INDIVIDUAL PRINCIPLES?

After praising Parliament for rejecting the budget by the Ministry of Finance, I was left disappointed when they decided to change their stance and allow the budget to go on.

Recently, Parliament sent Cabinet packing for its failure to provide money to the elderly and they now seem to have softened up and are begging Cabinet to return to Parliament. I am waiting to see if parliamentarians will follow up on their promise on the issue of the legalisation of dagga. What is common with all the above? What I notice is that the prime minister always prevails over Parliament in all these instances. After rejecting the budget, the prime minister returned and ‘instructed’ Parliament to pass the budget and they complied. The prime minister recently told Parliament point blank that they were not returning to Parliament as Cabinet because of the elderly money issue and Parliament begged Cabinet to return and they even suggested that they would humble themselves. I am yet to see a follow up on the dagga issue but I doubt that it will see the light of day. Now the question that needs an answer is; was Parliament wrong in all the above issues? In my opinion there was never anything wrong that Parliament did but all they did was within their powers and they had followed the right principles.

Which then leads me to the next question of whether it is about the individual feeling or principles? If it’s about principles, why are our parliamentarians always jelly-like and dance to the music of the prime minister even when they are correct on principle? December 31 is one day that some people from Madonsa wish should not arrive. This day may change their lives forever if there are no changes. People may find themselves homeless with nowhere to go. Difficult and painful as that may seem (to me, at least) but the very body which is supposed to assist the people circumvent the calamity that may happen in their lives is giving up on them. There is a justification (reasonable or unreasonable) but I do not think it is a right move in principle for the Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration to abandon these people. Where is Ubuntu? What worries me more is that the decision to abandon the people of Madonsa was taken by the commissioner without consultation with other members of the commission. I say this because from what I read in the article about the issue, the commissioner took the decision immediately he was told in the meeting that there was someone willing to assist the people of Madonsa by paying for the land in question. I assume he did not have time to consult with the other members of the commission. In my opinion the commissioner decided the issue on his individual feeling.

What is the function of the commission? Section 164 (1)(b) of the Constitution provides that one of the functions of the commission is to investigate complaints of injustice, abuse of power in office and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of official duties. Section 164 (1)(d) provides that the commission shall take appropriate action for the remedying, correction or reversal of such instances through such means that are fair, proper and effective including negotiation and compromise between the parties concerned. It is true that the commission was allowed by the court to intervene in the impasse between the people of Madonsa and the Swaziland National Provident Fund and will applaud the court for doing that because it is the duty of the commission. But I am worried by the decision of the commissioner to then give up on the people without engaging the Provident Fund and allowing a negotiated settlement between the parties. The mandate of the commission is to allow negotiations in correcting some issues but the commissioner decided against negotiations.

I am not sure what would have been the outcome of the negotiations but if the Provident Fund had said they wanted money for the farm and the people of Madonsa were coming with a person who was willing to pay the asking price I do not think the fund would decline that. Unless of course the fund is so cruel and hell bent on seeing the people of Madonsa being homeless in December. If the commissioner had acted according to the principles and functions of the commission as they appear in the Constitution and allowed negotiations and encouraged compromise between the parties, we would not be speculating now because we would be sure of the stand of the Provident Fund. But for the commissioner who acted on personal feelings than principles we are left speculating and hoping there will be assistance for the people of Madonsa. 

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: