Mr Geert HAMILTON (Netherlands) thought that it was logical that each group should be able to identify a spokesperson, as groups were meant to be based on a certain unity. However, the Speaker, at the end of a debate, always asked if someone else wished to speak. That would certainly be the appropriate moment for a dissident Member to speak in the Dutch Senate. Ms Jane LUBOWA KIBIRIGE (Uganda) indicated that in Uganda, speaking was free. Every parliamentarian wishing to speak could do so, for three minutes. Mr Ulrich SCHÖLER thanked his colleagues, noting that he had learnt during the afternoon’s debates, that the way of managing the conduct and organisation of debates was very different from one country to another, depending on the culture of the country concerned, the number of political groups, the Members, etc. Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Dr SCHÖLER for his communication, as well as colleagues for having shared their experiences. , The sitting rose at 5.30 pm FIFTH SITTING Wednesday 4 April 2012 (Morning) Mr Marc BOSC, President, in the Chair The Sitting was opened at 10 am Opening Remarks Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked the Ugandan hosts for the excursion organised for the previous day, and reminded members that the deadline for candidacies for the post of ordinary member of the Executive Committee was 2.30 pm that day. He announced that Gherardo Casini from the Global Centre for ICT in Parliaments would make a short presentation on the Centre’s recent activities before the debate on dealing with urgent situations in national parliaments. Communication by Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the National Assembly of “Parliamentary modalities for managing a post-war situation – The case of Sudan” Mr Marc BOSC, President, invited Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM, Secretary General of the National Assembly of to present his communication, as follows: “Introduction
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration and on the status of humanitarian affairs in the country were also held in the framework of parliamentary activities. Training course for members of parliament on human rights and peace-building measure were also organized. Field visits to South Sudan were conducted by both Houses of Parliament, where MP's met with several members of the Southern Sudan Government and members of the Legislative Councils in the South to discuss and evaluate efforts relating to the status of implementation of the CPA. Conclusion This communication reveals that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement brought about tremendous political change in the political and economic structure of Sudan and produced many developments in the performance of the national Parliament, putting on his shoulders enormous amounts of responsibilities to play its role in transforming the provisions of the CPA into constitutional and legal provisions. This is in addition to the responsibility established by the CPA on the shoulders of the two legislatures in each of the States of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile for the implementation of the popular consultation included in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Mr Marc BOSC, President, thanked Mr Ibrahim Mohamed IBRAHIM for his communication and invited members present to put questions to him. Mr Alphonse K. NOMBRÉ (Burkina Faso) asked how this agreement and its implementation had worked out following the independence of South Sudan. Mr Mahamat HASSAN BRÉMÉ (Chad) thanked and congratulated Mr IBRAHIM. He asked about the situation in South Sudan at the moment the agreement had been signed. He thought that some bodies had been pointlessly duplicated and that the separation of powers appeared biased, and he asked for clarification on these subjects. Mr Shah Sultan AKIFI (Afghanistan) asked Mr IBRAHIM about the constitutional court and its competences. Mr Socrates SOCRATOUS (Cyprus) recalled the management of the crisis in Cyprus after the Turkish invasion in 1984, and asked if Parliament had been involved in the management of humanitarian situations. Mrs Jacqueline BIESHEUVEL-VERMEIJDEN (Netherlands) what the relations were between the Council of States and the different national commissions and who took the final decisions. Mr Md. Mahfuzur RAHMAN (Bangladesh) asked how the competences of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court were defined. Mr Manuel CAVERO GOMEZ (Spain) asked about the way in which the national commissions had been established and tasks had been allocated to them.