By: Thoboloko Ntšonyane
MASERU- There has been widespread condemnation of the proposed amendments to the Children’s Protection and Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 2023 currently before the National Assembly. Monday witnessed intensified public backlash over two controversial amendments.
The ‘controversial’ amendments sponsored by Hon Mamello Phooko and Hon Itumeleng Rantsho have sparked a significant public outcry.
Phooko who is the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) proportional representation (PR) member was to move a new sub-clause that will “ensure that transgender and intersex children are allowed gender affirmation medical procedures and healthcare and their legal documents be changed to align with their new gender identity”.
Through this amendment, she wanted to address the right to legal identity change, medical treatment and “corrections” for transgender children who do not identify with the sex assigned at birth and intersex children who are born with ambiguous sex characteristics that do not conform to the conventional binaries of male and female.
The social media was abuzz with some accusing her of sponsoring a “satanic” amendment saying there are many issues which she could champion for in the country.
Some have commended Phooko’s move to bring the amendment to the august House.
The opposition took aim at the amendment saying she ought to have raised it in the Social Cluster Committee which after processing the bill had compiled a report to the House for consideration. They argued that a member is barred from introducing an argument on a matter previously discussed in committee and said their dissenting opinion forms part of the committee’s report to be presented before the House.
They argued that moving the amendment, and subsequently requesting to make a new amendment yet to be considered, is inconsistent with provisions of the Standing Orders, section 41 which addresses the adjournment of the debate.
In her ruling, the Deputy Speaker Hon Tšepang Tšita-Mosena stated that her understanding is that the issue in the motion was never discussed in the committee. She said that if it had been discussed, the member would be out of order, and would not be allowed to bring it before the House.
The Deputy Speaker also mentioned that members have the right to bring amendments to the House, adding that even after compiling a report on a law with stakeholder engagement, some stakeholders might approach a member asking them to table their views.
She reiterated that members, as public representatives, are sanctioned to bring such amendments forward.
Meanwhile, Phooko has since postponed the amendment before it can be debated and will reintroduce it to the house at a later date.
Another MP, Hon. Rantsho, a Revolution For Prosperity (RFP) member of Likotsi constituency was guided to postpone her amendment after Hon. Advocate Lekhetho Rakuoane’s interjection suggests that she conducts further research and benchmarking on how the similar issue concerning medical procedures has been handled in other jurisdictions.
She moved a sub-clause in which reads: “performing coerced medical interventions related to the intersex characteristics on a child at birth until they have medical confirmation”.
Likotsi No. 36 MP promised to bring the supporting literature to the House when she reintroduces the amendment.
The Christian Advocates and Ambassadors Association wrote a strongly worded letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly Rt. Hon Tlohang Sekhamane in a bid to urge him to disallow these amendments and they have also threatened a legal action against the House.
Through their lawyer, Advocate Fusi Sehapi, the organization stated in a letter that it is the duty of the parents to “protect the threatened physical lives” of their children.
“Kindly note that in terms of the law of God there are only two (2) genders namely: male and female. In terms of the Children’s Protection and Welfare Act the child is someone below the age of 18 years. Note kindly that no children shall proffer uniformed medical consent to have their children gender altered without parental consent.
“This proposed motion is against the law of God and the public moral convictions (bonis mores) of Basotho nation protected in section 4 of the Lesotho Constitution, 1993. As a result, these motion/s to amend cannot pass without offending the law. The devil is the transgender but God is not the God of confusion. It is either one is a male or female that is all,” reads their letter in pertinent part.
The letter further demands the deferment of the amendments while stakeholders are engaged to participate in the formation of these laws.