Mpuuga Rebukes Speaker Among On Tribal Undertones, Calls For Coffee Bill Withdrawal

The former Leader of Opposition in Parliament Mathias Mpuuga has broken his silence on the contentious Coffee Amendment Bill 2024. Moved by the Government, the bill proposes merging the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) with the Ministry of Agriculture, sparking heated debates.

When the merger came up for discussion in parliament last week, the former LoP was noticeably absent, attending to official duties abroad.

His critics, particularly the supporters of the  National Unity Platform (NUP) led by their leader Robert Kyagulanyi alias Bobi Wine who is known for uttering unthoughtful things for short political mileage, alleged Mpuuga skipped the debate to avoid confronting the Speaker, who had made tribal remarks against the Baganda people during the coffee debate in Parliament.

However, the Ex-LoP also a Parliamentary Commissioner has now addressed the controversy, rebuking the Speaker Anita Among and those using tribal lenses in the coffee sector debate.

“…that is why I said that there is no presiding officer of parliament siting in that chair will be able to sanitize this bill no matter what. Tribal undertones should never see a space like parliament where MPs and everybody attached to parliament must tower above the pettiness of their backyard to see Uganda in one big mirror, not through their ethnic lenses,” Mpuuga emphasized.

He continued, “growing up with a cosmopolitan outlook, some of us are constrained to discuss tribes, even when we are strongly attached to our backgrounds. We understand that we are a nation because others are, not because we are.”

“That is the difference some of us view these things, and we are never vulnerable when tribes raise their upper heads. As a Muganda, I do not feel vulnerable, I feel strong in my skin,” Mpuuga asserted, “If we all feel strong in our skins, we shall come to the same table and discuss matters of this nation without sentiments that run back our small bloodstreams.”

He thus said, that the right thing for the government to do, would be to swallow the “humble pie, and withdraw the bill” because it lacked adequate consultations from all stakeholders from across the board.

Regarding missing the debate, the Ex-LoP expressed no regrets, asserting that the matter is still alive, not closed yet.

“The debate is still alive, not closed and I am around, I will debate, and raise my issues. There is still time,” Mpuuga said.

The bill, was moved to the Committee stage, a parliamentary process that allows MPs to debate bill clause-by-clause to pass clauses the way they are proposed, with amendments, or actually reject them.

To the contrary, the Nyendo-Mukungwe MP suggested that his absence was perhaps, an opportunity for newcomers and those who are nervous of his presence to speak.

“Probably it was also good that I was not around. When others would be heard? Some people had a chance to speak in Parliament for the first time. When some of us are around and over-daring, some people hardly get space; it is as well good that other people’s views are heard,” he said.

The former LoP therefore, clarified that the coffee issue is not “personal” but rather a national concern.

Otherwise, he said that his views on the sector are already on record, when he fought a move by the Government to hand the entire coffee sector to Pinnet, an investor who was also given government fund to construct the never-ending Lubowa Hospital.

“My views on this sector were heard on the Pinnet issue, which I led commandingly and the movers disappeared, they could turn differently, but I am around and I do not think that it is personal, and about me,” he said.

“We have equally other senior legislators around, but the tactics are different. My approach to certain issues is different, but that is I, and that is them, but ultimately we score in the same net, and therefore, we should be able to pass on the ball to each other with the goal of scoring.  Ultimately, on such national issues, nobody should be seen in a mirror as a loser or a winner. The country must win.”

Read the Ex-LoP’s word-for-word speech to understand his stance on the Coffee Amendment Bill 2024, and the importance of unity in Uganda’s coffee sector.

It began last year when the Government came up with the policy of rationalization. If you recollect, when I was still the LoP, and that policy started, I warned the government and most especially the Attorney General that rationalization must be handled with the utmost care.

In fact, I remember telling the Attorney General to assure the nation that because part of what rationalization toughed are matters of the constitution whether we should not talk on areas that require deeper consultation. Of course, nobody cared, people thought I was speaking English about the whole process, but I meant it, and now here we are, the chickens have come home to roost.

