- Version
- Download 0
- File Size 267.67 KB
- File Count 1
- Create Date September 3, 2024
- Last Updated March 12, 2025
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 03 SEPTEMBER 2024 VOL 50 NO 77
PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE
Tuesday, 3rd September, 2024
The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.
PRAYERS
(THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair)
MOTION
2024 MID-TERM BUDGET AND ECONOMIC REVIEW
First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion that leave be granted to bring in a Finance Bill.
Question again proposed.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I move that the debate do now adjourn.
Motion put and agreed to.
Debate to resume: Wednesday, 4th September, 2024.
MOTION
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I move that Order of the Day, Number 2 be stood over until Order of the Day, Number 3 on the Order Paper has been disposed of.
Motion put and agreed to.
COMMITTEE STAGE
PRIVATE VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS AMENDMENT BILL [H. B. 2, 2024]
Third Order read: Resumption on Committee Stage: Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill [H. B. 2, 2024].
House in Committee.
On Clause 5, now Clause 8:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you, I have discussed with the Minister. We note that the Minister’s amendments had actually covered it, so I withdrew the proposed amendment.
Amendment to Clause 5 put and agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 6:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Chair. The amendment on Clause 5 basically, on Clause 6 rather, this clause intends to insert a new section 13 (a) requiring the PVO to notify all the material changes. The amendment will firstly correct the paragraph in the definition of material change and will give the board rather than the Registrar, power to decide on what to do with PVOs that change their constitution or functions. The amendments will also replace a provision that would allow the Registrar to impose a civil penalty on defaulting PVOs.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. The amendments being sought by - I am trying to refer to the original, I am not seeing where it is making reference to the Registrar – [AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible interjection.] - Between which lines?
HON. MUSHORIWA: The A part on page 11.
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, the A part simply says, in this section, material change in relation to the amendment of the particulars of the original application for registration means ‘any change in the Constitution governing the Private Voluntary Organisation concerning; any change in the Constitution but what we are saying here is, we are making reference to the Registrar. Any change in the constitution governing the PVO concerned regarding the disposal of the organisation’s assets upon the winding up or dissolution of the organisation. I think it is okay, the first one. Hon. Chair, the correction is okay.
The second one, the amendment being sought by Hon. Mushoriwa will make it cumbersome because he wants it to be referred directly to the board. If the Registrar feels that there is no material change, the Registrar then can ensure that he effects it. It is easier than saying that the Registrar receives then makes reference to the board and the board is not an administrative board but the Registrar is the administrative function of the PVO and it will make it easier. Where issues arise, then either the applicants or the Registrar can then refer to the board for a final resolution. So this one is not accepted. I thank you.
May be we can go to the first one so that we complete it. On line 3, again it is the same because he is making reference to having all the decisions at the initial stage referred to the board instead of the administrative functionary dealing with them first and then if they are those that have got issues, they can be referred to the board. This is emanating from the previous amendment and so is (d), (e), and (f); he wants to substitute the fine. I am not sure why, maybe he can motivate us why he wants to substitute with that fine? I thank you Hon. Chair.
HON. MUSHORIWA: I want the Hon. Minister to reconsider this amendment. Hon. Minister, what we are basically talking of, we are talking of material change and the material change to then leave one person to define and make a decision and I think it is not right. I think what we needed to do is to make sure that the Registrar should actually refer the matter to the board, more people can actually then be helped because Hon. Minister, if you also read the (b) part, you will then realise that this clause clothes the Registrar with too much, which may stifle the operation of the PVO, admittedly, the Registrar from time to time to get directive from the Minister. When it comes to material change, I think it is important that the Registrar refers. If I get you right Hon. Minister, to say that the Registrar can then - but there is no provision in this clause which then talks of the Registrar referring matters or any PVO that is not happy with the decision of the Registrar, to then cascade that matter to the board. So, this is the reason why I think the Hon. Minister may need to relook into it and consider accepting the proposal.
HON. I. NDUDZO: Thank you Hon. Chairman. It is my respectful view that we need to pass laws that cut down on bureaucracy, laws that cut down on clogging the system. The Registrar is someone who is appointed in terms of the provisions of the Act and there are minimum considerations and qualifications that a Registrar must have to be able to have the administrative acumen to make certain decisions. Now, the Registrar is also a full-time functionary of the institution and is able to deal with some of these issues as and when they are presented to his attention. On the contrary, the board is not constituted on a full-time basis. It has to be convened from time to time. So, if you go by the logic of Hon. Mushoriwa’s submission, you will come to a point where you will have so many things piling up awaiting the consideration of the board, yet those things could easily be dealt with and be disposed by the Registrar.
If for any reason the Registrar does not injudiciously exercise his powers and discretion, the Act provides quick and adequate remedies. Firstly, the review remedy of the board itself because whatever the Registrar does is subject to review by the board, but secondly, there are obviously interventions that can be made at ministerial level and where those interventions are not to the satisfaction of an agreed PVO, there is obviously the remedy of the court, but we do not want a situation where we make the Registrar a post box where the Registrar sits there and does not make any decisions and does not apply his mind. The Registrar is like a robot he just receives paper, pushes paper and does not exercise some level of decision making, which in my view is necessary and is proper to cut down on bureaucracy, to cut down on tautology and to just make sure that there is a smooth working system that is in place.
