• Version
• Download 18
• File Size 409.02 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date June 24, 2025
• Last Updated June 24, 2025

SENATE HANSARD 24 JUNE 2025 Vol. 34 No. 58

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Tuesday, 24^th June, 2025

The Senate met at Half-past Two o’clock p.m.

PRAYERS

(THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE

HALF-DAY WORKSHOP TO UNPACK THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF ASSETS AMENDMENT BILL [H.B. 2, 2025] AND THE PIPELINES AMENDMENT BILL [H.B. 3, 2025]

         THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE: I have to inform the Senate that on Thursday, 26^th June, 2025, there will be a Half-Day Workshop to unpack the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Amendment Bill [H. B. 2, 2025] and the Pipelines Amendment Bill [H. B. 3, 2025] at 0900 hours in the Multi-Purpose Hall.  All Hon. Senators are invited to attend.  I am encouraging you to attend because we need to understand these Bills, what they mean so that we will be able to debate upon them.

SECOND READING

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BILL [H. B. 2A, 2023]

First Order read: Second Reading: Persons with Disabilities Bill [H. B. 2A, 2023].

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Madam President of the Senate. I rise to deliver my Second Reading speech on the Persons with Disabilities Bill. Madam President, the Bill before you today is of paramount importance as it seeks to repeal the now outdated Disabled Persons Act, [Chapter 17:01], align disability legislation with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and other international conventions and treaties that Zimbabwe is a party to, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a Human Rights International Treaty adopted by the United Nations in 2006 and ratified by Zimbabwe in 2013, aimed at protecting and reaffirming the rights of persons with disabilities and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Zimbabwe has just ratified, whose primary objective is to promote, safeguard and ensure that all persons with disabilities in Africa equally exercise and enjoy all their rights.

Madam President, according to the Zimbabwe 2022 Population and Housing Census Report, the prevalence of disability in Zimbabwe is estimated to be at 9.5%. As such, persons with disabilities constitute a significant portion of Zimbabwe's total population. The Bill seeks to uphold and protect the interests of this 9.5% of our total population, thereby promoting positive growth attitudes amongst persons with disabilities and despite any disability, allow persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe to pursue or work on their goals and aspirations in life. Thus, allowing them to positively contribute to society.

The Bill also seeks to repeal the outdated Disabled Persons Act, [Chapter 17:01] of 1992. The name of the current Act Madam President, that is, the Disabled Persons Act alone, is now regarded as derogatory, outdated and no longer has a place within the current context of human rights app,the roach. Hence, the Bill carries a different name, a different yet progressive title, that is Persons with Disabilities Bill, which uses the people-first language. The people-first perspective Madam President, puts the person first and the disability last, thereby allowing a person not to be defined by his or her disability.

Instead of saying a disabled person, the internationally accepted terminology now is to say a person with a disability. This perspective, which is used in the title of the Bill and throughout the Bill, places emphasis on the person and their identity, rather than describing a person with a disability first. The Bill carries a human rights-based approach to disability and lays out fundamental rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.

As indicated above, the Bill aligns disability legislation with the Constitution of Zimbabwe, particularly Sections 22 and 83 respectively. Madam President, allow me to reiterate the provisions of Section 22 of our Constitution, which mandate the State and all agencies of the Government to recognise the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular their right to be treated with dignity and respect. Section 83 of the Constitution further obligates the State to take appropriate measures within the limits of its resources to ensure that persons with disabilities realise their full mental and physical potential.

The measures adopted by the State in terms of Section 83 of the Constitution must enable persons with disabilities to, among others:

1. become self-reliant;
2. live with their families and participate fully in social, creative or recreational activities;

• be protected from all forms of exploitation and abuse;

1. have access to medical, psychological and functional treatment;
2. have access to State-funded education and training where they so require it; and
3. have special facilities for their education.

More so, Madam President, as indicated above, Zimbabwe is a party to the UN Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These two international instruments are also key when it comes to ensuring that the rights of persons with disabilities are safeguarded.

This Bill Madam President, will ensure that Zimbabwe incorporates the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which obligates State parties to change and do away with laws, regulations, customs and practices that discriminate against persons with disabilities. The Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which mandates State parties to modify, outlaw, criminalise and campaign against any harmful practices applied to persons with disabilities. Through the incorporation of provisions of these two international instruments, the Bill will ensure the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and promote inherent dignity of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, Madam President, this Bill establishes the National Disabilities Affairs Board. The board shall be tasked with important functions such as advising the Minister on all matters relating to persons with disability in Zimbabwe, preparing and coming up with the national disability policy and issuing adjustment orders. These are orders requiring premises to be altered to accommodate persons with disabilities, promoting the recognition of skills, merits and abilities of persons with disability and their contributions to the workplace and labour market, acting as a coordinating body for all organisations dealing with the care and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. Lastly, it will also be responsible generally for promoting the interests of persons with disabilities.

Madam President, the Bill proposes to establish a fund called the Assistance Fund for Persons with Disabilities. This fund will be administered by the board, subject to any directions given to it by the responsible Minister. The said fund shall get its resources from parliamentary appropriations as well as donations and grants. This fund will play a critical role in establishing and running vocational training centres, rehabilitating persons with disabilities, subsidising assistive devices and technologies for persons with disabilities, providing scholarships for persons with disabilities, assisting persons with disabilities involved in income-generating projects whether as individuals or as members of groups, associations or cooperative societies and will generally be used for the promotion of the rights and interests of persons with disabilities.

In order to move with current global trends, the Bill will ensure that persons with disabilities are not to be viewed or treated as objects of charity but rather as people entitled to equitable treatment and have the same fundamental rights as everyone else. The Bill will also expand the specific rights of persons with disabilities beyond those accorded to them by the existing Act. In particular, access to justice will be enhanced by giving persons with disabilities the right to free or affordable legal aid. Persons with disabilities will have the right to education in their preferred language and access to free primary and secondary education. This right will include learning sign language to promote linguistic identity and learning other forms of communication such as Braille, their right to work on an equal basis with others, to be employed in the private and public sectors and to exercise their labour rights will be enhanced. To note is that the private corporations that will employ persons with disabilities will get tax credits. Four, the Bill will also recognise that parents of children with disabilities should receive support, training and capacity building to ensure that their children enjoy their rights, among other issues.

Madam President, under the existing Disabled Persons Act, the National Disability Board has power to make adjustment orders as stated above. This Bill will give the same powers to the envisaged National Disability Board, but the Bill will go a step further and allow interested persons, including the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, to approach the High Court for adjustment orders against owners of premises and service providers. This will ensure that persons with disabilities have full and equal access to buildings and services.

Madam President, further to these provisions, I seek to introduce substantive amendments to the Persons with Disabilities Bill's first schedule. These concern the appointment of members of the board, disqualification for appointment, vacation of office and insertion of a new paragraph in relation to dismissal or suspension of members. These amendments were necessitated by previous amendments wherein the proposed commission was removed and replaced by the board. As such, there was a need to come up with provisions relating to the appointment of board members, disqualification, vacation of office and dismissal or suspension of members which are in line with the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act.

I will not, at this stage, undertake a clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill admirably suits that purpose. I therefore, encourage Members to read it carefully. With these words, I urge Hon. Senators to support this Bill, which will promote a better, safer and more conducive environment for persons with disabilities to positively live and contribute towards the development of our country. The Bill will also greatly improve the enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms by persons with disabilities to which they are entitled under our Constitution and international law.

In view of the above, I therefore move that the Bill be now read a second time.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE: Thank you Hon. Minister.

HON. SEN. ZHOU: Thank you Madam President. My point of privilege is premised around the Bill that was sent in our inboxes and the memorandum that was read out by the Hon. Minister is different. I say so because the Bill was sent in a format that I am not able to read.  I had to go to Dorothy Duncanto try and get that Bill put in a format that I am able to read braille. Now, when he is presenting his outline, it is far different from that which I got in my inbox. My question is that are we still on the same page with the Hon. Minister? Is this a new outline and has he brought other new clauses to the Bill? If it is possible, I will then still demand that the Bill be read clause by clause because it will disadvantage me. I have asked the Parliament many times to provide for my note-taker and that has not happened.

Now I am at the mercy of people and going around asking them to produce materials in accessible formats. Personally, in my opinion, I disagree with the outline compared to what I read with my fingers in the Bill that was circulated, I submit.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE: Thank you Hon. Zhou. I think the Minister was listening. Can you please help us so that the House will be together in the same format as what he is asking?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Madam President. What I read is what I prepared with the help of my officials, according to the Bill that sailed through the National Assembly. I am not sure of which Bill the Hon. Senator is referring to. If he is referring to the original Bill that was gazetted, there are fundamental changes that happened later on. So, my Second Reading speech is very consistent with the Bill that sailed through the National Assembly, I submit.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE: This is what the Hon. Senator is saying. If we are continuing, I think what he wants is that we go clause by clause so that he understands what he is saying. That is his question.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Madam President, at the Committee Stage, the clauses are put clause by clause. The Second Reading stage is a general debate of the Bill that has been circulated that came from the National Assembly. It has been lying before the Senate for the past three weeks if I am not mistaken, over three weeks. I do not think Parliament Administration continued circulating the Bill that was originally gazetted. I stand guided, maybe you can ask our clerks. This Bill has been before the Senate for over three weeks but the procedure, we cannot alter the procedures at this stage. The procedures of Parliament dictate that at the Second Reading stage, we can debate general provisions without narrowing to specific ones. When we get to the Committee Stage, we then go clause by clause and we look at those clauses.

HON. SEN. ZHOU: The issue here is the mantra of leaving no one and no place behind and we are talking of inclusivity.  I am saying the Bill that I got in my inbox, which was in the Senators' 10^th Parliament, does not have the same preliminary comments that the Minister made this afternoon. Maybe the other Senators got another one since I said most materials are sent in a format that I am not able to read. To say we are not changing Parliament administration procedures, it also means that Parliament will not go towards accessibility and reasonable accommodation, then we are not also aligning with the ratification that we did to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I still request that Madam President, I be protected by the Constitution and not by Parliament, I am a citizen.  I need to read every clause. I was elected Madam President as a representative of persons with disabilities.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE: Order Hon. Member!

I do not think there is any problem that makes us argue on this one. What the Minister was saying is that when we need to go through clause-by-clause, we will do it at the Committee Stage. He is not refusing, only that when we get to the Committee Stage, this is where we go clause-by-clause.

