You are here:Home>Senate Hansard>Vol. 21>SENATE HANSARD - 19 JUNE 2012 VOL. 21 NO. 34

SENATE HANSARD - 19 JUNE 2012 VOL. 21 NO. 34

 

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Tuesday, 19th June, 2012.

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

 

PRAYERS

(MADAM PRESIDENT in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MADAM PRESIDENT

APPOINTMENT AS CHAIRPERSON

MADAM PRESIDENT: I would like to inform the Senate that Senator T. Mutingwende has been appointed as Chairperson of the Thematic Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment.

SWITCHING OFF OF CELL PHONES

MADAM PRESIDENT: May I also remind hon. senators to switch off or put their cell phones on silent.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

THE GOVERNOR FOR MANICALAND: I move that Order of the Day, Number 1, be stood over until all the Orders of the Day have been disposed of.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 25 OF 2012-MBERENGWA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAFFIC) BY-LAWS, 2012

Second Order read: Committee Stage: Adverse Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 25 of 2012 - Mberengwa Rural District Council (Traffic) By-Laws, 2012.

Senate in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA: In pursuit of its constitutional mandate as provided for in section 40B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, The Parliamentary Legal Committee met on the 3rd of March 2012 at 1400hrs to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March. After deliberations, it unanimously resolved that an adverse report be issued in respect of Statutory Instrument 28 of 2012 due to the following considerations:

Statutory Instrument 25 of 2012 - Mberengwa Rural District Council (Traffic) By-laws, 2012

The proposed section 11 of the Statutory Instrument creates offences for which the proposed penalties are fines "not exceeding level five" without providing for any due process.

The Committee resolved that the offence creating and penalty imposing provision allows the levying of fines above level three. In terms of section 271(2) (b) as read with section 141 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [chapter 9:07] a fine above level 3 can only be imposed by a Court of law after fully canvassing the essential elements of the offence. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the right to the protection of the law envisaged in section 18 of the Constitution. This is because an accused person cannot be convicted until a court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed section 11 of the Statutory Instrument takes away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and in so doing violates the right to the protection of the law.

Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the protection of the law provision that is, Section 18 of Constitution. Thank you Madam Chair.

SENATOR CHITAKA: When Hon. Mushonga was presenting, he started off by referring to Statutory Instrument No. 28, later on he switched to 25 in the same presentation. It confuses now, especially when we have both in our hands Statutory instrument 25 and 28. What are we dealing with here?

MR. MUSHONGA: My apology Madam Chair. We are dealing with Statutory Instrument 25 of 2012 Mberengwa Rural District Council.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Order hon. member, can you elaborate so that everyone hears what you are talking about.

MR. MUSHONGA: The Statutory Instrument we are dealing with is Statutory Instrument 25 of 2012 concerning Mberengwa Rural District Council Traffic By-Laws, 2012.

SENATOR CHITAKA: I just want clarification on what is meant by level 1 and 2 so that we make decisions from an informed position.

SENATOR MANDABA: -(First part of speech not recorded due to a technical fault)- I would like to seek clarification on the Adverse Report, on the Bill of Rights, whether people should commit traffic offences and not charged.

MR. MUSHONGA: When you appear before a Magistrate and you are convicted, firstly, the process is that, you appear in court, charges are read against you, then you are asked whether you admit or not. If you admit to the allegations, then the essential elements of the offence will be read to you. By essential elements I mean, for example, when you are charged with theft, you are asked whether you were taking somebody's property without his permission and whether you wanted to deprive that person permanently of their property. If you admit to all those aspects, then the court will confirm your conviction, that your admission is proper; therefore you are guilty of theft. So, those are the essential elements, these are actually read to you, that you have committed this offence, do you admit, yes, I admit, these are the essential elements, you wanted to deprive someone for his or her property permanently without their consent. So, that is the due process aspect - after that when we are sentencing people, there are levels. Level 3 is twenty dollars then the other levels are above that. Anything above level 3, twenty dollars, have to go to the Magistrate so that the due process I have explained, the essential elements are read and when you admit it, you know exactly what you are admitting.

What this means it that the Mberengwa Rural District Council charged a fee, let us say a fine of $50, which you just pay to the Clerk or their officers without the essential elements being put to you and we are saying that violates the law, you have to appear in court.

On the second question on level of offences or the offences, what we are against are not the offences. We want local authorities to penalise people who violate traffic regulations. But supposing they want to impose a fine of $100, which is five times above level 3, they should make a provision that you appear in court so that the essential elements are explained to you and after they have been explained, you admit your offence then you are meant to pay that fine. Even if it means paying that fine to the local authority, but the important thing is that the person who is being asked to pay $100 fine knows exactly what he has violated and his admission of guilty is with full knowledge. Failure to do that, it means I am inconvenienced. I pass through Mberengwa, I have a puncture, then my car is clamped and I cannot proceed and they insist that I should pay. I have not been asked to appear in court and explain why my car was parked where it is prohibited - because I had a puncture, there is nothing I could do, I had to remove the wheel and put another one, but the law says do not stop there. So, this is what we are avoiding - if I appear before the magistrate, then I can explain that it was not a voluntary act to stop there. I had a puncture, therefore I had to remove the wheel and put another one. That is what we are saying, it is not about the offences, it is about the level. Once the level is above $20, the local authority should refer it to the courts so that due process is followed.

SENATOR HOVE : We understand what perhaps the hon. Chair is trying to say to us but the problem is that he should have explained to us actually what happens in Chegutu, Norton and give us some examples of what actually happens so that we understand what we are dealing with. Are these the only areas which were affected by this or there were other areas which are represented by 3 or 4 areas that you have chosen to discuss here. We would also want to know the people who committed the offences. Just reading from what you are saying now - you have something perhaps we should attend to but we lack the explanation and more information about what you want us to discuss.

*SENATOR MUCHENJE: Speech not recorded due to technical fault.