I think one of the things that has necessitated the amendment of the Act are the obvious complaints that sometimes applications are made and it takes long for them to be considered, because all the powers, too much power was sitting in the board. If you look at the logic, the rationale behind the statute as proposed in the Bill, it tries to expedite decision making and I am afraid that the proposed amendment by Hon. Mushoriwa wants to take us back to a place which I think is invidious and which we ought to avoid. Those will be my submissions in support of the position by the Hon. Minister
MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PALIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Honourable Chair, I want to thank Hon. Ndudzo for explaining it very clearly. We want a functional Registrar who can make decisions and then maybe refer them to the board. Perhaps to give comfort to Hon. Mushoriwa, in the Bill, we can add where it says on page 12 between lines 5 and 10, to say, if in his or her opinion the material change does not have any adverse consequences or the defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or general public interest of Zimbabwe (on which subject the Registrar shall be guided by any policy direction of the board and the Ministry). Then we include that so that it has reference that the board, like what Hon. Ndudzo has said indeed, still has a function, but where we make reference to a board that does not sit every day, we will end up creating a trap where applications will not be processed and we will create a bureaucratic situation. So, I propose that between lines 5 and 10 in the Bill, we add any policy direction of the board and the Minister. I submit Hon. Chair.
*HON. NYABANI: I wanted to say Hon. Minister should go to general offences and penalties. I realise that level 5...
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Which page Honourable?
*HON. NYABANI: On page 8 at the bottom. I am using my phone.
*THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: We cannot find the section Hon. Nyabani. Clause 6 starts on page 11 and not 8. May you please approach the table?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, I had also made a request to Hon. Mushoriwa, why he wants it changed from a civil default penalty to be included in the schedule of fines at a level not exceeding level 6.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Is that on Clause 6? Which part?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: It is on page 11 between lines 5 and 10 at the top. Item number 6.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Minister, please repeat what you have just said. You said it is between lines 5 and 10?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Okay Hon. Chair. In Hon. Mushoriwa’s amendments on Clause 6, the very last item on his amendment, he is saying any Private Voluntary Organisation that contravenes subsection 2 or 4 shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 6. In the Bill it reads;
‘Any Private Voluntary Organisation that fails to comply with subsection 2 or 4 shall be guilty of a civil default and liable to a penalty specified in paragraph 3 (1) in the schedule.’
So, I want to appreciate what is motivating him to change.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: So, you are saying you want that one maintained? What Hon. Mushoriwa has said on that last part?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: No, I just want to understand why he wants that change.
HON. MUSHORIWA: I think Hon. Minister, if you check, it talks of the same thing. If you notice the way that it is in the Bill, it is crafted in a winding manner. If you go through the last part, it will take you back to that level, so it is how the Bill was crafted. It was crafted in a winding system rather than just simply going to the amendments that I proposed.
Hon. Mushoriwa was asked to approach Hon. Minister Ziyambi.
HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon Chair, after consulting the Hon. Minister, I do withdraw that proposed amendment, save the one that the Hon. Minister had acceded to.
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI) Hon. Chair, there are now two amendments, the first one as proposed by Hon. Mushoriwa and the one I proposed.
THE TEMPORARYCHAIRPERSON: Hon. Members, for the record, we are dealing with Clause 6 which now is Clause 9.
Amendment to Clause 6, now Clause 9 put and agreed to.
Clause 6, now Clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendment to New Clause 9 put and agreed to.
On Clause 7, now Clause 10:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, if you note, my amendment dovetails with the amendment of the Hon. Minister. I will withdraw mine and allow the Hon. Minister to move his amendment.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I propose amendments in my name that the Bill is amended— (a) on page 13 of the Bill, in subsection (1) and (2) of the inserted new section 14 (“Appeals”), by deletion of “Registrar” wherever it occurs and substitute with “Board”; (b) on line 21 by the deletion of the words “may appeal against that decision to the Minister” and substitution with “may, within fourteen days of receiving notification of the board’s decision, appeal to the Minister”; (c) on page 13 of the Bill, by the insertion, at the end of the inserted new section 14 (“Appeals”) of the following subsection— “(3) Any private voluntary organisation aggrieved by the decision of the Minister under subsection (2) may, within fourteen days of receiving notification of the Minister’s decision, appeal to the Administrative Court, which on such appeal shall have the same powers as the Minister to dispose of such appeal.” I so submit.
Amendment to Clause 7, now Clause 10 put and agreed to.
Clause 7, now Clause10, as amended, put and agreed to.
New Clause 10, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 8, now Clause 11:
HON. MUSHORIWA: My amendments to this clause are two. The first one is the expansion, on lines 13 to 15 on page 14 of the Bill, and the deletion of paragraph B. The reason Hon. Chair is that if you see how this B is worded, I do not think it is necessary to have it because I think it is covered by this clause adequately without B because to refuse, to ration, to illegitimate, immoral sources, I think even in terms of having a problem of defining what is illegitimate and immoral, I think this is not necessary.
