JUSTICE minister Given Lubinda says he expects all members of parliament who sat on the select committee on Bill 10 to support it.
Several stakeholders, including the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops and Transparency International-Zambia have called for the withdrawal of Constitution (Amendment) Bill Number 10 of 2019, arguing among other concerns that it is divisive and lacks consensus.
Lubinda, however, says the practice in all Commonwealth parliamentary jurisdictions is that committees operate on the basis of conscience.
“Are members of the committee allowed to go against the report of their committee? The practice in all Commonwealth parliamentary jurisdictions, all of them without exception, is that committees operate on the bases of conscience and there is no provision for minority reports unlike in the courts where judges can give opposing judgment,” he said. “For Parliament when a committee of ten sits, they have to be guided by conscience and if then they don’t all agree they can even vote and once they vote, they are held in by a doctrine of collective
responsibility, which therefore means that if a committee says we reject this particular position, even the one who strongly supports it is bound by the decision of the majority.”
Lubinda said ordinarily members cannot oppose the position taken by the committee.
“So even in the position of Bill 10, those who sat on the select committee are expected to support the position that was taken by their committee,” said Lubinda.
But on Monday, Professor Muna Ndulo said according to Commonwealth practice, a parliamentary select committee report does not gag its members.
The US-based constitutional law professor argued that members of the select committee were in fact free to vote against the bill, depending on their political party position.
“As pointed out earlier, a Select Committee Report does not gag its members. It does not operate to deprive a member of parliament of his or her liberty to debate and vote in any way he or she wishes to. Where a party instructs its Members of Parliament to vote according to the party’s position on an issue before Parliament, it typically issues what is called a ‘three-line whip’,” he explained. “Breach of the instruction will normally have serious consequences. There is nothing dictatorial about this, it is simply upholding the policies of the party to which a member of parliament freely subscribes. The punishment is restricted to the member’s status in the party. The party is simply saying you cannot be our member and disobey party instructions. The member is not being punished for voting in Parliament but for disobeying the party and that is why the punishment relates to party status.”
He challenged the PF to stop lying to the nation about parliamentary practice.
“In a desperate attempt to pass Bill 10, surrogates of the ruling party have resorted to releasing a myriad of lies and distortions of legal principles relating to parliamentary practice. One of their main untruths is what exactly is the correct Commonwealth Parliamentary procedure relating to voting of members of parliament,” said Prof Ndulo. “Recently, they have argued that members of parliament who have been members of the Parliamentary Committee to consider Bill 10 cannot vote against a Bill that went through a Select Committee of which they were a part. In essence advancing the bizarre argument that membership of a parliamentary committee has the effect of gagging a member of the Committee and does not allow them to vote otherwise than support the Parliamentary Committee Report.”