Thursday, March 28, 2024

ZDDM petitions Speaker of the National Assembly

Share

The Zambia Direct Democracy Movement (ZDDM) has written to the Speaker of the National Assembly Patrick Matibini asking him to explain whether or not his decision to allow debates in a matter involving a former Head of State did not amount to abuse of Parliamentary privileges.

The ZDDM has contended that while the Speaker allowed debates on lifting the former president Rupiah Banda’s immunity, the matter was before the Court as there was already an injunction granted pending an inter-party hearing between the executive and the complainant, the former head of state.

In letter dated March 25, 2013 addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly and copied to QFM in Lusaka today, the ZDDM leader Edwin Sakala has also reminded the Speaker of the reply date July 18, 2012 he had given in response to a ZDDM petition dated June 28, 2012.

In the June 18, 2012 letter, the ZDDM was requesting that the Parliament makes a decision on the allegations that were leveled against the current Director for Public Prosecution Mr. Mutembo Nchito to which the Speaker had responded that House was retrained to discuss such a matter as it was already in Court.

The ZDDM has wondered why the Speaker did not restrain debates in the House when a motion was being passed to lift the former Head of State when such a matter was already before the Court of Law.

The opposition ZDDM has further observed that the action that Speaker had taken has the capacity to bring tension in the country among people with different political beliefs.

44 COMMENTS

    • Guys can ZDDM answer these questions first which I feel will help zambians:
      1. did RB steal from the state coffeers.?
      2. did RB sign a contract of oil supply which was never delivered…if he did sign in what capacity was he signing the said contract.?
      3. did RB open an account in Singapore..what is in that account..?
      4. did RB acquire unsecured loan amounting to a million dollars from a clothing company and not a financial institution as he first mislead us to believe.?

      If you Sakala can answer those questions then we might just join you in making noise.
      Plus remember that RB as we speak he is facing the courts so this is time wasting.
      stay blessed

    • Guys can ZDDM answer these questions first which I feel will help zambians:
      1. did RB steal from the state coffeers.?
      2. did RB sign a contract of oil supply which was never delivered…if he did sign in what capacity was he signing the said contract.?
      3. did RB open an account in Singapore..what is in that account..?
      4. did RB acquire unsecured loan amounting to a million dollars from a clothing company and not a financial institution as he first mislead us to believe.?

      If you Sakala can answer those questions then we might just join you in making noise.
      Plus remember that RB as we speak he is facing the courts so this is time wasting.
      stay blessed….

    • MR Kachali. DO NOT HIDE IN THE QUESTION OF PROCEDURE. THAT MATTER WAS NOT IN ANY COURT OF LAW. THOSE THIEVES WANTED TO AVOID BEING PROSECUTED BY USING A SHORT CUT. THEY JUST PRESENTED A MATTER BEFORE THE COURTS. THERE WAS NO JUDGE AT THAT TIME WHO WAS WILLING TO TAKE UP THAT ISSUE MY FRIEND. AND AT NIGHT THEY WENT TO TELL PARLIAMENT THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN THE MATTER TO COURT. A THIEF SHOULD NOT HIDE IN THE QUESTION OF PROCEDURE BABA.

    • @Big L; looks like you have alot more information than the public has. How come there is a clamour at going after RB and yet the government doesnt show the same vigour at persuing the DBZ debt that is owing by Mutembo and Mmembe. If past cases before the court of laws were being persued with the same tempo then people wouldnt smell a big rat in all this. We are not opposed to investigating RB but everyone should be treated equally before the law which doesnt look like the case in the prevailing political climate

    • @Big L Your problem is luck of understanding of Justice and due process of Law in a democratic society which you claim Zambia is. It is not the burden of those of us who are opposed to the way Banda is being handled to prove his innocence. Rather the Burden rests with you and your comrades at PF to prove those allegations that you are making. My answer to you questions 1 – 4 above is a simple I don’t know. You have the burden now to prove that the accusations that you are raising have substance to them. Otherwise anybody can just wake up on any given day and question what is in that or this account or that transaction without any merit at all. So prove you case bwana and let Mmembe and Nchinto also answer to the Courts for their crimes that are in black and white.

