Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 42
  • File Size 273 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date March 18, 2020
  • Last Updated November 18, 2021



Wednesday, 18th March, 2020.

The Senate met at Half-past Two O’clock p.m.







CHIEF CHARUMBIRA): I wish to inform the Senate that following the announcement made by His Excellency the Head of State yesterday on measures to be taken to curb the spread of Coronavirus, the Senate will adjourn today to the 5th of May, 2020. However, Senators should note that the resumption date is subject to change depending on prevailing conditions at that time. Senators will be advised of such change should the need arise.

Consequently, all international travels, Committee meetings and Public Hearings are cancelled with immediate effect. However, approved workshops and field visits may go ahead where the numbers are less than the recommended number of 100. All other meetings will be considered on a case by case basis.



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

Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. MUZENDA: Mr. President, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. SEN. S. DUBE: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.



       HON. SEN. MWONZORA: I move that Order of the Day,

Number 2 be stood over, until the rest of the Orders of the Day have been disposed of.

HON. SEN. S. DUBE: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.




Third Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the Report of the Women Political Leaders Global Forum held in Reykjayvik, Iceland from 18th to 20th November 2019.

Question again proposed.

*HON. SEN. CHIMBUDZI: Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank Hon. Sen. Tongogara who moved the motion seconded by Hon.

Sen. Dube. I also want to support the motion by saying a few words. I want to thank the delegation that went to Iceland that represented us and was led by the President of the Senate. A lot of issues were mentioned and they are all pertinent as they relate to the lives of the people. One of these issues was on gender based violence which is a very important matter.

We realise that all the countries that were gathered saw it fit for this issue to be discussed. It is not only in Zimbabwe but it is something that is in all countries. So we want to thank the Government for allowing a delegation to go and represent us there. They went to hear and share the challenges that we are facing in terms of gender based violence as well as best practices from other nations. This gives us an opportunity to share ideas and to see how we can eradicate this.

Gender based violence is not only on women but also on men because in most cases, there is conflict in the home which causes violence and it leads to either death or injury of the other part which is something countries are trying to fight. It is a very important issue for us, as Zimbabwe with representation from the Zimbabwe delegation. We were privileged to be part of that conference and we were able to share ideas. We were given a role to play as women leaders to go and educate our communities on gender based violence. In Zimbabwe gender, based violence is prevalent during the tobacco selling season because there is conflict between the couple over the money acquired through the sale of tobacco. Gender based violence affects our families. When children see us fighting as parents, we are giving them a wrong picture of what marriage is like.  They grow up with the wrong conception of marriage.

I think it is an issue that is very important and should be addressed.  Zimbabwe did well by representing us and we want to thank the delegation for representing us.  We know a lot of things were mentioned – equality between men and women in different sectors.  It is not only Zimbabwe who should be seen fighting for gender equality, ensuring that women also occupy decision making positions but other countries also.  It was also agreed that we should give men the space to lead and that women cannot do it alone, they also need men to be on their side.  If we work together as men and women, there will be peace in the nation.

I thank you Mr. President.

HON. SEN. TONGOGARA:  I move that the debate do now


HON. SEN. MOHADI:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Tuesday, 5th May 2020.




Fourth Order read:  Adjourned debate on motion on the Report of the 3rd World Parliamentary Forum on Sustainable Development Goals.  Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. CHIEF MTSHANE:  I move that the debate do now


HON. SEN. MUZENDA:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Tuesday, 5th May 2020.



HON. SEN. MWONZORA:  Mr. President, with your

indulgence, I move that if Hon. Sen. Makone is ready, the Senate reverts to Order of the Day, No. 2.

HON. SEN. KOMICHI:  I second. Motion put and agreed to.



HON. SEN. MAKONE:  I move the motion standing in my name

that this House: -

RECOGNISING that the current international trends are moving towards the abolition of the death penalty;

RECALLING the intense debate on the death penalty which characterised the 2013 historic Constitution making process;

NOTING that Section 48 of the Constitution dealing with the death penalty was a result of the intense negotiations and create a clear discriminatory absurdity;

ACKNOWLEDGING that His Excellency, the President and other Government officials have openly and publicly spoken against the death penalty;

CONCERNED that despite these developments, the death penalty still remains in Zimbabwe’s penalty statutes;

NOW, THEREFORE, calls upon the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs to submit a constitutional Bill to Parliament repealing the death sentence and the provisions in the Criminal Law and

Codification Act [Chapter 9:23] and other statutes.


