[featured_image]
Download
Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 0
  • File Size 462 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date November 11, 2013
  • Last Updated November 11, 2021

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 20 FEBRUARY 2013 VOL. 39 NO. 24

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

 

Wednesday, 20th February, 2013.

The House of Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two O’clock p.m.

PRAYERS

(THE DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE DEPUTY SPEAKER

NON-ADVERSE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE

PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a non-adverse Report on the Income Tax Bill [H.B. 5, 2012]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

  1. CHIMHINI: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime

Minister. Is it Government policy that individuals can just wake up one morning and take over mines? If it is Government policy, what does that mean in terms of investor confidence?

  1. BHASIKITI-CHUMA having walked into the House without

a tie.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order in the House, Hon.

Bhasikiti-Chuma can you go out and dress properly, please?

                           THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA):

Madam Speaker, it is certainly not Government policy for individuals to apply law of the jungle and take up other people’s assets in Zimbabwe. Certainly not! We are a country which is rooted in the rule of law. We are a constitutional democracy with the three pillars, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. I am very happy that on the matter that you refer to, that the third pillar, the Judiciary agrees with our position as the Executive, that no, it is not Government policy for individuals to take over mines. The court has moved in to correct this irresponsible behavior.

We do believe in economic empowerment of our people and indigenisation of the economy. However, we do that using the rule of law and applying the empowerment and indigenisation Act. It is important the actions of our Ministers and Members of Parliament do not undermine investor confidence. In particular Ministers of government must be custodians of the rule of law. So certainly it is not part of Government policy for individuals to invade and take over national assets. I want to thank the hon. member for that question.

  1. HOVE: I would like to direct my question to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. The question pertains to the statements that appeared in the newspaper of today that the police had banned the acquisition or possession of radios. I want to find out whether it is Government policy for police to come up with laws of their own and then enforce them?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA):

Madam Speaker, I am not privy to the details of the matter that the hon. member has raised. The two Ministers of Home Affairs will be able to answer that question adequately in terms of the specific issues being raised.

However, having said that, we believe in free flow of information. We believe in multiple channels of communication in the country. This is the information age, Madam Speaker, we are operating in the age of the ICT revolution. The age of Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter. It does not make sense for this country to have one TV station for example. Are we mad? - [Laughter]-How can this country Madam Speaker, have one TV station in this day and age when Kenya has seven local TV stations, when Malawi has four or five.  I am saying we have to shape up or ship out in terms of the requirements of the global economy and globalisation.

Hence, I am saying without the specific details of the issues raised by the Member. I venture to say the more the merrier in terms of newspapers, the more the merrier in terms of radio stations, and the more the merrier of TV stations. Information is part of education, information is power under globalization. Information provides empowerment of citizens.  Trying to control information is unsustainable because they can go and do Twitter, go on Facebook and do Whatsapp. You cannot control that. Control of information is not compatible with globalisation. Control of information is not compatible with the ICT revolution. It is a completely unsustainable strategy; in fact it is an exercise in futility.

However, on the specificities and the details of that question, I would want my two colleagues, the two Ministers of Home Affairs to address it directly. I have given you the information and communication policy framework, which we say the more the merrier in terms of the dissemination and sharing of information. I want to thank the hon. member for that question.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Hove, if you want more information

about your answer put your question in writing addressing it to the relevant Ministries. 

  1. NEZI: Thank you Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the absence of the core Ministers of Home Affairs, what is government policy pertaining to spot fines by the Police when motorists do not have vehicle licenses on them?

       PROF. MUTAMBARA: Madam Speaker, we have heard a

number of conversations on this subject. First and foremost, when we raise resources as the state, when people pay penalties and when they pay money, the money must go to a central pot which is our Treasury, the Ministry of Finance. The proper and correct thing to do is for the different agencies of the State, when they collect the resources, fines and cash, that cash should find its way to the centre, which is the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance can then redistribute and send resources to Ministries. So the policy position in general around the collection of fines and penalties is that, that money must go to the centre, the Ministry of Finance. The Police must not keep the money that they collect.

In terms of the legality of the spot fine itself; is it legal to charge on the spot? I would not want to preempt my colleagues from Home

Affairs about the legality of the activities of charging a spot fine. What I am clear about is that the money must not go to the Police and the Home Affairs, it goes to the centre. Also, the potential victim or person accused must be given an option to pay elsewhere. In other words, the spot fine cannot be mandatory. It is an option. You are given an option to pay on the spot or if you do not want, you can say give me a ticket which I will pay later or I will go and challenge it in the courts. That is democracy. So a spot fine should not be mandatory. It must be optional so that the Zimbabwean citizen is given an option to challenge the spot fine and also to pay elsewhere. I want to thank the Hon. Member for that question.

  1. NEZI: Thank you Madam Speaker. So, from what the

Deputy Prime Minister has said, I take it that some members of the Police are taking it upon themselves to reinvent the law. I would give examples of two Police Officers who did refuse that. I do not wish to name them now but I have got the details and the time. So such Police

Officers are tarnishing the name of our democracy and I am sure the

Deputy Prime Minister has to comment on that.

 

The first order of business Madam Speaker is to establish the law. What does the law say? Let us get that established. We are going to do that and if the law is as I have described it, then those officials are violating the law of Zimbabwe and measures should be taken against them. We believe Police Officers are key custodians of the rule of law in the country and the last we expect is for them to violate the laws of the land. But as I have said earlier on, the two Ministers will establish what the law says and if the law does not allow the police to do what they have done, justice will have to take its course and there will be measures taken against the offending officers.

  1. KANZAMA: Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, is it also proper

and according to the laws of the country, that Police Officers act like members of the Vehicle Inspection Department (VID) by identifying faults on vehicles when they are on the roads.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will allow the Deputy Prime

Minister to answer but that is a new question. That is not a supplementary question.

As a good bush lawyer, I would have to

say I have to listen to the Minister of Home Affairs address that specific question in terms of the powers of the Police. Are they allowed to inspect vehicles and are they allowed to take measures? I will have to defer to my colleagues on that question.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Kanzama can you put your

question in writing and address it to the relevant Ministers.

  1. D. S. SIBANDA: Thank you Madam Chair, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister …

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order Hon. Sibanda, I am not the

Chair. Could you please withdraw that statement?

  1. D. S. SIBANDA: Thank you Madam Speaker, I am sorry. My

question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Matabeleland, if I look at it in particular, Matabeleland South and Matabeleland North, it has always been a drought prone area. Already there is a threat of hunger in those two areas. What mechanism is the Government putting in place to at least avert the disaster which we are likely facing? Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the

hon. member for that question. There are three things that we are working on. The first one is to say, let us understand our geography and the different agricultural regions. We must have a clear understanding of the different agricultural activities in the regions. The temptation is that when we say agriculture, we concentrate on crops like maize and wheat. At the same time when we fund our agriculture, we are funding crops like maize, wheat and cotton and not realising that in those areas you have described, the main activity is livestock production. The unique needs of cattle ranging must be taken cognisance of.

So, one thing we are doing as Government, is to pay sufficient attention to Matabeleland North and South and say these are largely cattle ranching areas or livestock production areas. What can we do at a policy level to enable the rearing of cattle in those areas? What can we do to support the economies of Matabeleland North and South which are driven by livestock? So, we have taken a conscious decision to say, no one size fits all. Not all of us are growers of maize and wheat. Others are

 

predominantly working on livestock. When we are saying, for example, drought mitigation, the temptation has been to say, okay, how do we get maize to the people? How do we make sure they reach them but we are now also saying how can we salvage livestock? What can we do to help the farmers in Matabeleland North and South whose cattle are dying because of the drought? So, that is the first thing that we are doing to have a clear understanding of our agricultural regions and to have a clear understanding of the different economic activities in our country. So, special attention has been given right now as I speak, to livestock preservation and salvaging in Matabeleland North and South.

The second issue to say is that, when we say there is a drought and we are looking at vulnerable families; let us pay even more attention to those who do not grow maize because if there is a drought in Mashonaland East, Mashonaland West, and if Manicaland has a problem, it means it is even worse for those who do not traditionally grow maize. So actively again, we are saying in our drought mitigation strategies, we pay special attention to Matabeleland North and South in so far as grain is concerned. That is the second area of our intervention.

The last one is to say, why are we always fire fighting? We discuss inputs just before we plant. We discuss the drought when it has occurred. Why do we not have a three year agricultural policy framework? A two year financing model such that the budgeting for 2015 is done now for agriculture. The planning for 2015 in agriculture is done now. Long term thinking, so that we can anticipate droughts and we can build up our strategic reserves, put mechanisms and systems to protect our livestock to protect our livestock.  So that last area is the key solution.

Madam Speaker, long term thinking - a three year agricultural policy framework and a commensurate and corresponding financing model which is two years in advance, more importantly, a 30 year vision for agriculture.  Where do we want this country to be in terms of agriculture in the year 2050?  Where do we want this country to be in terms of livestock in the year 2050?  We are working on all those mechanisms to ensure that the people of Matabeleland North and South can have their issues addressed but more importantly, all Zimbabweans are better positioned in terms of agriculture, food security and the general economy of Zimbabwe.  I want to thank the hon. member for that question.

  1. CHIMBETETE:  Deputy Prime Minister, in Nyanga South,

I have eight headmen who were sacked by the Chief for belonging to the MDC party and they were replaced with eight ZANU (PF) headsmen.  Is this permissible?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA): 

Madam Speaker, our policy as Government which has also been reinforced in the new Constitution is that our chiefs in Zimbabwe should be non-partisan.  Our Chiefs in Zimbabwe must be above party politics.

When we say that you are a Chief, you are a Chief of all political parties.

When we say you are a Chief, you are Chief of all churches; you are a

Chief on behalf of all races.  The chief must be non-partisan , they must not campaign for one party.  The chief is the unifying custodian of a community’s traditions and culture.

What you are describing to me hon. member is completely unacceptable to this Government.  More importantly, in the new Constitution, we have come out very clearly without ambiguity nor equivocation that the Chiefs and their institution should be non-partisan, they should rise above party politics.  That way, the Chiefs will be able to play their traditional role and function effectively.  Consequently, the three Principals, the President, the Prime Minister and Yours Truly are going to meet the leaders of the Chiefs’ Council on this very subject.  We have views and reservations about the reports that we are receiving about how the chiefs are exercising their authority in communities.  Of particular concern to us are cases where they are identifying with certain parties, and persecuting those from other parties. We are concerned about reports that some chiefs are encouraging o forcing their subjects to support political parties of preference or choice.  This is completely unacceptable.