I think we have to understand each other when someone is presenting. There is no need to argue. The clause-by-clause stage is coming so that you understand enough. In the meantime, I have sent the Clerks-at-the-Table to check whether the Minister is presenting the same Bill as what you have so that we are on the same page.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: Thank you Madam President.  I would like to thank the Minister for bringing this important piece of legislation before this House for us to consider and debate broadly before we get down to the business of the Committee Stage.

Madam President, indeed, the presentation of this Bill should present us with a departure from the previous approach as the Hon. Minister stated, where the rights of persons with disabilities were considered based on a model that treated them as beneficiaries of charity. If you look at the title of the previous Act, it says it is an Act to make provision for the welfare and rehabilitation of disabled persons. The thrust at the time was charity; it was welfare. The thrust at the time was medical; they were also treated as medical cases. This was the approach to say that we want to try and treat them, to move them away from their disability as much as possible towards normalcy. That was the understanding at the time and that was also the approach.

The approach tended to leave persons living with disabilities (PWDs) as objects of compassion, charity and medical support. They did not have a voice in how they wanted to be appreciated, handled, treated or assisted. The voice was always that of the benefactor.

This is what the Government has looked at. They have compared this with international standards and said we want to move away from that. We have a Cconstitution that provides for the rights of people with disabilities.   Therefore, we must come up with an Act and we must applaud them so many years after 2018 for coming up with this Act.

Now, what we would invite the Minister to interrogate is how they have provided for the rights of people with disabilities in this Act are treating them as objects who should be beneficiaries of charity, mere pawns in the whole puzzle or is it imbuing them with humanity. Are we treating them as full human beings who should be participating fully in our political matrix, including in the administration of their own lives?

 I think that the Government, Madam President, when they first brought the Bill to the National Assembly, had made the correct call because in that version of the Bill, it sought to put in place a commission to govern the affairs of people with disabilities alongside the Government of course, which is chiefly responsible for ensuring that everyone is afforded rights, whether they are people living with disabilities, children or women. The Government will always have that oversight.

However, in its wisdom, they have decided that there is going to be a broader administration which involves the sector as much as possible; those people who are living with disabilities would come to grips with the day-to-day policymaking at a more involved level or rate.

The Bill as it has been presented now, establishes a board. It goes back to the format as it were, of a board which was there in the previous Act. Of course, how the board is appointed, yes, there are significant differences but certainly, if one looks at how it is done, then one will note that the board, while it is broad and has many people, all the members of the board are appointed by the Minister. They are appointed by the Minister and in many instances, they will consult certain sectors or players in the sector that the Minister deems appropriate.

In moving around our constituencies Madam President, we have found that the call from people in the sector, those with disabilities, is that they need a more broad-based approach, where the members of this board can be more independent so that as we deal with these issues, they can compare notes with the Government from a stronger footing.  They suggested that these individuals who end up sitting on this board, the majority of them at the very least, should be appointed in a process which brings them to Parliament and Parliament should take part in the process of appointing these individuals.  I note that the Hon. Minister has moved sharply away from that approach, having initially considered something similar but not quite the same. We would urge the Government to really lend a listening ear to these calls, given that they are coming from the people living with disabilities, especially given that our model is a human rights model, which would seek to involve them as much as possible.

This is a key aspect which I have noted Madam President, and I thought I should contribute to the debate in that regard so that when we come to drilling down to the clauses, this approach should be better understood. I would be very much interested to hear from the Hon. Minister why that sharp departure and why a process that involves those with disabilities more and offers them a more independent voice should not be adopted.

I have seen clauses, for instance, when it comes to their removal from the board. I have seen that the removal of these people from the appointment is very executive strong. You can be removed for such a reason as being merely accused of an offence. In some instances, it is an offence. I do not know whether it was a drafting error. We will get to that when we get to the clause-by-clause.

In some instances, an offence involving a sentence of more than six months and financial improbity and so forth, when you are being accused or when it is alleged that you have done these things, you can be easily suspended. There are those kinds of things which bring us to make a very strong call for the reconsideration of this section to ensure that this board has a modicum of independence.

I know that it is not one of the constitutionally provided for commissions that have been established but certainly, that does not mean that we can have more independence and more strength for those in the sector and for those in the board to run the affairs of this sector or this segment of policy. So, this is my clarion call to the Senate, to say let us debate, consider and examine these issues. This is my invitation to the Hon. Minister to be very flexible in considering these matters. I know he would have a position but in applying that position, there are some small nitty-gritties that we can put forward which would help your Bill to be more polished and more acceptable.  I thank you.

HON. S. NDEBELE: Thank you Madam President of Senate, I want to present a report on the consultations of the Persons with Disability Bill [H. B. 2, 2023].

         INTRODUCTION

The Persons with Disabilities Bill [H.B. 2, 2023] was gazetted on 9 February 2024. The Bill seeks to operationalise the constitutional provision relating to the rights of persons with disabilities and domesticate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Bill establishes a Commission for Persons with Disabilities to overseeing the implementation of the Bill and advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities in Zimbabwe.  The Bill further provides greater protection for the rights of persons with disabilities, encompassing a wide range of areas, including access to education, employment, healthcare, participation in public life and removal of barriers and ensures equal opportunities in an endeavour to create a more inclusive society in Zimbabwe. 

In terms of Section 141 of the Constitution, which enjoins Parliament to ensure public involvement in its legislative process and that interested parties are consulted about Bills, the Joint Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare and the Thematic Committee on Gender Development conducted public consultations on the Bill. This report summarises the views of the people of Zimbabwe on the Bill.

         METHODOLOGY

The Joint Committee conducted public hearings on the Bill from 13 May to 17 May 2024. In this regard, the Joint Committee was divided into two teams which undertook consultations at 10 different venues across the 10 provinces of Zimbabwe.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

  General Submissions 

The public applauded Parliament for the efforts made in reaching out to gather their views on the Persons with Disabilities Bill. However, a call was made to extend the consultations to the district level and avail the Bill in simplified form and in other languages provided for in the Constitution, including Braille, in the future.  A concern was raised about venues, one of which was not accessible to persons with disabilities. 

There was a general agreement that the Bill was a step in the right

direction towards the inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in social,

economic, legal and political spaces. The public supported the Bill

subject to further improvement as highlighted in this report.

Highlights of Participants Views for the Bill

         Clause 2  

Whilst the definition of persons with disabilities in Clause 2 borrows from Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the public was concerned that it did not specify the forms of disability.  In essence, the definition in the National Disability Policy, which specifies epilepsy and albinism as forms of disabilities, was the most preferred. Persons with disabilities presented that people with some forms of disabilities had been marginalised and excluded within the country’s legislative frameworks and programmes targeting persons with disabilities, hence the need to have a broad definition that include all forms of disabilities.

Clause 3

There were different views submitted on Clause 3.  Some presentations indicated that the composition of the Commission should demonstrate a fair, regional and gender representation and should have persons with diverse impairments to ensure equitable representation.  Members of the public were opposed to organisations of persons with disabilities seconding members to the Commission.  They preferred appointments to the Commission that are based on merit through public interviews conducted by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders as with Independent Commissions.  They also preferred a similar commission like those in Chapter 12 of the Constitution.

It was also raised that the composition of the proposed Commission for Persons with Disabilities should include parents of children with disabilities on the basis that parents of children with disabilities face unique and special challenges raising them, as they are instrumental in the outcomes of children with disabilities. 

Some opposed the inclusion of parents or guardians of children with disabilities in the Commission, citing that there are educated and capable persons with disabilities to be Commissioners.  Others underscored the need for 50% of the members of the Commission to be persons with disabilities.

Some were of the view that the Commission should have 10 Commissioners to ensure representation from each of the country’s 10 provinces.  Others were of the view that the Commission should be made up of 15 members, where five are technocrats while the other 10 are members of the disability community with varying forms of disabilities nominated from the country’s 10 provinces.

Clauses 4 and 8

The public noted inconsistencies in Clause 4 (4) and Clause 8 (1) (a) as the Commission is given a four-year term in Clause 4 and yet the Commission is required to come up with a five-year strategic plan in Clause 8.  It was suggested that Clause 4 should be amended to allow the Commissioners to have a five-year term to enable them to finish implementation of the five-year strategic plan.

Clause 5

In addition to the functions provided in the Bill, the public recommended that the Commission should receive and handle complaints by persons with disabilities against government ministries, departments or agencies.  Thus, the need to ensure the independence of the Commission was considered of paramount importance.  In addition, it was submitted that the Commission should maintain a database for persons with disabilities with disaggregated data and facilitate the issuance of identification cards.

Clause 7

A proposal was made that the Chief Executive Officer should be a person with some form of disability, have a qualification in one of the social sciences at degree level and have managerial or administrative experience.

Clause 10

It was proposed that the clause should be amended to allow the Commission and the secretariat to be held liable and answerable for accountability purposes as opposed to the granting of immunity.

Clause 11

The public proposed the need for the Commission to consider applications for registration as opposed to giving such powers to the Chief Executive Officer.

Clause 17

It was proposed that punitive measures should be replaced by criminalisation of any act of discrimination against persons with disabilities as discrimination was viewed as a significant barrier to the attainment of other rights.

Clause 18

The public proposed that the Bill should emphasise barrier-free accessibility and not the concept of reasonable access.  The Bill should therefore, enforce compliance from institutions, agencies and parastatals in the design of buildings, programmes, services or purchase of appliances, devices and vehicles that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Clause 30

There was a proposal that the government should provide a regulated system to facilitate access to qualified personal assistants who will assist PWDs by interpreting in sign language. This will help mitigate the cases of abuse of PWDs.

Clause 20

A proposal was made for the Bill to provide in clear terms how women and girls with disabilities would be empowered and to state the specific programmes.

Clause 29

Emphasis was given on the need for the Bill to provide for duty-free and exempted taxes on mobile aids and other assistive devices or even for the Government to provide them for free.

Clause 34

It was emphasised that the Bill should ensure access to free and quality education from ECD to tertiary education.  It was argued that BEAM should allow persons with disabilities to learn up to a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or highest level of education they wish to attain and not limited to first degree. Education institutions must be compelled to formulate disability policies that promote, protect and advance their right to education.

