Speaker Ndugai: in the eye of a political storm

What you need to know:
- The verbal punches that the Speaker traded last week with ACT-Wazalendo and Kigoma Urban MP Zitto Kabwe are the culmination of a brewing tension in the polarised august House, which took an ugly turn after the attempt on the life of Chadema legislator Tundu Lissu early this month.
Dar es Salaam. Parliament is fighting to stave off mounting criticism that it has gone on the offensive against an increasingly outspoken opposition, with Speaker Job Ndugai seemingly caught in the eye of the raging political storm.
The verbal punches that the Speaker traded last week with ACT-Wazalendo and Kigoma Urban MP Zitto Kabwe are the culmination of a brewing tension in the polarised august House, which took an ugly turn after the attempt on the life of Chadema legislator Tundu Lissu early this month.
Several MPs have recently been warned or summoned over “wayward” statements they made in the National Assembly, and the latest to be on the receiving end is Mr Kabwe, who on Wednesday last week appeared before the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee in Dodoma.
The MP was grilled over remarks he made, allegedly accusing the government of usurping the powers of Parliament.
But in a written statement submitted to the Committee, whose copy this writer saw, Mr Kabwe protested his arrest and summons, describing them as an “infringement of my rights and an attempt to muzzle free speech.”
Earlier, before the summons, Mr Ndugai had ordered that the MP be grilled also for statements he made, which were deemed a personal attack on the Speaker’s style of leadership.
“My rights to speak and express my views must not be curtailed, it’s against the constitution and against the Arusha Declaration,” said Mr Kabwe, who is also the Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT)-Wazalendo leader.
Boundaries
However, according to the Clerk of Parliament, Dr Thomas Kashilila, there are boundaries and opinions are not the same as insults.
“The country guarantees freedom but not to the extent of breaking the very laws that one has participated in making,” said Dr Kashilila in a telephone interview with Political Platform.
On September 20, Parliament released a lengthy and elaborate statement in an apparent bid to exonerate itself by clarifying the decisions it made on some of the issues that had raised dust in the National Assembly.
The statement accused Members of Parliament and some public commentators of making “false remarks” aimed at attacking the august House. It described some of the opinions by MPs and citizens as “insulting, seditious and contemptuous.”
However, some political analysts have described the statement as a a bid to silence those who dared raised their voice against the manner Parliament is performing its duties.
“Defaming and degrading in their very nature are unacceptable and I can say it frankly,” says lawmaker and political analyst Ali Saleh (Malindi MP-CUF), adding, “but commenting on an issue or a problem facing the Speaker or Parliament -- I don’t really think it’s a problem.”
Mr Saleh takes aim at government, accusing it of intruding Parliament and dictating its operations. He cites “silence” from the National Assembly after the government banned political rallies as a telltale sign that the Speaker and his team were not independent of the executive.
He also says Mr Ndugai should understand that criticism is not confined to place and time. “When we talk about these issues within and outside the House, the Speaker thinks that MPs are attacking Parliament, it’s wrong. What legislators are doing is expanding the scope in their efforts to make their voices heard, and their grievances addressed.”
A lawyer from Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), Mr Evans Sichalwe, opines that it’s wrong for Parliament to describe criticism as “falsehood” and “sedition”, because freedom of expression allows for the differences in opinions.
He points out that people differ in the way they see things, and that it’s upon Parliament, in such cases, to prove otherwise, instead of referring to other people’s opinions as false and seditious.
Mr Sichalwe, who has been monitoring legislative activities since the 8th Parliament under Speaker Pius Msekwa, adds that in comparison with its predecessors, even a person who is not familiar with its activities, one can understand that the current Parliament is not living up to the demand of the institution as enshrined in the constitution.
Representative organ
“Parliament is the citizen’s representative organ, and hence everyone -- both lawmakers and the citizens -- can have anything to say about it, and it’s responsibility,” he argues, explaining that the National Assembly remains a public institution.
But the Clerk of Parliament, Dr Kashilila, dismisses claims of attempts to curtail freedom of expression saying the current Parliament is still an “open institution” about which anybody can give his opinion, especially on how it should run its business.
He, nevertheless, stresses the need for procedure to be followed. “We can receive a petition from anyone asking, say, not to pass a particular bill, but that’s a matter of procedure and it should be observed.”