For the bulk of last weeks, public spaces have been awash with the rationalization of UCDA in particular, at the height of the debate in the house, during the first reading and presentation of the report by the Committee, and during the second reading, I was not in the house.

However, the world is aware that I shared my sentiments if you recollect that when I was the LoP through my shadow minister for Agriculture, Dr. (Abed) Bwanika, we stopped the visible and invisible Pinnet from taking the Coffee, and Courtesy of our presentation, and debate, we were able to reverse an attempt by the two individuals to appropriate this very critical commodity in the hands of the few individuals.

People have been asking that I express my sentiments. It is because maybe some people have short-term memory, but I shared my sentiments [a] long time ago about this, and I am here to repeat that rationalization should not simply be a happy-go. Critical agencies must be handled with utmost care and adequate stakeholder consultations across the board.

I am very sure that all of you have read the report of the Committee of Agriculture that was on the floor of parliament and is still on the floor because the debate is incomplete. The report only quotes two agencies that were consulted. One, the Ministry of Agriculture [the owners of the bill], and the UCDA, the users of the bill.

So, this means that for such a critical sector, and commodity, there were not adequate consultations. Therefore, it was a halfhearted job done. Now that it has generated enough controversy, I think the powers that be, need to understand that legislation is done on behalf of the people in the name of the people. If the people who represent the public are saying no, and they represent the voices of the people, I want to advise as a senior legislator that our rules are very clear. At any given time, the mover can withdraw a bill.

I want to strongly advise that this bill can be withdrawn, and the rains can continue coming down from the skies. Namely; to facilitate an adequate stakeholder consultation such that the proponents (of the bill) do not appear as though, they have somebody in the mind to defeat.

One of the dangers we encounter as legislators is that when we are considering particular legislations, we tend to imagine that there would be losers and winners. A facilitative legislation like this one, must not envisage in mind losers, and winners, but made in the name of the people, for the benefit of the people, and therefore, it must have ears from across stakeholders.

So, if a bill can be withdrawn, the Ministry of Justice should not feel ashamed to return to principles and advise a withdrawal of the same. Initially, the president said that he is keen on rationalizing all-consuming agencies but we all know that UCDA is not a consuming agency. It is actually a producer that over the last five years, its contribution to the GDP ranged from Shs70 to 80bn per annum.

We are saying that while it is doing that, it is under-facilitated. Also, if you are going to manage an economy as delicate and fragile as ours, particular entities must thrive as facilitators. I have also heard the argument that they are consumers, we pay salaries to the people employed there. Yes, part of the Government is to employ people. Why should the government complain by employing its people?

The demand of the government must be on efficiency. We are not going to achieve efficiency by rationalization alone. I have been inquiring from the members of (Agriculture) committee; did you benchmark anywhere, and they said no. So, where is the best practice that we are going for rationalization, we have examples in Africa like Ethiopia which is the top user of coffee in Africa. They tried to rationalize, but their sector collapsed to about 50% after 3 years, and they reverted to the agency.

Kenya did the same in 2012 they collapsed. So, why are we experimenting on such a critical commodity that employs the bulk of our people? I think if we are serious about what we are doing, the whole idea of experimenting on such a commodity must cease.

Very strategic that we cannot be seen trying to experiment with it. Probably something else. How do we at this stage, embark on a process of recreating a monopoly? I have talked about stakeholder consultation. How do you make a law where you did not consult the private sector actors? Where you did not consult the farmers, the cooperative society, etc, where is their voice to this?

Coffee does not belong to politicians. Politicians have a duty to regulate it, but in the interest of the people, and by consulting with the people. Any other imaging issues like I have heard over the last two or three days, including matters relating to what the Speaker said or did not say, speak to one serious thing that we have failed to understand what we are supposed to do, and we are excited about rationalization regardless of the consequences.

