Kadaga setting me up, says Oulanyah

The deputy speaker told talk-show host and Daily Monitor investigations editor, Mr Chris Obore, that he had only arrived in the country from the US on the eve of the voting on the Bill in November 2012, when he got a call from Ms Kadaga.

Forced to work?
“I arrived at Entebbe in the middle of the night about 11pm then my security tells me the Speaker wants to talk to you,” narrated Mr Oulanyah. “I picked the call then she said, Hon Oulanyah chair the House tomorrow. My feet were swollen. I said madam, what is the issue? She said I have finished with the oil Bill, just come and process the voting.”

The Deputy Speaker continued: “I am telling you I was tired, my feet were swollen. In my communication (to MPs) I said I was briefed by the speaker that you people had resolved these issues, what is left is to process the voting. What do I get? Everybody shot up. I had to go and do things a normal person would not do. I read the Hansard there and then when everybody was listening. Is that something pleasant to do? I read that voting had started then it was suspended then it was referred to the committee.”

Mr Oulanyah, who is also Omoro County MP, was responding to a question about the growing perception that he conspires with the ruling NRM party to force through controversial Bills in Parliament.

Kaweesa says no rift
Mr Oulanyah was in August thrust in the eye of the storm when he presided over the passing of the Public Order Management Bill, which the opposition branded illegal since it gave the police powers previously struck out by the Constitutional Court.

Daily Monitor failed to get a comment from Ms Kadaga on the allegations yesterday but Parliament’s spokesperson, Ms Hellen Kaweesa, downplayed reports of a strained working relationship between the Speaker and her deputy.

“The Deputy Speaker deputises the Speaker and the two of them always agree on who does what. They know their responsibilities and I would not like to interpret it otherwise,” Ms Kaweesa, who appeared alongside Mr Oulanyah on the show, said.

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW

Qn: I want us to focus on our independence. Wednesday is our Independence Day, what are the implications, how far have we come in our self-governance? Fifty-one years of independence, there are still many governance issues. Honourable Jacob Oulanyah, you are not new to news in this country. I think you are aware that the country is discussing you, everyone is asking, what is wrong with Oulanyah?  When he is in the House, he does the most awful thing, is he on the state payroll? Does he think with his own brain? What has happened to the brilliant lawyer? Why are you at the centre of the storm?

Ans: You know Chris, it is very easy to seek popularity, all of us like to be popular but seeking popularity can easily mislead you. It is a lot easier to do the popular thing than to do the right thing; that is where I have a problem. I am always confronted with the choice of making myself popular or doing the right thing and face the consequences of doing the right thing. People come back and say may be he was doing the right thing, it is that benefit that time gives me to get over this thing, that is why I don’t even respond immediately when these issues come up. But it has become a problem to me when issues come up, people are debating and castigating me, but I always keep quiet.

Qn: In other words you are saying great men are set free by history…

Ans: Absolutely, that is the principle I believe in. If I am right, time will absolve me, I don’t have to defend myself on anything. Time will prove me right.

Qn: May be we start with the simple things, what are these right things you are always on?

Ans: You just list, maybe I can respond to the specific things then I tell you what was right about what I did in my opinion. My belief is that whatever I have done in parliament when presiding over business in the house, I have done what I believe and I am persuaded and I know in  my heart are the right things to do.

Qn: Can we start way back from the third term, amending of the constitution. How right was that one?

Ans: It came in two phases, first the debate came when the government presented the government white paper which was based on the Constitutional Review Commission report. That white paper was sent to the committee I was chairing, we were three people on the supposed to be opposition at that time.

There was Nobert Mao, Odonga Otto, Isa Kikungwe and myself. But we were a total number of 23 MPs, many of them soldiers and many of them were not attending. But when it came to that issue of the government white paper, we invited various people and they made their submissions. The matter was so divided that we could not reconcile it at committee level.

We said in our assessment the matter is irreconcilable at committee level, it can only be decided upon by parliament in the house and that is what we reported.

Same when the bill was brought, we restated the same thing. And when the matter of the vote came on that clause which was about the lifting of the presidential term limits, I abstained from that vote. Now that was my role in it, but what I am so proud of is that I was able to steer that committee to present a report and parliament was able to take a decision in time for the next elections to take place. There was debate whether we should just delay these processes and make parliament extend its term but the signals I was getting was that nobody was in favour of extending the term of parliament.

There was a referendum that we had to deliver in time, about nine different laws we had to deliver in time for the next election, (this was in 2005). I did not get any instructions from anybody. What I did was what I believed and in the best interests of the country.

