BY LordDenningQB
The pendulum is not in a resting position – so it appears. Apparently, it is, now, a battle of supremacy between the DPP President (Arthur Peter Mutharika JSD) on one hand and DPP Vice President for the South (Kondwani Nankhumwa MP) on another hand.
Apparently, there have been relentless efforts to expel the latter from the party positions and recently from his position as Leader of Opposition in Parliament to the extent that a vain communiqué from the Party was delivered to the National Assembly through the Office of the Speaker. That communiqué was trashed and the issuers turned back to resolve their matter and submit a name that the party will have chosen accordingly.
.
In pursuing that Order, the DPP MPs went to an elective caucus that was presided over by the Party’s SG. In that elective caucus, Kondwani Nankhumwa emerged as a decisive winner beating two other contestants, one of whom was allegedly an outstanding endorsement of Mutharika and his ring force comprising the old gurus.
.
NOW, the elderly gurus, who are allegedly the Mutharika disciples, have challenged the election of Nankhumwa calling it a vain task.
.
Citing the Parliamentary Standing Order 35 (1) which reads: “the leader of opposition shall be elected by the party not in government having the greatest numerical strength in parliament at any point in time and officially announced as such by the speaker,” the pro-Mutharika faction is arguing that the word PARTY means the Party Leadership and not the Members of Parliament.
.
For avoidance of doubt, the argument is specifying that the ‘Party’ is not the 47 MPs who purportedly participated in the said elective caucus. They are intimating that ‘the Party’ is structured and Prof. Peter Mutharika remains the President therefore, the authority to appoint his preference – who is allegedly Francis Kasaila MP.
_________________
MY ARGUMENT
_________________
To begin with, the argument that Prof. Peter Mutharika remains the President THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT HON. FRANCIS KASAILA is purporting to depart from the very Standing Order which has been cited in the building of their argument. The Standing Order talks of the Leader of Opposition being ELECTED by the Party and here they are saying the Party President is the authority to APPOINT the Leader of Opposition. It appears, in this scenario, that these people are unable to tell the difference between ELECTING and APPOINTING. The wording of the Standing Order is providing for an election and not appointment. The argument that the Party President can appoint the leader of Opposition, therefore, fails to hold and falls off.
.
We now come to the point of “a Party electing the Leader of Opposition”. It is undisputed fact that the DPP is the party not in Government, but having greatest numerical strength in Parliament, therefore the Leader of Opposition must be elected by it. The, otherwise, prevailing questions are: Are the 47 DPP MPs the rightful authority to vote for the Leader of Opposition? Is it not the entire DPP Party, perhaps through its NGC caucus or some sort of convention, to elect the Leader of Opposition?
.
The above questions can be effectively put to rest by finding out the definition of Leader of Opposition as found in Clause 3(3) of the National Assembly Standing Order which provides as follows:
“Leader of Opposition means the parliamentary leader of the largest party, ELECTED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP, which is not in Government or in coalition with a Government party, and which is recognized by the Speaker as such.”
End of quote and EMPHASIS BY CAPITALS is mine.
.
It is, therefore, clear through the emphasized part of the definition above that the election of the Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly is done by the Members of Parliament belonging to the qualifying opposition party and not any leadership of the Party outside the Parliament. The question of whether the Party should elect the Leader of Opposition at an NGC caucus or some convention, therefore, collapses. For avoidance of doubt, the word ‘Party’ as used in the Standing Order 35(1), therefore, in the present circumstances, means the 47 DPP MPs in the Parliament.
.
Perhaps a brief look into what has been the practice in the past can be of necessity to explore our mind further. After the 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2014 General Elections the MCP has always been providing the Leader of Opposition. This was the case because it has always scored the highest number of seats than other opposition Parties in the Parliament. There has never been a moment where the MCP MPs could vote for whom was to be Leader of Opposition. Perhaps, and most likely, it is because the President of the Opposition Party itself has always been a Member of Parliament, which is not the case now with DPP in which its President is not a Member of Parliament.
.
Recognition of the largest party in Parliament not being the governing party as the official opposition is almost a universal phenomena in the democratic world. This democratic arrangement is significant because it also recognizes the interests of the electorate who placed that party in Parliament. That recognition amounts to recognition of that section of the voters, signifying that the National Assembly will also take care of their interests. The Leader of Opposition therefore ought to be a choice of the majority of the voters who did not succeed in electing a President of the country. Since the Members of Parliament represents the closest representation of those interests, it is only logical to let the Members of Parliament of that Opposition Party do the voting on who should be the Leader of Opposition where the actual leader of that Opposition Party is not qualified to deliberate in the National Assembly for not being a Member thereto.
.
In so doing, I firmly conclude that the elective caucus that the DPP MPs did remains the appropriate procedure to determine who should be the Leader of Opposition in the circumstances. For avoidance of confusion (to those who read my early brief view), this full opinion stands to replace and/or amend my earlier position. The arguments by the pro-Mutharika faction, therefore, are dismissed with costs.
__________________
LordDenning QB
