Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 44
  • File Size 182 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date April 28, 2021
  • Last Updated October 12, 2021



Wednesday, 28th April, 2021

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





THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF SENATE: I have to inform the Senate that the following Hon. Senators have been assigned to the Thematic Committees as follows:

Hon. Sen. Kambizi will serve in the Thematic Committee on Human Rights and the Thematic Committee on Peace and Security.

Hon. Sen. D. Mabika will serve in the Thematic Committees on Human Rights and also on the HIV and AIDS.



First Order read: Resumption of Committee: Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Bill [H. B. 23A, 2019].

House in Committee.

THE CHAIRPERSON (HON. CHARUMBIRA): The Committee of the whole House will have under its consideration, the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Bill [H. B. 23A, 2019].

On Clause 13:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS: Thank you Hon. Chair. When the Committee sought leave to report progress and leave to sit again, we were on Clause 13. Clause 13 being the Clause that deals with tenure of Judges and the effect of this Clause being that we were maintaining the term limit Clause for the Constitutional Court Judges but raising the retirement age. Clause 13 (1), (2) and (3) explaining the process of raising the retirement age. Clause 4, which we had a lot of debate on, being a proviso to explain that it is not in any way trying to temper with provisions of Section 328. If you allow me Hon. Chair to give a bit of explanation regarding that Clause, why we had to put it there;

Hon. Chair, this provision is not in any way as the arguments in the debate were being proffered, meant to nor does it purport to amend Section 328 (7). It is only meant to be an explanatory provision to bring clarity to the amendments proposed under Section 186. The tenure of Judges is described in the Constitution in two ways, the first being that of term limits. This one applies to Judges of the Constitutional Court in which they are required to serve for a period of 15 years in the Constitutional Court and then they leave. This is the position of the law and this provision has not been affected or amended by Amendment No. 2. The term limit of the Judges of the Constitutional Court has therefore not been changed, it remains 15 years.

So, if you go into the Constitution, it speaks of two ways that Judges of the Constitutional Court will leave office; first, if you are appointed and you serve for 15 years, even if you are still under 70, you go or the second one where you are appointed, you serve, maybe for two years and you reach the age limit of 70, you then go. This amendment is not in any way removing the 15-year term limit, rather, it is saying, those who would not have served for 15 years and are still under 75, let us raise it from 70 to 75. So, it is not affecting the provisions that are under Section 328 (7), this is the provision that is covered by Section 328 (7) to say that the term limit is 15 years. After 15 years, if you are a Constitutional Court Judge and you still want to be a Judge because you have not yet reached the retirement age, you can go to the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy or to the High Court and then serve up to the required age.

The second provision on the tenure of Judges, this is what I have explained. It is the age limit which affects all Judges, that judges retire after reaching the age of 70 and we are saying in this amendment we want to up it to 75. This is the provision that is being amended by Amendment No. 2. It is of age limit and not term limit. This provision on age limit is not covered, like I said, before by Section 328 (7) of the Constitution.

I think the confusion which we have all noted in the debates that have been ongoing is that there was kind of conflicting provisions on age limit and term limit. So that conflation led to the notion that we want to tamper with Section 328 (7). Section 328 (7) does not cover both age limit and term limit; it covers only the term limit. What we are trying to do by this Clause that we debated so much is that we now want to clarify that by insertion of ‘notwithstanding’ proviso in the amendment. Insertion of this provision does not in any way affect the substantive provisions of the amendment of Section 186. So in other words, we have the substantive provisions that we want to say let us raise it to 75, but if you have served for 15 years, you go. Those substantive provisions are not being altered by this ‘notwithstanding’. It is just there to seek to enhance the interpretation of that particular clause so that there is no confusion about term limit and age limit. In other words, this provision is not a substantive provision of the amendment; it is just an interpretive provision which is meant to bring clarity on the position of the law as I have explained above, which is that the amendment is one on raising the age limit and not on term limit. This is allowed in terms of the Latin “Maxim abundance putela” which literally means putting things beyond reasonable doubt.

