and he used the phrase free education all the way from primary to university. Many Hon. Members here who went to attended the University of Zimbabwe which was the only

University for quite some time but also others who attended the National

University of Science and Technology (NUST) and later the Midlands State University did so using grants and loans from the Government.

They have not paid a cent and all of them have taken advantage of the demonetisation of the Zimbabwe Dollar and they think the issue is over. Others have taken advantage of the Prescription Law that after 15 years there is no debt.  I am grateful Mr. Speaker to Hon.

Matambanadzo. He raised this issue and some Hon. Members were challenging him about the free education aspect. I thought I am going to consult with the Hon. Vice President and Leader of the House on whether we can take another look at the Prescription Law. What would be honourable for these people, some of them who are in this House who are disputing that fact they do have the capacity to pay Mr. Speaker.  Maybe as part of that green paper we will take a second look to this issue and come up with a law that will compel them to pay.

The Hon. member there, she wants to be funny and is being scandalous. Mr. Speaker, Hon. Chamisa did not quite understand that in fact we are addressing this pool,  the 13 % a very small pool – it is only that pool that we are seeking to increase to at least 20 to 25 % through the STEM campaign that is underway.  We do not need a law to do this, we need a programme which we are calling an initiative but which is effectively a scholarship programme. We have been very specific that this is ‘A’ level 2016 STEM support. We did not say it is 2019 or 2020, but we said ‘A’ level 2016 STEM initiative to increase this pool using existing capacities. When we increase the capacities and do other things Mr. Speaker, this will not be a necessary programme. It will be replaced by something that is commensurate with the capacities that we would have developed and that is why it is limited to this.

It is therefore, important to understand it for what it for what it is and not blow it out of proportion and compare it to ESAP (Economic Structural Adjustment Programme) which is like comparing chalk and cheese. –[Laughter]- Mr. Speaker there were two more questions largely comments which we are appreciate very much from Hon. Malaba. I am most grateful to the Hon. Member for his support and understanding of the initiative, and the issues he raised about the low pass rate in Science subjects, especially in Matabeleland.  The associated himself with the concerns raised by Hon. Misihairabwi-Mushonga. I have noted and accepted the challenges that are unique to those provinces and our commitment to addressing them as such.

Finally, Mr. Speaker Sir, I thought it was a blessing in disguise that the last contribution came from my namesake Hon. Moyo and there was something quite heavenly about the contribution  –[Laughter]- I feel Mr. Speaker that our statement ended up getting a very rich blessing, that really deserved. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir. – [HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]-

THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Minister. In case you

may want to ponder on the equivalent of Jah Prayzah’s statement. You may consider awuye ngasi fulanga   -[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]- I say so … -[AN. HON. MEMBER: The Tonga version.]- The Tonga version is subsumed, unfortunately for the time being. –[Laughter]- so thank you very much Hon. Minister for the comprehensive response to  the questions raised by the Hon. Ministers as well as the positive comments that come from Hon. Members of Parliament. May I confer with Hon. Vice President?


MNANGAGWA):  I move that we resume the Committee Stage of the

Whole House.



[H. B. 2A, 2015]

House in Committee.

          Amendment to Clause 6 put and agreed to.

          Clause 6, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12:


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

On page 7 of the Bill, 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 section 47, the particulars of the detained person and the reasons for such detention.”.

Amendment to Clause 12 put and agreed to.

New Clause 12, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30:


MNANGAGWA):  I move the Amendment standing in my name that:

Section 121 (“Appeals against decisions regarding bail”) of the principal Act is amended—

  • by the repeal of subsection (1) and the substitution of—

“(1) Subject to this section, where a judge or magistrate has admitted or refused to admit a person to bail—

  • the Prosecutor-General or the public prosecutor, within

forty-eight hours of the decision; or

  • the person concerned, at any time;

may appeal against the admission to or refusal to bail or the amount fixed as bail or any conditions imposed in connection with bail.”;

  • by the repeal of subsection (3) and the substitution of—

“(3) Where a judge or magistrate has admitted a person to bail, and an appeal is noted by the Prosecutor-General or public prosecutor under subsection (1), the decision to admit to bail remains in force unless, on the application of the ProsecutorGeneral or public prosecutor, the judge or magistrate is satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility that the interests of justice may be defeated by the release of the accused on bail before the decision on appeal, in which event the judge or magistrate may suspend his or her decision to admit the person to bail and order the continued detention of the person for a specified period or until the appeal is determined, whichever is the shorter period.”;      (c) in subsection (6) by the deletion of “Subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and sixteen” and the substitution of

“Subsections  117 (2) to (6)”.

Clause 30, as amended, put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.




MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I move that Order No. 4 be stood over until the rest of the Orders have been disposed of.

Motion put and agreed to.



wish to inform the House that the business of all Committees of

Parliament will be suspended today, 18th February, 2016 until the 29th of February, 2016.  The only activities that will be allowed to proceed are those that were approved by the 17th of February, 2016.



THE TEMPORARY SPEAKER: I have received a Non-Adverse

Report from the Parliamentary Legal Committee on the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill, (H.B. 2A, 2015)

          Consideration Stage: With leave, forthwith



2B, 2015)

Amendments to Clauses 6 and 30 as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third Reading: With leave, forthwith.



2B, 2015)



Speaker Sir, I now move that the Bill be read the third time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the third time.





MNANGAGWA): Before I move the adjournment of the House, I

would like to thank Hon. Members from both sides of the House who have participated to the debate on the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill, (H.B. 2B, 2015).  There were a lot of constructive criticisms and contributions that contributed to sharpening of our minds and I now move for the adjournment of the House.

 The House accordingly adjourned at Twenty Five Minutes Past 5

O’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 1st March, 2016. 




Leave a Reply

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

Post comment