Zimpapers Logo

Zvamaida Murwira: Senior Reporter

The Parliamentary Legal Committee has admitted that it bungled by failing to raise the red flag when it considered the Special Economic Zones Bill that was eventually deemed unconstitutional by the President. President Mugabe recently referred back to Parliament the Special Economic Zones Bill after he expressed reservations on a clause that sought to suspend the Labour Act whose effect would have exposed workers to serious abuse by employers.In rejecting the Bill, the President cited section 56 of the Special Economic Zones Bill, which he said was not consistent with Section 65 of the Constitution as it sought to suspend the operation of labour laws in the zones. Zvimba West MP Cde Ziyambi Ziyambi (zanu-pf) and Mutare Central MP Mr Innocent Gonese (MDC-T) both admitted that their decision as PLC to give a clean bill of health on it was not prudent and not supported by the Constitution.

The pair said this on Monday evening during a Star FM programme, “Livewire”. Other members of the committee are Mudzi South MP Cde Jonathan Samukange (Independent), Mazowe South MP Cde Fortune Chasi (zanu-pf) and Harare West MP Ms Jessie Majome (MDC-T).

Cde Ziyambi said while the PLC noted during its consideration that the Special Economic Zones Bill was unconstitutional, it still proceeded to give the Bill a non-adverse report.

“So if you look at it, you have the Constitution and you have the Labour Act. The Labour Act was ousted in this Bill and we were at pains to try to reconcile ourselves on what we should do. We were unhappy but we allowed it to go to the House for debate. I remember (Mufakose MP Ms Paurina) Hon Mpariwa stood up and spoke about it, but because of the system of voting, we allowed it to sail through. But basically what I want to say is, any practice in Zimbabwe that violates the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency,” said Cde Ziyambi.

He said the Ministry of Public Service Labour and Social Welfare — in consultation with the Special Economic Zones Authority — were supposed to come up with guidelines on how workers in the zones would be governed.

“If the labour regulations that were going to be made were in violation of the constitutional provision, then it is the duty of the PLC because they stand referred once they are produced, to highlight that these regulations that you have produced are unconstitutional. But we agree with the President. But it is arguable to say, when we refer to the Labour Act, should we say the Labour Act is equivalent to the Constitution. In our considered view it was not,”

Mr Gonese concurred with Cde Ziyambi that they indeed observed that the Bill was unconstitutional but allowed it to be sent to parliament’s plenary for debate.

“I want to be very clear at the outset. Some of us were very uncomfortable with that particular provision. But as Hon Ziyambi has correctly pointed out, we actually said on the floor of the House we will raise the issue. I do recall that our spokesperson, on labour matters who is Hon Mpariwa and other members from the MDC-T raised this particular issue unfortunately the Minister stuck to his guns and as a result the Bill was passed in the form in which it was sent to the President,” said Mr Gonese.

“And we were later on vindicated in the sense that some of the sentiments, which were expressed are the very same reasons which have now been given for the rejection of the Bill. I would want to reiterate that on reflection when you look at the provision of section 65, as PLC, we should have ruled that the Bill infringed on the rights of the workers in the sense that those companies in the special economic zones were going to be allowed to disregard the provisions of the Labour Act. When you look at the provisions of the Labour Act, yes it is an Act of Parliament, but you must read it in conjunction with the provisions of section 65 of the Constitution. I believe that the Bill should not have been given a clean bill of health. I am happy we are going to have a second bite of the cherry.”