Last Friday, the Cabinet convened a special session and exonerated ministers Amama Mbabazi and Ezra Suruma of any wrongdoing in the NSSF-Temangalo land transaction.

Then three days later the President met the NRM Parliamentary Caucus members to have a common position on the Mbabazi-Suruma fate. The caucus too cleared the two ministers of any wrongdoing.

The caucus discarded the recommendations and findings of the Parliamentary committee which had investigated the Temangalo deal and found Mbabazi and Suruma culpable for influence-peddling and conflict-of-interest. The majority report recommended that the two ministers be administratively punished for their role in the deal.

The caucus instead adopted the minority report of six MPs (out of the 20-member probe committee) which cleared Mbabazi and Suruma. These are the same MPs whom Mbabazi is alleged to have met at night during the investigations and told what findings to make in the report.

The same NRM Caucus, which had refused to exonerate Mbabazi at an earlier meeting last month, this time changed their position upon meeting the President on Monday.

What is more intriguing is that amidst the exoneration, Mbabazi and Suruma apologised for their role in the Temangalo transaction. So the question is; if they really did not commit anything wrong, why were they apologising? Were they apologising for being innocent?

How can the NRM caucus exonerate the two ministers even after their own admission of guilt? After the Monday meeting the NRM Chief Whip Kabakumba Masiko warned that any member who deviated from the party position on the Mbabazi-Suruma matter would face disciplinary action. This means that they must take the same position during the general debate on the floor of parliament.

This is dangerous for the integrity and performance of Parliament because it creates a bad scenario where national issues are decided outside Parliament and the House is used to only rubber-stamp a situation accompli. The NRM can only punish or pardon a member who has contravened party rules. But the NSSF land purchase has nothing to do with the NRM party rules.

The NSSF issue is a national matter involving workers' money and should be resolved after bipartisan debate by a national parliament, not by an NRM party organ. The NRM must stop this collective shielding of its members when they are implicated in such a national controversies.

Otherwise the NRM will be seen as a party which is bent on staying in power at the expense of the interests of the people of Uganda.