MR. MUSHONGA: On the question that I should explain, what happens in Norton and other areas - are they affected or not. Yes, we have dealt with several of these regulations from several of the local authorities. Some authorities are now aware that whenever you are going above level 3, the due process is that the person should appear in court for them to pay their fine. Others are still behind - the employees are not familiar with this aspect.

Yes, there are other authorities who submitted their regulations which had the provision for a fine which is above twenty dollars but they provided that the person will appear in court. So, due process is being catered for but for these that are before you, they did not provide for the due process, that is why we had to pass an adverse report.

With regards to what happens, as I said earlier, there is this aspect of the law where someone pleads guilty. If you appear before a magistrate and he says that on this day you were passing through Mberengwa and you parked at the Chairman or Mayor's residents which is a prohibited area which is by notice and then you say yes. He will then ask you why you did that then you can explain, but the Magistrate wants to be aware that you were really guilty. The example that I gave, if I park there because I had a puncture, then in ten minutes I change the wheel and proceed - I have not parked there on my own will. This is a nature beyond me. This is why we insist that the person should appear in court so that due process is taken.

The local authority may sight that if you go to Mbare-Msika without paying a ticket, you have to pay $1000 fine. This is exorbitant and is inconveniencing the public. They do not consider that may be someone was rushing for an emergency, maybe he or she needed to attend to someone who had collapsed. That person should be given a chance to explain before a magistrate. This is why we passed an adverse report because not all the local authorities are complying.

With regards to senators being accorded a chance to attend seminars to be educated on these issues, I think it is a good issue but it is beyond my capacity.

SENATOR HUNGWE(First part of speech not recorded due to technical fault) …by these local authorities, what this tells us is that we do not understand. People must really be protected by the law. What actually happened in Marondera, Norton, and Mberengwa tells us what is happening today and who was the offender and who was offended, tell us. The issue of levels is not an issue but we want to know what actually happened at those places.

MR. MUSHONGA: Hon. senators, no offences were actually committed, this is the law which the local authority wants to pass. What happens is this, in terms of the Local Government Act, local authorities are allowed to pass what we call subsidiary legislation, Statutory Instruments. Now, if they pass their Statutory Instrument, they do not violate existing laws, so a Local Authority, in doing a Statutory Instrument which is subsidiary legislation, that is a law in conflict with an existing law, the existing law takes preference. So, the existing law is the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. This Statutory Instrument is subsidiary legislation. So, what Mberengwa did was to pass a law which violates the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, we want to know the offenders in Mberengwa who violated the existing law. (Last part of speech not recorded due to technical fault)

SENATOR CHIEF NGUNGUBANE: Thank you Madam Chair, I think the Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Committee, it was going to be much easier for everybody in the House, if you say we produced an Adverse report for Mberengwa Rural District Council because they were charging so much which is a level, above level three it was going to be easy but for us, it is difficult we do not know how much this Rural District Council was charging vis-a-vis level three, if that could be clarified Madam Chair, thank you.

SENATOR MLOTSWA: Thank you Chairperson, I rise to thank the Chairperson for Legal Committee, but also to respond. Yes, we need a workshop like he was responding to a member that said we need a workshop and not only the senators but even the House of Assembly. There are things that they do not understand that concerns the law. But then I should think the Chairperson, if he can read to us the Statutory Instrument No. 25 of 212 of Mberengwa Rural District Council Traffic by-laws. Because some of us do not even know, we do not stay there, we are going to pass a thing that is going to affect people whereas we are not from there, we do not know. I came from Matopo Rural District Council, maybe that is not the same thing that is affecting them, but I should think if you give us exactly like you have given us, the levels that they are charging more than they are supposed to do, then give us the Statutory Instrument. Thank you.

*SENATOR CHIEF MUSARURWA: (Speech not recorded due to a technical fault).

SENATOR MAKORE: Thank you very much Chairperson. So, in this regard I am only forwarding this opinion to the august House on the basis that we must consider also that in some certain circumstances there are other charges which are above the required minimum as is stipulated on the level three. Therefore level 4, 5 and upwards is really in abeyance with the very law itself. If it does not, then the Legal Committee could have made their research findings and found it necessary that at least such must be put perhaps in line with the Criminal Law of Procedure Evidence and Trust. My plea to this House is, yes, we need some work-shopping; we need information but of-course the duty which we do have here as august House is to protect vulnerable people. People are ignorant of the law and not just to throw them to the mercy of the adjudicators. So, by so mentioning I am appealing that at least, whether we need size but the competent Committee made complete research and I am in protection of the requirements, I thank you.

MR. MUSHONGA: We were requested last time to provide the actual reports. So, we have made those available before this debate and now that the hon. senators want the actual documentation, we are also going to move that we have them ready so that we will have the actual Statutory Instrument and the Adverse Report - all pinned together. Then, unlike here where I said Section 11, because if you go to that S.I. Section 11 - that is the offending part and it will follow when we give you the Statutory Instruments that you see that the penalty they impose is above level 5 without referring the matter to Court. So, I take that point and we are going to request the authorities to make sure that the Statutory Instrument is made available.

The issue of Harare City Council as referred to by hon. members, when we discussed the Statutory Instruments in the month of March, Harare did not submit any Statutory Instrument. Therefore, we could not have commented on a S.I. affecting the City of Harare because it was not an issue before us. It is like it is not on your Order Paper; you cannot debate something which is not on your Order Paper. We only debate that which has been passed and brought to our attention. And as I said, we have Counsel to Parliament, a Lawyer attached to the Parliamentary Legal Committee; we have three Members of Parliament who have over twenty-five years experience in law who are also members of the Parliamentary Legal Committee. So, we have really adequate expertise and experience in the Parliamentary Legal Committee. Thank you Madam Chair.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: I move that we report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Senate resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: Wednesday, 20th June, 2012.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 28 OF 2012 - MARONDERA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [INCORPORATED AREAS][AMENDMENT] BY-LAWS, 2012 [NO.31]

Third Order read: Committee Stage: Adverse Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 28 of 2012 -Marondera Municipal Council [Incorporated Areas] [Amendment] By-laws, 2012 [No. 31]

House in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA: Thank you Madam Chair. In pursuit of its Constitutional mandate as provided for in Section 40 [B] of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The Parliamentary Legal Committee met on the 3rd of March, 2012 at 1400hrs to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March 2012. After deliberations, it unanimously resolved that an Adverse Report be issued respect of S.I. 28 of 2012 due to the following considerations.

