By Patson Chilemba
I am not answerable to LAZ, speaker of the National Assembly Nelly Mutti has said.
Contacted by Daily Revelation on observations by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) that she proceeded to act on the instructions of one faction, and effected changes to the leadership in the National Assembly, even when fully aware the matter was contested among the parties in the courts of law, Speaker Mutti said [pp-logged-users]
“You know me, I am not supposed to comment on these things. I am the subject matter. So if you want people to comment go to the government chief whip, there are people who can talk. I can’t comment on the matter,” Speaker Mutti said. “You do some reading. Read and make your own judgment.”
But put to her that LAZ was specifically raising issues against her and not the other people she was mentioning, Speaker Mutti said: “Awee, no! Why? Why should I be asked? I’m not answerable to LAZ. I am answerable to the house (Parliament). My work is in the house.”
She continued: “I have done my part. Anybody who is not happy let them go to court. I don’t want to be involved. I don’t want to comment on the matter please leave me out of it.”
LAZ has expressed concerns with the happenings surrounding the PF but was quick to point out that the happenings do not justify interference by external stakeholders including state institutions.
LAZ president Lungisani Zulu observed that the conduct of various state institutions clearly demonstrates a narrative that the state is interested in legitimizing the actions of one faction of the Patriotic Front over the other, even when the matter is yet to be finally determined by the courts of law.
He cited Speaker Mutti who proceeded to act on the instructions of one faction, and effected changes to the leadership of National Assembly, even when fully aware the matter was contested among the parties in the courts of law.
He stated that it is established practice steeped in commonwealth parliamentary tradition that Parliament does not act on matters which are sub judice.
“The speaker should have insisted on being satisfied that ‘election’ were held in respect of any changes to the position of the leader of the opposition in Parliament, at the very least, on account of being fully aware of different factions in the Patriotic Front leadership, so as to protect the House from embarrassment,” Zulu stated. “Additionally, Article 74 of the Constitution, on the procedure for election of the leader of opposition, requires that the opposition political party with the largest number of seats in the National Assembly must elect a leader of the opposition from amongst the members of Parliament who are from the opposition.”
Zulu stated that election of the leader of opposition is therefore, not an internal party matter, but a constitutional issue of immense public interest.
“As the Head of the legislature, the Speaker must ensure that the Constitutional requirements are duly satisfied by all person’s subject to her lawful authority in the House and wherever elections are required, the same are conducted transparently and in a publicly accountable manner in tandem with democratic principles,” Zulu stated. “LAZ will therefore, move the Constitutional Court to make pronouncements on the procedure for electing the leader of opposition to bring the much needed clarity, especially that precedence does not appear to be adhering to the requirements of the Constitution.”
He has however, called on the members of parliament to accord Speaker Mutti the requisite respect of her Constitutional role of ensuring order in the House.
Zulu stated that no one gains, saying in fact citizens who look to Parliament to enact laws and hold the executive accountable lose, when Parliament is ungovernable.[/pp-logged-users]
1 Comment