Chaos in African parliament was a power grab by Zimbabwe

The current session of the Pan-African Parliament in Midrand was marred this week by chaos and threats of violence among the members because of strong disagreements about the conducting of elections.

The parliament is a permanent organ of the AU. SA is the permanent host country, reportedly spending more than R300m a year on the institution.

At the core of the disagreement is insistence by the Southern Africa caucus that the election of the president be rotated among the five regions of the AU, North, West, East, Central and Southern Africa. The caucus claims that the AU follows a principle of rotation to unite the continent.

The AU decided that the parliament should follow a principle of rotation when electing its president. The revised protocol of the parliament has codified the principle in its articles, the Southern Africa caucus argues. However, the protocol has not yet come into effect because most countries, including those in the Southern African region, have not ratified it.

The current session of the parliament was seemingly called to swear in new MPs and elect a new bureau (president and four vice-presidents), following the dissolution of the previous bureau at the end of its three-year term.

The Southern Africa region is demanding that as per rotation, only the North and Southern regions put forward candidates for president because they are the only ones yet to hold that position. A letter from the AU legal counsel to the clerk of the parliament was presented, stating that rotation should be implemented or the elections would be invalid.

As a former clerk of the parliament, I am familiar with the AU governance and understand the issues. I know that elections are held according to the rules of procedure as stipulated in the protocol establishing the parliament. Rotation of the presidency is not yet codified in the rules of procedure to make it binding.

In the past, rotation was by consensus. As a result, the East, West and Central regions held the presidency without incident.

The rotation is also followed when nominating candidates for a bureau position and this has benefited the Southern region. Consequently, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Mozambique have held positions of vice-presidents in the bureau.

To regulate rotation and ensure respect for the principle, we allowed the passing of an amendment to the rules by stipulating that two-thirds of the majority members "present and voting" were sufficient for that amendment to be passed.

In the past, rotation was by consensus. As a result, the East, West and Central regions held the presidency without incident

The parliament has yet to amend the rules to make rotation binding despite having bureau members from the Southern region.

The AU legal counsel plays an advisory role and its advice is not binding on any organ of the body, especially its parliament.

The only power it has over the parliament concerns litigation, which is centralised in its office. The parliament cannot be sued or institute its own legal proceedings except through the AU legal counsel office. Its opinion on legal matters does not have an overriding force over the internal rules of procedure of the parliament.

Indeed, the parliament has over time fought to be independent and to have the powers to oversee the work of the AU Commission, which includes the legal office.

It is illogical for some MPs to welcome intrusion by the legal counsel on internal matters when the call for more oversight powers includes that of the same legal office.

The chaos we saw in the parliament this week was unnecessary and was preventable if proper preparation had been done by the Southern Africa caucus before the session. The region, as host of the parliament, should be exemplary in following the rules and should work to have rotation inserted in the rules of procedure. The caucus members must work on the basis of consensus if they feel the need for urgency in taking over the reins at the parliament.

There is more than meets the eye in why there was such vehemence from the Southern Africa region, led by Zimbabwe, in demanding the implementation of rotation. The rotation principle is equally applicable within a region, allowing it to share power among its sister states.

In the five terms of the parliament's existence, Zimbabwe has been in the bureau three times. From 2015, rotation was ignored when electing a president and there were no disruptions of elections.

Disruptions of elections now occur because a member from Zimbabwe, who was once a vice-president, and whose country has defied rotation within the region before - serving in the bureau more than once - is a candidate for the presidency.

Clearly this member's chances of being elected democratically were not good, otherwise he would have been elected.

It seems that an anti-democratic strategy was employed to grab power in the guise of demanding rotation.

Rotation was ignored not only when electing the president in the past, but when electing a vice-president from the Southern Africa region.

On all these occasions, the same candidate from Zimbabwe who wanted to be president was in the bureau and did nothing to amend the rules to make rotation binding.

It is unfair to hold the whole parliament to ransom under the false pretence of demanding rotation, and to prejudice members who were invited to participate in elections.

Members from outside Southern Africa travelled long distances to reach this country to attend a session that has now proved futile.

As host country, we ought to have intervened to protect the diplomatic image of our country and to reassure the people of Africa that they were correct in supporting our bid to host the parliament because we have a strong culture of parliamentary democracy.

SA as the host of the parliament has a historical and political obligation to enhance the administration, advisory, research and diplomatic capacity of our continental assembly for the realisation of a united and democratic Africa.

• Madasa is a former clerk of the Pan-African Parliament