  1. Double standard, very unfortunate….. The Speaker has not effected the letters of expulsion of some MPs like Catherine Namugala, Monde, and others because according to the Speaker, the cases are in Courts. When the PF expelled the ‘Rebel MPs’ Parliament could not effect that order from the party because the case was still in court but on this immunity issue, the Speaker said their is no relationship on what takes place in parliament and the Courts of law….. What wisdom is that??? CRY MY BELOVED COUNTRY!!!!!

  2. I am a kin follower of parliamentary debates. Matibin’s rulings are pathetic. Strictly speaking the man has no CV to be Speaker. Yes he could be a PhD holder but he has no track record to deserve to be Speaker. To make the matters worse he has never been an MP and one can only assume that he is learning as Zambia looses out during his learning phase. As for him allowing Parliament to discuss a matter that was in court, that was a preconceived move. This man was sponsored by Membe and the Nchito brothers so what do you expect?

    • The Deputy Speaker is more professional in making rulings as compared to Dr Matibini. The truth of the matter is that he has failed to preside over the House. The opposition MPs and to be precise from Southern Province are more intelligent than the Speaker

  3. Personally, I do not see what the problem is, here. ZDDM, please note that the scenarios are totally different. Scenario 1 is that the case involving the DPP was already in court and then the Speaker is asked to make a ruling about a case which is in court and has nothing to do with the privileges of the house. Common sense tells me that the Speaker cannot make a ruling on this because doing so would certainly be interference in the operations of another arm of the GRZ. Scenario 2 involves a motion to lift the immunity of the former President. On learning that the motion would be tabled, Lawyers representing the former president went to court a day earlier to block an activity and privilege of Parliament- that of tabling and debating any motion.

  4. Parliamentary debates are NOT amenable to any action. Parliament is INDEPENDENT.
    Just like you cannot obtain an injunction against the Judiciary from performing its functions.
    On MPs whose cases are before the courts of law, the Parliament has nothing to do with membership status of an MP. Thats ECZ and in some cases the courts of law.
    Matibini was SPOT ON!!!!!

    • Foolish thinking then why do we have Judiciary to interpret the stupid laws which the same parliament make. They cannot make laws and interpret them themselves this is nonsense

    • @ Sampa; do not mix up discussing motions in parliament and parliamentary privileges with areas that deal with constitutionality. While the house legislates, the issue of removing an ex-presidents immunity touches on the constitution and so can not be dealt like any ordinary motion especially that RB was requesting to be given a say in the same August House. Unfortunately, given the calibre of MP’s we have, more than two-thirds of those MP’s have no clue about the constitution and to just allow such a bunch of MP’s to make a decision on removing an ex-presidents privileges after having been coerced into how to vote doesn’t bode well for democratic practice

  5. You want to defend a criminal? You morons.Let him defend himself in the courts of law.What type of people are you?Let us suspend all laws and put the constitution in abeyance.

    • We thought everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Looks like you and the PF treat their opponents as being guilty until proven innocent. Give the man and any other suspect for that matter the necessary legal rights they are entitled to.

  6. Continued’
    Common sense tells me that again, the Speaker was right to allow the house to receive, debate and vote on the motion to lift Mr. Banda’s immunity because he was upholding the independence of the legislature just as he had upheld the independence of the judicially by not interfering with the case involving the DPP by declining to make a ruling on it. The Summary of this is that, the Speaker cannot interfere in the operations of the judiciary by making rulings on cases which are before the courts. At the same time, the courts cannot be asked to make pre-emptive rulings which are bound to interfere with the operations of the legislature.

