Minister Neal sworn-in, budget not nullified
MBABANE – Minister of Finance Neal Rijkenberg has been officially sworn-in as a member of the House of Assembly, and his past work, including the presentation of the budget speech, will not be nullified.
His swearing-in comes after Somntongo Member of Parliament (MP) Sandile Nxumalo raised a concern on the day of the presentation of the budget speech, that the minister could be presenting same unconstitutionally, because he had not been sworn-in as a member of the House.
5ijkenberg was appointed by His Majesty King Mswati III as a Senator and he took his oath of allegiance at Senate before he swapped seats with Deputy Prime Minister Thuli Dladla.
Clarity
On )ebruary 2 , 2024, the day on which 5ijkenberg delivered the budget speech in Parliament, Nxumalo rose on a point of clarity and drew the attention of the House to Section 2 of the Constitution.
The section stipulates that every MP shall, before taking the seat as such member, take and subscribe before the chamber, of which that member is a member, the oath of allegiance that is set out in the Second Schedule or such other oath as may be prescribed.
Nxumalo’s contention was that the presentation of the budget by the minister could be unconstitutional, owing to the fact that he did not take the oath of allegiance in the House, but Senate, yet the budget was delivered in the House.
At the time, Attorney General Sifiso Khumalo responded by sharing with the parliamentarians that there was nothing wrong with the minister delivering his speech in the House, by virtue of having taken the oath in the Senate Chamber. He referred to that as the oath of Parliament, which was the same for both members of the House and Senate members. Khumalo then wrote a letter giving further clarity to the members of the House on the matter and the letter was read by the Speaker of the House -abulani Mabu]a yesterday, before the swearing-in of the minister.
Letter
In the letter, Khumalo emphasised that the oath was the same, for both members of Senate and those of the House.
He shared that effectively, MPs went through the same process when taking the oath. It is not an oath for Senate or House it is an oath for members of Parliament.
“We are aware that Section 2 of the Constitution provides, takes and subscribes before that chamber, of which that member is a member, the oath of allegiance,” he said.
Khumalo continued to say, “It is our considered view that the crafters of the Constitution did not envisage a swap of MPs and it could not have been the intention of the lawgiver to subject MPs to the same processes twice if we perceive the Constitution as a living document.”
The AG mentioned through the letter that as a matter of compromise and alignment, in putting the matter to bed once and for all, there was nothing wrong legally speaking, in administering the oath again should some members feel strongly about it.
“It is important for Parliament and the (xecutive to have a smooth working relationship and start off on a good footing as we begin the life of the 2th Parliament,” he said.