Parliament gave Oulanyah a dignified tribute

During this period of mourning, a grateful nation eulogized Oulanyah in great and comforting ways, yet there have been callous remarks by the wayward on social media, which was expected given the increasingly intolerant, insensitive voices in our midst.

I write in response to an April 8 2022 article titled “Oulanyah deserves a better Parliament tribute” by my friend, Mr Stephen Kafeero.

Kafeero’s issue is primarily with the time allotted by the presiding officers to MPs, with his preference being that a section of MPs should have spoken for longer, and others lesser or actually accorded no time at all.

This he premises on the idea that there are MPs who were closer to the late Oulanyah, and worked with him for longer and therefore, earned the privilege to speak about him at the expense of their colleagues in Parliament.

First, the presiding officers – Rt Hon. Anita Among and her deputy, Rt Hon. Thomas Tayebwa ensured that all MPs had the chance to pay tribute to their leader, a feat they achieved through chairing the House in turns, which underscored their even handedness.

I cannot get to debate how the writer chooses to assign seniority and competence to MPs in the House, but I can appeal to his sense of fairness that all Members are equal and by right deserve fair treatment from the presiding officers, especially on contributing to a motion of paying tribute to their departed leader.

It will be an absurdity if what the author advocates for ever becomes the norm in Parliament, which would imply that other than MPs who have served the most terms, new legislators should just sit in the House and listen without making any significant contribution merely on account of the length of time spent in service.

For new MPs to rise to the author’s standard, they should actually be given more time to polish their oration, up their confidence for parity with their senior colleagues.

I think the finest MP would require the least amount of time to articulate his position because their thoughts, diction and experience are well aligned to convey their message without much belabouring.

He also says, “with the exception of those granted more time, none was able to make a proper speech about the deceased” and that some “barely knew him”.

Already, there is evident contradiction, because his argument was that MPs were given equal time yet there is a group of MPs who according to him deserved to speak for longer, yet he admits that the presiding officers allocated more time to some MPs who enjoyed a special relationship with the late Oulanyah.

The truth is that while the presiding officers were keen on giving equal opportunity, they were flexible and allowed a number of MPs, including some who were listed in the impugned article, more time owing to their closeness with the late.

On MPs ‘not knowing’ the late Oulanyah, how could they vote for a leader they didn’t know? Or my good friend expected all the MPs to know everything about the former Speaker? And wouldn’t that be above the line?

He concludes with a suggestion that a special sitting is held, again, in consonance with his parameter of how time should be allocated to MPs. That will actually happen every 23rd of March through the Jacob Oulanyah Memorial lecture, but as of a sitting, I can assure Mr Kafeero that Parliament gave a befitting tribute to the former Speaker with one of the most sincere, rich and befitting eulogies made in the entire mourning period.

Legislators did this due to the huge debt of gratitude owed to the late Oulanyah who, as a leader, dedicated his time to nurturing and mentoring the MPs so that they, too, can earn a place in Mr Kafeero’s ‘most competent MP’ categorization.

Their tribute may not compete with Pericles’ funeral oration, or Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, but they spoke with pain in heart about a leader they loved. Rest in peace, OJ.

Ibrahim Manzil is the information officer,Parliament of Uganda.