The 'Affirmative Seats' were NOT only for Women...

Dear Editor,

The recent 'non-affirmative affair' to disallow the creation of '50 seats for women' in Parliament only proved that the sitting Parliamentarians have proven to be the worst and rebellious performers in our legislative history. What Parliament did to Section 42, which is in the Constitution, have brought shame to the nation.

The error made by our MPs is to go against a constitutional provision of the same section. They could have 'reviewed' as stated in our laws, by complying with the same provision. What they chose to do was to 'directly vote against the provision' with pettiness than to 'review' whatever seemed to have been wrong. At the same time why didn't the opposition bring the bill to the house for debate than to wait for Government to do likewise but with the sole intention of shooting it down.

Sec. 42 Subsection 3 elaborates the expediencies that take account of the population density and trends, geographical features, community interests and boundaries of existing administrative areas in as far as creating constituencies is concerned.

Sec.42 subsection 4 provides for, "the commission shall review (under an Act of Parliament) the number of, the boundaries or the names, subject to and in accordance with this section, to the extent that it considers desirable in the light of the review".

This thus proves that our MPs had a chance to 'review', either by reducing or changing the number of extra MPs, candidates and constituencies by proposing an amendment to the Bill. They could have legally 'altered' through a bill, the provision that seemed to only cater for women by 'reviewing' the same by 'stating that the disabled, youth, women' and 'any other interested party', may get ten (10) seats or less each. They also had an option of reducing, through an amendment, the number of seats from, let us say 50 to 25,or otherwise recommended.

To make matters worse, Sec. 42 subsections 1 and 2 give the mandate to the Electoral Commission to make it possible for such changes to take place through Parliament. Majority of the elitist MPs who opposed the Bill were merely politicizing the Bill and unfortunately that was done in Parliament that is meant to remain non-partisan and non-political. They only failed to respect the mandate of the Electoral Commission by mistaking the same to mean a 'Government Project for electoral purposes' and discriminating against those marginalized in society. After all the 'affirmative seats' and constituencies that were to be created were not entirely for women. But the marginalized, including the youth. MPs had a chance to correct that misconception but literally shot the Bill straight and towards society.

Regards,
Mundia Mundia Jnr.