By
OLU. IBEKWE (oluchukwuibekwe@gmail.com)
The 40th
Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of the African Union today Thursday
considered the progress report on the status of the implementation of the
decisions of the 39th Ordinary Session (Decision 1128) on the resolution
of the crisis that led to the suspension May 2021 session of the Pan African Parliament (PAP).
About
twelve (12) Foreign Ministers of member states initially signed on to speak on
the issue. They are Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Cote D’ivoire, Egypt,
Rwanda, South Africa, Ghana, Algeria, Namibia, Uganda, and Saharawi Republic. The
Foreign Ministers of Djibouti, Central Africa Republic and Kenya also spoke.
They all
agreed, without exception, that Decision 1128 should strictly be implemented
and that PAP election session should
take place in March. None suggested April or indeed any other month for the
election.
However,
the Chairperson of the Council made a ruling that consultations with the other
four regional causes in PAP will
take place and conclude by March so that election session will take place in
April. The ruling came as a surprise because holding the election in April was
not suggested by any of the Ministers who took the floor.
Secondly,
the issue of holding consultations with the other regional caucuses before the
election was not mentioned by any of the speakers. Indeed, Decision 1128 did
not require such consultations before the election.
I
have perused the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Council to see if there
was any rule that gave the Chairperson the power to unilaterally take such a
decision without considering the contributions of members on the issue but I
found none.
Rule
19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Council which deals with decision
making procedures states that “The Executive Council shall take all its
decisions by consensus or, failing which, by a two-thirds majority of the
Member States eligible to vote”. So the unilateral decision by the Chairperson without
regard to the consensus views of the Member States that election in March is
doable, is undemocratic and unprocedural!
The substantive
issue that resulted in the suspension of the PAP plenary in May 2021 and the intervention of the African Union was
disagreement over rotation of the presidency of the parliament. Had those
recalcitrant parliamentarians respected the legal opinion issued by the Office
of Legal Counsel on or about 30 May 2021, PAP
election would have successfully been conducted on 01 June 2021. After more
than eight (8) months, we are back to the Legal Counsel’s opinion. Must we
continue to encourage disobedience to decisions of policy organs of the AU?
As we
know, the Office of Legal Counsel ensures that
decision-making processes are compliant with AU legal frameworks and provides
advice on the interpretation of AU legal instruments. The legal opinion
should have settled the matter.
But If I may ask, what is the essence of requiring the consultations
before holding the election? Was this requirement part of Decision 1128? And
again did the AUC delegation that visited South Africa in September 2021 actually
hold consultations with the Southern Caucus? How could the Southern Caucus
submission of relevant and material documents such as the May 2007 resolution
of the PAP on rotation amount to
consultation? Are the consultations intended to be a back door approach to
reopen or reconsider Decision 1128? Too many questions which I hope to explore
in my next article on the matter.
In my humble opinion, pandering to those recalcitrant parliamentarians
who are openly defiant of the decisions of policy organs of the Union amounts
to encouraging their continued mischief. The initial issue before the Council which Decision 1128 settled was rotation. No
more, no less. By insisting on these consultations before the election, the
impression being created is that the fight continues even after Decision 1128.
It is time for the Executive Council to read the riot act. The parliamentarians
who are bent on mischief should be identified and withdrawn from PAP so that progress can be made. But then
do they have godfathers and encouragers within the Commission?
The ruling made by the chair is consistent with the one he made at the last meeting. For sure there is some inconsistencies on how the PAP matter is being handled but they lie elsewhere not with the chair and his ruling.
ReplyDelete