Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 47
  • File Size 379 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date July 25, 2017
  • Last Updated November 16, 2021



Tuesday, 25th July, 2017

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


(THE HON. SPEAKER in the Chair)



THE HON. SPEAKER: On the 17th of July, 2017, Parliament received communication from the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission on the election of the following member of ZANU PF party as member of the National Assembly with effect from the 16th July, 2017; Hon. Brown

Ndlovu representing Chiwundura Constituency;

Section 128 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that before a Member of Parliament takes his or her seat in Parliament, the member must take the oath of a Member of Parliament in the form set out in the third schedule.  Section 128 (2) states that the oath must be taken before the Clerk of Parliament.

I, therefore, call upon the Clerk of Parliament to administer the oath of a Member of Parliament.


HON. BROWN NDLOVU subscribed to the Oath of Loyalty as required by the Law and took his seat – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] –


THE HON. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that the Zimbabwe Parliamentarians on HIV and AIDS (ZIPAH) Executive invites all ZIPAH Members to a brief meeting on Wednesday, 26th July,

2017 at 1200 hours in the Government Caucus Room.

INVITATION TO A CATHOLIC CHURCH SERVICE     THE HON. SPEAKER: I also wish to inform the House that there will be a Catholic Service tomorrow, Wednesday, 26th of July, 2017 at 1200 hours in the Senate Chamber. All Members who are Catholic and non Catholics are invited.




First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the 2016 Annual

Budget Review and the 2017 Economic Outlook Statement.

Question again proposed.

HON. CROSS: The half yearly review of the performance of the

Budget by the Minister last week was a very important occasion for the House. It gave us an opportunity to review what Government has been doing with our resources in the past six months. For me, the most important feature of the Budget was the very substantial budget deficit in 2016. At the beginning of 2016, we started out with an approved Budget which provided for a deficit in the Budget of $140m. The final outturn was $1.4bn. Mr. Speaker Sir,  that is equivalent to 30 per cent of the Budget. I believe that the IMF guidelines provide for a maximum of 5 per cent. It points out to the fact that we are so far outside…

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, I hesitate to send any Hon. Member outside. I repeat at the back there, can you hold your own and listen please.

HON. CROSS: We are so far outside the parameters indicated to us by the IMF during the reengagement process that I cannot help but come to the conclusion that this process is virtually dead.

Of great concern is that we started 2017 with a projected budget deficit of $400m and in fact, we now believe that it will exceed US$1, 6

billion.  This relates to a whole lot of unbudgeted expenditure, over expenditure in certain particular special areas.  Mr. Speaker we cannot go on spending money recklessly like this. In fact, this brings back memories of the situation in 2007/2008 when the Reserve Bank, using its unauthorized rights as a quasi fiscal agency of Government, was printing money in order to finance a massive Government deficit and to try and keep the economy going.  The consequences of that were the total destruction of our Zimbabwe dollar, of all savings in the country for more than a hundred years and the closure of the majority of our industries.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, we are going back to 2008.  The consequences are that, if we are not careful, we will face a similar collapse in the country if we do not heed warnings.  The question which we are faced with as a House is what do we do, because the budget does not need tampering with, it needs major surgery?  We have to, we do not have any choice, and we have to reduce expenditure on salaries to lesser than  60% of our revenue.

Mr. Speaker, that could be achieved quite easily by simply cancelling allowances to civil servants.  In fact, if we cancel the allowances to civil servants we could increase salaries.  The reality is that allowances are not taxed, and salaries are.  This could increase the tax revenue to the State and it would bring our expenditure on personnel down below the threshold of 60%.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, we have to re-examine our priorities in terms of expenditure overall.  We have to recognise that we have to cut our suit to match our cloths.  This means that we have to recognise that our revenues have been running at about US$3, 5 billion and we have been spending US$4, 8 billion.  Expenditure this year could exceed US$5 billion and there is absolutely no growth in revenues.  So, in the Budget and Finance Committee of the House, we have been looking at the possibility of consolidating revenue into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as required by the Constitution.  We have said on numerous occasions, that if we did that, it would increase revenues under the CRF to something like US$5 billion a year, because we are currently allocating through these funds which are not consolidated into the CRF, about US$850 million a year.

In addition, for some four years now, we have pointed out that if you look at the customs revenue from our border posts, we are collecting less than 5% of our import and export trade in the form of customs duties.  Mr. Speaker that is a ridiculous figure, and it points to massive leakages at the border posts on a scale which simply staggers the imagination.  Last year, we imported US$1, 4 billion worth of motor vehicles.  If you take the customs duty on that alone, it exceeds $600 million, more than double the total customs revenue on all trade.  This suggests to me Mr. Speaker that we should be able to push our border revenue from US$384 million a year, to something approaching a billion, without affecting any other sectors of the Zimbabwean economy.

Such an exercise would boost our domestic manufacturing industry very substantially.  It would boost our agricultural industry because importers would be required to pay the full import duties on such imports.  By not paying attention to these elements, we have a catastrophe on our hands in terms of the fiscal situation.  The Minister did his best to put a brave face on this, but there is no doubt in my mind that what we have got now is simply not sustainable, even in a short term, and we have to do something urgently about this.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker Sir, the Finance Committee has asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to review the Minister’s statement and prepare a paper for us for consideration when we return to the House in

September, which will give us some idea of the magnitude of this year’s public deficit and how it can be addressed.  I think when this paper comes to the House, we will have to consider it carefully and then make positive recommendations to the Minister and then ask the Minister to review what he is proposing for 2018.  I know the process has started, but I believe we have to take urgent action to correct matters in our fiscal affairs.

