Speaker says no one should use Mugabe’s name to influence deliberations in Parliament

 Standing Order No. 20 (d) of the National Assembly states that a Portfolio Committee must:

“Monitor, investigate, inquire into and make recommendations relating to any aspect of the legislative programme, budget policy or any other matter it may consider relevant to the Government department falling within the category of affairs assigned to it.”

Further, individual Members of Parliament can raise questions on any matter of public policy through the Question Time during sittings. They can also move motions that relate to areas of their interest that require responses from a Vice President or a relevant Government Minister or Deputy Minister.

The term “every level” in Section 119 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, therefore, encompasses the office of the President as he exercises his executive authority through Cabinet as provided for in Section 88 (2) of the Constitution. The Cabinet includes the Vice-Presidents and Ministers, who under Section 107 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, are accountable to Parliament and must attend Parliament to answer questions. Furthermore, Section 141(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe states that “the President may attend Parliament to answer questions on any issue as may be provided in the Standing Orders”. Therefore, the Constitution envisages that the President may come before Parliament to answer questions relating to his office.

Use of the Name of the President in Debate.

Standing Order No. 93(1) (b) of the Standing Rules and Orders of the National Assembly states that:

“No member shall, while speaking to a question use the name of the President irreverently in debates or for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.”

There are two essential elements in that Standing Order that I will address, namely ‘use of the name of the President irreverently’ and ‘use of the name of the President for the purposes of influencing the House in its deliberations’. Irreverently means in a manner not showing respect to something or somebody that other people usually respect. The expectation in this regard is that Hon. Members in their debates should not use the name of the President in a discourteous or disrespectful manner. Use of the name of the President in a courteous and respectful manner is, therefore, tolerated.

In respect to the use of the name of the President to influence the House, I will quote the celebrated writer Erskine May in “Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament” who indicated that in England, the use of the Queen’s name to influence debate is:

“unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured”

“It is unparliamentary and inconsistent with the independence of a legislative body to refer to the name of the Executive in order to influence the vote”.

The above positions are premised on the fact that there are authorised ways for bringing the Executive and, in our case, the President’s messages to Parliament through his appointees, the Cabinet Ministers.   However, the above limitation does not apply to statements of facts by Ministers or Members of Parliament. What is sanctioned is the attempt to use the name of the President to influence unduly the decisions by Parliament.

Continued next page

(344 VIEWS)