Home Politics ED’s spokesperson George Charamba reacts to Chamisa’s action

ED’s spokesperson George Charamba reacts to Chamisa’s action

346
George Charamba

ED’s spokesperson George Charamba reacts to Chamisa’s action. Charamba said, “What is the effect on constituencies of an MP withdrawing from parliamentary processes? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the concerned constituency, thus breaking the explicit contract between a voter and his MP?”

Presidential Spokesperson George Charamba says the decision by the main MDC faction led by Advocate Nelson Chamisa to withdraw its members from parliament was disenfranchising the voters who mandated the MPs to lead them.

MDC announced that its members will boycott any platform that makes them interact with ZANU PF. The statement was delivered on Thursday by Job Sikhala.

Read Charamba’s response below:

DECISION BY CHAMISA AND TEAM raises quite some interesting issues of party constitutionality and general propriety. Do you suspend involvement in parliamentary business and then consult?? And if you have that latitude – and legal basis of it has to be established – why not go the whole hog and then consult on a substantive decision, namely disengaging wholly?

Secondly and more fundamentally, is an MP’s availability for parliamentary business/role a matter for a political party and its members?? Or is he bound by wishes of all who reside in a constituency to whom he offers surrogate presence in Parliament, itself a National – not Party – Institution??

In other words, are MPs in Parliament for themselves and their parties, or for whole constituencies regardless of individual political membership of constitutive electorate?? What is the effect on constituencies of an MP withdrawing from parliamentary processes? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the concerned constituency, thus breaking the explicit contract between a voter and his MP?

If so, what recourse does a voter have, singly and in concert with fellow voters registered under, and residing in a constituency??

Does that not provide a sound legal basis for class action well before we even wait or parliamentary rules sanctioning such (mis)conduct?? Should such a case be brought before a competent court, what are its chances??

Assuming there are good chances – and that’s my hunch – would an MP go by his/her party’s wishes, or submit to court decision? Will courts be (mis)construed as interfering with affairs of a voluntary organisation? Just a thought!!! Ndini hangu.

Source – Bulawayo24 News

In other news – Returnees from South Africa being given 5-year bans

Returnees from South Africa being given 5-year bans. This was revealed yesterday when 141 returnees arrived aboard three buses from Johannesburg. Immigration officials at Beitbridge were not immediately available for comment.

Beitbridge Border Post

South African immigration officials at Beitbridge Border Post were yesterday reportedly imposing five-year bans on returning Zimbabweans without explanation…continue reading.