10 November 2008
document
Kampala — Last week, Parliament debated the majority and Minority reports of the committee that probed NSSF land purchase from businessman Amos Nzeyi and security minister Amama Mbabazi. Madinah Tebajjukira brings you a continuation of the proceedings
Abdu Katuntu (committee vice chairman): Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of Opposition has ably put it, that first paragraphs of our report clearly states under what provisions of the law we were proceeding to handle this matter.
Indeed, we still think we were empowered by Article 90 of the Constitution and rule 154 (D) which empower this specific committee of Parliament to monitor the operations of any commission, or authority established under the Constitution established under the Constitution or any Act of Parliament. What is missing in this statement of the Attorney General is his old interpretation of this particular rule in relation to Article 90 of the Constitution and our investigation. I expected the Attorney General, before he came to the conclusion he did, that we did not have the mandate under the law, to disagree and give us his own opinion of the Article we cited. It should have been here.
Then you disagree with us and say rule 154 under which the committee purported to proceed is not applicable. Then he can give his reason. It is missing in here. Instead he has gone off the target and he has arrived at the issue only relating to the issue of the Leadership Code. The issue of the Leadership Code covers only two issues of our investigations. There are two other issues that are covered within our investigation. And for the Attorney General to say the committee did not have a mandate, my own interpretation is, I mean to some of us who take and indeed to this House which take its work very seriously, this is an issue that touches the powers of the committee under our rules touches...
Ogenga Latigo: Thank you Katuntu for helping to put this matter, to the right perspective. The committee had two sets of provisions. First, the laws and the laws they cited, and secondly set for themselves terms of references, which states:
The committee has powers to define how they proceed and in those terms, they were four:
Whether there was conflict on interest by the parties involved.
Whether there was influence peddling in the transaction.
Whether there was value for money attained by NSSF in the purchase of the land.
Whether the procurement office as provided for by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act No.1 of 2003 was followed. The only law under which the committee proceeded with their investigations, was the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. But, therefore, if you consider the first two paragraphs... (members make a noise)
If you have these two, they provide the basis of how the committee proceeded with its inquiry. Nowhere in this document, whether in the law, or the terms of reference, did the committee refer to the Leadership Code.
Speaker: I think we are narrowing our differences because the issue which was raised was a simple question: Does the committee of Parliament have a mandate to enforce the Leadership Code? I am giving a ruling. One thing is, if one say it is not under the Leadership Code that we acted, and the Attorney General has told us that we do not have the jurisdiction to enforce the Leadership Code. So what we can do, let us deal with this report and the conclusion without refereeing to the Leadership Code. I think that would be the easiest way to handle that matter . (members clap)
Katuntu: May I take it Mr. Speaker that that is your ruling?
Speaker: I am saying if you did not operate under the Leadership Code, we can consider other matters which the committee handled and then leave the Leadership Code conclusion.
Katuntu: Yes. Having taken that as your ruling, I seek your clarification, the fourth issue is about public procurement.
Speaker: Okay
Katuntu : Public procurement is also mandated by the PPDA. What authority do we have no to talk about public procurement and make recommendations on it, if at all, it's the enforcing agency of the PPDA.
Speaker: Wouldn't you like to read that Act something which is equivalent to Section 'D' of the Leadership Code?
Katuntu: Mr Speaker, I do not have the Act with me here...
Members: Go away.
Speaker: Honourable members, in view of the opinion of the Attorney General, who is the principle legal adviser to Government, let us look at the report of the committee without making reference to the Leadership Code because its enforcement is vested in the Inspectorate of Government.
Members: Claps and heckling
Adolf Mwesigye: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker, following the opinion of the Attorney General and your guidance, I am I move this motion completing avoiding and abandoning any reference to the Leadership Code. I, therefore, proceed with my proposals in four. In my motion, 1, 2, 3, is deleted, I withdraw it from my motion because they refer to the Leadership Code. I am abandoning those proposals and I invite the House to endorse my recommendations.
Members: Aye
Mwesigye: I proceed, you will put the question. The question will be put later, let me move my motion, let me complete my motion.
Members cheer
Mwesigye: On value for money Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend that value for money...
Speaker: There is something which is already here.
Members applaud
Theodore Ssekikubo (NRM): Thank you very much Mr. Speaker Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising to seek your guidance, not specifically on this matter of NSSF, particularly the Leadership as it has been interpreted by the Attorney General. But I want you to rule on this matter because I am finding it difficult...