Some suggested the establishment of special schools for children with disabilities within reach to cater for their special needs.  Others, however, viewed the proposal as discriminatory.  Thus, in the spirit of inclusivity, children with disabilities should learn with other able-bodied children but the facilities at the schools should be inclusive.  The teachers should therefore, be trained in all forms of disabilities so that they are able to understand and teach children with disabilities effectively.   

Clause 35

It was submitted that Sign Language should be provided at all health facilities for persons who are deaf and hard of hearing.  It was recommended that the Bill should provide for special training for some health workers, such as nurses, doctors in sign language to assist all kinds of disabilities when they require health services.  In addition, the public underscored the need for disability comprehensive and inclusive health coverage for persons with disabilities to ensure the availability of suitable infrastructure and specialised equipment such as ramps.

Clause 37

In addition, a reserved quota for employment of persons with disabilities by government departments and parastatals, the public recommended for the provision be extended to the private sector.  Some proposed that the 2% disability employment quota for persons with disabilities should be raised to 5% while others proposed a 15% quota. It was further proposed that employees with disabilities should have a 25% tax credit, which should be reviewed periodically.

Clause 38

The public called upon the Government to provide a monthly

Disability Grant as part of a Poverty Reduction Programme, citing economic costs of disability, discrimination against persons with disabilities in the workplace, among other factors.

Clause 39

The public proposed a fair inclusion of persons with disabilities in any decision-making board since they are the ones who experience the challenges of having disabilities. It was also proposed that five years was too long for compliance to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in every decision-making body.  The time should be shortened to one year to allow for preparation.

Clause 42

It was proposed that Clause 42 (2) (ii) ‘disabled persons’ should be replaced with persons with disabilities. The public also felt that the proposed level 7 fine was too lenient and hence proposed a level 12 fine as a deterrent measure for offenders.

Clause 45

Regarding the Establishment of Assistance Fund for Persons with Disabilities, it was proposed that the word ‘Assistance Fund’ should be replaced with ‘National Disability Fund’.  They argued that ‘assistance’ carries charitable connotations.  It was proposed that Clause 45 (4) be removed and Clause 45 (3) be rephrased to read as ‘The Chief Executive Officer, on behalf of the Commission, shall administer the Fund subject to reasonably cost-effective need to accommodate more recipients to the fund with the approval of the Minister’.  Some commented that the Government, as opposed to NGOs, should take full responsibility of providing for persons with disabilities and provide for a ‘Grant for Persons with Disabilities’ that should be allocated adequate funds in the National Budget each year.  They also argued that the allocations under the Social Welfare Programme in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare is inadequate, hence the need for a stand-alone special grant allocated in the National Budget.

Clause 48

It was submitted that the funds to include income-generating projects for parents of children with disabilities, as they are excluded in the clause.  The public complained that parents of children with disabilities incur additional costs such as food, medicines, therapies, assistive devices and extra care in raising children with disabilities.  To this effect, they need additional support with income-generating projects as well as a special grant.

Clause 51

It was proposed that this clause and any other clause or section in the Bill that makes reference to the Director of Disability Affairs must be removed and replaced with the Chief Executive Officer.  Thus, creating independence befitting a competent Commission and avoiding conflict of interest.  It was further proposed that the Commission should not report to the Minister but to Parliament.  They further proposed that civil servants should not be part of the Commission and should not sit in the Commission as this will cause a conflict of interest.

It was also submitted that the Bill is silent on supporting recreational activities for PWDs and should provide for financial support in sports and talents such as singing, acting and sewing.

COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS

The Committee made the following observations:

Members of the public were in support of the Bill, although there

were some conflicting views on proposals for amendments in terms of the number of Commissioners and the composition of the Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

• There was a general agreement that Persons with Disabilities should be considered first as beneficiaries of social protection schemes and should have free and easy access to health and education services.
• The public wanted an Independent Commission like the Chapter 12 Commissions without the interference of a Minister, as compared to an Executive Commission.
• The Committee noted that persons with disabilities wanted to be in control of their affairs and the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission to be a qualified person with a disability.

         COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee made the following recommendations:

• In the meantime, the definition of disability should comply with the UNCRPD definition.
• The Commission for Persons with Disabilities should be increased from seven to ten Commissioners for fair regional representation.
• The proposed Commission should come up with database for all persons with disabilities, stating gender, form of disability and identification cards. This register should be updated regularly.
• Persons with disabilities should have free access to education, health services and government public transport.
• Assistive devices should be exempted from import duty and also offered to persons with disabilities free of charge.
• All public buildings and transport should be accessible to persons with disabilities.
• Going forward, there is a need for translation of all proposed legislation into the local languages recognised in the Constitution, Braille and sign language.
• The government should introduce social grants for persons with disabilities.

         HON. SEN. CHIEF NGUNGUMBANE: Thank you Madam President, for affording an opportunity to make a very few remarks about the Bill.  Also, I want to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Honourable Minister for bringing this Bill, which seeks to rationalise people living with disabilities like all other citizens and according them the rights that they so deserve. Madam President, I want to raise  two or so issues with the Minister.

The first one, Madam President, is a matter of procedure, as you rightfully stated. I would have expected that the Committee should have brought the report before the Minister responded, so that the Minister would have raised certain issues. When the report is brought in, when the Minister has already made his findings or report to the Bill, it takes away the thunder of this House to make an informed debate about the issues at hand.

The second one, Madam President, the Minister raised the issue of people living with disabilities seeking recourse with the courts in ensuring that there is compliance with those people owning buildings so that people living with disabilities can have access. I do not know whether that is proper, to leave this responsibility to people living with disability vis a vis taking a person with resources to court. Are we not shortchanging people living with disabilities because the other issue that comes to mind is, can these people really afford legal fees? Are we not denying them a right to access to justice? I would have preferred that this Parliament passes a law that will compel all persons, whether Government or private sector, to ensure that all buildings in the country are friendly to people living with disabilities.  So, I sought the Minister to clarify that point.

The third one is that I know the Bill provides for the composition and we will go into detail at Committee Stage. Allow me Madam President, to express my disappointment that the Bill is silent on who should chair.  I think this is a Bill that deals with a specific sector or specific people. I would have expected that the chairperson, all things being equal, should be a person living with disability expressly provided for in the Bill.  Madam Speaker, I am saying so because the Minister can use his discretion to appoint a person to chair the board who is not a person living with disability.  I want to express my disappointment and suggest that there should be a person who is living with disability to chair this board.

The last one Madam President, is still on the board itself. I do not know, it says the Minister shall appoint ten people from organisations, associations he or she considers. To me, that is too discretionary, the Minister can see otherwise or share a different opinion.  Madam Speaker, if that could be explicitly stated, I would be very happy. Thank you, Madam President, for affording me time to debate the Bill.

HON. SEN. ZHOU: Thank you very much, Madam President. Let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few comments and maybe also to thank the Hon. Minister for bringing this very important instrument.  To us as persons with disabilities, it is exciting and it is also historic.  It is historic in the sense that for the past two years, in his State of the Nation Address, His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Dr. E. D. Mnangagwa brought this Bill as the top priority of all the Bills that were to be discussed in 2023 and also in 2024. I mean, people with disabilities raised their expectations that when it comes to Parliament something will happen.  Let me also, Madam President, say that during COPAC, disability was not a thematic topic and persons with disabilities requested that it be included as a thematic topic and they had requested ten Members of Parliament in the House and eight Senators but they only got two Senators and got nothing in the lower House.

Madam Speaker, why do I say so? I say so because when I read this Bill, in its quest to try and align to the Constitution maybe halfway it may align to the Constitution but the other language that was used in the Bill to say funds permitting or if the Minister sees fit he will do this in terms of giving the Minister the discretion that the other Hon. Chief was just alluding to, it is somehow disturbing. 

The other alignment was for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. After ratifying in September 2013, Zimbabwe was supposed to domesticate this Act so that they revise the Disabled Persons Act [Chapter 17.01] so that it is domesticated and aligned to the CRPD.  Reading through the provisions, I noticed that somebody was just going to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, then just pasting and removing numbering without obligation from the State, no localisation of those provisions to Zimbabwe and so on.  I think it will be very difficult even to administer the Disabled Persons Act [2021, which was launched by His Excellency, because the National Disability Policy is quite domesticated.  It is also in line with the new international trends, including the CRPD and the African Disability Protocol but this Bill is far off the mark.

  I also looked for the section on young persons with disabilities in this Bill, I did not see it, maybe the Minister will show us but the provisions that I read through here. I did not see anything to do with the young persons with disabilities.  My other request is that the board in as much as people will say the board or commission is the same but I will say that I served on the National Disability Board for 18 years and nothing really tangible happened until 2018 when persons with disabilities had an interface with His Excellency on the 21^st of June at the Rainbow Towers.  We requested that there must be an Act provided for a disability affair and also for a director for persons with disabilities but since 1992, the First Republic has not provided those provisions. Now all the things that were gazetted through the Attorney General's Office from Cabinet have disappeared.  We do not know where these other things are emanating from and so on.  Thank you very much Madam President.

         HON. SEN. MOHADI: Thank you Madam President, for giving me this opportunity to add a few things and also support this Bill even though it is coming very late. The issues that we are talking about now were supposed to have been done long ago because this population has been suffering. The other thing that I want to talk about is the appropriate policies, whether they are reviewed, need follow-up, especially during the implementation of what we would have agreed upon, because without monitoring these policies, at the end of the day, they become useless. They need to be followed up to see that this population is looked after.

         The Minister indicated that this Bill seeks to better the rights of persons living with disabilities. I agree 100% with him but you find that as we talk about these rights, some of them are not being put into use. People living with disabilities continue to suffer. In education, the use of braille, especially in rural schools, is not being used so much. These children end up leaving school because they will not get the proper assistance that they are supposed to get.

         On the board, I just want to add a few things to this independent board. I support that the Act should be inclusive, meaning to say that it should have a certain number of women within that board. The girl child should be included in that board so that the women and girls are seen taking charge of what their male counterparts are doing. They should be included in the board because in the future, we need this board to realise the benefits of having them on the board.

His Excellency, President E. D. Mnangagwa’s mantra, that everybody should be included and no one should be left behind should be taken into consideration. So, we need to include the girl child as well. I think by these few comments that I have given, I support what the Hon. Minister has brought before us. I thank you.

