Henry Mukasa and Catherine Bekunda
6 November 2008
Kampala — PARLIAMENT yesterday cleared security minister Amama Mbabazi, finance minister Dr. Ezra Suruma and the NSSF management of any wrongdoing in the purchase of 463 acres of land at Temangalo in Wakiso district.
After an acrimonious debate laced with wrestling of legal and political muscles and a walkout by the opposition MPs, the House presided over by the Speaker Edward Sekandi approved a motion to absolve the ministers and NSSF.
"That ends the debate on the original motion (which sought to punish the ministers and NSSF management)," Sekandi pronounced after the MPs voted that the ministers did not flout any laws.
The opposition MPs walked out before the vote and addressed a press conference where they announced that they would seek redress in the Constitutional Court and carry out a mass public campaign on the matter. They accused the Speaker of bias.
Yesterday's session began with the Attorney General, Dr. Kidhu Makubuya, giving an interpretation of the laws to the effect that the parliamentary committee which probed the matter had no jurisdiction to enforce the Leadership Code.
The main report of the committee had found Mbabazi and Suruma guilty of having violated sections 8, 12 and 15(d) of the code and advised that they face sanctions.
However, the Minister for General Duties, Adolf Mwesige, on Wednesday contested the committee's recommendations as "unconstitutional and unlawful."
"The committee did not work within the confines of the law. The power to enforce the Leadership Code belongs to the Inspectorate of Government (IGG)," Mwesige said.
Consequently, Sekandi asked Makubuya to give an interpretation. Makubuya said parliament's role cannot erode the supremacy of the Constitution.
"It's clear that the standing committee acted in good faith in conducting an inquiry under the Leadership Code and in making findings and conclusions under the code. However, it did not have any such mandate," Makubuya advised. He said the constitution established the office of the IGG to do that.
His opinion was rebutted by the Shadow Attorney General, Erias Lukwago, who asserted that Makubuya's opinion was not binding because he is a chief adviser of cabinet and not parliament.
He said matters of interpretation of the law rested with the Constitutional Court.
Ssekandi urged Lukwago not to be "scandalous", saying Parliament was part of government which the Attorney General advises on law. Lukwago hit back, saying his post (shadow attorney general) was also constitutional but he could not impose his opinion on the House.
"What I gather from Hon. Lukwago is that he wants to petition the Constitutional Court," Sekandi quipped.
Lukwago retorted: "The Attorney General's opinion has always been rejected in the Constitutional Court. Even if he advises government, parliament as an independent arm, can pronounce itself on the matter."
Katuntu, the probe committee's lead counsel, said the Attorney General had gone off target and arrived at a decision only related to the Leadership Code.
Katuntu said the probe committee had stated the rules of procedure of parliament and the article of the Constitution under which the inquiry was done but Makubuya did not disagree with them.
"He (Makubuya) would have said that rule 154(d) under which the committee purports to have moved isn't applicable. For any House which takes its work seriously to take his interpretation ..," Katuntu said without completing the sentence.
The Leader of Opposition, Prof. Ogenga Latigo, said the probe committee acted within the law and Makubuya's advice was erroneous.
The Speaker then ruled: "In view of the opinion of the Attorney General, let's look at the report of the committee without making any reference to the Leadership Code whose implementation is vested with the Inspectorate of Government."
Ben Wacha tried unsuccessfully to wrestle back some territory. "We might end up shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to protect this small transaction. To say that we make no reference to the leadership code is going too far. We must be given the right to talk.
Enforcement is different from talking and commenting about it," Wacha stated.
Sekandi rejected his argument, saying enforcement of the code includes inquiry.
Henry Banyenzaki's proposal that the matter be referred to the IGG was rejected and Sekandi advised those who still had issue with the ministers and NSSF to lodge personal complaints with the IGG.
At this stage, Ogenga informed the House that the opposition had reached a conclusion that those who acted fraudulently were being protected and given more time.
"The opposition finds it a waste of time. We feel that there are things we need to consult on. We shall take leave and you can proceed the way you want," Ogenga said, matching out, followed by all opposition MPs.
Labour minister Mwesigwa Rukutana asked Sekandi to put the matter to a vote.
Mwesige's amendment, which said the ministers were innocent and that the purchase of the land was an investment and not a procurement, was passed.
"The way we are proceeding; when it's convenient for us, we say that it's proper, when it's not, we say no. Let's not let sentiments take control over us," Sekikubo, the lone opposing voice' said.
"That's the rule of law," Sekandi responded. "Always be tolerant to divergent views. Disagreement should not make you sweat," he added.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
