Hon. Juol Nhomngek Daniel, who represents Cueibet County in Lakes State, said actions of the speaker violated Regulations 6 (7), 10 and 121 (2) of the Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 as amended, 2021.
On April 12, 2024, the assembly clerk read Order 02/2024 for the appointment of new chief whips, whips, chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of standing specialised committees of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA).
According to armed opposition (SPLM-IO) MP, the house did not expect appointment of chief whips and whips as they are not covered under Regulation 124 of the TNLA Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 as amended, 2021.
The speaker, he reasoned, does not have the power to relieve nor appoint them.
The MP said the action of the speaker relieving chief whips and whips raised the issue whether the speaker has powers under Regulations 10 and 121 (2) of the TNLA Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 as amended, 2021 she referred to.
Chief whips and whips are appointed by the party as leaders of the parliamentary caucus and by that virtue, they are members of the political bureau of the party.
“This is why Regulation 3 of the Transitional National Legislature, 2013 as amended, 2021 read together with Regulation 2 of the TNLA, 2011 as amended, 2021 provides that a whip is a member appointed by the leadership of the party to look after conduct of its members in relation to the business of the house or a committee,” wrote Nhomngek.
The outspoken lawmaker further said the assembly speaker appoints the chairs and deputy chairs in consultation with the chief whips and whips of the parties to the September 2018 peace agreement as provided for under regulation 6 (7) of the TNLA Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 as amended, 2021.
“This implies that the speaker cannot appoint the chief whip or the whip that he or she can consult before making any valid decisions in all matters affecting the parties in Parliament,” he said.
The lawmaker raised a number of grounds on which he claimed the speaker acted illegally.
The actions, according to the speaker, amounts to the abuse of office or power which is an offence under Regulation 97 of the TNLA Conduct of Business Regulations, 2011 as amended 2021.
“She [speaker] also failed in her duty to protect and enforce Article 73 (1) and (2) of the Transitional Constitution, 2011 as amended,” he observed.
The lawmaker argued that the speaker acted in contempt of parliamentary powers.
He accused the speaker of breaching the constitution and therefore parties to the peace agreement should not ignore such an action of the speaker of a parliament that makes the law, adding it has stroke at the heart of the reform as it is provided for under the Revitalised Agreement and the Transitional Constitution.
