Parliament of Zimbabwe
IN 2006, one of the biggest scandals to ever rock a Zimbabwean government spilled into Parliament.
It was the case of high-level fraud and corruption in which senior government officials, including Cabinet ministers and Members of Parliament, were implicated in the plunder of resources at the Zimbabwe Iron and Steel Company (ZISCO).
The scandal was said to be so huge and damaging that “it would make all previous government graft cases look like a Sunday afternoon picnic when it eventually explodes”.
In the end, it never exploded.
It all started when the National Economic Conduct Inspectorate (NECI) produced a damning report implicating government bureaucrats in an “unimaginable looting spree” at ZISCO.
The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Industry and International Trade then interrogated the findings of the NECI report.
The then minister of industry and international trade, Obert Mpofu, at the committee’s initial hearing, confessed that the report not only existed, but actually implicated MPs and ministers.
He even committed himself to bringing the report to the committee in a week, heightening national expectations as people waited with bated breaths for the naming and shaming of the said MPs and ministers, which was anticipated to be followed by their dismissal from office.
But, alas, there was an anti-climax.
To everyone’s amazement, Mpofu walked into the meeting only to declare that he had no knowledge of such a report.
“I am not sure of any particular MP or Cabinet minister or senior person or anybody involved in ZISCO,” he told the committee.
This became one of the biggest letdowns for ZISCO workers, their families and the nation at large.
Word was that Mpofu had backtracked following an outcry from colleagues in his party and government. He then decided to absent himself from subsequent meetings and despite persistent efforts by MPs, the public and civil society, government refused to release the report and it died a natural death.
Obert Mpofu
Further investigations into the ZISCO scandal were halted and Parliament was only seized with trying Mpofu for contempt and lying under oath — offences for which he faced jail or fine or both.
He escaped with a ZW$40 000 fine.
Two years later, ZISCO would stop operations and all efforts to resuscitate it have been futile.
Many, however, still ask: If Parliament had succeeded in bringing to book the culprits, could the company have survived?
That question aside, the scandal is a perfect case study in our attempt to interrogate Parliament’s oversight function.
Parliament basically has three major functions namely legislative (lawmaking), representative and oversight.
While there has been widespread criticism over the other two roles, not much has been said about the oversight function, despite it being just as important as the other two.
Oversight is a function granted by the Constitution to Parliament to monitor and oversee government actions.
Parliament derives its powers from the Standing Orders that are made in terms of section 57 of the Constitution.
The oversight role is conferred on Parliament and codified by the House of Assembly Standing Order 159(2) and Senate Standing Order 149(2).
Parliamentary portfolio and thematic committees that are formed on the basis of such provisions have powers to summon any person or institution to give evidence or produce documents, and to report to them.
Critics have argued that the truest test of democracy in any nation is the extent to which its Parliament can ensure that government remains answerable to the public. This is done by maintaining constant oversight (monitoring) of government’s actions.
The recently amended standing rules and orders (SROs) actually go further to say any public official that fails to avail himself or herself for a committee meeting could be charged with contempt of Parliament.
When exercising oversight, Parliament ideally tries to ensure implementation and observance of the law, application of budgets as well as effective management of government departments, State enterprises and local authorities.
By so doing, Parliament is able to ensure that service delivery takes place, so that all citizens can live a better life.
The major reasons of exercising oversight are to detect and prevent abuse of office, to prevent illegal and unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government, to protect the rights and liberties of citizens, to hold the government answerable for how taxpayers’ money is spent and make government operations more transparent.
Portfolio committees have often been described as “engine rooms” of Parliament’s oversight and legislative work. They also interact with the public.
For example, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Finance has just concluded its pre-budget consultations for the 2016 budget to be tabled in the National Assembly later this month.
Input from the consultations is incorporated into the budget, which Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa will come up with.
MPs last week retreated to the resort town of Victoria Falls to brood over the key budget points.
After the presentation of the budget, each committee has hearings with the respective government departments over which they exercise oversight.
This serves to determine whether the department has kept its undertakings of the previous year, and spent taxpayers’ money appropriately.
In another example, one of the most important aspects of the oversight function is the consideration by committees of annual reports of organs of State, and reports of the comptroller and auditor-general, Mildred Chiri.
However, there have been grave concerns about the effectiveness of the entire process.
Some critics have argued, with a certain amount of justification, that oversight has been intrusive and meddling; others think it is short-sighted and counter-productive.
The most critical ones have dismissed it altogether saying it is just another component in the political cockpit of partisan politics from which it should be immune.