Mr Issa Mangunga (Mbagala MP-CCM), agrees with the Clerk of Parliament, saying there’s a tendency to trade accusations in Parliament after resolutions are made, and that there are lawful procedures to follow.
Abide by the laws
“Parliament and MPs deserve respect, and if there is anyone who thinks he or she needs to advise Parliament, they should also abide by the laws.”
The ruling party MP adds that he does not think that there is any kind of infringement of freedom of expression by Parliament, and that as an MP himself, he is free to give out his views anytime where necessary.
Still, Mr Sichalwe says the question is not about having or not having procedures, but their application, which has raised many questions.
“When, for example, an opposition MP has a complaint, even when they follow procedure, we have seen several times that those bestowed with the authority to provide the MPs with the opportunity to utilise procedure decline to cooperate,” he says.
His claims of uneven application of standing orders are not new. The opposition has several times cried foul over the selective application of rules in the august House.
Alarm bells rang louder during the 11th Parliamentary Session mostly chaired by Deputy Speaker Tulia Ackson, who sent many opposition MPs packing over allegations of breaching Standing Orders last year.
Many condemned her application of Standing Orders as indiscriminate considering the pressure in the National Assembly.
Her decisions, roundly condemned by the back-benchers as politically-motivated, sparked unprecedented drama and boycotts. Dr Ackson was accused by her critics of being a ‘gun for hire’ to silence the Opposition in Parliament.
Not only that. The government’s controversial decision to restrict live coverage of parliamentary sessions vindicated claims that there was a deliberate ploy to weaken dissent in the august House.
More so, a survey by the Society for International Development (SID), conducted last year across East Africa to, among other things, determine the levels of trust in the region with respect to the presidency, the legislature, traditional leaders, the clergy and the Opposition, concluded that Tanzania faced a deep institutional crisis with trust in Parliament – one of the three pillars of government – slumping to worrying levels.
The country score on the legislature – where 66 per cent of the respondents said they either completely distrust or have a little trust in the institution – was alarmingly low. Only 56 per cent of the Tanzanian citizens interviewed said they had little or somewhat trust in the Parliament.
On his return from India where he had gone for treatment last year, the Speaker also expressed concern over the unending squabbles in the august House urging unity among the MPs from across the political divide.
Conflicts dominate
“The conflicts that now dominate Parliament do not please Tanzanians at all. We will have to seek common ground between leaders from the Opposition Camp and House officials,” he said in an interview with a local TV station.
Back then, he was seemingly forced to douse a fire that threatened to consume Parliament when his deputy was caretaker. Interestingly, the Speaker is now in the eye of a fresh storm that may be critical in defining his legacy at the helm of the National Assembly.
There are many observers who share the feeling that Mr Ndugai, only a few months ago a uniting factor and darling of the opposition, faces a Herculean task, if not growing pressure, to stir a ship that is sailing through a violent storm; and it’s a situation that will take diplomatic finesse to keep under control.
For a man caught between rock and hard surface, his options may be very limited, but Prof Gaudence Mpangala, a political scientist at Ruaha Catholic University, warns that infringing MPs’ freedom of expression is not a good idea, because it’s a strategy that is counterproductive.
“Parliament bars lawmakers and the public from criticising and sharing their opinions on its businesses, not only outside, but in Parliament, we see how Speaker Ndugai treats MPs he perceives naughty and adamant,” says Prof Mpangala.
Mr Sichalwe says he had so much trust in the Speaker, especially after he described himself as a person whose aim was to build bridges, unify MPs and do justice to all members regardless of their different ideologies.
“When he said Parliament would be different, nobody ever bothered to ask what difference he meant, for better or for worse?” he asks.
Mr Saleh shares this view. He notes that they had a “strong belief” that Mr Ndugai would achieve his goal of enhancing unity, but they were now seeing Parliament going back to the tumultous period last year when he was not in charge.
“The problem with Speaker Ndugai is that he takes things personally. He thinks that when people point out some weaknesses of Parliament they are attacking him. But that is never the case. We do that as part of the duty of speaking on behalf of our voters.”
But the Speaker last month defended himself saying he had been treating all MPs fairly. “...I have been treating all MPs fairly regardless of their political affiliation. The little they had to do is to be disciplined and observe Standing Orders,” he told reporters on his arrival from a monthlong visit to Nigeria, Dubai and Iran.
He also said Parliament was fed up with MPs who were misbehaving warning that he was going to take action.