admin
Zvamaida Murwira Senior Reporter
NATIONAL Assembly speaker Advocate Jacob Mudenda on Thursday cleared Chipinge South legislator Cde Enock Porusingazi (Zanu-PF) and Bulawayo South representative Mr Eddie Cross (MDC-T) on allegations of contempt of Parliament their respective portfolio committees had pressed against them.
Adv Mudenda ruled that Cde Porusingazi’s case had been overtaken by events after the Daily News retracted yesterday a story that formed the basis for allegations against him.
Portfolio committee chairperson on Youth Development, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Cde Justice Mayor Wadyajena had asked Adv Mudenda to determine if Cde Porusingazi was not in contempt of Parliament for allegedly uttering statements that undermined the integrity of the committee and prejudicial to its work.
The committee had named Cde Porusingazi as having corruptly benefited from Green Fuel. Soon after the report was presented to Parliament by Cde Wadyajena last month, Cde Porusingazi was quoted in the Daily News rubbishing its contents claiming it had been written at the height of factional fights in Zanu-PF last year and accused the committee of tarnishing his image.
In his ruling, Adv Mudenda said Cde Porusinga wrote to the Daily News disputing the correctness of the story and the publication apologised to the legislator.
“Flowing from this, I hereby rule that the prayer sought by the committee in its report has since been overtaken by editor’s retraction.
“Thus, the House will no longer proceed on the matter,” said Adv Mudenda.
Allegations against Mr Cross arose after Meikles chairperson Mr John Moxon, wrote to the portfolio committee on Budget, Finance and Investment alleging that the opposition legislator had disclosed prematurely proceedings and findings on the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Debt Assumption Bill before it was tabled before Parliament.
In his ruling, Adv Mudenda said evidence laid before him did not justify reasonable suspicion that a chargeable offence had been committed.
He said Mr Cross had attended the said meeting in his capacity as shareholder of Meikles and contributions the legislator made in respect of the central bank debt to the hotel was done in that capacity.
“In addition, Mr Moxon, in his letter did not specify the actual words or conduct exhibited by the member that showed that he had prematurely disclosed the proceedings and findings of the committee on the Bill,” said Adv Mudenda.
Mr Cross was said to have indicated that he was a member of the committee and that they had conducted countrywide hearings on the Bill.
“That does not in itself satisfy that his conduct is sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that an offense was committed, and that there was enough ground to charge him with contempt of Parliament.
“In the result, the chair rules that the facts as presented to the House do not constitute a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament,” said Adv Mudenda.
Online Reporter