NC MPs intensely debate Private Member Bills

There was overwhelming support for the two Private Member Bills currently under review in the National Council, albeit with heated debate.

The Bills which also received unanimous support from the National Assembly, introduced by Swapo MP Jerry Ekandjo in his private capacity, surround the definition of spouse and marriage.

At the centre of the dispute, which sparked intense controversy and garnered significant attention within the nation’s political landscape, lies a recent Supreme Court ruling that recognised same-sex marriages solemnised outside the borders of Namibia, involving a Namibian and a foreigner, for immigration purposes only.

Seeking to challenge this verdict, the private bill aims to redefine the legal definition of spouse and, in effect, render the Supreme Court decision useless.

The National Council, in a display of overwhelming support, emerged as a staunch advocate for the proposed private bill.

Supporters argue that passing the Bill into law would rectify what they perceive as an encroachment on parliamentary sovereignty by the judiciary.

One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is a provision to criminalise the propagation, promotion, and solemnization of same-sex marriages.

Members of parliament expressed views suggesting that same-sex attraction might be a psychological problem requiring psychological counselling, equating it with moral decay and citing religious references such as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Health concerns related to anal sex were also raised, further adding to the contentious nature of the discussion.

In an alarming turn, some parliamentarians went as far as to propose capital punishment and the removal of any member of parliament suspected or proven to be LGBTQI+ from their positions.

However, others argued vehemently against such actions, emphasising that they would be unconstitutional and fundamentally against the principles of a democratic society.

Defending the Bills, supporters maintained that they were acting in line with the constitution and responding to the Supreme Court’s call for parliamentary engagement on the matter.

They contended that allowing same-sex relationships could potentially open the door to further demands for practises such as incest, bestiality, and paedophilia.

In light of this, some suggested that the preservation of African customs and the consideration of polygamy would be more appropriate alternatives.