New Parly rules a stitch in time

unsightly event AN occurred in Parliament during the official opening ceremony and State of the Nation Address (Sona) in September 2018.

SMARTING from a chastening electoral defeat earlier that year, newly elected MDC parliamentarians were in the mood for confrontation. Having elected not to rise when dignitaries, including the President and the Chief Justice entered the House, the opposition legislators sought to disrupt proceedings further by breaking into song and dance.

This resulted in unwarranted commotion. Speaker of the National Assembly Advocate Jacob Mudenda, an unflinching stickler for rules, called the legislators to order.

His warning fell on deaf ears.

The Speaker duly ordered them out of the House to allow for proceedings to continue.

What followed was a nasty confrontation between police officers and the said parliamentarians.

The legislators were eventually thrown out of the House, but the event left a bitter taste in the mouth for most observers.

What we witnessed that day was the manifestation of dishonourable and unparliamentary behaviour, which is all too often exhibited by our “Honourable” MPs during House proceedings.

Sadly, the events of that day were to mark a series of similar occurrences of needless defiance and artless confrontation by opposition legislators.

In an apparent retaliatory effort in November last year, Zanu PF legislators boycotted the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Public Accounts (PAC) sitting, leading to the meeting’s cancellation.

Instances of dishonourable behaviour that includes the use of unparliamentary language, disruption of proceedings, needless interjections and at times fistfights appear to have become a perpetual feature in Parliament.

In the absence of strict rules to reign in offending and disruptive legislators, proceedings in the House have at times degenerated into an absolute farce.

Enforcing strict discipline on members of Parliament who deliberately flout rules and disrupt the House has always been a challenge for most Speakers in the history of our Parliament.

Beyond reprimands, that at best are slaps on the wrist, including ordering withdrawal from the precincts of the House and in serious cases temporary suspension for persistently and wilfully disrupting business, House authorities are handicapped.

Last year, Advocate Mudenda ordered the docking of five months’ worth of allowances for some opposition legislators who had disrupted House business but this order was quickly challenged in the courts.

In other jurisdictions, the Speaker is empowered to enforce discipline beyond what was allowed here.

In the British House of Commons, you will observe the strictness with which the Speaker enforces discipline; disruption and unparliamentary language is not tolerated.

Ex-speaker John Bercow was the epitome of this disciplinarian deportment.

We have seen countless times on television opposition Economic Freedom Fighters parliamentarians in South Africa being removed from the House for disorderly conduct.

These powers are wielded to an extent where they do not discourage robust debate. Not at all.

Robust debate should be the central pivot for any House business, but it should happen in a respectful and dutiful manner.

Millions of taxpayers’ dollars are going down the drain every year, through the acts of members that gratuitously disrupt critical House business. Which is why the introduction of new standing orders by the National Assembly last week is welcome.

In terms of the new rules, MPs could face suspension from the House for disorderly conduct.

Conduct that includes disrespecting the

President,

Chief

Justice,

Speaker of the

National

Assembly and Senate

President during a sitting can now land legislators in hot soup.

“At the commencement of business and when the house adjourns or business is suspended, members must stand in their places until the chair presiding has entered or left the chamber, as the case may be,” reads the new rules.

“On attendance of the President, a member shall stand in his or her place whenever the President enters or leaves the chamber.

“No member must interrupt another member while speaking save with the consent of that member or unless the purpose of such interruption is to call attention to a point of order or breach of privilege suddenly arising; or call attention to the want of a quorum,” read the regulations

Defying a ruling by the Speaker or Chairperson of Committees now constitutes disorderly conduct.

Anyone who attempts to or causes disorder of whatever nature during the attendance of the President or other dignitary during an address by the President shall also be guilty of disorderly conduct.

Refusal to retract unparliamentary language or offer an apology constitutes an offence. Penalties for these offences include ejecting an offending legislator from the chamber, suspending them for specific days or charging the member with contempt of Parliament in terms of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act. Armed with this new set of powers, we hope to see more orderly conduct and less of the revolting and unproductive

confrontations in the House.