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). 
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.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.
Post a Comment