EXPLANATION: Why Speaker Anita Among Has Trashed Ssekikubo Motion to Remove Mpuuga & 3 Others

Speaker Anita Among has written to Lwemiyaga County MP Theodore Ssekikubo telling him she was constrained to continue with his motion for the removal of commissioners of parliament Mathias Mpuuga, Esther Afoyochan, Prossy Akampurira and Solomon Silwany.

After garnering enough signatures, on August 05, Ssekikubo filed his notice of motion with the Clerk to Parliament for the removal of Mpuuga, Akampurira, Afoyochan and Silwany.

Speaker Anita Among then went on remind Ssekikubo that on May 24, “the Office of the General Counsel was served with Miscellaneous Cause No. 0085 of 2024: Bwette Daniel -Versus- Parliamentary Commission wherein the Applicant applied for Judicial Review against Parliamentary Commission seeking, among others, the prerogative orders, of certiorari to call for and quash the Parliamentary Commission’s decision of 6th May 2022 of granting a service award to four back bench Commissioners and Leader of Opposition, for being illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, biased, irrational, and unfair and other related matters.”

She repeated the grounds for Bwette’s applications as including the assertion that the payment to the former Leader of Opposition and backbench Commissioners was termed as “service award,” a term that is alien in the parliamentary payments and one which does not form part of the legitimate benefits which accrue to a serving member of Parliament.

Bwette had also argued that neither Parliament nor any of its committees was involved and as such the process Ieading to the impugned decision was tainted with illegalities, procedural impropriety, irrationality and so the impugned.

The applicant had also argued that the respondents’ actions complained of are an abuse of statutory powers and discretion, mismanagement of a statutory body and an abuse of constitutionally guaranteed rights of Ugandans contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

Bwette had also reasoned that the Parliamentary Commission “did not have any reasonable or lawful justification for making the impugned decisions which directly contravenes the Constitution.”

“The matter in controversy in court was whether the decision of the Parliamentary Commission of 6th May 2022 to pay the outgoing Leader of the Opposition and backbench Parliamentary Commissioners UGX 1,700,000,000 was illegal, procedurally improper and irrational,” the Speaker wrote to Ssekikubo on August 16.

“On the other hand, the basis for your motion to remove the Commissioners from office was that:  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 paragraph 3 (a) and (f), 4, 5 and 7 of Appendix F of the Rules of Procedure; the Commissioners participated in a meeting that considered and approved a matter in which they had pecuniary interest; The Commissioners created a service award which is unknown in law thereby failing to uphold the laws of Uganda…”

The other arguments in Ssekikubo’s motion were that “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.”

Speaker Anita Among relied on the ruling of court as delivered by Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza in Bwette’s application to advance her decision to trash Ssekikubo’s motion.

“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 (Hon. Mathias Mpuuga) UGX 500,000,000, and the 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,” the speaker wrote.

“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 wrong doing on the part of the commissioners was established or found by court. In light of the above, 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.”

She also quoted Article 128 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda  as being “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 effectiveness of the courts.”

To further buttress her argument on Parliament being barred from probing matters that have already been decided by courts of law, she threw excerpts from Justice Boniface Wamala’s ruling in the matter of Mohamed Allibhai v Attorney General (Misc Cause No. 217 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 94 (4 July 2022), thus:

“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 the impugned report, their mandate does not extend to undertaking investigations into matters that are the subject of court proceedings and decisions. If done, this contravenes the res judicata rule where a matter is already determined; and the sub judice 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 principles of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary which are cornerstones of the rule of law.

Although there is no bar, in my view, for Parliament to discuss or even undertake investigations over matters that have been subject of court decisions, the cardinal point is that such investigation should not involve or / constitute re-hearing of those matters and reaching conclusions that are contrary to the findings and decisions of the court. Parliament is obliged to derive guidance from the court decisions rather than taking liberty to depart or even reverse such decisions. In other words, Parliament should avoid placing itself in a position of reversing a decision of a court. Where a party is not satisfied with the finding and decision of the court, for whatever reason, their remedy is to use 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.”

Speaker Anita Among then made it clear to Ssekikubo that the decision of court means that his motion cannot be entertained on the floor of parliament.

“All aspects of the motion have been well canvassed in the ruling of 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,” the speaker told the Lwemiyaga MP.

“Parliament was even condemned in costs where it attempted to investigate matters that had already been adjudicated upon by the Constitutional Court in Hon. Justice Mulangira v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 07 of 2014.”

Following the court ruling, Mathias Mpuuga blasted his enemies, telling them to use their brains. (See Details Here).