The Unconstitutional Amendment of the National Assembly & Election Fraud

Prior to the National Assembly inauguration, Eyes on the Mandate featured a detailed article on the National Assembly electioneering process. The article was a reflection of NASS guidelines of both chambers on the electoral process which are enshrined in the Standing Orders of both Chambers. The article was published on 9^th June 2015 prior to the elections of the leadership of the National Assembly,so as to give citizens a view of the right process, when electing the Presiding Officers of the National Assembly. Therefore looking back at the process adopted by the 8th Assembly one can rightfully ascertain/say that the process was contrary to what is stipulated for in the Standing Order.

It saddens us to say this, but we weren't particularly surprised when we saw the flagrant adoption of an alien rule which begs the question what gives them the right to do this? Was it simple and utter disregard for the rules? Lack of awareness of rules stipulated for (even though they had multiple training to put them through)? sheer ignorance? Individual greed? 

Our mission as a team is to present facts to the public, so as to bring your attention to any misconduct or progress going on at the National Assembly. 

So let's begin by bringing this rule to your attention “No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two thirds of the Senate” according to Order 45(1) page 31 of the Senate Standing Order.  This simply means that a rule can only be amended or changed on a legislative day, during a live plenary sitting in the Assembly chamber (the only place you can get two thirds majority of Senate or House of Representatives). Since we know for a fact that the 7th Assembly did not amend the Standing Rules, it means the Standing Orders where amended after the dissolution of the 7th Assembly and before the inauguration of the 8th Assembly. The question is, by whom? 

Let's also take a look at Order 110 from page 137 of the Senate Standing Order, where the model of amending the Rules is stated as

1. Any Senator desiring to amend any part of the Rules or adding any new clause shall give notice of such amendments in writing to the President of the Senate giving details of proposed amendments.
2. The President of the Senate shall within seven working days of receipt of the notice, cause the amendments to be printed and circulated to members. Thereafter, it shall be printed in the Order paper of the Senate
3. The mover or movers of the amendments shall be allowed to explain in detail the proposed amendments; thereafter the Senate shall decide by simple majority votes whether the amendments should be considered or rejected
4. If the decision is to consider the amendments, then another date shall be set aside by the Rules and Business Committee whereby opportunity would be given to Senators to further propose amendments but must be strictly confined to the original amendments.
5. Two-thirds majority shall decide the amendment and such amendment shall form part of the Rule of the Senate

The systematic and illegal amendments affects the following Point of Orders;  Order 39(2) page 3, Order 3(3)(e)(i-iii) page 4, Order 3(k) page 6, Order 5 page 6 and Order 13(1-2) page 10. For the purpose of this discussion we are going to put our collective focus on the Point of Orders challenging the legality of the National Assembly elections.

Voting by Secret Ballot:

Order 3(3) (e) says “when only two Senators-elect are nominated and seconded as the President of the Senate, the election shall be conducted as follows: 

(i) The Senate shall divide with the proposers and seconders as tellers

(ii)Voting shall be conducted by the Clerks-at-the-Table using the Division List of the Senate with the Tellers in attendance. The Clerk of the Senate shall submit the result of division to the Clerk of the National Assembly

This was altered by a ghost two thirds majority of the Senate to say;

“When only two Senators-elect are nominated and seconded as the President of the Senate, the election shall be conducted as follows: 

(i)By electronic voting 

(ii)Voting by secret ballot which shall be conducted by the Clerk-at-the-Table using the list of the Senators-elect of the Senate, who shall each be given a ballot paper to cast his vote, with the proposers and tellers.

The invisible two thirds majority of the Senate and House of Representatives has succeeded in reducing a transparent voting process to an opaque process (#OpenNASS indeed). In a democracy where 36 Governors are unable to hold credible elections using secret ballot, one can only imagine what will happen in the Senate or House of Representatives. We will allow you paint that picture yourselves.

Right to Participate in the National Assembly Election:

Order 3(k) says “all Senators-elect shall participate in the nomination and voting for the President and Deputy President of the Senate” 

This provision was fraudulently deleted and replaced with  

Order 3(i) which says “all Senators-elect are entitled to participate in the voting for the President and Deputy President of the Senate”

The original rule says all Senators-elect must be present for the election of the Presiding officers.  The word ‘shall’ is a strong assertion or an instructive command while ‘entitled’ can be used interchangeably with ‘eligible’ (meaning you may be eligible to vote but choose not to). Therefore, we can safely say that according to the original Rule, there can’t be an election without all Senators-elect being present. Perhaps the language used and it's lack of clarity is what allows for them to bend the rules and still be legally right? Or is there simply no one ensuring that they do what's expected of them? Maybe we should leave that for the judiciary to decide. After all, legal language is crucial when it comes to interpretation. 

Eyes on the mandate has no personal vendetta against NASS, all we simply aim is to have transparency from the arm of the government where the sovereignty of the people lies, is the simple respect of the Rule of law. It is then safe to say that the 8th assembly is off to a poor start as they have already set a bad precedent by this action and has widened the gap of mistrust between the public and the National Assembly. Following such continuous act of disrespect for rules that govern them, should we trust that these members will effect change? Will they do right by us? How can we trust them not to covertly and illegally change their laws in the nearest future? How can we trust the leadership that benefited from such illegality, not to deploy same tactics at will? Can the leadership of the National Assembly also make available the following documents?

1. A copy of the printed amendment notice circulated to all Legislators
2. The Mover or Movers of the Rules amendment motion
3. The Order Paper featuring the amendment notice
4. Votes and proceedings of the day these rules where amended

Sadly majority of the legislators who participated in such shameful act are legislators who have experience and have been in previous sessions of the National Assembly, as such should be conversant with the rules and uphold it with due diligence. It is a shame that such Senators still walk with their heads up in our society, while they have allowed a ghost two thirds majority change their Rules. I sincerely hope this ghost two thirds majority will not take over while the Assembly goes on recess, to make laws for this nation or probably amend our Constitution as they have done to that of the National Assembly.

Dare we say this? Based on the importance of the rules pertaining to electoral processes in the house, we can rightly and accurately assert that the 8th assembly has been inaugurated and constituted based on a lie, forgery and falsification of document so as to put its leadership in place.


Sitting - A meeting of a Legislative Assembly withing a session.

Sources:

SENATE STANDING ORDER 2011

SENATE STANDING ORDER 2015