News / National
Zanu-PF legislators walk out of Parliament over Zvoma
16 Dec 2011 at 06:57hrs | Views
Zanu-PF legislators walked out of Parliament on Thursday over the debate of an MDC-T motion calling for the dismissal of Clerk of Parliament Mr Austin Zvoma.
Mr Zvoma had in the morning filed a court application to interdict the House from de-bating the motion, which was rejected. MDC-T moved for an amendment of the motion, giving Mr Zvoma a right of reply through a five-member team. The amended motion stated that the House will have to first vote for dismissal before appointing a five-member team to establish facts of dismissal.
Zanu-PF MPs argued that the amendment was flawed because they could not dismiss Mr Zvoma before hearing his side of the story. They trooped out of the chamber. After Zanu-PF legislators walked out, MDC-T lawmakers and MDC chief whip Mr Edward Mkhosi remained in the House and adopted the amended motion. In an interview, Zanu-PF chief whip Joram Gumbo said the walkout was in protest over debating a motion that was before the courts. He said the motion had not been procedurally brought before the House. "They should have brought the issue to the attention of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee first because that is Mr Zvoma's employer.
"There are procedures that have to be followed and the SROC should have been the one dealing with it because Mr Zvoma is answerable to the SROC. "The amendment doesn't cure the defect and it is trying to take powers away from the SROC and if they go ahead and appoint their committee, it would be illegal," he said. But his MDC-T counterpart, Mr Innocent Gonese said powers to dismiss the clerk were vested in Parliament.
He said they would want the five-member team to be bi-partisan in dealing with the matter. "Their walk-out is their business. It is uncalled for because it is a right of every member to be heard and if they had any concerns they should have proposed amendments if they so wished," Mr Gonese said. Before the walkout, Gumbo had said Zanu-PF did not want to "legalise the illegal by debating a matter that was already under the courts because doing so would be sub-judice.
"Article 57 and 48 of the constitution have not been properly looked into . . . automatically we are already into the substance of the matter before Mr Zvoma speaks". "If you are going to come up with your five-member team so be it but we will leave the House in protest." Speaker of the House of Assembly Mr Lovemore Moyo had earlier said the House could go ahead and debate the motion saying the court was yet to make a ruling on the matter.
He said the mere filing of a court application was insufficient to warrant stopping the debate. Mr Moyo said if he was to stop the debate because of a pending court case, Parliament would never debate any motion as everyone would file an application to stop motions. "Parliament hasn't received any communication from the court barring the debate and the Speaker maintains an impartiality role in refereeing.
"The reason for seeking recusal is insufficient because the motion refers to the flawed process, not the Office of the Speaker," Mr Moyo ruled. Later on when the motion was raised, Chivi Central MP Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana (Zanu-PF) said it was improper to debate a case that was pending before the courts.
He said it was also improper for Parliament to violate its own laws. "This attempt to amend the motion is in violation of Section 62 (D) of the Standing Orders because there is an application before a judge therefore any continuation of the debate will be in violation of Section 62(D)," Mangwana said.
He said the amendment of the motion in allowing Mr Zvoma a right of reply did not cure the shortcomings of the motion because the motion insisted that there was need to vote and dismiss him before appointing a committee. Mr Gonese raised a point of order saying the Speaker had already made a ruling that the House would proceed with the debate.
"A ruling was made yesterday (Wednesday) and reiterated by the Speaker today (yesterday). A ruling hasn't been made to the contrary unless the court makes the ruling," Mr Gonese said. Nyanga North MP Mr Douglas Mwonzora said the amendment to the motion was lawful because it had allowed Mr Zvoma a right of reply to the allegations against him. He said having a right of reply to allegations against an individual was the best practice of natural law.
On Wednesday, there was commotion in the House after Hwange legislator Mr Brian Tshuma (MDC-T) moved the motion and raised several allegations of disrespectful conduct against Mr Zvoma. Some of the allegations related to the manner in which the Clerk of Parliament handled the election of Mr Moyo (MDC-T).
He accused Mr Zvoma of disregarding the advice of Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana on Mr Moyo's status that he reverts to be Matobo MP following the nullification of the election results that landed him the Speaker's post.
Mr Tshuma also alleged that Mr Zvoma had tampered with the Hansard, which records verbatim proceedings in Parliament when he removed contributions by some MPs. Mr Zvoma is also accused of issuing statements contemptuous of MPs among other charges.