Members: He has ruled.
Ssekikubo: To comprehend this, Parliament as the Attorney General has said, it is clear the standing committee on commission, statutory authority and state enterprise acted in good faith in conducting an inquiry and the Leadership Code, and making findings and conclusions under the Code.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the disturbing aspect here why should the Attorney General, belittle the institution of Parliament by saying they merely acted in good faith. And on top of that Mr. Speaker, Sir, where are the powers of Parliament you preside over? Probably, there could be some problems here and there, Mr. Speaker, Sir.
Speaker: Noooooo!
Ssekikubo: But do you have to undermine the institution under which we all seek our mandate? There could be an immediate problem on our hands but is it a gap to put this House in such...
Speaker: Hon. Ssekikubo, when this kind of transgression comes in a statement that in good faith, it means that although an error was made, it was not intentional and, therefore, it should not earn a condemnation, it was done in good faith and, therefore, do not blame them. It was an error done in good faith, that is what it means, and many times they say so and so should not be executed because what he did was done in good faith. That is the use of that particular term.
Members: Claps and laughter
Latigo: Hon. Speaker, I pointed out a matter of fact that no where the in the law that the committee proceeded to under take its work, neither in the terms of did they make a single reference to the Leadership Code.
Members mummer
Latigo: Wait, please, let me proceed.
Clerk orders to keep quiet.
Latigo: And, there fore, (members continue making a noise).
Clerk orders House to keep quiet
Kabakumba Masiko (Government Chief Whip): Right Hon. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the Leader of Opposition, is it in order for the Leader of Opposition to challenge your ruling when you have clearly guided that if they think the they did not touch anything to do with the Leadership Code, so be it. But if the Leadership Code is mentioned anywhere, the rules they are quoting are different, but the conclusions are drawn from the Leadership Code. Is he in order to challenge your ruling?
Members applaud
Kabakumba: Page 93...
Speaker: Let us proceed with the report, as if nothing is mentioned in the Leadership Code. Let us proceed
Mwesigye: I was moving on amendment number four Sir, and this to with value for money, I am proposing that we recommend that value for money was realised, and ,therefore, the vendors move to execute the terms of the agreement...
Members: Prolonged excitement
Ben Wacha (Independent): Mine is a very small matter, I have no problem with the Attorney General's advice. I find it comprehensive. The Attorney General says and is quoting the law that the Leadership Code of Conduct shall be enforced by the Inspectorate of Government that is perfect because that is the law.
But Sir, we might end up shooting ourselves in the foot, if in trying to protect this small transaction, we go overboard, because if we are to say that we should not make any mention of the Leadership Code in our operation as Parliament, it is going too far. We rather sit down and see the areas of the report, which tend to enforce the Leadership and then we expound those.
But we must as Parliament, be given a right to talk about the Leadership Code to comment on the operations of the Leadership Code. We can even recommend, but we can not enforce, enforcing might different from talking about or even commenting on.
Members: Prolonged murmur.
Speaker: Hon. members, the argument has been that the committee did not act on Leadership Code. When you go to page 9. It reads, whether there was conflict of interest by parties involved, and the committee recommends as follows. Those are conclusions. Dr. Ezra Suruma contravened Section 8 and 12 of the Leadership Code Act of 2002 and, therefore, sanctions provided in Section 12 (2) of the Leadership Code Act should be applied on him. Hon. Amama Mbabazi contravened Section 8 and 12 of the Leadership Code Act and, therefore, sanctions provided in Section 2 should apply to him. These are the declarations the Inspectorate of Government would make after finding the people were involved were...Let us deal with other matters, public disposal, procurement, value for money and maybe somebody who has the authority to deal with these ones will deal with them.
Speaker: On what point as you standing the Leader of Opposition? You first stand, and then I give opportunity to address the House. This should be the procedure.
Members: Yaaaa...
Speaker: Okay, proceed
Latigo: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yesterday (Wednesday) when the House adjourned, we held discussions even with Adolf. This morning, there discussion and when the matter of interpreting those recommendations were discussed, we agreed that that interpretation is more less imposing an implementation command on the IGG. We came to the House expecting that those recommendations would be amended and in fact, we proposed to meet at 2:30pm. Yes, I met Adolf this morning. So if you see me Mr. Speaker, irritated, it is simply because that is not what we expected to do.
