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.
Post a Comment