Kellys Kaunda writes:
DID THE CHRISTOPHER MUSHABATI TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION?
I don’t know about you but for me this seems to be the bone of contention by the OASIS Forum – meeting the constitutional threshold of public consultation.
This is the question LAZ tried to answer before the parliamentary select committee yesterday.
There’s even a suggestion that parliament is in contempt of court for entertaining Bill 7 because the threshold of public consultation was not met.
The Mushabati committee went to provincial centers and held public hearings;
Received submissions virtually;
Received submissions via its website; and received written ones dropped off in boxes placed for this purpose at local authority offices.
In all, over 11,000 submissions were received from members of the public.
According to parliamentary standing orders, since Bill 7 was deferred when it was at committee stage, it is at this stage it has resumed.
At this stage, public hearings are conducted and the report as well as the Bill of the Mushabati committee are to be considered.
Then the select committee will present a more enhanced Bill 7 to the House.
The question I now ask is: does this process meet the constitutional threshold of public consultation required to amend the constitution?
Or does the process have to follow every step as outlined by LAZ yesterday?
..
I see a situation where somebody will go back to court to seek an interpretation of the words, “public consultation”.