HON. SEN. MAKONE:  Mr. President, death penalty was used in ancient times and is still used in a few countries today to punish a variety of punishments.  It is a Government sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by the State as a punishment for a crime.  Crimes that can result in a death penalty are called capital crimes or capital offences.  Forms of execution used include electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting.  There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than other forms of punishment and it has been empirically proved that states that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates than states without such laws.  More than 100 countries have abolished this cruel form of punishment and many more are abolitionists in practice.  In practice, abolitionists countries, that is countries who have not executed anyone in the last 14 years include Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania, countries in the SADC region.

Mr. President, the death penalty is arguably a violation of the right to life.  The Government of Zimbabwe should take urgent steps to get rid of the hangman’s noose and abolish the death penalty altogether.  As at 31st May 2019, there were 87 male inmates on the death row while 127 were servicing life sentences.  Zimbabwe last executed a prisoner on the 22nd of July 2005, making it a de facto abolitionist State for the last 15 years.  This was before the hangman retired.  The reason why the State has not executed anyone is mainly due to the lack of personnel to perform that function.  The 79th and last person to be executed in Zimbabwe was Never Masina Mandla.

Before 2013, Section 12 (1) of the Lancaster House Constitution provided that, ‘No person shall be deprived of his/her life intentionally save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he or she has been convicted’.

The adoption of the 2013 Constitution brought some changes on the question of the death penalty in Zimbabwe.  Section 48 (1) of the Zimbabwe Constitution now establishes the right to life, only to be limited by Section 48 (2) which states that ‘A law may permit the death penalty to be imposed only on a person convicted of murder committed in aggravating circumstances’.  Furthermore, Section 48 (2) (c) of the same Constitution provides that the death penalty must not be imposed on people who were less than 21 years of age when the offence was committed and people who are more than 70 years old including women.  Thus, in effect, the potential imposition of the death penalty is restricted to men aged between 21 and 70 years of age who commit murder in aggravating circumstances.  Potentially this same group can commit murder in a manner that is not aggravating and escape the hangman’s noose.

The Constitutional changes were also incorporated in the reviewed Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment (CPEA) of August 2016, which in terms of Section 337-342 simply reflect the alignment with the

Constitution.  Section 47 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, define aggravated circumstances as murder committed under the following circumstances:

An Act of insurgency, banditry, sabotage or terrorism;

Rape or other sexual assault of the victim;

Kidnapping or illegal detention;

Piracy or escaping from lawful custody;

Unlawful entry into a dwelling house;

Malicious damage to property if the property in question was a dwelling house, and      the damage was effected by the use of fire or explosives,

Or the murder was the result of one or two or more murders committed by the accused over any period of time;

Mutilation inflicted by the accused on the victim;

Or the Victim was murdered in a public place or in an aircraft;

Public Passenger Transport vehicle or vessel;

Railway car or other public conveyance and

By the use of means (such as fire, explosives, or the indiscriminate firing of a weapon that caused or involved a substantial risk of serious injury to bystanders.

Thus, arising from these provisions, it is respectfully submitted that

Zimbabwe has chosen to retain the death penalty for cases of “murder committed in aggravating circumstances by males aged between 21 and 70 years of age”.  The same Section 48(2) states that the law must permit the court a discretion whether or not to impose the death penalty.  The penalty may be carried out only in accordance with a final judgement of a competent court.  The penalty must not be imposed on a person who was less than 21 years of age when the offence was committed or who is more than 70 years of age.  The penalty must not be imposed or carried out on a woman and the person so sentenced has a right to seek pardon or commutation of the penalty from the President.

