Former Leader of Opposition in Parliament Mathias Mpuuga (right) takes his party president Robert Kyagulanyi (left) on a tour of Masaka City in May 2023. PHOTO/ Courtesy of @MathiasMpuuga on X
When it emerged that Mr Mathias Mpuuga, the Nyendo-Mukungwe lawmaker, had received Shs500 million as an ex gratia payment, his National Unity Platform (NUP) party—led by its principal, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, alias Bobi Wine—not only took offence. The party also thought it had both moral and legal grounds to punish him.
Perhaps to moralise the contestation of Mpuuga taking the money, which his party said should have been invested in the much-needed social services, Mr Kyagulanyi, without mentioning the former Leader of Opposition in Parliament’s (LoP) name invoked a biblical verse—1 Timothy 6:10—that talks about money being the root cause of all evil. The NUP principal also claimed that Mr Mpuuga and his three other backbench parliamentary commissioners who shared Shs1.7 billion as an ex gratia payment fell afoul of Section 9 of the Leadership Code that red flags conflict of interest.
“This law provides that where this provision is violated, the leader must cease to be a member of that public body or commission and make good the loss caused to the public,” Mr Kyagulanyi said, with the musician-turned-politician also citing a 2019 Supreme Court judgment in which the country’s apex court adjudged that the Parliamentary Commission had no powers to impose any charge on the Consolidated Fund in the absence of a Bill or motion generated by the Executive.
Speaking in March of 2024, Mr Kyagulanyi said the court judgment illegalised lawmakers increasing “their salaries and emoluments without such a Bill or motion”.
Never a legal question?
The aforesaid legal claims were to be tested when private citizen Daniel Bwette rushed to the High Court’s Civil Division challenging the monetary awards. Mr Bwette’s case was that none of the parliamentary committees, nor the full House, were involved in the challenged decision. He consequently construed these payments not only as unlawful and unreasonable but unfair.
In his judgment, delivered this past workweek, Justice Douglas Singiza pointed out that neither party raised the broader argument relating to the constitutional injunctions on the emoluments of the lawmakers, which he said may very well have been an oversight.
Be that as it may, the judge said Article 85(1) of the Constitution vests in lawmakers the right to determine their own emoluments, gratuity and pension, as well as any other such facilities relevant to the performance of their office—a unique but entirely valid position under the Constitution indeed, in terms of Article 106 of the same Constitution.
Justice Singiza also said it is Parliament—not the President—which determines the salary and allowances of the highest office in the land, namely the presidency. The expectation of the framers of the Constitution, the judge added, was that the salaries and allowances of lawmakers, once determined by Parliament itself, would be sufficient to permit those persons to discharge their duties faithfully in the service of the people of Uganda.
“Those salaries and allowances are far above what is earned by most Ugandans, including those who perform sensitive duties, such as doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, and members of the armed forces,” Justice Singiza said, adding that it is impossible to conceive the expectation that, in terms of Article 85 of the Constitution, lawmakers would award themselves “prizes” over and above what is ordinarily due to them; the expectation is that the allowances determined under Article 85(1) are sufficient.
The judge reasoned thus: “In my humble view, this is indeed the spirit of Article 85(2) which prohibits MPs from holding any other offices of profit or emoluments that are likely to cloud their legislative oversight and appropriation judgements.”
Justice Singiza nonetheless heaped the blame on Mr Adolf Mwesige Kasaija, the Clerk to Parliament, for not legally advising the House well on the issue of the ex gratia payment.
“Given the evident dereliction of duty by the Clerk to Parliament during the decision-making and implementation process on the impugned service awards, he is personally responsible under sections 43(8), 76 and 77 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA),” the judge said.
Justice Singinza noted that newspaper articles and social media posts in Uganda are awash with reports of allegations of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves prizes in the form of money. This, he added, is common in government agencies and entities whose staff are already highly paid. If this practice continues unchecked, he warned, there is a likelihood that our nation’s coffers may be depleted.
Cost of backing Mpuuga
The battle that Mr Kyagulanyi started was always interpreted not as legal but as political. Having failed to legally remove him from the office of commissioner, NUP moved to ostracise Mpuuga politically to the extent that they warned politicians who identify with Uganda’s biggest Opposition not to set foot in Masaka when the former LoP organised a thanksgiving ceremony.
“We have been intimidated by some of our top leaders against those who wanted to attend the thanksgiving … some NUP members were ready to attend the Mass but feared to be branded supporters of Mpuuga and shied away,” a NUP allied lawmaker told this writer on condition anonymity.
Mr Mpuuga’s supporters have been targeted, with the party looking into the future to replace Mityana Woman lawmaker Joyce Bagala with Prossie Mukisa Nabbosa, a drama artiste. Ms Bagala attended Mr Mpuuga’s function and has been one of his key backers in this standoff and NUP has decided to punish her. In her many appearances on Buganda-owned radio station Central Broadcasting Services (CBS), Ms Bagala has made it clear that she would rather lose her NUP ticket than “betray” her friend, Mr Mpuuga.
With that, NUP online supporters have recently intensified their war of words against Ms Bagala and they insist she shouldn’t make a comeback to the House in 2026. Ms Mukisa isn’t alone in seeking to replace Ms Bagala on the NUP ticket because Ms Catherine Nalweyiso, the current Mityana District speaker, is also eying the same spot.
Another ally of Mpuuga who has been targeted is Mr Medard Lubega Sseggona, the Busiro East County lawmaker. Mr Sseggona not only delivered a speech at Mr Mpuuga’s function but he also told voters he wasn’t going to sign the motion that intends to censure Mr Mpuuga for taking the money.
“The reason as to why you voted for me is because I’m wise and knowledgeable. I can read and I don’t go with bandwagons. The money was collectively passed by Parliament so it doesn’t make sense for me to say I didn’t know that it was passed,” Mr Sseggona said.
Mr Charles Mpanga, one of the many people who run NUP-aligned social media channels, has started campaigning to replace Mr Sseggona, saying the lawyer has been in the position for too long.
Mr Mpuuga has always seen this battle as political and after the court judgment, he is not in reconciliatory mode.
“With the court ruling, I will be informing Ugandans of my next step, especially all the things that have been done by individuals that have been trying to soil my image and reputation by hiding in this issue,” he said this past week.
“And it’s a pity that some of these individuals claim they are educated, but I will leave that to God. Whatever the court has given us, we shall move with that maybe, the people God gave heads that have mouths, ears, eyes and brains, the ruling of the court could help them to know that they should never use their mouth alone, but they should use all the parts on their head.”
Mr Mpuuga also fired broadsides at those who have been questioning why he is still being called “Ow’ekitiibwa” (a title for Buganda Kingdom ministers) years after he relinquished his position as youth minister in Mengo.
“When I was serving the Kabaka you guys were enjoying musical concerts. So, should I blame you for doing other things as I was serving the Kabaka?” Mpuuga rhetorically, if cheekily, asked recently.
The court judgment will not end the tug-war between Mpuuga and NUP because, to the Opposition party supporters, he is not clean despite what the judges say.
