Editorial Comment: MPs must account for their actions

THE Speaker of the National Assembly Cde Jacob Mudenda appears to have stirred a hornet’s nest when he issued a warning recently that MPs should avoid making “unsubstantiated allegations against any member of Parliament or any member of the public”. He warned that a member “who fails to observe this rule may be liable for censure in this House or be charged with contempt”.

Mudenda said MPs were abusing the Privileges and Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act to make damaging allegations against fellow MPs or members of the public.

Some MPs have reacted by claiming that they are being gagged for exposing corruption during debate in Parliament.
This week there were reports that some MPs across the political divide had connived to boycott Parliament to protest the Speaker’s ruling.
We fully support the MPs in demanding that there should be thorough debate on the pervasive cancer of corruption.

We also feel the MPs are better placed to expose this scourge because of the protection afforded them by parliamentary privileges. But that is as far as it goes.

We equally feel that the Speaker is within his rights to rein in errant legislators who are wont to make wild, damaging and unsubstantiated claims, especially against members of the public who cannot immediately defend themselves. Reputations are built over a life time but can be ruined within a minute, either by the act of the individual him/herself or reckless claims or remarks by an MP who enjoys protection of the law.

It is, therefore, important that freedom of speech and parliamentary privilege are exercised with great responsibility.
They cannot be used to besmirch fellow citizens in the context of inter-party rivalry.

Corruption knows no skin colour nor political affiliation.
What the Speaker has done is to try and protect everyone’s reputation, including the offending MPs themselves who want to play holier-than-thou.

They are not always clean.
The Speaker did not impose a blanket ban on debate on corruption.
He said members should be able to substantiate their claims.

In this he is very correct.
Why are the MPs afraid to verify their facts, especially where this relates to salaries of public officers which can be easily verified?
We cannot have members of parliament who, because they don’t have anything substantive to say in Parliament but are itching to talk, stand up to attack people or make wild claims against innocent members of the public simply because they want to grab headlines in the next day’s newspapers.

These are the same MPs who complain bitterly when they are exposed for incompetence or failing to visit their constituencies until it’s time for another election.

Some of them are even happy that the issue of Constituency Development Funds was not pursued to its logical conclusion, where they would have been badly exposed.

How do our representatives hope to make and enforce good laws if they themselves are loath to behave responsibly in the House? Where is their honour?

The hypocrisy gets worse when we factor in the fact that some of the MPs conniving and plotting boycotts against the Speaker belong to a party which has just banned every official from talking to the public media, ostensibly because they are washing the party’s dirty linen in public.
What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

That is democracy and surely charity must begin at home! MPs must be held to account for their actions.