Parliaments amendment of the Standing Orders is constitutional! (Part II)

In part I, we investigated the constitutionality or lack thereof of the amendment of the Parliamentary Standing Orders which resulted in the provisions that the endorsement for the Vice President, and elections for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly shall be by secret ballot as opposed to by a show of hands.

It is now common cause that the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s ruling that contrary to the Attorney General and the Botswana Democratic Party (BDP)’s argument, the Standing Orders are constitutional. In this, the final part, we assist you to understand why the Attorney General and the BDP’s arguments cannot have been sustained by any court of law and were destined to fail as they did.

Firstly, the courts upheld the argument that Parliament had the power to enact and/or amend the Standing Orders because in terms of section 76(1) of the Constitution, “subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the National Assembly may regulate its own procedure”. In terms thereof, Parliament properly resolved to regulate its procedure of endorsing the Vice President and electing the Speaker and Deputy Speaker by a secret ballot in terms of the Standing Orders. The BDP’s lame argument which sought to undermine the legal standing of Standing Orders as compared to an Act of Parliament did not see the light of day.

Editor's Comment
Batswana need to do better to stop FMD

It is a clear signal that the government’s purse is empty and that our own behaviour has left veterinary officials fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. We have been here before. During COVID-19, many of us thought we knew better. We ignored simple rules, we carried on as if the danger was someone else’s problem, and the virus took lives and left our economy on its knees. We are still broke from that experience. Yet now, with FMD...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up