Constitutional axe hangs over Saara

Independent Patriots for Change (IPC) MP Michael Mulunga wants Speaker Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila removed from her post, arguing that her alleged failure to apply rules fairly and impartially is preventing parliament from holding the executive accountable.

Mulunga tabled the motion in the National Assembly on Wednesday under Article 51(2) of the Constitution, which empowers the body to remove the Speaker by resolution.

IPC argues that Kuugongelwa-Amadhila's interpretation and application of parliamentary rules have become a constitutional problem because they affect the National Assembly's ability to perform its oversight duties.

Mulunga told the House that the motion concerns the responsibilities attached to the office of Speaker, and whether Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has fulfilled them, not her character.

IPC bases its case on Standing Rule 27, which requires the Speaker to act fairly and impartially, apply the rules consistently and facilitate the democratic participation of all members.

“We therefore move that this House accordingly resolves that a resolution be, and is hereby, passed by the National Assembly in terms of Article 51(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, which provides for the Speaker to be removed from office by resolution of the National Assembly,” Mulunga said.

Cabinet accountable to parliament

IPC’s argument also relies on Article 41 of the Constitution, which provides that ministers are individually accountable for administering their ministries and collectively responsible to parliament for Cabinet’s work.

Mulunga’s motion argues that this accountability can be enforced only if the National Assembly conducts proceedings impartially and MPs can raise points of order, question ministers and participate effectively.

The motion also invokes Article 63(1), which sets out the National Assembly’s constitutional powers and functions. IPC links these responsibilities to the Speaker’s obligation to conduct proceedings in a manner that allows parliament to function.

Mulunga cited two occasions this year when parliamentary proceedings broke down as evidence that the dispute goes beyond occasional disagreements between opposition MPs and the Speaker.

“This year, the House failed to function twice,” he said.

He referred to events on 17 June, when MPs from several opposition parties challenged Kuugongelwa-Amadhila’s rulings after complaining that they were being ruled out of order before explaining the points they wanted to raise.

“On 17 June proceedings collapsed over rulings of the chair. Members of four parties objected that they were ruled out of order before the point of order could be stated,” Mulunga said.

The sitting was eventually adjourned after the Speaker struggled to restore order. MPs from the Popular Democratic Movement, IPC and Affirmative Repositioning were among those who challenged how the proceedings were being conducted.

Mulunga also referred to the events of 10 July, when almost every opposition party walked out during a dispute over the conduct of a vote, leaving the House without a quorum.

“A House does not fall over twice in a month when rules are applied evenly,” Mulunga stressed.

Speaker’s powers

The motion also challenges the extent of the Speaker’s authority when dealing with allegations of contempt against MPs.

IPC wants the National Assembly to affirm that a complaint alleging contempt must be referred to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Rule 111(1), rather than being decided by the presiding officer.

IPC argues that the Speaker must exercise only the powers provided by parliamentary law and follow the procedures prescribed by the standing rules.

The party also wants Kuugongelwa-Amadhila censured for allegedly failing to discharge the duties imposed on her by Standing Rule 27, particularly the requirement to act fairly and impartially and facilitate the participation of all MPs.

The motion created an immediate procedural difficulty because Kuugongelwa-Amadhila was presiding when Mulunga sought her removal.

She deferred her ruling on whether the motion could proceed, acknowledging the difficulty of deciding a matter directly concerning her position.

“I have to consider whether it can be tabled, but that ruling is deferred,” Kuugongelwa-Amadhila said.

She subsequently said: “I can't make a ruling on an issue that concerns me.”

Equal chances

Her response leaves parliament to determine which presiding officer should rule on the admissibility of a motion seeking the Speaker’s removal.

Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has previously rejected accusations that her management of parliamentary business restricts opposition MPs.

Her office said in July that she had afforded MPs equal opportunities to ask questions and participate in debates, regardless of their political affiliation. It said executive members were responsible for answering parliamentary questions.

“The backlog in answering questions has nothing to do with the speaker,” her office said at the time.

IPC chief whip Rodrick Likando, however, claimed that fewer questions were completed when Kuugongelwa-Amadhila presided because of lengthy rulings and interventions.