Friday, March 29, 2024

Verbatim Transcript of speech by Justice minister ,Hon Simbyakula to Parliament

Share

Justice Minister Ngosa Simbyakula
Justice Minister Ngosa Simbyakula

Annexure A

Verbatim Transcript of the speech by the minister of Justice,Hon Simyakula,Mp on Novemeber 2015, Transcibed by Brigadier General Godfrey Miyanda

Hon Minister of Justice: “Thank you Mr Speaker. Sir, there comes a time in the life of a nation when a people must stand up and take a gigantic step forward. Mr Speaker, we as a people have been grappling with the constitution-making process for years and years. Constitutional review commissions have come and gone and yes so much resources have been spent on this process. Yet a constitution that would stand the test of time still continues to elude us.

But one admirable trait about Zambians is our ability to maintain persistency of purpose. We do not and should never ever throw up our arms in the air in despair and give up. We owe it not only to ourselves but more so to posterity and generations to come to continuously strive to make Zambia a better place for all. The time to take that step is now (nigh?). Mr Speaker I have on different occasions shared with this august House why we on this side of the House propose to take this course of action of bringing the Constitution to Parliament for adoption rather than to a referendum. There are three grounds on which we based our decision. First and foremost it is the cost element. A referendum is an election in itself and holding a standalone referendum would have meant holding two major elections in one year. And as we are all aware, Mr Speaker, our fiscal space is severely constrained to support two major elections. That is why we considered it financially prudent to bring the Constitution Bill to this House and then subject the Bill of Rights to a referendum as is required by law to ;;; to be held concurrently with the tripartite elections in 2016.

Secondly Mr Speaker we decided to bring the whole document to this House to determine the non-contentious clauses rather than we on your right seating on our own. We were of the view that doing so on our own would have amounted to producing a White Paper. As Honourable Members may recall production of White Papers have in the past contributed to the derailment of the Constitution-making process. To be successful constitution development must involve all stakeholders. Which leads me to the third ground, Mr Speaker. Admittedly in our manifesto we advocated for a referendum as a mode of adoption of the Constitution. Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the best manifestation of the expression of the will of the people on an issue is through a direct vote of all voters in a referendum, I repeat, on an issue. In other words a referendum is the most democratic way of deciding single issues. If I may give an example Mr Speaker, if we here in Zambia want to decide whether to maintain or abolish the death penalty a referendum will provide the Zambian people the most democratic and direct say in the matter. That would indeed be the best expression of the will of the people on the death penalty. Similarly the Bill of Rights is one such issue on which the people can decide in a referendum. The Constitution on the other hand Mr Speaker is not a single issue; rather it is a complex multidimensional document consisting of a multitude of diverse issues. On reflection, therefore, Mr Speaker, we like many Zambians came to the realisation that on multidimensional issues like a constitution a referendum as a mode for decision making constitution making faces serious practical challenges. The draft constitution before us cons 322 clauses Mr Speaker. Unless and until we can find a practical way of determining the will of the people on each and every one of those clauses a yes or no vote to the whole document cannot reflect the true will of the voter on the ground that it is not possible for a voter to agree on all the 322 clauses. To request the voter to either say yes or no to a whole document when in actual fact he or she may accept some clauses and reject others, excuse me, places the voter in a serious dilemma. A yes or no vote on the whole document, Mr Speaker, would not be a true reflection of the will of the people. In view of the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum we are of the view that representative democracy where an elected group that expresses the will of the people they represent is the most practical and democratic means of adopting the Constitution. Mr Speaker, representative democracy is the bastion of any democratic dispensation and is of universal application. Provided we stay focused and do not sacrifice this process before us on the altar of partisan objectives I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the Honourable Members representatives of the Zambian people here assembled in this House to express the will of the people they represent. Mr Speaker, in view of what I have said the representatives of the Zambian people here assembled can rise to the occasion and put the interest of the Zambian people first before partisan interests, I have no doubt in my mind at all, Mr Speaker, that we as a people are on the threshold of going to the frontiers where we have not been before in so far as constitutional development in Zambia is concerned. That said, Mr Speaker, the fact that there are clauses in the Draft Constitution which can be salvaged in order to push our democratic genda (agenda?) forward as a nation I must with the greatest respect beg to differ with the recommendation of your Committee that the Bill be withdrawn. Rather we are of the view that we should proceed with it and enact the non-contentious clauses in the Bill. As we are all aware a lot of resources, time and effort have gone into this process. It would be a great disservice to the Zambian people having reached this far to throw out the baby with the water. Mr Speaker, I urge this august House to support the Bill, so that we not only make progress but we as a people are seen to be making progress. Mr Speaker, I beg to move”.

Mr Speaker: “The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. The Chairperson, of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights, Gender Matters and Child Affairs. The Honourable Member for Choma Central”.

Hon Chairperson (Hon Mweetwa): “Mr Speaker, on Thursday 15th October 2015 the Constitution of Zambia Bill NAB Number 16 of 2015 was referred to your Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights, Gender Matters and Child Affairs for scrutiny. Mr Speaker, let me start by drawing the attention of this august House to the inseparable link between the Constitution of Zambia Bill and the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill Nat AB Number 17 of 2015. As the House is aware the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill is a schedule to the Constitution of Zambia Bill Number 16; therefore the decision of the Committee on the Amendment Bill has a bearing on the Constitution of Zambia Bill. It is against this background that I sincerely hope the Hon Members have had occasion to read the Report on both Bills. Mr Speaker your Committee notes that the Constitution of Zambia Bill Number 16 of 2015 provides for the printing and publication of the Constitution, savings and transitional provisions of existing state organs, state institutions, offices and laws and the succession to assets, rights, liabilities, obligations and legal proceedings. Mr Speaker, your Committee invited several witnesses who rendered both written and oral submissions on the Bill. Sir, I wish to report to the House that none of the witnesses that appeared before your Committee raised any concern or issue as the Bill was generally viewed to be mainly concerned transitional rather than substantive provisions. In agreeing with the witnesses your Committee observed that the Bill is consequential to the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill NAB 17 and its enactment, essential to the coming into effect and publication of the amended Constitution. Mr Speaker, your Committee observes that the provisions of the Constitution of Zambia Bill are non-controversial and the Committee would have ordinarily been recommending for its support by this House. However given that the stakeholders that appeared before your Committee failed to reach consensus on a number of critical issues in the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill National Assembly Bill Number 17 of 2015, your Committee recommends that the Constitution of Zambia Bill National Assembly Bill Number 16 of 2015 be withdrawn”.
*************************************
END OF TRANSCRIPT

1 COMMENT

  1. The constitution is a singular issue. The 322 clauses were debated by Zambians during the review commission & further ironed out by sata’s technical committee. Using Simbyakula’s argument then even bill o rights isn’t a singular issue as it contains a number of rights & one might not agree with all of them. What do these guys “eat” that make them this dull overnight.

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