Chirumanzu-Zibagwe MP Auxillia Mnangagwa (Zanu PF) on Tuesday moved a motion to take note of the report of the Pan African Parliament session held in Midrand, South Africa, in October
Mnangagwa said at least 28 countries should sign the protocol for it to be effective, yet only Mali and Mauritania had appended their signatures.
The new revised protocol seeks to empower PAP to be a legislative body, to stipulate five-year terms for MPs in PAP and to change the term “Clerk of Parliament” to “secretary-general”, among other changes.
Seconder of the motion, Hatfield MP Tapiwa Mashakada (MDC-T), said as the current African Union chairperson, Mugabe, should lead by example and sign the protocol.
“I would urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs to properly advise the President about this protocol and to ensure Zimbabwe ratifies it because other countries will laugh at us and say we do not lead by example,” he said.
Mashakada said some of the issues discussed during the sitting of the PAP included climate change and the question of Africa seeking compensation from the greatest global polluters, the United States and China, for loss and damage caused by global warming.
He said PAP stressed the need to implement the Maputo Protocol to empower all women.
Mazowe MP Fortune Chasi (Zanu PF) was concerned about lack of co-ordination among the Zimbabwean representatives to PAP.
“It will be embarrassing if our representatives at PAP speak along conflicting lines. We should also choose MPs with an understanding of international relations to be our representatives at PAP,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill sailed through the committee stage with amendments and has been referred to the Parliamentary Legal Committee to scrutinise the constitutionality of the changes.
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister Emmerson Mnangagwa did not take into consideration suggestions made by Harare West MP Jessie Majome (MDC-T) and Zvimba West MP Ziyambi Ziyambi (Zanu PF) on amendments of Section 2 and 3, which deal with the powers of the Prosecutor-General (PG).
The two felt the sections were unconstitutional and gave the PG too much power to refuse prosecution, but their suggestions were disregarded.