Windhoek
President of SWANU and Member of Parliament Usutuaije Maamberua has requested the Attorney-General to seek an interpretation of Article 45 of the Namibian Constitution from the Supreme Court of Namibia.
Article 45 states: “The members of the National Assembly shall be representative of all the people and shall in the performance of their duties be guided by the objectives of this Constitution, by the public interest and by their conscience.”
Maamberua says he is making the request to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Article in relation to the duties of parliamentarians and the Speaker.
He said he tabled a motion in the National Assembly on February 24 to “discuss and debate the need or otherwise of constructing a new parliament building, after President Hage Geingob stated there might a need for an open debate on the matter in parliament during the opening of parliament.”
“It was during the motivation that I was ordered to stop by Honourable Speaker Professor Peter Katjavivi, upon request by the Right Honourable Prime Minister, purportedly to consult with me outside the Assembly considering the sensitivity of the issue,” Maamberua wrote to the AG.
He complained that the matter was then removed from the order paper and five months down the line no consultations have taken place.
“Since this matter is of national interest and the Speaker shows total disregard towards it, although I have at various occasions – in the House and during the Standing Rules and Orders Committee meetings – enquired about it, but to no avail, I am forced to conclude that my Constitutional rights and those of the people are being denied.”
He further said as a duly elected leader of the Namibian people, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia and the Electoral Act of Namibia (Act 24 of 1992), his right to represent the people cannot unjustifiably be curtailed by the Speaker or by any member of the House.
“It is my considered opinion that my Constitutional right has been violated and severely curtailed in an unconstitutional manner, therefore, I have to seek through your good office an interpretation by the Supreme Court as a court of original jurisdiction on Constitutional matters of the actions of the Speaker pertaining to this matter” Maamberua stated.
He said he specifically seeks an interpretation as to whether the Speaker acted constitutionally by not allowing him to speak on his motion without indicating any rule of the House he violated, if any.
Similarly, he said, he seeks an interpretation to establish whether a motion can be removed from the House at the “whims of the Honourable Speaker”, or any other member – even if all House rules have been complied with.
“Within the same Article I seek interpretation of the compatibility or otherwise of the actions of the Speaker, with my rights as a Member of Parliament and the rights of the people being represented, in the context of what has transpired above,” Maamberua concluded.