Safeguarding Parliamentary Staff and Public Servants Date: Apr 10, 2009 2:57:41 AM PDT Author: Moderator Some colleagues have combined their comments on the topic of immunities and privileges of members with those on the topic of safeguarding parliamentary staff in their work (which also involves immunities and privileges of a different sort). I shall therefore post this same set of comments under both topics. There is broad agreement that the immunities granted to MPs should always include the right to free speech in parliament (that is, that what is said there cannot be contested elsewhere) and the safe guard against arrest in civil cases. We are also reminded that in certain countries the proceedings of parliament cannot be quoted in the courts without special agreement being obtained from parliament. We can draw attention here to the danger that a journalist may bring on himself or herself by quoting what was said in parliament that might have been slanderous if said elsewhere – as the Unit says, there is an interesting body of case law on this matter. There is broad agreement too on another aspect, namely, that MPs need certain benefits and privileges even outside of parliament in order to carry out their work satisfactorily. They have to accept however that these will always be seen by the public as matters for criticism – as one participant says, this is democracy in action. Perhaps the public would be willing to accept these without criticism but that some parliamentarians use their benefits to the extreme and this starts off a reaction against benefits of all kinds and against all parliamentarians. A perceptive point that is made is that immunities and privileges, however necessary and important, are a divisive factor as they have the effect in the long run of separating the parliamentarians from the electors they serve. This brings up the question of codes of conduct for both MPs and staff. Should both groups not be required to observe codes of conduct laid down for them? For MPs in particular should there be a requirement of a mandatory declaration of assets when they are elected to parliament and would the public see that as a reassurance? Colleagues are agreed that staff, like MPs, need protection in the course of performing their duties in parliament and must be given certain benefits in recognition of the type of work they do. Present safeguards and benefits in most parliaments are probably insufficient and need broadening. The best safeguard, it is suggested, is that staff should steer clear of party politics and here too a code of conduct could be a valuable asset.

Safeguarding Parliamentary Staff and Public Servants Date: Apr 10, 2009 4:55:25 PM PDT Author: Big Ben In Nigeria, there is no special protection for parliamentary staff and Public Servants. We all enjoy the same kind of protection while carrying out our duties. I think there is a need to protect certain category of parliamentary staff. These are those that handle sensitive information in the National Assembly. The knowledge that they are safe will boost their morale to perform their duties diligently.

Safeguarding Parliamentary Staff and Public Servants Date: Apr 10, 2009 4:59:32 PM PDT Author: Big Ben In Nigeria, there is no special protection for parliamentary staff and Public Servants. We all enjoy the same kind of protection while carrying out our duties. I think there is a need to protect certain category of parliamentary staff. These are those that handle sensitive information in the National Assembly. The knowledge that they are safe will boost their morale to perform their duties diligently.

Protection of Parliamentary staff and other public servants Date: Apr 11, 2009 6:49:25 AM PDT Author: karoli Tumu and Ekky said it all. Uganda's parliamentary staff are covered under the law, only that neutrality is dependent on which political spectacles one uses. We have had no incident so far. As for other civil servants am not certain but the Public Service Standing Orders spells out these issues and since parliamentary staff are employed by the Parliamentary Commission and are no longer part of the mainstream civil service I cannot comment much on this issue

Week 5 - Safeguarding Parliamentary Staff and Public Servants Date: Apr 14, 2009 11:56:04 PM PDT Author: Tina I concur with all the other discussants, there is need to protect both staff and members of Parliament from the relevant ant immunities. In Parliament of Uganda, the Parliamentary Commission is entrusted with the mandate to appoint, promote and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding public office in Parliament; to review the terms and conditions of service, standing orders, training and qualifications of persons holding office in Parliament. This involves protection all immunities at work in terms of the reports, acts and responsibilities performed

Safeguards for parliamentary staff and public servants Date: Apr 15, 2009 8:12:08 AM PDT Author: MOG Parliamentary staff in Nigeria do not enjoy special privileges and safeguards other than those that persons carrying out official assignments should naturally enjoy. There are no clear constitutional safeguards for parliamentary staff but the civil/ public service rules provide some guidelines upon which staff employed under the civil service may conduct their activities in order not to run contrary to constituted authorities. This document also specifies punishment for erring public officers, in accordance with the rules. I think that parliamentary staff are also protected under parliamentary privileges of each chamber's Standing Order/Rules.

Safeguarding Parliamentary Staff and Public Servants Date: Apr 19, 2009 5:05:50 PM PDT Author: Ose In an ideal world, the best safeguard for parliamentary staff would indeed be the shield of neutrality, but its applicability in the real world is suspect, especially when the staff in question might be in possession of very sensitive information. Like Big Ben suggests, parliamentary staff, especially vulnerable ones, should be protected by a set of rules or laws that deflects any form of persecution they might have otherwise experienced as a result of carrying out their parliamentary duties.