Parliament is not a rubber stamp: Why every bill deserves scrutiny

A parliament that merely approves legislation without scrutiny ceases to be a legislature and becomes a conveyor belt for the Executive.

Unfortunately, this has become a worrying trend in Namibia's law-making process, where government Bills are often expected to pass through parliament with little debate, few amendments, and minimal critical examination.

The Namibian Constitution did not establish parliament as a ceremonial institution. It created a legislative body entrusted with the responsibility of making laws, overseeing the Executive, and protecting the interests of citizens; see Article 44 of the Namibian Constitution. Parliament is meant to act as a check on government power, not as an extension of it.

Yet, for many years, a culture of rubber-stamping has prevailed. Bills arrive from the Executive, and the expectation is that Members of Parliament should simply endorse them. The atmosphere often discourages robust debate. Members who question provisions or propose amendments are sometimes viewed as obstructing the process rather than fulfilling their constitutional obligation. Those days are gone; we (members of the opposition) will ensure that these bills are thoroughly scrutinised for the benefit of all Namibians.

The recent Mental Health Bill serves as a perfect example of why legislative scrutiny matters.

When the Bill was introduced, it lacked a definition of mental health itself. Such an omission in a piece of legislation dedicated entirely to mental health should have immediately raised concerns. Had the Bill passed in its original form, it could have created uncertainty regarding interpretation and implementation. It was only after opposition Members of Parliament insisted on proper scrutiny that a definition was included.

Even then, the proposed definition appeared to have been lifted directly from the World Health Organisation without any citation or acknowledgement. While there is nothing wrong with drawing on international best practices, legislation must be carefully adapted to Namibia's context and drafted with due regard for transparency and intellectual integrity.

Rubber stamping

An even greater concern emerged in Clause 20(3) of the Bill. The original provision stated that any determination regarding the mental health status of a patient could only be made by a psychiatrist.

On paper, this may have sounded reasonable. In practice, however, it was detached from reality.

Namibia has fewer than five registered psychiatrists serving a population of more than three million people. Restricting mental health determinations solely to psychiatrists would have created significant delays, denied many patients timely assessments, and placed an impossible burden on an already overstretched healthcare system.

Had parliament simply rubber-stamped the Bill, this problematic provision would have become law.

Fortunately, opposition MPs challenged the clause and successfully pushed for an amendment. The revised provision now allows mental health determinations, for persons other than forensic mental health patients, to be made by a medical practitioner, clinical psychologist, or mental health practitioner. This amendment reflects the realities of Namibia's healthcare landscape and makes mental health services more accessible to those who need them.

This experience demonstrates why parliamentary scrutiny is not an inconvenience, it is a necessity.

Good laws are rarely produced through blind approval. They emerge through rigorous debate, questioning, consultation, and amendment. Legislators must be prepared to interrogate every clause, identify unintended consequences, and ensure that laws are practical, constitutional, and beneficial to the public.

The strength of its parliament can often measure the health of a democracy. A weak Parliament simply endorses decisions made elsewhere. A strong Parliament exercises independent judgment, holds the Executive accountable, and improves legislation before it reaches the people.

Namibia deserves a Parliament that legislates, not one that rubber-stamps.

A strong Parliament is one that debates, questions, amends, and improves legislation. Democracy is not served when MPs simply vote as instructed; it is served when elected representatives exercise independent judgment in the interests of the nation.

As elected representatives, our duty is not to make life easier for the Executive. Our duty is to make laws that serve the people of Namibia. When parliament performs its oversight role effectively, citizens benefit. When it fails to do so, the consequences can be felt for generations.

The Mental Health Bill is a reminder that scrutiny matters. And this answers the question of why parliament has not yet passed any law other than appropriation bills. Namibia, do not worry; Bills will be passed, but will be well scrutinised first. Not just clause 30, agreed to, DACOO.

*Ester Haikola-Sakaria (Member of Parliament, AR)

PhD candidate; Master of Science: Biodiversity and Research; B.Sc. Environmental Biology and Geography; Postgraduate Diploma: Monitoring and Evaluation and

Postgraduate Diploma: Education: Math and Biology