Secondly, Chairman, the other one is in line 14 on page 14 of the Bill. It is just a correction by deleting the word ‘whether’. It was inserted there by mistake. I thank you.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I do not agree with Hon. Mushoriwa’s assertion on deletion of paragraph (b). Rather, I propose an amendment to that particular section by deleting from line 13 of the word ‘immoral’ and substitute it with ‘illegal’ and then leave it as it is. Then, it will be clearer and Hon. Mushoriwa will be able to appreciate and understand it better.
I do not have any objection to the removal as opposed by Hon. Mushoriwa, in line 42 of ‘whether’, delete it. I so submit.
Amendment to Clause 8, now Clause 11, put and agreed to.
Clause 8, now Clause 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 8, now Clause 12;
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): I propose further amendments to Clause 8, now Clause 12 that the Bill be amended on pages 20 to 21 of the Bill, by the deletion of the inserted new section 22A and substitute with the following:
“22A Civil penalty orders and amendment or substitution of Schedule
(1) The provisions of the Schedule apply to any infringement of this Act in respect of which it is provided that a civil penalty is payable.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) and (4), the Minister may, by notice in a Statutory Instrument, amend or replace the Schedule.
(3) When the Minister wishes to amend or replace the Schedule, the Minister shall cause to be tabled before the National Assembly the draft Statutory Instrument amending or replacing the Schedule and if the National Assembly makes no resolution against the publication of the Statutory Instrument within the next seven sitting days after it is so laid before the National Assembly, the Minister shall cause it to be published in the Gazette.
(4) A request by the Minister to the Speaker to table before the National Assembly the draft Statutory Instrument referred to in subsection (3) shall be deemed to be a referral to the Parliamentary Legal Committee for the purposes of section 152 (3) (e) of the Constitution.”.
Just a brief explanation why this amendment became necessary. The Parliamentary Legal Committee noticed that we have certain Statutory Instruments that are referred directly to the National Assembly for consideration before they take effect. The very same Constitution indicates that all Statutory Instruments stand referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee. So, this amendment will cure and ensure that we word it in such a manner that once the Minister wishes to amend the Statutory Instrument, the Minister will cause it to be tabled before the National Assembly but that process then means it has to be referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee for its opinion. I so submit.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Did I hear something on 22 (a) ‘Civil penalty orders.’?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Yes. That will be the amendment that we are saying when you want to change the schedule of fines, the Minister does not have to just table it without having the Statutory Instruments being referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee. So, the amendment is now giving effect to that process of ensuring that once it is tabled, it means that it stands referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Ziyambi, can you approach the Chair.
Hon. Ziyambi approached the Chair.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I wish to apologise to the House that we had actually deferred part of Clause 8. What we were considering now was Clause 9 which becomes Clause 12, the one on civil penalty orders.
HON. MUSHORIWA: If you look at Clause 9, it inserts six new sections into the Act. My amendments seek to amend three of them.
Firstly, Section 21 - suspension of the Executive Committee of PVOs; this section as it is, will allow the Minister to apply to the High Court for an order suspending Committee Members and appointing trustees to administer the PVOs concerned pending new elections. It will empower the Minister pending a decision of the court to impose a provisional trustee to run a PVO.
My amendments seek to say that the Minister will have to notify the PVO concerned before appointing a provincial trustee and give it an opportunity to make a representation. I think it is just only fair and natural justice to do that and that also a provisional trustee’s appointment will last for three weeks unless extended by the High Court. We want to avoid a situation where these trustees are very perpetual for a longer period. Provisional trustee whose appointment is not confirmed will be liable for things done by him or her in bad faith as well as negligent. I think this is standard.
Committee Members who are suspended by the High Court will be disqualified for being elected, but only while their suspension last because there is nothing that can be in perpetuity. It has to have a timeframe. Persons who suffer loss as a result of the negligence of bad faith of a trustee will be able to get compensation from the State. After all, the appointment will actually have been done by the Minister.
On Section 22, the assessment of risk in relation to PVOs - what this section intends to do is to give effect to the FATF Recommendation 8. What my amendment seeks to do is to restrict the section to what FATF intended. That is to charities in the broader sense. The FATF definition is reproduced in the new definition of designated organisation or institutions because part of the drive in coming of this amendment is the FATF recommendations and the need for us to comply with them.
Secondly, replace sub-sections 2 to 10 of the section with new provisions, which ensures that the Minister’s risk assessments and measures prescribed for organisations found to be at risk to conform to FATF Recommendations 8, that is they are focused, proportionate and risk based. It also does not unduly disrupt legitimate PVO activities.
On 22 D on Minister’s policy directions, this section will allow the Minister to give the Registrar policy directive with the racial obliged to follow. My amendments will extend the section to allow the Minister to issue policy directive to the board as well as to the Registrar. What we are basically saying is that the policy directive should also cover to the board, not necessarily to the Registrar alone. So, I move those amendments.