Another concern of mine with regards to the Minister’s statement is that he did not reveal to the House the full extent of our domestic borrowings.  He made no reference to the overdraft at the Reserve Bank, or the debts which we are incurring in various parts of Government which are not reflected in his calculations of Treasury Bill liabilities.  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our domestic debt now approaches the extent of our external debt.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Chipanga, order!

HON. MUNENGAMI: On a point of order! We do not even know what is happening because the Hon. Member is debating but everybody is just walking up and down…

THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Chief Whip, can you put order in your house please! - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] Order, order Hon. Cross.

HON. CROSS:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker I believe there are two issues.  The question of the fiscal deficit and the growth in domestic borrowings are the two key issues we have to address in the budget discussion this year.  On the positive side, I just want to report to the House that yesterday I held a discussion with some young maize growers and learnt of four growers this season who have grown over 20 tonnes per hectare in maize production.  I just want to point out that that is a huge yield of maize and, in my view, shows what we can do as a country if we work together.  I thank you.

HON. NDUNA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to debate on the 2016 Annual Budget Review.  Mr. Speaker Sir, it is my thinking that to complement and augment the efforts of the Hon. Minister of Finance and Economic Development, we need to make sure that we review some Acts and legislation, in particular the Mines and Minerals Act.  I think it is way overdue and we have been told that it is still coming, so that we can optimally know that we can go from 10 tonnes for the small scale miners, maybe to 28 tonnes as has been envisaged in this year.

The other issue that I want to touch on is the 2017 national budget theme that speaks to and about the domestic resource mobilisation and utilisation to couple it with the annual review process of the 2016 annual budget Mr. Speaker Sir – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order Hon. Wadyajena, please, may you now stop perambulating?  Hon. Nduna, you may proceed.

HON. NDUNA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir, I was just trying to get the attention of the ICT people, so that they may increase the speaker volume a bit – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

Mr. Speaker Sir, what I touched on in particular on the Mines and Minerals Act is very key, so that it can couple and augment the efforts of the Hon. Minister of Finance and Economic Development this year.  So that what occurred in 2016, as we review it, we can only look forward in terms of upping review generation from our own God given natural resources.  I see the efforts that the Hon. Minister of Mines and Mining Development is engaged in, in terms of capacitating the small scale miners.  It can only be augmented and bolstered by legislation, as long as it comes here and we repeal it to empower our formerly marginalised black majority.

The second issue that I want to touch on is the establishment of the Special Economic Zones, which Bill has gone through Parliament and been assented into an Act by His Excellency the President.  Now that we have a board in place, it is my fervent view that we can build up on that Act, use the Special Economic Zone Act as a springboard in order to enhance our economic benefit as a nation.  I am aware that one of the conditions, in particular, that I called for as the mover of this motion in this House in September of 2015, was 100% capital repatriation plus profits.  As long as we do not carry out business in these geographical locations, we cannot emancipate and revitalize our economy.  It is my clarion call that if there can be an expeditious establishment of these Special Economic Zones in the identified geographical locations, we can quickly economically benefit the nation and make sure that this so said $4.5 billion economy can go up to a $10.5 billion or even a $50 billion economy, as long as we put out policies in place and make sure that we follow up in terms of implementation.

The third issue that I want to speak about, which I should have coupled with the first one, is the issue of the 30 million raw chrome exports in terms of permission that it has been granted in Cabinet.  It would have been my view that if the Minister had said how much it is that we have exported to date and how much we still need to export in order to realise profit.  This is how we can benefit from our own God given natural resources.

As I conclude, the issue of ICT can really not be over-emphasized.  The Hon. Minister alluded on the need to embrace ICT in order to have a spike in revenue generation and to curb revenue leakages and illicit outflows.  So it is in that regard that I also urge him on in order to embrace ICT, to emancipate and augment the efforts of revitalizing our economy.  I thank you.



MNANGAGWA):  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir. I have not closed the debate.  It can continue for the next three days on this issue of the

Budget review presented by the Minister of Finance and Economic Development.  Just now, I believe that Hon. Members will agree with me that for the first time we gave this House and Hon. Members adequate time since they requested to debate the amendment.  Mr.

Speaker Sir, I therefore seek that the current debate on Order of the Day, Number 1 be adjourned until Order of the Day, Number 3 has been disposed of.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Just a second.

HON. E. D. MNANGAGWA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, I am advised that

I was not clear by the Clerk of Parliament.  I moved that the debate be adjourned.  Perhaps, I made two steps instead of one step at a time.  The first step is that I move that the debate be now adjourned.

HON. GONESE:  Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  You have asked

whether there is debate on the motion to adjourn the debate at this particular point in time.  That is what I have risen to debate because if you ask for debate ...

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I have recognised you.

HON. GONESE:  Thank you for recognising me Mr. Speaker.  The reason why I am not agreeable to the motion to adjourn the debate at this particular point is because we have before us a very important debate.  If you look at the Public Finance Management Act, it actually obliges the Minister of Finance and Economic Development to lay before Parliament an annual review of the performance of the Budget, which is what he did on Thursday.  As a result Mr. Speaker Sir, we have that debate before us today.

