THE proceedings of the National Assembly have reached the level of political farce. Last week the SPPF Speaker warned members on the opposition bench that he would henceforth dock their pay for every minute they would be absent from the chamber.
This charade started last year when the SPPF majority, with the connivance of the Attorney General, Sri Lankan Anthony Fernando, adulterated the original National Assembly Members Emoluments Act and in the process made a mockery of the Constitution. In 1993, the first National Assembly under the new Constitution, past the Act respecting the limits laid down by the Constitution. At the time the opposition benches had more DP members.
The salary of members of the National Assembly exists by virtue of Article l05 of the Constitution. The exact wording reads: (1) An Act may provide for the salary, allowances and gratuity of members of the National Assembly. (2) The salary, allowances or gratuity payable to members of the National Assembly shall be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. There are no conditions attached to this constitutional provision.
As long as a person is a member of the National Assembly, he or she shall be paid the salary and allowance provided for by the Act. Of course, we could also have an Act that provides only for an allowance or only for a gratuity or a combination of them. But members cannot have more than the three benefits provided for in the Constitution.
The reference to the Consolidated Fund is to be consistent with the principle of preserving the independence of constitutional appointees so that they do not become hostages to fortunes or political manipulation each year at budget time. Unlike a constitutional appointee, the salary, allowance or even pension of a civil servant, however, is voted for each year by the National Assembly under the Appropriations Act.
But last year, just before Christmas, the SPPF majority, with the help of the Attorney General, once again defiled the Constitution. The SPPF majority decided to remove reference to allowance, which the Constitution provides for, and to replace it with a pension, which the Constitution does not provide for. Although the difference is clear between night and day in the Constitution to any educated observer, the Attorney General has managed to cloud its meaning in the Act by relying on a dictionary or so it appears.
Last week, the charade was taken from the sublime to the ridiculous when the SPPF Speaker announced that he would, henceforth, dock a members pay virtually for stepping out of the debating chamber to have a pee. Presumably, the Speaker would rely on the amendment to the National Assembly members Emoluments Act past last year to enforce his latest ruling. The latest farce by the communist educated former medical doctor has turned the National Assembly into a boarding school, with him as principal and members as pupils.
This is perhaps, in his communist mindset, an improvement over the one-party state, when all members of the National Assembly had to be an SPPF card carrying member and who are expected to rubber stamp every decision of the party.
Under the Constitution, the purpose of an allowance is to assist the member in carrying out his or her duty, whilst the salary is for him or her to live on. The gratuity, as everyone can deduce, is a financial compensation for length of service to the people. The pension, on the other hand is a salary that a member will earn for the rest of his or her life even though she is no longer a member.
It is paid, like the salary, allowance and gratuity regardless if the National Assembly fails to pass a budget.
The Attorney General says it is the same thing as a gratuity.
On the other hand, the issue of a member not fulfilling his or her duty is taken care of by the Constitution under Article 81. This states, (1) a person ceases to be a member of the National Assembly and the seat occupied by that person in the Assembly shall become vacant
(d) if the person is absent without the permission, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, in writing of the Speaker - (i) from Seychelles for a continuous period in excess of thirty days or (ii) during a session of the Assembly, for a continuous period in excess of ninety days during which time the Assembly has been summoned to meet and continues to meet.
The sanction for a member who does not attend proceedings of the National Assembly without permission, according to the Constitution, is very clear he or she loses his or her seat. The role of the Speaker is only to approve the absence or not. He does not carry a cane. In the past, Francis Macgregor, the previous SPPF Speaker approved absences of over one year to members of his own party to attend professional courses abroad.
William Herminie, evidently encouraged by the current Attorney General, sees his role differently from what the Constitution provides for. Members of the National assembly, including the Speaker, are elected by the people and only the Constitution regulates their behaviour in the performance of their duties. The Constitution proffers on members of the National Assembly absolute privilege when the National Assembly is in session, in the performance of their duties. One of those privileges goes so far as to order that, if a sitting member has been detained or arrested and even charged with murder, the police is obligated to bring him to chamber of the National Assembly when the latter is sitting until his trial is over.
William Herminie, no doubt misadvised by the Attorney General, actually believes that Members owe their privileges to him. This is the usual one-party state mindset which is synonymous with the tail wagging the dog. Only the National Assembly voting by a majority can remove the privilege of a member, not the Speaker declaring from the chair. They are called absolute privileges for nothing.