Most Stakeholders who appeared before support Bill Number 10, says Report

The Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to scrutinise the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill number 10 of 2019 has observed that most of the stakeholders who appeared before it was in support of the Bill, although, in some instances, the stakeholders proposed several amendments.

According to the report published by the Committee, the stakeholders noted that the Bill was meant to cure and address the various lacunae created by the 2016 amendment to the Constitution.

The Committee further observed that a few stakeholders did not support the Bill and called for its withdrawal citing the lack of broad consultation in the current constitution-making process, which they said was cardinal if the Constitution was to stand the test of time.

The stakeholders further contended that the current process had departed from the initial objective of attending to lacunae created by the 2016 amendment to the Constitution to proposing major changes and, therefore, required further consultation.

The Committee, however, notes that even these stakeholders identified areas of concern in the Bill and made their respective proposals which have been incorporated in the Committee’s report.

Having received the submissions as above, the Committee observed that the Bill has attended to the various lacunae that arose from the amendment of the Constitution.

In supporting the Bill, the Committee said most stakeholders were in support of the amendment to replace the word “multi-religious” in the Preamble with the word “Christian” and Committee agrees with the stakeholders that the amendment will remove the ambiguity in the current Constitution, which gives the Republic two contradictory religious identities.

The Committee notes that replacing the word “multi-religious” with the word “Christian” will create the much-needed  identity which will form the basis for formulating the values and principles upon which the Constitution will be anchored.

The Committee, however, does not agree with the concern by some stakeholders that the amendment discriminates against non-Christians because the  Constitution provides enough safeguards such as Article 19 of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees every person freedom of conscience.

The Committee has since recommended that the Preamble be amended to replace the word “multi-religious” with the word “Christian”.

On Amendment of Article 8 on National Values and Principles, the Committee observed that the majority of stakeholders supported the amendment for “Christian morality and ethics” to be included as one of the national values and principles but observed that Article 9 requires the national values and principles to be used in interpreting the Constitution, laws and government policies.

The Committee, therefore, agrees with the stakeholders that submitted that including Christian morality and ethics as a national value and principle would create difficulties interpreting the law and government policies and recommended that Christian morality and ethics should not be included as a national value and principle.

On the Amendment of Article 47 on the Electoral systems, almost all stakeholders that appeared before the committee supported the amendment to change the electoral system to the National Assembly from the first-past-the-post system to a mixed-member system.

The Committee acknowledged that the mixed-member electoral system, which combines the first-past-the-post electoral system with the proportional representation system, is ideal for  enhancing the participation of marginalised groups in the governance of the country and agreed with the stakeholders that the mixed member system be adopted for elections to the National Assembly.

The Committee has recommended that the mixed-member system be adopted for elections to the National Assembly, but that the system should be clearly defined in the Constitution.

And on the Amendment of Article 63 on Functions of Parliament and National Assembly, the Committee expressed concern with regard to this amendment which removes the National Assembly’s function of approving public debt before it is contracted and approving international agreements and treaties before they are acceded to or ratified by the Executive.

The Committee agrees with stakeholders that this amendment should be rejected as it weakens the oversight role of the National Assembly over the Executive, which is the cornerstone of a democratic dispensation and recommended that the current provisions of Article 63 (2) (d) and (e) of the Constitution be maintained.

The Committee further recommended that Article 63(2) be further amended to mandate the National Assembly to also approve the Executive’s withdrawal from international agreements and treaties.

Meanwhile, on Clause 15 on repealing and Replacement of Article 68: Election and composition of National Assembly the Committee is also concerned about the repeal of Article 68 and the consequent relegation of provisions relating to the election, and composition of the National Assembly to an Act of Parliament.

The Committee is of the view that the composition of the National Assembly,
including the number of Members of Parliament, is fundamental and should not be relegated to an Act of Parliament where it can easily be revised.

The committee has recommended that the provisions of Article 68 should be retained in the Constitution in order to be insulated from frequent amendments.

On Articles 69, 70, 71 and 72 on Nominated Members of Parliament, Qualifications and Disqualifications of Members of Parliament, Nominations for elections to National Assembly and vacation of office as Member of Parliament and dissolution of political party, the Committee observed that this amendment relegates the provisions pertaining to a nominated Member of Parliament, qualifications and disqualifications for election as a Member as well as the vacation of office of a Member of Parliament to an Act of Parliament.

The Committee is concerned that this will make these provisions susceptible to frequent amendment. With respect to Article 70 (d), which provides for qualifications and disqualifications of
Members of Parliament, the Committee agreed with stakeholder recommendations that this
clause be maintained, but amended so that the reference to “a grade 12 certificate” is substituted with “school certificate”.

Regarding Article 72, which provides for vacation of office as Member of Parliament and dissolution of a political party, the Committee also agrees with stakeholders that the Article be maintained, but amended to provide for all possible forms of floor crossing as a basis for vacation of office. Additionally, Article 72(5) should be amended to provide for a Member of Parliament who has been expelled from the political party on whose party ticket he was elected to the National Assembly to continue to hold his or her seat until the matter has been heard and determined by the courts of law.

The Committee, therefore, recommended that the provisions relating to nominated Members of Parliament, qualifications and disqualification be retained in the Constitution and further recommended that Article 72 should be amended to provide for all possible forms of floor crossing as a basis for vacation of office by a Member of Parliament.

And on Article 81: Term and prorogation of Parliament, the Committee said most stakeholders were not in support of this amendment, which provides for the term of Parliament to be five complete years, from the time Members of Parliament are sworn in after a general election up to the day of the next general election.

The Committee notes that the amendment is intended to address the apparent conflict between Article  81(1), that prescribes the term of office of a Member of Parliament to be five (5) years and Article 81(3), which provides for dissolution of Parliament ninety (90) days prior to a general election.

The Committee further notes that the prorogation of Parliament before the expiry of the five years constitutes a breach of contract and, therefore, is of the view that Members should be  remunerated for the 90 day period from the dissolution of Parliament up to the holding of elections.

Additionally, the Committee notes the submission by one of the stakeholders that the current campaign period of 90 days is too long and should be reduced to 60 days.

The Committee agrees with this and is further concerned that 90 days is too long a period for the country to lack Members of Parliament. In view of this, the Committee agrees with the stakeholder that the National Assembly should be dissolved 60 days before the elections.

The Committee, therefore, recommended that Article 81 be amended to provide for the National Assembly to be dissolved at least 60 days before the next general election and for Members of Parliament to be remunerated for the full five-year term.