         HON. SEN. TSHABANGU: Thank you Madam President. I have a bit of a cold, so my voice will not come out clearly. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. We are discussing a very essential Bill that cuts across our social belonging. One way or the other, we have a family member who is disabled or we have a relative who is disabled. My point is on inclusive education, which has been alluded to by the previous speaker, that let us provide free education to children with disabilities. This will promote the social inclusion and equal opportunities.

         When we make laws, we do not make them to amend them tomorrow, but we make laws so that they can live beyond our time. It is important that we touch on all aspects of the Bill. I want to encourage the Minister to provide social protection such that there must be minimum benefits that are clearly defined that people living with disabilities should get from the State. It is the obligation of the State to provide them because they are a socially special class. Nobody was born or wanted to be disabled.

         Some disabilities are defined in different forms, one is born as disabled and one is disabled through injury and they find themselves in that predicament. Going back to education again, let us have incentives or let us have specially trained teachers and incentives for those specially trained teachers who are going to cater to people living with disabilities. There is no drive in our society for one to be a teacher in a disabled class. Most people would find it difficult to be attracted to that kind of environment because there is no provision in the Act or in the Bill that attracts them to that field.

         Let us individualise the support based on need because our disability financially varies. The degree of disability is derived from one level to another. If you can incorporate that in our Bill, as the Head of State is usually saying in his speech, that no one should be left behind, and in this case, people living with disability should not be left behind as we propel this nation forward and as we craft this Bill. Let us ensure that the disabled, the special class, if they cannot do some of these things on their own, we the able-bodied, should not disadvantage them in any way.

         I encourage you Hon. Minister for being a listening Minister. I know you from history and you have done exceptionally well, when the Senate comes into history because you have been the Minister of Justice for a long period of time. So, these views are coming from the mature Chamber of the House and you ought to listen and amend as we propose so that we move this nation in line with the vision of this country. I submit.

         HON. SEN. MATIBIRI: Thank you Madam President and Hon. Minister. Thank you for bringing this very important Bill before the House. I will join the call from Hon. Senators who have debated before me, that before us is a very important Bill that enjoins us to carry on our shoulders, the plight of people with disabilities. Their rights are protected in our Constitution, in regional instruments and in international instruments. We take pride Hon. Minister, when we make reference to the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, our own Constitution, the Articles of the African Union and so forth and the pronouncements that have been made by the Executive to the effect that we do not seek to leave anyone behind. My reading of that mantra is to say, we want to move everybody forward into the brave 21^st century, children, women, people with disabilities, everybody. For people with disabilities, if we are saying we do not want to leave anyone behind, it means the State must be prepared to commit more than it does to able-bodied persons.

 

I make this point Hon. Minister from the realisation that in your Bill, there are what are called clawback clauses. When you say within the limits of the resources available, already we have left a certain segment behind. Since these people are disadvantaged already by the nature of their having certain disabilities, in my humble submissions Hon. Minister, as we go forward, as we interrogate the Clause-by-Clause aspects of this Bill, we expect you Hon. Minister, to listen.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE:  Order Hon. Senator! Always, you address the Chair, not the Minister.

HON. SEN. MATIBIRI: Thank you Madam President and my apologies. Our expectation is that the concerns, as we have received them from the various sectors, will be taken on board. We will be a Senate with pride if what we are going to do today is going to bring joy and make life easy for those who are disadvantaged already, that is my plight. I also expect that there are clear penalties for those who do not uphold the rights of persons with disabilities. They are clearly spelt out in the Bill. Those will be my few submissions. Thank you.

THE HON. PRESIDENT OF SENATE:  Hon. Minister, you are pushing me by what you are doing. I want Honourable Members to debate if there is a Bill and a privilege to talk about those who are living with disabilities.

HON. SEN. ZVIDZAI: Thank you Madam President. It is a very brief debate on this issue. To put this issue in the correct perspective, lies a need for us to understand the statistics around disability in the country. Various institutions, including ZimStats say between 7% and 10% of the population of this country has a disability of some form. That is a very big number which demands that such a fraction of the population should not be left behind in our quest, not only for inclusivity but for harnessing all resources available to the nation for one stubborn focus of developing this country. So, that is a big number and I think my inclination is to thank the Minister for at least putting thought into the need to progressively improve the situation around people with disability. After all, there is a very big possibility that today you could be walking on your two legs and tomorrow you could be in a wheelchair. There is a very big possibility that today you believe you are very fine and tomorrow you have got a mental disability. We all need to very seriously consider this and stop the idea of ‘thinkifying’ disability kuti chirema, isilima, ibofu. All that is an ugly reference to people, which then drives us into thinking that they are lesser human beings. Even regarding how we talk about it, I think it is important that we humanise, we think of people with disability as equal human beings who are just a bit disadvantaged.

Madam President, therefore the Executive should listen with all its 16 ears to any little concern that arises, particularly to people who live the reality of disability. We need to make sure that we listen very carefully to their submissions, even something that looks very minor because you do not live in that reality, you are not able to tell the depth of how it affects that community. This is just a bit of submission that I wanted to make but also adding that looking at the objects of the disability fund, the disability assistance fund all focus on people with disability but in my opinion, there must be a chunk that focuses on people without disability so that they understand the need to live with situations of disability. Actually, I think it is more important to deal with people without disability, educate, train them and conscientise them so that they understand what disability is as well as the effect on people who live in that reality and the impact on all our efforts to develop our nation. With this submission, I wish to thank you for the opportunity.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Madam President. I want to thank the Hon. Senators for the debate and the contributions, which we believe we will debate when we get to the Committee Stage. I will start with Hon. Senator Phulu, thanking him for the compliments that he gave on the progressive nature of the Bill that there must not be beneficiaries of charity and they must not be left behind.

He went on to question whether the manner in which the Bill has been presented, as it is, you mainly includes those who are living with disability in the administration of their lives. He questioned the vision of the Bill. Why change from the commission? He spoke about why the functions of the board and the needs for it to be independent and for Parliament to participate in the appointment process. Maybe, let me respond to that by prefacing my response.

Madam President, in the law-making process, the danger is putting a lot of emotion into it. The danger is looking at yourself, saying this law that I am making, what do I benefit from it? The moment you legislate looking for a benefit, as an individual, you make a bad law. Rather, remove yourself from the scene of benefit and you say, even if I am an ordinary person, will I be able to benefit from this law? Then we will be making a progressive law. That is why I said, let me preface it that way.

Secondly, Madam President, in my Second Reading speech, I said we tried as much as possible to cater for the conventions, to cater for a paradigm shift of looking at people with disability as charity cases and that is in a sense what this Bill is talking about. That is what the board must be able to do.

On another note, before I get to the response to Hon. Zhou, he opened my mind. He said he was a member of the board for 18 years, until the day that they met His Excellency, without changing the law and things changed. It is the people that we put on the board and those that must push, that must have the paradigm shift as opposed to other things. I will get to his submissions later.

Coming to the question of whether we are including people with disabilities in the administration of their lives, I think this is exactly what this board is all about. Mr. President, if you look at the appointment of the board, the minister is getting this from organisations that represent people with disability. Maybe the question is, when the minister is making regulations, we need to define those in the Bill. I think in the Act, we cannot be prescriptive because these are dynamic organisations. Maybe in regulations, then we can say from organisations that represent people with disabilities, that do 1, 2, 3, 4 but the way it is couched, I think it is very proper.

Another thing, Mr. President is, let us not look at the functions. If you look at the functions of the board and what was proposed for the commission, the functions are exactly the same. So if the board can execute its functions appropriately, it will realise what Hon. Senators are clamouring for in the name of a commission. There is a danger in creating all our institutions and turning them independent. Independent of who? I liked what Hon. Senator Zvidzai said. Nobody can definitively say that one day you will not wake up disabled.

We all represent people but when we say an executive who is being elected, an executive who is in charge of collecting funds must be removed from issues of disability as if there is politics in disability. That is why I disagree. I think it is within the interest of the executive to deal with issues of disability. There is a difference between institutions that support democracy. In that, if you put the role of total control of institutions that support democracy to the executive, you would have given me a lot of power to destroy the opposition. I would do things that favour my party. Those are supposed to be independent to level the playing field. To say that if it is the Electoral Commission, it must be fair in the manner in which it conducts elections. If it is the Human Rights Commission, it must be fair because as the executive, we may try to hide what we are doing in terms of abuses of human rights but we are all aligned on issues of disability to the extent that a call for an Independent Commission is misdirected, for lack of a better word because this is an issue that affects all of us. It does not matter where you live.  When I was a small boy, if you allow me to speak in Shona, I had a nephew who was disabled. That is why I agreed that we should change the way we interact and call them all sorts of names. We had a nephew who had a mental challenge. When we were coming from school, all the other children would run away but because we were taught and educated that this was our nephew, we would give him company and take him home. When we faced challenges with her, I would run home to collect our mother, then she would come and talk to her and then we would take her home. I learnt that.

What I have just said indicates that this is not a divide. All we need is to lobby appropriately with the relevant minister. To say, Minister, these are the issues; to the board members but for us to clamour and say, let us have a commission. The problem that I have is, as Senators here, I think we have mothers, fathers and grandfathers and you have encountered this scenario where at some point you may have some money in your pocket and your son says, daddy, I want a birthday party then you throw a party for him then when the other son’s birthday comes and request the same favour of having a party and at that moment you cannot afford, will you behave like the younger son who would say, but you threw a party for my elder brother and you did one, two, three and four. Resources were there at that particular time. If we put strict requirements to say that the Government must provide one, two, three and four without looking at the pace, we are not progressive.

 Provisions that are provided in the Constitution and in legislation indicate that within the available resources, they are progressive and they give us a window because we do the budget here. Budgets come here and to say listen Minister of Finance, you are saying you do not have resources but this is the total budget. According to the convention, if you can get revenue of eight billion, for instance, you are supposed to reserve a minimum for this. Surely, you can afford it within the available resources. As Parliament, we can argue for an increase in the budget but to put a definitive figure or a requirement in legislation, we are holding the executive to ransom and it is not good for the development of the country.

Mr. President, I now want to turn briefly to Hon. Ndebele's report on the public hearings. Most of the recommendations were covered in the submissions that we captured in the National Assembly. I agree with Hon. Ndebele and Hon. Senator Chief but there is a slight variance Hon. Senator Chief. The Public Hearing reports are combined reports. So, in the National Assembly, the Minister gives the Second Reading speech before the report is tabled, that is the procedure of Parliament, but what the Hon. Senate President was saying is, this report, I have already had sight of it.