I want to emphasize that the proviso is not in any way amending Section 328. If one is to make such an argument, that is simply being fallacy because you cannot amend a provision through a proviso which is dealing with some amendments which have no effect or any bearing on Section 328. In any case, there are laid down requirements which need to be followed to amend constitutional provisions like Section 328 (7) and we also need a referendum for it.

For argument’s sake, even if this proviso is to be removed, it does not affect the substantive implications of the amendment but there is no harm in putting clarity and giving meaning to the effects of the changes that are being brought to by Section 186 by Amendment No. 2. So, my position Hon. Chair is just to clarify the law to say that what we need really to zero in on is the substantive provisions. What is aimed is to raise the age limit of retirement, not the term limit of the Constitutional Court judges. How are we doing it? That is the process that was done by Subsection 1, 2, 3 which are now being mentioned to say that notwithstanding what we have said, these provisions are not in any way related or affected by that provision in Section 328 which speaks of a condition that if you change the term limit, then the incumbent should not benefit from that particular term limit change. Having proffered that clarification Hon. Chair, I think I have done justice to this provision and request and humbly plead that the Bill be put to the Senate and be approved. I thank you.

HON. SEN. KOMICHI: Thank you very much Hon. Chair. We have listened to what the Minster has just said, but I was struggling to understand the main reason for raising the age from 70 to 75. Is it the shortage of the people in Zimbabwe? Is it the shortage of qualified judges in Zimbabwe? Surely, when a person reaches 70 years, he is old, mentally weak and physically weak in terms of undertaking real work. We know in general people retire at 65 years, simply because they cannot carry out tough jobs. We all know the work of judge needs a lot of reading and research. It is one of the toughest jobs we can ever have on earth to listen to arguments and cases, to follow arguments. We have had problems with age even at our homes, “kana wana sekuru wakura nanambuya.” It is very difficult for them to comprehend issues. Currently the world is under new technology. It is very difficult for old people to follow that. Even young men and women of my age in our 40s and 50s struggle to follow new technology. We know very well these days in the offices we are using these gadgets, computers, laptops, internet and everything else. With age, we have got challenges to comprehend Hon. Chair. I have not seen or heard from you Hon. Minister the reason why we should have the age extended for the judges, because I am sure and confident that Zimbabwe itself carries a lot of judges highly educated; prominent men and women who can occupy those positions. It would be quite acceptable Minister, that if a person reaches 70 years, he or she packs their bags to the farm and do the farming. Thank you so much.

Hon. B. Mpofu having stood to debate.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. ZIYAMBI): Let me respond to this first. If the Hon. Senator has something new, then perhaps with your indulgence, you can allow him. Hon. Chair, on the contrary, judges are not per se young people and there is a reason for that. We decide on mature people: firstly because they are not even chasing after money, so the older the judge is the better in terms of dispensing their work. The younger they are the more dangerous they are. Even in a family set up, that is the reason if you are to compare. I have to say this and not that I just want to praise you for the sake of it. The way that business is conducted in the family is extremely different from the way business is conducted there because of the maturity that comes with age… - [HON. SENATORS: Hear, hear.] - So we need to tell ourselves that we need provisions of the law that allow us to tap into that experience and not only that, our judges have legally qualified clerks to assist them.

Even the ICT people that you mentioned, they have them and can even ask the clerks - can you research on this? After the research, they sit down and apply their minds. So the older you become, the less corruptible you become and the more you are more mature, less to anger, more responsible and a very good mediator. I think that we cannot throw away a pool of extremely experienced and knowledgeable judges that we can use. Besides, what we are doing is that we are just re-emphasizing what was already there in the Constitution. If you go into the Constitution, it allows for acting judges and if you look at it closely, all those who are eligible to be appointed as acting judges are former judges. So we are just putting more clarity to it and ensuring that those who are still able; besides we have put a provision in there to say that you undergo a medical examination and if you are fit and sound, you continue. The practice also happens in the United States of America. They had a judge who was over 83 years old. So it is not a practice that we are inventing but we are saying let us tap into that pool of knowledge and continue using it for the proper delivery of justice to our people. I thank you Hon. Chair and move that we proceed and consider the clause.

HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Thank you Hon. Chair. I feel that some of the points that I wanted to raise have already been raised but what I am concerned about is the rubber stamping persona of this House that the Hon. Minister comes here; he does not want to change. He does not want to change not because we have substantive issues but he does not want to change because he has to go and re-consult like he stated yesterday.

To me, it feels like we are here only for purposes of rubber stamping. I feel that is an indictment to all of us who are here, especially my colleagues as Hon. Senators because what it means is that we come here for purposes of not rubber stamping from a party perspective but rubber stamping from a perspective of individual perception of what is and what is not. As Hon. Senators, we need to look deep down at ourselves like Hon. Sen. Mavetera said yesterday, because at the end of the day what has been approved in the Lower House does not have to be approved here. We should and could have variations to it, variations of substance, substance that Hon. Sen. Mwonzora stated yesterday and if we cannot, then at the end of the day we look at ourselves and say, are we just rubber stamping what was in the Lower House?

This is what the Hon. Minister wants us to do and I feel personally, I did not debate yesterday for one reason. I feel that when any Bill comes to this House, it comes here like tablets of stone. We cannot allow for Bills to come here as tablets of stone but we should allow ourselves as Hon. Senators, old as we look, believe and old as we are that we should and the Hon. Minister should at least give variation to our concerns. I am appealing to my colleagues that when there is a variation, let us look at the good parts of the Bill and also at the bad parts. The bad parts allow us to vary them. Let them not come here as tablets of stone as if we are here to rubber stamp. We are not here for that – old as we are and please, whether you are ZANU PF, MDC or chiefs, let us not … - [HON. SENATORS: Inaudible interjections.] – Let us not and in no terms allow to be abused for that purpose. Thank you. - [HON. SENATORS: Inaudible interjections.] –

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, order! Oh, you are actually through, I wanted to say order! You were actually no longer debating the clause but anyway the Hon. Minister can respond … - [HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Sorry, I can proceed!] – I said order and the Hon. Minister is already up to respond.

HON. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. Hon. Chair, I have been in this august House several times and I have appreciated the debate from Hon. Senators. I do not think that it is a correct reflection of what happens in the Senate to say that Hon. Senators rubber stamp what would have happened from two points. The first being t the law making process. First of all, the Bill is published whether it is a constitutional Bill or an ordinary Bill. When it is published, both the Hon. Senators and Members of Parliament in the Lower House are given a copy. The process of consultation starts the moment that a Bill is published and Hon. Members who have anything to contribute – it starts from then and committee work would then start. When committee reports are produced, they are representative of the entire House and when they are tabled in the Lower House, it is just a procedure but some of the come here, sometimes appear to have less debate, is because most of the debate has been done through consultations in the Lower House with input from Hon. Senators.

So it is not very correct that Hon. Senators are there to rubber stamp. I refuse and have had a torrid time recently from Hon. Senators and some of the arguments were very credible to the extent that we agreed to say, no can we relook at this issue. So I think that you should not be too hard on yourselves and think that you are rubber stamping, unless if you feel that you have something substantial but it should not opposition for the sake of opposing just because you are afraid that you would be linked to have agreed to a position that is correct. So Hon. Chair having said that, I move that we consider the clause. I thank you Hon. Chair.

HON. SEN. ENG. MUDZURI: Thank you Hon. President. I propose that we divide the House on this particular clause. What we see in the whole Bill changing, if we vote for the whole Bill, we might have divided minds but on this particular clause, if we divide the House, we might be able to allow people to have a reasonable choice. If we vote for the whole Bill, you might mix up, may be you want women or you want something and I propose that for the advantage of trying to allow people to choose correctly, we divide the House on this one. I thank you.

HON. SEN. DR. MAVETERA: Thank you Hon. Chair. I have listened very carefully to the submissions of the Hon Minister to try to clarify the essence of that variation which we are trying to introduce in this clause. Before we do that, I would like the Minister to clarify, I think I tried, I laboured and I failed to come to reconcile myself on what the Minister is trying to explain. At first it was quite clear that the term limit of Judges is limited by two things. First is the time period, if he has served for 15 years, you automatically go. Then the second bit is when you reach 70 years, even before you served for 15 years, so in essence there are two conditions for which the Judge can leave office. That is first having served for 15 years, then if you are unfortunate to be appointed when you have got less than 15 years to serve you have got to go.

