MPs furious as Oulanyah defers Sugar Bill debate

However, President Yoweri Museveni, who was supposed to sign it into law, rejected and returned it to Parliament last month because he wanted it to include some clauses.

On Friday, Mr Robert Kasule Sebunya (Nansana Municipality), the chairman of the Committee presented the report on the house with recommendations proposing amendments in the previous Bill.

Among the amendments proposed by the committee include; the interpretation clause to replace the definition of the word “out-grower” to mean “ a person who has a sugarcane farm in a zone and has contract to supply to the cane”; the zoning that will ensure there is only one sugar mill in a radius of 25 kilometres.

“In licensing sugar mills, the Board shall ensure that there is only one mill in a zone” the committee recommended.

The committee also recommended that small millers already found within the radius of 25 kilometres of the big manufacturer will be relocated and compensated. The committee proposed a budget of Shs50 billion for that compensation.

However, five members of the committee led by the Masaka Woman MP, Ms Mary Babirye Kabanda wrote a minority report dissenting from the position of the majority of the members. Others were; Kasese Municipality MP Robert Centenary; Kigulu South MP, Mr Andrew Kiiza; Mathaniko County MP, Mr John Lokii, and, Budaka Woman MP Pamela Kamugo.

In their minority report, they argued that it is disastrous to kick the small millers out of the sugarcane business which would make farmers get stuck with their cane without a market.

 “Any attempt to relocate established mills which are currently within 25km radius will certainly be a disaster to the notional economy and image especially in this era of liberalisation. It will equally erode investor confidence if the already licensed  investors cannot be protected by the very government that licensed their operations legally and as a result, it will tantamount to the government of Uganda overstepping its mandate and exposing itself to legal bottles and heavy compensation to the affected citizens” the minority report states.

The authors of the minority report also expressed fear of government failing to compensate the small millers if relocated since the economy is already chocking on loans.

However, after the two reports were tabled, Mr Oulanyah said he would not allow debate on a matter he described as “difficult and complex” hence differing debate to Tuesday next week.

“When things are this difficult, when things are this complex, it should not be voices that win but sharp arguments with reason. Because of the nature of this issue, I am not going to allow debate now,” he said.

Speaking to journalists shortly after the deputy speaker’s ruling, some of the MPs said they are suspicious that Mr Oulanyah’s action could be aimed at allowing room for manipulation of members to support Mr Museveni’s views of kicking out the small millers.

Kasambya County MP, Gafa Mbwatekamwa said, he was disappointed that the speaker differed the debate after realising that the members were ready to support the minority report.

“After tabling the committee report, we expected debate and vote on the matter but the speaker differed the discussion because he saw the way the members were going to vote against the majority report,” he said.

Mr Mbwatekamwa said it is wrong to zone the sugar millers because Uganda runs a liberalised economy that allows competition among legally recognised players in any kind of market.

Kagoma County MP, Mr Moses Muwanika said that MPs from sugarcane growing Busoga sub-region, are going to boycott any NRM caucus that may be called before Tuesday because any decision against small millers is aimed at keeping “their people” in poverty.

“We don’t need caucus (NRM) on this matter because it is aimed at making us the people of Busoga die in poverty” he said.

Background

Mr Museveni said last month during a National Resistance Movement (NRM) Parliamentary caucus retreat at the National Leadership Institute in Kyankwanzi that the House did not consider the concerns of the big sugar manufacturers. He wondered why the MPs supported the small players (millers) when there are challenges for the big players.

While passing the bill, Parliament scrapped zoning and putting a standard pricing for sugarcane. The bill was meant to ensure that there is a sustainable, diversified, harmonised, modern and competitive sugar sector to meet domestic, regional and international sugar requirements.

Initially, sugar companies funded an out grower system where a company gives an out grower seeds and fertilisers, in return being assured of purchasing raw products in form of the canes. This led to the domination of sugar territories by the big companies, while the small and new companies struggled to get supply.

[email protected]