So, for the benefit of the discussion in the Chamber, if the thematic Chair can zero in on the recommendations, then it will allow all of us to then deliberate and discuss them and see how far those have been incorporated, but we cannot then say, let us present the whole report.  Presenting it here, it is for the Minister to take those submissions and those submissions have already been captured, but for the purposes of debate here, I agree that if we can have the recommendations without looking at the methodology and everything, it will allow us to say, these were the submissions.  How far have they been captured?

I agree with the translation of our languages into all 16 languages.  In fact, we have engaged the Language Centre at the Midlands State University to do exactly that.  If you noticed, in our Constitution, we have already started translating it into all languages. We are in the process of engaging them so that we can translate even all the Acts of Parliament into our indigenous languages and that is a work in progress.

Then the Hon. Senator said, why put a provision that persons with disability must go to court to ensure that those who own buildings can be compelled by the court? Actually, the Act says, in addition to the board doing that, it is not restricting to the board, it is saying, any interested person. If you believe that the board is not acting fast or sufficiently to ensure that there is compliance, then you can do that.

Again, Mr. President, we are putting in legislation to say that new public buildings that are coming up should be provisioned for access when persons with disability visit those buildings, that we are already doing, but the older buildings, we want to progressively ensure that there is compliance.  We cannot wake up and say, we will fine everyone who has a building that is not compliant, but progressively, we can do that.   All new public buildings that are coming up, Hon. Chief, if you visit the court that we are putting up in Gwanda, you will notice that it has provisions for that and all the new courts that we are building, we made sure that that is being done. So, the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works and the Minister of National Housing and Social Amenities are fully compliant with that regard, that is what we are doing.

Then there was an issue that was raised, that it is not appropriate to say the Minister will appoint from associations or organisations that he deems, that he considers represent persons with disability.  Mr. President, the action of any minister is subject to review. So, this provision, the way it is couched, will allow us to come up with regulations that will then define now the organisations. So, we did not want it to be restrictive here but we will also come up with the regulations that will come through this House to speak to that.  I believe the way it is, fully captures what we want to realise.

Then I want to thank Hon. Zhou for his presentation on the work that COPAC did, shortcomings of COPAC. Admittedly, the new Constitution was a result of a lot of compromise but it is a good document.   He laments the representation in Parliament. Again, it was a compromise, but we did progress significantly. We have been praised for having provision for those few that are there, it is a step in the right direction - sometimes we want to celebrate our successes rather than lament. It is a good provision in the Constitution.

Then there was the question that we should say when funds permit or if the Minister sees it fit?  Again, I think I spoke about this, Mr. President Sir, to say that if you are a father in a house, what you do today may be different from what you may be able to do tomorrow.  Today, we may have lots of funds and a budget accordingly.  The following year, we may not have those funds. So, when we say funds permitting, we are also collectively saying when the budgets come here, let us interrogate them and say, are these funds sufficient for the work that we require to support that sector of our community of persons living with disabilities.

So, I believe the way it is couched is standard in most of our legislation.  We do not want to tie ourselves to specific obligations that are not realisable. A Government does not have unlimited source of funds. We get it on a monthly basis and we review.  Very soon, the Hon. Minister will be bringing a mid-term review. That is when we interrogate and say I think we need to do this.  This is an inclusive process and I believe that when it says this, the Minister is subjected to parliamentary processes.

Then Hon. Zhou, was speaking about conventions. They are not quite represented in the Bill. I am not sure because he did not bring out exactly what he wanted to be in the Bill, which was not domesticated. Then he spoke about a section on young persons with disability. Again, I thought this was clearly covered in the Rights of Children, the Rights of Young Persons.  What we cannot do is to specifically say we want a young person in the board. We left it to the associations to pick, but the specific rights, we have covered them and I believe those are there.

He spoke about his time when he was on the board and the magnificent work they did when they met the current President and pushed for things to change and for the first t,ime he acknowledged, this interactive dialogue with the Head of State, that is what we want the board to do.  We want a vibrant board that will represent the wishes of the people, itself. Like what they did when they met the current Head of State.  I think that was a very good testimony and I want to thank him for raising that, to say that things changed without even changing the legislation, which is what we encourage.

I also want to thank Hon. Mohadi for supporting the Bill. She laments that it is late, but it is better late than never, Mr. President.  She laments that the rights are not being observed, especially education in rural schools, which is what we want to do.  If you look in the Bill, it obligates the minister to say, Minister, it is your responsibility. Look after that sector of our community. So, the minister and the relevant education committees, must then lobby to say that our rural schools, we need Braille, we need these assistive devices to cover our rural schools.

         When we are debating, we argue and we say, no, Minister, we cannot pass this Bill without making provision for this and when the relevant Committees sit and interrogate the budget with the Ministry, they must raise it with the Minister to say, why is this not being done? I remember in 2014-15, in the 8^th Parliament, we argued in the Justice Committee, why is the budget for Independent Commissions going through the Ministry of Justice? It was changed by Hon. Chinamasa then. Some of the things in our hands we want to remove ourselves from the work of the Government when we are part of the Government as Senators.  We want to tie only one segment, the Executive, when the collective responsibility to ensure that the budget to support all this lies with all of us. I agree with her and she spoke about the board that it must be inclusive – and it is. If you look at the appointment process, it says if the Minister appoints the Board Chair as a female, then the Vice-Chair must be male or vice versa and the composition must be balanced.

I am not sure about the girl-child thing. My thought Hon. Senators is that our children must be allowed to go to school until such a time when they are adults and then they get into boards. I believe that we must zero in and look at the rights of our girl-child and boy child, especially those who are disabled, to ensure that they have access to education and everything else so that they are empowered.

It does not mean that if you are disabled, you cannot do anything. We have several disabled people who work so hard that they have money, better than those who believe they are not disabled. What we need is to ensure that we equalise and assist them to get the necessary education to be empowered and you see that those are the hardest working and they contribute to the development of the economy better than some who believe.  I am saying believe because you do not know whether they are disabled or not until it happens.  Vakuru vaiti, seka urema wafa, zvichireva kuti haufaniri kutomboseka.  Nhasi uri muno unenge uchiti ndine utano, mangwana totonzwa kunzi aah, hauchafambi.

So, Mr. President, we must ensure that we empower our people in their respective disabled positions so that they can unleash their greatness and be able to contribute. The reason why the fund is called Assistance Fund is that there are those who may not be able to work but there are some who are disabled but able to contribute better than those who believe they are abled.  It should not be a question of assistance but a question of an enabling environment that will allow our people to excel. I want to thank Hon. Senator. Tshabangu for his contributions. He spoke passionately about social protection, I agree. He spoke about minimum benefits, I do not agree. I believe we must look at it depending on the situation of an individual, like I said before, there are certain disabled persons.

In the classification of disabled persons, when they are doing the checklist, I and Hon. Senator Tshabangu can be considered disabled but I do not believe Hon. Senator and I deserve a minimum benefit. I am saying, this is the work of the board, to then interrogate and say, who are those that deserve to be given something as social assistance? Mr. President, I will give you an example of myself. I have been hypertensive for a long time. The amount of money that I spend on hypertensive medication, probably some of those who have physical disability do not spend such an amount. What we are saying is, we want a board that will interrogate issues and make recommendations to the Minister so that the Minister can then interrogate if it is a budgetary issue, it should be included yearly and we debate that and we say let us do something.

These are issues that I believe can be dealt with by the board. Let us forget about this terminology of commission and, there is nothing called independent on this earth. We are all dependent on each other. The only independence that we agreed on is that we do not want, if we are in political contestation, for one party to be in charge of everything. Therefore, we said let us give some other people to be umpires and we try to insulate them just like the courts. We want to insulate them from day-to-day interaction with the rest of us so that when you go to them, you have an assurance that at least I will get justice and not be rigged. At least that assurance, where you get to a polling station and you are Minister of Justice and the Presiding Officer, say Minister, you are a politician, I do not want you in my polling station and you meekly walk away and stand 30m or so apart. That assurance that there is somebody who can use the law. However, matters of disability do not need anything called independence. It is a fallacy Mr. President.

I agree on the issue of specially trained teachers. Again, I said the Bill speaks to the Minister of Education to ensure that is done and that is what we need to interrogate and say we must push for that. We must critique the work of our Ministers to say, Minister, why is this not being done? Why are we disadvantaging our rural children? Can we not have some money reserved so that at least this year, we have 50 schools that have been improved? We want to see that in the budget rather than it being silent on that issue. If we start doing that, you will see that we progressively realise that position.

Then, Hon. Senator Matibiri argued passionately that we need to do more. The State must be committed to do more than it is doing. I agree. That includes you, Senator. You must be prepared to be vocal so that if I Google, I see that Hon. Senator Matibiri is very much vocal about issues of disability. How I wish to wake up and see that. It will ring a bell on the relevant Ministers to say, gentlemen, I think we must increase our budget. Clauses, they are very good. Not every day that we have money in our pocket, we need to discuss budgetary issues here, approve, depending on what the Minister is proposing to generate that particular year. We pin him down to say, if you are saying we are going to get 20 billion, surely you can afford to set aside for the improvement of our schools, so much money. Surely, you can allocate so much money and then your statement that the State must be prepared will be fully realised and I agree with him. It is not the Executive alone but a responsibility for all of us and the Act allows that to happen. I believe with the enthusiasm and something that has been awakened by this Bill in all of us. You know, I have been bombarded by Civic Society. Some are calling me a traitor. Some believe I am the author of this Bill. They do not even believe that I am a mouthpiece and I am given direction. They believe that I own it but I believe all of us will own this Bill. The things that they are angry with fall squarely in our hands if we do the needful.

Then I want to thank Hon. Senator Zvidzai. He spoke very well about the statistics. Some range from seven to 10 percent. He spoke about what we need to do and I like his assessment that nobody here can say they cannot wake up being disabled. That is very true. We must look at these things and say, what should we do? We wear the shoes of fathers and mothers in the house and say, is this affordable? How can we make sure that all the children in the house are adequately catered for?

Mr. President, having said that, I just want to say that we tried as much as possible to leave the function of the board as it was in the commission. We do not believe in giving it independence because there is nothing like that. We do not believe in creating jobs that are not commensurate with what we want to do. When we believe that collectively, we can assist the board and interrogate the work that it is doing and also assist the Minister. When we believe that, that is a cost-effective position, we must go for that. We have tried Mr. President, to make several improvements to the Act that we are repealing. We have tried to ensure that the provisions of international conventions are there.

I am happy that we have done so well on the task that my Ministry of Labour, in partnership with the Attorney General, tried to capture everything. I believe we did a good job when His Excellency gave nod that we can take it to Parliament. I believe that when the Senate debates the Bill, it will be improved. I have amendments that I am going to provide which are on the Order Paper, to align with some sections of the Bill. There are some changes. I overlooked those changes when we did the Bill.  Having said that Mr. President Sir, I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage: With leave, forthwith.

COMMITTEE STAGE

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BILL [H.B. 2A, 2023]

House in Committee.

Long title put and agreed to

Clause 1 put and agreed to.

On Clause 2:

HON. SEN. ZVIDZAI: Thank you Madam President. I am going back to that paragraph that starts with ‘deaf community’. In that paragraph, it appears as if the paragraph actually talks to people with disability as a community with a different set of values. If this is what it means, this is the beginning of the problem.  If you begin to segregate them regarding the pillars of this nation, then obviously we have already excluded them. My proposal is, therefore, that we expand and remove that aspect about a disability community that shares values which are different from the national values.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. Perhaps let me read. This is the Interpretation Clause; Clause 2 and we need to have certain terms and their definition in the Bill. In circumstances where the definition of a deaf community comes into play, we cannot pretend as if we do not have a community of people who are deaf; that is why we have a Sign Language in our Constitution.

We try to capture so that in trying to identify who belongs to this to interpret the Act, we fit in that definition. The definition says the deaf community means the distinct, linguistic and cultural group of people who use Zimbabwean Sign Language. In our Constitution, we have a language called Sign Language, which is what we are trying to do as their first or preferred language. We always say when we are speaking, let us have somebody who will be interpreting into Sign Language, even when we have our main news, we have that person.

We are trying to find a definition. If we expand it, then we will leave it open-ended and if there is contestation, we do not have any reference to something. Unless you say you have something that you want to improve on, but in my view Hon. Chair, we have tried to capture the definition decently and appropriately. I submit.

HON. SEN. ZVIDZAI: Madam President, with all due respect, I suspect the Minister has not read what I am talking about. People would have a different language. However, that does not mean that they would have a different value or proposition in the same country. Just to look at the third sentence which says ‘who have common values’, I do not find it right that you can say that because people have a disability, they have a common value system. You would have segregated them.

 HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: I think even if we remove ‘who have common values’, and we say ‘who also have a common way of interacting’, it will capture it. I do not have any objection to that. That definition, we can say the deaf community means, the distinct, linguistic and cultural group of people who use Zimbabwean Sign Language as their first or preferred language and who also have a common way of interacting with each other and with hearing people and we remove ‘who have common values’ but I thought it was very broad.

         However, in my view, if the Senators believe it is segregative, we can remove it but my submission is that it captures that they also have common values, in that their values, it is a value system, the way they interact.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: Madam President, my view is that the deaf community is defined; they have always had values. In international law conventions, they are considered a community, they do things together and they have things that they consider perhaps to be an insult. They have behaviour that they find unacceptable, which may be pretty conventional to me.  When we take away the fact that they have values, when we leave here, we would have taken away from them, from their rights and that is my view of the matter. Thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS: (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, I was agonising, I want to thank Hon. Senator Phulu because my belief is that even wherever you go, they refer to themselves as a deaf community and they have value systems that they value. I think if we take it away in a contestation, we will not be able to define them appropriately in the manner that they like. I think this is according to international best practice in terms of defining who they are. If you can allow, we can, I think let us leave it as it is.

HON. SEN. TSHABANGU: Madam Chair, I know it is coming up from one of the astute Members of the Senate, but with all due respect, my colleague, these are a certain class, a group of people who have their own value system and they have to at some stage, be defined who they are. Inasmuch as this does not contradict with the supreme law which is the Constitution, which encompasses us all, so there is no discrimination in terms of the value system of able and unable persons. So, I really agree totally that it should be as it is, as it is right.

Clause 2 put and agreed to.

On Clause 3:

HON. SEN. CHIEF NGUNGUMBANE: Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Hon. Minister for the response. I think there was an issue that I raised during a plenary debate and on this board Madam Chair, I am of the strong opinion that this Act should state clearly that we should have this board being led by a person living with disability, number one.

Number two, Madam Chair, as a Chief, I strongly feel that we should have representation of this institution in this board, because if you look at three pieces of legislation that have been passed by this Parliament, they have set a precedent where the National Chiefs’ Council nominates a representative to sit in that Council. If you look at the Older Persons Act, the Chiefs Council nominates a person to sit on that board. If you look at the Domestic Violence Act, the same thing applies.  If you look at the Children's Act, we have a Member that represents the institution in the Welfare Council. I believe precedent has been set. It therefore, follows that we should have a member from this institution being represented in this Board. I so submit Madam President.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair, I submit that the composition as it is and how the Chair will be appointed satisfies what we intend to do. Save for Government representatives, the ten members are coming from associations of people with disabilities; these are the true representatives of those persons with disabilities. With all due respect, I believe that the Hon. Minister must then be given leeway to choose from the representatives an appropriate person to do that.

If I doubt very much that the associations or organisations will choose somebody to represent them, that they do not believe will represent their interests. Secondly, Hon. Chair, I respectfully submit that the comparisons that the Hon. Senator Chief has given are slightly different with this board. The children's affairs and all those are in general in nature. This is a specific group that will sit and submit their own views. I believe that the Chiefs, where they are, will be able to act in an advisory role to the Hon. Minister. I do not think it is very necessary to have a single Chief and believe that we have somebody who will represent the interests of all the Chiefs in this particular Board.

Rather, we have from the constituency, which is the associations and organisations, having people who represent the persons with disabilities in the Board. I think I respectfully submit that we respect the institution of Chiefs. In this regard, I believe that we do not necessarily need to have a representative on this board, I submit.

HON. SEN. CHIEF NGUNGUMBANE: I hear what the Hon. Minister is saying. Hon. Minister, we are not saying we represent the chiefs in this board. Chiefs are already living with people with disabilities in their communities. I think that should come out very clearly. Number two, as I have alluded to, Chiefs live with these people. Most of these people, I believe, are residing in the communal areas where chiefs preside.

Chiefs are better informed to inform the Board because they live with these people. Why I made reference to these other Acts, these people collectively, the disability sector, you have your women, your children, your men and your older persons. So that was the impetus that I was referring to, to say, look, the Chief is already representing these people, whether they are able bodied or not.

It will then follow that the Chief is already doing this job at a localised level, in these other sectors. Because these other boards and councils also represent people living with disabilities. So, it is my submission, Madam Chair, that it therefore follows that they should be included in this Board to represent the constituents that reside in their areas, I submit.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, Hon. Chair, what the Chief wants me to do means we will have a Board that is very big because having one Chief representing the interests of disabled persons is not attainable. Secondly, we all live with people with disabilities, whether you are a Chief or not. So that cannot be the reason that will motivate us. Rather, we strengthen the institution of Chiefs and their respective roles to superintend in their communities and have an audience so that they also become a voice that actually specifies the issues of the disabled persons. I do not believe that we will be adding a lot of value in saying, let us have a Chief in the board.

I respectfully request the Chief to drop the request because it will not edify anything. I agree with him, they live with the people wherever they are but I am saying, broadly speaking, in the consultations, the view was that, let us have it in this format. Even in the submissions that came, I do not think there was a strong voice to say that the disabled persons were saying they want to be represented by Chiefs. Rather, they were saying we want to represent ourselves.

 

I am saying, the voice of our traditional leaders is very important. Let us find a place to put it. So that it will help in having those in authority deal with these issues. So, I believe the way it is, it is very correct and I humbly request that this clause, we leave it as it is, I submit.

         *HON. SEN. CHINYANGA: Thank you Madam Chair.  People with disabilities gave us their submissions that they do not want to be represented by a person who does not have a disability unless you say you have some chiefs who have disabilities.  Madam Chair, those can be included that is if they are in those institutions which are being referred to; institutions for people with disabilities will be submitting names of people and by doing so, they will be seconding names to the board. 

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (HON. SEN. A. DUBE):  Thank you, I think that is the same with the explanation given by the Hon. Minister. 

         HON. SEN. KUNAKA:  Thank you Madam Chair. On the Director of Disability Affairs, who will be appointed by the board, is it not an uphill task for the Director since the Director will be having a dual task of reporting both to the board and to the Minister.

         THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Hon. Chair, this is extremely standard.  The Director of Disability Affairs will help the board in their work and if it happens that we have Secretaries of the Boards or CEOs that report to the board, also report to the Minister and run the department which they will be heading.  I think it is in order and this is something that has been tried and tested.

         Clause 3 put and agreed to.

         Clauses 4 to 38 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 39:

         HON. SEN. RITTA NDLOVU: Thank you Hon. Chair. In Clause 39, there is a saying that people living with disability are supposed to participate freely in political activities. There is also…

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: That is Clause 38 and it was agreed to Hon. Senator Ndlovu. Now we are on Clause 39.

         HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: Hon. Chair, you are not looking that side. She was standing up to debate and you did not recognise her.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I am very sorry for that.

         HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: If you can give her a chance to say what she has said now.

         THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: I am very sorry for that because I was not looking that side. I will take care of that.

         Clause 39 put and agreed to.

Clause 40 put and agreed to.

HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: On a point of order Madam Chair, I think you should put Hon. Senator Mavenyengwa to order because he cannot keep on saying no debate, what does that mean? We are legislators and we have a right to debate. So, allow us to say what we want. He has been saying that for a long time and you are quiet and do not say anything about it.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: There was no one when I asked, is there any debate?

HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: I am saying we are seeking your protection Madam Chair. We cannot have someone who is behaving like a commentator in this House.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Hon. Chair, the procedure in the House is that when the Chair says, is there any debate, all of us who have voting power are supposed to say no debate or to say, there is debate. Then, the Chair will hear that there are dissenting voices. So, Hon. Senator Mavenyengwa is right to say no debate. Everyone is supposed to say that; that is how it is.

HON. SEN. RITTA NDLOVU: On a point of order Madam Chair. My point of order is that the Hon. Minister is saying we should shout in this House but we have always been told not to shout in this House, instead you stand up for recognition. So, we must not be taught different things in this House.