Qn: Why do you think this is now blamed on you as a person? The issue of lifting of the term limits when clearly from what you are saying you did not recommend, you referred the issue to the house?

Ans: That is for you to assess Chris, it is not for me to assess why every time that matter comes up it is referred to me. I chaired the committee and I am proud I did.

Qn: How about the Public Order Management Bill, how good is it?

Ans: You see the public order management bill, when it was first brought way back in 2011, by the way, some people think that bill stayed in parliament for a week. That bill was brought in 2011 and sent to a committee. The committee did public hearings and everything.  One day after an NRM caucus meeting, David Bahati walked to my office and said Mr Speaker, this bill is bad. If it is passed in the form in which it has been presented, we shall oppose it.

We have proposed amendments to make it acceptable to us the NRM caucus, there are specific issues he tried to point out to me, this was in 2011. I said well, if the executive is going to accommodate all those changes and make the bill better because the role of parliament is to assess the propriety of the bill so that when it is passed, it is not just the wishes of the executive but the wishes of the executive as blended with the aspirations of the people.

That is what we discussed in 2011, it came to 2012 these matters were there, people were discussing, it came to 2013, the bill was in parliament, people were discussing, by the time it came for debate for second reading, the principles were passed and then it came to second amendment, the amendment hit a snag. The mater was referred to a committee which was picked from opposition and NRM, they sat for a series of harmonization meetings. Hon. Abdul Katuntu, Medard Segona and others were part of these meetings and they reported back to parliament.

They agreed that if you take out some of these things then the bill will be proper. I received that harmonized list of amendments to which the minister made a response. They were discussing four documents. The first one was the bill itself, the second one was the initial committee report, the third was the harmonized positions from the selected committee of the house and the fourth was the     position of the minster. Those are the documents I had before me when I was processing this bill. We resolved everything else what remained was the question raised by Muwanga Kivumbi  and he argued quite eloquently that clause 6 of the was re introducing section 32 (2) of the police act which had been struck down by the constitutional court because it was giving prohibition powers to the police.

The attorney general argued that no, it was not true, that this clause 6 doesn’t and instead what it was now seeking to do is to give the police regulatory powers as was also decided upon by the constitutional court as also in the constitution itself.

So it became a question of law, does it or does it not. That is what was before the house; it was debated at one stage, I was not chairing (the speaker was the one chairing) the opposition walked out on the issue of the appointment of Aronda as minster after approval by the appointments committee.

The bill was on the order paper, it was discussed, processed. Most of the opposition members were not in the house, they came back. When they came back Muwanga Kivumbi raised the same issue, it was discussed, they too raised some issues, I even adjourned the house because Mr Kivumbi said these members have come in large numbers to vote, when I was raising these issues they were not around, I would like to argue these issues afresh so I can persuade them, there was even objection from the NRM side but I said no, the member is right, let me give him time to speak.  The member spoke his heart out, I don’t know how long he spoke but he spoke his heart out.

I asked the Attorney General to respond, and he said his summary of the issue was that it became a question of law on which parliament could not say this is constitutional and this is unconstitutional.

I said we can no longer argue any more to solve the illegality or legality of this matter, let’s resolve this matter by vote, whichever way it goes. If it is true it re introduces prohibitory powers to police, the constitutional court will once again strike it down again but if it doesn’t it will become law.

I said we will vote by roll call and tally, so that people stand up for what they have decided. When I called for the vote by roll call and tally, I called the first, second, third name, all the three people were not there, one of the members stood up and said, “you cannt vote on human rights!” He went, pushed one of the clerks, grabbed the list and threw it away. I said well we have the second list, he grabbed the second list, tore it into thread and threw it.

Qn: Was it Odonga Otto?

Ans: Yes that was Hon. Odonga Otto. He threw it there and they all started shouting, I called for order and nobody was listening then I suspended three members, some were holding glasses of water wanting to throw at other people. In my experience of chairing that parliament that was way beyond. I could only equate it to the time the Somali Mps were sitting in Nairobi where they threw shoes at each other.

I suspended the members and they even became rowdier, I asked the sergent at arms to remove the members from the chambers, he could not, the sergeant at arms himself came and told me in the circumstances you adjourn the house. I said I would make communication on this suspension later.

There was now four days for me to look at whether I was right or wrong, do my own self assessment, there was nothing I did wrong. Instead I had bent back, I had done everything possible to allow the voices of the opposition heard. In fact members of the NRM had become agitated, moving motions to take a vote.

