Speaker’s Guidance Closes Parliamentary Commissioners’ Censure Motion
All hope to censure the four (4) Parliamentary Commissioners have been closed after the Speaker of Parliament Anita Among offered guidance, which dropped the long-awaited motion.
Dated August 16, 2024, the Speaker’s guidance was based on an August 12, 2024; High Court ruling that vindicated the Commissioners of any wrongdoing related to the service award issued on August 12, 2024.
Responding to Theodore Ssekikubo (Lwemiyaga, NRM), who was the main sponsor of the closed censure motion, the Speaker said, “I am constrained to take further action on the motion following several court decisions that cited Parliament for debating and resolving on matters that courts have decided upon.”
“Indeed, Article 128 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda is clear on the fact that all organs and agencies of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure the effectiveness of the courts.” Among added.
The Speaker also referenced a previous court decision, Mohammed Allibhai v. Attorney General, which held that Parliament’s mandate does not extend to investigating matters that are the subject of court proceedings and decisions.
“In my view, while Parliament and its relevant committee were vested with the constitutional right and mandate to investigate and inquire into the matters that are subject of impugned report, their mandate does not extend to undertaking investigations into matters that are subject of court proceedings and decisions,” she wrote.
She wrote further, “if done, this contravenes the res judicata rule where a matter is already determined; and the subjudice rule where the matter is pending before the court. In this case, it should be noted that the sub-committee was operating as a quasi-judicial body. Acting on matters that are res judicata or sub-judice would constitute an affront to the well-established channels for challenging the court decision and not re-opening the same or related matters by way of petitioning a Committee of Parliament.”
The Speaker concluded to Ssekikubo that continuing with the motion would be an action of legal mootness and violate the “res judicata principle,” considering that Ssekikubo’s motion was premised on five grounds including;
- The Commissioners’ participation in the meeting held on 6th May 2022 at which the service award was considered and approved by the parliamentary commission was in contravention of paragraphs 3 (a) and (I), 4, 5, and 7 of Appendix F of the Rules of
- The Commissioners participated in a meeting that considered and approved a matter in which they had a pecuniary
- The Commissioners created a service award, which is unknown in law thereby failing to uphold the laws of
- The Commissioners received a service award without parliamentary approval; and
- The Commissioners withheld information from members of Parliament relating to the decisions taken by the Parliamentary Commission in relation to the service award.
In her guidance, the speaker told Ssekikubo, “all aspects of the motion have been well canvassed in the ruling of the court, and continuing with the same would not only be an action of legal mootness but also violate the res judicata principle as illustrated in the above decision.”
To finish all Ssekikubo’s hopes, the Speaker reminded him, “Parliament was even condemned in costs where it attempted to investigate matters that had already been adjudicated upon by the Constitutional Court.”
The court case, filed by a concerned citizen Bwette Daniel, had challenged the Parliamentary Commission’s decision to award a service award to the “outgoing Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga and backbench Parliamentary Commissioners.”
The High Court declared that the decision was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the Executive, and no wrongdoing was established on the part of the commissioners.
“On 12th August 2024, the above Court matter was decided and a declaration made that the decisions dated 6th May 2022 to award the Leader of Opposition in Parliament…as a service award was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the Executive,” the speaker wrote.
She emphasized, “The High Court further found that the argument of conflict of interest is not sustainable given that in terms of section 42 of the Administration of Parliament Act, the allowances of members of the Parliamentary Commission are determined by the Commission with the approval of Parliament. No wrongdoing on the part of the commissioners was established or found by the court.”
In effect, the Court’s ruling had settled the matter, and any further action would be an “affront” to the judiciary.
Furthermore, with the Speaker’s guidance, the matter is now considered settled, and the Parliamentary Commissioners can continue their work without the threat of censure.