MPs should turn to court for defamation

Parliament has again referred a member to its Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline in a matter which marks out the fine line between certain rights and freedoms, and the necessity for decorum in the House.

 The member for Mityana Municipality, Mr Francis Zaake is alleged to have defamed Ms Juliet Kyinyamatama, the woman representative for Rakai District, while speaking in her constituency on Independence Day. He allegedly used disparaging and rude language while also casting aspersions as to her moral rectitude. This is a delicate matter. However, it is equally important to maintain a sense of proportion in considering options for redress.

 Under the stipulations of Rules 91, 175 and 224, of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, Mr Zaake stands accused of slander, contempt and of insulting the dignity of the House. But can these charges be sustained?
 What those provisions do not say is whether the authority of the Rules committee extends beyond the precincts of Parliament. There are those, including veteran MP and senior counsel, Mr Wandera Ogalo, who believe that the framers of the rules intended for the jurisdiction to be restricted to what happens at Parliament. This view then poses the question as to whether Mr Zaake should appear for these disciplinary hearings at all.

 It is important to remember that the House code of conduct and the Rules of Procedure were drafted with the preservation of order inside Parliament in mind. Members are expected to be decent; to respect each other and generally behave well as they go about their duties.
But that limited interpretation has recently been stretched after other members were asked to explain themselves for acts committed in the public domain. And that is where the risk of ascribing to the Rules of Procedure a false superiority over certain inherent constitutional freedoms, including the rights to freedom of expression, conscience and thought, lies.

 When it becomes impossible for a Member of Parliament to speak their mind; or to express an opinion, however unpopular, for fear that they will subjected to disciplinary action, it can be argued that we are defeating the very purpose for which Parliament exists. It is counterintuitive for the very institution which should thrive on free speech to now be seen to be curtailing that freedom.

 We would, therefore, encourage the Speaker of Parliament to consider letting our courts to adjudicate where members suspect defamation or an affront to the dignity of Parliament perpetrated outside the precincts. Appearing to use official organs to settle personal scores lets off a bad smell.
 Politicians should grow thick skins -- to insulate themselves against even the sharpest of barbs -- as theirs is the sort of business where subtlety is uncommon.