We are going to have a meeting with the Chiefs in the next week if not earlier. We have already communicated with them our objectiveto discuss that subject.  They also have their own views about the new Constitution which we will talk about.  I want to thank the hon. member for that question.  It is completely unacceptable for our Chiefs to be partisan.  It is completely unacceptable for our Chiefs to be pursuing the agenda of one political Party.  A Chief is a Chief for all the people in their jurisdiction.  A Chief is a Chief for all political parties in their

community.

  1. CHINYADZA:  I just want to follow up on the question because the point which has been raised is that certain headmen have been suspended.  I also have a similar case in my constituency where a headman has been suspended by a Chief for refusing to write down names of members in various villages belonging to specific political parties.  What remedy is there for these people who have been suspended wrongfully for them to continue their duties as usual?

PROF. MUTAMBARA:  Madam Speaker, what I outlined is the

policy position which clearly says, what happened, if it is correct is unacceptable.  In terms of the specific cases being raised by the two hon. members, we will investigate and establish the veracity of the allegations.  If they are correct, the Ministry of Local Government has to take corrective action.  If it does not act, the Principals will act and I am one of them.  So be guaranteed that, yes, there must be order.  The Ministry of Local Government is the one that does the inauguration of the Chiefs.  If there is an aberration of the nature that you have described, the Ministry of Local Government must intervene and take corrective measures. If they do not do that, we will descend on them as their supervisors.

  1. ZHANDA:  Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain, he mentioned that obviously, Chiefs are not allowed to belong to any political Party.  Are these Chiefs registered as voters, if they are registered as voters, which Party are they going to vote for?  Over and above that, do these Chiefs belong to any church, if they belong to Anglican, how fair are they going to adjudicate on a case involving a member of the Methodist church?

PROF. MUTAMBARA:  Madam Speaker, I want the hon.

member to be a better listener next time – (laughter) – I want the hon. member to open his ears and listen carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister.  I said, the Chief must not be partisan; the Chief must not drive the agenda of one Party.  I did not take away the chief’s right to belong to a Party.  That is the chief’s civic and political right.  However, when you become a Chief, you become a Chief of everyone including those belonging to a Party which is not yours.  The chief has the inalienable right to belong to a Party.  Just like the business people, they have their Parties they belong to. But once you are a banker, a headmaster or an accountant, you do not talk or do politics as you execute your duties.

You do your business in a non-partisan manner.

The business of a Chief is being the custodian of the tradition and culture.  Yes, you retain your right to belong to a Party. Come election time, you get into the booth and vote for your Party.  What we are saying is that, you cannot campaign for a Party. You cannot have a leadership position in a Party. You cannot drive the agenda of a Party because you now have a special role to be the custodian, to be the father of everyone in the community.  The same analogy applies to the church.  You are an Anglican. Now you are the Chief, it means that you are now the Chief for the Anglicans, the Catholics and the Methodists.  You have to temper your Anglicanism with the knowledge that now I am a Chief for more people including those that do not go to my church.  I thank the hon.

member for that question, I am sure next time, he will be a better listener to the Deputy Prime Minister.

  1. GWIYO:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. When are Zimbabweans likely going to be compensated their monies arising from the removal of zeroes, given the fact that the GNU is coming to its expiry?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA):

I must say that the exact answer of when to get compensation will come from the Minister of Finance.  I will give you a policy position.  We believe this issue is now becoming a human rights issue, a civil rights issue and it is becoming a labour issue.  Surely, you cannot say citizens who had cash in the banks and then we dollarised, they lost everything and up to now Madam Speaker, we have not worked out an exchange rate to compensate them.  These individuals have been victimised by my regime and I stand guilty as charged.

That is why I am saying as far as I am concerned, it is a matter that must be addressed as soon as possible because now it is becoming a human rights issue.  You cannot take citizens money and then for three to four years, you do not work out a mechanism to repay them.  What I can say is, I will commit this Government to addressing that matter, so that we are able to at least offer some amount.  Let us disagree on the exchange rate but there must be a transaction where individuals are compensated.  We will take it up with the Minister of Finance and get a specific date where that is going to be done.

Madam Speaker, the biggest victims are the poor. So, that is why I am saying it is a civil rights issue and a human rights issue. This has affected the majority of our civil servants and the majority of our poor people. We must take action and I commit myself to doing that.  I want to thank the hon. member for that question.

  1. CHIKWINYA:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  My question is directed to the Deputy Minister of Mines and Mining Development. What policy measures has your Ministry put in place to ensure that ESSAR or the ZISCO deal takes off?  When are the workers expected to get their salaries since his Ministry is involved in that deal?

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING

DEVELOPMENT (MR. CHIMANIKIRE):  I would like to thank the

hon. member for posing that question.  The Ministry of Mines is responsible for policy on mining.  When it comes to issues like exploitation of minerals that are already outside the ground, it is actually the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.  So, ESSAR is a baby of the

Ministry of Industry and Commerce.  Therefore, it is not the duty of the Ministry of Mines to prescribe when workers should be paid, when they should resume work and so forth.

  1. HOVE:  My question is directed to the Deputy Minister of

Mines and Mining Development.  It is concerning the status of the Mwenezi iron ore claims that ESSAR is insisting in getting before the consummation of the ZISCO-ESSAR deal. May you tell this House on the progress your Ministry has made in as far as granting of those iron ore claims to ESSAR, if at all you are going to?

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING

DEVELOPMENT (MR. CHIMANIKIRE): Madam Speaker, I would

like to thank the hon. member for posing that question. Two weeks ago, the issue of Mwenezi claims was in the Supreme Court.  The Ministry had actually gazetted that these claims should belong to Government to enable us to appropriate what should be appropriate to ESSAR.  Suffice to note that the Ministry succeeded in upholding the fact that they were the proper custodians of the claims in Mwenezi.  However, currently there are talks between the Ministry and ESSAR as well as exploration to establish the exact amount of ore that can actually be found in that

area.

So we are working jointly with ESSAR and experts from the

Ministry to determine exactly what is underground in that area.  In terms of appropriating the correct amount of ore, that is an issue that is still under the discussion under the auspices of our Permanent Secretary.

The talks are ongoing between us and ESSAR. I thank you.

  1. MAZIKANA:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  I direct my

question to the Deputy Prime Minister who is a scientist par excellence.  The country is like Saudi Arabia, Italy and France.  They have centres of religious pilgrims.  The recent events in Zimbabwe where we have claims of miracles, for example, a three day miracle baby would have been capitalised on to promote religious tourism in our country.  Would Government consider that?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA): 

I think the basis of the question from the hon. member is flawed but what he proffers is interesting, but the basis is very flawed.  If you want to talk about religious tourism or cultural tourism or historical tourism, we have better things to show, not miracle baby or miracle money.  We have better things to share with the world in terms of culture, for example, Mbuya Nehanda, Great Zimbabwe.  In terms of history, we can share with the world the Chinhoi battle, Nyadzonia, Chimoio and so forth.  That is why I was divided, because the idea of religious tourism to me, fits into cultural tourism, historical tourism and social tourism.  These are good concepts, but the basis of the question is a three day old miracle baby and may be miracle money which are dubious entities.

We are better positioned to position our country around Great Zimbabwe, Mbuya Nehanda, Chaminuka, Matopo or Lobengula.  There is more spirituality in our culture than what you are saying we should celebrate.  We respect religion, we respect spirituality, but there are better things for us to showcase than what you have described.  As far as I am concerned, as I said last week a country is run on laws, a country is run on science and nothing else.  The other things can be used for tourism but not for public policy.

  1. MUNGOFA:  To the Deputy Minister of Mines, I would like to ask, how many special grants have been recovered from speculators and if they have been any, are there open for application by the ordinary people.

THE DUPUTY MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING

DEVELOPMENT (MR. CHIMANIKIRE):  I would like to thank the

hon. member for posing that question.  In February 2010, twenty-five special grants were issued for coal in the Hwange basin.  As of November 2012, our survey as Ministry has revealed that only three of those special grants have been utilized and reports we have been receiving are such that they are at exploration stages.  However, the law does provide that within a period of six months, any benefactor – in terms of special grants award they are awarded by the Office of the President; the benefactors are supposed to submit their returns to indicate to the Ministry as to what level of development they will have instituted in various special grants granted to them.  We have since, as a ministry, established that special grants are being held in special quotas for speculative reasons. The day before yesterday, we took a decision as a matter of policy in the ministry that we are going to summon all the benefactors of special grants and ask them to account for what they have done with various special grants.  If there has been no development in terms of exploitation of the minerals, which is coal specifically, we are going to repossess all special grants that have not been utilized.  There will be an advertisement to re-issue them to new applicants.

  1. ZIYAMBI:  On the special grants, does the Minister also include the mining claims?  This is because certain companies are holding on to 200 or 300 mining claims in the country, when in the same spirit, they refuse people who would like to use those mines for mining purposes; whilst out of the 220, they are using only one mining claim.  Is this inclusive in the approach that you want to take?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Hon. Ziyambi, who are you

directing your question to?

  1. ZIYAMBI: I have brought it as a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
  2. CHIMANIKIRE:  Madam Speaker, there is a difference

between a special grant and an ordinary claim.  Given the impression

that the hon. member is talking about other claims; special grants are a prerogative of the President’s Office.  However, claims pertaining to other minerals can be granted by ministry officials, specially the

Commissioners of Mines that we have in various regions in the country.  Yes, we are aware that in certain areas, we have absentee mine owners and they have abandoned their operations.  It is incumbent upon the Commissioners in various regions to advertise on their notice boards, so that members of the public are aware that certain mineral rights have been forfeited.  The reason why we have revised the issue of fees is that if we have absentee miners who continue to renew their claims by paying annual fees.  This is done in order to discourage massive ownership of claims.  If there are any such areas that the hon. member has such queries, I would invite him to our offices and we will take appropriate action.  As far as we are concerned, the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill will be coming to Parliament as a repeal.  We are going to propose for the repealing of the current Mines and Minerals Act and in its place, we are going to bring in a new Bill that will ensure that we have a new Mines and Minerals Act.  In that new Mines and Minerals Act, it will be a “use it or lose it” situation.  If you are not utilising any claims, then you are bound to lose them in terms of the law that Parliament is going to pass in the near future.

*MRS. CHADEROPA:  I would like to ask the Deputy Minister of Mines that there are people with land but do not have money and are having problems from those people who have mines.  That person earns a living from that land but you will find that they will end up losing that land because of the miners who have money.  I do not know how you can address this issue so that those with land cannot lose their land to the miners.

* THE DUPUTY MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING

DEVELOPMENT (MR. CHIMANIKIRE):  Madam Speaker, I would

like to thank the hon. member for the question that she has asked.  If I clearly understood her, she said that those with land are being troubled by those miners who are coming to mine on their land.  These people earn a living from their land and they are disturbed by the miners because they keep on digging in their land.

Yes, this happens but the issue is that as Government, the law says that if we realise that there are mineral deposits where you have settled, it might be a farm, a school or a hospital, we have the right to re-locate you by giving you somewhere else to farm or to go and stay.  That is what the law says.  If we are requesting that you move from that land to a new area, we need to make sure that we compensate you for the value of your property and your produce on that land.  You are not moved without compensation, that is building the house you are going to dwell on and the place you are going to stay; like what was done in Chiadzwa by Mbada and the Anjin.  The law says mining shall take precedence but if you find those who are always digging on someone’s land without the adequate papers that is illegal.  That should be reported to the police or you can bring the matter to the attention of the ministry.  That is mostly done by people who do not have the right to be mining in that area.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, do remind me your

names, I have forgotten.

  1. NAVAYA:   Thank you Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister.  Deputy Prime Minister, what is happening to our mandatory 5% blending in Chisumbanje?  What is happening to

it?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA):

Madam Speaker, there is a written question on Chisumbanje which I am going to address.  So, I think he can hold his guns.  I will respond to his question with the other issues on Question No. 1 on the Order Paper.

  1.   SANSOLE:  My question is directed to the Deputy Minister of Mines and Mining Development.  What is Government Policy regarding mining activities in conservancies?  I am asking this question with particular reference to mining activities in the Gwaai Conservancy where wildlife is being threatened by mining activities.  I thank you.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING

DEVELOPMENT (MR. CHIMANIKIRE):  Madam Speaker, I would

like to thank the Hon. Member for posing that question.

The question that I answered from the previous speaker has a link to the question that the Hon. Member is posing.  However, when it comes to conservancies, certain rules and regulations have to be observed.  Yes mining takes precedence but we then liaise with the Environmental Management Agency (EMA), which is responsible for ensuring that the environment is maintained as natural as possible.  We then liaise with my colleague in the other Ministry of Environment to ensure that there is minimum disturbance of the natural habitat.

In other words, you may find that we will regulate that you do not have to use a certain amount of explosives if the explosives are going to result in scaring away big animals like elephants, rhinos and so on.

However, there are certain areas where there are no-go areas if the Government so appropriates through Cabinet.

In other words, it is not compulsory that we destroy our conservancies in order to ensure that there is mining.  So, there are certain reserved areas that as a Ministry, we may not allow mining to be conducted.  There are certain areas where we will have to ensure that there are accompanying regulations to ensure that the miners refrain from using certain types of machinery that will disturb the natural habitat.  I thank you.

  1. DONGO: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon. Arthur Mutambara. What is Government policy towards the infrastructure that was left on the farms by the previous farm owners, especially the houses which are being occupied by the former farm workers?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF.

MUTAMBARA):   Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member

for that question.

Our Constitution as we have it today, the current Constitution says, all land is State land and when land is taken away from the old white farmers, there is no compensation for the land itself.  The land is taken back by the State for no compensation.  However, for the improvements, that is, the infrastructure, the houses, the dams, the warehouses and irrigation schemes – for the improvements on the land, there must be compensation.  That is the law in terms of our Land Reform Programme, and our Constitution.  There is no compensation for the land itself but there will be compensation for the improvements.  So, we have an obligation to compensate the farmers for improvements and we have done so in some cases and we have not done in other cases.

Now, the farm workers are a very interesting category because we are very clear about compensation for improvements to the former farm owner, but we have not said anything about the farm workers – what kind of compensation do they get and what kind of rehabilitation do they get.  What we addressed in our laws is the fact that there is no compensation for the land itself, but there will be compensation for improvements, to the old owner.  We did not address the issue of the farm workers.

So, there is a lacuna there.  There is a gap in terms of addressing the interests of the farm workers but the infrastructure, if it was built by the old farmer, there is a legal requirement to pay compensation for that to the old owner.  We neglected the former workers, and that is a travesty of justice.

Madam Speaker, the matter of compensation for improvements is a very important subject because, remember one of the things we are saying is that; let us somehow bring about collateral value of land so that the 99-year lease is bankable.  This bankability of the 99-year lease or the provision of bankable title to the new farmers is very important, otherwise, land becomes dead capital.  What we want is for the new farmers who were resettled on A1 or A2 farms to be able to go to the bank and borrow against the land so that they can finance agriculture.

Now, in the process of making the leases bankable, in the process of restoring collateral value of land, we must address this issue of compensation for improvements.  Because, if you do not, when you give the 99-year lease owner a bankable lease, the old farmer can come and say yes, you now have a bankable lease, but, you owe me so much for the improvements.  This then renders the bankable lease dysfunctional and inoperable.  So, it is in our national interest somehow to put finality and closure to the issue of improvements so that we can convert the land we got under the Land Reform Programme into performing assets; so that the land can be borrowed against.  Otherwise, those that had improvements, those that put the improvements can go to our courts and laws and claim that you owe me because I have not been compensated.  This will effectively put on a lien on the land and thus undermining the ability to borrow against the land.

So, that is the position on improvements.  On infrastructure, on the land acquired by the State, I want to thank the Hon. Member for that question.

  1. CHINYADZA: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. My question which supplements your answer relates to who actually pays for the improvements?  Is it Government, obviously meaning the man on the street or the person who was allocated land who actually pays for the improvements?

PROF. MUTAMBARA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, once we say all land is

State land, once we dispossess the old farmers as the State and give leases to the new farmers, the obligation is with the State.  What we can do as the State is to say, you are now the new farmer, the new owner, what is the nature of your obligation in terms of compensation for improvements in terms of the legal position?  Can you assist Government to pay off the compensation for improvements?  The dialogue can be instituted.  However, the legal obligation to pay compensation for improvements is on the State. We as the state and Government, have the duty and obligation to pay compensation for those improvements. But as a matter of policy, we can then say, new farmer, can we not work together to provide resources for compensation, but the legal obligation is on the State.

  1. KANZAMA: Thank you Madam Speaker. Hon Deputy

Prime Minister, following your explanation, the issue of validity of these title deeds after land acquired by the Government – are they still valid and if they are still valid, what is the Government going to do to make them invalid and come up with a new process of having 99-year lease.

PROF. MUTAMBARA:  The land reform was a revolution.  Revolutions, by definition, are not pretty; they are untidy.  There has never been a bloodless revolution in history.  So these are the things we need to address now, having gotten the land through a revolutionary process.  The important thing I want to emphasise Madam Speaker is that …….

DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order hon. members, who is laughing so loudly? – [HON. MEMBERS:  Navaya! Navaya!]- Hon. Navaya, we are not at where you take those wise waters.  This is an august House and honourable House.  Deputy Prime Minister you can continue.

         PROF. MUTAMBARA:  Madam Speaker, what I am

emphasising is that, having carried out the land reform programme, we must make sure that now we tie the loose ends.  We move away from land acquisition to productivity, driving up yields per hectare and embracing viable land use in the country.  Some of the things that I am going to talk about are in the new Constitution.  We must make sure that somehow we restore or inculcate collateral value of land.  We must reestablish a land market in Zimbabwe.

This business of Government and Non-Governmental

Organisations funding agriculture alone is unsustainable.  Agriculture is a business.  We must be able to go to the bank and borrow against the land and do commercial agriculture in addition to subsidies from

Government.  In fact, subsidies must complement commercial funding.  The land itself, must be a performing asset which you use by going to the bank and borrowing money to do agriculture.  Restoration of collateral value of land is subject number one.  Of course, we must put mechanisms in place to stop the old owners from coming back and buying back the land.  Mitigation against this possibility is required.

Number two, security of tenure; you do not want a situation whereby you are on the land – you have a 99-year lease but if you misbehave, we withdraw the lease.  The land must not be used as a political football.  The new farmer or beneficiaries of A1 or A2 farms must be secure on their farms.  It is in their interest so that they can invest their savings and put infrastructure, farmhouse, a garage and irrigation schemes.  How can you do all those things if you are not secure on the land?  You end up being a cell phone farmer doing sub- optimal agricultural activities.  The new farmer who benefited from the Land Reform Programme needs security of tenure, knowing that he or she will be on the land for 30 or 99 years for real or she can then comfortably and securely invest their savings in agriculture.  He or she will do proper agriculture.  This is why the issue of leases comes in, that why do we not make these leases bankable or tradable?  How can we make sure that somehow you are secure on the land?  That is the issue we are raising so that you know this is my farm. Security of tenure combined with collateral value of land and will empower the new farmers as we move from land acquisition to optimal land use characterized by high yields and productivity.

I venture to say, when you are on the land, you must not be victimised because of your political affiliation.  If you change Party affiliation for example, the farm must not be taken away from you.  You must keep your farm if we are serious about the land revolution.  Why should the farm be taken because I am now party B?  If I have the farm, I have the freedom to be a member of NDOGA, Mavambo, MDC-A,

MDC-B, MDC-C and so on.  That is the function of security of tenure.  I hope somehow we address this matter because if the farmer is not secure on the land, they will not invest on the land and they will not maximally utilise the farm because they are not sure whether they will be there tomorrow.  So we must make sure that hon. members, we have collateral value of land while we borrow against the land.  We have security of tenure where we know we are going to be on the land irrespective of anything and then we can invest our savings and do proper agriculture.  We must also remember that land is a finite asset or resource.  We have shared the land amongst ourselves in this generation.  What will happen to the generation of tomorrow and the other future generations?  Where will their land come from? What will happen to the generations who were not born during this Land Reform Programme?  Will future generations not challenge this current programme?  That is just food for thought.

Questions without notice were suspended by the DEPUTY

SPEAKER in terms of Standing Order No. 34.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE

  1. MR. CHEBUNDO asked the Deputy Prime Minister Prof.

Mutambara as Head of the Inter-Ministerial Committee to inform the nation about the US$600m Chisumbanje Ethanol project.

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (PROF. MUTAMBARA): 

Madam Speaker, we have prepared a written answer to this question.  It is about the progress, the challenges and the fate of the villagers at Chisumbanje.  What the Government did on the 19th of September, 2013 is to come up with solutions to Chisumbanje.  The solutions are in three categories.  One is on the social matters, the second section is on the business matters and the last section is on technology.

