MP demands debate on Sec 65, deputy speakers ‘illegal’ allowances

Lilongwe Msozi south legislator Vitus Dzoole Mwale on Friday demanded debate in parliament on Republican Constitution Section 65 following the decision by the United Democratic Front (UDF) to join government benches in the House and allegations that the two deputy speakers were pocketing K500, 000 each in exaggerated house allowances.

Dzoole Mwale complained to first deputy speaker Esther Mcheka Chilenje that he had given the motions to the Speaker of the National Assembly Richard Msowoya and duly followed all rules as laid down in standing orders, a parliamentary set of rules that govern the 193 strong House.

But Chilenje told the legislator he could not ambush her and the House with an issue which was not on order paper, a paper that details authorised business to be conducted in the House on a particular day.

However, Dzoole Mwale, although he was not given chance to speak, managed to tell the House his intentions to bring to the House issues about Section 65 and the deputy speakers’ allowances.

But Chilenje told the legislator he was violating standing orders.

“It is not right to violate your standing orders. I rule you out of order,” said Chilenje.

She said parliament could not discuss the issue of allowances because the matter is now in court and that she is one of the concerned deputy speakers.

Chilenje and second deputy speaker Clement Chiwaya took parliament to court to force parliament reinstate the K500000 house allowance each after the National Assembly slashed it to K250 000 after it was learnt that they live in their own personal houses not in rented houses as they claimed earlier.

Chilenje however did not comment on on Section 65 issue.

Some parliamentarians petitioned the Speaker o declare seats of UDF legislators vacant following the party’s decision to relocate its MPs to government side in the House following the ruling Democratic Progressive Party alliance with the UDF in parliament, a move some opposition parliamentarians claim contravenes Section 65.