Back to Index
ruling on Standing Order 62(d) and application for his recusal
Speaker of Parliament Lovemore Moyo
December 15, 2011
97 version (20.5KB)
PDF version (36.3KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader
on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking
from Parliament of Zimbabwe - House of Assembly Votes and Proceedings
for Thursday 15th December 2011
proceedings in the House,
it is my duty to clarify certain misconceptions about the motion
moved by Hon. Tshuma, and the accusations levelled against me by
Members of this August House.
are seeking to prevent the debate on a motion on grounds that the
motion is inadmissible in terms of Standing Order 62(d), the motion
must be one “on which a judicial decision is pending”.
A matter on which a judicial decision is pending is one where pleadings
have been closed and all parties to the case have submitted their
arguments to the court, and await the judge’s decision. The
mere filing of a court application is insufficient to warrant the
invocation of Standing Order 62(d). If the Speaker were to expunge
motions on the Order Paper on the basis of someone merely having
filed a court application, the House would never conduct any business.
In any event, Parliament has not received a court order barring
the debate on the motion.
The role of
the Speaker is to chair the House and ensure that all Members of
Parliament are afforded an opportunity to exercise their Constitutional
role as they debate upon matters in the August House of Assembly.
The Speaker does not descend into debates, he maintains an impartial
role in refereeing the conduct of the debate, regardless of the
content of the debate. The reasons put forward seeking the Speaker’s
recusal are insufficient for such action because the motion refers
to the flawed election process, not the officer elected as a result
thereof. Further, that the Speaker and all the Chairs of the House
are cited in the court application leaves an untenable situation
that no presiding officer can chair over the debate of the motion.
The matter before
this House relates to internal procedures of the Legislative Arm
of Government. Unwarranted interference in these internal procedures
seriously undermines the authority and integrity of the Legislative
Arm of Government, and compromises the Doctrine of Separation of
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.