"We Are Not Abandoning Our Censure Motion" Says Ssekikuubo

    Lwemiyaga County MP, Theodore Ssekikuubo says the court ruling in the 1.7 billion shillings “service award” has not erased his censure motion against the Parliamentary Commissioners.   

Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza, of the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala early on Tuesday ruled that the five hundred million shillings (500,000,000) paid to the former Leader of the Opposition, Mathias Mpuuga and three other Commissioners as a service award was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the executive.

The judge in effect exonerated three other commissioners who each received four hundred million shillings. The court said the Parliamentary Commission did not breach any law by awarding the Commissioners the services award. 

Mathias Mpuuga using his X formerly Twitter welcomed the ruling over the matter that has been under discussion over the last eight months. 

However, as parliament sat on Tuesday Theodore Ssekikuubo who has been at the forefront of collecting signatures for the censure of Mpuuga and three other backbench commissioners said their motion was still standing despite the ruling of the High Court.

“We are seeing in the media hype that a particular court has sat and we are going on record, it hasn’t erased off our motion, it 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,” stated Ssekikuubo, as he demanded that their motion be placed on the order paper for debate.   

The other MPs facing censure are, Akampurira Prosy, MP, District Woman Representative, Rubanda County Constituency; Solomony Silwany, MP, Bukooli County, Central Bugiri District, Constituency and Prosy Afoyochan, MP, District Woman Representative, Zombo District.

Ssekikuubo said the censure motion was submitted to the officer of the Speaker of Parliament on 5 August 2024.  “And right now it is 13th August, we expected under our rules of procedure rue 110 by this time to have issued a notice to members of Parliament so that we know when this matter is coming up for debate,” said Ssekikuubo.   The Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Thomas Tayebwa was in the chair                             

///Cue In “Knowing that the days are…   

Cue Out ….affected by the court ruling“/// 

Responding to Ssekikuubo, Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Thomas Tayebwa said the same rules of procedure give the presiding officer 14 days to act on a motion. 

Tayebwa however disagreed with the petitioner on whether Parliament needed to place a special announcement to summon MPS to the special sitting. 

“Every sitting of Parliament is critical. Members should be here all the time. So we don’t need to be putting special announcement that we are informing you in advance,” Tayebwa emphasized.  

////Cue In “Every sitting of Parliament….  

Cue Out … communication is coming Hon Ssekikuubo” ///  

MPS pushing for the debate of the censure motion insists that the Commissioners acted wrongly when they sat and shared the controversial service award yet it was not part of the emoluments of an MP. They intend to use the occasion to debate the wider issues related to the administration of the Parliament. While it appears as if Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza has let Mpuuga and three others off the hook, he issued an obiter dictum proposing a salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill to regulate and harmonize emoluments and allowances, aiming to prevent abuse of power and ensure responsible management of public funds at the Parliament of Uganda. 

The judge held that: "Newspaper articles and social media posts in this country are awash with reports of allegations of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves prizes in the form of money. This is common in government agencies and entities whose staff are already highly paid. If this practice continues unchecked, there is a likelihood that our nation's coffers may be depleted. In this regard, a proposal is made to the Hon. Attorney General to urgently consider a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill, whose object will be to review and harmonize emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders. Such a board would reduce the temptation of leaders adopting ad hoc ways of enhancing their emoluments under the cover of prize money, which matters the board should, in fact, report directly to the President."   

His ruling was in response to an application by Bwette Daniel for judicial review seeking declaratory orders to the effect that the decision dated May 6, 2022, to award the Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Mathias Mpuuga) UGX 500,000,000 and the three other Commissioners UGX 400,000,000 each, under the guise of a so-called service award, was ultra vires, illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and therefore null and void.     

Bwette also sought a declaration that the decision to create and award payments under the name of a service award was an abuse of power and contravened the principle that a political leader should not make a decision when they have a pecuniary interest.   

The applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the Respondent's decision dated May 6, 2024, and an order of prohibition restraining the Respondent or its agents from continuing to misuse or misapply its discretionary power in awarding itself money not authorized by law. 

In reply, the Respondent denied the allegations and contended that the Commission has discretion to determine MPs' allowances and that the payments complained of were lawfully captured on the consolidated fund.  

It emerged from the court that the money paid to the four MPS was reflected in the vote for the Retirement Benefits for Former Speakers and Deputy Speakers’   The judge noted that retirement benefits are entitlements and not ex-gratia

. “It is puzzling why the accounting officer placed them under ex-gratia payments. And if this item was for retirement benefits, then why are the beneficiaries of gratuitous awards mixed up in this item? And under this, a list of eight beneficiaries.  The first six beneficiaries are named former speakers and deputy speakers of Parliament. The seventh beneficiary is entitled ‘Service Award to Leader of the Opposition’, and the eighth is the ‘Service Award to Backbench Parliamentary Commissioners’.