In terms of the social matters, we have made a decision that says; all those who were displaced by the project must be given agricultural land for them to farm.  They must also be given land for them to build their houses.  There must be compensation for those people who were displaced by the project.  We have also said that some of them must be allowed to become out growers to the Chisumbanje Ethanol project –so they become commercial farmers who are feeding into the ethanol plant.

There have been problems with Chisumbanje where people lost their cattle.  Their cattle were slaughtered and some were injured and some were victims of poisoned or polluted water.  Every individual or every member of the community in Chisumbanje who has been victimised by the project must be compensated.  We have come up with our research and identified such cases and made a decision that they must be compensation for all the people who were victims or who were displaced by the project.

We have also put a committee together on the ground which is what we call the District Ethanol Implementation Committee, DEPIC, consisting of the Member of Parliament, some councillors, representatives of the community, the DA, the chiefs, the headman, the police, the Rural District Council and the company.  This engine the

DEPIC is the key driver of the resolution of the concerns of the members of the community on the ground.  This is how we have sort to address the concerns of the people on the ground.

We have also said that the employment, framework must also focus on local people so that these ordinary people in Chisumbanje and Chipinge are given some kind of preference in some of the jobs at Chisumbanje.  However, we are pushing for national cohesion and integration so that people may be employed from everywhere throughout the country.  However, it does not make sense to hire a gardener or sweeper from Masvingo or Harare to work in Chisumbanje.  We want some local employment equity; We want to make sure the people of Chisumbanje are benefiting from this project.  That is what we have sort to do at Chisumbanje in terms of the communities.  We are working in an Inter-Ministerial Committee of Ministers which I chair.

Let me say at that Madam Speaker one of the major problems at Chisumbanje has been politics and politics and more politics between our political parties – who shall remain nameless in this great Chamber.

There has been a big debate that says, who is going to unlock political capital from the project?  Who is going to get the votes from the project?  Who is going to do the distribution of the irrigated plots?  The fear is that whoever does that is going to have a political advantage.  So, there has been tussling and fighting among our parties to unlock political capital out of the Chisumbanje Ethanol Project. Madam Speaker, this has been a major problem.

The way we have solved that challenge is by inclusion – by ensuring that all people, all interested parties are part of our solution.

So, we removed politics by inclusion.  Our District Ethanol Plant

Implementation Committee is very inclusive – the Member of Parliament; the Councilors; the District RDC; the DA the chiefs representatives of the communities are all included.  The motivation is to ensure all voices are heard, while all interests and aspirations are provided for.  This way we minimise political bickering and the scoring of political points.  I think, we have succeeded. We have also tried to be very balanced in the Cabinet Committee by making sure the major political parties are  represented in the Committee. So, that when we go to the ground, we have everyone there.  So when a villager is excited and they are talking politics I simply say to them, ‘Do you not see your leader here on this platform?’, and that neutralises them  because if tge unclusive nature of the Cabinet Committee.  So, politics has been a problem, but we have tried to mitigate against it by inclusiveness and making sure everyone is involved.

In terms of business, what we have recommended is that, this project started off as a BOT (Build Operate Transfer).  So, it was a private company which was going to be handed over to us after 30 years.

Then we said, look, it is not in our national interest to operate that way.  For starters, our land is there; it is our people and we are going to do mandatory blending for this operation.  You cannot do mandatory blending for a private company.  So, in terms of business, we are busy converting the BOT to a joint venture where the private player and ARDA; the private player and Government are partners.  This is the business work we are working on under our resolutions on the 19th September 2012 to convert the arrangement from a BOT to a joint venture. This is work in progress.  So that when the company does well, the people of Zimbabwe are benefiting because we are partners; when the company does well we are benefiting from dividends and also from the performance of that company as we are now partners.

In terms of technology, we have said, look let us go with the global best practice.  Blending is now global best practice – other countries go 10%; others 15% and so on and we said, okay let us allow the blending of fuel in Zimbabwe starting with petrol.  85% is there on the market as optional; 20% is there as optional; 15% is there as optional; 10% is there as optional. But we said 5% will be mandatory.  Meaning, no car will have any petrol in Zimbabwe without at least 5% ethanol. Which means, it is now illegal to have fuel in Zimbabwe without a minimum of 5% of ethanol.  The Statutory Instrument was gazetted last week.  So, the law is now in place to allow for mandatory blending at 5%.  If you want more ethanol, you can get 10%, if you want more you get 15%, if you want more you get 85%. But these ones are optional provisions and not mandatory.  With 5% ethanol there are no damages to any vehicles.  We have done the investigations. Blending allow for better fuel economis.  The high gradually move from 5% to 10% and 15% by 2015 Right now mandatory is on 5% and the Statutory Instrument was gazetted last week.

The drawback, why we are still having a problem? – we have not concluded the work in terms of the conversion from the BOT to the joint venture. The Statutory Instrument says, you will be allowed to be the blender if you  are in joint venture with the State.  You will be allowed to blend 5% if you are in partnership with the Government of Zimbabwe.  So, the company in question has not achieved that status - the movement from a BOT to a joint venture is not yet complete.  That is why you hear these stories in the media that, ‘the blending is hanging in the air’.  The blending is conditional on the company being in partnership with the Government of Zimbabwe. The partnership has not yet been concluded.

However, we have made progress – our consultant has done his work on this matter and submitted a report to us; our technical people have looked at the report, the Ministers met on Monday the 18th February, 2012.  We are now finalizing the issues around shareholding structure of the joint venture.  Once we have done that, we are going to work on the basis of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).  Once that MOA is signed, we can blend on the basis of that agreement.  In that agreement, there will be a shareholding structure that is acceptable to Government and to the private player – that is the major work to be done.

What is our percentage as Government?  What is the percentage for the company?  That ratio has not been determined, but once we agree on that ratio, we are going to proceed by way of Memorandum of Agreement.  At the same time, there will be a commitment in that agreement to our Indigenization law which says, 51% or higher is for the indigenous players.  So, if we do not achieve 51% in the valuations being done, we then commit to moving our position from where it is to 51% or higher through investment, through providing more land and so on and so forth.

In summary, the MOA must have an agreed shareholding structure and must explicitly acknowledge and commit to the indigenous and empowerment laws of the country.

So, the drawback hon. Members has been that, the work to convert the BOT to the joint venture is not yet complete.  Mandatory blending is conditional on a joint venture agreement. We are going to achieve the enabling MOA in the next week if not that then the week after.

One of the problems we had, I am sure you heard about the arrests of Chisumbanje villagers in January 2013.  This was deplorable. What happened in January where people were arrested in Chisumbanje was because the Committee we set up the DEPIC (District Ethanol Plant Implementation Committee) was not meeting.  We set up a Committee in Chisumbanje, this inclusive Committee, with the Member of

Parliament, the Councillors, the chiefs, headmen, the representatives of the communities, the DA, the RDC, the police, the company and planned that they start meeting.  They did not meet.  What happened?

The DA had instruction from some political leaders to say, no, disregard that Committee; no, disregard the word of the Deputy Prime Minister of the State of Zimbabwe.  So, there was insubordination of the highest order on the part of a lowly DA, who decided to defy Cabinet; who decided to defy the Deputy Prime Minister.  So, in December, there were no meetings; in November, there were no meetings; in January, there were no meetings. Consequently the villagers took the law into their own hands and said, ‘This is our land.  The Deputy Prime Minister said that we can farm here’ and they went and attempted to grow crops and continue with their chores.  As a result, there were altercations and confrontations between the Company and the villagers; on the reason why we had all these problems was because of that insubordination by the lowly DA. By insuring that DEPIC grouping was not meeting, he created a vaccum and chaos ensued.

This should never happen in a constitutional democracy. The DA reports to a PA, a PA reports to the Permanent Secretary for Local Government, and he in turn reports to the Minister. The Minister reports to me.  So, how can a lowly DA four lines down the rank defy the authority of the land?  It is because of political influence where some political warlords and God fathers decide to say, ‘To hell with this’, and create chaos.  We have corrected that. We then eventually gave instruction to the Minister of Local Government to put the DA in line. Then the DA eventually convened the DEPIC meetings.  Now, the meetings are happening in Chisumbanje and we are having tremendous progress. I say this to say, we must not allow politics to interfere with national projects such as the Ethanol Project in Chisumbanje.  We must not allow partisan aspirations to affect the national interest. There is more that unites them that which divides us.  Let us concentrate on the national interest.

So, we had a problem in Chisumbanje where certain warlords were trying to interfere with the issues of the State, defying Cabinet decisions, defying the Deputy Prime Minister.  Now they know, you do not defy the Deputy Prime Minister and get away with it. Problem arose because in the absence of meetings and there was donga watonga.  The Company was also conniving with the police to harass the villagers. That is another problem.  The police behaved in a criminal manner in Chisumbanje – they were conniving with the Company to arrest villagers – it is completely unacceptable for the police to behave in a criminal fashion as they did in Chisumbanje. That is unacceptable and for the company to connive with the police to arrest our people, is unacceptable on this planet and in this country. I am saying this because you saw the information, read about it and saw the villagers being arrested. We have put a full-stop to it by ensuring the D.A obeys Cabinet and that the police are doing their work and are not being used by a private company. Now there is order in Chisumbanje and things are moving.

Our major challenge is now to quickly conclude the conversation around conversion from a BOT to a joint venture and quickly put in together a memorandum of agreement. On the basis of that agreement, we are going to blend and hence, our people are going to get jobs. Our people in the communities are going to be able to be out growers and to get agricultural land. In a nutshell, that is the answer to the question of progress, challenges at Chisumbanje and the fate of our people in the communities at Chisumbanje.

  1. MADZIMURE: Deputy Prime Minister, you mentioned that the communities are going to be compensated. This is a planning process, certain things were happening. When do you expect the communities to be compensated given that if they go for a long time they are kept on suffering? The second part is on the D.A who defied the Cabinet, do you in your honest position, think that the measures that were taken are sufficient enough to deter such activities tomorrow of insubordination?

PROF. MUTAMBARA: For now, I am concentrating on progress and solving the challenges at Chisumbanje. I am just happy that for now that D.A is now conducting meetings and has been given an instruction by Minister Chombo to behave and allow us to do what we have got to do at Chisumbanje. However, you are right to ask whether  sufficient punishment has been meted out?. I think we can look within the system and within our laws to see what can be done to make sure that we do not allow that kind of insubordination to take place. We can pursue that with Local Government to ensure that justice is done.

I wanted to just emphasize that at a planning level, I am happy that the DA is no longer obstructing my activities. He is no longer obstructing the activities of the committee and he is allowing the meetings to take place. The meetings are very important because that is where you have everyone. Whatever party you are, you are in there. It is a good platform because once you decide, there is then one direction. It was a very important committee to meet. When they did not meet in November and December they created chaos for us. However, in terms of measures and penalties we can pursue that within the system.

