The Free and Fair Election Network has released a detailed report on attendance in the National Assembly. The findings raise serious questions about parliamentary participation. The 22nd session showed low turnout across most sittings. Lawmakers and cabinet members were often missing.
The session included seven sittings. These were held between November 27 and December 10, 2025. FAFEN monitored attendance closely. The results point to weak engagement in legislative business.
Majority of Lawmakers Miss One or More Sittings
According to the FAFEN report, attendance remained low throughout the session. Out of the total membership, 299 members missed at least one sitting. This shows that regular participation was rare.
Only 34 members attended all seven sittings. This number is very small when compared to the total strength of the House. On the other hand, 50 members did not attend a single sitting. These members stayed absent throughout the entire session.
Attendance varied sharply from day to day. The sixth sitting had the highest turnout. About 61 percent of members were present on that day. In contrast, the fifth sitting recorded the lowest attendance. Only 35 percent of lawmakers attended.
Low attendance affected parliamentary business. Three sittings ended without taking up the scheduled agenda. The reason was lack of quorum. This means there were not enough members present to conduct proceedings.
FAFEN noted that repeated quorum issues weaken parliamentary oversight. Important discussions and decisions get delayed. This also reduces public trust in democratic institutions.
Cabinet Attendance Also Raises Concerns
The report also highlighted attendance among cabinet members. Their participation was also limited. Out of all federal ministers, only two attended every sitting. This shows weak engagement at the executive level.
Eight federal ministers did not attend any sitting during the entire session. Their complete absence raised concerns about accountability. Cabinet members play a key role in answering questions and presenting government business.
The report also pointed out the absence of the prime minister. He did not attend any part of the session. FAFEN noted this as an important observation. The prime minister’s presence is often seen as a sign of commitment to parliamentary processes.
Low attendance by senior leaders sends a negative message. It may affect the morale of lawmakers who attend regularly. It also limits meaningful debate on national issues.
Impact on Parliamentary Performance
FAFEN stressed that attendance is essential for effective lawmaking. When members stay absent, legislative work suffers. Bills, motions, and questions remain pending.
The report did not assign blame to any single party. Instead, it highlighted a collective issue. Attendance problems were seen across the political spectrum. Both treasury and opposition benches were affected.
FAFEN urged lawmakers to take attendance seriously. It called for stronger enforcement of rules. The organisation also suggested better transparency. Public access to attendance data can encourage accountability.
The findings have sparked debate among political observers. Many believe reforms are needed. Stronger parliamentary discipline may help improve performance.
FAFEN said active participation is a democratic duty. Voters expect their representatives to be present. Regular attendance reflects respect for the mandate given by the public.
