Tanzanian minister’s defense that nailed lawmaker in the sugar debate

Dar es Salaam. The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Hussein Bashe presented a watertight defense before the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee that resulted in the suspension of the Kisesa legislator, Mr Luhaga Mpina, The Citizen has learned.

On Monday, June 24, the Parliament suspended Mr Mpina from attending 15 sittings after the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee found him guilty of contempt of Parliament and failing to substantiate claims that Mr Bashe lied to Parliament.

The Speaker of Parliament, Dr Tulia Ackson, announced that Mpina will be barred from attending five sittings of the ongoing budget session starting on June 24.

He will also miss the September Parliament, which consists of nine sittings.

Mpina would consequently miss one sitting of the November 2024 Parliament and he will only resume attending Parliament in the second sitting of the November 2024 session.

Dr Ackson further emphasized that Mr Mpina is barred from entering parliamentary premises or participating in any parliamentary or committee activities.

Bone of contention

The rift between Mr Mpina and Mr Bashe originated on June 4, 2024, during parliamentary deliberations on the budget estimates for the Ministry of Finance for the fiscal year 2024/25.

In the course of the debate, Mr Bashe informed Parliament that the sugar factories entrusted with importing the sweetener to cover for the shortfall in local production did not fulfil their responsibilities effectively.

Mr Bashe said it was due to the to the failure of sugar processors to adequately fill the local processing gap with sufficient imports that the country was facing price increases, which reached up to Sh10,000 per kilogramme in certain areas in January and February this year.

But, rising on a point of order, Mr Mpina informed the House that Mr Bashe was misleading the Parliament.

He alleged that the local processors did not fail to import the sugar to fill the gap, but instead blamed the government, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, for not supporting them adequately.

Mr Mpina told the House that he had substantial evidence of how the Ministry of Agriculture had failed to cooperate with sugar processing companies, hindering their ability to import sufficient quantities of the product to cover the shortfall.

In line with Order 70 (1, 2, 3) of the Parliamentary Rules, Mr Mpina was required to present evidence in support of the fact that Mr Bashe was lying to Parliament on June 14, 2024.

Though Mr Mpina did deliver the evidence to the Speaker as ordered, he however proceeded to hold a press conference where he detailed the contents of what he had presented to the Speaker.

Irked by such a gesture, Dr Ackson tasked the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee to do two things: firstly to examine whether the evidence, submitted by Mr Mpina, was sufficient to substantiate the claim that Mr Bashe lied to Parliament and, secondly, to investigate allegations that the Kisesa legislator (Mpina) had shown contempt towards the Speaker, the Parliament and parliamentary proceedings when by holding a press conference where he divulged the contents of what he had presented to the leader of the parliamentary business.

Bashe’s waterproof defense

Presenting the resolution of the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee in the august House on Monday, June 24, 2024, the committee chairperson Ally Makoa stated that Mpina had been found guilty of contempt of Parliament.

This, he said, was because in the course of conducting interrogations, the committee was convinced that Mr Bashe did not lie to the Parliament as suggested by Mr Mpina and that a decision to hold a press conference and divulge the contents of what he had submitted to the Speaker was a violation of the law in line with the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act, CAP 296.

Specifically, said Mr Makoa, the Committee found out that the domestic sugar processing factories named by Mr Bashe in Parliament, did not import sugar as expected.

This was contrary to Mr Mpina’s assertion that domestic sugar producers and traders imported 6,801 tonnes into the country.

According to Mr Makoa, Mr Mpina did not take note of the fact that Mr Bashe was very specific when he named the factories that did not import sugar.

“The Minister said the factories he mentioned did not import sugar. Instead, the sugar was imported by Kilombero Sugar and another trader who is not a local sugar process. As such, the committee concluded that the Minister’s statement was true,” said Mr Makoa.

He said the Hansard was clear that Mr Bashe specifically mentioned the companies that did not import the sugar. “It should therefore be noted that the Minister was specific in his assertion,” he said.

Mr Mpina said the minister was lying when he put Tanzania’s gap sugar at 60,000 tonnes.

But in response, said Mr Makoa, Mr Bashe informed the committee that a meeting between the ministry and sugar producers which was held earlier this year approved the importation of a total of 30,000 tonnes in gap sugar and a buffer stock of 30,000 tonnes. As such, the total sugar required for importation was 60,000 tonnes.

“After going through the explanations, the committee was satisfied that the exhibits by Mr Luhaga Mpina were right on the aspect of the sugar gap. However, the Minister did not lie in the Parliament because he spoke about gap sugar and buffer stock,” he said.

While Mr Mpina faulted the government for allowing the importation of sugar under the National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) without issuing a Government Notice (GN), Mr Bashe told the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee that actually, the importation was conducted by following the Food Security Act, Cap 249.

The Act allows the government to intervene in an urgent food shortage situation through NFRA.

“After an analysis of the Food Security Act, Cap 249 and the Sugar Industry Act, 2001, the committee was convinced that during emergency times, the former becomes more powerful than the latter…The Committee was therefore convinced that Mr Bashe did not lie to the Parliament and that the whole exercise was conducted in line with the law,” said Mr Makoa.

Mr Mpina had also accused Mr Bashe of issuing import permits for 410,000 tonnes, contrary to the approved gap sugar of 100,000 tonnes.

But, according to Mr Makoa, Mr Bashe told his committee that a government team established that the actual shortage was 220,000 tonnes until April, 2024. He said an analysis by the Ministry showed that actual production was affected by El-Nino rains and that due to a serious shortage that emerged between January and February, Tanzania needed to have enough buffer stock and thus approved the importation of 410,000 of gap sugar.

“However, the Minister told the committee that the Ministry only permitted the importation of a total of 220,000 tonnes. He said so far, it is only 180,000 tonnes that have been imported while permits for the remaining 40,000 tonnes have not yet been issued.

The government, said Mr Makoa, will continue to monitor the availability of sugar produced locally in the market and will decide on whether to issue the permits or shelve them once and for all.

“The Committee was convinced that the 100,000 tonnes that was the basis of Mr Mpina’s argument was based on an estimation that was conducted in December, 2023. The estimation was however reviewed in April, 2024 whereby the committee was presented with documents in support of raising the amount of sugar to be imported from 155,000 tonnes to 220,000 tonnes…,” said Mr Makoa.

He added that the 410,000 issue was based on an analysis that since domestic factories had not started production as of May, 2024, Tanzania would thus need that amount in sugar imports as until December, 2024.

That the import permits were issued to companies that are not sugar producers, contrary to the law, the Minister told the committee that a thorough analysis was conducted to ascertain the credibility of the companies involved in the importation.

Mr Bashe also brought before the Committee, documents in support of the authenticity of the companies that were given the permits to import sugar under emergency situations.

“The committee was convinced that the sugar was imported under an emergency arrangement,” he said.

Actual suspension

Having established that Mr Mpina was guilty, the Parliamentary Standing Orders, the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee proposed that he be suspended for ten sittings in line with Order 84 (31).

However, a heated debate followed the proposal with some lawmakers recommending that he be suspended for 15 sittings.

Upon tabling the motion, the Speaker asked those opposed to say “nay” and those in favour to say “yea.” The supporters of the motion won unanimously.

Speaker Tulia reiterated that according to parliamentary standing orders, Mpina would be suspended for a minimum of 15 sittings and a maximum of 20 sittings.

She then requested several individual MPs to propose the number of sittings for Mpina’s suspension, and they unanimously suggested 15, which was accepted by Parliament.

After announcing the decision to suspend Mpina, the Speaker instructed him to gather his belongings and vacate the Parliament chambers which he did.