We of course not only assume that our parliament toes the standard international operative mode but surely expect it to go about their daily natural chores as per laid down regulations.
Most Somalilanders were taken aback upon revelations that our own supreme August house elected to put the executive and judicial arms of the state in check were to meet in-camera for three whole days for some (burning) reasons.
The natural response was that they were deliberating upon emergency, extremely fragile and potentially explosive issues which would otherwise be jeopardized (if made public) when the deliberations was ongoing.
So, too, can a public court of law can resort to and do so in the same scenario above , especially when a minor or personalized gender-sensitive issue was at stake and the victim rights ought to be legally protected.
Now that the assumed August house have made public why they decided to close doors for 72 hours and not do their expected normal work, we are at lose for words.
Did their reasons warrant for in-camera (closed doors) sessions?
Did they not know that as public servants they squandered public money for any lost minutes in working hours?
What they said they deliberated upon for all those days were in a nutshell:-
- To remind security apparatus how important members of the society they were!
- To remind themselves to beat time limits in their normal expected jobs!
- To remind themselves to put the government in check!
- To remind the state that they were to be privy (or approve) international agreements.
- They discussed and agreed upon appealing for aid to bridge river-crossings!
- They thought about “starting” disseminating guidance to youth!
- They discussed and thought it best to send condolences and appealed for stability- something they have never done before a group in their entire (expired) tenure!
It is obviously uncommonsensical and beats all reasons that where people expected the closed august session to have been ordered for precarious aspects but only aghastly squandered tax-payers money for lost work in time frame of man- hours!
For one, we do not recall any time when MPs were harassed by security apparatus; and if so, there are ways and means of dealing with such: unless there are more issues that meets the eyes on this fact.
They of course have all the powers to summon top members of all echelons in any department, be they ministers or junior officers.
All the above points are office internal issues whose memos would have been dispensed as per official norms. The executives of the house could warn and reprimand errant members who never worked within time frame, they could demand from the government any response to any issue the deemed needing elucidations or so, they are expected guide, consult or meet their constituents as frequently as possible etc.
If they had secrets as to why there is inflation or why youth “never had faith” in their country, then they should have also spelt out the anti-dotes to what nags them hence prescribe solutions as befitting!
On reflection, they have just reminded us they have never been true to their jobs, something we should have long ago decried about vehemently.
Public officers should know better that their actions usually go down in history.
Those of our MPs, surely, are NOT going down well hence call for barbs.
The Presidency should at best remind them to work as expected.
By M.A. Egge