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: This is an attempt by the Hon. Member to do away with exactly what we want to do. Hon. Chair, where something that is grave has been identified and you say the Minister must wait for a High Court determination when he has already applied his mind and notice that there is gross injustice if the trustees continue and will say that the Minister must wait, it will not solve the situation.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI) (SPKNG)…it will not solve the situation. In fact, under normal circumstances, giving them notice, they will clear their house and put it in order. So, we are saying that the Hon. Minister will still proceed to go to court but within seven days before that case is heard, he can actually remove them and put a provisional and proceed to have that decision confirmed by the court. In other words, we have put in another tier where we are saying the Hon. Minister’s decision is no longer final but he can act to prevent any further damage and go to court to have that confirmation done.
The situation that we are trying to prevent is whereby we go to court with those people in office then they will prepare their defence adequately because they are the ones who will still be in custody of everything that is there.
So, I believe that the way it is in the Bill adequately covers the mischief that we are trying to cure. I also noticed that the Hon. Member wants it specifically indicated that if a provisional trustee acts in bad faith, then the State is entitled to compensate. I think there are several remedies, we do not even need to put this in the Act. If you act in bad faith, you can be dealt with through the courts. The Act is not trying to protect those that would have acted negligently because if you act negligently and in bad faith wherever you are, the law normally takes its course.
So basically, the amendments by Hon. Mushoriwa were just an attempt to water-down and protect those directors of PVOs who would have strayed and allowed them to have a soft landing; so to say, you did a very good job of trying to mitigate in their favour. I think the way it is will allow our PVOs to act diligently knowing fully well that there is someone that is watching the way they are doing. Actually, it is a better way of ensuring our compliance with FATF. I so submit Hon. Chair, and move that we reject these amendments.
HON. MUSHORIWA: Chairman, I think with due respect to the Hon. Minister, there are two issues that I just want to bring to your attention.
First and foremost, you recall that the premise upon which the PVO Amendment Bill is coming was primarily on the need for us to adhere to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines. What I am basically doing here with this proposal Hon. Minister, is to actually copy and paste the recommendation from the Financial Action Task Force Guidelines – that is one. Our premises of having the PVO Bill amendments is due to the FATF Recommendation, then Hon. Minister, I think it will not kill us to make sure that we copy and paste and put them in the Bill. That is the first thing.
The second issue Hon. Minister which I wish to bring to your attention; you will note that the wording of the Bill pertaining to this issue is actually a replica of another Bill which falls under the Hon. Minister of Public Service. That one of the Labour Amendment that was done. It is actually a replica and it is the only Ministry upon which we now see Bills of this nature coming in where the Hon. Minister has power to quickly act without giving due cognisance to the normal justice situation. We saw it in the Labour Act where the Hon. Minister can get into the National Employment Council and into the Trade Union and just change willy-nilly. I think we cannot allow it to happen like this.
What I am asking Hon. Minister is that, as a compromise, let us just take what is in the FATF regulations, we cut and paste as I have done and I think this Bill will be good. Thank you.
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, sometimes cutting and pasting does not improve the Bill. What we did is, we studied what FATF had recommended and for our purposes, depending on our own local scenario, this is the way that we feel will cure to the satisfaction even of those that made recommendations. FATF recommended and gave us a motto, but we perfected it and we believe the way it is in the Bill, will help us in our own local environment to deal adequately with those issues of abuse of charitable funds and not following what is supposed to be done.
We know that there are several organisations that want to run away from their obligation to specifically use the funds for the purpose that they were donated for. So, we believe that the Hon. Minister must be there to act quickly but defer to the courts. He must then subject himself to the courts so that the courts can determine whether his decision was correct or not. In other words, the Hon. Minister’s decision is not final.
We actually have several Acts that are like this. We have the Corporate Risk Act that I administer. It is exactly worded more or less in the same manner. So, I submit Hon. Chair, that Hon. Mushoriwa humbly withdraws his amendments which were well considered. I think the way it is will serve us better as opposed to the way he wants us to put it. I thank you.
Amendments to Clause 9 put and negatived.
Clause 9, as amended, put and negative.
On Clause 10;
HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Chair. Clause 10, I think this one is one of the clauses that really needs us to apply our minds. What the Bill intends to do is to amend Section 23 of the Act to make it a criminal offence for PVOs to support or oppose political parties or candidates in elections. We extend the criminal liability to office bearers of such PVOs, regardless of their individual guilt. I think this is actually dangerous and also does not take us forward as a country. So, my amendment will limit the crime to PVOs whose constitutions do not clearly authorise them to support or oppose political parties. PVOs which are formed to protect the environment for example, may want to support candidates in local authority elections who campaign to protect wetlands and I do not think it should be a crime.
Secondly, I also intend to make sure that we remove the provisions extending…
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Mushoriwa, maybe you can start again, the Minister did not have a Bill with Clause 10. Now, we have given him the Bill.
HON. MUSHORIWA: I was saying that the amendment will amend section 23 of the Act to make it a criminal offence for PVOs to support or oppose political parties or candidates in elections and we extend the criminal liability to office bearers of such PVOs, regardless of their individual guilt. So, my amendments are two-fold, firstly is to limit the crime to PVOs whose constitutions do not clearly authorise them to support or oppose political parties. We do have PVOs Hon. Chair which are formed, for example to protect the environment. They may want to support candidates and local authority elections who campaign to protect wetlands and I do not think it should actually be a crime given that we know wetlands are going.
