First Lady's Parliamentary Conduct: An Affront to the Presidency and Nation, Argues Thomas Dixon

The recent State Opening of Parliament has sparked an intense debate, not only concerning parliamentary decorum but also regarding the perceived disrespect exhibited by the First Lady during the event. 

Melvin Tejan argues that the First Lady's actions were a justified protest against a breach of protocol and a derogatory song, while Thomas Dixon presents a contrasting view, asserting that her behavior was a direct affront to the presidency and the nation.

Dixon firmly rejects the idea that the First Lady was genuinely embarrassed by the alleged "coco roast" song. He points to her subsequent refusal to stand for President Bio and Vice President Juldeh Jalloh upon their entrance into the parliamentary chamber, as well as her apparent use of an earpiece during the President's address, as clear acts of defiance. 

According to Dixon, the President is the "fountain of honor," and such conduct by the First Lady reflects a deep disregard for the office and the country it symbolizes.

He asserts that while the First Lady may seek an apology from Parliament for the song, she, in turn, owes an apology to the entire nation. 

Dixon emphasizes the principle that one cannot seek equity with "unclean hands," suggesting that the First Lady should have followed established parliamentary rules and protocols before seeking redress. 

He further underscores the constitutional principle that parliamentary actions are not subject to inquiry by any court of law in Sierra Leone, indicating that an alternative approach should have been pursued.

Dixon proposes that the Speaker of Parliament should have initiated a committee of privilege to thoroughly investigate the incident. 

Following such an investigation, he argues, the Speaker should have identified and held accountable the Members of Parliament responsible for the derogatory singing. 

Dixon believes this would have been the appropriate course of action for the First Lady to pursue, rather than engaging in behavior that could be perceived as contempt of Parliament and a significant breach of national decorum. 

The controversy, it seems, is far from resolved, with strong opinions on both sides of the constitutional and behavioral divide.