Statutory Instrument 28 of 2012 -Marondera Municipal Council [Incorporated Areas] [Amendment] By-laws, 2012 [No. 31]. The proposed amendment to the second schedule, Section 11; 12 and 13 of that S.I. Part [v] creates an offence whose penalty, that is for Bus levy per entry into the local area for which the proposed penalties are fines of above Level 3, fine above $20.00 without providing for any due process. In terms of Section 271 [2] [B] as read with Section 141 and Section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act Chapter 9.07. A fine above Level 3 can only be imposed by a Court of law after full canvassing the essential elements of the offense. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the Right to the protection of the law as is envisaged in Section 18 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

This is because an accused person cannot be convicted until a Court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Second Schedule Sections 11, 12 and 13 Part [v] of the Statutory Instrument take away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and in so doing violates the right to protection of the law envisaged in the Constitution. Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument takes away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and in so doing violates the right to protection of the law envisaged in the Constitution. Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights particularly the protection of the law provision that is in Section 18 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Thank you.

SENATOR CHITAKA: I want to seek clarification from the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Legal Committee. In his introductory paragraph, he says that they met on the 3 rd of March, 2012 and they were considering Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March. If my calendar serves me well, three days into March, can you really call that Instruments submitted in the month of March, what happened to the other 28 days, is this legal jargon that I am failing to understand or it is the procedure that you sit on the 3rd of every month. If you can clarify that issue, if it was 3 rd of April to consider statutory instruments for March, then my mere legal mind would accept that.

*SENATOR KATYAMAENZA: I think we need time to research. It is very difficult for us to debate things which we do not know.

*SENATOR DETE: You have brought in a very good Statutory Instrument. Trying to protect people is very good so that they will not be charged more money but he should give us time to make a research on that because we are respected people and we need that time so that we do our own research and come up with our own conclusions because what is being tabled before us, we do not understand it. In short, they should just give us time to go over it.

*SENATOR MUCHIHWA: Looking at all these papers, it means that this has been debated quite a lot but listening to what others have talked about when we were looking at the first Instrument No. 25 (2012), I perceive that people were asking questions so that they would understand more from the Chairperson of the Committee. I have listened to other speakers who were saying that we need to run workshops, I do not think we can run Parliament with workshops, so, I think this passed through the House of Assembly, we are not all lawyers but when someone explains it, then at least we can get one or two things from it.

It is clearer now from the questions that were being asked by other members. Still on that, I do not see any reason that we should be granted more time to research on this. I believe that all of us sitting in this House, we are grown up and we are not versatile in terms of the law but I am pleading with this House that we should go by what the Chairman has tabled before us. I think he is really explaining, all those who have asked questions, I think what we need are just explanations on how much was charged and the offences that were committed. I think all that was explained to the extent that all of us have understood.

If you look at all the papers before us, it is one and the same thing. I do not see any problem that these papers should be tabled in this House as well. This Committee made a research like all of us in our Committees, when we do investigations, it is the same thing that this Committee did because we also take our reports to the House of Assembly as well. I like all the councils, the one in Bindura and Marondera, there are all my councils but I think we should look at the laws and amend them where necessary. I do not have any problem with what is happening in this House.

THE CHAIRPERSON: Statutory Instruments are debated in this House only.

SENATOR MANDABA: Assuming I was a councillor in Marondera, I would not have thought US$20 would have been much. I now take it that perhaps the councillors or the municipalities are not aware of the levels, hence they charge according to what they think could be a fine. I know bus termini can be very chaotic and if there was menace in Marondera charging them an entry fee of US$20, to me would be fair, but it now means my council is also there from Bindura and Chiwaridzo. I would like to thank Hon. Mushonga because he had warned us that he was going to bring those Statutory Instruments. For us to read is not a problem. Even when we are in our constituencies, these councils are not giving us these Statutory Instruments. I think it is good we have a sight of these Statutory Instruments as well so that their job will not be difficult. What is at stake here is that we are not against what he is bringing but the question is that we are not aware and we do not know so, we are very grateful that at least he brought this before us that we can understand and debate on them.

*SENATOR KOMICHI: Thank you Madam Chair, what is being debated in this House is very good. I want to contribute one point, that I have read counting from March when the Parliamentary Legal Committee met and we are almost in July. We are people who always complain that if we do not look into our pigeon holes, we have problems because we do not know what will be tabled. We have a duty to protect the people and also the councils so that they work well. When councils sit down and put such things in place as these penalties, it means they want to work. If we take a lot of time debating on one thing it means we are effecting the people that we represent and also the councils.

What I have understood is that these councils did not know, they were not aware. They charged people amounts which they are not supposed to charge which are above US$20. The law says that if you charge anything above US$20, that issue should be taken to court. That is the gist of the matter. For us to labour the chairperson of the Parliamentary Legal Committee, it means that we are giving him a hard time on things that are very clear. What is before us is very clearly, that if you are charging a fee above US$20, then you should take that person to court.

What we are saying is, considering courage, I think we should respect this Parliamentary Legal Committee because they are well respected people. Looking at the years and experience that they have, I think they are doing good, they know what they are doing. The speed that we are moving at now is very slow, I think we should just work together and not disagree with what has been tabled before us because it is for the good of our people. I think we should let this pass. Thank you very much.

