On Wednesday, the Reconstituted Transitional National Legislative Assembly (RTNLA) warned ministers against snubbing the parliamentary summons, saying that ministers who continued defying the calls from the legislature would be processed for impeachment votes as per the law.
The displeasure from the lawmakers came after some ministers who were summoned by the R-TNLA two months ago to give reports of what their ministries had done to respond to floods across the country but failed to appear as had been directed.
The parliament had given the ministers fourteen days to prepare and appear before the House with comprehensive reports to allow the house to take informed action regarding the issue.
However, none of them appeared on Wednesday at the RTNLA to answer queries from lawmakers. But according to parliamentary Regulation 85, if a minister is summoned three times and fails to appear before the House, the matter is referred to as a ‘‘contempt of the house’’, and the parliament will take any necessary action. The resolution should lead to impeachment.
Not enough
Despite some ministers’ decision to send their undersecretaries to represent them, their failure to appear was already a violation of the summons. Whatever the case may be, the undersecretary in this particular case has no right to answer the question on behalf of his or her minister because it is the minister who has been summoned by the parliament. This is a violation of the order from the parliament that demonstrated a bad image of our political leaders, especially those in the executive. It has shown that some of the national ministries lack knowledge of what is happening with the ordinary people at the grassroots, and as such, they have not made any response to the floods.
Parliament has the right to summon any constitutional post holder to answer questions regarding his or her docket when they see the electorate is suffering. They have the right to hear from the ministers and examine the responses they have made to alleviate the suffering of the people.
However, the intention of evading the summon was an act of anti-democracy, a violation of the constitution, as well as an undermining of the role of the parliament.
South Sudan is transitioning to a democratic political system, and Parliament is considered the most powerful arm of the government that is respected by the other two organs. In those countries, any leader who gets into the executive or judiciary has to go through parliamentary vetting, which makes them accountable to the parliament once they are appointed into office.
Nevertheless, this has been contrary to the situation in South Sudan because the executive is more accountable to the appointing authorities than the parliament. That makes them disrespectful to parliament because they believe parliament did contribute to their appointment since they were appointed directly through presidential decrees.
The executive needs to start respecting the parliament as the country is transitioning to democracy and the rules of law.