Opposition says ‘This is not your mother’s house’ remark remains unresolved
Desmarius Hansen
Opposition members of parliament (MP) have accused the National Assembly of applying disciplinary rules selectively, questioning why a ruling-party MP has not faced similar scrutiny while the Powers and Privileges Committee pushes for disciplinary action against National Unity Democratic Organisation (NUDO) MP Vetaruhe Kandorozu.
Affirmative Repositioning (AR) MP Esther Haikola-Sakaria on Tuesday challenged the credibility of the committee’s report, arguing that parliament risks creating a double standard in which opposition members face disciplinary proceedings while alleged misconduct involving ruling-party MPs goes unaddressed.
Her challenge comes as parliament considers the committee’s findings concerning Kandorozu’s conduct during proceedings on 4 March 2026, when he allegedly breached Rule 97 of the National Assembly’s Standing Rules and Orders.
Haikola-Sakaria questioned why no corresponding disciplinary report had been brought against Swapo Party MP Ephraim Nekongo over remarks allegedly made in the chambers on 2 May 2025.
She referred to Nekongo’s alleged statement, “This is not your mother’s house”, asking why parliament had not investigated his conduct before proceeding with Kandorozu’s case.
“Where is the corresponding report on Hon. Nekongo’s conduct that was done last year? Where is the investigation? Where is the accountability?” she asked.
Haikola-Sakaria argued that disciplinary action should be consistent, regardless of political affiliation, warning against what she described as the victimisation of opposition members.
Her concerns extended beyond the alleged double standards, with the MP questioning whether the committee had heard all parties involved in the Kandorozu incident.
She singled out MP Dino Ballotti, to whom the alleged remarks were directed, questioning whether he had been invited to give his account before the committee.
“Where in this report does it state that Hon. Dino Ballotti was called before the committee? Where does it state that he was invited to give his account of what transpired?” she asked.
Haikola-Sakaria said the committee’s report was silent on whether Ballotti had been consulted, despite his direct involvement in the parliamentary exchange.
She further claimed that photographs circulating on social media showed that Kandorozu and Ballotti had reconciled, questioning whether the committee had established the position of the MP who was allegedly on the receiving end of the remarks.
The AR MP argued that while Kandorozu’s admission to breaching Rule 97 should not be ignored, it did not absolve the committee of its responsibility to conduct a fair investigation and recommend proportionate disciplinary action.
She also raised questions about the referral letter dated 11 March 2026, which initiated the committee’s investigation, asking why the document had not been made available to MPs.
“Where is that referral letter? Why have members of parliament not been provided with this letter? Who authored it? Who referred this matter to the committee, and on what grounds?” she asked.
Her contribution also raised concerns about the committee’s apparent position on further disciplinary proceedings against opposition figures.
Haikola-Sakaria told the House that the committee’s deputy chairperson had allegedly stated two weeks earlier that “Hon. Amupanda is next”.
She said the remark raised questions about the intentions behind the Kandorozu report and created the impression that AR leader Job Amupanda could be the next target of disciplinary action.
The MP also questioned the urgency surrounding the report, particularly after the committee had indicated that it wanted to benchmark and study how other countries handle parliamentary disciplinary matters.
She drew comparisons with parliament’s legal department, which she criticised for delaying the processing of Private Members’ Bills while undertaking benchmarking exercises.
“Why is there one standard when it comes to members exercising their legislative mandate and another when it comes to disciplining members?” she asked.
Meanwhile, Popular Democratic Movement (PDM) MP Vilho Ihemba also challenged the report, arguing that a parliamentary majority cannot compensate for weaknesses in evidence, legal reasoning and procedural fairness.
“Having the numbers to pass a report does not necessarily mean having the facts to justify it,” Ihemba said.
He called on the National Assembly to reject the report in its current form and refer it back to the committee for further substantiation.
Ihemba questioned whether the complete Hansard had been considered, whether the evidence relied upon was adequately identified and whether the committee’s recommendations had been formally endorsed.
He also raised concerns about the absence of the Chief Whip’s signature, calling for clarity on the committee’s quorum and decision-making process.
Both MPs maintained that their objections were not an attempt to shield Kandorozu from accountability, but rather a demand for the consistent application of parliamentary rules.
Haikola-Sakaria said the opposition would not be intimidated by what she described as victimisation, threats and injustices within and outside parliament.