At first I thought the Minister said it but later on, it was almost like the only condition for term limit of a Judge is the time period, which is 15 years. This is wrong, I will refer you to Section 186 of the Constitution where it is written ‘Tenure of Office of Judges’. Judges of the Constitutional Courts are appointed for a non-renewable term of not more than 15 years but ‘(a) they must retire earlier if they reach the age of 70 years. (b) After completion of their term, they may be appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court or High Court at their option, if they are eligible for that appointment’. How I am understanding this is, there are two conditions of the term limits of Constitutional Court Judges. One is the 15 years, then 70 years and if you have not reached 70 years by the time you served 15 years, you automatically go, like the Minister rightly said. So, you automatically cannot serve in the Constitutional Court but you can be appointed in a Lower Court at your volition.

Definitely, there is a problem with what the Minister is trying to work up for us to be convinced. When you now say a Judge who reached 70 years can have his one year renewal up to five years, we are actually extending the term. There is no doubt, so we are effectively amending Minister. Let us look at it, we are amending and if you were not amending, there is no clarity which you are bringing in, if it was already incorporated. I would want the Minister to respond to that and with my lay understanding of the law, after all the Constitution does not need lawyers because it is meant for ordinary people. This is why it is written in simple English.

So we can never pretend that we are not amending the Constitution, saying we are trying to clarify. There is no clarification, it is purely and straight forward amendment. So, if we take it from there that we are amending, then there are certain implications of what we are doing. Then we need to relook and say are we doing it properly. We may appear as if we are disagreeing but we may not be disagreeing at the end result but we are disagreeing on allowing something which is not proper to be endorsed by this august House. I thank you.

HON. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. In my first response, I indicated that the problem that is happening with us is we are conflating term limit and tenure. If you go to Section 186, it does not say ‘term limit of Judges’, it says ‘tenure of office of Judges’. Then it distinguishes two tenures. One which is term limit of 15 years; to say if you are a Constitutional Court Judge, you are appointed today, you serve for 15 years then you go. Then it says, over and above your term limit, even if you have not served 15 years and you reach 70 years, a retirement age – so there are two issues here. There is a retirement age and term limit, which is 15 years. Only Judges of the Constitutional Court have a term limit.

That is why you often hear people talking of two-five year terms. You do not hear people saying 20 retirement terms. They simply say, when I reach 55 years, I retire. When I reach 65 years, I retire. It is not referred to as a term limit. You retire at a certain age. So, what this section which you quote, which is the problem which is happening here, it says “Judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed for a non-renewable term of not more than 15 years”. So, for 15 years, you are out. It is a term. They must retire if they reach the age of 70, retirement age, that is what it says. Judges retire at a certain age and it should not be confused with a term limit. That is the point that I was trying to clarify. Earlier on when I was making reference to section 328, it refers to term limits and I said the term limit of 15 years, we are not touching. If you serve 15 years, you go. So the provision of section 328 as regards those that would have their terms extended has not been altered, it is as it is, but if we had said we are removing the provisions for 15 years and then we say our judges must benefit from that provision, we will be violating section 328.

All we are saying is if you are a Constitutional Court judge, you serve for 15 years but the retirement age is what we are upping from 70 to 75. So if you serve your 15 years, at 70 you go. Serve 15 years at 60 you have served 15 years - you go, but at 70 you have served 10 years a Constitutional Court judge, you can still serve the other five.

So there are two issues, term limit 15 years and tenure of all the other judges from appointment until 75. That is the new proposition that we are giving. I thank you Hon. Chair.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. SEN. CHIEF CHARUMBIRA): We have been debating the same clause since yesterday, so we should think of how we bring closure to this debate on just one clause. We cannot take 48 hours on one clause. I think whoever wants to contribute should make sure that they are coming up with a totally new dimension to the debate on this clause.

