Hon Daniel Shumba offside Hon Daniel Shumba
Hon Daniel Shumba

Hon Daniel Shumba

Lloyd Gumbo Mr Speaker, Sir
The Zimbabwe Power Company (ZPC) board has come under fire over its reluctance to pay the contractor of a power plant in Mutare that has seen the firm, Helcraw Electrical, pulling out of the project site, in the process further delaying Zimbabwe’s quest to boost its power supply.

It is understood that ZPC was under contractual obligation to pay part of the money for the work already done but has reneged on that commitment, resulting in lawyers representing the firm writing to the power company demanding payment.

Political reasons have been cited and Energy and Power Development Minister Samuel Undenge has since advised the ZPC to engage the supplier so that work can proceed.

Not to be outdone, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mines and Energy chaipesrdon Daniel Shumba waded into the matter threatening to summon ZPC or even charge them with contempt.

Said Shumba: “It is clear they have a political agenda and their continued defiance on such a clear issue leaves a lot of questions.

“We shall be calling them to Parliament soon and will invoke the necessary statutes and we will not hesitate to find them in contempt of Parliament.”

Mr Speaker Sir, it is a given that the role of Parliament and its committees is to play an oversight role over the executive.

And parliamentary committees will be justified to hold State-owned parastatals and enterprises to account whenever they dictate or feel something is not right.

But the major worry is when Parliament or its committees interfere with operational matters, which normally should be outside their ambit.

Unfortunately, there seem to be a growing tendency among some committees, who delve into operational matters in the name of playing oversight on the executive.

Some of them want to get into the nitty-gritties of how much parastatals are making and of that how much is spent on teas or transport.

It is not the role of parliamentary committees to tell parastatals and State enterprises who they should pay and how they should do it.

Mr Speaker Sir, even ministers do not go that far as their role is just policy guidance.

The moment ministers tell those parastatals who and when they should pay, it can and should be regarded as interference.

It would not be surprising to see respective portfolio or thematic committees summoning those ministers to ask why they are interfering with the operations of parastatals under their control.

If ministers cannot dictate to parastatals who among their creditors they should pay then how can parliamentarians assume that role?

The moment ministries or parliamentary committees interfere with the operations of Government-owned entities, it takes away autonomy from those firms.

In the event that they mess up, they will just shift blame to either the ministry or the parliamentary committee who would have dictated to them how they should run their operations.

Mr Speaker Sir, the biggest problem with Shumba’s interference is that it sets a bad precedent, which could have dire consequences.

What it means is that other creditors will use the parliamentary route to compel Government-owned firms to pay them given that there has been threats of contempt of Parliament.

It is unprecedented that an organisation, whoever they are, are threatened with contempt of Parliament for failing or deliberately not paying what they owe.

As to how the contempt question arises, only Shumba knows.

It is a known fact that most Government-owned entities are choked by debts, so Shumba’s remarks could open the floodgates to creditors approaching their respective portfolio committees to threaten these parastatals with contempt.

Mr Speaker Sir, the problem with this scenario is that it may lead to portfolio committee chairpersons using Parliament to blackmail State-owned enterprises for their personal gain in the event that these companies settle their debts.

It is a fact that threatening contempt of Parliament charges where these do not arise amounts to subtle blackmailing, with the intention of forcing companies to go out of their way and avoid contempt charges by making such payments.

Some committee chairpersons may end up using their positions in Parliament to pursue personal interests, such as kickbacks if they succeed in making parastatals pay what they owe them.

While it could be factual that the ZPC board is sabotaging the project for political reasons, it is equally important that mandates are not abused.

The board reports to the minister who is the political head in the ministry and if he or she sees that the board is playing politics, he has every right to play the game as well by either firing the board or calling it to order.

It is not the duty of a parliamentary committee to present themselves as if the board or management in parastatals report to them directly.

Oversight role does not entail supervision.

Parastatals fall under line ministries, which give them policy direction and not parliamentary committees.

Mr Speaker Sir, there are committees that seem to confuse interference for oversight.

There is need for continuous capacity building for MPs so that they appreciate their role and mandate to avoid conflict with parent ministries.

The challenge is that if committees continue to try and make parastatals accountable to them, there is a great possibility of conflict with policy direction from the ministry where the former can order parastatals to do something while the ministry is instructing something else.

Parliamentary committee chairpersons must also avoid abusing their positions by making statements that they attribute to committees when it is their personal views or opinions.

Such views must be subjected to robust discussion within portfolio committees in closed door sessions and, when adopted, are then forwarded to their respective ministries as recommendations or they can even be tabled in Parliament, with all the committee members confirming ownership of the same.

If committee chairpersons are allowed to continue making statements that do not represent the views of committees, it creates problems where some members may end up publicly disowning statements made by their chairper- sons.

Portfolio committees must stick to their mandate of oversight and not delve into operational matters, which even ministers are not involved in.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey