MPs must not bicker before witnesses
The issue here Mr Speaker Sir, is that legislators failed to conduct themselves honourably in the face of a “hostile” witness, for lack of a better word, who was unwilling to respond to questions that he felt had no relevance to issues at hand.
LACK of political maturity and respect of rules of the august House by legislators continues to manifest during committee proceedings, if a meeting between Members of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Defence and Home Affairs last week is anything to go by.
Mr Speaker Sir, during the meeting, one would be forgiven for thinking that it was an inaugural gathering of the committee in which they were receiving evidence from witnesses given the tension and interjections that characterised proceedings.
It was disheartening, Mr Speaker Sir, that this was taking place at a time when the present Parliament is nearing its end, having run for almost five years and expectations were that MPs had learnt and mastered the rules of engagement with witnesses and fellow legislators when you differ on views regarding the issue at hand.
Legislators bickered among themselves in front of a witness, RegistrarGeneral Mr Tobaiwa Mudede regarding responses that the top civil servant was giving.
The bone of contention, Mr Speaker Sir, was that Mr Mudede declined to divulge his age when asked first by Budiriro MP Mr Costa Machingauta (MDC-T).
Initially, committee chairperson, Cde Tshinga Dube (Zanu-PF), was of the view that the committee could not labour itself on Mr Mudede’s age, but on the purpose for which the top civil servant had been invited, that of challenges associated with issuance of birth certificates.
The issue here Mr Speaker Sir, is that legislators failed to conduct themselves honourably in the face of a “hostile” witness, for lack of a better word, who was unwilling to respond to questions that he felt had no relevance to issues at hand.
Legislators began to argue among themselves, threatening to derail proceedings.
Instead of either MPs raising issues in a civil manner, or better still, asking witnesses and the media to leave the room, so that they could deliberate among themselves on how to respond to the situation, MPs turned the proceedings into a slanging match as Mr Mudede refused to divulge his age.
“I am not going to disclose my age, and I am not the one to answer as to why I have not been retired yet. You must ask that from my employer, the civil service.
“It is my right and I do not need to answer that question. The fact that I am an RG and not an MP does not mean that I should be put in an awkward position,” he said.
He went on to accuse some MPs of being personal by focusing on his age, instead of the good work he was carrying out, which he said had led to him getting regional and international recognition.
Mr Machingauta got livid with the response and openly protested that Mr Mudede should respond to the issue of his age as, according to him, many Zimbabweans were keen to know his age.
Musikavanhu MP Mr Prosper Mutseyami (MDC-T) weighed in, joining the protest saying the “chaos” at the RG’s Office could be a result of his old age.
Buhera West MP Cde Oliver Mandipaka (Zanu-PF) asked a different question on challenges associated with acquiring a birth certificate for a child with no parents, arguing that was a more important question than the issue of Mr Mudede’s age.
The situation almost got out of hand and MPs haggled among themselves while Mr Mudede, accompanied by Home Affairs secretary Mr Melusi Matshiya and other senior officials from the ministry and departments, looked on.
The question here, Mr Speaker Sir, is; was it necessary for MPs to argue among themselves in front of witnesses and the media?
Is that kind of behaviour consistent with the “honourable” title given to them as representatives of the people?
One wonders, Mr Speaker Sir, if the legislators have not mastered the rules of proceedings as laid out in Standing Orders.
The rules are clear that if there is any issue that ought to be brainstormed, probably because of differences on opinion, MPs should deliberate among themselves in the absence of witnesses.
Can MPs retain the kind of respect they have if they begin quarrelling among themselves?
There is clearly a temptation that the question was motivated by the desire to score cheap political points given the manner in which it was handled.
The conduct by the legislators, Mr Speaker Sir, no doubt should not absolve Mr Mudede, who to all intents and purposes was lucky to escape without reprimand or charges being preferred against him.
With all due respect, Mr Mudede should not cherry pick questions to be responded to and those he did not like, particularly when at one stage, committee chairperson Cde Tshinga Dube had directed that he respond for sake of progress.
The MPs could have simply applied the rules, either to invoke the necessary legal instruments to compel Mr Mudede to respond or better still deliberate among themselves away from witnesses and the media.
MPs, Mr Speaker Sir, ought to know that they could still achieve whatever objective they might have wanted without losing one’s temper.
It goes without saying that losing temper for an MP is embarrassing.
Probably committee chairperson, Cde Dube could have handled it better by being firm.
In the end, Mr Mudede ended up responding to other questions, but not pertaining to the issue of age.
MPs ought to conduct themselves in a civil way if the title “honourable” is to retain value.