This is work in progress because some compensation has already been done but the other things have not been done. The problem is that, some of the major things are dependent on the plant running and the blending. If we are not blending and there is no economic activity it is very difficult, for example, to do the out grower activities to make sure the irrigation schemes are done. The compensation is detailed in the report of what is going to be done and some things have been done but not complete.

Some of the major elements of compensation can only be effected when the plant is now running, the business is moving, we are now blending and money is coming. Then our projects of compensating the villagers and the communities can be done completely. So it is work in progress, some work has been done but not complete. The details of what is to be done about cattle and crops because there was also a behavior at Chisumbanje which was from the Rhodesian era. Cattle were killed, crops slashed down and villagers injured; the Rhodesian white behaviour where they would cut down the crops of our villagers.

Even if it is your piece of land, in our culture you do not cut down someone’s crops. You allow them to harvest their crops. There was white Rhodesian behaviour where they would cut down the crops and kill cattle belonging to the villagers. We have addressed all these matters in our report but we must move quickly to get blending and the business going so that we can fully compensate our people.  However, never again should we allow the Rhodesian era behavior.

  1. MATIBE: Deputy Prime Minister, you said it is now mandatory for 5% blending but have you got enough facility to blend for the whole country?

PROF. MUTAMBARA: That is one of the things that took us a bit of time. What we call the logistics of blending. Yes, we have solved that problem.  The fuel coming through the pipeline can be blended at Msasa where we put mechanisms and systems to allow for blending. We have also put mechanism systems in Mutare Feruka to blend there, blend in Beitbridge and also in Plumtree. Yes, that has been sorted out. We now have the capacity to blend 5% of our fuel in Harare, at Feruka, Beitbridge and Plumtree. That was one of the elements of the work to be done before we could fully adopt our mandatory blending.

The last piece now is to get that joint venture or that agreement with the company so that we can blend. Hopefully, if it works out well, we will look at what happens in the market and we can move up to 10% which is better economics. By 2015 we are targeting 15%. You are very correct in asking that question. We must make sure the logistics for blending are in place and there will be no fuel shortages because we cannot efficiently blend. We have tried to address that matter and I am sure we shall overcome.

  1. NYAMUDEZA: The villagers in Chisumbanje have lost income for almost four years. Are they going to be compensated for all those years?

PROF. MUTAMBARA: As we are busy debating and discussing

the shareholding structure that is one of the issues we are looking at. When you take land away from villagers, you are taking away their social capital. You are taking away their spiritual capital and you can hardly put a number to that. It is priceless. It means a generation has lost land and so have future generations thereafter. What we are trying to do in determining our assets as State, we are saying the land is ours. We must put a number to our land. We are saying the land was part of the social capital of our people. The land was part of the spiritual capital of our people, put a cash value to that. That is an aspect we will bring to the table.

We are also talking about our intellectual property. The designs about Chisumbanje were done by Government. There is a lot of planning done by Government. Why do we not put a cash value to that? We are also saying when we give you mandatory blending, that is a commercial instrument, which is worth money. Why do we not put a number to that as our contribution to assets? Anyway, we are going to try and put a cash value to that.

When we get that shareholding structure which reflects the social and spiritual capital in place, then we say how can we compensate the people who lost the land in terms of their social and spiritual capital. They have lost productivity and economic productivity for four years. In fact they have lost their land forever.  How can we help them in a manner that can try to compensate for that loss?  We will ensure they and their future generations are adequately compensated.  How can we make sure we make them out-growers and commercial farmers so that they can make money as business people? We have moved away from this one size fits all, where we say give them half a hectare. No, we are going to do what we call an asset or household audit. What did you have before you were displaced? How many husbands did you have? How many wives did you have? How many Houses did you have and how many beasts of cattle did you have? How much land did you have and how many houses did you have?   So that - depending on what you have lost we might give you three hectares. Depending on what you lost, we might give you half a hectare. We are moving away from the psychology of one size fits all which means when a person or a family is displaced, let us understand what they lost and then try to compensate them accordingly, taking cognizance of the output from the household audit.

So, it is a very hard one to put a number to, but yes we agree for four years they have lost productivity but more than that, they have lost a way of life. It is a traumatic experience when you lose the land where your ancestors are buried and where you have built your homes for the past 50 or 100 years, but we will find a way to drive the national interest while respecting our people.  We will find a way to make sure that our people are not shortchanged in the process of driving the national agenda and enabling private interests.  I want to thank the Hon. Member for that supplementary question.

  1. MUTSEYAMI: I thank you Madam Speaker and I am addressing this to the Deputy Prime Minister. What measures, the Right Hon. Deputy Prime Minister have you put in place to address the spirit which then you have noted amongst those who are purported to be doing investment in Chipinge? I mean those ones who have the Rhodesian type of attitude which has been noted by the communities in Chipinge.

How are you going to balance that spirit which has already been engrossed in the community that these investors have got the Rhodesian attitude? How will you manage to make sure that they will go to the spirit at par in terms of freedom of movement bearing in mind the damage they have done and bearing in mind that they are the same people who have that Rhodesian type of attitude to the communities. How will you manage to harmonize the relationships which I see now that they are not working well?

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Hon. Speaker it is a tall

order. It is a tough job but we will try our best to bring harmony in Chisumbanje. We will try to talk to the investors and work with them so that they respect our people.  We will try to foster reconciliation and healing in Chisumbanje.

What is important is to make sure our own institutions do not fuel the problem. The way the police behaved: the police behaved in a manner where they were collaborating with the Rhodesian attitude manifested by the investor.  The police were arresting our own people on behalf of the investor.  It is not the investor. The police were harassing our own people, not the investor. That is totally unacceptable in this independent nation. So, we will talk to them and build a new culture but more importantly, our own institution, our own police force must not operate in a criminal manner. They must respect our people. They must protect our people and not become agents of investors against the people.

Our politicians must also work together and minimize political conflict and areas of disagreement.  They must say what is it that we can work on together in Chisumbanje? What is it that we can do together inspite of our different political affiliations?  How can we drive the national interest together? That will be part of the peace building and the national healing in Chisumbanje. Also, there are politicians who gave confidence to that District Administrator (D.A.). That D.A. could not have operated without political warlords, political grandmasters and godfathers.

Those political grandfathers and warlords who have the nerve to empower a lowly D.A. to defy Cabinet must watch and change their behavior. That will be part of the healing in Chisumbanje but we shall overcome.  Defeat is not part of our agenda in Chisumbanje.

MR MATSHALAGA: Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to

thank the Right Hon. Deputy Prime Minister for such an elaborate answer but my question is: given all this, what will it mean in terms of efficiency on the distribution of the product and comparativeness in terms of regional pricing of fuel. Particularly given that if it is cheaper it might introduce a lot of distortions and if it is more expensive, we may be penalizing our people for something that they cannot afford. Hon.

Deputy Prime Minister I am sure my question is clear. Thank you Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Hon. Members this is the last supplementary question otherwise we are not going to finish the other questions.

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Madam Speaker, the

motivation behind blending is that it allows us to drive down the price of fuel. Ethanol is cheaper than the unleaded and unblended fuel that we are getting into the country. By blending with a cheaper product like ethanol, you are driving the price down. Of course if we do 5% it means the price differential is very low and when we go to 10%, the price differential becomes better and 15% becomes even more attractive.

So, we are going to realize even better economic efficiencies and better economics at 10% and 15%. There will be no distortions because there will be one main type of fuel in the country, the blend fuel at 5%. Everything will be 5% as the standard and nothing else. But if we want to buy an optional product, there will be 10% blend as an option and if you want more ethanol there will be 15% as an option. Also, there is 85%. The Jeep Cherokee SUVs take 85% and if you would go 85%, that is much cheaper but some cars cannot work with 85%.  Some cars cannot work with 15%.  10% is still being investigated, there were some complaints about 10% but we want to make sure that when we introduce 10% there is no vehicle in the country that will not take 10% blended petrol.

By the way, in the 1980s, we used to blend. So, some of the fear of using ethanol is fear of the unknown.  We have been using blending during the Rhodesian times and during the 1980s. There is nothing wrong technically with ethanol in our fuel. There will be no distortions of prices and our fuel economics will be better and our national bill will go down. Not only that, we can now build an industry around ethanol in Chisumbanje or in Mutare.   We can even set up a car industry centred on ethanol blends.

Also, as a by-product of the plant, you generate power, 20 megawatts which can power the entirety of Manicaland and that side. So, they are going to be producing power which will be fed into the national grid and of course the jobs for our people. In terms of the value proposition, there is a clear national strategic impact of this project and in terms of the efficiency of distribution I think it ties in the question of logistics. I think we have tried our best but once we start running we might have to tie some loose ends to make sure the blending is done efficiently and the distribution of fuel is efficiently done throughout the country.  The ethanol ecosystem has potential to radically transform our economy.

We are going to have better fuel economics and the fuel bill is going to go down.  The country will do better under this project. What we need to do is to make sure we do justice by the communities affected and by our people who are displaced. We must make sure that as a country we benefit. That is why we want a joint venture and not a BOT.

I want to thank the Honourable Members for these questions.

WAR VICTIMS PENSION FUND

  1. CHEBUNDO asked the Minister of Labour and Social

Welfare to explain to the House:

  • The measures in place to efficiently manage the War Victims

Pension Fund; and

  • Whether those implicated by the Judicial Commission of Inquiry to have exaggerated disabilities are not still drawing pension from the fund.
  1. To avail to the House the report of the Commission of

Inquiry into the War Victims Compensation Fund.

  THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE

(MS. MPARIWA):  Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for that question.  Perhaps with your permission, can I also tackle question number 6 since they are related.  Can I put it on record that at the inception of the Government of National Unity (GNU), some four years ago, some issues have not yet been resolved.  Acts assigned to me as the Minister of Labour and Social Services as enshrined in Statutory Instrument 67 of 2010, these are wrongly cited as they still include Acts which are also under the purview of the Ministry of Public Service.  The Law Development Commission has been alerted of this anomaly and this oversight was caused by the fact that, the two ministries, the Ministry of Public Service and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare prior to the GNU, were one ministry.

Responding to the question would be tantamount to encroaching into the Ministry of Public Service’s territory which is not my intention.  For the sake of progress, I would recommend that this omission be put on record in this House.  I humbly ask Hon. Chebundo to direct  question five and six to the Minister of Public Service since the War

Victims Compensation Fund is administered under the Ministry of Public Service.

WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION WITH NOTICE

GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION

OF SCHOOLS

  1. MR. NYAUDE asked the Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture to explain the Government Policy regarding the construction of schools at Government or council premises by political parties in view of the threats by ZANU (PF) to exclude pupils who are from non ZANU (PF) families from enrolling in schools like Chireka Secondary School and Chigiji Secondary School in Bindura South Constituency.

        THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, SPORT, ARTS

AND CULTURE (MR. DOKORA):  All schools on Government or council premises are built on State land and become Government or non

Government schools depending on the responsible authority.  The responsible authority can be Government, Rural District or Urban Council, mining or other company, Trust or Church.  There is no political party per se that is mandated to build a school or for that matter to be the responsible authority over a school.

If a well wisher, political party or company wishes to donate building materials for the construction of a school, the Provincial

Education Director in the province applies through the ministry to Treasury for permission to receive the donation before it is handed over to the school.  This does not authorise the political party to become the responsible authority for that school, no matter how big the donation is.

In addition, there is no political party that is allowed to interact with learners.  Therefore, the question of pupils from any political party being denied access to some schools falls away and enrolling into a school is not based on political affiliation.  This is against the Constitution of Zimbabwe.  Every child has a right to education and to enroll at any school.

MOTION

FIRST REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION, SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE ON THE

ADMINISTRATION OF SOCCER IN ZIMBABWE

  1. MANGAMI:  I move the motion standing in my name:

That this House takes note of the First Report of the Portfolio Committee on Education, Sport, Arts and Culture on the administration of soccer in Zimbabwe and issues surrounding the Asiagate Scandal.

  1. M. KUMALO:  I second.
  2. MANGAMI:  In terms of Standing Order No. 159, at the commencement of every session, there shall be as many committees to be designated according to Government portfolios as the Standing Rules and Orders Committee may deem fit.  It shall be the function of such committees to examine expenditure administration and policy of government departments and other matters falling under their jurisdictions as Parliament may, by resolution determine.

The members of such committees shall be appointed by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, from one or both Houses of Parliament, and such appointments shall take into account he expressed interests or expertise of the Members and Senators and the political and gender composition of Parliament.

 

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEES 

STANDING ORDER NO. 160

      Subject to these Standing Orders, a portfolio committee shall-

  • consider and deal with all Bills and Statutory Instruments or other matters which are referred to it by or under a resolution of the House or by the Speaker;
  • consider or deal with an appropriation or money bill or any aspect of an appropriation or money bill referred to it by these Standing

Orders or by or under resolution of this House;

  • monitor, investigate,        enquire      into   and     make

recommendations relating to any aspect of the legislative programme, budget, policy or any other matter it may consider relevant to the government department falling within the category of affairs assigned to it, and may for that purpose consult and liaise with such a department; and consider or deal with all international treaties, conventions and agreements relevant to it, which are from time to time negotiated, entered into or agreed upon.  On Tuesday, 30th October 2013, the Speaker announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders nominated the following members to serve on the Portfolio Committee on Education, Sport, Arts and

Culture;

Hon. Bhasikiti-Chuma K.

Hon. Chihota P.  Hon. Chimhini D.A  Hon. Chitando J.

Hon. Dumbu F.

Hon. Haritatos P

Hon. Khumalo S.S

Hon. Kumalo Marvellous  Hon. Madubeko J.  Hon. Mangami D.

Hon. Mhashu F.G

Hon. Muchinguri O.

Hon. Mudzuri H.

Hon. Mupukuta L.

Hon. Ncube S.

Hon. Nezi W.

Hon. Saruwaka T.J.L

Hon. Sibanda F.M

Hon. Mangami D. to be Chairperson

  1.0 INTRODUCTION

Empowered in terms of the Standing Order No. 160C, the Portfolio Committee on Education, Sport, Arts and Culture resolved to make enquiries into the operations of Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) with the objective to get an insight into its programmes and activities. It was during the familiarisation meeting with ZIFA that the issue of the unsanctioned Asian matches was brought to the attention of the Committee by the Retired Brigadier Kasu (Finance Director) and Mr.

Jonathan Mashingaidze (Chief Executive Officer). It was explained that Asiagate scandal referees to the players, coaches and  journalists who were paid huge bribes to cover up for the fact that the country’s national team, and at times a bogus one, was deliberately losing matches hosted in Asia. Consequently, the Committee was promted to make further enquiries on the administration of soccer in Zimbabwe and issues surrounding the Asiagate Scandal.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the enquiry were:

  • To understand and establish the issues surrounding the Asiagate

scandal.

  • To understand the administration of soccer in Zimbabwe.
  • To appreciate challenges being faced in soccer development and administration.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

The Committee received a 162 page report on the investigations of Asiagate Scandal from the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA)'s Investigating Committee.

The Committee also received oral submissions from the following stakeholders:

  • Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture in conjunction with the Sport and Recreation

Commission and ZIFA Board.

  • ZIFA Referees Committee (iii) Zimbabwe Soccer Coaches Association (ZSCA)
  • Premier Soccer League (PSL)
  • Footballers Union of Zimbabwe (FUZ)
  • Zimbabwe Sports Writers Association (ZSWA)
  • Zimbabwe National Soccer Supporters Association (ZNSSA)

4.0 COMMITTEE FINDINGS

  1. a) ADMINISTRATION OF SOCCER IN ZIMBABWE

 4.1Oral Submission from Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts and

Culture (MoESAC)

The Role of  the MoESAC

4.1.1 The MoESAC plays an important facilitatory role in the promotion and development of sport. Through its Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (SAC), the Ministry uses the following major sport implementing agents: Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC), National Sport

Associations (NAS) and schools though National Association of Primary Heads (NAPH) and National Association of Secondary Heads (NASH).

4.1.2 The MoESAC provides the overall policy direction and regulatory framework and strategic direction to guide all sport delivery agents. Thus the Ministry administers the Sport and Recreation Commission Act (chapter 25:15) through which the SRC was established.

 

4.1.3 In 2006, the Ministry launched the Physical Education, Sport and Recreation Policy which gives clear guidelines as of the parameters within which sport should operate.

4.1.4 The department of SAC has on its budget a vote for the promotion and development of sport in the country and has been able to give financial support to cover the needs of teams on National Duty in and outside the country. To this end an allocation of $900 000 was available for the programme support on Sport Promotions.

4.1.5 Government has shown further support for the development and promotion of sport through the provision of some tax rebates on the importation of sporting equipment.

The department of SAC has sought to provide the necessary support for the National Soccer Teams on competitive engagements as agreed upon by Treasury.

4.1.6 Football in Zimbabwe is run by the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA).

 

4.1.7 ZIFA Assembly is like the Parliament of football in Zimbabwe and is made up of affiliate organs such as the Premier Soccer League (PSL),

First Division leagues, Provincial Leagues, District Leagues, Area Zone Leagues, NAPH, NASH and Tertiary Institutions among others.

The ZIFA Board is the Executive Committee elected by the Assembly and charged with the implementation of the Association's policy. The ZIFA Standing Committees are technical arms of the association which formulate the policy framework of the association and are chaired by a Board member or selected Specialists.

4.1.8 The ZIFA Secretariat is the operational arm of the association, headed by the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) and is mandated to implement the resolutions of the Board as well as overseeing the day to day operations of the Association.

4.1.9 ZIFA operates within the regulatory regime made up of the following statutes: The SRC Act and SRC Statutory Regulations, FIFA statutes, CAF statutes, ZIFA 2009 Constitution as amended in 2009, ZIFA rules and regulations and ZIFA code of conduct.

ZIFA is arguably the biggest sport association in Zimbabwe and is registered as a sport body in terms of the Sport and Recreation Act, and the relevant laws of the land.

4.1.10 Soccer has transformed from a popular sport into a global vehicle for sustainable social and economic transformation of mankind’s habitats.

Football is a sport whose stakeholders are multiple and diverse in character.

4.1.11 The Assembly is the supreme policy making body of ZIFA while the Board is the executive arm of the Association. The Secretariat and the Standing Committees make up the management and technical arms of ZIFA respectively.

4.1.12 The Association has many affiliates which include the Premier

Soccer League, First Division Leagues, Provincial Leagues, Women Football, Youth Football, Referees and Coaches among others.

4.1.13 ZIFA works closely with FIFA, CAF, COSAFA, the Government, Local Authorities, nongovernmental organizations and many other interested stakeholders. These partners provide technical and financial support which is crucial for the development of soccer at all levels. While it has overall responsibility over its affiliates, ZIFA is mainly concerned with soccer development in Zimbabwe and national assignments which normally involve both regional and international engagements.

4.1.14 ZIFA's revenue comprises the following among many: Government sponsorship to National Teams' engagement in competitive games, Levies from affiliates, gate receipts, television revenue, advertising, merchandise and sponsorship.

4.1.15 The administration of soccer is facing a number of challenges which are  as follows:

  • Bloated administrative structure—the four tier organisational structure of ZIFA is unwieldy making it tardy and inefficient.

 

  • ZIFA's Constitution—the paramount statute of ZIFA needs urgent amendment as its current form is impeding progress and functionality of the organisation.
  • ZIFA image—there is no one especially in the Corporate World who is readily willing to associate themselves with ZIFA. There has been preference to deal with, and support the affiliates. The management of some matches has had to be undertaken by

foreign officials.

  • Governance issues—the underlying challenge for ZIFA is its lack or failure to adhere to a strict corporate and organisational structure.

4.2 Oral Submission from Zimbabwe Soccer Coaches Association (ZSCA)

The Committee was informed that:

4.2.1 Zimbabwe football administration leaves a lot to be desired as it is not run properly. For example, whenever a new board comes into office, the first thing they do is to change the constitution so that it suits them. From 2004, the constitution has been amended four times due to

personality interests.

4.2.2 A proposal by ZSCA to ZIFA on the appointment of coaches had not received any response from ZIFA.

There is no consultation by ZIFA in the activities related to soccer administration in Zimbabwe.

4.2.3 On Asiagate scandal, ZSCA felt that the best idea could have been to have a Commission of Inquiry appointed by government rather than forming some committees.

4.2.4 The issue of the approach to Asiagate scandal was raised by ZSCA during the first AGM, but ZIFA board explained that the process is too long and it might be expensive.

4.2.5 The Zimbabwean approach to the Asiagate scandal has affected the football in Zimbabwe as the national team has failed to qualify for 2012 and is likely to fail to qualify for 2013 again.

