Prime
Namuganza censure: Why long road ahead beckons
Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja (left) and State minister for Urban Planning and Development Persis Namuganza interact after plenary at Parliament on December 7. PHOTO | DAVID LUBOWA
What you need to know:
- Ms Persis Namuganza provoked the ire of a House she is a member of, with her fellow lawmakers accusing her of being in contempt of Parliament. In this explainer, Franklin Draku details how the censure of the junior Lands minister is being singled out for might play out.
The parliamentary Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline recommended this week that Ms Persis Namuganza be censured on account of her conduct “not befitting [that] of a Member of Parliament and a minister.” In a report, the committee also held that “being cognisant of the fact that Parliament approved her appointment as a minister, [it] recommends that the House invokes Article 118 (1) (b) of the Constitution and Rule 106 of the Rules of Procedure to censure her.”
How did the minister end up in such a situation?
Ms Namuganza for the larger part of the 11th parliament has been at loggerheads with the institution after the parliamentary Ad hoc Committee on Nakawa-Naguru land pinned her over the irregularities in allocation of land to investors.
The committee led by Mr Dan Kimosho (Kazo County) found Ms Namuganza culpable of abuse of office and interfering with the process of allocation of the land in question using untraceable ‘Presidential directives.’
The committee recommended that Ms Namuganza be held accountable for abuse of office and that she be temporarily relieved of her duties to pave the way for investigations. Ms Namuganza took exception to this so much so that her responses were deemed to have berated the House.
When a probe kicked off after Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa referred her case to the rules committee, Ms Namuganza remained defiant and unapologetic. She held that ongoing court proceedings meant the House ran the risk of being red-flagged for sub judice.
Are there substantial precedents for censure motion in Uganda?
Both the Constitution and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure provide for the process of censuring a minister. Since 1986, only two ministers—Sam Kutesa in 1998 and Jim Muhwezi in 1999—have successfully been censured. In each case, both bounced back in Cabinet after reappointment by President Museveni.
Parliament in the last 37 years has also forced the resignation of a number of ministers, including the late Prof Kirunda Kivejinja from the Works and Transport docket in 1997, Mr Matthew Rukakaire (Planning in 1999), Ms Kabakumba Matsiko (Presidency in 2011), Ms Syda Bbumba (Gender in 2012) and Mr Kiddu Makubuya (OPM in 2012).
What’s the likelihood of Ms Namuganza joining that list?
It could take months before Parliament finally acts on its threat of censure because the initiation of the process of motion to censure takes weeks and months. For a censure motion to succeed, there must be numerical advantage. Ms Namuganza as a ruling NRM party member may have the numbers on her side. However, judging from what transpired in Parliament and the fact that she has fallen out with House Speaker Anita Among whom she accused of working with her husband Moses Magogo to orchestrate her suffering, Ms Namuganza has her work cut out.
So how can a minister be censured?
Article 118 of the Constitution of Uganda provides for a vote of censure of a minister. It holds that Parliament may, by resolution supported by more than half of all Members of Parliament, pass a vote of censure against a minister on any of the following grounds: (a) abuse of office or wilful violation of the oath of allegiance or oath of office; (b) misconduct or misbehaviour; (c) physical or mental incapacity, namely, that he or she is incapable of performing the functions of his or her office by reason of physical or mental incapacity; (d) mismanagement; or (e) incompetence.
It also provides that upon a vote of censure being passed against a minister, the President shall—unless the minister resigns his or her office—take appropriate action in the matter.
Proceedings for censure of a minister are initiated by a petition to the President through the Speaker signed by not less than one-third of all Members of Parliament giving notice that they are dissatisfied with the conduct or performance of the minister and intend to move a motion for a resolution of censure and setting out particulars of the grounds in support of the motion.
The President, upon receipt of the petition, then causes a copy of it to be given to the minister in question.
The motion for the resolution of censure can’t be debated until the expiry of 30 days after the petition was sent to the President.
A minister in respect of whom a vote of censure is debated under clause (5) of this article is entitled during the debate to be heard in his or her defence.
What do the rules of procedure of parliament say?
The rules of procedure of the 11th parliament provide that the House may pass a resolution for the removal of the President from office, or pass a vote of no confidence in the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, or pass a vote of censure against a minister as prescribed by the Constitution or for the removal of a Commissioner.
For a minister, the rule states that a member who is desirous of moving a censure motion against a minister shall notify the Clerk in writing of his or her intention, citing the ground for the proposed censure motion and giving detailed particulars supporting such grounds.
The Clerk shall, within three days upon receipt of the notice of censure under sub rule (1) notify Parliament by causing the notice, which is pinned on the members’ noticeboard.
How then is the petition of censure moved?
The Clerk on the date and time of pinning the notice of censure on the members’ noticeboard cause to be prepared and deposited with the Sergeant-at-Arms, for a period of ten working days, a list of all Members of Parliament with an open space against each name for purposes of appending of signatures.
After at least one third of the members have appended their signatures on the list, the Sergeant-at-Arms shall immediately forward the list to the Clerk, who shall not later than 24 hours, transmit the notice of censure, grounds and particulars supporting the various grounds and the supporting signatures to the Speaker.
What then is the next course of action?
On receipt of the proposed petition, grounds and the particulars supporting the grounds and supporting signatures, the Speaker shall cause the proposed petition to be placed on the Order Paper for the next working day during which the chief petitioner shall formally move the censure motion and lay all supporting documents on the table and each document so laid shall be endorsed by the Clerk.
The petition of censure, having been moved, sees the Speaker forward the text of the motion, the supporting grounds, particulars and the supporting documents to the President within 72 hours of moving of the motion, for onward transmission of the same to the concerned minister.
Fourteen days from the date of transmission of the motion to the President, the Speaker shall cause to be appointed a select committee to which the motion and all supporting documents shall be referred.
Within 15 days after receipt of the motion, the chairperson of the select committee shall report to the House their findings.
On receipt of the committee’s report, and notwithstanding their findings, the Speaker shall call upon the chief petitioner to open debate on the motion, followed by a defence by the concerned minister and a debate by the House unless the motion is withdrawn.
After debate, the House shall vote on the motion and if carried by more than half of all the voting Members of Parliament, the Speaker shall inform the President of this fact within 24 hours from the time, the motion was voted upon.
