RAGING DEBATE ON APPOINTMENTS & OATHS: NOW MPs ARE BEING SWORN IN.
Last week, I triggered a heated debate on the issue of taking all oaths of allegiance as prescribed by elected MPs before being appointed as Ministers.
I cited the Constitution and Order 8 of the National Assembly that dictate that no member shall assume his/her public office or MPship duties unless before that assumption s/he takes an oath of allegiance as prescribed.
Various thoughts, arguments and or opinions emerged and advanced for and against my thoughts while others arguing that presidential Oath is superior than the parliamentary one.
Some argued that the parliamentary oath was just a mere formality for duly declared elected MPs yet the tenure of a MP, who is supposed to be appointed Minister, is tied to one being sworn in and ends when parliament is dissolved.
My argument has been that the President applies breaks and awaits the swearing in of these MPs before appointing them into Ministerial posts for them to first derive the much needed powers, functions and authority of being MPs before being sworn and assuming powers and performing functions and duties of ministers.
Today and now the elected MPs are being sworn in before a presiding Officer at Parliament in this case the Clerk of the National Assembly in the absence of the Speaker.
It is now ripe for the president to move in and appoint any MP so sworn in to any ministerial portifolio of his choice without fear of breaking the constitution.
The preceding debate before the swearing in of MPs was healthy and finally has led to institutions doing the right thing on the same matter at the right time.
The Constitution in various Articles such as Articles 81, 105 (1), 106(2) and 260 among other clauses demand for taking up all oath as prescribed of elected/nominated and appointed officers to public offices before discharging their duties and functions, section 9 of the Official Oath Act overrules that.
This Acticle 260 guides that…*a person assuming a public office ….and presidential appointee, SHALL take Oath of Office and SUCH OTHER OATH, as PRESCRIBED, *before carrying out the duties of office*
The above provisions among others do not use *and/ or* but uses the word *and* meaning both presidential Oath and *other Oath, as prescribed*, in this case parliamentary oath must be taken before one assumes and performs public office duties and functions.
Any appointment of any minister now after the swearing in ceremony under way at Parliament by the President would have fulfilled the demands of Art 260 (Oath of office and prescribed Oath) of the Constitution of Zambia
However, we need to serious relook at the remaining issues and jargons in the law so that it is harmonised and amended e.g section 9 (failure to take an Oath) of the Official Oath Act (1990) sounds inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the constitution cited above.
The section contends that, *Any act done by any person in the execution or purported execution of his official duties shall not be rendered invalid by reason only of the omission of that person to take or SUBSCRIBE an oath required by law to be taken or subscribed*
This section seems to suggest that a person can assume public office include that of president, MP, ministers, judge or any other public officer without necessarily need to take and oath and all his/her actions while in that position are valid.
This is recipe for a constitutional anarchy and breach if the country produces a very irresponsible leader.
However, the presidential patience in our is highly admirable and commendable amidst varying pieces of advice from all sorts of people to quickly appoint his cabinet among the unsworn MPs but he kept his cool and now Mr President you can move to appoint your ministers with the speed of an eagle so that they can hit the ground running.
I submit
McDonald Chipenzi