Landless People’s Movement leaders Bernadus Swartbooi and Henny Seibeb have turned to the courts again to challenge a decision taken by a parliamentary committee to investigate their conduct in the August House.
In a review application filed on 8 December, Swartbooi and Seibeb say the decision taken on 26 April by the committee on privileges is legally void because it was taken at an improperly-constituted meeting.
“The first respondent (Speaker Peter Katjavivi) has to recuse himself in terms of Rule 68 (3) of the rules from presiding over that decision.
He did not. Furthermore, the third applicant (LPM) had the right to nominate another member to act in my stead as a member of the privileges committee, pursuant to Rule 68 (3).
The third applicant (LPM) was not afforded such,” Swartbooi said in his affidavit.
Thus, they are seeking a court order that would review, set aside and correct the decision of the committee on privileges, and the decision of the rules committee on 21 April to refer the matter to the committee on privileges.
The LPM also wants the court to review, set aside and correct the National Assembly’s decision to adopt the findings of a report titled “Investigation into the Conduct of Hon. Bernadus Swartbooi and Hon. Henny Seibeb on 15 April 2021 during the State of the Nation Address”.
In September, the two lawmakers were found guilty of misconduct by a parliamentary committee, which suggested to parliament that it should impose a penalty on them. The parliamentary committee also suggested they should not receive further punishment.
National Assembly spokesperson David Nahogandja said at the time that any sanctions to be imposed against the two lawmakers will be decided by the August House, and not by Speaker Katjavivi.
Swartbooi and Seibeb in April brought the joint sitting of parliament to a standstill while President Hage Geingob was delivering his annual state of the nation address.
The pair caused several disruptions, and got embroiled in a shouting match that eventually ended in their removal from the session.
Swartbooi also knocked off the ceremonial mace from its stand, while Seibeb was led out the door by Geingob’s security detail.
The sitting was then adjourned – and in May, the High Court dismissed, with costs, a case in which the two parliamentarians were challenging the decision by Katjavivi to bar them from attending parliament.
However, on appeal, the Supreme Court in August found the decision to suspend Swartbooi and Seibeb was outside Katjavivi’s powers, and further that it was not made in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Parliament Act.