*SENATOR CHIEF CHISUNGA: I would like to thank you Madam Chair for the explanation that has been given by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Legal Committee. I am now knowledgeable that councils should have provided escape route, that in the event that anything like this happens, they should take this course. I am urging this House to take note of this record so that people in our councils should be protected. Thank you.

*SENATOR MTINGWENDE: Thank you Madam Chair, I do not want to waste your time but I can see that we are now eating up into the business of today because we are repeating the same thing. I think in his opening remarks, the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Legal Committee agreed that he is going to table the papers before us. I just want to add that it is not the question of arguing for the sake of arguing and it is not a question of respecting the committee but it is a question of passing things that we understand where they are coming from and where they are going. My point of view is that we are now eating into the time of the other business of the House. I think Hon. Mushonga has accepted already that he is going to bring the Statutory Instruments to us so that we can move forward. Thank you.

+SENATOR S. DUBE: The role that has been said by the Chairperson is a role that can help especially those who stay in urban areas but what I realise is that, it is one good thing, Chairperson, that if we approve something we become people who act like elderly people since some of my colleagues have highlighted that. I also want to highlight that we have to approve something that we have actually taken note of not just rubber stamping.

According to what I have seen, this is a role that is very clear when council can sit down and agree on this, to have said that they have all accepted the role that has been said. I have realised that many a times especially in Harare, when your car is clamped, they want you to pay immediately a fee of US$50. You realise that it is not everyone who is able to pay that. Sometimes you will not be having that kind of cash in your pocket.

The rule that have been laid before the House is a proper rule but we realize that we need time to have a look at that and what we need is to go through the paper so that we will not regret at the end, that we just rubber stamped the law that was brought. I therefore agree with the Chairperson that what has been put in the House is a proper law. I also want to ask that all the local authorities have to go right as that Committee that has been set and look at all the local authorities.

According to the by-laws in the councils they are supposed to have submitted. All local authorities should have submitted by end of March, not now. Maybe what I can say to the Hon. Chairperson is they should go back and sit down and bring it as one document. Whilst we do that we realize that we will be taking things slowly and this will delay even the process of approving this that has been said. I thank you.

+SENATOR HLALO: I thank you Chairperson, I also want to add my voice on this debate and I will put it across by saying I thank the Committee that is responsible for this, especially what comes from the local authorities. Why I say this is because I realize that there are other local authorities doing things that they are not supposed to be doing. They will be doing this just because they are part of the law makers. I am saying this; I will give an example of one of the authorities that are responsible for toll gates. They have their own toll gate where they say everyone who is passing by that toll gate are supposed to be paying but from what I know, they are only three toll gates that are there from Harare to Bulawayo. We therefore wish that local authorities are supposed to be informed for them to put a law that can cover everyone. We also realise that if the local authority is charging everyone who is passing by in that place, it is something that is not according to the law that was set. All this, the committee is supposed to have a look at it and they are supposed to protect people who will be passing through each and every constituency. I thank you.

MR. MUSHONGA: These Statutory Instruments can accumulate from January to February and we meet on the 3rd. They will be probably one or two, so we will only know as we attend to that. So, we refer to the date when it is set. The issue of knowledge, yes, I totally agree that a workshop is required for hon. senators. They are very intricate procedures like this process. When you are dealing with the plea of guilty, it has a provision in law where you have to understand what you are facing and I appreciate it. It is not something I can explain from here and we all understand.

The research is done and as I indicated, we have two legal practitioners in the Parliamentary Legal Committee employed by Parliament and the committee of five is made up of three lawyers and two other members. Coming to the issue of whether it is offences we are against or the levels we are against. I want to emphasize that it is not the level. They can put whatever amount. They can charge $200, as long as it is referred to court, we have no qualms with that, but if they do not refer to court and put a penalty which is above $20 and not make reference to the person appearing in court, then we have a problem with that. So, it is not about the levels. They can put any level, as long as they refer it to court we have no qualms because we know justice will be done but if they put a level and do not refer the issue to court and the level asks for a fine below $20. But if you put a fine of $30 and do not refer the matter to court, then we will say Zimbabweans have not been protected. They need to be protected by the courts of law and that is where we will now strike it down.

What is the effect of an Adverse Report? The effect of an Adverse Report is that - let me go slightly back, a Statutory Instrument is issued by council. It is published in the Government Gazette. Once it is published it becomes law. In other words those penalties are collected and so forth, until we pass an Adverse Report, bring it into this august House, you pass it and then it is taken to the Lower House. It is passed and then it will go to the President for his signature. If in 21 days, Parliament does not deal with it in the House of Assembly, but Senate has dealt with it, again that report is taken to the President for his ascendance. So, once you have passed it as Senate and 28 days have passed before House of Assembly deals with it, the report will go to the President for his ascendance. So, it is tantamount, yes, to dismissing that. This is the meaning of that.

Yes, councils need to raise money, we all know that but they have to raise money in a legal manner. If councils are going to be arbitrary, for example, if you are found with sand in your truck. You want probably to build a fish pond at your plot and you are found carrying sand. The council can say we want $2 000 and impound your car and so forth. Once they do that without referring to court, then it comes to the Parliamentary Legal Committee, we will say no. Yes, you can charge

$2 000 for whatever amount of sand, but allow that person to appear before a court and put his case. After he has been convicted properly, the fine can always come to council. So, this is the point, we do not stop them from fining people. We do not stop them from enforcing, but once they go above $20, we want them to refer the person to court so that the due process - do you admit, yes; did you do A,B,C,D on this day, yes; did you want to deprive the councils of its property, yes, we find you guilt and then pay the fine. This is what we are saying. So, I am totally with you. We are not asking this House to just rubber stamp, no. we want this House to put into consideration what your committee found and actually pass it with a full conviction that your committee did well. So we are in your hands as your committee and we believe that your wise advice will be taken into account.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: Wednesday, 20th June, 2012.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 30 OF 2012: CHEGUTU (INCORPORATED AREAS) (AMENDMENT) BY-LAWS, 2012 (NO.18)

Fourth Order read: Committee: Adverse Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 30 of 2012 - Chegutu Council (Incorporated Areas) (Amendment) By-Laws, 2012 (No. 18).