HON. SEN. MAVENYENGWA: Hon. Chair, may Hon. Senator Mlotshwa withdraw her statement?  I am an Hon. Senator and I have the right to agree to or not to. I agreed on the clauses, so is there anything wrong if I say no debate? If she has something to say, she should say I want to debate. She should withdraw that.

HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: Hon. Chair, I think you are not hearing what I am saying. I said protect us in this House. Hon. Senator Mavenyengwa is not the interpreter in this House. If you say, is there any debate, he has the right to say no debate, but he has no right to then commentate on everything. He should withdraw that and stop commentating because he is not the Chair.

HON. SEN. MAVENYENGWA: Okay Hon. Chair, I withdraw.

Clause 41 put and agreed to.

On Clause 42;

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: I think there is an error in reading Section 42 (1). You refer to Section 42 (1) in the board. I think you wanted to say Section 41 (1).

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph Hon. Senator Advocate Phulu?

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: Section 42 (1), any person referred to in subsection (2) may, by action in the High Court, seek an adjustment order against any person responsible for any services or amendments referred to in subsection 42 (1). It is supposed to be Section 41 (1).

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair, I agree. It is a typographical error. Thank you for that.

Clauses 42 put and agreed to.

Clause 43 put and agreed to.

         On Clause 44:   

HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: Madam Chair, the assistance fund, can we replace it with disability fund, I suggest? Thank you.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. While I appreciate where she is coming from, this is an assistance fund. There is nothing wrong with assisting any sector or segment of our community and we must not be apologetic about that. If we say disability fund, it means, like I alluded to before that me and Hon. Tshabangu may be classified depending on the classification as persons with disability. Once you say it is a disability fund, it means we will require that we access those funds. However, we want it in this manner so that it will allow the board now to vet and be able to satisfy themselves that these really need assistance. So, it is consistent with the spirit of what we want to do, I submit.

HON. SEN. MLOTSHWA: A follow-up, just for the Minister to educate us because I thought with my little border-jumping mind. Hon. Minister, I thought you were moving away from the charity model. Maybe if you can educate us on the assistance of disability in issues of charity. Are we still on the same trajectory? I thank you.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you. It says establishment of an assistance fund. It is not a social assistance. It is an empowerment fund. It can actually be for training, educational purposes and all others. It is not specifically a social assistance. So, it is consistent with where we are coming from. However, we want to establish this fund so that it will then be used to assist this group in doing certain things. I submit.

Clause 44 put and agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 49 put and agreed to.

On Clause 50:

HON. SEN. MATIBIRI: Can the Minister clarify what constitutes general direction. Power of the Minister to issue directives. The Minister may give the board such general direction. What constitutes general direction?

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. That has been defined. It is there to say what the Minister, when issuing a general policy direction means, in terms of policy direction, it must not be inconsistent with the Act, issued in good faith and apply prospectively and not retrospectively and be of general application. It says in particular, the policy directions must not be used in relation to any particular application or appeal pending before the board. It says, ‘must not prejudice the application of the rules of natural justice’. Clearly, delimit the scope of the application. It must clearly express the national interest at stake. I think the general policy direction within those limits has been described, I submit.

HON. SEN. MATIBIRI: Thank you Chair. Would it not be sufficient, Hon. Minister, just to say ‘the Minister may give the body such directions consistent with’ and then, the issues that you highlighted? I am not comfortable with ‘general’.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: It is not consistent with good legislative drafting to do that. We want them to be general in nature. The moment you say such policy directions in terms of this, you have limited it to what is there. It is general in nature with those specific guidelines to say, issue anything that is within the national interest that would further the interest of this community but guided by this. The general is very good in that it does not limit. However, it is saying, the Minister may have been to a Council of Chiefs meeting, for instance, to get something that he believes is critically important to give a policy direction to the board. However, it should be within the national interest, subject to all this. Rather than saying that because the Minister then issues a policy directive when he knows that perhaps, Hon. Zhou is just an example, is to appear before the board because of a certain misdemeanor and you then issue to say, you must do 1, 2, 3, 4. That is prohibited. However, it is good drafting to put it in this manner, I submit Hon. Chair.

HON. SEN. ZVIDZAI: I suppose the Minister is saying, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, he gives directives because policy already exists. I just wanted to find out whether it is not possible to give such a directive longevity. For how long will it survive until the situation is procedurally corrected?

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair, it is correct to say policy is there and it is also not correct to say the policy is there. Policy is dynamic. There may be something that crops up that might need a policy direction shift from the current policy. The way it is couched, it takes care of everything, I submit.

Clause 50 put and agreed to.

On Clause 51:

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: On Clause 51, there is an error; there is no chief executive officer, there is a director. There is a raft of amendments in the Order Paper. When will those be made?

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you Hon. Chair. It is an error that we are supposed to correct to say in the custody of the Director of Disability.

Clause 51 put and agreed to.

On Clause 52:

         HON. SEN. PHULU: I noticed that an appeal to the Minister, who must make a decision within 10 days and in those 10 days, there is no right of audience and there is no “code patre rule”; it is not all matters that need that. Some matters are as simple as going forward and when we are dealing with these kinds of issues, I would like the Minister to respond. We should have some modicum of input where the Minister can say I have read your papers and can you address me on this, even in writing at least.

The second one is when it comes to the ground for reviewing the decision of the Minister,  I noticed this Act specifies six grounds, does this mean that it excludes any other grounds, which are ordinarily available in terms of the High Court Act, generally in terms of the rules of natural justice. For example, the right to be heard it is not the ground upon which it can be reviewed. Was it not simple to say, on any of the permissible grounds in terms of the High Court Act in order to create a special class of review with the only limited set of grounds?

 THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI): Thank you, Hon. Chair. This clause is very good and it covers exactly what Hon.  Phulu said. If you read it, it says the Minister shall, within 10 days after receiving all, I repeat, all the information which he or she may request, so that an appeal is lodged. The Minister will request all the information. He can choose to request it verbally or in writing but pursuant to the appeal noted, you communicate his decision in writing. I think it is good in the manner it is. Then, when you appeal to the High Court, I think the rules will apply. But the manner it is, I think it is very much sufficient in terms of the appeal to the Minister.

HON. SEN PHULU: I appreciate what the Hon. Minister has pointed out. I have seen it but my worry remains that the Minister has the discretion to request any further. If the Minister does not and decides to give a decision, this appeal because there is no special mechanism created for the appeal, will be made in terms of the High Court Act, where the general appeals from these bodies are made. It is going to be brief; it is just going to have grounds. It will not be detailed. If it were a detailed appeal in the best interest, where you write lengthy submissions, then this kind of procedure would suffice but where a person has put the grounds of their appeal, I think it would be unfair for them not to be able to make detailed submissions to the Minister, yes. It simply says you appeal and if you go to the Act in terms of general appeals, unless they are specifically provided for, the nature of the appeal is a Notice of Appeal, which is very brief. The Minister does not want lengthy documents when you initially appeal.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you, Hon. Chair. Hon. Senator Phulu is thinking too hard. This appeal to the Minister is different from an appeal that is sent to court. It says any person who is dissatisfied with any decision of the board will appeal and the Minister is at liberty to request more information. Even if the Minister does not request, if you are now dissatisfied, we did not want to close the door after the Minister's appeal, you can then go to the High Court and you have all those processes that Hon. Senator Phulu is now saying. To the Minister, it is not strictly in terms of specific rules. You can appeal in any manner that you want and the Minister will then be able to interrogate. The Minister is not a judicial officer. We said, once the Minister has appealed and communicated his decision, then you also have the avenue of going to the courts.  I think, Hon. Sen. Phulu, this is sufficient. We should not complicate it. I submit to Hon. Chair.

HON. SEN PHULU: The Hon. Minister has omitted subsection (4), which says a person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister under subsection (3) may refer the matter for review by the High Court. Whereupon it may, where the High Court may do the following things, uphold the decision of the Minister, overturn it on the following grounds. That limitation for the grounds upon which it may be overturned is narrower than the ordinary grounds of appeal that we have. I am suggesting that it must simply overturn it on the basis of any grounds for review, on the ordinary grounds for review, not necessarily this limited list.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Yes, I am reading. Thank you, Hon. Chair. The thinking was, we do not want to burden the courts with things that are not relevant. These conditions were then put there. Hon. Chair, I submit that it is relevant. I am not seeing where he wants and what he wants added or subtracted there. I am still processing if he can educate me on things that he feels are not necessary, or what he wants, specifically how he wants it couched, so that I can respond appropriately.

HON. SEN. PHULU: I would suggest adding a paragraph 7 to say, or any other ground for review, or any other lawful ground for review.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, where exactly does he want that? Where do you want to put that?

HON. SEN. PHULU:  On page 44, Madam Chair.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Your Bill is different from mine.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Can you switch on your mic, Hon. Senator Phulu?

HON. SEN. PHULU:  On page 44, Madam Chair. It is line 5, Clause 52. It is Clause 52, Madam Chair. If you go to the fresh page where it continues, which is, sorry, page 33. Sorry, I was reading the wrong page number. It is page 33 of the Bill. At the top of page 33, there is paragraph 6, which says, interest in the cause, bias, monies, etc., or any other valid ground of review. I am suggesting that we can add or any other valid ground of review.

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON: Can you see it Hon. Minister.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Honorable Chair, everything is there. We have listed failure to take into account relevant considerations, any material mistake or fact or law, gross but willful irregularity. I think it covers what he is calling any other grounds because if you look at it, what he wants to turn any other grounds is there. We want to deal with something that can be tangible in arriving at the decision to say, you did not consider this. If you say any other grounds, I think sub-clause C will take it and will take care of that. Where it says, where there is a substantial factual dispute that cannot be resolved by the High Court on the evidence before it, or whether the matter had previously been referred to the High Court, by the High Court to the Minister, then yes, it can be referred for investigation.     I think it is sufficiently covered by the way it is couched.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  Thank you, thank you.  Absence of jurisdiction Hon. Minister.  For instance, the absence of jurisdiction is there in the High Court Act, but it is not there in this one.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  You are saying there is absence of jurisdiction?

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  The ground, absence of jurisdiction. So, if I want to argue that there was no jurisdiction to deal with the particular matter, I cannot.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  I do not think what you are saying is sustainable.  It is not because when the Act says you can appeal to the High Court, how does that exclude the jurisdiction of that particular court?