The exclusion of women and the increase of the minimum age of execution from 19 years to 21 years under the new Constitution are progressive steps towards the abolition of the death penalty. However, instead of promoting gender imbalance under the criminal justice system by excluding women from the death penalty, Zimbabwe might as well remove it altogether from its statutes.

Mr. President, the current 15-year moratorium on executions renders Zimbabwe a de facto abolitionist state, which is a good step towards abolition, de jure.  The death penalty has a potential of being meted out to innocent people and by virtue of its finality, it is irrevocable – because we are not infallible, we may as well err on the side of upholding the sanctity of life as a nation.

As a consequence of no interest in the post of hangman, the former President was forced to invoke the provisions of Section 112 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe in early 2018, which allows the President to commute the death penalty.  It means that in effect, there will be no executions until 2028, making it 23 years since the last execution.  Clearly, there is no moral, legal or political reason to reinstate State sanctioned killings after nearly a quarter of century without executing anyone.

By default, we are a step in the right direction towards deletion of this antiquated law from our statutes.  In 2017, in their petition to the then President Mr. R. G. Mugabe, Veritas argued that that the majority of

African Union member states, with the exception of 17, had abolished the death penalty.  Only Botswana, DRC and Lesotho are the three out of 14 SADC states still implementing the death penalty and that in spite of lack of a hangman, a large number of prisoners continued to languish on death row in Zimbabwean prisons.  The death penalty is not a traditional remedy but a colonial relic.

Mr. President, it is instructive that in January 2016, the Council of Chiefs urged the abolition of the death penalty arguing for the traditional law which relies on restorative justice rather than retribution.  The removal of this law from our statutes would be giving Zimbabwe an opportunity to make a clean break with the colonial past.  Ironically, Zimbabwe was Chair of the African Union at its 56th Ordinary Session, when the African

Commission adopted a Draft Regional Treaty, the Protocol to the African

Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights on the abolition of the death penalty in Africa.

Mr. President, the question is why did Zimbabwe not proceed to implement a protocol which it has superintended over?  Surely, retention of this law is nothing short of regression into antiquity.  Even when the 10year moratorium was publicly announced as in 2018, it was not presented as an official Government policy, but as a matter of grace by the incumbent, not to sign any warrants of execution.  This gives leeway for successors to resume executions, if they so wish.

It also puts the judiciary in quandary as they continue to mete out the death penalty as required by the law even though the sentences will not be implemented.  If the sentences are not systematically commuted, it leads to an embarrassingly agonizing situation whereby the number of inmates on death row keeps increasing, without a corresponding increase in the holding facilities and conditions. Harare Central Prison is the only prison designed for death row inmates but some of the prisoners are now being kept at Chikurubi Maximum Prison because of shortage of space.  This situation has let a number of the condemned prisoners under psychological torture because of the indefinite waiting period.

As of May, 2019, 14 inmates were challenging the constitutionality of their continued incarceration and were seeking an order by the

Constitutional Court to have their cases remitted for resentencing so that they can have their sentences commuted to life sentences.  This troubling scenario would be alleviated by doing the right and moral thing, the removal of the deaths penalty from the statutes.  The trauma suffered by the surviving family can never be adequately compensated for by the imposition of the death penalty.

Moreover, there is simply no humane way of killing, not even with the lethal injection. The executions are usually done in public as in Iran or on live broadcasts as in the USA, serving no legitimate purpose except increasing the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this form of punishment.  While the Constitution reserves the death penalty only for murder committed in aggravating circumstances, the Criminal Code provides for the death penalty to be imposed for treason.  Thus, the Criminal Law Code is unconstitutional and should be amended to set the maximum penalty for treason at life imprisonment and not death.  An Act of Parliament such as the Criminal Law Codification cannot take away the right to life guaranteed by Section 48 (1 and 2) of the Zimbabwe


In conclusion Mr. President, as a measure to formally abolish the death penalty, Zimbabwe could take the bold step of amending Section 48 of the Constitution and clearly outline that the death penalty must not be imposed as a competent sentence in all the courts of Zimbabwe.