Senate in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA: Thank you Madam Chair. In pursuit of its Constitutional mandate as provided for in Section 40(b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Parliamentary Legal Committee met on 3rd March, 2012 at 1400 hours to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazette during the month of March. After deliberations it unanimously resolved that an adverse report be issued in respect of Statutory Instrument 30 of 2012 due to the following considerations:

- Statutory Instrument 30 of 2012 - Chegutu (Incorporated area) (Amendment) By-Laws 2012 No. 18. The proposed amendment to the second schedule Section 11, 12, 13 part 3 creates an offence illegal water connection for which the proposed penalties are fines of above level 3, fines above US$20, without providing for due process.

- In terms of Section 271 sub-section 2(b) as read with Section 141 and Section 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, Chapter 9.07, a fine above level 3 can only be imposed by a court of law after fully canvassing the essential elements of the offence. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the right to the protection of law as is envisaged in Section 18 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. This is because an accused person cannot be convicted until a court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Second Schedule, Sections 11, 12 and 13 part 3 of the Statutory Instrument take away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and in so doing it violates the right to the protection of the law. In addition the committee resolved that the penalty creating provision should fall under a separate heading, specifically covering penalties instead of being lumped together with other fees, the penalty is lumped together with other fees and we should have a separate penalty provision.

Accordingly this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly, the protection of the law provision, that is Section 18 of the Zimbabwean Constitution. Thank you Madam Chair.

SENATOR MAKAMURE: I do not know when people are saying "no debate," when I want to talk. I have the right to talk, just to submit a few issues. My proposal was that when I observed all this, that is from number 2 to number 7, all of them are the same. In fact, people demanded some specific information to sort of patch up, so that they can also understand what this means. I therefore see it as repetition, perhaps Madam President, comes in and then continue discussing the issues that have already been submitted and require certain information. Can I move therefore that we do not make a repetition of these that come under and move that such information, as was the recommendation before, be brought forthwith in the next session or tomorrow? I thank you.

MR. MUSHONGA: Thank you Madam Chair. Yes, we have undertaken that we will make the actual documents available with our reports from now on. We have made the reports available because last time they were requested and that is why we have complied. I take that into account and I am happy with the advice from the hon. Senators and we will do accordingly likewise.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: I propose that we report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Senate resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: 20th June, 2012.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 40 OF 2012 KARIBA (INCORPORATED AREAS) (AMENDMENT) BY-LAWS, 2012 (NO. 33)

Fifth Order read: Committee: Adverse Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 40 of 2012 - Kariba (Incorporated Areas) (Amendment) By-Laws, 2012 (No. 33)

Senate in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA : In pursuit of its constitutional mandate as provided for in section 40B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, The Parliamentary Legal Committee met on the 3rd of March 2012 at 1400hrs to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March. After deliberations, it unanimously resolved that an adverse report be issued in respect of Statutory Instrument 40 of 2012 due to the following considerations:

Statutory Instrument 40 of 2012 - Kariba (Incorporated Areas) (Amendment) By-laws, 2012 (No. 33)

The proposed amendment to the Second Schedule (Sections 11, 12 and 13) Part VIII creates an offence (building without approved plans and penalty for no inspection, per stage) for which the proposed penalties are fines of above level three (fines above US$20) without providing for any due process.

In terms of section 271(2) (b) as read with section 141 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [chapter 9:07] a fine above level 3 can only be imposed by a Court of law after fully canvassing the essential elements of the offence. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the right to the protection of the law envisaged in section 18 of the Constitution. This is because an accused person can not be convicted until a court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Second Schedule (Sections 11, 12 and 13) Part VIII of the Statutory Instrument takes away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and in so doing violates the right to the protection of the law.

Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the protection of the law provision that is, Section 18 of Constitution.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: I move that progress be reported and seek leave to sit again.

Senate resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: 20th June, 2012.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NO. 41 OF 2012-NORTON TOWN COUNCIL (FOOD HYGIENE) BY LAWS, 2012.

SixthOrder read: Adverse Report by the Parliamentary Legal Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 41 of 2012 - Norton Town Council (Food Hygiene) By-Laws, 2012.

Senate in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA: In pursuit of its constitutional mandate as provided for in section 40B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, The Parliamentary Legal Committee met on the 3rd of March 2012 at 1400hrs to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March. After deliberations, it unanimously resolved that an adverse report be issued in respect of Statutory Instrument 41 of 2012 due to the following considerations:

Statutory Instrument 41 of 2012 - Norton Town Council (Food Hygiene) By-Laws, 2012

The proposed section 8 of the Statutory Instrument creates offences for which the medical officer of health, chief health inspector or health inspector who inspects the premises "shall cause the offender to pay an approved fine" without providing for any due process.

The Committee resolved that the offence creating any penalty imposing provision is vague in so far as the "approved fine" isn't defined and allows the possible levying of fines above level three. In terms of section 271(2) (b) as read with section 141 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [chapter 9:07] a fine above level 3 can only be imposed by a Court of law after fully canvassing the essential elements of the offence. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the right to the protection of the law envisaged in section 18 of the Constitution. This is because an accused person cannot be convicted until a court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed section 8 of the Statutory Instrument takes away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and in so doing violates the right to the protection of the law.

Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the protection of the law provision that is, Section 18 of Constitution.

Senate resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: 20th June, 2012.

