Regazzeted Bill 10 changes nothing, still embarrassing

I had gone into serious reading and studying of the regazetted Bill 10 or are they amendments to the Bill 10 under the Gazette Notice published on 12 June, 2020?

Sadly, and sadly indeed, the government has not listened fully to the demands of the people but only attempted to listen.

Other than the Bill 10 objects remaining the same and the numerous typos in the regazetted amendments, it contains only about 5 changes to the contentious issues.

These include 1) removal of a coalition govt, 2) removal of the 3 year term for an inheriter of a presidential term; 3) retention of 14 days to hear and determine a presidential petition; 4) retention of parliamentary approval to contraction of loans, agreements, contracts and treaties and 5) retention of a clause on retirees to remain on payroll until paid their dues.

The rest remains the same way they are presented in the original Bill 10 e.g. public officers to resign 2yrs before an election when they want to participate in elective politics; ministers to remain in office until the next general election; president to create, divide a province without parliament approval as prescribed;

Others include: the composition of Parliament to be relegated to subsidiary legislation to be determined by a party with majority in Parliament; parliament never to dissolve on its own as is provided currently under Art 81(3);

the mayors/chairpersons and their deputies to be elected by their fellow Councilors and their of office term reduced for mayors/chairpersons to 21/2 years; chiefs to be recognised either by custom, tradition and culture or by President (confusion in the making);

MPs and ministers to be back into councils as Councilors; bloated govt still retained with the inclusion of deputy ministers, provincial ministers, Chief whip of the ruling party;

The president has been empowered to effect appointment despite parliament refusal or delay to ratify the nominee and the constitutional directive for the President to refer such a refusal or delay to ConCourt deleted;

The definition of a chief now includes those chiefs only recognised by govt and not custom, culture and traditions, among many undemocratic articles.

In essence, the regazetted amendments/changes have changed nothing to the Bill to say the least.

Withdrawing is the answer if truly this govt means well on this Bill 10. We can’t continue with this drama, fiasco and chaos associated with the Bill 10. It is embarrassing indeed.

I submit

Share this post