Tue, 09 May 2017 12:51:38 +0000
By CHIKUMBI KATEBE
MAZABUKA central Member of Parliament Garry Nkombo has opposed suggestions to declare vacant 52 opposition UPND seats that the petition challenging them was not properly before court.
Mr Nkombo said the action by the petitioner sought to usurp powers and functions of the Speaker of the National Assembly when the House was an independent institution mandated by the Constitution.
He said under the laws of Zambia, including subsidiary regulation, the National Assembly had the ability of independently regulate itself under the Constitution.
The lawmaker explained that with regards to the events of 17th March, 2017 being subject of the petition, several points of order were raised on the floor of the house as a result.
“That under the legislation, subsidiary legislation, rules, regulations and standing orders that govern the conduct of parliamentary business and of parliamentary processes in general, the National Assembly is capable of and does regulate its own affairs a required under the constitution and the law.
“That upon perusal of the petition and the affidavit verifying facts and taking advice on the contents thereof from the respondents’ advocates, it has become apparent to me that they do not meet the requirements for action that ought to be brought before this Honourable Court,” he said. This is contained in his affidavit in support of respondents’ answer in the petition challenging the continued holding of office 52 UPND MPs who boycotted Republican President Edgar Lungu’s national address to parliament on March 12, 2017 on what seemed a protects against the Head of State.
Richard Mumba of Chifwakula Village in Chibombo district through a petition asked the Constitutional Court to declare and order 52 opposition seats vacant for shunning President Lungu’s parliamentary address.
But Mr Nkombo has argued that the National Assembly was already handling the matter within its confines of the law, as the office of the Clerk already communicated in writing to the affected MPs over the events of 17th March, 2017.
He charged that the matter said to be determined by the Court was already being handled and stood to be determined by the National Assembly in its decision based on the points of order raised.
He further argued that the petitioner, Mr Mumba, had no locus standi to sustain the action against the Parliamentarians over matters concerning the conduct within the House which was a preserve of the Assembly.
“That even assuming the petition was properly before the Honourable Court, there remains no basis for the granting of the reliefs sought as the actions of the respondents on 17th March 2017 were well within their constitutional rights and did not amount to the violation of any constitutional obligations on the part of the respondents.