 

4.2.6 The Asiagate scandal has really affected ZSCA as some of the coaches involved are the top coaches in the country. A case in point is a coach who took Zimbabwe for the first time to the African Nations Cup. 4.2.7 ZSCA was never approached on the appointment of coaches; instead, the ZIFA board member (competitions) is in charge of appointing coaches. Originally, the board member was supposed to be in charge of competitions, doing competition regulations which will cascade to all facets of football so that the competitions can be run smoothly.

4.2.7 ZSCA has not been able to compute all the coaches into relevant data base due to lack of funding particularly at provincial level.

4.3 Oral Submission  from the Premier Soccer League (PSL)

The Committee was informed that:

4.3.1 In terms of ZIFA constitution “PSL shall operate semi autonomously in the day to day running of the main league composed of the best clubs in the country under the rules and regulations of the association and shall be subservient and subject to the national association.  There shall only be one PSL under the jurisdiction of the association and teams relegated from it will be eligible to play in the division 1 leagues of their area or group while the best teams from division 1 in each group at the end of each season will be eligible to play in the PSL.”

4.3.2 The semi autonomous arrangement gives the PSL the room to craft its rules and regulations.  The PSL is run by a board of governors who are the club owners or the chairpersons of the 16 teams.   The board elect a management committee of 6 who supervise the secretariat.  PSL runs its competitions from February/March to November/December of each year.

4.3.3 ZIFA constitution is being amended from time to time whenever each board gets into office.

4.3.4 From 2004 up to the current board, there has not been really a board that is authoritative.  Everyone is a master, people do not take a no for an answer even when one is in the administration of football

4.3.5 The SRC still operates like a recreational commission as opposed to considering sport as a business entity.

 

4.3.6 FIFA does not view governments as opposing bodies, but as sponsors for the national teams to travel for international matches. This involves a lot of money from the government thus, it will be unfair to be denied the authority to control how sponsorship money is used.

4.4 Oral Submission from the Footballers Union of Zimbabwe (FUZ)

4.4.1 Poor football administration in Zimbabwe.

4.4.2 The current state of affairs at ZIFA was a result of voting into office officials on patronage not merit.

4.4.3 Councillors who voted into office the ZIFA Board are financed by the leadership.

4.4 4 The ZIFA leadership is generally not concerned by the state of football affair, but are there to ride on the popularity of the sport.

4.4.5 There is need to get rid of all councillors who are in football for financial gains.

 

4.4.6 There is also need to assess the credentials of anyone who would want to have leadership role in football from district level up to the board.

4.4.7 A mixture of the reputable former footballers, referees and coaches, being the majority plus the educated and rich people should be entrusted with the administration of football in Zimbabwe.

4.5 Oral Submission from Zimbabwe Sports Writers Association

(ZSWA)

4.5.1 ZSWA admited the demise of the way sport is reported in the media.

4.5.2 ZSWA alleged that real football in Zimbabwe ended during the reign of Reinard Farbish.

4.5.3 ZSWA has no mandate to govern/reprimand media houses. It is only a platform where interested media houses/journalists share ideas or information on the latest trends that are going on.

4.5.4 It is the prerogative of the Editor of a media house to appoint a journalist for a particular match.

4.5.5 ZSWA was not silent on the Asiagate scandal for it was the journalists who broke the news to the nation.

 

4.5.6 If the investigations reveal that journalists belonging to ZSWA were also involved in the Asiagate scandal, they will be sanctioned accordingly as they have a mandate to report factually.

4.5.7 ZSWA has not taken the opportunity to discuss Asiagate scandal.

4.5.8 ZSWA is a board that selects the soccer stars in the country and if a soccer star is charged by ZIFA, he will no longer be eligible for the selection.

4.5.9 Out of the 85 players who participated in the Asiagate match-fixing,

33 players have been exonerated.

4.6 ASIAGATE SCANDAL

MoESAC

4.6.1The Asiagate scandal was highlighted as the biggest scandal to have hit local football and has brought to the fore a great deal of challenges for local football.

4.6.2 The scandal took place between 2007 and 2010 when the National

Team played most of the matches against light weighed national teams from Asia. The Asian betting syndicates influenced the outcome of the matches by offering huge sums of money for Zimbabwe National Team to lose games.

4.6.3 A record of 88 players took part in the 'fixed' games in the Far East and East Africa.

4.6.4 The Asian betting syndicate was working in cahoots with locals namely the former CEO Ms. Henrietta Rushwaya, Kudzi Shaba, Jonathan Musavengana and Mr. Tafirenyika Chitsungo.

4.6.5 The impact of the scandal is set to be felt for the next five years through poor performance, indiscipline, lack of patriotism and mercenary conduct.

4.6.6 ZIFA set up an Investigating Committee headed by Mr. Ndumiso Gumede (ZIFA Vice President) and the Committee produced a 162 page report on the scandal. The report was sent to SRC, COSAFA, CAF and FIFA.

4.6.7 To date, ZIFA has suspended all individuals from all national teams fingered in the report. ZIFA referred some of the cases to the Zimbabwe Republic Police and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

4.7 ZIFA Referees Committee

4.7.1 The investigations on Asiagate scandal were triggered by the SRC that wanted some answers to the four questions which were as follows: (i) Did these trips take place? (ii) Who authorised them? (iii) If there were any monies paid, how much was accrued to ZIFA? and (iv) Who was organising them?

4.7.2 ZIFA responded to the above questions, but the SRC was not satisfied with the answers hence, they requested further information on the matter.

4.7.3 ZIFA had to make a full report. It was in the process of the compilation of the report that ZIFA discovered that the practice of what has become known as the Asiagate scandal started way back in 2007 and had regrettably also involved some of ZIFA’s referees who had been assigned clandestinely to go and do games in the Far East.

4.7.4 The committee that had been set up to investigate handed its report and the ZIFA board deliberated on that report and resolved to set up yet another committee that would then mete out whatever punishments were deemed necessary.  That committee is being headed by the former Justice Ibrahim.  This Committee is almost finalising its deliberations as it has interviewed close to 90% of people.

4.7.6 On the other hand, FIFA is also worried about the same thing, so much that they sent a Mr Kresito, also to find out what really happened.

4.7.7 The local match fixing scandal which was unearthed in 2011, just at the end of the season, also sucked in referees, club officials, players and some board members. As of now, some board members have been asked to step aside to allow full investigations to be conducted.

4.7.8 The Asiagate scandal and the local match-fixing have damaged the image of the soccer in Zimbabwe as no one would want to put his last cent on an institution that gets money to lose games that gets money to sell the soul and national pride of a nation.

4.7.9 There are some people who have benefited from both Asian and local match-fixing and would not want justice to prevail hence, there have been a lot of harassment and intimidation on those who try to bring order in the soccer sport. A case in point is that of the Vice President of ZIFA, Mr. Gumede, who had to put on a dress to run away from the police. The challenge is that some of them are untouchable.

4.7.10 The ZIFA Referees committee implored the Portfolio Committee on Education, Sport, Arts and Culture for support and protection in the handling of the Asiagate investigations.

4.7.11 ZIFA is not happy with the work that has been done by the police force. A case in point is when Monomotapa returned from an unsanctioned trip from Malaysia, they had problems with players almost assaulting officials and that was reported to the police, but four years have elapsed and nothing has happened.  ZIFA brought this matter to Commissioner Chihuri and mentioned that there is something wrong with the force. In response, Commissioner Chihuri told ZIFA that no matter would be swept under the carpet and that it would be resolved, but nothing has happened ever since.

4.8 PSL

4.8.1 PSL realised something was scandalous in Zimbabwean football when players came back from one of the trips and seemed to have flashy lifestyle. There were questions raised as to how they got to the money. From that period, there is no one who was in football who did not know what was happening.

4.8.2 When Mr. Ndebele realised these scandalous activities in the Zimbabwean football, he resigned from PSL. PSL as institution did not take any action. When Mr. Ndebele resigned he did not speak about these scandalous activities because he was afraid of the backlash.

4.8.3 Players were phoned directly from the ZIFA office. Players would phone whilst at the airport to say they were leaving for an international match.

4.8.4 PSL was directly affected being the affiliate of ZIFA and from the list of players that are on suspension, PSL contributes the bulk of them.

4.8.5 In terms of the ZIFA requirements, if there is national duty, ZIFA is supposed to communicate with the secretariat to call up players and the players are then communicated through the league with their respective

clubs.

4.8.5 FIFA has got a calendar of events that are lined up for international matches.  When there is a match, the national association is supposed to write to the league and notify of the call up. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the Asiagate scandal. Matches were coming outside of the calendar and players were called directly, not even through their clubs.

Mr Ndebele went on to state that PSL believes some of them were called directly from the national association.

4.8.6 Consequently, the clubs met to deliberate over this because in terms of the rules and regulations; a club can seek a postponement of their league or competitive match if they have three or more players called for national duty.

4.8.7 When the matches were being arranged haphazardly, it obviously affected the league but the 16 clubs’ board of governors, the management committee which Mr. Ndebele was the Secretary General at that time, made a resolution that matches will only be postponed if that match was on the FIFA calendar.

4.8.8 The strategy then from those who were organising the tournaments, pleaded with the clubs to give them fringe players.  Fringe players are those players that are not regular starters.  This is why the list has some players whose names are not popular.

4.8.9 The highlight of the Asiagate scandal in terms of the league was when Monomotapa communicated with the league when Mr. Ndebele was the Secretary General to indicate that they had been invited to go and play in Asia.  The league could not accede to their request to postpone a league match, they were supposed to play a league match in Mutare and PSL said the match should proceed.  The referees went to the stadium; the Mutare team was at the stadium.  The match went ahead and it was a walk over, the match was awarded to the home team because the other team did not turn up. There was no further punishment for Monomotapa.  What was peculiar there was the issue of head of delegations, they were just travelling. In terms of the standing council resolution, there was supposed to be a roaster of councillors who will be travelling to accompany national teams.  Now there were people who were regular travellers there.

4.8.10 The Asiagate scandal affected the quality of football and affected sponsorship and it is still affecting sponsorship even now. It is also affecting revenue streams because PSL had a lot of its talented players being spotted by scouts playing outside the country.

4.8.11 Match fixing affects spectator confidence, so it will affect revenue as well because if spectators read in the media that matches are fixed, there is then no point for a spectator to go and watch.

 

4.8.12 PSL realised that ZIFA had challenges in terms of authority.  The ZIFA Council top policy making body is supposed to be the one that comes up with rules and regulations and policy issues.  The head of delegations should have been councillors, it would have made sense or the council should have stuck to its roster set up where every national team trip, there is a different councillor until all the councillors have travelled then councillors would have picked anomalies along the way.

