Mr. Speaker Sir, Section 324 of the Constitution provides that, “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay.” I believe it is our duty as Parliament to ensure that we do indeed fulfill this Constitution. We must frown upon delays such as the present that are not explained as to why is it that we have failed all this time and why have we caused this delay that the Constitution says is not permissible Further on, Mr. Speaker Sir, I want to submit very humbly and very respectfully that if we had performed our duty diligently in terms of section 324, we would not be doing a second take of this Bill. Why am I saying so Mr. Speaker Sir? I am saying that because it is common cause that a Bill was drafted that was condemned roundly from every dwala, every tree and everywhere in Zimbabwe. Ordinary members of the public who came for the first hearings first time were aghast at just how unconstitutional the Bill was.
The reason I am raising this is that Zimbabwe is a country that is really struggling in terms of resources. Our Government does not have much money; our revenue authority is struggling to raise revenue for the Government. I am glad that the Hon. Vice President and Minister of the National Healing and Reconciliation is here. May he please convey that message to other Hon. Ministers, that can we please do everything that we can to make sure that we use those very precious and those very scarce resources very well.
We did go round the country in vain because of the state of the Bill. There was money, time spend and precious parliamentary time that went, I say that because at that point, I had the privilege of chairing the Portfolio Committee and the Hon. Members of that Committee worked extremely hard. They went and listened to views. It was not easy; the anger that we felt and that we heard from Zimbabweans, I will speak later on about the anger that I could almost touch particularly in Bulawayo and in Matabeleland North in particular when this Bill was heard. It takes a lot out of Members of Parliament to sit and receive such anger. We are the face of the public and the public, we are the ones that the public looks at and they take their anger on us.
Mr. Speaker Sir, I say this because we have the office of the Attorney General. In terms of Section 114(4), subsection 4, the Attorney-General is the Chief Legal Advisor of Government and they are the ones that draft Bills such as the one that we have. They are required to promote, protect and uphold the rule of law and act in the public interest. It is my respectful view that if the Attorney-General’s Office was performing its functions fully as required by the Constitution, they would not have suffered; the Hon. Vice President and Minister of National Healing, Peace and Reconciliation carrying on with a Bill that was palpably unconstitutional. That then caused him to redo this Bill. They should receive proper legal advice and the Attorney General’s office should actually be doing that. They should not be led by the Nose, but should give legal counsel to Government so that our Government can be seen to be doing its work properly.
Continued next page
(256 VIEWS)
