MPs HAVE A DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT CORRUPTION, SAYS CHILUBI MP, MULENGA FUBE
MPs HAVE A DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND FIGHT CORRUPTION, SAYS CHILUBI MP, MULENGA FUBE
….as Nkana MP Binwell Mpundu calls for Parliamentarians’ protection when the alert Anti Corruption Commission of alleged corruption.
March 5, 2025. Lusaka
OPPOSITION PF Chilubi Member of Parliament Mulenga Fube has told the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court that parliamentarians have a mandate to defend the Republican Constitution and fight corruption to protect public resources for prudent utilisation.
And Nkana MP Mpundu says Parliamentarians had very heated conversations in relation to what they perceived as a questionable transaction of Public Private Partnership (PPP) of a dual carriage way from Lusaka to Ndola.
Mpundu told the court that being a member of the African Parliamentarian Against Corruption (APNAC), he had a duty to work alert the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) of any suspected corrupt deal involving public resources.
This is in a matter where Independent Lumezi MP Munir Zulu has been dragged to court by Finance Minister Situmbeko Musokotwane and Infrastructure Minister Charles Milupi for alleged defamatory remarks made against them in connection to perceived corrupt manner on how the Ndola-Lusaka duel carriage way was being handled under a PPP arrangement.
Mbili Media captured the verbatim of the court proceedings when Fube appeared as a witness in the matter.
Below are the proceedings;
On that material day I have forgotten the day, we (The accused and Myself as APNAC members) received information during the 16:40 break at parliament, we felt moved to speak to the issue at hand.
I decided at that point to call Aquinos from Smart Eagles an online media so that we can bring the issue of suspected corruption inspired by the fact that as members of parliament and APNAC members, we have been looking for information especially that According to us, this was an issue that was suppose to be tabled in parliament as it has elements that qualified it to be under Article 210 of the constitution which intells that when public assets are being transferred into any other private apart from public institutions that can not be done without parliamentary approval.
Naturally as law makers, we thought this deal smelled corruption because we did not understand how a contractor will be financed using public resources to construct a road and at the same time this contractor starts collecting toll fees for a projected period of 23 years before they finish the of the road.
From where I stand that is corruption and calling that a public private partnership is hiding corruption PPP.
I understand that public property like a road, building and any other infrastructure of commercial value should be constructed or built using private money but for public use with the intention of getting the investment from the region that the same project generates out of its use.
Given that background, when that information came through, I got very excited to play the role of the whistle blower as well as an oversight job given to me by the constitution of Zambia.
And at that point I decided to be part of the two man joint press conference… from where I stand, anything to do with that presser, No one should take out the other person and forego what the other said.
That presser was planned.
That presser should be understood as joint and its a package that should be taken as one.
I am shocked your honor that the accused is in the accused box and am not.
Defense…
Avoid attaching your feelings but speak with regards to the case at hand.
Witness…
The charge has shocked me because this is a joint press we were the two of us.
The intention was to speak to ACC and have them clarify the claims within 24hrs.
I still maintain that it was joint and whatever was said is joint.
It was mandate to do an oversight role and am backed by the constitution in in article 210, article 61 and article 63.
I already talked of article 210.
In article 61,62 and 63, I am empowered to check on the executive.
Further, article 2 of the constitution, empowers me to protect the constitution and before us was not just an ordinary question of corruption but the constitution matters too.
We needed to make sure that we did not come in conflict with the Parliamentary privilege act supported by article 76 of the constitution we confined the presser within premises of parliament so that our roles as APNAC and members of parliament are qualified and you can not play the two roles without being members of our.
Court:
Your opinion and interpretations are not needed before this court but only your facts regarding this matter.
Witness..
The elements I referred to earlier, the motives of what was spoken, not written and the call of ACC to investigate and explain to the public on what happened does not amount to individuals defaming as we needed to give a face to that possible allegation.
It was just proper that ACC is provided with the possible suspects.
It was going to be difficult and illogical even malicious of us to speak without identifying the possible suspects as we called on ACC to supply information about those we thought were suspected to be the people involved.
Our call was based on the fact that their public statements that are in public domain to the effects that ministers bring investigated are supposed to be withheld.
Unfortunately even the president has spoken to that regard of withholding names.
The vice president has spoken to the reality of withholding names.
One of the hallmarks of fighting against corruption is transparency and accountability.
We only called on the ACC to uphold one of their core values by educating the public on the Grey areas in the deal.
From where I stand, calling in the responsibility of a public body charged with duty to perform public duties even when there’s mention of identify does not amount to defaming the Person.
CROSS-EXAMINATION..
State:
There’s no doubt you were part of the address?
Witness:
Yes your honor.
Your called ACC to investigate Musokotwane and Milupi?
Yes.
Your honor we refer the witness to the press statement to ACC. Read paragraph 4.(the Commission is not investigating the two ministers). So the commission confirmed?
Yes.
Read against (the commission calls on Munir Zulu to lead the commission).. do you have proof of the allegations?
Defense…
Objection.
State:
Witness :.
The statement was not correct as then it was a corrupt ACC and its in public domain that it was corrupt and they had to hide the information.. the statement is not authentic.
I maintain the ACC then was corrupt.
State:
Show proof…
Witness: Today I don’t have, given time, I can bring.
Defence : tell us your name, your age and occupation.
Witness: My name Binwell Mpundu 42 years old, a politician and Nkana Member of Parliament and APNAC Member.
On that day, I was made aware of the intention to have a presser by Hon Munir Zulu and Hon Mulenga Fube as am the treasurer of APNAC.
I did not attend that event only because I had a matter to attend to in the chambers. Where we had very heated conversations as parliamentarians in relation to what we perceived as a questionable transaction of Public Private Partnership (PPP) of a dual carriage way from Lusaka to ndola.
It happens that our two colleagues were speaking to information relating to the transaction.
Our role is more of a whistle blower on corruption.
Any information we receive suggesting acts of corruption, we have to engage the ACC.
I paid attention to the video after the accused was arrested over the same and it was shocking that they were being indicted for doing their job.
This matter has put us as Caulcus in an awkward situation from two ends especially that by law we are supposed to be protected as MP statements we make within the prisect of parliament and that we are partners with the Anti-Corruption Commission by way of us presenting perceived corruption acts to the ACC for action.
We now don’t know at what point the law will protect us in carrying out our duties and how far we can go in our duties.
Our job is more of speaking and sometimes we speak to matters whose facts can nor be verified and we hope that the responsible people will address and give clarity to those matters.
It in that spirit that the privileges act was enacted so that it can protect us in an event that the matters we raise individuals may want to litigate on.
The matter before court being of defamation and libel, as APNAC we wonder how a verbally altered word found itself on the libel charge.
CROSS-EXAMINATION….
State:
Are you aware that ACC responded to that?
Witness:
No am not aware.
State:
Read…(witness reads)
As treasurer of APNAC, you are not aware of this letter?
Witness…
Am not aware because ACC did not respond to us and the letter is addressed to the editor so I don’t know which editor.
State…
Are the responsibilities and privileges of Parliamentarians liable to offend others based on that?
Witnes: it depends
Defense…
Objection.
The witness is the witness facts,the question the state is asking may lead the witness to express his opinion.
State:
no further questions
Defence
I seek for adjustment as we had only two witness.
Court
I express my displeasure after hearing this adjournment after hearing from only 2 witnesses and the names of witnesses are within Lusaka.
Adjournment today after adjourning the matter on 5th February its so disappointing
I will adjourn the matter on March 7 and bring all witness I will have the whole day.
Mbili Media