Secondly, my amendment seeks to remove the provisions extending liability to office bearers. This is primarily because the liability of members and office bearers of organisations is dealt with in Section 277 of the Criminal Law Code. So generally, I actually believe that these proposed amendments that I so submit are progressive and request the Hon. Minister to positively consider them.
HON. MALINGANISO: Thank you Chair. I am quite moved, if not disturbed by the submissions from Hon. Mushoriwa. The whole Bill’s main intention is to make sure certain PVOs do not meddle in politics and Hon. Mushoriwa is saying we have PVOs that may seek to support candidates. I do not want to go further. I do not really think that is a progressive amendment to a Bill whose main aim is actually to do away with such a practice. I thank you.
HON. MUGWADI: Thank you so much Hon. Chair. My submissions are based on the amendments proposed by our esteemed Hon. Mushoriwa. I seek to disagree Hon. Chair with due respect. Our Constitution by its very nature, guarantees the rights of individuals to belong to political organisations of their choice. This Bill does not seek to take away that right, notwithstanding that Members can belong to PVOs of their choice. When they remove their jackets of belonging, they can go to any rally that they want and decide to vote according to their preferences, even to support a political organisation of their choice because that right cannot be taken away; it is sacrosanct in the Constitution. What the Minister is seeking to achieve with this amendment is that the PVO itself as a separate legal persona, should not participate or be seen to be participating in political affairs in favour of another political player. Therefore, if that was allowed to happen, how does the PVO stand as a PVO if it becomes a political player? If they want to play, if you want to be a politician, do not hide behind a finger because that right is also guaranteed in the Constitution, form the political party and support it rather than to try and achieve that through clandestinely letting to form an organisation to surreptitiously or under the cover of darkness to engage in political activities but then during the day, you hide under the cover of PVOs because there are regulations regulating political parties separately. PVOs have this Act which we are working on to regulate them separately. The two therefore, cannot purport to be regulated by one Act of Parliament.
I must also say that this Bill must be understood within the context of its own environment. We are a unique environment in the sense that as a country, we have seen this very well. I think we thought a derogating Hon. Chair, we have seen history has taught us and the current environment has taught us. We have seen that there is a whole lot of mischievous PVOs that have a tendency of striking political deals with certain organisations in order to upset the socio, political and economic performance of this country. I would not want to go into detail but we have seen that. This Bill is saying, if the leaders of these organisations are genuine on their terms of references as leaders of PVOs, they must lead PVOs. If then they therefore use the PVO for political expediencies in favour of certain political parties, then they are abusing the PVOs and therefore, must be criminally liable for their actions. I do not think that is asking for too much. In fact, the Hon. Minister has done so well and has presented this Bill like a diplomat, I never thought that he was, but I have seen the diplomacy in him in the manner in which he has handled different views arising out of this Bill. It is high time therefore that the opposite bench gives the Minister time to conclude this Bill so that we get done with it within the shortest possible time because the Minister has given so much concessions and thank you so much Hon. Minister.
HON. BAJILA: Thank you so much Chair. I wish to add my voice to this proposed amendment. Chair, we need to be clear that the major issue that this Bill seeks to cure is people who fundraise on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe saying, they would like to do A, B, C, issues of food aid, drilling of boreholes and stuff like that and then convert those funds to something which is not food aid or anything. Those who fundraise clearly, in broad daylight and say they want to do political activities but they are a PVO must be allowed to do so.
They must present their documents and say yes, we are going to present our annual whatever documents wanted, stating that they want to deal with environmental issues and our scope of activity is to say, we feel that the environmental agenda must be topical in Parliament. Therefore, we will support those who have an agenda of the environment in their politics.
We seek to deal with free and fair elections. We are a PVO and we want to go and entrench the values of free and fair elections inside political parties. We are a PVO, we will partner with political parties and whatsoever documentation is wanted about the State out there, we will present it. We will work with political parties because we feel that it is not possible to bring a dispensation of free and fair election without operating inside political parties.
These things happen globally. In many countries, you will hear, this party is called the Social Democratic Party. It has got a PVO named after one of its former presidents and it does exactly that and it is publicly known. There is nothing that they are hiding. When they are fundraising on behalf of the people, they make it clear that the documentation that they are doing is public. The fundamental issue is that people must not fundraise saying this is what we want to do and then do something different. Those who want to fundraise doing political work, our laws must allow them to do so because ultimately, they will do it.
The amendments are in order to that effect because what the Bill seeks to do is not to say, no one must fundraise and say they want to do political work. People must fundraise for things that they say they want to do and proceed to do them, whether they are political or social because ultimately, these things will happen. I do not foresee a situation whereby there is a Decent Bajila Foundation and that Decent Bajila foundation seeks to be barred to do the things that Decent Bajila does. It will not happen. I thank you Mr. Chair.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTRY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, I want to thank those that have contributed to the debate on this clause. Hon. Chair, Hon. Mushoriwa’s amendment is a bit dangerous to our democracy. I say so because as a young democracy, we have threats to our democracy from super powers that may want to impose a certain narrative by donating monies to PVOs, which will then be channelled to one political party.