Consequently, the relevant laws such as the Criminal Law

(Codification and Reform) Act, the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, the Genocide Act and the Defence Act will be aligned with the amended

Constitutional provision.  Zimbabwe as a member state of the International

Conventions on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter and

People’s Rights must show protection and promotion of human rights both on paper and in practice.  Zimbabwe needs to be counted among progressive African countries; including among others, Mozambique, Angola, Mauritius, South Africa, Namibia, Seychelles, Senegal and Gabon who have abolished the death penalty.   Consequently, the Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs should set up a Committee which will specifically deal with human rights violations, such as the treatment of prisoners and upholding of international and regional human rights mandates during criminal trial.

Madam Speaker, the death penalty has no legitimate place in the systems of modern civilized societies and that its application is an inhuman and degrading form of punishment, as well as a negation of the right to life.  Various studies have proved its imposition does not serve as a deterrent and due to possible fallibility of human judgement, the death penalty has tragic consequences.  Thank you.

HON. SEN. MWONZORA: Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank Senator Makone for bringing this very important motion. In 1980, our new Government then spoke highly against the death penalty and yet between 1980 and 2001, they were 76 people who were hanged in Zimbabwe. After the removal of President Robert Mugabe and the coming in of the current President, both the current President and the Minister of Justice spoke against the death penalty.

As Hon. Sen. Makone has said, the Council of Chiefs who are the traditional leaders of this country have spoken against the death penalty.  

The Churches and other civic groups have spoken against the death penalty, yet Section 48 of our Constitution permits the imposition of a death penalty except for women or people below the age of 21 or above the age of 70. So in our Constitution, which both you and I are part to crafting, there is inherent discretion. For example, if a woman supplies the poison and the young man of 25 administers it, the young man of 25 is hanged and the woman of 50 goes unhanged.

Mr. President, we ended up with the death penalty in our

Constitution because of two opposing views in this country. The first view was from ZANU PF; the people in ZANU PF strongholds wanted the death penalty retained for murder and treason. The people in MDC strongholds wanted the death penalty retained in relation to politically motivated murders or violence. Therefore, we had a cleavage along political party lines but if you look at it, both views were motivated by the desire for retribution. It does not make it right.

Mr. President, those who argued for the death penalty think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent – that if people know you can be hanged they will not kill. They also argued that if a person is not hanged, she or he may repeat offences and that it is painless and inhuman given the modern ways of execution. Some argue even to say because of the increased population in the prison, the death penalty deals with culling of  human beings and reducing the population in the prison. Others argue that the death penalty is a form of justice to the family of the deceased person while others have argued in Zimbabwe that any move to remove the death penalty is to cushion and protect human rights violators.

However Mr. President, the death penalty is now an anachronism in the world. Every progressive nation is moving away from the death penalty. The United Nations General Assembly has now said that the death penalty has no place in modernity. Further, the death penalty violates the right to life. Our very Constitution says everybody has the right to life and the Government which is supposed to be the defender of the Constitution reserves itself the right to take that very life.

Further Mr. President, when people are being killed especially in

Zimbabwe, they are killed by hanging. It can never be argued that hanging is painless, humane or decent. Hanging is the most painful thing that happens. It also amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The people who are on death roll waiting to be executed are kept in solitary confinement but they are never told of the day of their execution until the night before. So they live not knowing when they are going to be executed and every time they hear the boots of the prison officer, they think the announcement is coming; only for it to pass for another day. Day-in, day-out, they go through this and we have people who have been on the death roll for 20 years. Twenty years daily fearing that today is their last day.

The argument that the death penalty prevents anything is neither here nor there. It does not find support in empirical evidence. Countries which have retained the death penalty include Ghana, the United States, China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia just to mention a few. In these countries, the rate of murder cases has not gone down because of the death penalty; in fact, it has gone up. At one point in time Mr. President, in a place called Zaka in Masvingo, there was a year when Justice Simbi Mubako complained that the murder rate per unit population in Zaka was equally that of Johannesburg in its worst times. This was in spite of the fact that they knew that there was a death penalty.