There is also an ample catalogue of examples that help the cause of those vehemently critical of the whole oversight functions who now are convinced that it severely lacks credibility.
Critics point out that Mpofu’s case clearly stands out as an aborted mission. While some argue that the fact Parliament actually achieved something by charging and fining him as an oversight milestone, others think it was actually a major letdown because in the end it did not address issues of public interest for which it was intended.
The portfolio committees have also suffered from truant ministers who decide to abscond the meetings or chose not to respond to their reports, a situation which heavily compromises the entire process.
A case in point is the famous clash between Local Government Minister, Saviour Kasukuwere, and chairperson of the Parliamentary portfolio committee on Youth, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment, Justice Mayor Wadyajena.
The committee wanted to interrogate the minister on his dealings during his tenure as minister of indigenisation, particularly how he handled community share ownership schemes.
It took almost a year, repeated efforts and arrest threats for Kasukuwere to appear before the committee, and when he finally did, the meeting was reduced to a mere drama and exchange of harsh words between the two.
Kasukuwere reportedly saw Wadyajena, who is his political nemesis, as seeking to harm his reputation and discredit him. Far from attending to the critical issue, the meeting became a platform to settle political scores and there was no answer to an eager citizenry — only entertainment to an interested Press.
There are also other examples of how far the oversight function has been compromised. One such case being that of former Harare town clerk, Tendai Mahachi.
Last year, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Local Government summoned him to give explanations on his income and the town clerk pitched up with a pay slip which showed he earned the moribund Zimbabwean dollar.
And when the then minister of local government, Ignatius Chombo, was later accused by the same committee of covering up for Mahachi, he said the Harare mayor, Bernard Manyenyeni, had been overzealous and involved himself in turf issues and overstepped his boundaries. That was the end of the issue.
A few months ago, State Procurement Board chairman, Charles Kuwaza, was chased from the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mines and Energy meeting after failing to provide its members with adequate evidence on the issues they had raised.
Ignatius Chombo.
For Parliamentary Monitoring Trust director, Sibanengi Ncube, such behaviour renders the Parliamentary oversight function worthless.
“Parliament, which is the central institution of democracy and the key institution in oversight, suffers from crisis of credibility. The biggest problem I seem to notice is that because of the highly polarised nature of our politics, MPs are afraid of taking the executive to task. MPs from the ruling party (ZANU-PF) will not expose their colleagues in Cabinet because of the factional wars raging in the party and when they try to bring ministers to account, it is largely out of interest to bring down someone from an opposing faction and the whole oversight role is slowly losing significance,” said Ncube.
John Makamure, executive director of the Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust, said even though accountability mechanisms are embedded in the Parliamentary procedures, which, on paper, means the august House is doing its work, implementation and assurance of accountability mechanisms are not being allowed to work.
“For someone who works with Parliament every day, I think we can do better through enforcing the provisions of the Constitution and the SRO. We have seen presiding officers of Parliament, namely the Senate President and Speaker of the National Assembly, Jacob Mudenda, giving threats to ministers that do not bring bills to Parliament and that abscond sessions. That is good but threats alone will not serve us. There is need for action,” he said.
There have also been complaints about government failing to act on reports produced by these committees.
There could, however, be at least a sense of relief from how Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Prisca Mupfumira, has handled the case of the National Social Security Authority (NSSA).
In July, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare ratcheted up pressure on government to overhaul NSSA after public consultations supported a shake-up of the public pension scheme following an investigation which unearthed rampant mismanagement.
Acting on the recommendation of the committee, the Minister appointed a new board last month, which immediately fired top NSSA bosses implicated in siphoning funds from the parastatal.
But one area which has been glaringly lacking has been that of Chiri’s reports that have exposed major shortcomings in State enterprises and local authorities. She has religiously submitted these to Parliament, but her recommendations have never been implemented.
The Financial Gazette inquired with some parastatal bosses after the release of another damning report last month which showed that they were still earning mega salaries, just to check their reaction.
One parastatal boss actually had the cheek to laugh and say confidently that he was not bothered at all because government would never touch them.
The Zimbabwe Parliament, like all Westminster parliaments around the world, should have a vibrant oversight function.
For example, in South Africa, President Jacob Zuma has had to answer corruption allegations emanating from reports that he used public funds to upgrade his rural Nkandla home.
British Prime Minister, David Cameroon, is weekly subjected to a barrage of questions by the House of Commons while United States President, Barack Obama, reports to both Senate and Congress regularly.
newsdesk@fingaz.co.zw
Follow us on Twitter on @FingazLive and on Facebook – The Financial Gazette