Keorapetse denies sabotaging MPs
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Dithapelo Keorapetse, has denied refusing proposals by MPs for Mogoditshane West, Galenawabo Lekau, and Maun North, Dumelang Saleshando, calling for the amendment of the National Assembly (Salaries and Allowances) Act.
'What I have done is advise the two Honourable Members of the process the Constitution and our Standing Orders require them to follow, specifically Standing Orders 71(8) and 71(9), read together with the Standing Committee on Remuneration (Members of Cabinet, Members of the National Assembly, Councillors and Members of Ntlo ya Dikgosi) Act.'
He said Parliament, in its own wisdom, has established two structures relevant to this matter: the Standing Committee on Members' Rights, Interests and Privileges, which, among other things, ventilates questions of remuneration, and the Standing Committee on Remuneration (Members of Cabinet, Members of the National Assembly, Councillors and Members of Ntlo ya Dikgosi), chaired by Justice Monametsi Gaongalelwe.
He argued that the purpose of the latter Committee is precisely to ensure that Members of Cabinet, Members of Parliament, Councillors and Members of Ntlo ya Dikgosi are removed from determining their own remuneration, and that any such determination is instead subjected to objective, independent assessment.
Said the Speaker, 'the underlying principle is the removal of any perceived or real bias on the part of those who would otherwise be deciding their own pay. My guidance to the two Honourable Members has been consistent with this principle: that their proposals be subjected to assessment by the very independent structure Parliament itself created for this purpose.
This is not a refusal. It is adherence to a process Parliament has deliberately put in place to protect the integrity of these decisions, and to protect Members, including myself, from any suggestion of self-interest.'
He added, 'I have also considered whether, as Speaker, I am conflicted in this matter, given that it touches, among other things, on the Speaker's constituency allowance. My honest assessment is that I am not. As a general principle, laws ordinarily operate prospectively; they do not, without express provision, take away rights already lawfully accrued.'
According to Keorapetse, should this amendment proceed, whether now or in the future, it would, in his respectful view, apply to future Speakers and future Members, including specially elected Members, and not operate to alter entitlements already secured.
It is on this basis, and not out of any wish to obstruct the two Honourable Members, that I do not consider myself conflicted, though I remain open to correction if my understanding of the law on this point is shown to be mistaken, he emphasised.
He stated that he has set out this position in the interest of transparency, and out of respect for the public's right to understand how his Office conducts its affairs.
'I have followed, with interest, the public commentary regarding the manner in which I discharge my duties as Speaker of the National Assembly. I welcome the scrutiny. The Office of the Speaker is a public office. The Speaker does not act on personal whim.
My office is regulated by the Constitution, the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, and the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act. Where these instruments are silent or unclear on a given point, I am guided by past rulings of this House and by the practice of Commonwealth Parliaments, particularly the House of Commons, from which our own procedure is substantially derived,' said Keorapetse.
He stated that there is also room, in narrow and defined circumstances, for the Speaker to act mero motu. In all instances, however, I remain bound by law and precedent, said Keorapetse, adding that he cannot simply do as he pleases.
'This is not merely a constitutional nicety. Where a Member believes I have erred, internal remedies exist, including an appeal to the Speaker citing a flouting of the law, misdirection, or mala fides. Members have in the past also approached the courts to challenge rulings of the Chair. I regard this accountability as a healthy feature of our democracy, not a threat to it.
'I wish to state, without equivocation, that since assuming this office I have never deliberately, flagrantly, maliciously, unfairly or unlawfully blocked any Motion or Bill from being tabled before this Parliament.
Where Members, whether raising ordinary, themed or urgent questions, seek guidance, I respond to them in writing, explaining the applicable rules of procedure. Should any person have a letter from my office refusing anything unprocedural or unlawful, I invite them to place that letter before The Voice, or indeed any media house, for the public to judge for itself,” the Speaker said.
According to Keorapetse, Order 5 requires the Speaker to preside with complete impartiality over parliamentary debates, to protect freedom of speech and debate in the National Assembly and its Committees, to safeguard the rights of all Members, including those in the minority, and to act as guardian of the privileges of the House. I take this obligation seriously, and I treat all Members equally, regardless of party affiliation, Keorapetse said.