The recent Supreme Court ruling has shone a spotlight on the complexities of legislative attendance, particularly the dynamics between present members and the absentee members, known as the self-styled Majority Bloc.
In reference to Article 33, the Supreme Court acknowledges the authority granted to the lower number (the minority where the speaker is) to compel absent members (the self-styled Majority Bloc members) to attend sessions to meet quorum requirements. This interpretation underscores the need for negotiations between the lower number and the absentee members to ensure adequate attendance for legislative business. If a quorum is not met, the lower number will continue to compel absentees, with sessions being adjourned daily until a quorum is achieved.
Notably, the ruling does not indicate that Speaker Koffa was legally removed, prompting questions about the validity of referring to him as the “former Speaker.”
Key aspects of the ruling include:
- The Supreme Court affirmed its constitutional jurisdiction over the matter, highlighting its authority to address the issues presented.
- The ruling discusses the role of the Presiding Officer as defined in Article 49. Typically, this is the Speaker, and in their absence, the Deputy Speaker assumes the role. However, Speaker Koffa was present during the sessions in question, holding multiple sessions, including those where the Deputy Speaker and other majority members were present before later became absentee members.
- Despite Speaker Koffa’s efforts to compel absentee members to attend sessions, as referenced in Article 33, these efforts proved unsuccessful. The ruling indicates a legislative gap, as no existing law outlines how the present members can compel absentee members to attend, necessitating lawmakers to address this issue.
This legislative gap calls for clear procedures or laws to guide how the lower number can ensure absentee members attend to meet quorum requirements, ensuring the smooth functioning of the legislative process.
The ruling highlights the critical role of Speaker Koffa in negotiating with absentee members. This role was also recommended by the US Embassy and other international bodies calling Speaker Koffa to engage in negotiations from the onset.
As per Article 33, without a law specifying how the presiding officer can compel attendance, Speaker Koffa must either negotiate with absentee members to ensure their presence or continue compelling attendance, with sessions being adjourned day-to-day.
In summary, the ruling emphasizes the necessity for Speaker Koffa to navigate these complexities through negotiation, despite the lack of explicit legislative guidelines. This situation underscores the need for lawmakers to establish clear procedures for compelling attendance to maintain the integrity of legislative processes.
About The Author
