Parliamentary privilege, proxies and hate politics

Après la révision constitutionnelle...

07/05/2008

Source: Tazoacha Asonganyi (icicemac.com)

Adama Modi, one of the parliamentarians of the national assembly has openly expressed his disgust at the repeated preference of the CPDM party for Cavaye Yeguié Djbril, another MP, for the presidency of the national assembly.

History has it that in spite of his parliamentary immunity defined by Ordinance No. 72-12 of 26 August 1972 which clearly states that members of parliament should not be questioned elsewhere for votes or debates in the national assembly, he was questioned by a committee set up by the Head of State, President of the CPDM for opinions he expressed in parliament. This was nothing short of a breach of parliamentary privilege! Further, although Chapter XIII (Articles 56-59) of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly clearly defines the "delegation of voting rights" by a member of parliament, there has been much accusation and counter-accusation in the press about whether or not Paul Ayah, another MP left such a delegation in the assembly, which was used to vote on his behalf.

The CPDM parliamentarian who voted on his behalf is most vulnerable to the line of attack opened by the press on this issue, whether she is guilty as changed or not, because it fits in with the general fraudulent character and behaviour of barons of her party. It is incredible that although the rules on the issue are very clear, she has not made any serious effort to convince us that she acted within the ambit of the rules when she voted on behalf of her colleague.
To remain in a party and yet disagree with itsleadership on central issues of the day is not a joke. Forcing members to vote against their convictions or drawing artificial lines to contain rebellion to contentious issues are all familiar behaviour in party politics. In general, although a party member can speak for the party on public issues, the party cannot speak for its member on such issues! It is immoral for a party to force its member to violate his conscience or violate the national interest. Using fraud to obtain the consent of a member on an important societal issue can only be the handiwork of persons with the same morals as those daily exposed as embezzlers of public funds. MPs are supposed to use the immense moral authority of their positions to offer leadership and inspiration…

Interestingly, although article 15(2) of the constitution of Cameroon states that each member of the national assembly represents the entire nation, we are told that Chief Inoni had to answer for the "negative" vote of an MP against the amendment of the constitution to give Paul Biya the latitude to rule for life! We are also told that he was not answering for it because he is the Prime Minister of the entire nation, but because he originates from the South West Province with the MP. After all, by the constitution, you are either "autochtone" or "allogène"; native or stranger! One of the hallmarks of the "new deal" regime is duplicity: representing the whole nation while being native or stranger; professing "national unity" while institutionalising divisiveness!

Sometimes the expression of political opinion based on conscience can attract visceral dislike and cloud the political judgement of even one’s colleagues. One may hate the guts of a colleague, but to extend the hatred to family, village and area of origin is a mark of the bankruptcy of politics in our country.Several weeks ago, Hon. Ayah brought the case of the ethnic conflict in Akwaya to public attention. No one seemed to listen except the press! Only recently did we learn that Manyu Chiefs met and decided to pay attention to the problem. It is like the administrative authorities were saying that since the MP did not want their amendment to pass, they did not care what was happening in Akwaya, his place of origin.It is a good thing that the Manyu Chiefs have also drawn attention to the conflict. It is also a good thing that Divine Ewane, NGO personnel recently highlighted the problem in a newspaper interview, although surprisingly, he failed to mention the MP even once!We can only hope that the partisan administrative authorities will shed their hate politics, their incredible intolerance and spite, and their insensitivity to the sufferings of citizens under their charge, and pay attention to the welfare of the people without any consideration for the political opinions of their leaders.

Réagir