I tend to align a little bit with Hon. Bajila. The Bill is not banning you from carrying out activities that are political. If you have a PVO that is advocating for free and fair elections, having all the political parties in one room, educating them and spending money equitably, that is okay. It is not outlawed there, but you now have where his assertion becomes extremely dangerous. A political party must fundraise as a political party and not under the guise of a PVO. We have the Political Parties Finance Act to finance our political activities because we do not want an uneven playing field. Let us fundraise among ourselves, among Zimbabweans. We do not want you to go to Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, Botswana or anywhere else and look for funding from foreigners to do politics here because that will tilt the landscape in the favour of those that have friends who can fundraise outside the country.
We are saying, if you are - [Technical fault] - Bajila you have bewitched the microphone. I can see - [Technical fault] - I have been advised to change the seat so that I can proceed.
So, what we are saying? Mushoriwa, what are you doing? – [Laughter] - Hon. Mushoriwa was saying that PVOs must be allowed if they are in the business of promoting wetlands to cherry-pick candidates to support in elections. I believe the work of NGOs is complementary to the work that Government is doing, be it central or local authority. If you are in the arena of ensuring that wetlands are protected, you work with your local authorities, the sitting MPs and councillors to promote - [Technical fault] - but the moment you find yourself going outside that arrangement to pick an individual and promote that individual to say that I want to promote him because he has got interests of wetlands, I think that becomes very dangerous.
This amendment, the way it has been couched is very good. It simply prohibits you from - [Technical fault] - I do not know what our IT people are doing. Maybe we need our IT people to look at our system.
We are simply saying that if you are in the business of supporting one particular political party and you are a PVO, you are offside, but if you are in the business of promoting democracy and you are educating all the political parties, doing your work through the board, - it is not outlawed there. So, I move that I reject your amendment Hon. Mushoriwa. I humbly ask you to withdraw it in the spirit of moving our nation together in a spirit that will promote our own home-grown democracy. I thank you.
HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, l just wanted to raise this issue with the Hon. Minister. There is what we call the law of unintended consequences. The law of unintended consequences is that you think you are moving or you are turning left when in real terms you then realise that you are going the other way.
Hon. Chair, in this country everybody knows, and if you look at how the PVO Bill was drafted to the extent that it now covers even some trusts and other organisations, that the Registrar may deem to be PVO - what it means and I want to say this…
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, when we are in Committee we deal with the specific clauses. Hon. Mushoriwa is going to an issue that is not there on this Bill. So, you can restrict his debate to the rules of procedure when we are debating in Committee?
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Hon. Minister. Hon. Mushoriwa, may you stick to the Bill.
HON. MUSHORIWA: Hon. Chair, the clause is ‘Clause 10’. When I referred to the law of unintended consequences Hon. Chair, I wanted to highlight to the Hon. Minister that you do not want PVO nor do you want office bearers of PVOs to delink them from political activities.
We have seen the Forever Associates of Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwe Heritage Trust, even if you look into the War Veterans Association, if you see their definition and under the definition that we have put in the PVO Bill, they will in a way qualify as PVOs under the new Bill with these amendments. I am simply saying it is dangerous for us to come up with a provision as the current Clause 10 seeks to do.
I would want to say, Hon. Minister, yes, we may be a young democracy, but I also want to then point to you that just look even within SADC, the provision is there and in any event, we also do have another legislation that tends to limit such things like our political financing. So, I do not think the inclusion in this Bill is progressive.
So, I was going to persuade not only the Hon. Minister but I am also going to persuade members from this side to move with me in making sure that this proposal is accepted by this House.
HON. MUGWADI: With all due respect to Hon Chair, Hon. Mushoriwa’s submissions regarding the organisation that he talked about, you would expect him to be worried about other things than other political parties. If as he puts it, he is very correct that the information which is projecting in this House is correct about those organisations and their relationships to other political parties, then instead of it being an arsenal to attack the Minister, it is an applause on the Minister that this Bill is not being put in place to deal with a particular organisation related to certain political parties but all and sundry.
Therefore, Hon. Chair, Hon. Mushoriwa’s submission is an applause for the Minister and the Bill that it encompasses everyone and everything. We are all equal, and there are no other organisations that are going to be treated as more equal than others. So, your worries do not apply Hon. Mushoriwa, it would appear as if you were driven by a false narrative that this Bill was targeting certain organisations and certain political parties.
You have mentioned others, if I had time, I would have explained in this House that we have certain organisations like Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights whose definitions of rights are the rights of certain groups of people who belong to certain political parties. So, the Bill the Minister is presenting is saying those and the others that you have talked about are now all going to be on the same pedestal as full equal without others. So, Hon. Minister, this is an applause to you than what he thought he was using it as a point of attacking you. I submit.
HON. JAMES: Hon. Chair, PVOs are here to assist this country - [HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections.]-
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Order, order! Hon. Members, may we continue with our debates in the spirit that we were progressing in and let the Hon. Member be heard in silence.
HON. JAMES: Thank you, Hon. Chair. PVOs in this country provide a service that the Government cannot and will not provide. When we talk about the environment on human rights, they advocate these issues to everyone in the country. If a certain party does not want to participate in them for reasons of their own, it is not the fault of the rest of the population. These amendments that the Minister is putting in here are to restrict human rights and other issues. If PVOs do pull out here, can the Government provide the services that they do provide? I think in general they do not, so why restrict them?
