Prime
Service Award Ruling: Clerk to Parliament seeks court protection
Clerk to parliament Adolf Mwesige. PHOTO/FILE/COURTESY
What you need to know:
In his application dated August 26, Mr Mwesige argues that he was not a party to the original case that led to the court’s orders, thereby violating his right to natural justice by being condemned without a hearing
The Clerk to Parliament, Mr Adolf Mwesige, has petitioned the High Court to recall a ruling that recommended disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged negligence during the decision-making process that led to the controversial award of Shs1.7 billion to four back-bench commissioners, including former Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Mathias Mpuuga.
In his application dated August 26, Mr Mwesige argues that he was not a party to the original case that led to the court’s orders, thereby violating his right to natural justice by being condemned without a hearing.
“The court’s finding that the applicant (Clerk to Parliament) neglected his duty as the accounting officer of the Parliamentary Commission vote, which was the basis for orders No. 2 and 3 in the ruling, was made without affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard. This is prejudicial and constitutes a violation of his non-derogable constitutional right to be heard,” reads part of Mr. Mwesige’s application before the High Court.
He adds, “The ruling offended the rules of natural justice and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting the setting aside of the said orders. Some of the court's findings and orders have effectively held the applicant liable for negligence, exposing him to possible disciplinary action, yet he was condemned unheard.”
On August 13, High Court Judge Douglas Singiza ruled that the process leading to the service award to the commissioners was legal, reasoning that it had been approved by Parliament and was part of the budget presented by the Executive. However, the judge criticized the Clerk to Parliament for attending the meeting that endorsed the service award, stating that as the accounting officer, he should have ensured the proper use and control of public funds.
“It ought to be presumed that the Clerk to Parliament is highly skilled in financial management and public administration and can give credible guidance to the respondent (Parliamentary Commission). The term ‘guidance’ denotes the supervision of an activity or duty for proper results,” ruled Justice Singiza.
“Should the Clerk to Parliament give advice that is fundamentally erroneous, he or she may be sued for negligence. In the motion before me, there is evidence that the meeting, which resulted in the impugned decision, was attended by the Clerk to Parliament, the Deputy Clerk (Parliamentary Affairs), Ag. Director (General Counsel to Parliament), executive secretary, director finance, and Ag. Director (commissioner secretary/minute secretary).”
The judge subsequently directed the Permanent Secretary and Secretary to the Treasury to institute disciplinary action against the Clerk to Parliament within 12 months of his ruling.
The service award came to light earlier this year during an online campaign dubbed #UgandaParliamentExhibition, led by Makerere University lecturer and satirist Dr. Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, and journalist-lawyer Agather Atuhaire, head of the online activism platform Agora Discourse.
According to documents, Mr Mpuuga, now a Parliamentary Commissioner and member of the Opposition National Unity Platform (NUP), received half a billion shillings, while his colleagues, Bukooli County MP Mr. Solomon Silwany, Rubanda District Woman MP Prossy Akampulira Mbabazi, and Zombo District Woman MP Esther Afoyochan, received Shs400 million each during the one-off cash bonanza, sparking outrage in political circles.
Upon learning about the award, NUP leadership, under Robert Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine, summoned Mr Mpuuga, who represents Nyendo-Mukungwe, demanding that he return the money, issue a public apology, and resign from the Parliamentary Commission, which he has since refused to do.
The petitioner, Mr Daniel Bwette, argued that the Parliamentary Commission’s actions were an abuse of its statutory powers and a wrongful exercise of discretion.
Through his lawyers at Magna Advocates, Mr Mwesige is now seeking an interim order from the court to stay the execution and implementation of the orders against him, particularly those directing his supervisor, the Permanent Secretary and Secretary to the Treasury, to initiate disciplinary proceedings within 12 months.
“The interim order of stay sought is intended to safeguard the applicant’s (Clerk to Parliament) right to relief in the pending substantive application for stay of execution and the application for review of the findings and orders of HCMC No. 85 of 2024, to avert the looming possibility of rendering the application for stay and review nugatory,” the application states.
Justice Singiza, who issued the original orders, is set to hear the application seeking an interim stay of his earlier ruling on September 10.