As you noted Mr. Speaker, there are Members who had risen to contribute to that particular debate and I believe Mr. Speaker Sir, that it is a very important and crucial matter and you do not want that to be overtaken by events.  You want the debate to be done when it is still relevant.  We have no problems to have the third motion to be deliberated upon after conclusion of the debate of the first motion.  It was within the powers of the Executive to have come on time if they had wanted to prioritise Order of the Day, Number 3.  They were not here and as a result, the Clerk read the First Order of the Day and Members geared themselves.  We have got Members who had meticulously prepared to give their views today.  We do not want to have a scenario Mr. Speaker Sir, where what they had prepared is subsequently overtaken by events.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are cognizant that we are likely to adjourn at the end of this week.  For that reason, I submit that the motion by the Hon. Vice President has come at an inopportune time.  That is not the opportune time and for that reason, I believe that let us give those Members who are ready to debate and only when those Members who had already risen in their seats, once they are done, we can have the debate adjourned.  For that reason Mr. Speaker Sir, I want to reiterate that at this point in time, it is imperative that we proceed with the matter which is already under consideration until such time as those Members who are willing and ready to debate have done so;  then we can adjourn the debate.  That is my submission Mr. Speaker Sir.

HON. E. D. MNANGAGWA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, before you may

make your ruling to the request by the Chief Whip of the Opposition, it is not correct that had we come in at the opening of Parliament, we would automatically have gone to item Number 3 of today’s Order Paper.  Parliament properly debated and is debating the First Order of the Day.  By my moving the adjournment, we are not concluding the debate on the First Order of the Day – [HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear.] – I have said Mr. Speaker Sir, I am only moving the adjournment.  The debate will continue for as many days and as many speakers may want –

[HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear.] –

I am appealing to Hon. Members that after adjourning the debate, Order of the Day Number 2 is stood over until Order Number 3 is concluded.  We may then move back to Order Number One – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] -  This is because of other engagements that are pressing on Members of the Executive.  I so move Mr. Speaker Sir and I am so certain that when you put the question, the majority agreed with the adjournment of the debate.

HON. ADV. CHAMISA:  On a point of order Hon. Speaker.

Parliament, Hon. Speaker Sir, is a House of rules; it is a House of procedure.  You have asked for debate from Members.  I think it is out of regularity for the Hon. Vice President, on behalf of the Executive to then seek to withdraw the rights of Members to debate the adjournment.  It is the adjournment that is debated.  I think it is within our right to debate that adjournment.  So, Hon. Speaker Sir, if you may also protect

Parliament and Parliamentarians from the predatory instincts of the Executive.

There is debate and that debate, as a point of order, has to be undertaken.  We cannot have a situation whereby debate is supposed to be undertaken, the Hon. Vice President rises to then seek to quash that debate.  That cannot be acceptable.  That is terrorism of the highest order and it cannot be allowed – [HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear.] –

Hon. Speaker Sir, let us allow debate on this aspect of adjournment.  Ultimately, we will then have to make a decision upon Members having debated because this Parliament is supposed to be a deliberative House wherein we debate issues.  It is not supposed to be a ping pong with the Vice President.  Allow us Hon. Speaker Sir to debate these issues before we even go to what he wants us to do.  We will ultimately vote and vote we shall but we cannot be forced or frog marched into voting because they want to rush somewhere.  They must wait for us as Parliamentarians – [HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear.] – We cannot and we will not allow that.  If they have other things to do, let them proceed wherever they want to go Hon. Speaker Sir.  We want debate here.  We cannot be allowed to be harassed or to be abused by the

Executive.  Hon. Speaker Sir...

Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa having stood up to debate.

HON. ADV. CHAMISA: I still have the floor Hon. Speaker Sir. I

like it when...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you conclude your point of order?

HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Thank you so much. I like it. Let me conclude by saying my point of order has to be concluded in style. Hon. Speaker Sir, there is no need for us to jump, skip or in any way subvert the procedures of our Parliament and I enjoin you Hon. Speaker Sir, to make sure that we uphold, not just the Constitution, but also our Standing Orders and Rules because that is the sole purpose of that esteemed chair that you occupy. Thank you very much Hon. Speaker


THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, in your point of order you used the words ‘the act of terrorism’, can you withdraw that one?

HON. ADV.  CHAMISA: I hear you Hon. Speaker Sir. You are saying I have to withdraw the word...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Yes, ‘the act of terrorism.’

HON. ADV. CHAMISA: Hon. Speaker Sir,...

THE HON. SPEAKER: I am sure you could do better than that.

HON. ADV. CHAMISA: I hear you. To please you, I seek to offend no man.

THE HON. SPEAKER: No, you do not please me. You do not

please the Chair, you please etiquette.

HON. ADV. CHAMISA: That is correct Hon. Speaker Sir. If it pleases you Hon. Chair, those words shall stand withdrawn. Thank you.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you. Order, order! The debate should only be about whether the debate should be adjourned and nothing else, and then I will make a ruling.

HON. MARIDADI: Mr. Speaker, I realise that the House is full this afternoon and we have...

THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your debate? Can you go to the debate?

HON. MARIDADI: I realise that this House is full this afternoon and we have all Government Ministers even those that are strange to this

House. I think the motive...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you debate the adjournment please?

HON. MARIDADI: Yes, the motive to adjourn is motivated by the fact that we have all Ministers here who are busy with other things elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to you that if Ministers are not happy to sit and listen to us debating the budget, they are free to leave and go and do those other things and we remain to debate the budget. –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]-

We cannot indulge the Executive because we want to vote and we want to please them. We have a very important motion before us. We are debating how money is used in Government and how money should be allocated to Ministries. I think that should take precedent over and above everything else. Ministers are free to and to do their business and when they have time to come, they can come and then we do the voting. As of now, we want to continue with the debate of the budget. Thank you Mr.




MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, Tuesday is Government business day. Item No. 1, Item No. 2 and Item No. 3 are Government business. I am Leader of Government business and I set priority as to what must be debated. I have adjourned Government business on Item No. 1, not closing it but adjourning it so that we dispose of Government business on Item No. 3. I so move.

HON. GONESE: Thank you Mr. Speaker...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order! You are the last one to debate the adjournment. – [HON MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] - I am on the Chair.

HON. GONESE: I am rising on a matter of privilege Mr. Speaker. In response to what the Hon. Vice President has said which I believe cannot be correct. My take is that the order we are debating is

Government business and that is appreciated and there can be no debate about that. The point is that once a debate has commenced, any motion for adjournment is subject to the same rules. – [AN HON. MEMBER:

We can divide the House.] - No, we cannot start by dividing because there are members who want to debate.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the point that I am making is procedural. There is a lot of noise...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Just a second Hon. Gonese and please

take your seat.

HON. GONESE: Alright.

THE HON. SPEAKER: You may continue.

HON. GONESE: The point I wanted to emphasise is that I have got some difficulty in appreciating the manner in which the Hon. Vice

President is approaching this matter. For me, when we are in this august House, we should be governed by rules, processes and more importantly, we should be governed by due process. The fact that something is Government business does not give the Leader of Government business the unfettered discretion to just do as he pleases at any particular point in time.

The procedures in this august House are that when you have asked for debate, the debate must be exhausted. What has been happening is that the Hon. Vice President is not waiting to see whether there are other members who want to debate. We have got members on this side of the House who wanted to debate that adjournment, only for the Vice President to rise on his feet and immediately respond without giving you an opportunity to check whether there are other members. We abide by your ruling that we are only debating the adjournment.

After Hon. Chamisa debated, that debate has not yet been exhausted, only on the adjournment. After Hon. Maridadi, we only have to check whether there are any other members who want to debate that particular point under consideration, and only if there are none, can the Vice President respond.  I do not agree that at any moment, the Hon. Vice President can say that because I am the Leader of Government business, I then determine. Once something is under consideration, it is subject to the same rules.

If you want to adjourn a debate, you do not simply come and say no, I am the Leader of Government business and I am stopping this debate. That is why you move a motion. Our rules have made that provision that you move a motion and when you move a motion, whoever is in the Chair asks whether there is any debate on that motion. For that reason Mr. Speaker Sir, as a matter of procedure, let us first of all exhaust the debate and only when we have exhausted the debate on the adjournment, can we then move to the next step.

The Hon. Vice President has jumped the gun by trying to prematurely close the debate. So, I say the debate cannot and must not be prematurely closed. It can only be closed when it has been exhausted.

That is my matter of privilege which I have raised Mr. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER: What I noticed is repetition and this House cannot listen to repetition unless you come up with something fresh, I will allow debate, otherwise I shall rule against any further debate on the adjournment.

HON. MLISWA: Thank you Mr. Speaker Sir.  I think this is a time when a voice of reason for an independent thinker should come to fruition.  I do understand that the Hon. Vice President wanted the debate adjourned and I think the opposition objected to that, which is equally fair.  However, I think we must be progressive too.  I wish that we really count the amount of time we are spending in debating this when the outcome is obvious – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.]the majority will have their say and the minority will have their own.

My appeal is, while the opposition objects, I think it is true that there is a debate and it must be there but no one is saying the debate is not going to continue.  The Hon. Vice President is saying the debate will continue, but with due respect, Parliament has been attacking the

Executive for not coming. Today they are here – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Mr. Speaker, the debate of the Budget Review is very important and by no way has anybody said it is not important.  I think it is about us being progressive so that we do not waste time.  Mr. Speaker, ultimately, you are sitting there with all powers invested in

you.  As the Chair, the Standing Rules and Orders are very clear in terms of the position you must take.  As such, I implore you to make a decision so that progress can be made because this is a sheer waste of time.

Thank you – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.  This debate may continue ad infinitum.  The issue before us is that the first Order has not been concluded, it has merely been stood over and there will be ample time to debate it, which is very important – (An Hon. Member having been speaking whilst the Hon. Speaker was speaking) I do not want to throw you out Hon. Member please. I respect you and you should respect the Chair.  We cannot debate ad infinitum on the question whether we should debate the adjournment or not.  So, it is my ruling that I shall put the question and there shall not be any further debate on the adjournment.

HON. GONESE: Divide the House – [HON. MEMBERS:

Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. GONESE: I challenge your ruling Mr. Speaker.  If I challenge your ruling, I am entitled…

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.  We should not play gymnastics here.  You want the House to be divided? – [HON.

MEMBERS:Yes.] – and the statistics is so clear that in terms of numbers – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – order, order.  I am saying that it is unnecessary to divide the House.  I will ask us therefore to proceed accordingly.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Wednesday, 26th July, 2017.



B. 1, 2017]

Third Order read: Third Reading: Constitution of Zimbabwe

Amendment (No.1) Bill [H.B. 1, 2017].


MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, I move that the Third Reading of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 1) Bill [H.B. 1, 2017] be read the third time.

HON. GONESE:  Before you put the question Mr. Speaker, I have a motion - [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – I have the Standing Orders …

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I am not putting a question.

HON. GONESE: No, before you put the question.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I am not putting any question.  Can I

hear you?  Can you approach the Chair Hon. Gonese?

Hon. Gonese approached the Chair.

HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker Sir, can I just beg your indulgence because there is an important matter which I want to raise.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order, take your seat.  This is a Constitutional Bill and we have to go according to the Constitution in terms of Section 328 (5).  I shall proceed.  Section 328 (5) - [HON.

MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] –

HON. GONESE: No, no, no.  Mr. Speaker, this is improper.  Mr. Speaker, this House has Standing Orders – we have our Bible.  I have a point which is very valid.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Can you sit down, can you sit down?

Order, order!  Standing Orders cannot override constitutional provisions.  So, I am proceeding in terms of constitutional provision Section 328 (5) of the Constitution and no Standing Order can override a constitutional provision.  Please sit down.  Can you please sit down?  - [HON.

MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – I have ruled.  Order, order!  Hon. Chief Whip of the opposition, can you listen?  You kindly showed me the provision of the Standing Order and I am saying, the section of the Standing Order that you have shown me when I had tete-a-tete with you, does not override the constitutional provisions.  - [HON.

MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] –

  1. GONESE: I have to stand for my rights,  I have not made my submission.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I have ruled.

  1. GONESE:  What have you ruled on?  I have not made my

submission.  Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, you can take me to court - yes.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  I had ruled already after the Hon. Chief Whip showed me the section of the Standing Order - [HON. CHIBAYA:  Which section?] - He has it there. Order! I cannot rule against my own ruling – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible


HON. GONESE: On a point of privilege. I will try to be as brief as I can. Firstly, Mr Speaker Sir, I want to seek your guidance because I am ready for both. First of all, let me start with the matter of privilege. I will go for my substantive motion in terms of Standing Order 152.

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir.  I am moving a motion in terms of the provisions of Standing Order 152 (3), which provisions I will just read quickly.  “When a Bill has been reported, a Motion maybe moved to recommit the Bill either wholly or in respect only of particular clauses”.  In this regard, I am moving that this Bill be recommitted in respect of clause 6, and I will give you the reasons why I am moving that motion.

On the 27th of June 2017, during the debate at the Committee

Stage, and I am going to quote the words of the Hon. Vice President, Hon. Mnangagwa, from the official record of the Hansard, “ The appointment of the Chief Justice will be done by the President after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.  It is very clear in the Constitution that for every office that falls vacant, that of the Chief Justice included, there is need to have three nominees for each vacant position.  In the case of the Chief Justice, the President has to submit these three nominees to the Judicial Service Commission for the purpose of consulting the Judicial Service Commission in relation to qualifications, probity and integrity.  This is then read and recommendations are made to the President.  The President has the discretion to select from the three as evaluated by the Judicial Service

Commission”.  So, these are the critical words on the basis upon which I am moving that the Bill be recommitted to the Committee Stage.

The Hon. Vice President is a legal practitioner of many years standing, and I believe that he could not have made a mistake.  What he said reflects the thinking of the Executive that in terms of the consultation that has to take place, the President must give three nominees to the Judicial Services Commission and thereafter, recommendations are made appropriately.

However, when we look at the provisions of the Bill before us, that is not what it said.  I do not want to think for one moment that the Hon.

Vice President who is a man of integrity wanted to mislead this august

House.  I do not want to think for one moment that the Hon. Vice President wanted to mislead the Nation of Zimbabwe.  So, those are the words which are in black and white. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker Sir, because I believe that this is a man of integrity who is before us, obviously there must be an error on the Bill, because the Bill does not say what he said.

In that respect, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recommit the Bill, so that the Bill reflects the thinking of the Executive as adumbrated by the Hon. Vice President in this august House.  This is precisely the reason why I am saying we cannot proceed with the Bill as it stands, because the official record of the Hansard says one thing and that thing is what the Executive intends and we want the Bill to reflect precisely the thinking of the Executive that you must then have three names which are for the purpose of consultation submitted to the Judicial Service Commission.  For that reason we cannot remain with a record which is inaccurate, contradicting the words which are in the print.

The only way to regularize and to rectify that anomaly is to recommit the Bill to the Committee Stage so that at that particular point in time, the Hon. Vice President can, it is not me who is going to make the amendments, we want him to make the amendments which are in sync with what he told us unless, God forbid, the Hon. Vice President decided - to mislead this august House, decided to mislead the nation of Zimbabwe,  decided - for lack of a better word, to lie to this august House.  So, that is the basis upon which I am making this motion that let us proceed in terms of Standing Order 152 - [HON. MEMBERS:

Inaudible interjections]-

THE HON. SPEAKER: Hon. Member can you withdraw your

statement, ‘lie’.

HON. GONESE: I withdraw.  In conclusion, in terms of process I want to make submission that the procedure which I have adopted is, in my respectful submission, correct and I will explain why I think that…


HON. GONESE: In conclusion, I submit that the Procedure in

terms of stages of Bills for an ordinary Bill and a Constitutional Bill is not different.  The only difference comes in that in a Constitutional Bill, there is no reference to the Parliamentary Legal Committee where the amendments are not referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee that in my respectful view is the only point of departure.  In terms of stages we have the First Reading on an ordinary Bill and a First Reading on a Constitutional Bill.  After the First Reading on an ordinary Bill, it is referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee, whereas on a

Constitutional Bill it is not referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.  Similarly, when you have got the Second Reading, after that you go to the Committee Stage in respect of both Bills.  After the Committee Stage, you report progress to the House and only if the amendments are referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee and that is the only point of departure.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the processes in relation to those stages of the Bills are the same and I therefore want to submit that the procedures outlined, Standing Order Number 152 (3) are equally applicable to a Constitutional Bill and therefore it means that if there is any anomaly like any other Bill, it can be recommitted, it can be referred back so that connections can be made.  I thank you.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Speaker.  Your motion does not stand because the issue you raised, though important should have been raised at the appropriate time, at committee stage.  There was no due notice during the Committee Stage and therefore and therefore, now we are on the Third Reading and we cannot proceed as suggested –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections]- No, I have ruled – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order, we proceed.