    • Dear Mr Mulenga, please make use of the spell check in as much as we appreciate the fact that Bemba’s have a problem with their r’s and l’s but not not the extent where one writes judically when instead of judicary.

    • @ Lungu you also messed up somewhere…r’s and l’s but not not the extent, you went further and wrote ” judically when instead of judicary. what animal is judicary..? its judiciary aLungu mwatisebanya….he who stays in a glass house must not throw stones

    • @ Lungu you also messed up somewhere…r’s and l’s but not not the extent, you went further and wrote ” judically when instead of judicary. what animal is judicary..? its judiciary aLungu mwatisebanya….he who stays in a glass house must not throw stones.

    • Dear Mr. Lungu, please make sure you check your grammar and punctuation before condemning someone’s simple spelling mistake, which he later corrects…. By the way, you also need to make use of spell check. Bembas = plural for Bemba, Bemba’s = something owned by a Bemba.

  7. IT IS NOW WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE. PLEASE LEARN TO FOCUS ON THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF WHAT HON.KABIMBA PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT. WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO WAS PERSONALLY SIGNING AGREEMENTS AT STATE HOUSE TO THE TUNE OF K21BN USING TAX-PAYERS MONEY TO PURCHASE OIL FROM NIGERIA AND DEPOSIT THE EARNINGS IN HIS PRIVATE ACCOUNT OUTSIDE ZAMBIA. THIS IS ABUSE OF OFFICE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. THE ZDDM SHOULD HELP US BY PROVING THAT 1. THAT THE AGREEMENT DID NOT EXIST 2. THAT RB NEVER SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT 3. THAT THE ACCOUNT OUTSIDE ZAMBIA DOES NOT EXIST 4. OR THAT RB HAD SUCH MONIES AND HE USED PERSONAL MONEY TO OPERATE THIS BUSINESS. THIS IS WHAT ZAMBIANS WANT TO KNOW. STORIES ABOUT MATIBINI ARE ILL-PLACED. IF ZDDM CANNOT PROVE THIS THEN LET THE COURTS OF LAW ADJUDICATE.

    • Which minister of health was depositing money in a private bank account? Who has now moved the issuance of Road contracts to State House? Case of living in a glass house…

  8. WE ALSO NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO SAY A MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURTS OF LAW. IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF GOING TO COURT AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR IN ORDER TO CURTAIL THE PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

    • Valid argument for the article above… The other comment you raised above, should be valid in a different fora, not here. I also feel RB should answer for his sins, but so should everyone else suspected of misapplying or misappropriating public funds especially, and I think this, here, article addresses the latter.

  9. first it was fwanya mulikita,amusamwana mwambwa,there was order and understanding matibini should step down first speaker to be question on the follow of the house wether he was in order to rule in a double starndared manner.matibini should do the honarable thing.

  10. ZDDM what a joke of a political party? Is this the kind of alternative leadership we have in this country who can’t see the deference between the two scenarios? shocking. Get a life.

  11. ZDDM, please go back to your Grade 6 Civics lessons and learn about the different arms of Government and their functions. Do not mislead Zambians. Since you at least seem to have faith in the Zambian Courts, please let RB prove his innocence there. The Presidential immunity is not a RIGHT but a privilege from the Zambian people and it can be withdrawn by the people through their elected representatives in Parliament. If the opposition MPs acted on behalf of the people who put them in Parliament, they would have stayed in the House to debate the matter instead of walking out like small children. Ask these MPs, they at least should know Parliamentary Privilleges, if they do not, then they are not fit to be members of the House.

  12. Mr. Lungu
    I appreciate that you never make mistakes in your writing and speaking of English. Thank you for correcting mine. But one thing is certain- my argument is very correct. No arm of government can take action to block the legitimate actions of another arm of government. The summary of this is that:
    1. When a matter is on its way or is already before any court of law, no other arm of
    government can interfere.
    2. When any matter is on its way or already before Parliament, no other arm of government can interfere. You cannot use the court to block parliament from doing its rightful duty.