I said members let’s see if we can move together, I am not going to entertain any motion for  closure of debate. In fact that evening the opposition members had a meeting and someone from the opposition called me and said he was satisfied with the way I conducted the house.

Qn: That was an opposition member?

Ans: An opposition member! He said I am satisfied you did your best to try and bring the government to see the other side but people are blaming you. I said but blaming me why? If there was anybody to blame me, it should not have been from the opposition, but the government side. After four days, I had lost a brother, I came back very late and stayed in bed for long, I needed enough rest. At about mid day I got a call from my personal assistant, that there was a meeting in the speaker’s office, with the prime minister, the chief whip, and Hon. Nasasira was there, all the big people were there, he thinks I should attend that meeting.

I said but what is the meeting about I have not been informed? Half past mid day I was in parliament and found the meeting almost concluded.  They were arguing about changing the order paper, the speaker asked me what had happened, I said we have even started voting and she said ok you go and alter the order paper, Nasasira said, no madam speaker you are the one who took out the public order management bill from the order paper, you should be the one to change it not the deputy.

The meeting ended and I came back; there was no order paper in my office. By the time I came back there was no order paper.

 Qn: And you were supposed to chair a session?

Ans: Yes that day I went to parliament about 3 o’clock because there was no order paper, when they brought it I got my papers and file and went to the house. On the NRM side they were more than quorum, I said it was me who proposed voting by tally. The opposition had been rehearsing a song, you could see it was going to be rowdy, in the circumstances the papers were torn so we cannot have roll call and tally, we put it to voice voting.

On the NRM side they were 137 members alone, so I said I will put the question to voting by voice calling which I did, when I finished that item, I called for the next item.

On Monday in my communication from the chair, I now stated the full extent of the suspension, I said the members suspended will enter the house from the front door and  render an apology. I have heard people discussing that which rules did you use but the sad bit is that the people who ignored the rules are now citing the rules.

The conditions I imposed are within the rules, the rules of procedure give the speaker powers to extend the ambit of the rules to accommodate circumstances not anticipated by the rules, how the bars are drawn, you apologize and enter, that is within the rules and is what exactly I did.  If I had said that the members roll in mud or be caned that would be outside the rules. Whatever I proposed was within the rules.

Qn: We are going to remove gloves a bit, I know you are a very sober character that is why you are able to steer a rebellious house. You have been cited to attend NRM caucus meetings.

Ans:I have never.

Qn: One of such meetings took place in Entebbe…

Ans: I have never attended NRM caucus or meeting, I have never.

Qn: Do you feel used?

Ans: No. That is for lack of a better word an insult, you know why? To be used shows you don’t have a brain of your own, you don’t think, you are just a machine that is programmed. I have a brain that works and works fairly well; I am a very prayerful person.

The things that I do, I go back and sleep and reconcile with my conscience, I know they are right, there is no instance where anybody has ever called me that Oulanya do this but that is the perception everywhere, even on this table you have heard. If those things were happening I would confide in some colleagues, I have very close colleagues but nobody has ever called me to say do this.

The things that I do I have instructions from the speaker that please I am going, handle this and I go and handle. I don’t determine what is coming to parliament. Nobody calls me so this thing of Oulanya is used….

Qn: Do you feel being set up to appear as a man being used?

That is what it is beginning to seem like. It is beginning to look like that and it is very unfortunate because for example among the things that are cited that I have mishandled the mace.

I was coming from the US, I arrived at Entebbe in the middle of the night about 11 pm then my security tells me the speaker wants to talk to you. I picked the call then she said Hon. Oulanya chair the house tomorrow, my feet were swollen, I said madam what is the issue? She said I have finished with the oil bill, just come and process the voting.

I am telling you I was tired, my feet were all swollen, I entered. In my communication I said I was briefed by the speaker that you people had resolved these issues what is left is to process the voting. What do I get? Everybody shot up. I had to go and do things a normal person would not do, I read the Hansard there and then when everybody was listening. Is that something pleasant to do? I read that voting had started then it was suspended then it was referred to the committee.

Qn: But you had been told to come and chair the voting

Ans: I had been told clearly that we have finalized everything on this bill come and process the voting. This is one of the things cited that Oulanya was bribed, I sat up to 9:30pm, referred the matter back to the committee but let people exhaust all they have to say. Being Oulanya needs an Oulanya to be Oulanya!

Qn: Why do you think the speaker told you to go and process the voting when she knew it had been referred to the committee?