Members mummer
Latigo: Because the ruling the Attorney General did not address the issue that was causing a problem and that is why we had agreed and we had actually said we sit and work out how best the recommendations should come and that is not a problem on our side.
Speaker: Honourable, I think that after the Attorney General has given his legal opinion on the jurisdiction or mandate of the committee on the enforcement of the Leadership Code, because when you read, the enforcement of the Leadership Code includes the process of inquiry before a conclusion is reached.
After having receiving the Attorney General's view whether we have jurisdiction or not, I expected the committee's chairman or members of the committee to say a view on the opinion of the Attorney General on the mandate. Can you give us sometime for us as a committee, to see whether there are things we need to adjust? This is my view and that would have been a reasonable request so that they go as a committee and consider it.
Johnson Malinga (committee chairman): Mr Speaker, as far as we are concerned as a committee, I do not believe that we acted in good faith.
Speaker: Ya
Malinga: I believe we acted within the provisions of the Constitution and the provisions within our rules of procedure. I do not think its fair that this committee was just acting in good faith to carry out inquiry. This committee was doing its mandated role and for us...
Speaker: You see, honourable member, this is a technical term. When such a term is used, it is saying although it may appear he made a mistake, this mistake was not intentional. He was acting in good faith. He is blaming you. He is saying the mandate was there but what they did was in good faith.
Because there is somebody who intentionally makes an era, this era was not made intentionally, but as a result of good faith.
Members cheer
Speaker: Let us proceed. I have ruled that because of the Attorney General's interpretation, the committee has no mandate to enforce the Leadership Code. (members clap).
Mwesigye: I was proceeding with recommendation number. four...
Micheal Mabikke (Independent): Mr. Speaker, Sir, in light of you wise ruling, because the matter here has been expression of interpretation of the Constitution, the Attorney General has given his position and similarly, the Shadow Attorney General has given us a contradicting position on which you have ruled.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking a clarification. Can we close our eyes to all provisions of the Leadership Code including Provision 18?
Speaker: Which says?
Mabikke: Any person who alleges that a leader has committed a breach of this code may raise a complaint to that effect with the Inspectorate and the Inspectorate shall register the complaint.
Speaker: No, that is empowering, you. You go and make a complaint to the appropriate authority.
Members laugh.
Beti Kamya (FDC): Thank you Hon. Speaker, Ben Wacha, raised an issue and we all agreed that the enforcement of the Leadership is a function of the IGG and we are coming to the conclusion that there are matters that are not merely enforcement code. Hon. Speaker, you drew our attention to Page 93 where there are recommendations, and those recommendations you read and in your interpretation, it is an act of enforcement.
An example I want to give is 12 (1)(2) which says Amama Mbabazi contravened Section 8 and 12 of the Leadership Code Act, therefore, sanction provided in the Leadership Code should be applied to him. In my understanding of the ruling Mr. Speaker, you took this to be an enforcement act.
Speaker: Yes.
Kamya: The guidance I am seeking Mr. Speaker, is on the word should. Isn't should a recommendation rather than an enforcement?
Speaker: You can put shall
Kamya: If it was shall, that would be an enforcement but should?
Members boo her
Kamya: Mr Speaker I am seeking clarification on the meaning and interpretation of should.
Speaker: The construction is indicative. A trying process has taken place and a conclusion been made that so and so is guilty. This kind of formulation is a formulation by a tribunal. A tribunal which has gone through the process and reach a conclusion. A ruling has been given, but with what the Attorney General has given, let us deal with the report, minus the sanctions of the Leadership Code.
Henry Banyenzaki (NRM):
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr Speaker, given the advice of the Attorney General and given your ruling on this matter, Mr, Speaker, I feel that, the only way now, is to refer this matter to the appropriate authority.
Members: No no no
Banyenzaki: In this case, Mr. Speaker...
Speaker: This is what I have told Mabikke that you are free to make a complaint to the IGG.
Members: Prolonged cheer
Banyenzaki: As much as he has the authority to go to the other authority, I am proposing that we refer this matter to the IGG.
Members: No no no!
Speaker: When we come to the end of the conclusion, you may table that proposal.
Members: Aye
Speaker: And we shall decide on it.
Issa Kikungwe (DP): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am disturbed. I wonder whether we not heading for a problem.
