Speaker of the National Assembly of Tanzania Hon. Anne Makinda
poses for a group photo after the evening session of the conference with
the delegation of Tanzania to the 127 Inter-Parliamentary Union
Conference (IPU) in Quebec, Canada. From right is Hon. David Kafulila
(Mp), Hon. Suzan Lyimo (Mp), Tanzania High Commissioner to Canada Hon.
Alex Masinda, EALA Mp from Tanzania Hon. Dr. Perpetua Nderakindo Kessy,
and Mr. Joseph Sokoine Minister Plenipotentiary
Delegation of Tanzania attending the panel session of the 127
Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference (IPU) during the discussion on
Parliamentary Immunity: Benefit or Burden?. From Left is Hon. Suzan
Lyimo (Mp), Mr. James Warbag, Assistant Director – Table Office and Hon.
Hamad Rashid Mohamed (Mp). Photo by Owen Mwandumbya
----
By Owen Mwandumbya, Quebec Canada
Members of Parliament have
spoken out in support of having immunities while performing the work as
people’s representatives in parliaments and other works related to that.
They said that during the Panel Session having a topic: Parliamentary
Immunity: Benefit Or Burden? At the 127 inter- parliamentary Union (IPU)
Conference which is taking place here in Quebec City, Canada since 21
to 26 October, 2012.
They said freedom of expression
is the working tool of the Member of Parliament. It enabled them to do
their jobs as representatives of people and to speak out criticize the
government and denounce abuses. Parliamentary immunities is designed to
ensure that parliamentarians can freely express themselves without
hindrance and fear of prosecution.
During the debate, Mps said
there is a tendency of Citizen generally to perceive immunity as a
negative concept; they tend to see it as a way of politicians themselves
to place above the law, thing that are very untrue.
This is particularly true in
countries where parliamentary immunity, in the form of inviobility
offers protections to Mps against legal proceedings for acts they carry
it outside the confines of parliamentary duties.
The public reasoning they may be
partly due to the lack of understanding of the purpose of parliamentary
immunities. It may also reflect a more widely held belief that
excessive parliamentary immunity offers protections to those who should
be prosecuted and inversely failed to protect those who have done
nothing wrong.
The panel discussion took place
at the rationale and effectiveness of parliamentary immunity in today’s
world in particular in the light of public insistence on over greater
accountability.
The main questions here were,
should MPs enjoy parliamentary immunity, including from the legal
proceeding for acts unrelated to parliamentary duties in order to
effectively do their work? Should such immunity exist everywhere as a
matter of principle or only in fragile democracies?
A parts from majority saying
that immunities for Mps are inevitable, they also debate more on how can
one ensure that application of parliamentary immunity indeed protects
those subjected to political motivated charges – often members from the
opposition and that inversely, the majority in parliament cannon block,
for purely political reasons the prosecution of one of theirs.
Earlier, making his highlights,
Mr. John Williams (Canada) CEO of the global organization of
parliamentarians against corruption (GOPAC), urging that parliamentary
immunity it is counter productive and outdated, drawing the recent
decision by Slovak parliament to do away with the requirement of
parliamentary authorization before a member a member of parliament can
be prosecuted the point which was strongly opposed by many Mps and
saying this is an irrelevant and does not freely gave the right of Mps
to exercise the duties freely.
Sharing the experience from
Tanzania, an Mp from Tanzania Hon. Hamad Rashid Mohamed said in
Tanzania, statutory provisions covering parliamentary privilege is
defined in Article 100 of the constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania, which covers the privilege of freedom of speech and debate in
the Assembly and the parliamentary immunities, powers and privileges
Act, 1988 (No.3 of 1988).
The parliament and
parliamentarians have the Immunity from legal proceedings which is
clearly stated in the parliamentary immunities, powers and privileges
Act, 1988 (No.3 of 1988) Section 5 which is provides as follows:- “No
civil or criminal proceeding may be instituted against any member for
words spoken before the Assembly or any of its Committees, or by reason
of any matter or thing brought by him therein by petition, bill or
motion or otherwise, or for words spoken or act done bonafide in
pursuance of a decision or proceeding of the Assembly or a committee.’’
Hon. Hamada also said that the
law also provides the Immunity from arrest for civil debts which also
the law in Section 6 of Act no. 3 of 1988 states as follows:- “No member
shall be liable for arrest for any civil debt except for a debt the
contraction of which constitutes a criminal offence.” One among the
significant power the House has is the power of control over its own
affairs and proceedings. This is one of the significant attributes of
any independent Legislature
No comments:
Post a Comment