|
High Court and Supreme Court Registrar Sylvester Kalembera says despite pressure from opposition parties on the Speaker of Parliament to use Section 65 to decide the fate of MPs who are working with government, the Speaker has no mandate to act on the provision until the court makes its interpretation of the Section as asked by President Bingu wa Mutharika.
Kalembera said Wednesday following an earlier court ruling, it would be contempt of court for anyone to make a decision based on Section 65.
“In that ruling, it is very clear that everything else about Section 66 in Parliament should be stopped until there is an interpretation of Section 65. So, as far as I am concerned, if there is a ruling and somebody goes against that then they would be in contempt of court,” said Kalembera.
Malawi Congress Party (MCP) president John Tembo during his response to Mutharika’s budget opening statement on Friday urged Speaker Louis Chimango not to be afraid to take some of the MPs—who abandoned their parties on the opposition side—to their rightful places.
“We have noted that the government side has grown since we last met although we did not have an election. I can say there are people sitting in wrong places. Mr. Speaker, don’t be afraid to take them to the right places,” he said.
Adding: “As for matters affecting Section 65, we can say no more since it is in court except to say that this House should exercise its responsibility as stipulated in the Standing Orders. If a decision is made, those injured let them go to court and come back through the courts.”
Section 65 is in court via a Presidential Referral where Mutharika is seeking the court’s interpretation on crossing the floor in Parliament.
Over 50 MPs from the government side have their seats under threat if the Speaker nods to the request by MCP and UDF and the delay in the court interpretation has brought tension in the House with the opposition blaming the courts for dragging its feet on the matter.
But Kalembera explained in a statement Wednesday that the delay was due to the fact that the court had to look at some preliminary issues like whether the Speaker and the National Assembly should be party to the case and also whether the two can engage a private lawyer.
On the two matters, the Constitutional Court threw out the Speaker and the National Assembly from the case and further ruled that the two have no authority to engage private legal counsel since that mandate rests with the Attorney-General.
The two appealed against the ruling.
Kalembera said the appeal hearing was delaying since after the filing of the notice of appeal, no further process was filed to have the record of appeal settled as is required by the rules.
“It was only on Friday, 9th June, 2006 that counsel for the appellants brought a consent order on the settlement of the record of appeal which the court duly issued. The appeal was immediately set down for hearing on the 19th June, 2006 at 9:00 am,” he said.
He added: “The responsibility of moving cases forward lies with the parties to the case or their lawyers. If the parties or their lawyers do not move the court then the case will not be heard. The Judiciary has not at any point whatsoever been responsible for the delay of the interpretation of section 65. We cannot deny anybody the right of appeal just for purposes of expediting hearing of a particular case.”
|
