 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11833 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jun 2007 : 21:38:21
|
CONTROVERSY OVER A SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
By Abdoulie Dibba
On Monday 11 June 2007, a controversy ensued at the National Assembly over a supplementary question between the Speaker, Hon. Netty Baldeh and Hon. Sidia Jatta. The controversy arosed following a question raised by the National Assembly Member for Lower Fulladu West, Hon. Yerro Mballow, as to whether there was any fertilizer purchased for the last cropping season for the farming community?
a). If there was no fertilizer purchased, why?
b). If there was any purchase made how much was distributed regionally?
In response to these questions the SoS for Agriculture, Kanja Sanneh, indicated that fertilizer was not purchased for the last cropping season for the farming community because there was a balance of stock from the previous season. In a supplementary question, the member for Lower Fulladu West, Hon. Yerro Mballow, raised the following question: Hon. Speaker, could the SoS tell this Assembly whether the balance of fertilizer was adequate for the farming community? This question however, led to a controversy as the Speaker ruled out the question saying the question was not a supplementary one but a new element. But Hon. Sidia rose up to observe that it was indeed not a new element but was rather supplementing the main one, making a follow up on the SoS’s reply.
Mr. Netty Baldeh also rose to support what the Speaker had said and went further to stress that the Speaker’s position was final because according to him the Speaker had already over ruled the question.
The Wuli West NAM rose up to demand from the Speaker to make an observation. The Speaker also asked whether it was on the same matter, to which Sidia answered in the positive. Netty Baldeh, however, stood up to insist that Sidia should not make any further observation on the matter.
Sidia, who must have felt surprised, asked Netty whether he was the Speaker of the National Assembly, Netty answered in the negative. The Speaker then thanked Netty for helping to protect her and later said the way he saw Sidia was like somebody who needed sympathy but Sidia said he did not need sympathy and retorted that he did not need sympathy from those who need to be sympathised. He, however, emphasize his point on the fertilizer purchases which the SoS should clarify but the Speaker insisted that it was still a new element.
The majority leader who rose to defend Hon. Baldeh’s position indicated that even if Hon. Jatta was right, the fact is that the Speaker had already overruled the supplementary question and that Hon. Jatta’s position should not be tolerated.
Source:Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 70/2007, 18 - 19 June, 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jun 2007 : 23:48:43
|
Answer to the above must be:
No, there was not enough fertilizer!
Can't be clearer than that,otherwise why try all these roundabout ways of not answering an important question.......Ahhhhhhhh that's politics   |
Edited by - toubab1020 on 19 Jun 2007 23:51:22 |
 |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2007 : 01:07:56
|
| No wonder they never allowed NA proceedings to be aired on tele. What a blessing that move proved to be. The motor-mouth speaker ain't got a clue what a supplementary question means!! God forbid that children and the international media should pick on this one. We've already got the President's epic AIDS blockbuster for God's sake!! Sidia needs sympathy indeed. "YEUREM LEN KO" Poor man!! It seems like he has to fight a long lost battle all alone. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
