EDITORIAL: Playing politics with people’s liberties
Our government must demonstrate political backbone and pronounce itself on the Jerry Ekandjo private member’s bills, which have been collecting dust on the president’s desk for over 12 months.
There seems to be a well-calculated inaction on those bills in order to influence the outcome of the November election. This approach is both cowardly and deceptive – because it robs voters of making an informed democratic choice as far as the issue of same-sex marriages is concerned.
Both sides on the same-sex marriage issue have waited endlessly for the president – first Hage Geingob and now Nangolo Mbumba – to ratify or reject Jerry’s bills. Of course, the democratic choice of Namibians would also be guided by other factors, but there have been public statements made by individuals for whom this issue is dear to their hearts and whose votes would be guided by the final decision on the bills.
The president’s deafening silence also raises serious constitutional and legal questions. Does this inaction mean a Namibian president can indefinitely sit on a bill that has been referred to him by parliament? Like one leading legal mind said recently, reasonableness is a key feature of our legal order. It requires that decisions by organs of the state be taken within a reasonable time, even in instances where no time frame has been stipulated.
This situation also calls for our collective responsibility as a nation to tweak and refine our constitution. It is not right that there is no timeframe within which a president must assent to a bill.
In Kenya, the constitution gives their president 14 days within which to act on a bill.
There seems to be a well-calculated inaction on those bills in order to influence the outcome of the November election. This approach is both cowardly and deceptive – because it robs voters of making an informed democratic choice as far as the issue of same-sex marriages is concerned.
Both sides on the same-sex marriage issue have waited endlessly for the president – first Hage Geingob and now Nangolo Mbumba – to ratify or reject Jerry’s bills. Of course, the democratic choice of Namibians would also be guided by other factors, but there have been public statements made by individuals for whom this issue is dear to their hearts and whose votes would be guided by the final decision on the bills.
The president’s deafening silence also raises serious constitutional and legal questions. Does this inaction mean a Namibian president can indefinitely sit on a bill that has been referred to him by parliament? Like one leading legal mind said recently, reasonableness is a key feature of our legal order. It requires that decisions by organs of the state be taken within a reasonable time, even in instances where no time frame has been stipulated.
This situation also calls for our collective responsibility as a nation to tweak and refine our constitution. It is not right that there is no timeframe within which a president must assent to a bill.
In Kenya, the constitution gives their president 14 days within which to act on a bill.
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article