How Court Ruling Leaves Ssekikubo’s Commissioners’ Censure Motion In Tatters?
Theodore Ssekikubo (Lwemiyaga, NRM), the main sponsor of the censure motion against four Parliamentary Commissioners; Esther Afoyocan, Solomon Silwanyi, Prossy Akampulira (NRM), and Mathias Mpuuga (NUP), has been left reeling after a High Court ruling declared their Service Award, lawful, rendering the motion “baseless and constitutionally groundless.”
Although he was fairly active in the previous parliaments, Ssekikubo, who had hardly participated in Parliamentary business since the 11th Parliament began its term in May 2021, suddenly emerged as the lead sponsor of a censure motion against Commissioners in late May, 2024.
Despite being out of touch with Parliamentary proceedings for over two years, Ssekikubo who had consumed a lot of largely social media lamentations about growing scourge of corruption in government agencies, including parliament launched a censure motion anchored on alleged “corruption”, and “illegal” self-awarding of money by Parliamentary Commissioners.
In a shocking display of hypocrisy, Ssekikubo, who accused the Commissioners of “misconduct and abuse of office”, employed “intimidation and blackmail tactics to coerce MPs into signing the motion”, which he kept shrouded in secrecy. Furthermore, he resorted to name-calling his targets, “exposing a glaring double standard.”
Ssekikubo convinced his colleagues to support the motion by arguing that the Parliamentary Commission had no authority to determine the service award, claiming it was both corrupt and illegal since Parliament never approved it.
He asserted that the Commission, which typically defines MPs’ emoluments, salaries, car grants, and general welfare, had overstepped its bounds.
“We are saying no, we didn’t pass that money under service awards. This is the most laughable argument I have ever heard…my position and that of my colleagues sponsoring this petition [motion] is that we didn’t pass the money,” said Ssekikubo.
Regarding parliamentary Commission’s role in service award, Ssekikubo said, “that is the lame argument. How do they determine? They do not determine out of vacuum. There are two aspects to that determination, in accordance with either the law or policy. It must be backed by the law, the constitution, and other laws,” stone-faced Ssekikubo asserted, “the service award is outside the law.”
Several MPs who were privy of what transpired in Parliament had told Ssekikubo that they would not sign the motion, as Parliament had already approved the Service Award in the 2022/2023 financial budget. The sceptical MPs challenged him to produce evidence of wrongdoing before they would consider signing, but Ssekikubo failed to provide any.
“To alter such a decision by parliament, you need a substantive motion, not a censure motion,” Bugiri Municipality MP and a prominent lawyer Asuman Basalirwa (JEEMA), counselled Ssekikubo.
Wilfred Niwagaba, the shadow attorney general, demanded evidence of corruption but received none.
“I look at the rules differently,” Niwagaba said, “so when you have evidence, you let me know. We are only demanding to have evidence before we sign not to fault the law.”
On failure to supply concrete evidence beyond rhetorical accusations, some MPs like Bukanga’s Nathan Byanyima then sighted ulterior motives behind the motion. He emphasized that there was need thorough examination and understanding of the petition’s details to avoid loopholes.
“As somebody who has been at it, I would like something to be transparent so that you can package something and it succeeds. If I find that the money was appropriated by us, because MPs don’t read a lot, things pass, what if the money was passed by us, what will happen?”
Tough-talk
Tough-talking Sarah Opendi, a former Minister and sponsor of the censure motion lashed out at colleagues who questioned their motion, branding them “hired guns” and urging voters to hold them accountable. Defending their motion, Opendi claimed they had consulted legal experts and aimed to remove the Commissioners, not the entire Parliamentary Commission.
“For a senior member of the House, who is also a shadow attorney general, go come and make statements which are contrary, we consulted legal minds before we even moved this motion because our focus is the removal of the Commissioners not all members of the Parliamentary Commission,” Opendi said to prove “ulterior motive” accusations by some of the MPs.
She added, “but we all know they are behaving like hired guns, it is very unfortunate to behave like hired guns, making accountability for whoever could have sent them.”
Deal Accomplished
However, after three months of struggling to gather support, the petitioners finally submitted their motion, reportedly with 189 signatures on August 5th, 2024 evening.
Nevertheless, their efforts, dealt a crushing blow when the Court ruled the Service Award lawful, rendering their impeachment attempt baseless and “unconstitutional.”
Court Ruling
In his ruling, Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza declared, “the decision, dated 6 May 2022, to award the [former] 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,” another key ingredient accused commissioners’ critics strongly advanced, 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.”
This judgment has since sent shockwaves to Opendi and her team, who had hoped to use the motion as a cynical strategy to influence the 2026 election because the Court disarmed Ssekikubo who convinced his peers that the Service Award was never passed by parliament.
Flogging A Dead Horse
Despite the Court ruling’s devastating blow, Ssekikubo has resorted to restless attempts to revive the motion, claiming it is still valid, but on different grounds this time, demanding the deputy speaker Thomas Tayebwa, to hurriedly place it on order paper for debate.
“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 cannot 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.” Ssekikubo said on Tuesday hours after the ruling.
Ssekikubo added, “we submitted the motion on 5th August, 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.”
Responding to Ssekikuubo, the Deputy Speaker 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.
However, appearing on Pearl FM on Tuesday, the Opposition Chief Whip John Baptist Nambeshe poured cold water on Ssekikubo’s request to the speaker, reasoning that motion had “lost life”
“According to our Constitution, when the judiciary which is the 3rd arm of government makes a decision, Parliament cannot resist it,” Nambeshe argued, “the censure motion cannot stand on the floor of parliament. I have seen the sponsor of the motion Hon. Ssekikubo asking the speaker to place it on order paper based on ruling, but speaker did not want to dispirit him by telling him the truth, but the Constitution doesn’t allow it.”
He added, “by the way, even if they appeal this court decision, still the Parliament cannot debate the motion because of the subjudice rule. So, the censure motion lost life.”
On Thursday during another plenary session, Ssekikubo repeated his request, but the deputy speaker gave a similar response.
Ssekikubo’s impatient demands even during after the court ruling have raised questions about the understanding of laws and rules governing the censure motion by a veteran legislator and a lawyer.
Or is Ssekikubo playing the typical grandstanding politics or he is simply a “hired gun” with “ulterior motives,” beyond fighting corruption as accused by some MPs?