Parliament yesterday expressed fear that implementation of a court injunction Mangochi South West legislator Shadric Namalomba obtained ordering Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)

 legislators to revert to their previous seating plan will set a bad precedent.

Leader of the House Richard Chimwendo Banda raised the concern after Speaker of the National Assembly Catherine Gotani Hara announced that in line with the High Court of Malawi order Namalomba obtained and served on the Attorney General’s office, the seating arrangement for DPP members of Parliament (MPs) in the chamber would revert to the arrangement before estranged Leader of Opposition in Parliament Kondwani Nankhumwa changed the same on February 15 2022.

The Speaker said: “In line with Section 5 of the National Assembly Powers and Privileges Act, Parliament cannot be served with any court process while it is seating, such court process cannot be served through the Speaker, Clerk of Parliament or any member of the Assembly.

Hara: Documents served on the Attorney General

“The court documents on this matter were served on the office of the Attorney General and it is on this basis that I am making this announcement.”

But Chimwendo Banda expressed fear that the injunction would set a bad precedent where MPs would just wake up one day to serve Parliament with an order to stop proceedings.

 In the court action where DPP is an interested party, Namalomba, who is also DPP spokesperson, obtained permission to start judicial review proceedings against Nankhumwa in relation to the party’s decisions, including the seating arrangement and appointment of a shadow Cabinet as well as spokespersons on various issues in the National Assembly.

The order also stopped Nankhumwa from discharging his duties as Leader of Opposition in Parliament without prior consultation and written approval of the party until a further order of the court.

In his reaction, Chimwendo Banda said Parliamentary Standing Order 39 (4) states that the seats

 on the left hand of the Speaker should be reserved for the Leader of Opposition and members of the opposition in accordance with any request that the Leader of Opposition may at any time make to the Speaker.

He said: “Madam Speaker, this ruling or the announcement you have made seems to depart from the constitutional provisions and from our own standing orders.

“The ruling that you have communicated does not in any way say the leader of opposition is no longer Leader of Opposition.

“Our standing orders clearly say that at anytime, even after this ruling, he [Leader of Opposition] can come up with another seating plan. Does it mean the ruling is gagging us for the next five years? This is to me an infringement of our standing orders and the Constitution.”

But Hara told the House that the Attorney General had communicated that he would move the court to challenge the injunction.

Minister of Lands Sam Kawale also said he was concerned with the precedent being set by Parliament where it will be difficult for the House to transact business due to court interventions.

“We are eroding the whole essence of the independence of Parliament if we continue entertaining these injunctions,” he said.

Chipping in, Minister of Justice Titus Mvalo, a lawyer by profession, said it was unfortunate that the law, as it is, the immunity granted under Section 60

of the Constitution is limited to arrests for criminal offences except treason while Parliament is seating or MPs moving about or within the precincts of Parliament.

He said he fully endorsed the position taken by the Leader of the House that the court order would jeopardise parliamentary proceedings. However, he said the decision of the court needed to be respected to avoid contempt of court.

Mvalo said: “Moving forward, there is need for serious consideration of amendment to the law and in particular to extend immunity to not just the Speaker and deputies, but also Parliament Secretariat and all the committees against serving of civil summons because of the potential of crippling the proceedings of the National Assembly.

But Chimwendo Banda argued that it would be difficult to proceed with business of the day because there was no one who moved a motion to revert to the old seating plan as directed by the court order.

However, the Speaker said there was no need to move a motion because the court order was clear that the House should only revert back to the old seating plan that was there before the changes.

In an interview after Parliament adjourned for yesterday’s business, Namalomba said he was happy that the rule of law was being respected. He said he was impressed with the Speaker for standing firm

The post Court shakes Parliament appeared first on The Nation Online.