Court Declares Service Award To Mpuuga, 3 Commissioners Lawful

The censure motion against four backbench Commissioners; Mathias Mpuuga (NUP), Prossy Akampulira (NRM), Solomon Silwany (NRM), and Esther Afoyocan (NRM), hangs in balance after a court ruling has declared their service award lawful.

This ruling closes a protracted debate that had sparked ridicule and trolling of service award recipients and Parliament as an institution by a section of the citizenry especially those trading as anti-corruption crusaders.

The debate was “dramatized” to the extent that some MPs led by Lwemiyaga’s Theodore Ssekikubo (NRM) had initiated a censure motion against the Commissioners, seeking to gain public praise through what some commenters and the parliamentary Commissioners often described as “cheap politicking.” However, the August 12, 2024, High Court’s decision puts this motion which is before the speaker of Parliament awaiting space allocation on the order paper, in jeopardy.

In a 28-page ruling, Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza declared, “the decision, dated 6 May 2022, to award the Leader of Opposition in Parliament (Hon. Matthias Mpuuga) UGX 500,000,000, and three other Commissioners UGX 400,000,000 each, as a service award was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the executive,” as required by the Public Finance Management Act.

The court dismissed the applicant’s prayers, stating that the argument of conflict of interest was not sustainable.

The court explained, “the allowances of members of the Parliamentary Commission are determined by the Commission with the approval of Parliament,” as prescribed by Section 42 of the Administration of the Parliament Act (AOPA).

The court further stated, “the impugned [questioned] payment was approved by Parliament in the Appropriation Bill under the title ‘Ex-gratia for Political Leaders… the fact that this vote formed part of the Appropriations Act is proof that the Minister of Finance had the opportunity to scrutinize the payment and that Parliament approved the ex-gratia vote.”

“On scrutinizing the Parliamentary Commission Recurrent and Development Budget, one sees that, under ‘ITEM 2-1-1-1-05: Ex-Gratia Payment for Political Leaders’,” the court found, “there is a sub-heading, ‘Retirement Benefits for Former Speakers and Deputy Speakers’, and under this, a list of eight beneficiaries.”

The Court further established, “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”

Daniel Bwete, the applicant had asked the court to declare the parliamentary Commission’s decision on service award “ultra vires, illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and therefore null and void,” and pecuniary interest (conflict of interest.”

He had thus asked the court to quash the decision by the Parliamentary Commission, and he had applied for the cost, of which the Court declined all reliefs, after an in-depth scrutiny of all submitted evidence on record.

The ruling is a significant blow to those who had sought to politicize the service award for it upholds its legality and validates the Commissioners’ payment.