Section 328 (5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides that, “A

Constitutional Bill must be passed, at its last reading in the National Assembly and in the Senate, by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership of each House.”

In order to comply with the provision of Section 328 (5), it is necessary that the number of the affirmative votes cast by members be recorded.  I therefore direct that the bells be now rung after which the votes of – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Hon. Members will be counted – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible

interjections.] –

[Bells rung].

[House divided].

*HON. ADV. CHAMISA:  Hon. Speaker, we are grateful that you have managed to divide the House which is not a problem in itself but realising that this is a Constitutional Amendment Bill.  It is a Bill –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Yes, carry on.

HON. ADV. CHAMISA:  Thank you Hon. Speaker. I kindly ask

that I be protected.  I cannot think clearly when there is noise.  I thought you were going to bring the House to order Hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, I have indicated that in terms of our Constitution, Section 139, our Standing Rules and Orders are supposed to define how privileges – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – Hon.

Speaker, I think it is a bit unfair.  Members are being allowed to heckle.  I have not been able to say what I need to say.  So, allow me to be protected Hon. Speaker.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  Can we hear Hon.


HON. ADV. CHAMISA:  Thank you Hon. Speaker. I said in

terms of Section 139 of the Constitution, it is supposed to be very clear in terms of how our privileges are exercised.  You are aware that we went to the liberation struggle to fight for the right to vote and not the right to win – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – For that reason, the right to vote is an important right.

What I am submitting Hon. Speaker is that let us allow the secrecy of the vote by Members of Parliament – [HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear.] - so that we have a secret ballot.  There are Members who are intimidated from the other side.  They have been complaining to us Hon. Speaker Sir.  Voter intimidation cannot be allowed in Parliament.  We know that they are being harassed into voting in a particular way.  Let us allow the secret ballot and I can assure you that we do not have assisted voters, no secret manipulation.  Let us have each and every member voting for themselves, then we will be able to have the vote being done properly.

Hon. Speaker Sir, you are also aware that this is not a frivolous request.  In South Africa, the Constitutional Court had to be seized with this matter and it made a ruling that let Parliament define what is in advancement of the interests of individual members.  As individual members, we feel that let us vote without fear or favour; without intimidation and let us make arrangements for a secret ballot for this vote because it is an important Bill being a constitutional Bill.  Hon.

Speaker Sir, I so request.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  I hear you Hon. Chamisa and in your request you referred to the South African Constitutional Court which decided that the final arbiter is the Speaker. So in this case,

I say no secret ballot.

HON. TOFFA:  Point of order Mr. Speaker Sir.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  I am not accepting an point of order.

HON. TOFFA:  There is no gender parity; no women have spoken ever since we started debating Mr. Speaker Sir.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Hon. Toffa, can you take your seat? – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order! Sit down.

Order, the tellers have been counting and we want to hear the numbers. – [AN HON. MEMBER: The correct numbers not just the numbers.]- I will send you outside now and can you be orderly. What number do we have from the Eyes?


THE HON. SPEAKER: And this side?

HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker, I think that procedurally – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]-

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order!

         HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a

submission. I believe that the best way procedurally, is not about which side has got more numbers...

THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you make your statement please!


I am saying that the position in terms of the

constitutional provisions is that the affirmative votes, it does not matter how many votes we have this side. It has to be 180+. So, we have got to verify that first. From our side, those we counted, we came up with about 173. We might have made an error and this is why we need a physical count. We need to have a physical count and confirm the names with the people who are here because we do not know each other.

We have to verify firstly how many people are there because when we counted Mr. Speaker, we came up with a figure which is about 173 which is well short of that number. We may have made an error and we need to verify because this is just to fulfill the constitutional position. We have to comply with our Constitution because some people were seated haphazardly and it was not very easy to verify.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Please state your case?

HON. GONESE: We need to count physically as to how many members there are.

THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your number?

It is 173 and that is the number that we have.

THE HON. SPEAKER: From the Nos, what number do you have?

HON. GONESE: The numbers on this side Mr. Speaker are not relevant. We need to verify affirmative votes, handizvo here? The affirmative are the ones which count. Even if there were two people on this side, it does not really matter, what matters are the affirmative votes. That is what matters. So, for me Mr. Speaker, we need to verify that number because even if there were two people or zero people, it would not matter, because what matters is whether there is one third or two thirds which is 180+. So, my view is that we have to confirm the affirmative votes. Are they 180+? If they are not 180+, then that is not correct.

THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your number this side?

HON. GONESE: The number we had for this side is 173.

THE HON. SPEAKER: And what is your number?

Our number on this side Mr. Speaker is

irrelevant. So at this point in time, we have to verify the affirmative vote.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Just tell us the number.

HON. GONESE: Mr. Speaker, our position is let us count the numbers on this side. I just want to understand. The number on this side has no relevance as far as I am concerned because if they are two or 100 people, what we need to know is whether they are 180+ on that side.

An Hon. Member having entered the House.

-[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]-  THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, please sit down.

HON. GONESE: I will give you the number Mr. Speaker.  The number which we have is 41 but we still need verification – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order.  Democracy can be very expensive in terms of money and time.  I have consulted with the Leader


of Government Business and we will verify the numbers this side – (Right side of the Chair.) – and we want Tellers now – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Order, order.  I am going to announce the results and then we verify.  These are the results that I got

– [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

HON. MLISWA: On a point of order Mr. Speaker Sir.

