Recent events surrounding the apparent delayed disbursement of National Government Constituency Development Fund (NG-CDF) have brought to light a pressing need for clarity regarding the roles of Members of Parliament (MPs) within the context of this debate.

As parliamentarians embark on their two-month Christmas recess, the tumultuous scenes witnessed at parliament buildings, marked by members boycotting house sittings in a demand for NG-CDF fund disbursement cannot be overlooked.

It is crucial to acknowledge the backdrop against which these actions unfolded. Despite judicial rulings declaring the fund as unconstitutional, members of the national assembly appear to have found a loophole allowing them to disregard this verdict.

Instead, they have chosen to peg their performance on the management of constituency allocations, sidelining their constitutional roles of oversight, representation, and legislation.

Central to this debate is the supremacy of the constitution and the delineation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

While there are ongoing discussions about enshrining these funds, including the NG-CDF, within the constitutional framework, it’s imperative to uphold the constitutional principles until such amendments are made.

The issue at hand is not solely about the existence or utilization of the NG-CDF; rather, it revolves around the conduct of MPs in managing these funds in direct defiance of the law. Upholding fidelity to the constitution must be the paramount consideration.

When MPs prioritize roles that do not fall within their mandate to the extent of impeding parliamentary proceedings, it raises serious concerns about their commitment to the duties entrusted to them by the electorate.

Clarity on the role of MPs in relation to NG-CDF is not just a matter of legal interpretation; it’s fundamental to upholding the principles of governance and the rule of law.

Copy by Fred Indimuli- host Morning Cafe show