ZAMBIAN PARLIAMENT IS BACKWARD ON RATIFICATION OF APPOINTEES
By Isaac Mwanza
There has been a long tradition of secrecy at Parliament on the ratification of persons appointed to hold offices, and which are subject to ratification by the National Assembly.
The media has never been allowed to cover ratification proceedings of appointees. Even appointees themselves are not present when witnesses are testifying on their suitability to hold office.
The scrutiny of appointees should never be a secret matter. It was in colonial times but many years after end of colonialism, we cannot have such secrecy proceedings in Parliament, the Peoples House.
But one cannot be surprised by what is happening at our Parliament. Even the recent debates where the freedom to debate among members is gagged, the behaviour by the Speaker and her two deputies to descend from their honourable chair to begin defending the Executive when the Executive are pressed to the corner speaks much about our National Assembly.
What has been happening in Parliament violates an MP’s freedom of speech and debate protected by Article 76(1) of the Constitution which states:
“76. (1) A Member of Parliament has freedom of speech and debate in the National Assembly and that freedom shall not be ousted or questioned in a court or tribunal.”
If the behaviour of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker was to happen in the South African Parliament against such a clear constitutional provision, the EFF led by Julius Malema would be tearing them apart.
What has been the worst with the National Assembly of Zambia has been its insistence on using the King’s language to debate and any use of expression from our local language is quickly frowned up with an MP being asked to interpret the same. This again is contrary to Article 258(2) of the Constitution of Zambia.
Now even amapinda from we have carried over from our forefathers need to be interpreted into English because that is what the Colonial English man wanted when he left post-independence left our black leaders to preside over the National Assembly.
The right to information and to freely express oneself is a constitutional right protected by Article 20 of the Zambian Constitution. If State Organs such as Parliament and the Courts are in the forefront maintaining archaic secrecy traditions in their proceedings, what more other institutions within the Executive.
The people are entitled to know what witnesses appearing before the Committee are saying about persons being scrutinised for ratification. The appointees themselves need to know what the witnesses are saying about them. This is called transparency and accountability.
I challenge mother bodies for media organisations to begin to take these cases to court and challenge the lack of transparency at Parliament, with regards proceedings that are held in camera.
Parliament itself must also reform. They must learn from what is happening in Kenya, South Africa and the United States when it comes to proceedings on ratification of Presidential appointees. South Africa which recently became independent, has overtaken us in both the quality of free debates in the House and transparency in the ratification process of appointees.
The National Assembly keep wasting money sending MPs to other countries to share lessons on parliamentary processes and debates. There is no justification of sending MPs or Committees out when our National Assembly is stuck in colonial traditions and management of the House.
Madam Speaker, your fellow Speaker in the House of Commons has stopped putting on that wig!