I want to invite every citizen to focus. Coffee…should never be a divisive thing, and every stakeholder including MPs, and the presiding officers in parliament, must roll back their energies to focus on critical legislation that will benefit our common people.

The trading of insults across will not help our cause. I am a coffee farmer myself. I was educated on this crop; I know how sensitive the value chain and how sensitive the market is on all matters of quality, and standards, but you cannot achieve it through the red-tape system in the Ministry like MAIF.

So, I am inviting the Minister to eat humble pie, come to the house, stand between legs, and withdraw this bill. There is no amount of explaining that will make it decent. There is no amount of exchange and trading insults that will make any process. There is no presiding officer that will sit in that chair, and preside over this matter, and it remains a decent bill for people to participate in.

Nobody has questioned the fact that he (Museveni) has ruled this Country for close to 40 years. His Government has done so all that has gone wrong with this Ministry. He must concede to that one, and that needs to be rectified must be done by him, nobody is going to take that away from him.

While he is doing that, he must know that we are aware of the failings of other sectors where he has been in charge. Can we appraise, for example, cotton over the last 15 or 20 years? Can we appraise gold for instance? I have read his (Museveni’s) document and I concede, he is responsible for all these. Whatever is right or wrong, he is responsible, but while he is claiming to try to rectify, he must listen and understand that there is nobody to defeat in this (coffee) bill.

Instead, he should blame himself, if he insists. Whatever has been done under Operation Wealth Creation, you remember my quarrel with him in Masaka on why his people bring Oranges in Masaka, lemon, and all that! It has been a mess.

I think the efforts of private and individual people, and other agencies must be respected through a deliberate consultative process. That is what I can say about his (Museveni’s) dossier.

I repeat that nobody should put on tribal lenses to see this. We are talking about the commodity that midwifed this economy prior to the Independence because largely, the investiture activities of the crop were in Buganda, probably the people of Buganda have a fairer understanding of the intricacies of this crop. Even when it was abandoned and the coffee sector devastated, people in Buganda never abandoned this crop. The bulk of us proudly from the coffee growing areas, probably have been aware of the national per capita average. Therefore, that is why we speak about it with a lot of attachment. The pre-independence attachment to the crop is deep, and because other areas started growing coffee should not take away that historical attachment. Any government in power must understand that even when governments struggled with it, people on their own struggled and clang on the coffee crop. That is why I said that there is no presiding officer of parliament…sitting in that chair will be able to sanitize this bill no matter what. That is why I said, the proper thing to do is withdraw of the same because tribal undertones should never see a space like parliament where MPs and everybody attached to parliament must tower above the pettiness of their backyard to see Uganda in one big mirror, not through the ethnic lenses.

To some of us, growing up with a cosmopolitan outlook, are constrained to discuss tribes even when we are strongly attached to our backgrounds. We understand that we are a nation because others are, not because we are. That is the difference some of us view these things, and we are never vulnerable when tribes raise their upper heads. As a Muganda, I do not feel vulnerable, I feel strong in my skin.

Therefore, I would like to invite everyone to feel strong in his or her skin. If we all feel strong, we shall come to the same table and discuss matters of this nation without sentiments that run back our small bloodstreams.

The debate is still alive, not closed and I am around, I will debate, and raise my issues. There is still time. Probably it was also good that I was not around. When others would be heard? Some people had a chance to speak in Parliament for the first time. When some of us are around and over-daring, some people hardly get space; it is as well good that other people’s views are heard.

My views on this sector were heard on the Pinnet issue, which I led commandingly and the movers disappeared, they could turn differently, but I am around and I do not think that it is personal, and about me. We have equally other senior legislators around, but the tactics are different. My approach to certain issues is different, but that is me, and that is them, but ultimately we score in the same net, and therefore, we should be able to pass on the ball to each other with the goal of scoring.  Ultimately, on such national issues, nobody should be seen in a mirror as a loser or a winner. The country must win.