Listen to the Minister because the questions are essentially of the same character and substance. The Minister is repeating so many times the same thing about what tenure means. It is just repetition of the same thing. Nothing new is coming out. So those that we want to give the floor , mindful of the fact that if there is nothing additional to what we have already heard, please restrain yourself. It is better we move to the rules which are that we have not agreed and then we go for a division. That is the only way to move ahead. We are going round and round. We go for a division.

HON. SEN. MWONZORA: Thank you very much Mr. President. At this point in time let me just say the impression created here is that we are up against the Minister. No, this debate is about the relationship between the National Assembly Chamber of Parliament and the Senate Chamber of Parliament. The age limit of being in the National Assembly are different from the age limit of being in the Senate for a reason. Members of the Senate are supposed to be wiser and they are supposed to douse or to tamper the excitability of the Lower House. So this Senate acts as a sieve.

This is what the Lower House did. When the Bill was presented to it, the Speaker, according to the law, gazetted the Bill and gave 90 days notice to the people of Zimbabwe of what the Bill was containing. That was correct. No one is quarrelling with that, but when the Bill came to the National Assembly, the same National Assembly - in its lack of wisdom, introduced the clause that we are fighting about here. This clause was not gazetted, it was not original. It is a clause that was generated by the National Assembly. Whether it came from the Minister or it came from a Member of the National Assembly, what we know is that it was born in the National Assembly.

Now the National Assembly, as I will show, has introduced something completely illegal, completely unwise and we are sitting as the Senate. It is our responsibility to correct that. The clause that the Minister was talking about raising the age limit of the judges, yes, they have raised the age limit of the judges, but what this clause does now is that it extends terms of office. Hon. Minister if I am 60 years and I must retire at 70, my tenure is 10 years. If I am 69 and I must retire at 70 my term of office is one year. If I am 40 and I must retire at 70 my tenure is 30 years. So when you extend that, you have extended the terms.   Tenure means terms.

We are saying now that it amends a term limit, it is an amendment of section 328 and in terms of our law there are three clauses that can be amended only by referendum - the first clauses are the clauses dealing with human rights, the second clauses are the clauses dealing with the land and the third clause is the clause dealing with term limits. They require a referendum and that is clear and the National Assembly did not take that into account.

Hon. Minister, almost everything in your Bill has sailed except that clause, that naughty clause that has divided the Senate and you have extended the tenure of the judges anyway by raising the age limit. On top of that, there is then this continuation of office of judges. You are in fact extending twice and that is the reason why there is this disagreement.

Mr. President Sir, as I said before, it opens a dangerous precedence. If you allow the National Assembly to extend term limits, you are opening a dangerous precedence. Where are they going to end? Today they have extended term limits for judges, tomorrow they will do it for Commissioners, the President and they will do it for everybody else. The National Assembly does not have that power. I have taken it away from the Minister. Maybe in the National Assembly there was majority there. They were wrong, they cannot extend term limits and what we are asking the Hon. Minister to do is to take it back to expunge that offending clause and it is a very small clause for that matter. As I said yesterday, it is also unnecessary. It is an unnecessary clause and according to the Minister, it is just an explanatory clause. The law does not explain itself. When you see a legal clause explaining itself, it is bad at law.   The people who should explain and interpret are courts of law. When you see a legal clause taking the place of a court of law, you are on your way to trouble. We are saying take that clause back to the National Assembly and expunge it. We in the Senate who are supposed at law to be wiser, have looked at it and we have seen that it is unconscionable. It is breaching the Constitution and we want it taken back. You can take it back next week and once you deal with it you can bring it back here and we can do justice to it.

In conclusion, I want to say what has happened is that the Minister is telling us that no matter how compelling our arguments, the moment it comes from the National Assembly, it is written in stone as Hon. Sen. Mavetera has aptly put it. It is not written in stone. What has come from the National Assembly, if it is seen to be unwise, unconstitutional or to be unnecessarily oppressive must go back? Whoever was the MP who brought it did not look at the ramifications of this clause.

We are saying that it should go back to the National Assembly and please do not get us wrong; it is not the entire Bill. It is that strange clause in the Bill, the clause which was not there but was smuggled and the clause was hidden away from the people of Zimbabwe because all the clauses were shown to the people of Zimbabwe through the gazetted provisions.