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. I want to start by responding to Hon. Mushoriwa and say that this Bill does not ban any political party from forming an organisation that can fundraise for them. What is outlawed is the use of charitable funding to finance political parties. Forever Associates of Zimbabwe is funded by individuals in a political party and has never fundraised through the public. In other words, it does not receive any public funds at all, it is a purely private organisation just like Hon. Mushoriwa or Hon. Bajila can register a trust which they fully fund to carry out political lobbying for the political party of their choice; it is not outlawed.
So, Heritage and FAZ will continue to exist for as long as they do not breach the provisions of the PVO Act. So, that is the position. We are saying these are charitable funds and political NGOs must do their work in a non-partisan manner and that will be allowed. I also want to thank Hon. Mugwadi. If these NGOs are caught on the wrong side, it does not matter which political party they are affiliated to. If they do not comply with the provisions of the Act, then they fall foul to the Act.
Hon. James’s position is very general. We want the work of PVOs. They must do their work, if you are doing your work like what Hon. Bajila said in a specific area, why do you want to smuggle in other areas? You want to become a political lobbyist when you said you are into water and sanitation or you said you want to assist World Food Programme but inside the packets, we now find political messages being put. We are saying just stick to the mandate that you applied for as a PVO.
Therefore, I think we are all in agreement. Hon. Mushoriwa is clearly articulating what we are saying save that he is saying it in a different manner. I propose that we do not adopt this amendment. I thank you.
Amendment to new Clause 10 put and negatived.
Clause 10, now Clause 13 put and agreed to.
Clause 11, now Clause 14 put and agreed to.
On Clause 12, now Clause 15:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you Hon. Chair. The Bill is amended between line 22 on page 24 and line 32 on page 31 of the Bill. What I basically want to do, you note that this Schedule talks of civil penalty orders. I want to propose that we should actually expunge this whole part of the clause because, in my view, it is not necessary for us to even have these civil penalty orders in this Bill. I so move Hon. Chair.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. For the first time, Hon. Mushoriwa has abandoned his colleagues in the civil society. I am surprised that he has done so, he has been a very strong advocate. In fact, this provision found its place in the Bill because the civil society believed that criminal sanctions were not ideal and civil penalties were the best for any misdemeanors that pertain to the Bill.
So, I am actually surprised that he is persuading me to put criminal sanctions in back which was rejected by civil society. Therefore, I am inclined to reject his amendment because this was a proposal that we got from civil society themselves. I submit.
HON. MUSHORIWA: I think the Hon. Minister is getting it wrong. Hon. Chair, what we basically want when we deal with PVOs, we do not want a situation where there are criminal and civil penalties. I do not believe that is actually good for the country. The Hon. Minister is aware. Zimbabwe has got sufficient laws to ensure that those people that are found going against the law will be treated accordingly. So, in my view, my move to say let us remove the civil penalties, does not necessarily talk of bringing in the criminal penalties. Both of them should not be part of the Bill. This is the reason Hon. Chair; I actually believe that and the Hon. Minister is aware that all these civil penalties do not really enhance the Bill. We already have laws where people can be charged if they are found guilty because our laws are actually there.
So, naturally this provision, in my view, is not necessary and I know Hon. Chair that the Hon. Minister believes that if somebody says I am not going to give you $50 but I have just increased it to $100, when in reality that person deserves to get a $1000. A move from criminal to civil is not progressive when we look at PVOs. Let us just remove both criminal and civil penalties. I thank you.
HON. MALINGANISO: There is debate Hon. Chair.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Yes, continue.
HON. MALINGANISO: I am again disturbed and I do not really understand what Hon. Mushoriwa is trying to imply. How do you enact a law because in my belief, we enact laws to deter and those that may have offended against such laws have to face consequences? What are we doing then debating a Bill here, passing clauses and then say the Bill must exist without penalties? I do not see the wisdom in it.
HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: I do not believe I can put it any better than what Hon. Malinganiso did. When we enact laws, laws regulate the conduct of society. So, in that regulation of the conduct, you need a sanction for deviating from the norm. You cannot enact a law that says nothing. Even God says, ‘thou shall not sin for surely the wages of sin is death’ - [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] - Hon. Mushoriwa is saying have a law that says thou shall not sin, but there must be no consequences for sinning. I do not think that is logical. I believe that is why I said he abandoned his colleagues who believed that we must not put criminal sanctions and criminal records on those in the civic society who are trying to do their work and if they stray, the appropriate way of remedying that is to have a civil penalty. That is not criminal and we agreed. Hence, this clause that is there. I move that we will reject this amendment by Hon. Mushoriwa. I believe that now he is more educated after Hon. Malinganiso has given him a lecture on what laws are about. Thank you.
Amendment to Clause 12, now 15 put and negatived.
Clause 12, now Clause 15 put and agreed to.
