UNDERSTANDING THE OFFENCE KNOWN AS “CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT’: “ELIMU HAINA MWISHO”.

                                                           By  Pius Msekwa.

          Eventually, Hon. Mr. Speaker Job Ndugai, MP; made the solemn announcement:   “Parliament is not weak”. That was the Speake’s emphatic reminder (call it warning), or ‘parting shot’, in his closing remarks, when he was winding up the 14^th session of the 11^th Parliament on Saturday, 9^th February, 2019.  The fact that the Speaker had found it necessary to underscore this warning, is a clear indication of his grave concern regarding this matter. It may be remembered that earlier on, in the course of this same session, the Speaker had expressed his indignation at the provocative comments made by Hon. Tundu Lissu, Member of Parliament, in his interview with an international media outlet located outside the country; during which he had, perhaps unwittingly, committed an ‘offence against Parliament’, when he declared that “Parliament is weak”; thus wantonly pointing an accusing finger at Parliament, without offering any kind of proof.  His sullen comments quickly invited the Speaker’s rage; and, indeed, understandably so; due to the fact that Hon. Tundu Lissu had committed an offence against Parliament, which is known as “contempt of Parliament”.  The Speaker had therefore taken the appropriate action against the offending MP; by arraigning him before the House Standing Committee on Parliamentary Powers and Privileges for hearing of the case, and subsequently reporting to the august House itself for sentencing.                                                          I have chosen this subject for today’s article, for two good reasons.  One is in order to throw some light on this rather little known offence called “contempt of Parliament”; and secondly, to help explain the reasons for Speake’s manifest ‘grave concern’ regarding this seemingly minor incident. 

Understanding the offence of contempt of Parliament.

          The offence known as “contempt of Parliament”, remains largely unknown here in Tanzania. Two years ago, in February 2017, a related incident occurred, which prompted the media to respond with headlines like “Bunge moves to assert its powers” (The CITIZEN, 9th February, 2017).  

     In response to which, I wrote an article in this column dated 23^rd February 2017, in which  I  took  that  opportunity to draw attention to the existence of this particular offence against Parliament.  Nevertheless, on the reasonable assumption that many of today’s readers may not have seen that article, I will briefly repeat that the information; in keeping with the Kiswahili saying that “Elimu haina mwisho”.

               The identical offence of contempt of court.

A reference to the better known, identical offence of “contempt of court”, may help to facilitate a clearer understanding of this concept of “contempt of Parliament”.  Mr. Justice Chipeta, in his book titled “A Magistrate ’s Manual” (at page 219); describes the actions which constitute the offence of ‘contempt of court’  in the  following words: “Nothing should be done, or omitted to be done in court or out of court, which shows disrespect to the presiding judge or magistrate, or which obstructs or interferes, or  in any way hinders the course of justice . . .  And in order to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted in an atmosphere of seriousness, serenity and dignity, judges and Magistrates are clothed with the very important power of punishing such transgressors summarily for contempt of court”. 

            This  offence is much better known and understood,  than  that of “contempt of Parliament”;  probably because  there is much greater public involvement  in the court system and its proceedings, either directly as litigants or witnesses; or indirectly as interested observers attending court proceedings as relatives or friends of the accused persons; whereas, on the contrary,  there is no such close public involvement in relation to parliamentary proceedings; wherein  most  people are interested only in following the speeches delivered by their representative MPs, and not in the rulings by the Speaker, or other person presiding. Furthermore, such cases (relating to ‘contempt of Parliament) have occurred so very rarely in our Parliament, to the extent that members of the public are blissfully unaware of them.       Hence the need to raise greater public awareness regarding this matter.

 The offence of contempt of Parliament.

            Mr. Justice Chipeta’s description of the actions which constitute the offence of ‘contempt of court’,   may also be appropriately used  in describing the identical offence of ‘contempt of Parliament’,  as “an act committed by any person, which shows disrespect to parliament  or to its presiding Officer”                      

       In other words, any person who, by his word or deed, shows disrespect to the House, or its presiding Officer, is regarded as having  acted in contempt of Parliament, and is therefore liable to suffer the punishments prescribed in the relevant  Act; which is the Parliamentary Immunities, Powers and Privileges Act(no. 3 of 1988) as amended by Act no 3 of 2004.   Section 24 of that Act provides as follows:  “Any person shall be guilty of an offence  who:-                                                                                                      

  (d) shows disrespect, in speech or manner, towards the Speaker;                                                       (e) commits any other act of intentional disrespect to  or with reference to the proceedings of the (National) Assembly,  or a Committee of the Assembly, or to any person presiding at such proceedings”.

The power of Parliament to punish a Member.