So the point I am making Mr. President is that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent at all. Further Mr. President, if you remember during the armed struggle, the guerrillas or those who were potential guerrillas knew that if they were caught, they will be sentenced to death and yet people flocked in their thousands to Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique well knowing that there was a death penalty. So the death penalty does not deter the crime. Further, in Iraq and the Middle- East, thousands of young men went and joined ISIS and Al Qaeda wellknowing that their regimes provided for the death penalty. The point I am making is that the death penalty is no deterrent at all.

During my professional life and I can talk about it now because the person is now dead. I had the experience of representing one of the notorious robbers – two of them actually in Masvingo and that was Mr. Masendeke and Mr. Chidhumo. In fact Mr. President, when I lost their bail application before Justice Bartlet, I went and told them the bad news. They told me ‘do not worry Mr. Mwonzora, you are going to hear about us very soon’. The following morning at 10 o’clock, they had escaped prison. They were so honourable after escaping prison as to send the rest of my legal fees by registered post.

The point I am trying to make Mr. President is that after Mr.

Chidhumo was arrested and was sentenced to death, he converted to

Roman Catholicism and became an ardent Catholic while he was in Chikurubi Prison. He knew that he was awaiting death. He knew he was waiting to meet his Creator. He knew that it was impossible to escape from Chikurubi and he repented and became a Christian. So the person who committed the murder or robbery is not the person we hanged. The person who committed the robber is different from the person whom we hanged because whereas the person who committed the robbery was the robber, we hanged a Christian, a person who had repented.

Further, it is a well known fact of life that this death penalty affects poorer communities than rich communities.  Poorer people cannot afford good lawyers; we know our Government gives people what we call pro deo, which means ‘for God’; legal representation.  When they do that, they do not look at the quality of the lawyers.  In fact, senior lawyers do not want to take pre deo cases so they give those cases to the juniors and we put the fate of people in the hands of junior lawyers.  So the rich get away with it but the poor are caught up with it.

In the United States, black people constitute only 13% of the American society but on the number of people who are on the American death roll, black people constitute 50% of people on the death roll because black communities in America are disadvantaged, poor and deprived.  So, the death penalty affects the poorer people.

Mr. President, judges are human beings who make professional errors just like doctors and other professionals. They can make an error of judgment and when they make an error of judgment and pass a death penalty, the person dies and as Hon. Makone has rightly said, death is too final, once it has happened, it is over and the possibility of convicting innocent people exists.  There are a number of reasons why you can convict innocent people.  It maybe the subjectivity of the judge, there are some people who are just boring when you look at them and the moment you look at them, you think they have done it.  Some people, just because they do not look good and they do not look well kept, an assumption based on their looks can affect the judgment of the judge.   Some people do not know how to put their points across very well and some speak more aggressively and less friendly than others.  All that goes on to influence the subjective mind of the judge and therefore, the possibility of hanging innocent people exists.

[Phone rang]


frequency of phones ringing in the House has become too much.  So, if your phone rings, we kindly ask you to go outside.  Within a period of 10 minutes, three phones have rung disturbing the proceedings of the House.  So, make sure your phone is put at the correct mode, which is silence.

HON. SEN. MWONZORA: As Hon. Makone has rightly asserted

here, the death penalty is a colonial relic.  Right here, about a kilometer from this place, Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi were hanged on a Msasa Tree, somewhere in Josiah Tongogara Street.  That should have been motivation for the independent Government to abolish the death penalty.  By retaining the death penalty, you are retaining the very form of punishment that was used by oppressors.  The death penalty was used by Smith to curb the insurgence by the freedom fighters and by retaining that, we are retaining Smith’s legacy.

Mr. President, the death penalty is barbaric.  You are saying the person who murdered another person is barbaric but when you kill him, you are saying your killing is not barbaric.  It is a contradiction of terms.

The death penalty is a way of legislating State barbarism.

