Former MPs to wait longer as court ties benefits to MCAs’ case

The Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) will have to wait longer for determination of whether lawmakers who served in the 11th Parliament and had their term cut short by eight months will be entitled to compensation.

The Supreme Court has directed PSC to wait until a related appeal filed by MCAs who served in the last House is determined.

In April last year, the High Court ruled that the MCAs' constitutional term is five years, commencing March 3, 2013 and expiring on March 3, 2018.

The court added that the MCAs should therefore be paid their salaries and benefits for the eight months premature termination of their constitutional term, when elections were held on August 8, 2017.

This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal but the MCAs have since moved to the Supreme Court to challenge the verdict. The PSC is seeking an advisory opinion from the superior court on the meaning of the expression, “the term of office of each House of Parliament expires on the date of the next General Election,” as used in Article 102(1) of the Constitution.

READ: MCAs secure 8-month pay without work

It also wants the Supreme Court to determine the term of office for MPs under the 2010 Constitution, and the meaning of the expression “every fifth year,” within the context of Article 101(1), 180(1), and 177(1)(a) of the Constitution.

“We also seek a determination on whether by holding the General Election on August 8, 2017 the term of office of the MPs of the 11th Parliament was prematurely terminated,” PSC says in court papers.

They also want an advisory opinion on whether drafters of the Constitution intended to have different terms of office for MPs and MCAs elected in 2013, as well as whether the term of parliament (composed of the national assembly and the senate) is five years.