4.9 FUZ

4.9.1 FUZ is affiliated to the Ministry of Labour and Social Services and represents the welfare of the footballers in Zimbabwe.

4.9.2 FUZ knew about the Asiagate scandal a month before it was

disclosed.

4.9.3 The Asiagate scandal was created by ZIFA officials.

4.9.4 FUZ's analysis is that players had no option to refuse throwing games because officials involved in it were senior employees of ZIFA who could sanction the players for refusal to take instructions.

 

4.9.5 Not every player who participated in these games was involved, it was key figures who were working with the match-fixing syndicate who knew what was happening while other players were just making up numbers.

4.9.6 Communication regarding the match-fixing went straight to the Chief Executive Officer of ZIFA and players were informed of the games telephonically hence, the scandal went on for a long time undetected.

4.9.7 Payments of these games were made by senior ZIFA employees.

4.9.8 FUZ does not condone the match-fixing but the environment which makes players to be involved in match-fixing.

4.9.9 There are numerous factors that make match-fixing very possible and these include poor remuneration of the players by their employers and the low match fees paid to referees among others. The Asiagate scandal organisers targeted those players who were not financially sound.

 

4.9.10 FUZ tried to engage ZIFA and PSL since May 2011 regarding players' minimum wage as this will stop them from abusing players through non-payment of wages, but ZIFA and PSL have not been

forthcoming to deal with the matter. Hence, players receive their wages at the mercy of club officials and this arrangement leaves players open to abuse through match-fixing.

4.9.11 FUZ has referred the issue of players' remuneration and minimum working conditions for compulsory arbitration as dialogue with employers’ representatives has proven unattainable. It is important that football be administered as a business.

4.9.12 FUZ came up with a project proposal geared towards seeking funds for players' rehabilitation. ZIFA does not take FUZ's input into consideration.

4.10 ZNSSA

4.10.1Supporters are the most affected when match-fixing occurs, because they are the ones who pay their hard-earned money to get into stadiums hoping to watch a fair game and end up being duped by predetermined matches.

4.10.2 While fans have backed ZIFA fully in their Asiagate investigations, they are worried that the process appears to have been hijacked by some ZIFA board members to settle personal scores.

4.10.3 Some players were wrongly implicated in the Asiagate scandal while others were wrongly left out. For example, the ZNSSA, Steve Nyoka was implicated in that report prepared by ZIFA as having travelled to Vietnam for one of the games under investigations, yet he did not even leave the country that whole year.

4.10.4 ZNSSA alleged that it can prove that Nyoka never travelled to any of these games and has already launched litigation against both ZIFA and all those who dragged his name into disrepute. Such inaccuracies make the report questionable.

4.10.5 The way ZIFA has handled the investigations leaves supporters to get worried that maybe ZIFA has targeted certain people and a predetermined conclusion and verdict.

 

4.10.6 ZIFA should learn and follow the manner in which South Africa, Botswana, Italy, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore who have dealt with match-fixing issues without suspending players or administrators.

4.10.7 ZNSSA is also concerned with some cases of members of ZIFA threatening and harassing some targeted journalists, especially those who had dared report fearlessly on investigation. ZIFA board has written to media houses of journalists asking them to either ban them from covering Asiagate or banish them. A case in point is that of one of the most experienced sports broadcasters at ZBC, Josh Muntali who has been banned from covering any soccer beats on allegations that he covered one of the matches under investigation.

4.10.8 ZIFA has become too independent to the extent that they are not following FIFA regulations

 

4.11 LOCAL MATCH-FIXING

MoESAC

ZIFA unearthed a local match scandal involving clubs, officials and players. The scandal prompted ZIFA Board to suspend two Board Members namely Mr. Gift Banda and Mr. Patrick Hokonya. Eight

referees and match officials were also suspended after allegedly accepting bribes from club officials. To this end, ZIFA has instituted an Investigating Committee whose brief is to probe all leagues ranging from Division to the Premier Leagues.

4.12 MoESAC's Recommendations

MoESAC

4.12.1The MoESAC brought to the attention of ZIFA the urgent need to

  • review its structure with a view of making it lean and more efficient.
  • complete the Asiagate scandal and match-fixing investigations
  • develop a strategic plan for the smooth run of soccer in Zimbabwe (iv) It was pointed out that the SRC has been exhorted to ensure ZIFA's compliance to a reviewed constitution.

 

The MoESAC also recommended the following;

4.12.2 An increase of the grant to SRC and Sport Promotions budget line that will ensure that the nation supports the promotion and development of soccer and sport in general from the fiscus.

4.12.3 There be a more positive move toward the provision of tax incentives for the corporate sector that is involved in the sponsorship and support of soccer and sport in general. This will be a much appreciated move by the government to promote the development of sport.

4.12.4 There is need for ZIFA to rationalise its participation in competitive games whilst it invests more in rebuilding itself as a soccer powerhouse.

4.12.5 There is need for the engagement of the various service providers to charge a reasonable fee for the staging of soccer games in the country.

 

 

4.13 PSL

4.13.1 The SRC is expected to tighten things as well in terms of the association's constitution.  All constitutions in terms of the SRC Act, are supposed to be registered with the SRC.  So if then there is an association that keeps on amending the constitution, there must be reasons why they are amending.  It then becomes important to supervise and also check.

4.13.2 There has to be a policy as to what constitute a club because in this country it is easier to establish a football club business than to open a hair saloon.

4.13.3 Duty on equipment is still affecting clubs, there is no company that is manufacturing football boots in this country but then players have to pay duty when they get the football boots into the country.  I know there has been an attempt, recognition but the football

4.14 FUZ

4.14.1 ZIFA is supposed to inspect the clubs in accordance with the FIFA statutes.

 

4.14.2 There is need to rehabilitate the affected players before going back into playing football. If rehabilitation fails to take place players will remain haunted by the experience and some may fall back into match-

fixing.

4.15 ZNSSA

There is need to embark on investigations that will help clean the

Zimbabwe football and improve its administration.

5.0 COMMITTEE'S OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION

In light of the above findings, the Committee observed that:

5.1 ZIFA constitution has problems with possibilities of manipulation as each new board comes in.

5.2 Section 28 of Sport and Recreation Commission Regulations, National Sport Associations are required to seek clearance of the Sport and Recreation Commission to undertake tours outside the country but

SRC failed to ensure that teams that were going for Asian matches were cleared.

 

5.3 There is inadequate government funding for football in Zimbabwe.

5.4 ZSCA's Chairperson seemed to be protecting the coaches that were involved in the Asiagate scandal.

5.5 ZSCA did not state clearly how the institution was going to develop coaches in Zimbabwe.

5.6 Most stakeholders are concerned with the poor administration of soccer in Zimbabwe.

5.7 The environment for match-fixing was very conducive economically and administratively.

5.8 The football stakeholders in Zimbabwe were very much concerned with the calling of players for Asiagate matches by the then Chief Executive Officer Henrietta Rushwaya instead of the Technical Team.

5.9 Soccer match fixing disadvantages the whole nation and puts the game into disrepute.

5.10 All alleged people were suspended but not all of them were involved.

5.11 There were serious intimidations surrounding the Asiagate scandal investigations.

 

5.12 Power struggle from the stakeholders is detrimental to smooth running of soccer in Zimbabwe.

5.14 Delayed exposure of match-fixing led junior leagues to be scandalous.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

6.1 There is need to revisit the ZIFA constitution in line with FIFA standards.

6.2 The SRC Act should be amended so that it includes a law that criminalises any athlete, athlete group/team who go and represent the country at regional or international level without clearance from the relevant board.

6.3 There is need for government and the corporate world to provide inclusive financial support for football in Zimbabwe.

6.4 Match-fixing must be immediately exposed whenever it occurs.

6.5 There is need to protect the whistle blowers in order to deal with threats, harassment and intimidation whenever they want to expose any anomaly in the administration of soccer.

6.6 The Board should take charge to ensure that the administration of soccer is above board and then ensures the separation of power between the board and the administration.

6.7 Everyone who was involved in the Asiagate scandal should be investigated and due process taken.

6.8 ZIFA should adhere to the provisions of its constitution.

6.9 Government should come up with a clear programme to train

coaches so that it is standardised.

6.10 There is need to engage, involve, allow participation and share information with stakeholders for the development and promotion of soccer in Zimbabwe.

I thank you Madam Speaker.

  1. M. KUMALO:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  I also

come from the responsible Committee on Education, Sport, Arts and Culture and in my seconding the Chairperson of the Committee; I looked at the motion in two ways.

I looked first at the challenges and then the recommendations so as to find a way forward in terms of the challenges identified.  The first major challenge that we identified is that of lack of funding or financial constraints.  In terms of the recommendations, there is need for adequate and increased Government support to sport in general and football in particular as this is the world’s most beautiful game.  So, we need to support it and as a country we need to make sure that it is well resourced.

The second challenge is that of lack of proper governance systems and a blotted administrative structure within the Zimbabwe International Football Association (ZIFA).  They have a four-tier structure, that is, the assembly at the top, the ZIFA Board, the Secretariat and the standing Committees.

In terms of the recommendation, the four-tier ZIFA structure should be addressed for the proper administration and easy functionality of the Association.  It makes it very difficult for decisions to be made and be passed from one tier to the other and that, though democratic, is very much time consuming and causes a lot of challenges to the administration of football in the country.

In terms of funding as well, there should be increased tax incentives and rebates for corporates and individuals that are involved in supporting sport; that is both financially and materially.  Those corporate and individuals that are involved in the sponsoring of sport should have benefits in terms of tax incentives and rebates.  There is also need for a stand-alone Ministry of Sport, Arts and Culture, separating this

Department mostly those from – [AN MEMBERS: Speaking on the phone]- Madam Speaker, there is a member who is on the phone and is disrupting my debate.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Order, order. hon. member, which

member is that?

  1. KUMALO:  Hon. Mutomba.

(Hon. Mutomba stands up)

  1. MUTOMBA:  I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
  2. KUMALO:  The last one Madam Speaker is that, those

officials and players who would have been selected to participate in our national teams should undergo some form of training on citizenship education and patriotism.  So, that they put their country first before financial or material gains so that as a nation we prosper and we put Zimbabwe on the international sporting calendar again.

I thank you Madam Speaker.

  1. D. SIBANDA: I move that the debate do now adjourn.
  2. HOVE:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 26th February, 2013.

On the motion of MS. D. SIBANDA seconded by MR. HOVE, the

House adjourned at Twelve Minutes to Five o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 26th February, 2013.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment