In the assembly this week
“Bill leaves bitter taste in the mouth of opposition” says Hon. Elizabeth
This week the Assembly debated on a controversial bill tabled by First Designated Minister, Mr. Danny Faure, which essentially provides for salary cuts of R.1000 if a member of the National Assembly fails to attend a sitting of the National Assembly without the permission of the Speaker or is suspended by the Speaker. The Speaker is exempted from the provisions of this bill. The opposition voted against the bill whilst the SPPF voted for. Hon. Frank Elizabeth (DP) intervened in the debate on the bill expressing disappointment and concern that President James Michel has felt it necessary to bring such a bill before the Assembly now. He said that in his opinion the President has been ill-advised on the bill. He suggested that the bill be withdrawn and for the President to take some time to re-consider his decision. Mr. Elizabeth stated:
Doctrine of separation of powers
I say this Mr. Speaker because it is clear to everybody who understands constitutional law and the notion of separation of powers under our constitution, that by presenting such a bill before Parliament, President Michel is showing the world that he would not hesitate for one moment to violate this very important constitutional concept which exists in all democratic countries. What is meant by the doctrine of separation of powers? Separation of powers is the constitutional doctrine whereby the legislature, executive and the judiciary, the three branches of government, remain independent and separate from each other. They do not interfere with the rights and duties of each other. Mr. Speaker this doctrine was introduced to prevent abuse of power. Under the American constitution, for example, this doctrine is well founded and is generally known as “checks and balances.” This doctrine is also well founded in history and it is the cornerstone of all constitutional democracies. Mr. Speaker our constitution has also adopted this particular doctrine and by distributing the essential business of government amongst the three branches of government, the framers of our constitution made sure that the principal powers of government , that is, the legislature, executive and judiciary, is not concentrated in the hands of only one branch of government. The three branches of government should therefore not interfere or be seen to be interfering, with each other.
The Legislature respects the doctrine of separation of powers
Mr. Speaker, the Assembly has never passed legislation to legislate how President Michel should govern this country. The reason for this is very simple. The legislature, as a branch of government, respects the doctrine of separation of powers that exists under our constitution. It is dangerous, therefore, for the Executive to bring a bill before the Assembly to sanction the members of the National Assembly who have been elected by the people and were not appointed by President Michel. Mr. Speaker, the Assembly has also never passed laws to sanction the behaviours of the President or that of the Ministers, in other words, the behaviour of the executive. The behaviour of the President and the Ministers are sanctioned by the constitution. The constitution has also sanctioned the behaviour of the members of the National Assembly and under article 81 it is clear that if a member of the National Assembly is absent from the National Assembly without the permission of the Speaker for more than 30 days or 90 days, the seat of the member can be declared vacant by the Speaker. This is the sanction that the constitution has provided. The constitution does not provide for the cutting of salaries of members of the National Assembly. If the constitution does not provide for the cutting of the salary of a member of the National Assembly, the executive must respect the spirit and letter of the constitution.
It is not acceptable for the government to bulldoze the constitution
Mr. Speaker, it is not acceptable for the government to use its majority in the National Assembly to bulldoze our constitution, to violate the spirit of our constitution and bring a law to punish the Members of the National Assembly who do not behave in the way that the government would like them to behave. The President, as the person who is in charge of the executive, should not be seen to be interfering with the legislature. The President is the person who is in charge of the executive but he is not in charge of the legislature, in other words, the President is in charge of a branch of government and the Ministers that he has appointed. However, the President does not appoint the members of the National Assembly. The members of the National are elected by the people of Seychelles. Therefore, the Assembly has to be accountable to the people of Seychelles. It cannot be accountable to the government or the President. The President has today decided to bring a bill before the National Assembly to punish the members who do not behave in accordance with the norms set by government. The President is dictating how the members of the National Assembly should behave and I am not comfortable with that.
The bill is another step towards dictatorship
Mr. Speaker, by bringing this bill before the National Assembly as is, the government is showing the world that dictatorship still reigns in Seychelles. This is not good for our democracy, it is not good for our economy and it is not good for the investors who are investing in our country. It shows a lack of respect for our constitution and it is another step towards dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, when the government finds it necessary to bring this kind of bill before the National Assembly, it is sending dangerous signals. It is showing its intention that it will not hesitate to violate the doctrine of separation of powers that exists under our constitution. The government is in fact clearly telling us that it is the executive which is in charge of the legislative. When we vote in favour of this bill, for it to become law, we are in fact showing the people of Seychelles that the National Assembly, a powerful institution which passes laws for our country, lacks the ability to protect itself against the illegal acts of government. How then do we expect the electorate who voted for us to represent them in the National Assembly to protect themselves against abuses of power committed by the government?
Today is a sad day for our democracy!
Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for our democracy. I am a person who believes strongly in democracy. I am a person who respects the office of the president and the decision of the people of Seychelles. As a person who believes in democracy and who loves his country, I would have hoped that we would not be here today debating this bill. Mr. Speaker, as long as we stay obsessed with the past, with history and we allow our past to become the chain around our ankles that stop us from making progress and moving forward, we will not develop as a people. We have become a nation which is obsessed with dates. We have become obsessed with 5th June, 25th November and the 3rd of October. We are allowing these dates to become a veil over our eyes. Mr. Speaker, for me this is another missed opportunity to reconcile our differences and forget our turbulent past. This is yet another missed opportunity for us to forget about the things that divide us and concentrate on the things the unite us and make us stronger as a people. This bill, Mr. Speaker, leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the opposition.
The History of this bill
Mr. Speaker, we all remember last year when SNP announced its intention to apply for a licence to operate a radio station in Seychelles. The government hurriedly passed legislation to prevent political parties and religious groups from being granted such a licence. SNP reacted by calling for people to gather in the precinct of the National Assembly to sign a petition to protest against the law. The government sent armed police to disperse the crowd and in the process assaulted the leader of the opposition and Hon. Ferrari, causing injuries to their heads and hospitalization. The SNP thereafter boycotted the National Assembly and today the government has reacted by bringing this bill in parliament to cut the salaries of MNA’s who do not attend the sittings of the National Assembly without the permission of the Speaker. The questions which now arise are: How will SNP react to this law? Where will the hostility between the government and the opposition end? What price will our country pay as a result of this?
The opposition should be given credit for political stability
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely this kind of bill which threatens our political stability. Today in Seychelles, investors are investing billions, not millions, of dollars. This is because Seychelles is considered a country which is politically stable. It is because of our political stability that we are attracting investors to our shores. Instead of bringing bills before the National Assembly which will liberalise our economy and bring more prosperity and wealth on the doorstep of our people, the government brings a bill to cut the salaries of the member of the National Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I implore the SPPF members of the House to unite with us and unanimously vote against this bill. In doing so we will be sending a loud and clear message to the government. Let’s tell the government if there is a problem or concern in respect of the National Assembly, make it known to the Speaker and the Standing Order Committee will consider these concerns and if it is necessary to amend the Standing Orders, we will do it ourselves. We do not need the government to interfere and control the Assembly. The National Assembly is an institution which has been elected by the people of Seychelles and was not appointed by government. Therefore, it is an institution which is independent of the State, of government and of the president. The president should therefore leave the Assembly alone. Let the National Assembly work, work harder and work harder still for the people of Seychelles without interference from government. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill for the reasons which I have given above. Thank you.
