Parliament has approved the candidate nomination fees set by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for the 2023 harmonised elections.
Parliament’s Legal Committee (PLC) which was tasked by the Constitutional Court to review Statutory Instrument (SI) 144 of 2022 published a Non-Adverse Report.
Read the case background here: https://cite.org.zw/nap-takes-parliament-to-court-over-candidate-nomination-fees/
During Wednesday’s Parliament session, however, the Acting Speaker, Deputy Chairman of Committees William Mutomba, stated the subject had been “actually concluded and the Non-adverse report was actually reported here in Parliament.”
This was after Kambuzuma MP Willias Madzimure questioned when MPs will address the nomination fees problem, which the ConCourt ruled were unlawful.
The MPs were startled that the PLC, composed of five members, had decided to maintain the fees and accused the Parliament Secretariat of smuggling and concealing the report, despite the fact that they, as lawmakers, were unaware of the rationale for maintaining the high nomination fees.
“The ruling refers to Parliament as an institution and as Parliament, we are required to look at new issues. Parliament and not a Committee of Parliament,” said Mutare Central MP, Innocent Gonese.
“As a result, we demand that the PLC tables their report and give reasons and explain why they came to whatever decision they arrived at,” said Gonese, who highlighted the exorbitant nomination fees had serious repercussions on the rights of the people of Zimbabwe in terms of Section 67, which is being infringed by the SI in question.
In response, the acting speaker stated the PLC was legally established by Parliament and that its final report, the Non-Adverse Report, was presented to the august House on Tuesday.
“I do not know if you are alleging that these people did not do their job that well. As far as I am concerned, all the procedures that are supposed to be taken by Parliament have been duly followed,” Mutomba said.
However, Gonese insisted the ConCourt clearly stated that Parliament, not a Committee of Parliament, solves the issue.
“PLC is a sub-Committee constituted by this House but has got to report to us. If it was delegated to look into this issue, it was just doing so on our behalf. Those five Hon. Members are not Parliament. They are just a sub-Committee of this august House,” said the legislator.
Gonese also added that Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Ziyambi Ziyambi was interviewed on Studio 7 and indicated that parliamentarians were going to vote on the nomination fees.
“We do not want to have a shifting of the goal post. They cannot make a final decision on our behalf on a matter which has been specifically referred to us by the ConCourt. So, on those grounds, I submit that it is not appropriate for the Chair to rule the matter has already been concluded because it has not been concluded,” he said.
The acting speaker stated that because the ConCourt stated that the fee decision would be made by June 16, 2023, the PLC had convened previously and brought their Non-Adverse Report while he was Chair.
“I was the one who actually wrote that report, so it actually closes the matter. I am sorry about that. We cannot debate on this issue,” Mutomba stated and claimed procedures were followed since when the PLC reports to Parliament, a report is produced that is read to MPs.
Mutomba underlined that this is the period when MPs were meant to address their concerns.
“Now, this issue has already passed. It was reported yesterday,” he said.
Binga North MP, Prince Dubeko Sibanda, stated that the law did not say a PLC report should not be tabled before the House.
“If we look at Section 152 (3) and the proviso to that says ‘after scrutinising, must report to Parliament, Vice President, Minister or authority as the case may be’. So the issue of reporting to this House was not ousted by the order of the court,” he said.
“Now, I appreciate that by tradition, this House has not been debating non-adverse reports. I totally agree, but that is just a practice. It is not a provision of the law that non-adverse reports must not be tabled in the House. Can we be bound by tradition on such an important matter of public interest?”
Sibanda said five members of the PLC could not bind the entire House and declare that this is the position of Parliament.
“The five Members were simply delegated a duty to scrutinise. After scrutinising that SI, this House is empowered to demand that that non-adverse report be presented here. Why, because the public is watching, they want to know why this committee concluded that the fees that were gazetted are alright,” Sibanda said.
“Now, you smuggled a report and hid it somewhere. Nobody in this House, nobody outside knows the reason, the justification behind the finding of that committee. As a result, it is in the public interest, and as we demand, we hereby do as a House that let the report be tabled. Once that report is tabled, then we will know if the House agrees with the findings of its committee. Why are we hiding it? What is it that we are hiding?”