COMMITTEE STAGE

ADVERSE REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY LEGAL COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENT NUMBER 44 OF 2012 - BINDURA MUNICIPALITY (CHIPADZE AND CHIWARIDZO ANNEXE (INCORPORATED AREAS) (RENT SERVICES AND SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES)(AMENDMENT) BY-LAWS 2012 (N0. 18)

Seventh Order read: Committee Stage: Adverse report by the

Parliamentary Committee on Statutory Instrument No. 44 of

2012 - Bindura Municipality (Chipadze and Chiwaridzo Annexe (Incorporated Areas) (Rent Services and Supplementary

Charges) (Amendment) By-laws 2012 (N0. 18).

Senate in Committee.

MR. MUSHONGA: In pursuit of its constitutional mandate as provided for in section 40B of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, The Parliamentary Legal Committee met on the 3rd of March 2012 at 1400hrs to consider Statutory Instruments that were gazetted during the month of March. After deliberations, it unanimously resolved that an adverse report be issued in respect of Statutory Instrument 44 of 2012 due to the following considerations:

Statutory Instrument 44 of 2012 - Bindura Municipality (Chipadze and Chiwaridzo Annexe Incorporated Areas) (Rent, Services and Supplementary Charges)(Amendment) By-laws, 2012 (No. 18)

The proposed amendment to the Schedule (Sections 4) Part XII creates a number of offences for which the proposed penalties are fines of above level three (fines above US$20) without providing for any due process.

In terms of section 271(2) (b) as read with section 141 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [chapter 9:07] a fine above level 3 can only be imposed by a Court of law after fully canvassing the essential elements of the offence. This procedure is meant to afford an accused person the right to the protection of the law envisaged in section 18 of the Constitution. This is because an accused person cannot be convicted until a court has satisfied itself that the person is indeed pleading guilty. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Schedule (Sections 4) Part XII of the Statutory Instrument takes away the protection created by the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, and in so doing violates the right to the protection of the law.

Accordingly, this Statutory Instrument was found to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, particularly the protection of the law provision that is, Section 18 of Constitution.

SENATOR MUMVURI: I am not belittling what has already been said by others, but I think we are more educated after going through this process being lectured by the learned lawyer, Mushonga.

What puzzles me - may be just to quicken the process next time. I am wondering whether these local authorities - are they not aware of this section of the Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act and they employ expertise in their departments who are legal minds. Why do they not advise them correctly, instead of passing the buck to us? To wait for Mushonga and company to find that it is ultra vires, it is breaching the Constitution. I do not think it is necessary.

Again, I think the law has a loop hole whereby a by-law is set, gazetted and they start collecting fines without going through these procedures. They have already collected some fines using this and now we are trying to correct. Why can we not prevent this damage before it happens next time? Local authorities should act on informed basis if they have got legal minds in their departments to avoid this. That is my observation.

SENATOR MLOTSHWA: We did not understand before, but now we understand and we are ready to support the legal Committee and we see that by so doing, we will be alleviating the issue of ordinary people being fined and paying without the legal processes being observed. So I rise to say to Hon. Mushonga, of course on item number 2, we did not understand and that you did not also save enough papers because with me here, I have got only the Kariba and the Norton one, we did not have the other papers but then by sitting today, by going through your response, we have now understood that what we need to do here will benefit the people of Zimbabwe. I thank you.

MR. MUSHONGA: Thank you Madam Chair, thank you for all the recommendations, the issue of whether Local Authorities have expertise within them, yes they have but that expertise is not related to drafting. This is legislative drafting which is a department on its own, lawyers do not go through that. Secondly, even if they miss it at local level, the Attorney General's office should pick it in the drafting version but they are failing to pick those mistakes. We deal with probably 50 -100 page Statutory Instruments, but some of them will be properly written that if the fine is so much after appearing in court. So some of them are properly done and the issue is; yes they have collected these from March up to now but I believe it is better late than never. Also this is the monitoring aspect of Parliament, Parliament supervises these subordinate institutions like local authorities and by Parliament picking these mistakes, you are monitoring and also protecting the citizens. So it is your role. Unfortunately, this is how the subsidiary legislation is meant to be. It is meant to come into effect immediately because sometimes there is something urgent, you are dealing with a cholera outbreak and you need to put laws to enforce that. So they allowed bringing it into effect immediately, subject to Parliament's endorsement or refusal. So this is how the system came into operation and we appreciate why it was done like that, thank you Madam Chair.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: I seek leave for the Committee to sit again.

Senate resumed.

Progress reported.

Committee to resume: 20th June, 2012.

ANNOUNCEMENT BY MR. PRESIDENT

VOLUNTARY COUNSELLING AND TESTING

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In view of the overwhelming response for the voluntary counselling and testing as well as male circumcision set for Friday 22nd June, 2012, members are informed that programme now starts tomorrow, Wednesday 20th June, 2012 and will go through to Thursday and Friday for group counselling sessions from 0900hrs to 1200hrs in the Senate Chamber.

Members who volunteered for the programme are requested to indicate which day they are coming for the counselling session. Please submit your names to Mr. Chiremba, Mr. Chuma and Mrs. Chingoka. However, the main event remains Friday 22nd June, 2012 starting at 0830hrs.

MOTION

FIRST REPORT OF THE THEMATIC COMMITTEE ON INDIGENISATION AND EMPOWERMENT ON THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIGENISATION AND EMPOWERMENT POLICY

SENATOR HLALO: I move the motion standing in my name that this House takes note of the First Report of the Thematic Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment on the Status of Implementation of the Indigenisation and Empowerment Policy.

SENATOR CHIEF MUSARURWA: I second.

SEN. HLALO: 1. INTRODUCTION

In exercising its oversight function over the Executive, the Thematic Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment resolved to inquire into the progress that has been made in complying with the implementation of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. This follows the operationalisation of Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and gazetting of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Regulations.

