Bill to elect LoP ploy to weaken Opposition - Ssenyonyi

The Leader of Opposition in Parliament (LoP), Mr Joel Ssenyonyi, has said he will not be cowed by the proposed amendment to the Administration of Parliament Act, claiming it is aimed at removing him from office because of his tough stance against corruption and other wrongdoings by government officials and MPs.

The Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, which was tabled on September 30 by the Mityana South MP, Mr Richard Lumu, seeks the election of the LoP by all members of the Opposition parties as opposed to being selected from and by the Opposition party with the biggest number of MPs.

However, while addressing journalists on October 2, Mr Ssenyonyi said the Lumu Bill is ill-intentioned, illogical, and being fronted by those opposed to his strong stance of keeping the government in check, by pointing out shortfalls and demanding accountability from those responsible.

“…while I am in this office, I will execute my duty to the letter. I will keep the government in check. I will not keep quiet about corruption in government, corruption in this building of Parliament, and issues of poor service delivery. I know those things are annoying people and that's why they're moving very quickly to deal with Ssenyonyi,” he said.

Mr Ssenyonyi claimed that the Bill is a ploy to weaken the Opposition.

“It is his [Lumu] right as a private member to bring through a Bill such as this one but he has consulted Opposition political parties but each one of them he has gone to has told him ‘no this is a bad idea,’ including the party from which he comes. So how can he say that he's doing this for the good of the Opposition when the political parties that belong to the Opposition have all told him this is a bad idea?

“It is very clear who Hon Lumu is working for regarding this particular matter…clearly he's having those who are aiding him,” he added.

His remarks come on the heels of concerns by a section of MPs who claimed the Speaker of Parliament, Ms Anita Among, and her deputy, Mr Thomas Tayebwa, are selective in matters to which they accord urgency and consideration on the order paper. The Business Committee of Parliament headed by the Speaker determines matters to be handled, and when.

On October 2, it emerged that several legislators had asked to table various amendments to the same Act but were denied the opportunity.

“This bias can be seen in the modus operandi. A couple of times colleagues will have Bills that they will want to push through and they will be suffocated…It is very concerning when as the presiding officer you operate that way, you seem to have interest in particular matters and yet you're denying other colleagues the right that they do have, which is problematic,” Mr Ssenyonyi said.

Mr Tayebwa, who presided over the House, sent the Bill to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee for scrutiny. The Committee should ideally collect views from stakeholders.

During its first meeting to consider the Bill on October 2, the Committee opposed Mr Lumu’s attempts to introduce a new proposal to create two extra positions for commissioners. 

It emerged that the Ministry of Finance rejected the proposals since it would impose a cost on the Consolidated Fund. 

There are currently four commissioners of Parliament, three from the ruling party, and one from the Opposition. The four are backbench members of the Parliamentary Commission, which is responsible for running Parliament.

During the meeting, legislators also questioned the rushed handling of the Bill, while many others are before the Committee shelves gathering dust. The Bill is expected to be processed in three days and returned to the House next week.

Mr Jonathan Odur (Erute South) asked Mr Stephen Baka, the chairperson of the Legal Committee, why the Lumu Bill has been rush while others, which he felt were more important, such as two constitutional amendment Bills for the rationalisation of agencies have not been handled.

“I was concerned at how quickly this particular amendment has found its way, ahead of the many other Bills that we have in this Committee. Of particular interest is that we have a constitutional amendment before this Committee. This particular Bill is about the Leader of Opposition that is provided for in the Constitution under article 82(a), so, wouldn’t it have been proper that we deal with the constitutional amendment which may, on a different proposal touch on article 82(a) rather than fast-tracking the Administration of Parliament Act,” Mr Odur said.

Mr Odur also criticised the Committee leadership for imposing on MPs a schedule to be followed detailing the witnesses to be called, days, and the time these witnesses are supposed to give their views before the Committee, without allowing the MPs on the Legal Committee to have an input on the programme.

Mr Baka, however, overruled Odur arguing that the Committee doesn't need to seek the opinions of MPs on the Committee while drawing a schedule. He also rejected the proposal to suspend the Bill pending constitutional amendment, arguing that Article 82(a) of the Constitution gives Parliament powers to decide the mode in which the Leader of Opposition is elected and the Committee was well within this mandate.

“In this particular case, article 82 provides for a Leader of Opposition but it gives leeway to Parliament to decide the mode of getting the Leader of Opposition. So, I don’t think there is a need to touch the Constitution. The requirement would be that now we want to remove the Leader of Opposition or to change the nomenclature to a Minority Leader, which I don’t think is the case in this matter,” Mr Baka said.

The amendment seeks to provide for the election of the Leader of the Opposition by members of the Opposition in Parliament; to provide additional grounds upon which the Leader of the Opposition may cease to hold office; to require the shadow cabinet to be approved by members of the opposition parties in Parliament; to require the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament to consult opposition political parties represented in Parliament when appointing chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of standing Committees of Parliament.

By Elizabeth Kamurungi, David Lubowa & Arthur Arnold Wadero