Executive Director of African Centre for Parliamentary Affairs (ACEPA), Dr Rasheed Draman, has revealed that the Supreme Court in making its decision must consider the mood of the nation.

Dr Draman noted that the decision made by the Supreme Court must go beyond just what the law requires. He explained that due to the split nature of parliament, the minority side is interpreting the ruling by the court, on a Deputy Speaker having the right to vote on matters in parliament and presiding proceedings per its own understanding, by “dragging” the e-levy into the matter.

“It’s about balance of power. In normal times, it’s simply about voting rights but in the times with which we live in, with the 8^th parliament, I think that it goes far beyond that. When you talk about consensus, consensus simply does not just happen given what is happening in our parliament. A lot of work has to go in to making sure that the two sides come together. That is why some will say that maybe in the court, in making its decisions, must always also look at the mood of the nation and must consider many factors apart from just, maybe, simply the spirit of the law”.
Dr Rasheed Draman

The Executive Director for ACEPA revealed that the issues unfolding in the 8^th parliament was not rife under previous parliaments. He indicated that during the 6^th and 7^th parliament, there weren’t such challenges about issues involving deputy speakers and their presiding and voting over matters in parliament .

“This is happening mainly because of the split nature of the House and it also means that our standing orders [are] not fit for the kind of situation that we find ourselves in”.
Dr Rasheed Draman

Standing orders in parliament

Dr Draman described the ruling of the Supreme Court as “getting involved” in the business of parliament and not necessarily interference. He indicated that the standing orders which are currently in contention are not “absolute”. Following this, Dr Draman expressed that globally, there has always been “resistance by the courts” not to get involved in the business of parliament because they have to interpret the constitution.

“… And even the standing orders are clear… The orders that are in contention here, if you look at Order 109, it says, it should be [running] in tandem with Article 104 of our constitution. So, it means that, yes, they are masters of their own rules but those are not absolute… Given the mood of the nation, given what is happening in parliament, if you look at what this decision is going to do [and] looking at the business of parliament, rather than bringing the two sides together, we are already seeing very stuck divisions…”
Dr Rasheed Draman

Commenting on whether the decision taken by the Supreme Court was necessary, Dr Draman intimated that if the country was in “normal times”, he would have agreed absolutely with the Court’s decision. However, per his responsibilities in terms of “supporting the function of parliament”, he reckons that there are some difficulties with accepting it due to the “timing” of it.

“Right now, what we have been doing all this while is try to bring the two sides together. Now, if you have any matter that is taking them apart, then I think it poses some difficulty”.
Dr Rasheed Draman