Inside Story Of Chris Obore’s Response On Legality Of The Service Award To Mpuuga & Other Commissioners

SHARE

On the 9th of March 2024, an insightful piece authored by Mr. Chris Obore titled “A Detailed Examination of the Uganda Law Society’s Assessment Regarding the Service Awards Granted to Commissioners and the Leader of Opposition in May 2022” was featured in the New Vision. In his article, Obore staunchly defended the service awards bestowed upon Hon. Mathias Mpuuga, Hon. Solomon Silwany, Hon. Prossy Akampulira Mbabazi, and Hon. Esther Afoyochan, who are all members of the Parliamentary Commission. These individuals, on the 6th of May 2022, made a collective decision to allocate a total of UGX 1.7 billion to themselves. Obore argued that the Parliamentary Commission possesses the authority to determine the remuneration of its members, and the award was duly accounted for in the Commission’s budget, subsequently approved by Parliament under the constitutional provision of Article 155(2).

Obore’s rebuttal was prompted by the Uganda Law Society’s statement issued on the 5th of March 2024, asserting the illegality of the service awards due to lack of support by a bill or motion presented to Parliament on behalf of the executive, as mandated by Article 93 of the Constitution.

However, Obore’s defense lacked substantive evidence validating the lawful creation and authorization of the one-time service award for the four commissioners. Transparency and accountability are essential elements of good governance, and Obore’s failure to furnish supporting documents undermines these principles, leaving the Ugandan public rightfully questioning the process.

Addressing the crux of Obore’s argument, the Uganda Law Society’s stance rests on Article 93(a)(ii) of the Constitution, stipulating that any increase in charges to the Consolidated Fund must be initiated through a bill introduced by the executive. Given that the Parliamentary Commission unilaterally devised a new emolument for its commissioners, thus augmenting the burden on the Consolidated Fund, constitutional protocol necessitated the introduction of a bill in Parliament by the executive. This adherence to constitutional checks and balances ensures accountability and transparency in governance.

Obore’s oversight regarding the court ruling in Krispus Ayena Odongo, affirming the application of Article 93, underscores the imperative of adhering to constitutional provisions. Additionally, Section 32 of the Administration of Parliament Act (Cap 257), mandating parliamentary approval for member allowances, must be construed in conjunction with Article 93, further reinforcing the constitutional framework governing fiscal matters.

The disconcerting aspect of this saga lies in the apparent disregard for ethical conduct and adherence to legal statutes by the four commissioners. Their blatant violation of the Leadership Code, specifically sections 8 and 12A, by participating in a meeting where they held a vested interest, constitutes a criminal offense. The service award, tailored exclusively for their benefit, was inherently unlawful from its inception and remains so. As barren soil yields no harvest, an illegality begets no legitimacy. The commissioners’ transgression demands prosecution before the Leadership Code Tribunal.

Furthermore, the public outcry stemming from the Speaker’s lackluster response to the #UgandaParliamentExhibition underscores widespread apprehensions regarding institutional integrity and accountability. Allegations ranging from illicit recruitments and nepotism to dubious per diem payments and purported corporate social responsibility disbursements depict an institution mired in moral ambiguity. The exorbitant sums involved exacerbate concerns, particularly in a nation grappling with myriad developmental challenges.

The appropriation of substantial funds for personal gain, coupled with the audacious assertion of a corporate social responsibility budget, epitomizes a systemic failure in stewardship of national resources. The Speaker, entrusted with safeguarding the interests of the populace, must address these grievances forthrightly. Persistent evasion and attempts to obfuscate the truth only deepen public disillusionment and erode trust in democratic institutions.

In conclusion, the onus lies on the Speaker to issue a public statement addressing the legitimate concerns of the populace. Failure to do so perpetuates a culture of impunity and undermines the principles of democratic governance. Upholding transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional precepts is imperative to restoring public faith in the integrity of Uganda’s parliamentary system.

SHARE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *