Allexer Namundjembo
The office of the speaker of the National Assembly has rejected claims that the speaker frustrates members of parliament.
Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila’s office said all actions in the chamber follow established rules and that the speaker’s conduct is guided by parliamentary procedures.
“The office stated that the speaker is always governed by the standing rules, orders, and internal arrangements of the National Assembly, rather than by personal discretion or preference,” in response to questions by the Windhoek Observer on Wednesday.
It said rule 90 protects members’ right to speak without interruption, and any intervention by the Speaker is meant to enforce that protection.
The office added that complaints of frustration may be due to consistent enforcement of the rules.
“If a member perceives the speaker’s rulings as frustrating, it is likely because those rulings are being applied consistently and without exception, which is precisely what impartiality demands.”
On authority during debates, the office said the role is defined by procedure.
“The speaker’s authority during debates is clearly defined. It is not a matter of personal power; it is a constitutional and procedural responsibility.”
It said members raising points of order must refer to specific rules.
“This is not a bureaucratic technicality. It is a safeguard to prevent the point-of-order mechanism from being misused to derail legitimate debate.”
According to the office, invalid points of order can be dismissed.
“Where a member’s point of order does not meet the required standard, the Presiding Officer is empowered to instruct the member to resume their seat and rule the point out of order.”
On neutrality, the office said the rules ensure fairness.
“The speaker is obliged to apply the standing rules without exception. There is, in law and in procedure, no room for selective enforcement or partisan favour.”
It acknowledged that stricter enforcement may be seen differently.
The office said members can challenge rulings.
“Any ruling by the Speaker may be reviewed and overturned by the full Assembly.”
This followed as Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) member of parliament Inna Hengari criticised the speaker’s conduct in a social media post.
“I’m now actually convinced that the speaker of the National Assembly deliberately frustrates members to make it seem as though they’re disruptive. You can’t preside and engage members while you have given them the floor to speak,” she said.
She said the speaker should not engage in debate while presiding.
“You can’t debate with members because once you avail yourself of the seat, you forego the right to debate or engage in a debate of any nature.”
Hengari also opposed limits on when members may rise. “You also can’t say members can only rise if their rights or privileges have been infringed. If there is a debate on a bill on the floor, members should be allowed to engage in a contest of ideas.”
She questioned the impact on lawmakers.
“Can you imagine being MP for five years and the only thing you learn is to memorise which rules are infringed and not actual ideas to transform laws in a meaningful way? Well, I can’t.”
She warned that the current approach could affect parliament’s work.
“This parliament has intelligent and well-rounded MPs, from both the governing and opposition benches, but with the current speaker – I fear we are wasting an opportune time to use some of the best brains the country has.”
Last year, Affirmative Repositioning Movement (AR) leader Job Amupanda challenged a notice of a meeting issued one day before the session, saying rules require three days’ notice.
The dispute led to a confrontation with deputy speaker Phillipus Katamelo and a break in proceedings while the speaker considered the matter.