Speaker: A problem?
Kikungwe: A problem. At a later stage, we may find ourselves committing a mistake. The Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, around 2006, gave a legal opinion that Rtd. Col. Kiiza Besigye could not be nominated because he was in prison. That opinion was quashed by his deputy or junior for that matter. And when I see this House taking the opinion of the Attorney General. I wonder whether we are not making a mistake Mr. Speaker.
Members: Prolonged excitement
Speaker: Well, that is a sentiment, you are free to it.
Clapping from members
Mwesigye: Recommendation number one is value for money was realised and, therefore, the vendors should execute the terms of the agreement by transferring all the land titles of the land free from the encumbrances and hand vacant possessions to the purchasers and proposing two months instead of one month proposed by the committee, because the parties need time to sort out all the encumbrances.
Members: Aye...
Mwesigye: Secondly, I am proposing that this on procedure of transaction, Parliament should not, on the opinion of the Solicitor General, given his letter dated October 15, that acquisition of real property by Government bodies are not procurement within the meaning of the PPDA Act. The transaction was an investment which was concluded under Section 30 of the NSSF Act. Two, the NSSF board, managing director, and Solicitor General can not be held responsible for flouting the PPDA Act because the PPDA Act is not applicable to this transaction.
Members: Aye------
Mwesigye: I further recommend the PPDA Act should be reviewed after wide consultation with all stake holders to address its inadequacies.
Members: Aye
Mwesigye: Mr. Speaker, regarding related emerging issues, I recommend that the Government tables the new pension policy to Parliament basing on the recommendations of the stakeholders transition group report. I recommend that NSSF should be supervised by and independent regulator with professional confidence and expertise.
Members: Aye
Mwesigye: I recommend that the Government should appoint reprsentatives of workers to the board of NSSF.
Members: Aye
Mwesigye: Mr. Speaker, Sir, honourable members, I would like to move...
Lukwago: Point of procedure: I see two documents; I have two motions; one which was presented by honourable Adolf yesterday (Wednesday) and the one which is circulating now. (Interrupted by heckling from NRM MPs) I am making my point.
Mwesigye: I have got you
Lukwago: You have not got me. (More interruptions) Let me make my point. The motion which was moved yesterday, was moved under rule 44 (k) and we have a copy. Now there is a new document which is circulating also passing off as a motion, with the same effect, this time brought under rule 46 (k). So I would wish to guide. Which is which? Is the first one with drawn?
Speaker: The problem some time is to fail to listen to each other. After the Attorney General had given an opinion, and I made a ruling, where we agreed to forget about the Leadership Code, Mwesigye stood up and said in view of what has transpired, he was amending and read out what he wanted to delete. This is what happened. May be you had problems (Laughter from MPs) and you did not listen well.
Christopher Kibazanga (FDC): Mr. Speaker, Mwesigye is proposing two months, Mr. Speaker and honourable members, these friends of Adolf Mwesige, were supposed to have transferred and handed in these land titles six months ago. Today, to give them more two months, what did they, therefore, sell to NSSF? This is transaction which totally confusing. At some stage, it i a sale and at some stage it is a mortgage. I propose that two months is being not serious to the Fund's money. Let these friends of ours hand in these titles; transfer these titles within one week. (laughter from members)
Speaker: Why
Prolonged mummer.
Latigo: Thank you Right Hon Speaker. The reasons, why Parliament ordered investigations were that an act of selling land to NSSF, and circumstances that led to suspicion of impropriate. We have reached a stage in this debate where rather than focus on the improproriate. We are engaging ourselves in trivialities. There is no issue about the structure, membership of the board of NSSF that made Parliament to address its self to the purchase. Yet the focus now on ensuring that those who really acted fraudulently are protected and given time. In the report of the committee, there is a clear letter by Nzeyi that there were no encumbrances. In the report of the committee, the transaction, the main activities that took place on the same day and yet now we are being asked to direct our attention to giving these same people, even when there were investigations, and if they were serious, they would have to protect their interests have transferred the titles. That we should engage as Parliament in giving recommendations like these. Hon Speaker, it is something that the side of opposition finds a waste of time. However, based on what transpired, in the opinion of the Attorney General, we as the opposition, think that we have urgent matters which we must consult over and I would like to inform the House that we shall take leave, go do our consultations and you can precede the way you want.
