Speaker Anita Among chairs a plenary session at Parliament on April 24. PHOTO/DAVID LUBOWA
House Speaker Anita Among has blocked the pending tabling and debate of a motion to censure four commissioners of Parliament who received a service award of Shs1.7 billion.
In an August 16 letter addressed to Lwemiyaga County lawmaker Theodore Ssekikubo, the lead proponent of the censure motion, Speaker Among says the issues raised in the motion have been already addressed in a court ruling on the matter.
“All aspects of the motion have been well canvassed in the ruling of court and continuing with the same would not only be an action of legal mootness but also violate the res judicata principle as illustrated in the above decision,” the letter reads.
It adds: “I am constrained to take further action on the motion following several court decisions that cited Parliament for debating and resolving on matters that courts have decided upon. Indeed, Article 128 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda is clear on the fact that all organs and agencies of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure effectiveness of the courts.”
The House Speaker’s letter references an August 12 ruling by trial judge, Dr Douglas Karekona Singiza, which exonerated the recipients of the service awards, and other members of the Parliamentary Commission, of any wrongdoing.
Justice Singize averred that the funds were part of the National Budget as presented by the Executive and passed by Parliament, ruling out any form of graft or corruption, upending Ssekikubo’s three-month struggle.
Ssekikubo has been seeking to table a motion to censure former Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Mathias Mpuuga and three backbench commissioners Solomon Silwany (Bukooli County); Esther Afoyochan (Zombo District Woman MP) and Prossy Akampurira (Rubanda District Woman MP), who in a meeting chaired by Speaker Among, were awarded a total of Shs1.7b as service award. Mr Mpuuga received Shs500m, while the rest pocketed Shs400m each.
On August 5, Ssekikubo submitted 186 signatures collected from fellow lawmakers over a period of three months to support the motion and compel the Parliament leadership to allow him table the motion and have legislators vote on it.
Ms Among’s letter comes two days after Ssekikubo accused the Parliament leadership of intentionally delaying the debate, yet he had submitted the required signatures to compel the leadership to within 14 days put the item on the order paper. On Tuesday, just after the ruling was delivered, Ssekikubo said the matters adjudicated on were different from what he was raising in the motion.
“We are seeing in the media hype about a particular court ruling. We are going on record that our motion is still standing. Our prayers are different from those raised in the ruling, and therefore, it can’t be affected by the court ruling. May we know as petitioners when the notice is due to be issued so that we can prepare accordingly, for that debate,” Ssekikubo said.
Ssekikubo, in his motion raises five grounds for the censure, including the participation of the commissioners in a meeting that considered and approved a matter in which they had pecuniary interest; created a service award, which is unknown in law, thereby failing to uphold the laws of Uganda; that the commissioners received a service award without parliamentary approval; and that commissioners withheld information from lawmakers relating to the decisions taken by the Parliamentary commission in relation to the service award.
In the High Court judgement, however, Justice Singiza ruled out any illegality and conflict of interest since the Parliamentary Commission has discretionary power to determine members emoluments. The judge held that the money awarded to the commissioners was contained in the Budget presented by the Executive and passed by Parliament.
“On scrutinising the Parliamentary Commission Recurrent and Development Budget, one sees that, under ‘ITEM 2-1-1-1-05: Ex-Gratia Payment for Political Leaders’…The seventh beneficiary is entitled ‘service award’ to Leader of the Opposition, and the eighth is the ‘service award’ to back bench parliamentary commissioners’. Retirement benefits are entitlements and not ex-gratia,” the trial judge noted.
“The argument of conflict of interest is, therefore, 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,” the ruling adds
The ruling was to a case filed by one Daniel Bwette, who argued the payments were not part of Parliament pay structures, and wanted the court to rule the award as illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and, therefore, null and void.
Multiple lawmakers have been pushing the parliamentary leadership to allow them debate the matter, along with other damning allegations brought against the House since the start of the year. Speaker Among has consistently blocked the debate, while pledges by Thomas Tayebwa, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, to put the item on the order paper, have not been honoured.
With the blocking of the censure motion that was particular to the commissioners, it gets more unclear if the lawmakers will be permitted to debate the other allegations, including nepotism, mismanagement and waste of taxpayers money that have been raised by online activists against Ms Among and others.