This one was hidden in the pocket. That hidden clause is the clause we want to go back to the National Assembly and the National Assembly must think again because we the elders have rejected it. This is the way I want us to look at it because we do not want to open a precedent that the National Assembly can do wrong things. When it comes to the Senate, there is no correction because it is inconvenient.

I think Hon. Minister, we are not in a hurry here. Let us do the correct thing and take it to the National Assembly next week, convene it, deal with it; and it is one clause after all and then bring it here. That is all we are asking you to do. We want to vote in harmony and we want to vote together with everybody else but here is something wrong and our responsibility as an opposition and as legislators is to point that out. We will fail in our duty if we do not perform this important function. This clause is irresponsible, wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional and must go back. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: At least Hon. Sen. Mwonzora tried to bring some new dimensions. Hon. Sen. Mpofu, let me give the Hon. Minister to respond in case you may be satisfied after his response and maybe he can close the whole thing.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. The first thing that I have to say is the interpretation from philosophy of legislation...

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, can I say something. I think we have debated enough. At this point, if you do not agree with Hon. Sen. Mwonzora, please be very brief and we declare disagreement and we move on. We do not want to go back again into the philosophy. I think we have shared enough already. Thank you.

HON. ZIYAMBI: Thank you very much for the protection. Just one thing Hon. Chair – in interpretation of legislation, the thinking is –you will have the literal interpretation and then you ask yourself what was the intention of the legislature. When we as the legislature put our intention clear, I think it is not correct to say that it is not our duty to make our intention as clear as possible. Most of the time provisions are included in laws to avoid misinterpretation and this is done out of abundance of caution.

This is exactly what was done at the end of this clause. This is common practice and this is what the present clause seeks to do and I have already explained like you rightly said. I have noticed that we are concentrating on the last part that is trying to explain what we have done and they are in agreement that it is alright to leave this and you remove this. What they are simply saying is that the explanation above has not tempered with Section 328 (7), but what has been tempered with, it is this which we have tried to explain that notwithstanding what we have explained we have not done anything and he is not correct.

A term of office and tenure are two different things. Tenure encompasses everything and that is the reason why in this very Constitution, it says tenure of office and it distinguishes a term of 15 years and a retirement age. So for us to interpret and make sense of this provision, we cannot concentrate on subsection (4) without going through everything.

We are all in agreement that extending to 75 years is okay and leaving the term of office of 15 years for constitutional court judges is okay. I think we have agreed. Let us leave this explanatory provision so that those that are tasked with interpreting will know that the intention of the legislature was that we did not want to temper with the 15 year tenure. I thank you.

HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Thank you Mr. President. All I wanted to ask which maybe the Minister would have clarified in his speech is to find out if for instance the judges are at the behest of the President for extension by five years. So what is harmful in using that clause rather putting it into a place of stone in a Constitution? Thank you.

HON. ZIYAMBI: We spoke about this and if you read the provisions of the clause, it speaks to what he is asking me to explain and we have already explained it and the appointment procedures or the extension procedure.

HON. SEN. MWONZORA: Hon. Chair, listening to the debate, this is not on Clause 13 per se, it is on Clause 13 (4), the new Clause that was smuggled into the National Assembly. That is where the difference is so that this House is focused on the issue in question.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: The disagreement is on Clause 13 (4). I do not want you to go back to debate the substance of that Clause which we have over debated already. So, let us agree that the disagreement is not on the whole Clause, it is only on Sub-Clause 4. If there is any disagreement or voting it should be on Sub-Clause 4 only.

HON. ZIYAMBI: What I wanted to say is the National Assembly did not smuggle any Clause. That is the procedure of making laws. So, I want it on record that there is no smuggling, it is the normal procedure that we do for any Bill. The only difference being that a Constitutional Bill you gazette for 90 days and an ordinary Bill you gazette for 14 days. At the Committee Stage, amendments are allowed that is according to our Standing Rules and Orders.

HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Hon. Chairperson, I call for the division of the House.

          [Bells rung].

[House divided].

