EDITORIAL: Clarity needed on Mbumba status
The question of whether Nangolo Mbumba is president or acting president is legitimate. Honest mistakes may have occurred, and while malicious intent cannot be ruled out, it seems highly unlikely.
One of the questions is whether Mbumba has in fact resigned as vice-president (VP). There was no announcement to this effect, so it’s safe to say he remains in that position. But, rather bizarrely, he has appointed Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah as VP.
Even if we assume that Mbumba resigned as VP, he did so following which law? Some argue that there is no legal provision for the resignation of a VP because it is presumed that the VP must remain in that position while acting as caretaker president.
The deafening silence of key institutions on this matter has been too loud, creating room for political opportunism, with everyone interpreting the law at the convenience of their own aspirations.
Now, we are even being told to look away and ignore the word ‘act’, which appears in Article 34, as it supposedly means something else. As someone asked over the weekend, why would a word suddenly have a different meaning?
We are caught up in a deliberate war of semantics, with political victory the targeted endgame. But our constitution is supreme and can never be used as a pawn in political games.
Clearly, there is parochial interest, but no one is above the law. Being honest and rectifying matters would not take anything away from Mbumba. If anything, it would only cement his reputation.
One of the questions is whether Mbumba has in fact resigned as vice-president (VP). There was no announcement to this effect, so it’s safe to say he remains in that position. But, rather bizarrely, he has appointed Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah as VP.
Even if we assume that Mbumba resigned as VP, he did so following which law? Some argue that there is no legal provision for the resignation of a VP because it is presumed that the VP must remain in that position while acting as caretaker president.
The deafening silence of key institutions on this matter has been too loud, creating room for political opportunism, with everyone interpreting the law at the convenience of their own aspirations.
Now, we are even being told to look away and ignore the word ‘act’, which appears in Article 34, as it supposedly means something else. As someone asked over the weekend, why would a word suddenly have a different meaning?
We are caught up in a deliberate war of semantics, with political victory the targeted endgame. But our constitution is supreme and can never be used as a pawn in political games.
Clearly, there is parochial interest, but no one is above the law. Being honest and rectifying matters would not take anything away from Mbumba. If anything, it would only cement his reputation.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article