๐๐ง๐ง๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ง ๐ง๐ข ๐๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐จ๐ก๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ง๐จ๐ก๐๐ง๐.
Today, Madam Speaker in Parliament, Mabel Chinomona, attempted to prematurely close the First Reading debate on CAB3.
Honourable Ziyambi Ziyambi, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, then rose and attempted to start the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis that a record-breaking 120 MPs had already given input on the Bill.
This was odd considering that our National Assembly has over 210 MPs representing single-member constituencies, in addition to women and proportional representation MPs. Over 50% of the members had still not had an opportunity to contribute.
When one of the MPs stood up on a point of order to ask whether debate was closed and if they would be given an opportunity to debate, he was told that his views would be heard during the Committee Stage. This was opposed by a number of MPs who demanded their turn in line with the rules of the House.
Now, it is critical to understand that all MPs must be given an opportunity to debate all readings of any new Bill as it is their mandate to be part of the lawmaking process. In this case, the purpose of the First Reading debate is to discuss the rationale and principles of the Bill before moving on to the detailed debate, clause by clause, during the subsequent stages.
I found it quite interesting that the First Reading was characterised by MPs debating specific clauses rather than limiting themselves to the principles and rationale of the Bill, unless, of course, the parliamentary processes have been merged.
After the Second Reading, parliamentarians must then go through a detailed and thorough debate of each and every clause, and each parliamentarian's views must be captured for the record before the Parliamentary Committees present their findings from the public engagements and any recommendations on amendments that need to be made to the Bill.
It is only after the Bill has been amended and presented once again to the House by the Committee Chair that the Third Reading, or voting stage, takes place.
The Speaker eventually allowed the Furst Reading debate to continue on the proviso that the contributions that followed should not repeat points already made by other members. This again is not in the spirit of parliamentary debate, as MPs have the privilege to place the same arguments on record so that important issues are adequately captured and considered for recommendations and amendments before the Third Reading.
I struggled to understand why there was this attempt to short-circuit the debate process when our Parliament can spend as many as 90 days, and even more if agreed upon, deliberating a Bill through all its stages.
The attempt by the Speaker of Parliament and the Leader of Government Business, Ziyambi Ziyambi, to short-circuit the debate and shut out certain views feeds into the perception that many people have of a lack of democracy in our Parliament. It also infringes on the democratic process, constitutionality, and parliamentary rights vested in Members by the authority of the people.
Nevertheless, I was proud to see Members of Parliament standing their ground and challenging the attempt to muzzle their voices. There is still hope that our MPs are there to represent the people and that democracy is still alive in Zimbabwe.
Many of those who support CAB3 have been hoping that voting would happen tomorrow, but from an understanding of the process, this is near impossible, as we still have the Second Reading, the clause-by-clause debate, the Committee Stage, recommendations, amendments, and the Third Reading/voting stage to go.
From there, the Bill goes to the Senate before returning to the House, where it is signed by the Clerk of Parliament and prepared for submission to the President. We also expect the Second Reading debate to be even more extensive and involving than the First Reading.