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  I want to argue that, the Minister or the board...

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON:  Hon. Senator Phulu, can you switch on your mic? It is okay, your mic is...

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  If I want to argue that the board had no jurisdiction in that particular instance or the Minister had no jurisdiction in that particular instance, I am not covered and yet it is one of the ordinary grounds for review.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Thank you Hon. Chair.  Then if the argument is that the board or the Minister has no jurisdiction, how did you then appeal to the Minister? You see, we are saying if you are aggrieved by the decision of the board, you have already subjected yourself to the board and then you appeal to the Minister.  Then you want to go to the High Court to say the Minister did not have jurisdiction.

HON. ADV. PHULU:  Madam Chair, it is one of the grounds for review. Ordinarily, it is already there in the High Court Act.  If I am called by a board that I deem has no jurisdiction, I have to go and argue.  If they rule against me, I have to appeal and then raise the issue of jurisdiction.  In fact, subsection 4 deals with reviews specifically, not an appeal.   I am just saying, it is not wise to narrow the grounds for review when they are already provided for.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Hon. Chair, I have already said, if there is a material mistake or fact or law, you appeared before a board out of respect, but there was a material mistake in that. You were not supposed to appear before that.  It is a ground.

I think Hon. Chair, this is correct as it is. If we encounter any problems when people are appealing to the High Court, we will then amend it.  We will allow the court to make a determination whether this is problematic or not, but for now, I think it is okay. I submit.

HON. SEN. CHIEF CHARUMBIRA:  Not an objection but I want to get into this debate and say, listening to Senator Phulu who is insisting on the issue of review of proceedings for lack, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, I thought, Hon. Minister, you would still settle this by saying, the High Court has inherent powers of review for any quasi-judicial proceeding. So, whether it is written in here or not, a person has a right to approach the High Court in terms of the High Court Act.

I think the lawyers know this very well. So, it does not need to be written.  They will just go to the High Court Act and seek review on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction.  Thank you.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  Madam Chair, that is my point precisely, that the High Court Act already provides for the grounds for review.  This Act is changing them, that is the worry.  It is changing them not by widening them, but by narrowing them.  So, the High Court will say the specific legislation which has left out this specific ground for review.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  Actually, the Constitution gives it inherent jurisdiction. So, the High Court cannot believe that its jurisdiction has been ousted by a subsidiary legislation compared to the Constitution.

I said, let us allow the courts to determine, to say exactly what he is saying.  Then we will make an amendment if they rule like that, but I believe what the Hon. Senator Chief said is very appropriate.  I think Hon. Phulu will allow us to proceed. Thank you.

Clauses 52 to 55 put and agreed to.

On Schedule;

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Hon. Chair, I am proposing amendments on today's Order Paper on page 562 standing in my name. I am proposing on page 34 on the Schedule.

On page 34 of the Bill—

• by the repeal of paragraph 1 and the substitution of the following—

Appointment of members of Board

1. In the appointment of members of the Board in terms of this Act, the Minister shall observe the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Constitution. For Hon. Senators who do not have their Constitutions with them, it just speaks about gender balance and regional representation.

 (b) in paragraph 2—

(i) subparagraph (1) by the deletion of “Subject to section 320 (3) of the Constitution”.

(ii) subparagraph (4) is repealed and substituted by the following—

“(4) The term of office of the members shall for a period of four years renewable once in terms of Section 11(2) of the Public Entities and Corporate Governance Act [Chapter 10:31]”.

On page 35 of Bill—

(c) paragraph 3 is repealed and substituted by the following— Disqualification for appointment as member

3. (1) The Minister shall not appoint a person as a member and no person shall be qualified to hold office as a member if he or she –

(a) is not a citizen of Zimbabwe or ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe; or

(b) is married to a person who is engaged in any activity connected with any business, if in the opinion of the Minister such financial interest or activity is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge by that person of his or her duties as a member; or

(c) has, in terms of a law in force in any country—

(i) been adjudged or otherwise declared insolvent or bankrupt and has not been rehabilitated or discharged; or

 (ii) made an assignment to, or arrangement or composition with his or her creditors which has not been rescinded or set aside;

(d) has, within the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his or her proposed appointment, been convicted—

(i) in Zimbabwe, of an offence; or

(ii) outside Zimbabwe, in respect of conduct which, if committed in Zimbabwe, would constitute an offence; and sentenced to a term of

imprisonment imposed without the option of a fine, whether or not any portion has been suspended, and has not received a free pardon.

(2) A person who is—

(a) a Member of Parliament; or

(b) a member of two or more other statutory bodies;

shall not be appointed as a member, nor shall he or she be qualified to hold office as a member.  So, these are the amendments in my name as they fully appear there on the appointment.

On vacation of office, sub-paragraph 4, by giving one month's notice and all the others, this is what Hon. Sen. Phulu was worried about and we have corrected it.

Then the last one is dismissal or suspension of members, which we have clarified, basically it is consistent with all other Acts, that if you have been found guilty of any conduct that renders you unsuitable as a member or have failed to comply with conditions of your office, as fixed by the Minister or you are mentally incapable of carrying out your duties, that is the amendment in my name that I am proposing. I so submit.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: I will refer the Hon. Minister to the disqualification of appointment as a member. In paragraph 3 (i) sub-paragraph (d), it says a person is disqualified and then (d) says, if a person has within the period of five years, immediately preceding the date of his or her proposed appointment been convicted,

1. in Zimbabwe of an offence; or
2. outside Zimbabwe, in respect of conduct which if committed in Zimbabwe would constitute an offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment imposed without the option of a fine.

That is fine but the reading of the sub-paragraph (ii) attaches to someone convicted outside Zimbabwe but if you are convicted in Zimbabwe, you simply have to be convicted of any offence. Yes, I think the reading can be because the reading as it is, I think it is not the intention that was sought to be conveyed. It is a redraft that is needed to clarify it.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: I do not know how it is in his Order Paper but it is continuous. My reading here, it says, “if you have been convicted in Zimbabwe of an, not of any, of offence, or outside Zimbabwe, in respect of conduct”. So, it then describes the conduct on part (ii), which is also applicable in Zimbabwe, to say that if you are convicted without an option of a fine, you are disqualified.

It is kind of standard, like we took this out, if you want to stand for any office, if you have been convicted during the period of five years, you are disqualified, just like what happens to MPs. If we amended it to say if you have been jailed for six months without an option of a fine, you cannot. If you read it, how do you want it done?

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: The way it is drafted, it seems that the option of a fine applies to someone convicted outside, simply because of the numbering and simply because of ‘or after an offence’. Once you say ‘or’, it is either or.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: So we can remove the (ii) so that it is continuous, it will make sense. So we delete the (ii) so that it reads ‘in Zimbabwe or outside Zimbabwe, continuous’. It is a legal scrubbing issue.

HON. SEN. M. NCUBE:  On the amendments, Clause 3, 1, (1) (b), in terms of - I am not sure what motivated that Clause Hon. Minister.  What happens if it is any other relative, a son or a daughter or some other close relative whose activities or financial interests are also included in there? How would that be interrogated? Thank you.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI: Thank you Hon. Chair. It is a difficult one in that if we do that, what the Hon. Sen. M. Ncube is saying will open one of us to arrest. Nobody will qualify to be on a board. Why am I saying so? In our culture, we have a very big extended family. So, if we extend it beyond the nuclear family, we will open people to a law that can lead to the abuse of our people. So, we would rather have that person appointed, declare interest when there is a need to declare interest to say that the fellow whom you want to engage is my nephew, but we do not want somebody to be appointed whom we know directly the wife or husband is involved. If we open it up to say, any other relative, by the very nature of us being Africans, if we are to look at each other here, we are all relatives, we will fail to get anyone. Thus, it is appropriate the way it is couched. I submit.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU: Paragraph 4 (a), dismissal or suspension of members. Now, I wanted the Hon. Minister to have a look at this, to say that a member who has been accused of an offence, 4 (a), it will be subsection 3. The Minister may suspend a member -  (a) who he has reasonable grounds of having been guilty of conduct referred to in paragraph 1 (a). I have no problem with that or against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted for an offence in respect of which a sentence of imprisonment without an option of a fine may be imposed. While that member is so suspended, he or she shall not carry out any functions as a member. It is a suspension but I am saying, we are suspending someone who is innocent until proven guilty. It means so many members can be suspended at a whim. Then we take the top part, ‘not every person who is charged with an offence that can end up in six months imprisonment will end up even going for six months imprisonment’. Yet, if you are dealing with those who have been convicted, you can tell here this person is just blanket suffering and disabling of, otherwise it is competent people who may contribute in the meantime until they are declared guilty.

2) They are also suspended, maybe if they are suspended with benefits, because they are innocent and they are being suspended. They are being crippled in much the same way as someone who has actually been convicted.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Madam Chair, this is a suspension and if they are found not guilty, ordinarily they will be restored to their benefits. I think it even says ‘the Minister may’. It does not say you must suspend them. I think it gives leeway for representation. If you are suspended and the legal process vindicates you, it happens. I do not think it is something that Hon. Phulu is thrashing. I am sure he has agreed with me. I submit Madam Chair.

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  Madam Chair, if there is an important decision to be made, a really big decision, the Minister can report five members and have them charged, suspend them and then go on to make the decision. It is risky Madam Chair.

HON. Z. ZIYAMBI:  It is a very good provision Madam Chair. We do not legislate against abusers of power in that manner but this provision will ensure that in the public interest, the person will be excused from carrying out his/her duties. I think we do it in several of our Acts. It is not something that is appearing for the first time.

Amendment to Schedule put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill referred to Parliamentary Legal Committee.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Mr. President Sir, I want to thank the Hon. Senate …

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  On a point of order Mr. President. In terms of the Standing Orders, the Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of the Bill, the Bill must be moved that the Bill be read the third time or it will be read after the Parliamentary Legal Committee!

THE TEMPORARY PRESIDENT OF SENATE (HON. SEN. KAMBIZI): Sorted?

HON. SEN. ADV. PHULU:  Sorted.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI):  Thank you Mr. President. I just want to thank the Hon. Senators for their constructive contributions as always, in a respectful manner, in a manner that allows us to think through the processes that we do and for putting in so many hours today to ensure that we go through the Bill.

On the motion of THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (HON. Z. ZIYAMBI), the House adjourned at Six o’clock p. m.