Writer: Peter Nyanzi. PHOTO/FILE
Hundreds of Members of Parliament and parliamentary staff are currently in Gulu for the first parliamentary sitting outside Kampala, which has been shrouded in controversy mainly over the hefty costs involved.
The constitutionality of these meetings has also been put into question.
Quoting Article 95:2, the Speaker argued that the regional sittings are constitutional.
However, I think those with a contrary view have a very strong point.
The said Article 95:2 says: “A session of Parliament shall be held at such place within Uganda and shall commence at such time as the Speaker may, by proclamation, appoints.”
The key word here is ‘session.’
Of course, the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure have a technical definition for the term ‘session’:
‘Session’ is a period beginning with the date when Parliament commences to sit upon being summoned by the President or Speaker by proclamation under clauses (1) and (2) of Article 95 of the Constitution, and ending with the date when it is prorogued by the Speaker under Clause (3) of Article 95 or when it is dissolved under Article 96 of the Constitution.”
To ‘prologue’ means to officially shut down Parliament for a period during which there are no sittings in the Legislature and thus no new laws are being debated or passed.
The Rules of Procedure also define a ‘sitting’ thus: “’Sitting’ means a period during which Parliament is sitting continuously without adjournment and includes any period during which it is in Committee.”
So, does what is happening in Gulu qualify to be called a ‘session’? I think it doesn’t.
My view is that the MPs are holding ‘sittings’ upcountry, an action that is not catered for by our Constitution.
Technically, the current ‘session of Parliament’ started on June 6, 2024 when the President presented his State- of-the-Nation Address.
It is also important to understand what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they included the provision for a ‘session’ to be held away from the official House of Parliament.
To do this, we need to read Article 95 (2) together with 95 (1), which says: “Where a new Parliament is elected, the President shall, by proclamation, appoint the place and a date not beyond seven days after the expiry of the term of Parliament or of the extended period, as the case may be, for the first sitting of the new Parliament.”
As we all know, the first sitting of a newly elected Parliament is critical, given that the new Speaker must be elected at this sitting and no parliamentary business can take place before the Speaker and the deputy are elected.
Now, if for any reason, say a fire at Parliament, the new MPs can’t meet in the House, there would be a constitutional crisis.
Also, if the House is inaccessible for the President to present his mandatory State- of-the-Nation address, there would be a breach of the Constitution.
So yes, the President may present his annual State-of- the-Nation Address before Parliament at a session held at any place in Uganda, as the Speaker may determine.
However, this practice of squandering taxpayers’ money by shifting parliamentary sittings from place is not only uncalled for but may also be declared unconstitutional.