(Applause from NRM MPs)
Speaker: Hon. members you have had a motion by honourable Adolf to amend, I want to put a question (interruptions from MPs)
Jimmy Akena (UPC): Before I join my colleagues in the consultations, there is a matter which I am failing to understand possibly not being a lawyer because today's session has centered around points of law. But in my layman's understanding, it appears what we decided to do will make it difficult for anyone who has a complaint or issue. The example I can is I am. If I am in charge of something on behalf of others and it gets lost, and I believe in my mind that this is a case of theft. Now I go to the competence court, which would decide. I cannot decide its theft because there is court to handle an issue of such magnitude. You raised the issue of the Leadership Code, but if we pronounce our selves whether it is.... (interruptions from members) and to me that is a dangerous trend. (Interruptions continue). In this incident, I believe the committee gave its opinion of what they believe could have happened. But through legal maneuver, we are taken to look as if we could not speak on matter of concern.
Mbabazi: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I wanted to make a comment. Although I agree with the Attorney General's opinion, I have doubts about the intentions of the legal council, because Mr. Speaker, in this report, if you turn to page 93, it says - whether there was influence-peddling in these transactions and one says Dr. Ezra Suruma contravened...
Speaker: Hon. member, we have ruled on that, we are not handling it.
Mbabazi: Thank you.
Sam Lyomoki (NRM): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I support the amendments because these amendments are in the interest of the worker. Because workers are going to take over the management of NSSF, they are going to be the majority and, therefore, they are going to be able to push for their interests. I am making this point so that the worker in the whole country can understand that the battle which has been on, has been a situation where their interests had been over taken. As you have seen the matching out, it means, some of our interests had over taken the interests of the workers. (cheers) It means some other people have other interests and they wanted to ride over the interests of the workers. I want to make it clear that these amendment is going to be in favour of the workers because the law is going to be amended. All the issues that we have been talking of will be addressed. In this controversy, workers have been the winner.
Ssekikubo: A precedent has been set where by the Attorney General has guided this House that for matter of the leadership, it is a preserve of the IGG. Now on page three were have this paragraph on procedure of the transaction, Parliament adopts the opinion of the Solicitor General given vide his letter dated Oct 15, 2008, that acquisition of real property that is by a Government body land is not a procurement within the meaning of the PPDA Act. The transaction was an investment which was concluded under Section 30, of the NSSF Act. Mr Speaker Sir, with a request of this Parliament, PPDA, Agaba, gave his opinion about how this land was procurement. He gave his opinion, and he categorically stated that he was the last authority as far as procurement is concerned. Mr. Speaker, Sir, since the precedent has been set, we proceed, we allow the authority to have the mandate and final word and final opinion on this matter? So I rather state we take a position given by the PDDA, and regard this as a procurement Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
Speaker: Let us be clear on this. The Attorney General just made a legal interpretation of the law as it is. That IGG has the mandate to enforce the Leadership Code as provided in the Constitution and under Section 3, that is his mandate. However, when it comes to the interpretation of the law, is excluded. And this does not mean that the Attorney General ceases to be the Attorney General of Uganda to give legal advise even to Agaba. I do not know under what mandate.
Ssekikubo:â-àMr. Speaker Sir, think of how we shall be regarded. When its convenient for us, we yes it proper, when it is inconveniencing, we say there is a problem. It is in that regard Mr. Speaker, that I thought we needed to clear on this matter and we do not allow these statements to take us.
Speaker: No no no. Hon. member, in fact, the Attorney General has told us the enforcement of the Leadership Code, is the IGG it has nothing to with the powers of Parliament and committees. These are powers that are vested in the constitution and the law. We shall continue to be effective. (cheers from members).
Kiyingi: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I raise to second the motion. The points that have been retained in the motion should have been the points that we should have focused on majorly in the first investigation. It was laboured over and over, but the major issue was whether lost money in an inflated transaction. But evidence available shows that this was not the case and that is where the major concern of the workers of this country was. Mr. Speaker, the points of law have been highlighted and I feel associate myself with the views expressed by learned colleagues on this side and the views of the Attorney General, this inquiry when looked at the very word go. If it were to be subject to a judicial review, it would be quashed on the very first day because it could not stand a judicial test.
Rules of natural justice were violated, our own rules of procedure were violated, the lead council misdirected himself and voted in the committee when he was not a member. How could you advise others to follow the law when you do not follow the law. Mr Speaker, it is evident that this inquiry was mishandled (applause), having said this Speaker, I am supporting the motion as it stands. I second the motion, I beg to move. (clap).