THE HON. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MLISWA: My point of order is in terms of Section 110 of the Standing Rules and Orders which is – [HON. CHAMISA: Musabatira zvinhu pamusoro vakomana.] – Mr. Speaker Sir, I think we have been on this for the whole day, clearly wasting time.  My point of order is in terms of Section 110 which provides that “Any Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or persistently and willfully…” –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MLISWA I will repeat - they are making noise Mr.

Speaker.  I equally need to be listened to when there is silence and they are making noise.  There must be order and I cannot speak when they are standing.  I request that those Hon. Members sit down.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  You have made your point.

HON. MLISWA: I cannot speak when they are standing.

THE HON. SPEAKER:  You have made your point.

HON. MLISWA: I cannot speak when they are making noise and standing - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – you will sit down.  This is not a campaigning ground, go and campaign on the ground uko, uko.  - [AN HON. MEMBER:  Get away, get away.] -

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  Hon. Members, can you

sit down.


MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, may I request Hon. Members who are standing, if they have places to sit, to sit down - [HON. MEMBERS:

Inaudible interjections.] - Those ones who are standing there have nowhere to sit.

Mr. Speaker Sir, the request by the Members of the opposition is that they would want the figures to be verified.  My view in democracy is that we must be very transparent.  May I ask Hon. Members to become honourable as they are Honourable Members?  We have spent over two and half hours on a matter that could have lasted a few minutes.  I would now wish that - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible

interjections.] –

         THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order.  Hon. Members, please sit down.


MNANGAGWA):  Mr. Speaker Sir, the point currently in question is the question of verifying the numbers that have been mentioned by the appointed counters from both sides, but there is need from the other side - they want us to verify the numbers that you have been given as Mr.

Speaker, after the count.  I, representing this side, agree that quietly, can we have the Sergeant-at-Arms count our side, he gives you the number and he comes to the other side when everybody is seated, and gives you the number – [HON. MLISWA:  And represent me too Sergeant.] –

HON. KHUPE: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker – [HON. MLISWA:  I have not been given the chance and I am just equal to them.] –

Mr. Speaker Sir, I agree 100 per cent with the Vice President that the votes must be verified - but my point is that, votes must be verified to the satisfaction of both sides and the only way that we can be satisfied is that two Chief Whips from MDC count the ZANU PF side and those from ZANU PF count the MDC side together with the Sergeant-atArms.  That is the only way we can be satisfied that the numbers are correct Mr. Speaker Sir.  We want fairness in this House. If indeed we are not hiding anything, let us do it like that.

THE HON. SPEAKER: Order, order.  Hon. Chamisa please, please be quiet.  The Sergeant-at-Arms can be accompanied by the two Whips - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Hon. Toffa, please take your seat – [HON. MLISWA: I have to be part of the counting because I am an independent Member and the Chief Whips cannot count us.] -

Mr. Speaker directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to conduct a recount of Hon. Members on the right side.

THE HON. SPEAKER: After the verifications, the figure given of the results of the count is; Ayes -  182 and the Hon. Members who left are Hon. Matuke; Hon. Chinomona, Hon. Ruvai, Hon. Nyamupinga,

Hon. Muchenje –[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]- order!

Those against - 41. The number of affirmative votes recorded is not less than two thirds membership of the House.  I therefore, declare the final votes in the House on the Constitutional Amendment Bill to have been in accordance with the provisions of Section 328 (5) of the Constitution.

AYES: Beremauro G, Bimha M. C,Chakona  P, Chapfika D, Chasi

S, Chibagu G, Chidhakwa W, Chigudu M,Chigumba C.C , Chikomba L,Chikukwa M, Chikuni E, Chikwama B, Chikwinya N, Chimedza P.Dr;

,Chimene M.M ,Chimwamurombe A, Chinamasa P, Chingosho C. P,

Chinotimba J, Chiota P,  Chipanga K,  Chipato A, Chitindi C, Chitura L,

Chiwa D, Chiwetu J. Z,  Chombo I. M. C, Damasane S. A. E, Dhewa W,

Dinha M. T, Dutiro P, Gangarahwe G, Gava M,  Gezi T , Goche N. T,

Gumbo J. M, Gumbo S,  Guzah K.N, Gwanetsa K, Gwanongodza E,

Hlongwane M, Holder J, Hungwa G, Japoon J, Kachepa N, Kadungure

  1. A, Kagonye P, Kanhanga E, Karoro D, Kasukuwere S, Katsiru L.,

Kaundikiza M,  Kazembe K,  Khanye N, Kuruneri C,  Kwaramba G, Langa Andrew, Mabuwa C. I, Machingura R, Mackenzie I, Madondo T,

Madubeko J, Maduza T, Mahiya M, Mahoka S, Makari Z. H, Makoni R.

