MPs guilty of criminal offences should lose seats
Jun 05, 2011
THE Parliamentary Appointments Committee has withheld approval for appointment of five individuals to ministerial positions, over either doubtful academic papers or integrity issues. Their appointment is now in balance.
THE Parliamentary Appointments Committee has withheld approval for appointment of five individuals to ministerial positions, over either doubtful academic papers or integrity issues. Their appointment is now in balance.
Under the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, the Appointments Committee can withhold approval where the nominee lacks the requisite academic qualifications; has exhibited incompetence in previous public office; has previously been involved in misconduct, corruption or dishonesty. The rules, however, allow the President to appeal against the committee’s decision to the entire House.
The current procedure where key appointments made by the President are subjected to approval by Parliament was one of the innovations introduced by the 1995 Constitution.
It was intended to ensure that individuals appointed by the President to positions of responsibility have the requisite qualifications and are above board. Indeed in the past a handful of individuals nominated by the President for appointment have been rejected either due to academic qualifications, integrity issues or on account of age.
However, since corruption and dishonesty is one of the grounds the Appointments Committee can invoke to reject appointment of an individual from serving as a minister, the laws need to be changed to prohibit such disgraced individuals from serving as MPs or in other elective offices. There have been cases in the past of MPs who were charged with criminal offences, found guilty and were either fined or jailed, but retained their seats in the House.
The MPs exploited a loophole in Article 80 (2e) of the Constitution to hang on to their seats. The article need amendment as it allows an MP charged with a criminal offence, even when it is bribery, to retain his/her seat if he is jailed for less than nine months. This brings Parliament into disrepute.
Under the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, the Appointments Committee can withhold approval where the nominee lacks the requisite academic qualifications; has exhibited incompetence in previous public office; has previously been involved in misconduct, corruption or dishonesty. The rules, however, allow the President to appeal against the committee’s decision to the entire House.
The current procedure where key appointments made by the President are subjected to approval by Parliament was one of the innovations introduced by the 1995 Constitution.
It was intended to ensure that individuals appointed by the President to positions of responsibility have the requisite qualifications and are above board. Indeed in the past a handful of individuals nominated by the President for appointment have been rejected either due to academic qualifications, integrity issues or on account of age.
However, since corruption and dishonesty is one of the grounds the Appointments Committee can invoke to reject appointment of an individual from serving as a minister, the laws need to be changed to prohibit such disgraced individuals from serving as MPs or in other elective offices. There have been cases in the past of MPs who were charged with criminal offences, found guilty and were either fined or jailed, but retained their seats in the House.
The MPs exploited a loophole in Article 80 (2e) of the Constitution to hang on to their seats. The article need amendment as it allows an MP charged with a criminal offence, even when it is bribery, to retain his/her seat if he is jailed for less than nine months. This brings Parliament into disrepute.