Parliament to PDM 6: We will not give you one red penny
Marathon back pay saga drags on
The PDM lawmakers, who face a bleak future following their failure to be re-elected in November's election, believe they are entitled to a back pay for their prolonged illegal spell outside parliament.
The National Assembly has maintained that it has fully complied with the Supreme Court's directive to swear in six Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) members of parliament, who were reinstated two years after the 2019 election and are now demanding payment for the period they were excluded from Parliament.
One of the affected lawmakers, Charmaine Tjirare, has accused Parliament of corruptly denying them their outstanding salaries. She also alleged that the National Assembly was defying the court order, particularly concerning the payment of back pay.
In a statement to the Namibian Sun this week, the National Assembly rejected Tjirare's claims, asserting that there is no legal basis for back pay. It emphasised that parliamentary procedures were followed correctly throughout the process.
On 12 February 2025, Tjirare filed a notice of question regarding the non-execution of the Supreme Court judgment and the lack of accountability from the National Assembly, the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN), and the PDM. She subsequently submitted a motion on 19 February 2025, seeking a debate on the matter on 20 February.
Tjirare accused the National Assembly of removing her motion from the order paper and minutes, suggesting foul play and corruption. However, the National Assembly strongly denied this allegation.
According to the National Assembly, Rule 119(2) of its standing rules and orders stipulates that notices of questions take precedence over motions on Thursdays. Furthermore, on 19 February, the Speaker announced that Parliament would adjourn for the week and reconvene on 4 March 2025. As a result, neither Tjirare's question nor her motion could be deliberated on 20 February.
“The motion was not deliberately removed. The scheduling of items on the Order Paper follows established parliamentary procedures,” the National Assembly clarified.
The Assembly also stressed that it respects the Supreme Court's ruling and is committed to transparency. It called for a retraction of what it described as misleading claims and assured the public that all matters would continue to be handled within the bounds of the law.
Despite these clarifications, Tjirare insists that the issue remains unresolved, stating that the National Assembly failed to address the matter as promised on 4 March 2025. The situation is expected to develop further as Parliament resumes its sessions.
Background
The issue originates from a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 30 May 2022, which ruled that the removal of six PDM members, including Tjirare, from the originally gazetted list of PDM parliamentary candidates ahead of the 2019 election was unlawful.
Following lengthy court battles, the court ordered their reinstatement, which the National Assembly subsequently facilitated. However, disputes persist over compensation for the period during which the MPs were unlawfully excluded from Parliament.
The National Assembly denied responsibility for recovering funds owed to the six PDM members, stating that the matter is beyond its mandate.
The Assembly emphasised: “The judgment ordered the immediate swearing-in of the affected members but did not include provisions for back pay or compensation.”
Tjirare also raised concerns about party funding, implying that Parliament should allocate funds to compensate the affected members. However, the National Assembly clarified that, according to the Electoral Act of 2014, party funding is allocated to political parties for operational purposes, not individual salaries.
According to Sections 154 to 161 of the Electoral Act, party funds are allocated based on proportional representation and managed by the Secretary of the National Assembly. Salaries for Members of Parliament are processed through the National Assembly's payroll system and are not linked to party funding.
“The funding provided to political parties is not meant for individual compensation but for the administration and operations of the party,” the National Assembly stated.
One of the affected lawmakers, Charmaine Tjirare, has accused Parliament of corruptly denying them their outstanding salaries. She also alleged that the National Assembly was defying the court order, particularly concerning the payment of back pay.
In a statement to the Namibian Sun this week, the National Assembly rejected Tjirare's claims, asserting that there is no legal basis for back pay. It emphasised that parliamentary procedures were followed correctly throughout the process.
On 12 February 2025, Tjirare filed a notice of question regarding the non-execution of the Supreme Court judgment and the lack of accountability from the National Assembly, the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN), and the PDM. She subsequently submitted a motion on 19 February 2025, seeking a debate on the matter on 20 February.
Tjirare accused the National Assembly of removing her motion from the order paper and minutes, suggesting foul play and corruption. However, the National Assembly strongly denied this allegation.
According to the National Assembly, Rule 119(2) of its standing rules and orders stipulates that notices of questions take precedence over motions on Thursdays. Furthermore, on 19 February, the Speaker announced that Parliament would adjourn for the week and reconvene on 4 March 2025. As a result, neither Tjirare's question nor her motion could be deliberated on 20 February.
“The motion was not deliberately removed. The scheduling of items on the Order Paper follows established parliamentary procedures,” the National Assembly clarified.
The Assembly also stressed that it respects the Supreme Court's ruling and is committed to transparency. It called for a retraction of what it described as misleading claims and assured the public that all matters would continue to be handled within the bounds of the law.
Despite these clarifications, Tjirare insists that the issue remains unresolved, stating that the National Assembly failed to address the matter as promised on 4 March 2025. The situation is expected to develop further as Parliament resumes its sessions.
Background
The issue originates from a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 30 May 2022, which ruled that the removal of six PDM members, including Tjirare, from the originally gazetted list of PDM parliamentary candidates ahead of the 2019 election was unlawful.
Following lengthy court battles, the court ordered their reinstatement, which the National Assembly subsequently facilitated. However, disputes persist over compensation for the period during which the MPs were unlawfully excluded from Parliament.
The National Assembly denied responsibility for recovering funds owed to the six PDM members, stating that the matter is beyond its mandate.
The Assembly emphasised: “The judgment ordered the immediate swearing-in of the affected members but did not include provisions for back pay or compensation.”
Tjirare also raised concerns about party funding, implying that Parliament should allocate funds to compensate the affected members. However, the National Assembly clarified that, according to the Electoral Act of 2014, party funding is allocated to political parties for operational purposes, not individual salaries.
According to Sections 154 to 161 of the Electoral Act, party funds are allocated based on proportional representation and managed by the Secretary of the National Assembly. Salaries for Members of Parliament are processed through the National Assembly's payroll system and are not linked to party funding.
“The funding provided to political parties is not meant for individual compensation but for the administration and operations of the party,” the National Assembly stated.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article