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Order, Hon. Senators. It is very important that we understand the procedures, first of all, we are all used to two thirds majority on a Constitution, but on a Clause like this one, it is only a simple majority. It is not the Constitution itself. It is when we pass the whole Constitution when we need two thirds, this is just simple majority.

HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Can I ask?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: No can you listen I will explain everything. The question on which the Senate is being divided is that Clause 13 (4) stands as part of the Bill. So those who say ‘aye’, which means they support the point that Clause 13(4) should stand as part of the Bill will be to my right. Those who say ‘no’, will stand to my left – [HON. SEN. B. MPOFU: Can I ask something, are we not allowed to ask for clarification as Members of Parliament.] – Order both sides will choose their own tellers. Due to the COVID-19 regulations you cannot move close together, remain where you are the tellers will come there.

AYES: 45: Hon. Sen. Chidawu O, Hon. Sen. Chikwaka Chief, Hon. Sen. Chimbudzi A, Hon. Sen. Chimutengwende C, Hon. Sen. Chirongoma J. M, Hon. Sen. Chitanga Chief, Hon. Sen. Chundu Chief, Hon. Sen. Dube A, Hon. Sen. Gumpo S, Hon. Sen. Hungwe S. O, Hon. Sen. Kambizi E, Hon. Sen. Mabika D, Hon. Sen. Makumbe Chief, Hon. Sen. Maluleke O. M, Hon. Sen. Mapungwana Chief, Hon. Sen. Masendu Chief, Hon. Sen. Mathema C, Hon. Sen. Mathuphula Chief, Hon. Sen. Mathuthu T, Hon. Sen. Matiirira A. Hon. Sen. Matuke L, Hon. Sen. Mavhunga M, Hon. Sen. Mavima L. D, Hon. Sen. Mkwebu A, Hon. Sen. Mohadi T. B, Hon. Sen. Moyo S. K, Hon. Sen. Mpofu S, Hon. Sen. Munzverengwi A, Hon. Sen. Mupfumira P, Hon. Sen. Mutsvangwa M, Hon. Sen. Muzenda T. V, Hon. Sen. Ndlovu M, Hon. Sen. Nechombo Chief, Hon. Sen. Nembire Chief, Hon. Sen. Ngezi Chief, Hon. Sen. Ngungumbane Chief, Hon. Sen. Nhema Chief, Hon. Sen. Ntabeni Chief, Hon. Sen. Nyangazonke Chief, Hon. Sen. Parirenyatwa D. P, Hon. Sen. Sekeramayi S. T, Hon. Sen. Shumba C, Hon. Sen. Siansali Chief, Hon. Sen. Tongogara A. K, Hon. Sen. Tsomondo B.

Teller: Hon. Sen. T. V. Muzenda

NOES: 19: Hon. Sen. Chifamba J, Hon. Sen. Chinake V, Hon. Sen. Chisorochengwe T, Hon. Sen. Denga P, Hon. Sen. Dube M. R, Hon. Sen. Femai M, Hon. Sen. Gweshe K, Hon. Sen. Komichi M, Hon. Sen. Mavetera T. Dr, Hon. Sen. Moeketsi V, Hon. Sen. Moyo G, Hon. Sen. Moyo T, Hon. Sen. Mpofu B, Hon. Sen. Mudzuri E, Hon. Sen. Muronzi M, Hon. Sen. Mwonzora D. T, Ndlovu D. M, Hon. Sen. Nyathi R, Hon. Sen. Rwambiwa E.

Tellers: Hon. Sen. Dr. Mavetera

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Order Hon. Senators, the results of the count is that 45 Hon. Senators have voted in favour of Clause 13(4) and 19 have voted against - [HON. SENATORS: Hear, hear] - Therefore, Clause 13(4) stands part of the Bill - [HON. SENATORS: Hear, hear.] – Order, with all these lively debates and intellectual discourse since yesterday, we can now proceed in a more relaxed fashion very fast.

Clauses 14 to 25 put and agreed to.

First Schedule put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments.

Third Reading: Tuesday, 4th May, 2021.

On the motion of THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. ZIYAMBI), the Senate adjourned at Eight Minutes past Four o’clock p.m. until Tuesday, 4th May, 2021.

Leave a Reply

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

Post comment