We all know that after the formation of MDC, concerted efforts were made to get Prime Minister Tsvangirayi to be convicted of treason.  We now agree here, all of us across the political divide, that Tsvangirayi was a blessing to this nation; he was a fighter of democracy and during the inclusive Government, Morgan Tsvangirayi together with his colleagues made a positive difference in the lives of our people. Had the Ari Ben-Menashe case succeeded against him, he would have been hanged and we would not have had the benefits of his services.  There is a saying we have in law and it says ‘those that murder when drunk, sober shall hang’.  It means that you commit the offence while you are drunk, you are high on drugs, you are excited by a girlfriend, excited by something but when you are being hanged, you are as sober and as alcohol free as a stone.  So, those that murder when drunk, sober shall hang.  There are people who have argued that maybe if hanging is barbaric, why not try other forms of execution and these include using firearms or using lethal injection or electrocution.  They argued that those forms of punishment are not painful, they have never been electrocuted, they have never been subjected to lethal injection and they have never been shot.  How do they know that it is painless?  Therefore they make an argument on things that they do not know.

Lastly, I want to leave you with a sad story.  An American man from Texas, one Cameron Todd Willingham; two beautiful Afro- American little girls were killed in an inferno when his house caught fire.  The American system suspected that it was him who had killed the daughters but there was uncontroverted evidence that he had shown extreme affection for his little kids and they did not understand why he would turn against them and kill them.  They sentenced him to death.

When the matter was reinvestigated, it was found that he was innocent.  So, can you imagine that the little children that you love, we all know the attachment that fathers have to their girls; they are killed in an inferno, you are pained by the death of your children but you are accused of their murder and guess what? It turns out to be a mistake.

Mr. President, that is ample evidence that this form of punishment is anachronistic, it is archaic and outdated. It does not save any useful purpose.  Zimbabwe is well known for trying to be excellent.  Of course, we do not always succeed most of the time but let us try this once so that we remove the death penalty from our penalty statutes.  After all, the person who kills anybody must spend the rest of his life working for us in hard labour in Chikurubi, in Khami and so on.  They can be useful.

Mr. President Sir, I rest my case and once again thank Hon. Sen.

Makone for the motion.


and it reflects a lot of research because a lot of issues have been alluded to.  It requires us to go, ponder and research on this motion.  This is not a motion that one can just stand up and talk about.  Since it has been presented, we need to go and research on the issues that have been raised in the motion – [HON. SEN. KHUPE: On a point of order.] – You do not say point of order to the Chair.  I was saying that you need to go and research because the issue concerning Mbuya Nehanda, we talk about her but a lot of issues are left out.  She is not the only one who was murdered.  In 1898, it was a war of traditional leaders; when it ended, there was no law to execute anyone in this country.  A person known as Alfred Milner who was the Commissioner and based in Cape Town said that people must be executed.  We now introduce a criminal system and Roman Dutch Law shall be the law to be applied in this part of the world.  That is what happened, the white man decided to adopt the Roman Dutch Law.  So in 1898, the law allowed for execution.  You are aware of the remains of eight of our traditional leaders; we are fighting that the remains be repatriated.  This needs to be researched on because it is quite deep and extensive.

HON. SEN. KHUPE: Thank you Mr. President, I will debate it like you said but I just want to correct one misconception.  Mbuya Nehanda was not hanged on a tree, please take note.


are debating.  Go and read then come and inform us from an informed position.

HON. SEN. MAKONE: Mr. President Sir, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. SEN. TIMVEOS:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.





Fifth Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the report of the 74th Session of the Executive Committee of the African Parliamentary Union (APU).

Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. MAKONE: Mr. President, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. TIMVEOS: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.




Sixth Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the report of the

Zimbabwean delegation to the bilateral visit to Havana, Cuba.

Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. MUZENDA: Mr. President Sir, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. SEN. MOHADI: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.




Seventh Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the report of the 2019 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEFG).

Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. DR. MAVETERA: Mr. President, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. SEN. TIMVEOS: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.






Eighth Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the report of the Thematic Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment on the implementation of empowerment programmes in the mining sector.

Question again proposed.

HON. SEN. MUZENDA: Mr. President, I move that the debate do now adjourn.

HON. SEN. MOHADI: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Tuesday, 5th May, 2020.

On the motion of HON. SEN. MUZENDA, seconded by HON. SEN. MAKONE, the Senate adjourned at Twenty-Eight minutes to

Four o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 5th May 2020.

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment