admin
Zvamaida Murwira Mr Speaker, Sir
Last week Members of Parliament reacted with disdain to the decision to replace outgoing Auditor-General Mrs Mildred Chiri with Industrial Development Corporation general manager Mr Mike Ndudzo. The Office of the Auditor-General is an important one, especially in fighting corruption and abuse of office by public officials. This means any person who holds the office must be of good repute in the eyes of the public to effectively carry out his or her mandate.
It is because of this that, Mr Speaker Sir, we commend the decision by Members of Parliament across the political divide to reject Mr Ndudzo;s nomination.
This is a wake-up call for Cabinet ministers not to take the legislative arm of the State for granted.
Finance and Economic Development Minister Patrick Chinamasa surprised legislators when he announced last week in the National Assembly that he was bringing a motion to seek the approval of Parliament for Mr Ndudzo to become the new Auditor General, replacing the incumbent, Ms Chiri, who without doubt had been doing a sterling job.
Mr Speaker Sir, while it is commendable that Minister Chinamasa followed the law by involving Parliament in terms of Section 310 (1) of the Constitution, it is, however, the choice of Mr Ndudzo that baffled legislators.
The exclusion of parliamentarians in the identification of the new Auditor-General had also created anxiety among lawmakers and at best they felt ambushed given the fact that they were not aware that the incumbent Auditor- General’s term of office had expired.
Clearly, the bar that had been set by Ms Chiri as the Auditor-General is very high and expectations were equallye high that her successor would match her if not surpass the benchmark she set in interrogating Government accounts without fear or favour.
What this means is that the process of identifying Ms Chiri’s successor must be seen to be above board and expectations would be high that the new person to fill the shoes should be beyond reproach in his or her track record.
Minister Chinamasa clearly underestimated the power of the Legislature by assuming they would rubberstamp the nomination.
The decision by legislators across the political divide to reject Mr Ndudzo’s unilateral nomination should be a lesson to other ministers not to take Parliament for granted.
Mr Speaker Sir, even listening to the arguments raised by legislators in rejecting the nomination, one could not resist the temptation to agree with them.
Their argument sounded plausible.
Legislators across the political divide were vocal that the process should be transparent and that Mr Ndudzo was not an acceptable candidate given the state in which companies he has managed are in.
They said all the companies Mr Ndudzo had superintended over were either limping or bankrupt, thus raising questions on the basis upon which he was nominated.
The Auditor-General is more or less the Secretariat of the Public Accounts Committee and it is for this reason that he or she sits in their meetings.
Public Accounts Committee chairperson Ms Paurina Mpariwa was right in her contribution to the motion that clearly they should be involved in the selection of the Auditor-General either as Parliament or the Public Accounts Committee.
The sentiments that Parliament must be involved resonated among legislators during debate.
Mr Speaker Sir, the major thrust of the argument by legislators in identifying a new Auditor-General is that there must not only be transparency but the process must indeed be seen to be transparent given the importance of the office in bringing the Executive to account.
In other words, the Executive must not be seen to be handpicking a person whose duty is to bring the same Government arm to account and who must be seen to be independent.
There is no better way, Mr Speaker Sir, to achieve transparency than to involve the Legislature which is the repository of the will of the people.
Parliament has in the past been actively involved in the selection of persons to sit on independent commissions like the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Zimbabwe Gender Commission and Zimbabwe Media Commission among others.
They have done this by holding public interviews which are spearheaded by Parliament’s Standing Rules and Orders Committee.
Mr Speaker Sir, it follows that Minister Chinamasa should have given due regard to the need to consult Parliament and not to expect it to rubber stamp his nomination.
The debate on whether Ms Chiri was fired or resigned or retired upon the expiry of her term is not the point here because Minister Chinamasa ably explained, and besides, a time will always come when one has to be replaced.
What is at issue is the method that is adopted in finding a replacement.
That is where the Executive, and Minister Chinamasa in particular, was found wanting.
The lesson to be derived here is that ministers should indeed involve Parliament in the true sense of the word whenever the law, and in particular the Constitution in this case, obliges them to do so.
If the Constitution requires that Parliament must approve, it is prudent to consult it and not expect MPs to rubberstamp a proposal whose origin they are not privy to.
On the other hand, Mr Speaker Sir, it was refreshing that Minister Chinamasa was man enough to swallow his pride and suspended debate to allow for further consultation.
Very few ministers would have do that.ne
What Minister Chinamasa did at the end of the day won him the respect and confidence of legislators.
No wonder after he moved the suspension of the debate, legislators rose and took turns to congratulate him and in the end there was no hostility between Minister Chinamasa and the backbenchers.
Online Reporter