During the adjournment debate the national assembly members displayed two types of tendencies. Most national assembly members expressed their desire to be the mouth piece of the people in their constituencies. Many explained how their people were deprived of roads, hospitals with adequate facilities, fresh drinking water andother social amenities for 52 years. They called on the government to come to the aid of youths, women and farmers in order to make a difference.
Some however pointed out the poor salaries of public servants and called for increase in remuneration. Some also express the need for national assembly members to have transport and other amenities in order to be able to move about in their constituencies. They did not explain whether the state should provide the transport as national assembly vehicles or privately owned vehicles taken as loans to be paid as national assembly salaries. They did not also explain whether the state will be responsible to fuel the vehicles.
In short if the national assembly members are to pay for those vehicles from their salaries and fuel them how much will they be left with to finance their daily expenditures? This is the dilemma that former national assembly members were confronted with. They made many promises to the electorate during elections to rely on their salaries and allowances to give support to members of their electorate who will bring their medical bills and other problems to them for immediate solution.
This is why some parties in the coalition felt that both the executive and national assembly should have been independent transitional instruments rather partisan instruments. In this way, the executive and legislature could have collaborated to work together to meet the needs of the people without draining and accumulating resources to build the images of political parties.