            There are two ways through which Parliament is empowered to punish its members. The first is that which is prescribed in the Rules of the House itself; whereby the Speaker is empowered to arraign before the House Committee on Parliamentary Immunity, Powers and Privileges; any alleged perpetrator of a ‘crime against Parliament’. This is the route which has mostly been taken by the Speakers in the past, including myself, whenever the need arose.                       But there is an alternative option, which is provided for in section 12(3) of the same Act, and reads as follows:-   “The (National)  Assembly, or, as the case may be,  a  Committee thereof  may, in relation to any act, matter, or thing, recommend to the Speaker that he requests the Attorney General to take the steps necessary to bring to trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, any person connected with an offence under this Act”.                                                                  In that connection, it may be helpful also to draw attention to section 26 of that Act, which converts certain normal parliamentary proceedings, into ‘judicial proceedings”; in the following words: “Any proceedings before the Assembly or Committee thereof, at which any person gives evidence or produces any document, shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections 102, 106, 108 and 109 of the Penal Code”. This is a legal procedure which automatically attracts the same penalties as are provided for in the specified sections of the Penal Code; and makes them applicable to offences committed under this Act.   For example, section 102 of the Penal Code prescribes penalties for the judiciary offence known as “perjury”; namely, the act of telling lies in court.                                               

             Thus, in any proceedings, either in Parliament itself or in any of its Committees, which involve the hearing of evidence from any person, should such person give false evidence by telling lies, he will have committed the offence of perjury, which is punishable under section 102 of the Penal Code.                                              

              Both of these provisions are largely unknown, not only to the general public, but also to the Parliamentarians themselves!  Ignorance of this provision is what explains why certain MPs have, in the past, escaped unpunished after having clearly committed the offence of ‘perjury’, namely telling lies in Parliament.  But they had better take note of this information, for, after this disclosure, they may not be so lucky the next time!   

The contention that ‘Parliament is weak’

             We may now closely examine Hon. Tundu Lissu’s contention that got him into trouble with Hon. Mr. Speaker Job Ndugai, namely his wanton accusation that “Parliament is weak”.                                                 

        When applied to an Organization like Parliament, the word “weak” can only mean “not having much power”.  And, more specifically, lacking power to carry out its legal functions and responsibilities. The Tanzania Parliament’s legal functions and responsibilities, are provided for in article 63(3) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977.                                                       They  are the following:-                                                                                                                           (a) To put questions to Ministers                                                                                                               (b) To make an annual evaluation of the performance of every Government Ministry, during the annual budget session                                                                                                                                                            

            (c) To discuss and give approval to Government long-term and short-term development plans.                         

            (d) To enact the country’s laws                                                                                                                                             

             (e) To discuss and give approval to any international Treaties which require such approval.

Similarly the same Constitution vests in Parliament the power to carry out these functions.                              

         Thus, in view of Tundu Lissu’s   disturbing assertions that “Parliament is weak”; the question which needs to be determined is simply this:                                                                                                        Has Parliament displayed any weakness by failing in any way to carry out these functions and responsibilities?  My own personal answer is NO. Which means that I am in total agreement with Speaker Ndugai’s responses regarding this matter. 

 Undermining Parliament under the cover of ‘freedom of speech’.

Hon. Tundu Lissu was apparently not alone in this venture of undermining Parliament, because two other persons, Professor Mussa Assad, the Controller and Auditor General, and Halima Mdee, MP for the Kawe constituency, were also summoned by the relevant House Committee for questioning, in connection with the said offence of undermining Parliament.  In parliamentary parlance, persons who appear before the House Committee are called ‘witnesses’, not accused persons.   Thus, in this case, we are talking about three ‘witnesses’.   But, for the purpose of this presentation, we will call them “Associates’.   We are still waiting to hear the findings of the said Committee, which will be disclosed during the forthcoming parliamentary session. But in the meantime, we may take a look at the said concept of ‘freedom of speech’.  

 There is no dispute whatsoever that Hon. Tundu Lissu and his Associates in this venture, are, of course, like every other citizen, fully entitled to their right of freedom of speech.  But they might as well be made aware of the ‘dose of wisdom’ administered long ago by that famous British novelist, George Orwell who, in his work titled The Road to Wigan Pier, re-defined ‘freedom of speech’ as “the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. In view of what befell them, the said Associates were clearly saying ‘things which other people did not like to hear”.                                           

    Or perhaps, they may just have been merrily engaging themselves, obviously willingly and knowingly, in the dirty game of propaganda. In which case, they should similarly  be made aware of another  ‘dose of wisdom’  by another  British-born  poet whose name was  P.M Cornford, who is on record as having  re-defined that word as follows:  “ Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying, which consists in nearly deceiving your friends, without quite deceiving your enemies”.                            

  These Associates in the game of undermining Parliament, appear to have succeeded in doing exactly that.   This also reminds me of one anonymous guru, who once said that “it is in the true nature of mankind to learn from mistakes, not from examples”.                                                                  Well, hopefully, there will be those who will learn from the mistakes committed by these ‘Associates’; presumably who, having understood the nature of this parliamentary offence, will always diligently avoid that mistake of committing the offence of “contempt of parliament”.  

piomsekwa@gmail.com  / 0754767576. 

Source: Daily News,today