Mr Zvoma had in the morning filed a court application to interdict the House from de-bating the motion, which was rejected. MDC-T moved for an amendment of the motion, giving Mr Zvoma a right of reply through a five-member team. The amended motion stated that the House will have to first vote for dismissal before appointing a five-member team to establish facts of dismissal.
Zanu-PF MPs argued that the amendment was flawed because they could not dismiss Mr Zvoma before hearing his side of the story. They trooped out of the chamber. After Zanu-PF legislators walked out, MDC-T lawmakers and MDC chief whip Mr Edward Mkhosi remained in the House and adopted the amended motion. In an interview, Zanu-PF chief whip Joram Gumbo said the walkout was in protest over debating a motion that was before the courts. He said the motion had not been procedurally brought before the House. "They should have brought the issue to the attention of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee first because that is Mr Zvoma's employer.
"There are procedures that have to be followed and the SROC should have been the one dealing with it because Mr Zvoma is answerable to the SROC. "The amendment doesn't cure the defect and it is trying to take powers away from the SROC and if they go ahead and appoint their committee, it would be illegal," he said. But his MDC-T counterpart, Mr Innocent Gonese said powers to dismiss the clerk were vested in Parliament.
He said they would want the five-member team to be bi-partisan in dealing with the matter. "Their walk-out is their business. It is uncalled for because it is a right of every member to be heard and if they had any concerns they should have proposed amendments if they so wished," Mr Gonese said. Before the walkout, Gumbo had said Zanu-PF did not want to "legalise the illegal by debating a matter that was already under the courts because doing so would be sub-judice.
"Article 57 and 48 of the constitution have not been properly looked into . . . automatically we are already into the substance of the matter before Mr Zvoma speaks". "If you are going to come up with your five-member team so be it but we will leave the House in protest." Speaker of the House of Assembly Mr Lovemore Moyo had earlier said the House could go ahead and debate the motion saying the court was yet to make a ruling on the matter.
He said the mere filing of a court application was insufficient to warrant stopping the debate. Mr Moyo said if he was to stop the debate because of a pending court case, Parliament would never debate any motion as everyone would file an application to stop motions. "Parliament hasn't received any communication from the court barring the debate and the Speaker maintains an impartiality role in refereeing.
"The reason for seeking recusal is insufficient because the motion refers to the flawed process, not the Office of the Speaker," Mr Moyo ruled. Later on when the motion was raised, Chivi Central MP Munyaradzi Paul Mangwana (Zanu-PF) said it was improper to debate a case that was pending before the courts.
He said it was also improper for Parliament to violate its own laws. "This attempt to amend the motion is in violation of Section 62 (D) of the Standing Orders because there is an application before a judge therefore any continuation of the debate will be in violation of Section 62(D)," Mangwana said.
He said the amendment of the motion in allowing Mr Zvoma a right of reply did not cure the shortcomings of the motion because the motion insisted that there was need to vote and dismiss him before appointing a committee. Mr Gonese raised a point of order saying the Speaker had already made a ruling that the House would proceed with the debate.
"A ruling was made yesterday (Wednesday) and reiterated by the Speaker today (yesterday). A ruling hasn't been made to the contrary unless the court makes the ruling," Mr Gonese said. Nyanga North MP Mr Douglas Mwonzora said the amendment to the motion was lawful because it had allowed Mr Zvoma a right of reply to the allegations against him. He said having a right of reply to allegations against an individual was the best practice of natural law.
On Wednesday, there was commotion in the House after Hwange legislator Mr Brian Tshuma (MDC-T) moved the motion and raised several allegations of disrespectful conduct against Mr Zvoma. Some of the allegations related to the manner in which the Clerk of Parliament handled the election of Mr Moyo (MDC-T).
He accused Mr Zvoma of disregarding the advice of Attorney-General Mr Johannes Tomana on Mr Moyo's status that he reverts to be Matobo MP following the nullification of the election results that landed him the Speaker's post.
Mr Tshuma also alleged that Mr Zvoma had tampered with the Hansard, which records verbatim proceedings in Parliament when he removed contributions by some MPs. Mr Zvoma is also accused of issuing statements contemptuous of MPs among other charges.
Source - TH
