The Speaker is not parliament

The National Assembly of Namibia is not the personal property of the Speaker, the ruling party or any individual political office-bearer. It is an institution of the Namibian state, established to represent the people, make laws, scrutinise government and provide a forum in which competing political views can be expressed through constitutional and parliamentary processes.Constitutional democracy makes a fundamental distinction between the authority to exercise power and the legitimacy with which that power is exercised. Understanding this clarifies the gravely troubling institutional onslaught surrounding the repeated removal of Affirmative Repositioning (AR) leader and Member of Parliament, Professor Dr Job Amupanda, from the National Assembly.The issue is not whether Members of Parliament should obey parliamentary rules, nor that parliamentary privilege is a license for disorder. Every Member of Parliament has an obligation to respect the Standing Rules and Orders. Equally, the National Assembly ought to examine what the Speaker, Saara Kuugongelwa Amadhila, is permitted to do and whether the authority is exercised consistently, according to the rules and principles, in the spirit that commands public confidence without personal animosities and political discrimination. That principle is fundamental.The Speaker is not merely the person who controls the microphone. The Speaker is the custodian of parliamentary procedure. The authority of the chair derives from the rules and the Constitution, not from personal authority. Consequently, when a member is ruled out of order, denied an opportunity to raise a legitimate point of order, suspended from participation or removed from the Chamber, the public must be able to see that the decision is based upon an identifiable rule and applied consistently. The Speaker’s responsibilities include maintaining order and preserving the dignity of the House. The Parliament's own description of the Speaker's office goes further: when presiding, the Speaker is expected to be impartial, should not favour a political party, and must make rulings in the interest of the nation.On 17 June 2026, proceedings in the National Assembly descended into disorder after opposition members challenged rulings by Speaker Honourable Saara on the application of parliamentary rules, points of order, and the conduct of proceedings, ultimately forcing the sitting to be adjourned. In September, the opposition introduced a motion to remove the Speaker, citing concerns about fairness and impartiality in applying parliamentary rules, among other events that put our Parliament in disrepute due to the Speaker's actions. Similarly, the decorum and functionality issues that arose when the Deputy Speaker presided.Therefore, the narrative that paints and isolates (AR) as disruptive is untruthful.These developments should not be dismissed as ordinary political confrontation; they should concern every Namibian who believes Parliament must function as a serious constitutional institution. According to Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN) statistics, the Affirmative Repositioning Movement (AR) secured 72,227 votes and 6 seats in the 2024 National Assembly election. Parliamentary proceedingsThose votes are not abstract numbers. They represent citizens who deliberately chose a political vehicle outside the traditional political establishment to represent their interests in the country's highest legislative Chamber.Consequently, when an elected AR representative is removed from parliamentary proceedings, the effect cannot be understood and felt exclusively as a disciplinary action against one individual. An institutional consequence follows: a portion of the electorate is temporarily deprived of the full parliamentary participation of the representative through whom it expresses its political mandate. It affects the constituents who elected that representative. It potentially deprives thousands of Namibians of an opportunity to hear their elected representative question government, challenge legislation, raise matters of public concern and participate in National Assembly discourse within the rules of Parliament.The question before Namibia is therefore larger than the fate of one Member of Parliament. It concerns the relationship between power, participation and democratic institutions. Frantz Fanon warned against political systems in which the people become spectators rather than active participants in shaping their own political destiny. He wrote, “The demurring is the people themselves and the magic hands are finally only the hands of the people.” The Wretched of the Earth. The relevance to Parliament is profound: elected representatives do not own the mandate they carry; they are instruments through which citizens participate in the affairs of the state.Paulo Freire similarly cautioned against structures that deny people meaningful participation, observing, “Any situation in which some men prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence.” Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In a parliamentary democracy, questioning, disagreement, scrutiny and debate are not inconveniences to be eliminated. Those inquiries are essential features of democratic government.A functioning National Assembly is essential to democracy. Parliament makes laws, scrutinises the Executive, considers public expenditure and provides a platform through which citizens' concerns reach the state. If parliamentary proceedings repeatedly collapse into confrontation over the chair's conduct, the institution itself suffers. The solution is therefore not authoritarianism. It is procedural constitutionalism: the disciplined exercise of authority according to rules, principles, consistency and institutional restraint. Political confrontationThe Speaker should desist from any tendency, whether intentional or perceived, that creates the impression that parliamentary procedure is being selectively deployed against AR or its leadership. The answer to disruptive conduct should be transparent procedure. The answer to disagreement should be debate. The answer to criticism should be argument, and the answer to political confrontation should be institutional maturity.Fanon reminds us that the people are the ultimate political actors. Freire reminds us that dialogue and participation are conditions of genuine democratic engagement. Parliamentary tradition reminds us that confidence in the Speaker's impartiality is indispensable. Together, these principles point to one conclusion: Parliament must never become an institution in which procedural authority is mistaken for political supremacy.The Speaker's authority should be strong enough to maintain order, but restrained enough to respect dissent. AR’s representatives should be disciplined enough to respect Parliament, but free enough to challenge power. The National Assembly must remain what the Constitution intended: a forum where the sovereignty of the Namibian people is transformed into debate, scrutiny, legislation, and accountability.That is the essence of parliamentary democracy.*Modestus Kasoma Kupembona is a Namibian social justice activist, civic commentator and community organiser from Nkurenkuru in the Kavango West Region.

The Speaker is not parliament

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-02

Please login to leave a comment

The Speaker is not parliament

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-02

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Login

Subscription Required to Access Content