R, Makunde T ,  Makweya M, Mandipaka O, Mandiwanzira S. C,

Mangami D, Mangwende S,  Mapiki J, Marapira D, Marumahoko R,

Masamvu L, Mashange W, Mashonganyika D, Masiya D,

Matambanadzo M, Matangaidze T, Matangira T. R, Matimba K. M,

Matiza B. J,  Matsikenyere N, Mavenyengwa R, Mavima P, Mawere M,

Mawere R. N. S.,  Maziwisa P,  Mbwembwe E , Mguni O, Mhere E,

Mhlanga N.  J, Mhona F. T, Mkandla M, Mlilo N, Mliswa P.T, Mnangagwa A,  Mohadi K. C, Moyo F, Mpala M, Mpofu M. M, Mpofu

O.Moses, Mpofu R, Mpofu S, Mtingwende T, Mudambo T,  Mudarikwa

S, Mudau M, Muderedzwa R, Mudyiwa M,  Mufunga A, Mukanduri S. ,

Mukwangwariwa F.G,  Mukwena R,   Mupfumi I.F, Mupereri V,

Muponora N,  Musabayana D, Musanhi K. S, Mushohwe C,  Musvaire

W, Mutinhiri A, Mutomba W,  Mzembi W,  Ncube A,  Ncube O,  Ncube

Saul, Ndhlovu Anastancia, Ndlovu D, Ndlovu B.,  Ndoro L. F, Nduna D,

Nhambu B, Nhema F.D, Nkatazo M. M, Nkomo Mail, Nkomo Malach,

Nleya L, Nyanhongo M,  Nyere C, Nyoni S, Omar J, Paradza K,

Passade J, Pedzisai I, Pemhenayi B,  Pedzisai, Phiri F.P, Porusingazi E,

Rungani A, Samukange J. T, Savanhu Ti, Seremwe B,  Shamu W. K,

Shava J, Shongedza E, Sibanda C. C,  Sibanda K, Sibanda M,  Sibanda

Z, Simbanegavi Y,  Sindi C, Sipani H.O, Thembani S.Z, Tongofa M,

Tshuma B,  Tshuma J, Tsomondo C,  Undenge S, Uta K,  Vutete M,

Wadyajena J. M,  Zemura Lilian, Zhou P,  Zhou T, Zindi I, Ziyambi Z.

Teller: Rungani, A. 

NOES: Chabaya B, Chamisa N, Chidhakwa S, Chimanikire G,

Chinanzvavana C, Chirisa F, Chisorochengwe T, Cross E.G, Dube S,

Gonese I.T, Khupe T, Machingauta C, Majaya B, Majome F.J, Makonya

J, Maondera W, Maridadi J, Mashakada T, Masuku P, Mataruse P,

Muguni N, Misiharabwi P.M, Mpariwa P, Mudzuri E, Mugidho M,

Munengami F, Munochinzwa M, Musindire A.L, Mutseyami P,

Muzondiwa E.S, Ndebele A, Ndlovu N, Sansole T.W, Saruwaka T.J.L,

Sibanda D, Sibanda L, Sithole G.K, Tarusenga U.D, Toffa J, Watson N.J, Zwizwai M.

Teller: Gonese, I. 

Bill read the third time.


MNANGAGWA): Mr. Speaker Sir, I rise to congratulate this august House, the National Assembly of the Republic of Zimbabwe which has deliberated on the first which has deliberated on the first Amendment to the national Constitution and I am happy that every individual Hon.

Member of this House was given adequate opportunity. Many Hon. Members in the House had the opportunity to contribute more than once to the debate.  I am very grateful that, in particular, the opposition made very constructive contribution during the course of debate – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – I was very grateful to some of their incisive and well researched contributions to the debate.  I would want to thank you for the manner and commitment you showed to democracy.  This is what democracy is all about where those who disagree are given the space to air their disagreement to an issue and that is allowed.  At the end of the day, the majority carries the day – [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] – I thank you Mr. Speaker. 

 HON. GONESE:  On a point of order Mr. Speaker, may I also be given the floor?

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order, I thought we were going to adjourn the House.




MNANGANGWA): I now move that the House do now adjourn –

[HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER:  It has been moved that the House do

now adjourn, is there any debate?

HON. GONESE:  There is debate Mr. Speaker!  – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – There is debate Mr. Speaker, I want to respond – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the motion to adjourn the House, I

think it is only fair and appropriate to also respond to the Hon. Vice President.  The Hon. Vice President made some sentiments in moving his motion for the adjournment of the House and in responding, I would like to state that this was a very good exercise but I want to point out that in the course of the process, there were some disparities and distortions which were observed.  I think we cannot adjourn the House without pointing those out.

The important point is that the vote had initially been given as 187 and I think that we have been vindicated that at the end of the day the final tally was 182.  Secondly, I also want to make the observation that there was no proper voting – what we did was simply to count people.  I believe that in terms of the provisions of our Constitution, we did not proceed with the process of voting.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we violated our own rules because our rules state that once the doors have been closed, no one can be allowed in.  We are now no longer sure as to whether those who walked in afterwards had been in the House at the beginning – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – I am just making those observations and I think it is important for posterity that at the end of the day when the bells are rung, no one is allowed to walk in or out.  We do not know whether those people who walked in subsequently were part of the original vote and I think that it is important for this to be recorded – [HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER:  You have made your point.

HON. GONESE:  We are also worried that there could have been some other distortions.  We have some aides who were in the House and we are not sure as to whether they were excluded or not from the vote.

The final tally shows that – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – We have the aides for Hon. Kuruneri and Hon. Mpofu who were both in the House.  So those are concerns which I think should be recorded for posterity.  At the end of the day, it is important– [HON. MEMBERS:

Inaudible interjections.] –

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Alright, may you conclude?

HON. GONESE:  We should move and proceed in accordance

with the rules, that we should follow our rules all the time and not leave any room for possible manipulation because the final tally shows us that without the two independent members, ZANU PF appears to just have been on the threshold.  With those distortions and disparities that I mentioned, it is possible that this affirmative vote was not achieved properly and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

I want to reiterate and conclude by saying, there was no vote at the end of the day.

Motion put and agreed to.

The House adjourned at Twenty Two Minutes past Six o’clock p.m.   









Leave a Reply

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

Post comment