MP says Zimbabwe is being administered like a tuck-shop- Vendors can do better

HON. NDEBELE: Hon. Speaker, the Constitution is sui generis. We argue that it is in a class of its own. What it demands cannot be derogated from. We should follow it lavishly. We must be, as Members of this House, disciples of the Constitution. We should follow it without questioning. I must not be misunderstood Mr. Speaker, to mean that the Constitution cannot be amended. It can be amended if proper channels are followed. Section 119, enjoins Parliament to protect the Constitution and promote its values.

In that regard, before I go into the merits or demerits of the President’s speech, let me recognise and put on record that the provisions of our Constitution as they stand currently, do not provide for an Opening Address by His Excellency. I am not being disrespectful. We may amend the Constitution so that we provide for that. Members should remember we are no longer living under the Lancaster House Constitution but a new constitutional dispensation.

I know a ruling has been made against Hon. Chamisa’s input regarding this but if you ask the Leader of the House who is a lawyer himself; if a thing at law is void, it is a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably bad. So, the very ruling that precedence has provided that such an address occurs runs afoul with the Constitution. We cannot be disciples of a wrong precedence. The recurrence of an illegality does not make it in anyway legal Mr. Speaker. Let us take due notice.

The law determining what addresses His Excellency may make to this Parliament is enshrined in Section 140 of the Constitution, but nonetheless Mr. Speaker, the President rightfully noted that the realignment of laws is still work-in progress. In fact, let me quote the Leader of the House, the Hon. Vice President Mnangagwa. On the 6th June, 2016, he said “the ones” referring to statutes “that have not been processed are from line ministries where Ministers have not been able to process in time the areas of their concern or mandate”. Mr. Speaker, it is now 40 months which translates to four years and nothing has been done.

For how long will the alignment of laws still be work-in-progress Mr. Speaker? Are we giving this process the attention it deserves? No, it is the incompetence of some Ministers as stated by the Vice President in the Senate that has held the hands of time instead. Surely, there must be a deadline at which this process should be finished. In his speech, His Excellency unfortunately failed to put an indication on such a deadline. Surely, this was a gross oversight by His Excellency.

I realise that His Excellency spoke about drought. I am going to dwell on this for a while. I have rhetoric questions that I am asking myself. Is the ratification of international instruments like the Paris Agreement and Nagoya Protocol the best that can be done in order to fight drought to alleviate the problems caused by drought? Are we ratifying as a matter of principle or we are merely interested in the benefit from resources that will flow from such ratification? Hon. Speaker, experience teaches us that such resources will be abused by certain Ministers. I am not interested in going into names.

Sometimes when you read the newspaper you can sometimes be forgiven for thinking that this country is run by a loot committee – [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.] – …

Continued next page

(488 VIEWS)