2. OBJECTIVES

The Committee sought to achieve the following objectives:

i) To establish the nature of indigenisation and empowerment programmes designed for the different sectors of the economy;

ii) To assess the extent to which the programmes have been implemented; and

iii) To find out any challenges that may be militating against the implementation of the Indigenisation and Empowerment policy.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Pursuant to the above objectives, the Committee received oral evidence from the Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment, National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board, Ministry of Mines and the Zimbabwe Youth Council on the implementation of the policy. The Central African Building Society, Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe Miners Federation were some of the other organisations that made presentations to the Committee.

3.2 The Committee conducted field visits to Mutoko and received evidence from companies involved in the mining of Black Granite, on their operations and compliance with the Indigenisation and Empowerment policy. The Committee also visited Ngezi Mine and the ZIMPLATS' smelting plant with particular interest on the recently launched Community Share Ownership Trust. On both occasions, the Committee met communities surrounding the mining companies. The communities made submissions on their level of awareness and understanding of Indigenisation and Empowerment policies and benefits accruing to them from the activities of mining companies operating in their respective areas.

4.0 THE COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS

The Committee learnt the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund provided for through Section 12 of the Act had not yet been established. The fund, whose major objectives is to provide financial assistance to indigenous Zimbabweans for purposes of financing the acquisition of shares and finance for business start up and expansion of existing ones, had not received an allocation from the fiscus in the last two years.

4.1 Indigenisation and Empowerment Legislative Framework

4.1.1 The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act became operational on 17 April 2008. The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment General Regulations came into force on 1 March 2010. The Committee was informed that sector specific committees set up in August 2010 had been working and coming up with recommendations to the Minister as demanded by their mandates. The Minister had then been able to further develop the legislative framework for the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment agenda.

4.1.2 The Committee learnt that the Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment had come up with the legislative framework for the indigenisation and empowerment programme. The framework published as General Notices 114 of 2011 were sector specific to the indigenisation of the mining and manufacturing sectors. The Committee was informed that the Minister's recommendations in the agricultural and agro-processing, transport, education, sport and arts, entertainment and culture awaited consideration by Cabinet. In addition to that, the Committee was informed that the Minister was still consulting other ministries and departments before presenting proposals for the rest of the sectors of the economy.

4.1.3 The Ministry of Youth Development Indigenisation and Empowerment submitted to the Committee that more than one thousand businesses had submitted their provisional indigenisation implementation plans as required by the law. It was brought to the attention of the Committee that finalisation of these plans for all other sectors, apart from mining and manufacturing, awaited the publication of the sector specific frameworks.

4.2 Status on the implementation of the mining sector-specific framework

General Notice 114 of 2011, referred to earlier on, sets out the framework within which indigenisation shall take place in the mining sector. The minimum requirements for compliance are:-

i) the disposal of 51% shareholding to indigenous Zimbabweans by non indigenous mining businesses;

ii) the calculation of the value of shares to be disposed on the basis of a valuation agreed to between the Minister and the non-indigenous mining business concerned; and

iii) the achievement of indigenisation of the sector within a period of six months from the date of publication of the General Notice.

4.2.1 The Committee was concerned that out of the 175 implementation plans the Ministry had received, a small number had been accepted since most of them did not meet the legal requirements. The Committee was informed that only 54 plans had been approved. The Ministry however, indicated to the Committee that some businesses needed to make some adjustments and the plans would be approved.

4.3 Broad Based Participation

The Committee learnt that a number of measures had been instituted to ensure broad-based participation of the Zimbabwean people in the indigenisation of the mining sector. The Committee noted with satisfaction the following different measures the Ministry was insisting on every plan:-

a) at least a 5% equity offer to Management and Employees Share Ownership Trusts as part of the 51% quota;

b) at least a 10% equity to the Community Share Ownership Trusts as part of the 51% quota;

c) in cases where indigenous Zimbabweans hold part of the prescribed 51% quota or do not hold equity in the mining business, the balance of the equity is allocated to the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund; and

d) contributions to the Sovereign Wealth Fund that is established based on the mineral based resources.

4.4 Compliance with the frameworks

4.4.1 The Committee was disappointed to learn that the fund had not been capitalised. The Ministry and the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board indicated that the major challenge was the inadequate allocations from the National Budget. The Committee was informed that by December 2011, US$1, 594, 000 had been received from an allocation of US$5 million.

4.4.2 The Board painted a gloomy picture for 2012 by indicating to the Committee that the Fund had been allocated US$6 million in the National Budget for operational expenses and US$400 000 for capital expenditure. The Committee was informed that this allocation had been made against a total operational expenses and capital budget of US$16.2 million.

4.5 Other Methods of Raising Capital

The Board also informed the Committee that it had not been able to raise capital using the other methods at its disposal. The Board had been unable to secure credit facilities from the banks which insisted on a government guarantee. The Board also indicated that it had been unable to collect the Indigenisation and Empowerment levy from all companies operating in Zimbabwe in terms of Section 17 (1) of Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. It was highlighted that this levy had to be gazetted first by the Ministry of Finance. Legal requirements that are yet to be instituted also prohibited the Board from raising funding through the issuance of bonds on the market.

4.6 Community Share Ownership Trusts (CSOTs)

4.6.1 The Committee was satisfied with the progress that has been made in the establishment of the CSOT by ZIMPLATS. The allocation of 10% of shareholding to the companies' community trust was a welcome development which the Committee envisages that other mining companies will follow.

4.6.2 Officials at ZIMLATS informed the Committee that their indigenisation plan encompasses a 5% employee share ownership element. Although at the time of the Committee's visit the Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment was still negotiating with the company on the finalization of ZIMPLATS's plan, recent reports of an agreement having been reached is welcomed by the Committee as this paves way for the company to continue its operations for the benefit of all, especially the previously disadvantaged indigenous Zimbabweans.

4.6.3 The visits by the Committee to Granite Mining companies in Mutoko and ZIMPLATS convinced the Committee more than before that indeed Zimbabwe is endowed with minerals that can be exploited for the benefit of its citizens. The incidences and extent of poverty and levels of underdeveloped, particularly in the areas the minerals are being extracted indicate an element of injustice when one considers the huge amounts of income accruing from the sale of the natural resources, albeit in their raw forms.

4.7 Differences between the Mining Companies and the Local Communities

4.7.1 During the Committee's visits to Mutoko and Selous, it became apparent that there seems to be a gap between the mining companies and the local communities. Granite mining companies submitted to the Committee that they were involved in a number of projects and programmes as part of their corporate social responsibility. They indicated that they provided water, ambulance services, road maintenance and assistance to local schools among other programmes.

4.7.2 The local communities on the other hand, informed the Committee that they were not benefiting from the operations of the mining companies. The communities spoke of employment opportunities given to people from outside the communities, cracks on their houses and school buildings as a result of blasting and the neglecting of spouses and children for some of the workers who died on duty at the mines. The locals also submitted to the Committee that their livestock sometimes fall into shafts left uncovered by the mining companies. It was disturbing to note that despite these challenges the community pointed out, they were aware of certain individuals amongst them who accessed handouts such as diesel, matemba and rice from one of the companies. The community noted that these individuals did not make representations on behalf of the community as they pursued their own self interest.

4.7.3 A similar trend was evident during the visit to ZIMPLATS. The company officials informed the Committee that it was involved in building schools, providing facilities to those relocated elsewhere to pave way for mining operations and prioritized employment opportunities for the locals.

4.7.4 The local community gave a completely different picture on the benefits they were deriving as a result of the company's operations. The community complained about the loss of grazing land, firewood, destruction of their water points and the absence of consultations with regards to mining developments that affected their livelihoods. They demanded a host of facilities and benefits from the company ranging from the upgrading of the polyclinic, road maintenance, and provision of electricity among other demands.

4.7.5 In terms of the indigenisation and empowerment policy and programmes, the Committee noted with concern the low levels of awareness by all the communities. Although some individuals indicated that they had heard about the policy through the media, they did not have a clear understanding of what the policy entails. ZIMPLATS officials, where the first Community Share Ownership Trust was launched, informed the Committee that the next stage of their implementation programme involved conducting outreach programmes to explain what the Trust is and how it works. They were quick to point out that the local community had already expressed the need to ensure that the Trust is not abused. The Committee, therefore, implores Trustees to ensure that the Community Share Ownership Trusts are properly managed and not discredited on account of not benefiting the intended people.

4.8 The Youth Empowerment Fund

4.8.1 The Committee also learnt that a number of programmes targeting the youths had been initiated. These included the Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenization and Empowerment's development programme focusing on imparting skills. The Committee was informed that 3 500 youths had received entrepreneurial skills training in the Ministry's 42 vocational training centres to enable them to start and run their own businesses.

4.8.2 The Committee was pleased to learn that there were a number of youths loan funding facilities being extended to productive and viable projects in all sectors of the economy. The Committee was informed of the Youth Empowerment Fund managed by the Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe and the Infrastructure Development Bank and that 583 projects with a potential to create 1 830 jobs had been funded in 2010.

4.9 The Kurera/Ukondla Youth Fund

4.9.1 The Committee gathered that the Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment had signed a Memorandum with Old Mutual Limited and Central African Building Society (CABS) on the establishment of a Youth Empowerment Facility. This arrangement involves Old Mutual disposing two and a half percent of its equity to the Youth Development Fund which is equivalent to US$10 million. CABS's role is to mobilise funds for on lending to bankable youth projects with shares used as collateral and to manage the facility. The Committee was informed that the maximum threshold for loans shall be up to US$5 000 at concessionary interest rates and administrative fees of 10% per annum and 2% respectively. The repayment period is a period of not more than thirty six months.

4.9.2 CABS Officials informed the Committee that 10 000 application forms had been initially distributed and another 10 000 were to be distributed again. The Committee learnt that 2 816 applications had been received by 16 February 2012 and only 76 of these had been approved. The value of the amount approved was $266 775 and of this amount, $99 206 had been disbursed at an average loan size of $3 400.

4.9.3 The Committee observed that 22 beneficiaries of the fund were women and 50 were men and that the funds had been deployed to projects in the manufacturing, agricultural and distribution sectors of the economy. The Committee noted that the majority of the beneficiaries resided in Harare. CABS officials informed the Committee that each province would be allocated $1 million to ensure equitable distribution of the funds. The Zimbabwe Youth Council pointed out that although the $10 million was inadequate it was however a good starting point.

4.9.4 The Committee observed that many youths especially in outlying areas were not aware of these facilities. The Committee was concerned about the total number of rejected applications considering that there was no collateral security requirements. The Committee also noted with concern the low rate of uptake of the funds by women and is convinced that with more information dissemination the situation will improve.9

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 After considering the evidence and its observations the Committee recommends the following measures:

5.1.1 That Government should improve people's awareness of the Indigenisation and Empowerment policy and programmes through dissemination of information. Companies, on their part, should publicise their programmes to create awareness and encourage by-inns from the local communities.

5.1.2 That Government concludes the amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act and develops a Minerals Development Policy as part of the initiatives to develop the industry.

5.1.3 That Government develops a clear policy on value addition for all exports currently being exported in their raw forms so as to ensure that the country and its citizens fully benefit from the exploitation of resources.

5.1.4 That Government reconsiders the current fees structures particularly in the mining sector, with a view to making them affordable to the indigenous Zimbabweans.

5.1.5 That Government allocates and disburses adequate funds in order to capitalise the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund. The relevant ministries should gazette the necessary statutory instruments that will enable the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board to mobilise funds through other alternative sources.

THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: I move that the debate do now adjourn.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume: Wednesday, 20th June, 2012.

On the motion of THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS , the Senate adjourned at Five Minutes to Five o'clock p.m.

Last modified on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 09:56
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS
Senate Hansard Vol. 21 SENATE HANSARD - 19 JUNE 2012 VOL. 21 NO. 34