Ans: You should ask her and she is the one who had referred the mater to the committee, not me.

Qn: What is your relationship with the speaker in this case since every business you do….

I am okay with the speaker, I respect the honourable lady; I even call her mom.

Qn: How do you respect her when she gives you assignments that have made you to be seen as a man without a brain and respects only presidential directives?

Ans: You know for me I still respect the speaker, she gives them to me because I can handle, it is a show of confidence in me.

Qn: Some management scholars say that if you are a manager, do not assign roles which you yourself could not have done. In this case every difficult business you do is handed to you by your supervisor?

Ans: The speaker is not my supervisor, the speaker is the speaker and I am the deputy not vice speaker. In other words the two offices are constitutional.

Qn: Do you originate parliamentary business on your own?

Ans: Parliamentary business is determined by the business committee of parliament but as to who handles what is between the speaker and myself.

Qn: Why does she hand over her unfinished business to you?

Ans: (Laughs) But you guys surely is that a fair question to me?

Qn: We have to get to the bottom of this.  Why then, aware of this parliamentary behaviour, do some Mps think you are the pawn?

Ans: That is the perception and that perception you (Daily Monitor) have done a good job in promoting it, if the newspapers were fair, if the press was fair…I am told these days everyone pays somebody in the press. I don’t have somebody in the press, I don’t!

Qn: You have seen a pattern that the speaker leaves the controversial business to you and having known that the business has earned you the bad man image, why then do you continue  handling that controversial business well aware that it is where your character is being assaulted from?

Ans: It is called faith, what then would you call faith? I have faith and it is what drives  me. A government that cannot pass laws, budgets, polices cannot govern and this responsibility lies on parliament.

Qn: Doesn’t the speaker Rebbeca Kadaga know this responsibility?

Ans: But this is business that has been assigned to me should I say no?

Qn: But you know the business is giving you a bad reputation?

Ans: But sincerely if the journalists were fair they would be reporting it accurately. They have made it a policy to give me this image, why would any professional journalist say I messed? Why?

Qn: What does the battle with Semujju mean? Did it have to come to that?

Ans: Let me put it this way. The issue is there was an order confirmed by the speaker that the members should comply with the order made on 6th August that they should come and apologize to the bar (not to me). These members were written to by the clerk, extracting the order and sending to them.

I walk into the chamber and find Hon. Semuju seated and I said this house is not properly constituted because a member who was previously suspended has not complied with conditions so the house won’t be able to proceed unless the member withdraws from the chambers, I postponed for 10 minutes to allow the member withdraw. I am told that even the vice president took him aside, after some time; the sergeant at arms came and said he has refused to withdraw.

I had three options when I was coming back to the house. Should I sit there and look at the member seated there and proceed with business as if he is not seating there and the impact of that to the authority of the speaker? The other option was for me say this house is not properly constituted and I walk out, what could I have done? Should I have said since the member cannot go out the business of Ugandans can be put on hold? Those were two options which were discretionary to me.

The third option is in the rules. You ask a member to withdraw, the member refuses to withdraw you ask the sergeant at arms to ask the member to withdraw. Under the command of the rules, I was out of options and instructed the sergeant at arms. Do I have apologies? It paints a bad image about the parliament of Uganda and to that I apologize to Ugandans that it had to go to that. Do I have personal problems with it? I don’t because if we had acted honourably, all these things could have been avoided but now the debate is Oulanya should have done this. Why don’t you also say Semujju should have done this. It is about the authority of the office of the speaker.

Qn: Your Omoro county seat is under attack from Odonga Otto, are you scared?

Ans: The people of Omoro will take the decision when the time comes for them to take, that is diversionary.

Qn: You have told of the difficulties of running business in the house, the journalists are not with you; what is your contribution to rule of law in the country?

Ans: Let me say this by way of summary. You know something is happening in this country that will get all of us thinking, you know when people admire and adore the corrupt, when your father says the other man’s son whom you studied with is now driving, when people do that there is a problem, when people adore and promote lawlessness, when journalists praise the lawless and attack those who are trying to comply with the law, then you know there is a problem.

When you call upon the bodabodas to register and they refuse to register, and they want to hold a strike then you know there is a problem, when things happen like this we should not just look at politics, there is something wrong that has gone with the society, when William Wilberforce fought against slavery, people forget the other fight he had to fight, the morality of Britain.

I am calling upon people of good will who won’t focus on Museveni, parliament alone. Deep down in our hearts we are rotting standing and that has got to change, we have to pray as we look at 51 years, we have to think about God and change some of these things.