30 Mar 2014

Parliament has passed Lobatse MP, Mr Nehemiah Modubule's motion that called for the Amendment of Section 68(1) of the country’s constitution.

The proposed amendment bill would seek to provide for the right of legislators to continue as Members of Parliament (MPs) up to the day preceding elections or until new members were elected or appointed, and not to end MPs tenure upon dissolution of Parliament.

Presently, Section 68(1) allowed the Executive, the Speaker and councillors to remain in office up to the day preceding elections or until new members were elected or appointed.

When debating the motion, the Francistown South MP, Mr Wynter Mmolotsi said electorates were deprived representation for the two months that Parliament was dissolved prior to national elections. He was of the view that in entirety,.it would mean that they only served for 58 months and not the stipulated 60 months.

He said he wondered as to what were the gains of not paying the MPs for the two months that they were out of office upon dissolution of Parliament.

MP for Kweneng East, Major General Moeng Pheto concurred that MPs should remain custodians of the electorates even when Parliament had been dissolved hence it was important that they should continue as MPs until new ones were elected. “Our electorates expect us to continue assisting them until the day of elections,” he said.

He said the clause only sought to discriminate MPs as their counterparts in cabinet and councillors remained in office. Tonota North MP, Mr Fidelis Molao argued that this clause of the constitution was long overdue for amendment.

He said Batswana knew nothing about dissolution of Parliament and that all they knew was that an MP remained their representative until the next elections.

MP for Maun West, Mr Tawana Moremi said Section 95(5) of the constitution recognised the legitimacy of MPs because it stated that after dissolution of Parliament and before holding general elections of the elected members of the National Assembly, the President might summon the Parliament that would have been dissolved.

He said he wondered as to why then a dissolved Parliament could be summoned. Mr Tawana also questioned the practical impact of not paying MPs for two months.

Meanwhile, prior to adopting the motion that passed through a vote, which 19 MPs voted for, 11 against and 5 abstained, the MP for Moshupa, also Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration, Mr Mokgweetsi Masisi had moved that the debate on the motion be adjourned for further consultation and clarity on the motion.

He was of the idea that MPs should go through the constitution and look at all sections that might be affected. Mr Masisi said there was difference of opinion because the advice on the motion that the cabinet got from Attorney General was at variance from the one that the Parliamentary Counsel gave during the debate.

Mr Masisi said there was likelihood that some sections of the constitution such as 91 and 93 were going to be affected by the proposed amendment; hence these sections should also automatically be amended so that they were in tandem with the proposal as put.  

He was adamant that the Parliamentary Counsel’s verdict contradicted those of the Attorney General’s Chambers who indicated that the amendment will temper with other sections in the constitution.

The Parliamentary Counsel Thebe Ramokhua had advised the house that Section 68(1) was not entrenched and that the amendment of the Constitution as proposed by MP Modubule would have no bearing with other sections related as they (sections) were entrenched with nothing to affect them.

Minister Masisi further said as part of the executive, he felt that members should be dispassionate when discussing the proposed amendment bill because the constitution was very important.

He said he was not convinced that MPs wanted to trivialise the matter or draw the difference between ministers who tend to benefit against MPs who do not.

Minister Masisi said in terms of the advice he got from cabinet general assembly, there was no debate about the rights and integrity of Parliament, or tenure, but it was the provision and consequences of the dissolution particularly as it affected other sections of the constitution, some of which were entrenched.

He argued that it was the tradition of the house that if the proposed amendment had the likelihood to affect other sections in the constitution such as the motion before the House, should be refused.

Molepolole South MP, Mr Daniel Kwelagobe argued that Parliament had only one advisor that they relied on, who had been appointed by the Attorney General and said he wondered why they were discussing AG’s intervention on the matter. Ends