Mpuuga’s Shs500m service award was in national budget - court

“In my view, it is probably not right for this Court to inquire into the procedure which the Executive and Parliament adopted while exercising their respective functions. One would expect that both bodies scrutinised the specific payments to be made, but that is beyond the ambit of this application. The oversight power of this Court in this matter remains focused on the procedure that the respondent followed in arriving at the decision on the service award, notwithstanding that the money used to pay for the impugned award was part of the national budget,” Justice Singiza said.

DON'T MISS: Click to read full judgement 

According to the judge, the argument of conflict of interest as had been raised by Mr Bwette was not sustainable given that in terms of section 42 AOPA, the allowances of members of the Parliamentary Commission are determined by the Commission with the approval of Parliament.

In his August 12, 2024 ruling, Justice Singiza proposed that the Attorney General urgently considers a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill, whose object would be to review and harmonize emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders.
According to him, such a board would reduce the temptation of leaders adopting rather ad hoc ways of enhancing their emoluments under the cover of prize money, these being matters which the board should in fact report directly to the President.

“Newspaper articles and social media posts in this country are awash with reports of allegations of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves prizes in the form of money. This is common in government agencies and entities whose staff are already highly paid. If this practice continues unchecked, there is a likelihood that our nation’s coffers may be depleted. It is in this regard that a proposal is made to the Hon. Attorney General to urgently consider a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill, whose object would be to review and harmonize emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders. Such a board would reduce the temptation of leaders adopting rather ad hoc ways of enhancing their emoluments under the cover of prize money, these being matters which the board should in fact report directly to the President,” the judge said.

In his application, Mr Bwette had argued that the Parliamentary Commission’s decision to disburse a total of Shs1.7 billion to the four individuals was illegal, oppressive, biased, irrational, and unfair.

“A declaration that the respondent’s (Parliamentary Commission) decision to award the Leader of Opposition, Mr Mathias Mpuuga Shs500 million and other three Parliamentary Commissioners Shs400 million [each] disguised as a service award on May 6, 2022, is ultra vires and is null and void,” read part of the lawsuit.

Court documents reveal that on May 6, 2022, the four commissioners, including Ms Prossy Akampurira (Rubanda District Woman MP), Mr Solomon Silwany (Bukooli County MP), and Ms Esther Afoyochan (Woman District MP for Zombo), sat with the Speaker of Parliament, Ms Anita Among, and were awarded Shs400 million each, with Mr Mpuuga receiving Shs500m.
According to Mr Bwette, the service award given to the lawmakers is not part of Parliament’s payment structures. 

Legitimacy
“The said payment, termed as a service award, is a term which is alien in parliamentary payments and does not form part of the legitimate benefits which accrue to serving members of Parliament,’’Mr Bwette stated in his lawsuit. 

He added: “Neither the Parliament nor any of its committees were involved; thus, the process leading to the impugned decision was tainted with illegalities, procedural impropriety, and irrationality, making the decision inoperative, null, and void. The respondents’ action of purportedly awarding themselves the service award was illegal.’’

Mr Bwette also contends that the Parliamentary Commission lacked any reasonable or lawful justification for making the impugned decision, which directly contravenes the Constitution. 
Through his lawyers from Nabwire & Co. Advocates, he seeks the High Court to declare that the decision by the Parliamentary Commission in creating and awarding the commissioners was a direct abuse or misuse of administrative powers and contravenes the prohibition against making a decision when a leader has a financial interest in the matter.

Censure motion
Mr Bwette’s filing coincides with Lwemiyaga County MP Theodore Ssekikubo’s campaign to censure Mr Mpuuga and his colleagues. Mr Ssekikubo is expected to present a list of MPs who have signed to support the censure motion. 

The National Unity Platform (NUP), the political party Mr Mpuuga belongs to, attempted to recall him as a commissioner but lacked the mandate to do so. Mr Mpuuga and his fellow commissioners can only be removed through a successful censure motion, which MP Ssekikubo is attempting despite resistance from the NRM Chief Whip in Parliament, Mr Hamson Obua, who recently directed NRM MPs not to sign the censure motion.

Additionally, city lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi withdrew his private criminal prosecution against the four commissioners and the Speaker before the Anti-Corruption Court, aiming to clear the way for the parliamentary censure motion to proceed.