By Feni Hiveluah
National Assembly Speaker Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has rejected claims that her conduct in parliament is biased, saying her rulings are guided strictly by the standing rules and not by personal preference.
Her remarks follow accusations by Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) parliamentarian Inna Hengari, who alleged on her Facebook page on Tuesday that the Speaker deliberately frustrates members to make them appear disruptive during parliamentary proceedings.
However, according to Kuugongelwa-Amadhila, this allegation is without foundation as she “does not and cannot, act arbitrarily against any member of parliament”.
“Every intervention made from the chair is a direct application of the standing rules that members themselves have adopted to govern proceedings,” Kuugongelwa-Amadhila explained.
The Speaker pointed to Rule 90 of the Standing Rules, Orders and Internal Arrangements, which states “members shall be heard in silence and may only be interrupted under specified circumstances”, adding that this rule exists to protect every member’s right to speak without disruption, including those are now have concerns.
She added that when the Speaker intervenes, it is to enforce exactly this protection. Kuugongelwa-Amadhila maintains that if a member perceives the Speaker’s rulings are frustrating, it is likely “because those rulings are being applied consistently and without exception, which is precisely what impartiality demands”.
“The Speaker has no authority to selectively apply the rules in favour of some Members and against others. Rules, not bias, guide my rulings.
These include Rule 90, which speaks to members’ rights to take the floor undisturbed and their entitlement to make contributions without interruption. Under this rule, the presiding officer is obligated to uphold this right and to manage the floor accordingly.
Meanwhile, Rule 92 refers to points of order and states that when a member raises a point of order, they are required to cite the specific standing rule upon which their point is based, or, at minimum, clearly state the principle or subject matter concerned. Kuugongelwa-Amadhila notes that this rule safeguards the point-of-order mechanism from being misused to derail legitimate debate.
Furthermore, Rule 92(4), which highlights the authority to rule out of order, refers to situations where a member’s point of order does not meet the required standard and the presiding officer is then empowered to instruct the member to resume their seat and rule the point out of order.“It is not a matter of personal power. It is a constitutional and procedural responsibility.”
Kuugongelwa-Amadhila pointed out that the Speaker’s neutrality is not a matter of personal assertion but is is embedded in the rules themselves.She stated that the Speaker is obliged to apply the standing rules without exception and that there is, in law and in procedure, no room for selective enforcement or partisan favour.
“The perception of partiality often arises when rules are applied to members who are unaccustomed to having those rules enforced. Consistent enforcement, particularly where it is unfamiliar, may feel targeted, while it is not. The same rules apply to every member, on every side of the House, equally.”
Hengari’s message on social media states: “You cannot debate with members because once you avail yourself for the seat, you forgo the right to debate or engage in a debate of any nature. You also cannot say members can only rise if their rights or privileges have been infringed.”
She pointed out that if there is a debate on a bill on the floor in Parliament, members should be allowed to engage in a contest of ideas.
“Can you imagine being an MP for five years and the only thing you learn is to memorize which rules are infringed and not actual ideas to transform laws in a meaningful way? Well, I cannot.