  13. Let him be prosecuted if found wanting,chimbokaila was built for such people no one should be above the law.Thanks for giving him an opportunity to prove his innocence.ONE ZAMBIA,ONE NATION.

    • THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT HIS IMMUNITY. AND THE REST IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE. DONT SUPPORT RB WHEN YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. RIGHT NOW HE NEEDS SPIRITUAL SUPPORT. THE LAWYERS ARE JUST MAKING MORE MONEY OUT OF HIM. THEY WILL MILK HIM OF HIS STOLEN MONEY BUT WILL NOT ACCOMPANY HIM TO JAIL. LEARN TO DEBATE THE ISSUES THAT HON KABIMBA PUT BEFORE THE HOUSE. AND NOT MATTERS FROM THE BLUES. KAUNDA WAS SENT TO JAIL HOWBEIT ON TRAMPED UP CHARGES. RB IS NOT A GOD. HE IS HUMAN AND CAN STEAL. LET THE COURTS OF LAW DECIDE.

  14. There it is.There is time 4everything.Rupiah was forewarned about da trajectory he had embarked on-corruption.We should never allow impunity no matter who is involved & theft involving past presidents has invariably been in collosal sums.Surely,dat money could have been expended 3o procure drugs 4da clinics & some books 4poor primary school going children,talk of service delivery much needed dat we yearn 4year in year out.Opportunity has been grant 2RB 2exculpate himself in da courts of law.If u feel u can offer support 2him,do dat as his witness.Am sure he’ll b more than grateful

  15. Zambians have been refereed to as stupid *****s because of desire to pull each other down at any given chance.
    Here the case is very clear .first what moral justification is there for people like Kabimba and Nchito with specks in their eyes to try and remove a speck in RBs eye which we have not even seen.
    You Bembas will only convince us that you are civilised if you can join us in calling for the DPP and minister of justice to be cleared before they can start pointing accusing fingers against others.
    We don’t want a repeat of what happened to FTJ where the same people abused more than one trillion kwacha as indicated in the Auditor Generals report.We expected Sata to clear his team before they can drag others in mud.
    RB is innocent and those wishing him ill are just sadists

    • Rubbish rantings . You are always obsessed of the Bembas. You cant just debate minus vomiting trash on the Bembas. You supported the removal of Chiluba’s immunity but now you dont support the removal on RB? Why or what has changed man.?

  16. Ba Edwin Sakala, There is a difference between Ubupuba nobushilu. Between the two, ubushilu bwawamapo because ubushilu can be treated but ubupuba, you can not be treated. I think ba Edwin, you are exhibiting Ubupuba because when you compare the two cases, they are completely different. The immunity case is within parliament power to make a move and no one can stop parliament except itself. That one is callled separation of powers. The issue of Mutembo had nothing to do with parliament because the issue was a matter for the court to preside over and whatever parliament’s course they were going to take was going to be an act of underminig the judiciary hence the learned Speakers’ reponse to you. If you are unable to differentiate between the two, am not sure what you are trying to do.

  17. If at all this ZDDM is an NGO, Zambia has a problem. This NGO does not even know and understand the law of Zambia.
    Your grounds of petition are baseless, please do not show your stupidity and your lack in understanding simple law. The issue in question was before Parliament, therefore no Court in Zambia can discuss or compile Parliament not to debate that montion. Let me run you through Parliamentaly procedures, just when a montion has been registered for debate, it means its before Parliament, no question about it. Parliament bussines does not start at apoint of discussing a montion no, it starts at registering a montion to be tabled for discussion. I wonder why these so called opposition can not understand procedures which are part of their daily roles. Shame to them.

Comments are closed.

Read more

Local News

Discover more from Lusaka Times-Zambia's Leading Online News Site - LusakaTimes.com

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading