The second session of the 8th National Assembly resumed this week after recess, but the sittings have already faced two early adjournments on consecutive days due to procedural disagreements among members.

On Tuesday, the House was briefly adjourned following a heated debate over the issuance of committee meeting notices and the interpretation of procedural rules.

The dispute was sparked when AR Leader Job Amupanda raised concerns regarding a committee meeting notice issued just one day before the scheduled session.

Amupanda cited Rule 17 of the committee rules, which requires members to be notified at least three days in advance, counting the day of the meeting. He also questioned whether the relevant documents were shared in time.

In response, Deputy Speaker Phillipus Katamelo clarified that the same rule grants discretion to committee chairpersons to determine the timing of notices – unless otherwise decided by the committee.

Following a short break, Speaker Dr.  Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila delivered a ruling, referencing the constitutional basis for the Standing Rules.

"In terms of Rule 2, Sub-Rule 1, these standing rules are made under Article 59 of the Constitution, which provides that the Assembly must make rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and proceedings. Rule 3 confirms that the standing rules, orders, and internal arrangements are the source of procedure for the National Assembly."

Adding to the debate, PDM leader McHenry Venaani stressed the need for transparency and accountability in procedural rulings.

The Speaker later explained that under Rule 6, the presiding officer is empowered to interpret and make rulings on points of order and directives issued under the Standing Rules.

On Wednesday, just a day later, the session was once again adjourned prematurely, following renewed disagreements – this time over a different set of procedural concerns, highlighting ongoing tensions within the chamber.