On Clause 13, now Clause 14:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Thank you. If you check, the amendments dovetails with the amendments which the Hon. Minister has also submitted. So, in that regard, I will allow the Minister’s amendments to be put and withdraw mine.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. I propose amendments in my name on page 1084 and 1085 that:
SUBSTITUTION OF CLAUSE 13 (NOW CLAUSE 14)
The Bill is amended on page 31 of the Bill, by deletion of Clause 13 on lines 32 to 34 and substitution with the following—
“14 Transitional provisions: Pre-existing charitable entities
(1) The secretary of a pre-existing charitable entity shall lodge with the Registrar—
- no later than three months after the commencement the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Act, 2024, together with the prescribed fee and the Constitution or other foundational document of the organisation, an application for registration as a private voluntary organisation setting forth—
- the name and address of the proposed private voluntary organisation; and
- particulars of when it begins operating in Zimbabwe and what kind of entity it was operating as (as evidenced by a certificate of registration as a trust or proof of incorporation); and
- the aims and objects of the proposed private voluntary organisation; and
- the area or areas in which the proposed private voluntary
organisation proposes to render its services; and
- the sources or proposed sources of the applicant’s
funding; and
- if (on written notice to the applicant) it appears to the Registrar from the application or on the basis of information available to the Registrar that any person as a beneficial owner or controller exerts a significant or preponderant voice in the affairs of an organisation, an affidavit sworn by the secretary or a member of the governing body of the organisation disclosing the name of the beneficial owner or controller and the nature and extent of such beneficial ownership or control (in which case the date on which the Registrar is deemed to have received the application shall be the date on which such affidavit is received by the Registrar); and
- such further information in connection with the application as may be prescribed or as the Registrar may reasonably require to process the application (in which case the date on which the Registrar is deemed to have received the application shall be the date on which such information is received by the Registrar).
(2) Where the Registrar is satisfied that the requirements referred to in subsection (1) have been complied with, he or she shall submit to the board at its next sitting after the requirements have been complied with, the application together with—
- the constitution of the organisation; and
- any affidavit referred to in subsection (1) (b) and any further information supplied in connection with the application; and
- the written recommendation of the Registrar that the board
approves or rejects the application (giving reasons to the board if the Registrar recommends the rejection of the application):
Provided that if the Registrar recommends the approval of the application, the Registrar shall notify the applicant in writing that its application is provisionally approved, the effect of which notification is that the applicant may commence and continue conducting its operations, apart from collecting contributions from the public, until the date when it receives notification of the determination of its application by the board.
(3) Having received from the Registrar the application and any supporting documentation referred to in subsection (2), the board may—
- after considering the application, grant it and direct the
Registrar on the board’s behalf to issue to the organisation concerned a certificate of registration subject to such conditions as it may impose; or
- reject the application if it appears to the board that—
- the organisation is not bona fide operating in furtherance
of the objects mentioned in its application for registration; or
- the organisation does not, in respect of its constitution or management, or any other information required to be provided by the Registrar, comply with the provisions of this Act.
- Where the board rejects an application for registration wholly or
in part, the Registrar shall notify the applicant organisation of the rejection, and inform it of the grounds upon which the rejection was based.
- The registration of an organisation under this section and the objects in respect of which it has been registered shall be published by the Registrar in the Gazette.”
Amendments to Clause 13, now Clause 14 put and agreed to.
Clause 13, now Clause 14 as amended, put and agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 22 put and agreed to.
On Clause 23:
HON. MUSHORIWA: Sorry Chairman, I need some clarification. Hon. Minister, I just want you to look at that table on Clause 23.
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Which one?
HON. MUSHORIWA: Page 36 of the Bill, I am not so sure whether those …
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Hon. Mushoriwa, what do you want to debate on? Which clause?
HON. MUSHORIWA: Clause 23.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Clause 23, and you are referring to a table?
HON. MUSHORIWA: Yes, to the First Schedule on the clause.
THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Yes, have I come to that? Let me finish with the clause then we go to the table.
HON. MUSHORIWA: I thought it was part of the clause.
Clause 23 put and agreed to.
On New Clause 23, now 24;
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair, I propose the amendment standing in my name as it fully appears on page 1086, Amendments of other Acts. Basically, what I am doing is the First Schedule to the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act has a standard of scale fines that were denominated in Zimbabwean dollars and US dollars. I am substituting that through this amendment so that it includes ZIG and US dollars and not Zim dollar and US dollar. I submit for the benefit of Hon. Members so that they understand this amendment.
It is the same amendment I am amending the National Social Security Act as amended in Section 6 where it speaks about the constitution of board by the repeal of paragraph (a) and the substitution of (a) where general manager is an ex-officio member of the board with non-voting powers. Currently, there was an error, the general manager had voting powers so, he is ex-officio, we have corrected the error. I thank and so submit.
Amendment to Clause 23, Now Clause 24 put and agreed to.
Clause 23, Now Clause 24 put and agreed to.
On First Schedule;
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYMBI): I propose the deletion of the First Schedule, we reverted to the board, so we are not deleting that one. My amendment is the same with that of Hon. Mushoriwa – [HON. MUSHORIWA: I withdraw mine.] –
Amendment to First Schedule put and agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.
Second Schedule put and agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported with amendments.
Bill referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee.
On the motion of THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI), the House adjourned at Thirteen Minutes to Five o’clock p.m.