Although Section 119 (3) of the country’s Constitution declares that all institutions and agencies of the State and government at every level are answerable to Parliament, the august House has, however, failed to make State institutions accountable to the legislature, making it a toothless bulldog.
The eighth Parliament, which will come to an end next year, has particularly been unequal to the task, with glaring failure to exercise its power to ensure that provisions of the country’s Constitution are upheld by everyone including the State and all government institutions and agencies.
Its earlier sessions promised a more vibrant and independent legislature compared to previous assemblies; but with just a few months remaining, the eighth Parliament appears to have lost steam.
Although Zimbabwe is one of the few African countries that adopted the model of separation of power in its Constitution to protect democracy, it seems this is only on paper.
The suggestion is that since independence in 1980, Parliament has only been used as an instrument to entrench the status quo through legislative amendments.
For instance, Parliament was used to amend the country’s previous Constitution 19 times, highlighting how useful Parliament has been to the ruling elite, particularly the executive.
Yet Cabinet ministers have been openly disrespectful of Parliament, boycotting question time to avoid interrogation by backbenchers. Through the question time, MPs seek to help government to appreciate the progress and challenges facing the nation.
Although legislators have often been infuriated by the unexplained absence of Cabinet ministers during question time, Parliament has failed to act except for a few threats to deal with the absconding members of the executive.
Recently, a Parliamentary outreach programme was disrupted with impunity and the perpetrators were let off despite clear Constitutional provisions that give Parliament authority to charge them with contempt of Parliament.
Section 148 of the Constitution clearly defines what entails contempt of Parliament.
“Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which tends either directly or indirectly to produce that result,” says the Constitution.
Nonetheless, the country watched in horror as members of the public openly threatened to beat up members of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment in Bindura, forcing them to abort an important fact-finding meeting.
This is certainly ample proof of a weak legislature, which cannot use its teeth as provided for by the national charter.
The committee was on a nationwide tour to find out how money availed to youths in 2012 under the Kurera/Ukondla revolving youth fund was spent.
The committee’s previous meetings had unearthed scandals in which those who accessed the fund diverted loans into consumption and never put it into the projects they applied for. As a result, nothing accrued from it and they have failed to repay the loans as stipulated by regulations.
At least US$40 million is believed to have gone down the drain as a result of abuse by politicians and their cronies.
Fingers have been pointed at current Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, Saviour Kasukuwere, who presided over the fund when he was youth, indigenisation and economic empowerment minister. By the time Parliament descended on Bindura two weeks ago, a precedent had been set.
Rowdy ZANU-PF youths picketed at the meeting venue demanding that the gathering be abandoned as they accused the Parliamentary committee of pursuing a political agenda particularly targeted at Kasukuwere.
Kasukuwere refused to appear before the Parliamentary committe in 2005 under the pretext that he was no longer the responsible minister.
He, however, later appeared before the committee where he became involved in a war of words with the committee’s chairperson, Justice Mayor Wadyajena.
Kasukuwere and Wadyajena appear to belong to two different factions in the ruling party.
So when Wadyajena arrived in Bindura on May 12, he found Kasukuwere’s colleagues from the ruling party camped at the venue, ready to pounce.
They stormed the hall where the meeting was being held and shouted at Wadyajena.
A video footage screened during the ZBV-TV evening prime news clearly showed a middle aged man violently banging a desk right in the face of Wadyajena as police details stood helpless at a safe distance.
“Today’s meeting has to do with Kasukuwere, we know your motive… We are prepared for anything that might befall us while defending Kasukuwere,” shouted the man, addressing Wadyajena as munin’i- na, or young brother.
The meeting had to be cancelled, in a development that seriously blemished Zimbabwe as far as Parliamentary democracy is concerned.
Once a stronghold of good governance for the country, Parliament is now widely viewed as weak, irrelevant, ineffective and a costly institution that is needlessly draining the fiscus.
Observers say if Zimbabwe had a strong legislature, which fully exercises its authority, those rowdy youths would by now have been charged with contempt of Parliament, a serious offense for which one can be fined or even jailed.
But that has not happened and chances are very slim that it will ever happen.
Even after the infamous Bindura event, ZANU-PF officials have remained on the rampage, publicly denigrating the efforts of the committee, which is trying to do its mandate.
On May 21, senior ZANU-PF officials, Mandiitawepi Chimene, Innocent Hamandishe and Mubuso Chinguno, took turns to rubbish the committee during a party meeting in Mutare.
Hamandishe described the commitee’s current exercise “a useless witch-hunt”, while Chimene accused Wadyajena of behaving like an opposition party activist.
Speaker of the National Assembly, Jacob Mudenda, sounded very powerless.
“How do you bring contempt of Parliament charges to hooligans who have not been identified,” he said resignedly when the Financial Gazette sought to find out if Parliament would pursue the case.
“That is a police case and I am sure the police are dealing with it,” he added.
Mashonaland Central provincial police spokesperson, Inspector Petros Masikati said: “We are not pursuing any such a case.”
Analysts said Parliament had to awaken from its slumber and start dealing with errant members of the public showing disdain for its business.
“It is time Parliament shows its teeth if it still wants to retain its credibility and be seen as an important institution,” says political commentator, Rashweat Mukundu.
But does Parliament have the teeth in the first place.
The last time Parliament fined anyone was in 2006 when Macro Economic Investment Minister, Obert Mpofu, gave false information about the rot at the Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company when he was industry and international trade minister.
Before that, the only other successful contempt of Parliament charge was pursued against former Movement for Democratic Change legislator and treasurer, Roy Bennet, who was subsequently jailed for two years for assaulting fellow legislators in Parliament. In other countries, contempt of Parliament is defined as obstructing the legislature in carrying out its functions, or hindering any legislator in the performance of his or her duties. The offence is known by various other names in jurisdictions in which the legislature is not called Parliament.
In some jurisdictions, the legislature may declare any act to constitute contempt, and this is not subject to judicial review.
In others, contempt of Parliament is defined by statute, and the legislature makes the initial decision of whether to punish for contempt.
The person or organisation in contempt may appeal to the courts.
Other jurisdictions consider contempt of Parliament as a criminal offence.
Takudzwa Mafongoya, a legal expert, says the power of Parliament to charge and convict for contempt of Parliament was similar or identical in scope to the power of the judiciary to punish for contempt of court.
“Parliament’s contempt power indeed has something in common with the power of the judiciary to punish for contempt of court. Both serve a functional or instrumental purpose, designed to assist the respective institution to exercise its mandate and perform its functions effectively,” said Mafongoya.
The position of Zimbabwe’s legislature is also an example of how the country is facing difficulties in improving governance.
Social scientist, Admire Mare, said this is a problem across Africa.
“There is no lack of African institutions and agencies with impressive names and multi-million-dollar budgets. But there is still a shortage of real victories in the fight against corruption and autocracy. Studies of African governance have found improvements over the past decade, yet those improvements are often small and marginal, with huge work still to be done,” he said.Financial Gazette
