Rudolf Gaiseb
The Speaker of the National Assembly Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila, has responded to concerns raised by opposition members of Parliament regarding the handling of parliamentary debates and proceedings.
Responding to enquiries from New Era on Wednesday, the Office of the Speaker said when she rules a member out of order, issues a caution, or directs a member to resume their seat, this is the exercise of a constitutional duty and not a personal act.
“The rules are not the Speaker’s rules. They are Parliament’s rules. The Speaker’s obligation is simply to apply them,” the communique states.
“Every intervention made from the Chair is a direct application of the Standing Rules that Members themselves have adopted to govern proceedings,” it reads.
Prior, in a social media post on Tuesday, Popular Democratic Movement legislator Inna Hengari wrote that she is now “actually convinced that the Speaker of Parliament deliberately frustrates members to make it seem as though they’re disruptive.”
The post comes after PDM leader McHenry Venaani on Tuesday stood up on a point of order to a deliberation being made by the Minister of Works and Transport, Veikko Nekundi, on the Petroleum Amendment Bill.
Hengari claims Venaani was in the middle of sharing his point of order when the Speaker banged the gavel several times and “discouraged” Venaani from continuing, stating, “You are arguing with the member [Nekundi], and you cannot do that.”
Hengari on Wednesday told New Era that “it is something that happens almost every day, where the Speaker grants a member the opportunity to take the floor, and while the member is on the floor making their point, whether right or wrong, the Speaker just interrupts.”
She further said, “You can’t preside and engage members while you’ve given them the floor to speak. You can’t debate with members because once you avail yourself of the seat, you forego the right to debate or engage in a debate of any nature. You also can’t say members can only rise if their rights or privileges have been infringed.”
Hengari, citing the Parliament’s Standing Rules, Orders and Internal Arrangements, said the speaker must act fairly and impartially and apply the standing rules with due regard to ensuring the participation of all members in a manner consistent with democracy.
“It’s also a house of representation. I don’t disregard the fact that we equally have a responsibility to uphold those very rules. But it becomes entirely impossible to sit there and watch as the speaker is just biased and partial in her decisions and in the application of the rules of the house,” Hengari said.
The Office of the Speaker stated that Rule 90 of the Standing Rules, Orders and Internal Arrangements provides that Members shall be heard in silence and may only be interrupted under specified circumstances.
A rule is indicated to exist to protect every member’s right to speak without disruption, including those who now raise these concerns.
“When the Speaker intervenes, it is to enforce exactly this protection. If a member perceives the Speaker’s rulings as frustrating, it is likely because those rulings are being applied consistently and without exception, which is precisely what impartiality demands. The Speaker has no authority to selectively apply the rules in favour of some Members and against others,” she justified.
“If a member perceives the Speaker’s rulings as frustrating, it is likely because those rulings are being applied consistently and without exception, which is precisely what impartiality demands,” it further states.
It is also stated that when a member raises a point of order, they are required to cite the specific standing rule upon which their point is based or, at minimum, clearly state the principle or subject matter concerned.
“This is not a bureaucratic technicality. It is a safeguard to prevent the point-of-order mechanism from being misused to derail legitimate debate,” the office substantiated.
The rules outline that where a member’s point of order does not meet the required standard, the Presiding Officer is empowered to instruct the Member to resume their seat and rule the point out of order.
Early this month, MPs also caucused the “disregard” the opposition parties experience.
This was after the passing of the Public Service Commissioner motion that caused a series of parliament disruptions.
It was passed despite opposition members of Parliament decrying that the process was unprocedural and opaque.
The Landless People’s Movement parliamentarian Dawid Eigub expressed disappointment after that, saying, in accordance with the country’s democratic process, “We give input by probing matters, asking questions, organising meetings with ministers, and giving recommendations.”
They said their input is not incorporated into the decision-making process.
However, the Office of the Speaker maintained that the speaker serves as custodian of parliamentary order, not as a participant in debate.
“The Speaker’s role is to ensure that proceedings are conducted lawfully, fairly, and in accordance with the rules that Parliament has set for itself. The National Assembly remains committed to open, accountable, and rule-based parliamentary democracy. Any Member who believes a ruling has been made in error has a clear and formal path to challenge it, and the Secretariat of the National Assembly welcomes the proper use of that mechanism,” it states