IN the past two weeks, our Members of Parliament, who are deliberating on public submissions on Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB3), met with the President’s adviser, Paul Tungwarara.
Now, Wicknell Chivayo, another associate of the President, has pledged to give them a gift of US$3,6 million. Is this not a conflict of interest or, in the worst case, lubrication — a bribe — that opens up MPs’ deliberations on CAB3 to manipulation?
Our Parliament is meant to be a law-making body that also serves as a self-regulating oversight institution over the other arms of the State.
Now, if lawmakers are going to be serenaded
IN the past two weeks, our Members of Parliament, who are deliberating on public submissions on Constitutional Amendment No 3 Bill (CAB3), met with the President’s adviser, Paul Tungwarara.
Now, Wicknell Chivayo, another associate of the President, has pledged to give them a gift of US$3,6 million. Is this not a conflict of interest or, in the worst case, lubrication — a bribe — that opens up MPs’ deliberations on CAB3 to manipulation?
Keep Reading
- Lest our MPs forget
- Chivayo’s US$25m lawsuit overstated: ZPC
- Resign: MPs tell Chokuda
- Muckracker: The circus goes to America
Our Parliament is meant to be a law-making body that also serves as a self-regulating oversight institution over the other arms of the State.
Now, if lawmakers are going to be serenaded and given undue amounts of money by associates of the President and people who do business with the State at a time when they are meant to be deliberating on amendments to the Constitution that could extend the President’s term and make Parliament responsible for selecting the President, what are the chances that they are going to make impartial decisions on the amendment?
Part of the reason many people are uncomfortable with the CAB3 is that it gives these same parliamentarians the responsibility to select the President. There is fear that such a system allows them to be bribed or bought by wealthy individuals who want to be elected President.
Now, while parliamentarians are still in the process of deliberating on this contentious constitutional amendment, we are already seeing them being given financial inducements by associates of the President and people who do business with the State.
How does this build confidence in the Bill or in Parliament itself? What is the reason for MPs to be given this money by private businesspeople? And, in line with the principle of quid pro quo — something for something — what do they have to do in return for the unearned gifts?
What happens when the same parliamentarians are offered more money by someone else to make a different decision?
and given undue amounts of money by associates of the President and people who do business with the State at a time when they are meant to be deliberating on amendments to the Constitution that could extend the President’s term and make Parliament responsible for selecting the President, what are the chances that they are going to make impartial decisions on the amendment?
Part of the reason many people are uncomfortable with the CAB3 is that it gives these same parliamentarians the responsibility to select the President. There is fear that such a system allows them to be bribed or bought by wealthy individuals who want to be elected President.
Now, while parliamentarians are still in the process of deliberating on this contentious constitutional amendment, we are already seeing them being given financial inducements by associates of the President and people who do business with the State.
How does this build confidence in the Bill or in Parliament itself? What is the reason for MPs to be given this money by private businesspeople? And, in line with the principle of quid pro quo — something for something — what do they have to do in return for the unearned gifts?
What happens when the same parliamentarians are offered more money by someone else to make a different decision?