In whose interest does the speaker and her second deputy preside over the affairs of parliament?
By Chitende Chipumbu
Since the first woman speaker was elected into office, there have been several voices, especially in the opposition, that expressed disatisfaction at the way she and one of her deputies conducts business in the house.
A lot of people were hesitant to criticize the speaker because most of them felt that she was still adapting to her role of not only being the first female speaker in Zambia, but being one of the the three points of authority in our country’s constitutional democracy.
With less than three months away from parliament being dissolved, no one can claim that Madam speaker is still learning or adapting to her role.
Being a seasoned lawyer, madam speaker should by now understand what her role in the administering of the affairs of parliament and its impact on the general governance and politics of our country is.
If we are to be honest, Madam Mutti’s performance as speaker has left much to be desired; she has disappointed a lot of people who thought that with a female leader in that position, the at times partial and clear partisan positions that some of her predecessors came to be identified with would be a thing of the past.
If Madam Mutti’s conduct and performance as speaker is anything to go by, the conclusion would be that she has refused to take a different path from the one which some of her predecessors took. It looks like Madam Mutti would rather follow suit than chatting a way forward that would be for the good of the coubtry.
Time and again,Madam Mutti and and one of her deputies have conducted themselves in a manner that leaves them looking more like party cadres than presiding officers of the legislature.
Take, for instance, Madam Mutti’s conduct during parliament’s last sitting in 2025, where she curtailed the contribution of an independent MP’s contribution towards the Bill 7 debate by telling him that since he wasn’t a lawyer, he couldn’t educate the house on what path the bill under contention could have taken.When did an MP’s qualification become the basis of their contribution to what’s being discussed on the floor of the house? But Madam Mutti was very happy to go that way, simply because she knew that with her statement, she would rally up the political base of the ruling party.
In effect, the speaker was saying that only MPs who were lawyers were qualified to contribute to the debate. According to the speaker, only lawyers understood both the process that the bill took and its substance. What an insult to the people of Zambia.
Interestingly, and as expected, members on the right had a smooth ride taking turns to not only praise the content of the bill, but pay glowing tribute on how the bill’s process had not only met the constitutional threshold for constitutional alteration, but how the contributions of the citizenry to its entire process was a historical success.
During the entire praise session by the members from the right hand side, at no time did the speaker curtail debate on the basis of a member not being a lawyer. Even members who are not lawyers, on the right handside, were prasing the bill, albeit in a manner not anchored in constitutional facts, were let to speak as they wished.
Where was the speaker’s impartiallity?
It appears Madam Mutti can only see and hear the transgressions of the members on the left hand-side of the house. She’s blind and deaf to the shortcomings of the members on the other side of the house. Is this how a speaker of the house should be?
In her desperation to stifle opposition voices, Madam Mutti has said very strange and laughable things. For example, when she says one can’t debate about a constitutional amendment’s facilitating process without being a qualified lawyer because they will end up misleading the house, what does she really mean?
If someone will mislead the house, isn’t that the reason why other members are allowed to provide a counter through points of order and general debate?
Was madam Mutti also, by implication, telling us that only economists can debate economic matters, only doctors and health practitioners can debate issues pertaining to the health industry, agriculturalists on agriculture and its sector and so forth?
If this is her logic, then where does it leave her as the presiding officer because she is only a qualified lawyer? Does it mean that because she doesn’t have degrees in other fields that the house usually engages itself in, she’s, therefore, not qualified to be the speaker? If we go further and extend the basis of her rulings to the qualifications of being a member of parliament, how many members of parliament in that house will be able to debate and contribute to the different topics that the house attends to?
Even when one looks at the qualifications of MPs, is it a requirement that MPs must have professional qualifications in a specific field?
The truth of the matter is that madam Mutti has been more interested in pulling the party line than doing her job in an impartial manner.
Still on the occassion of last year’s last parliamentary sitting, at an extremely tense and polarized time that left the country divided and politically charged, Madam Mutti decided that the best way to celebrate the ruling party’s victory in passing bill 7 was to embark on a guard of honor of the esteemed august house while showing the entire world her dazzling skills at chikokoshi. What type of impartial speaker behaves in such a partial manner, celebrating the victory of one side, while the entire world watches, while she dances and laughs her way out of the house? Is that what impartiallity means to madam Mutti?
Imagine the chief justice dancing out of a court room to celebrate a government winning a case against the opposition. What would one make out of it? But it appears Madam Mutti is her own world governed by her own rules.
Even at a time when the constitutional court had ruled that her cause of dancing chikokoshi was unconstitutional, Madam Mutti saw it fit to appoint herself as government and concourt spokesperson such that she had personally come to the conclusion that parliament was ready to re-introduce bill 7. How, when, and where parliament reached that conclusion, only Madam Mutti knows. Is this how speakers in other democracies behave?
The administering of parliament business by Madam Mutti isn’t very different from how one of her deputies carries out his parliamentary duties. We can look no futher than his latest clash with the Nkana lawmaker-Binwell Mpundu.
Does the second deputy speaker knows the essence of debate, especially in a place like parliament or, to him, it’s just a matter of singing praises to the government and anything that doesn’t fall within his expectation becomes unparliamentary and calls for a suspension? What type of speaker refers to an elected member of the house as ‘what type of person are you?’
Unlike presiding officers, elected members of the house are directly elected by the people. Why would a speaker, a second deputy for that matter, choose to address an elected member in such a personal manner? Is this the best that he can offer, being personal and demeaning in language?
Perhaps we should also take this opportunity to ask the second deputy speaker, Mr. Moses Moyo, sir, what type of presiding officer are you? Are you the type that is partial or impartial? Are you the type that thinks a debate can only be one if every member attaches or seconds him or herself to the praise team? We ask these questions because your conduct and manner of presiding over the affairs of the house is very strange, very strange indeed.
Why does the second speaker doesn’t want members of the house to compare, differentiate, infer and even draw lessons from the speech of a foreign head of state?
If, according to him, Ghana is Ghana and Zambia is Zambia, therefore, Zambia will do things that it feels fit to do, then why waste time by allowing parliament to engage in debate?
Why not leave everything to his strange, narrow and extremely retrogressive way of thinking: Ghana is Ghana and Zambia is Zambia?
With parliament reduced to these levels of administration, is there any wonder why politicians are now able to use imingalato to pass laws that suits them?