Clerk orders House to keep quiet
Isaac Musumba (state minister for regional cooperation): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want to make an amendment based on the ground that this inquiry was an inquiry that looked into the activities of people, ministers and business man Amos Nzeyi.
I, therefore, want to make an amendment that Parliament, having looked at all these, has not found any wrong-doing on the part of ministers Mbabazi and Suruma, and businessman Amos Nzeyi. The reason I want to bring Nzeyi is because he is an international man
Speaker: Has there been any mention of Amos Nzeyi in the conclusion? Because we are concerned with the recommendations.
Musumba keeps quiet as the members continue making a noise.
Musumba: Nzeyi was the subject of this investigation.
Speaker: He is not mentioned at all
Musumba: I now want to mention him
Speaker: Why
Musumba: Let me break my amendments into parts. The first part is that Parliament has not found any wrong-doing on the party of minister Mbabazi and Dr. Suruma in this report. The other one Sir,..
Speaker: How does it come when you are referring to the Leadership Code and we are not dealing with it because of the legal interpretation given to us? (More noise)
Peter Nyombi (Independent): Thank you Mr. Speaker, Sir, I raise to support the amendment of the motion, the amendments that have been effected, are in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution, because the committee that handled the investigations, meandered from the investigations into some sort of tribe (cheers) I have no doubt in mind honourable Speaker that according to Article 90 of the Constitution, Parliament can carry out inquiries, but in this case, the powers of Parliament could not go into the area, that is the mandate of the IGG. Therefore,... (interruption)
Tom Butime (NRM and committee member): Thank you Mr. Speaker. Having heard the interpretation of the Attorney General and his statement on good faith, and that statement having been accepted by the Speaker, is the Hon. member on the floor in order to start accusing the committee of having abandoned and meandered into other issues? (Silence)
Speaker: As you say, because what you are refereeing to as the trial is the trial to find out whether the Leadership was contravened, they have said we have no mandate to that. So forget anything about the Leadership Code.
Nyombi: Thank you Mr. Speaker for that guidance. I support the motion. I would move the House to move this motion and put the question...
Anthony Yiga (NRM): Mr. Speaker, I support the motion and persuade Mwesige to accept an amendment in his motion under emerging related issues that the Government that tables new pension policy to Parliament basing on the outcome of the stake holders meeting. Mr. Speaker, pension reforms are over due and that is why workers and civil servants are complaining we have jurisdiction.
The pension reforms and policy should be implemented within four months. Mr. Speaker I beg to move.
Suruma: Mr Speaker, I would like to inform this House that the pension reform and policy has already been drafted and is being discussed by stakeholders before it taken to Cabinet. I expect Cabinet to discuss it within a month, from where it will be submitted to this House.
Banyenzaki : Thank you Mr. Speaker, I am amending the motion on the floor that this matter which the committee investigated, having found out that it had no jurisdiction to investigate it, under the Leadership Code Act, I am moving that we pass this matter to the IGG for further consideration, I beg to move (Prolonged heckling from members).
Speaker: Okay, the debate has ended. (Mummer)
Hope Mwesigye (Local government minister): I stand to oppose the amendment proposed by Hon Banyenzaki because it offends Article 227 of the constitution. Article 227 of the constitution provides for the independence of the Inspectorate in his works. "The inspectorate of Government shall be independent in the performance of its functions and shall not be the subject to the direction or control on any person or authority and shall only be responsible to Parliament." Mr. Speaker Sir, being responsible to Parliament, does not mean that Parliament can direct the IGG? I thank you Sir. (Applause).
Speaker: I think what you can do Hon. Banyenzaki is to make a complaint to the IGG (Cheers and clapping). Motion
Adolf Mwesigye: Mr. Speaker Sir, as we have debated this motion for three days, I now move under rule 68 of our rules of procedure to proposal that the question be put now, I beg to move now.
Speaker: The motion that I put a question; those in favour says I and those in contrary no
Members: Aya
Speaker: Thank you very much, Hon. members, I need to be tolerant to divergent views. To listen to each other and cordially, disagreeing with one should not cause to sweat. Just listen and appreciate. House adjourned until Tuesday 2: 00 pm (cheers and congratulations).
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.
