The Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Joel Ssenyonyi has raised questions over the identity of Daniel Bwette, who petitioned Court over the ss1.7bn Service Award.
Ssenyonyi says his attempts to trace Bwette in order to appeal the ruling have been futile, thus raising suspicions on the way the petition was clandestinely handled by Court.
He also dismissed arguments that the ruling exonerated the four back bench parliamentary commissioners; NUP’s Mathias Mpuuga who is also the former Leader of Opposition, Solomon Silwany, Esther Afoyachan & Prossy Akampulirwa from the NRM, saying that had that been the case, the same Court wouldn’t have recommended for the punishment of Clerk to Parliament, Adolf Mwesige.
In his August 12, 2024 ruling, Civil Division Judge, Dr Douglas Singiza said the ‘award’ was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the Executive.
Judge Singiza therefore declared that the service award of sh500m to Mpuuga and sh400m each to three other Commissioners was lawful but improper. The court said it was made possible by the negligence of the Clerk to Parliament.
He directed the Finance Permanent Secretary and Secretary to the Treasury to punish the Parliament Clerk Adolf Mwesige Kasaija within 12 months.
Dr Singiza ruled that the Clerk to Parliament as the accounting officer has a special role in the budgeting process and should have detected mistakes in the budget since the service award is unknown in the payment system of parliament and therefore improper.
As a consequence, Justice Singiza ruled that the the Clerk to Parliament was negligent.
He said that under the law, Parliament cannot increase its emoluments even if it’s disguised as a service award without a motion by the Executive head or his representative, and therefore since it was done without the executive, it was improper.
As a Consequence, the Judge ordered the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury to institute disciplinary proceedings against the Clerk to Parliament within 12 months from the date of the ruling.
The decision arised from a petition filed in May 2024 by a Concerned Citizen Daniel Bwette against the Parliamentary Commission.
In his petition, Bwette told the Court that Commissioners of Parliament, who are also Members of Parliament (MPs) for different constituencies, sat and approved a payment described as a service award on May 6th 2022 at 10:00 hours in the Speaker Anita Among’s Boardroom at Parliament.
He asked court to declare the sh500m to Mpuuga, and sh400m each to three other Commissioners under the guise of this being a so-called service award, illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and therefore null and void.
He also sought a declaration that the decision to create and award payment under the name of a service award is ‘an abuse of power and in contravention of [the principle] that a [political] leader should not make a decision when he or she has a pecuniary interest’.
Bwette further asked the court to quash the decision in issue and also to issue an order of prohibition restraining the respondent or its agents from continuing to misuse or misapply its discretionary power in awarding itself money not authorized by law.
It was Bwette’s evidence that the impugned payment was described as a service award, a term which is unknown in the parliamentary system as it does not form part of the official benefits of members of the Parliamentary Commission.
He also noted that neither the full House nor any of its committees participated in the process that led to the decision whose legal and rational basis he contested.
On their part, the Parliamentary Commission asked the Court to dismiss the matter arguing that the approved payment followed a proper act of the exercise of their legal administrative mandate and that prior to the payment, the Rt. Hon Speaker sought presidential approval in line with Article 155 of the Constitution.
In his decision, the Judge explained that the evidence before him showed that the monies given to Mpuuga and the three Commissioners was mixed up in the Ex-Gratia Payment for Political Leaders with a subheading, ‘Retirement Benefits for Former Speakers and Deputy Speakers. He also notes that their ‘service award’ was listed immediately below as the seventh and eighth item without any justification.
“Retirement benefits are entitlements and not ex-gratia, it is puzzling why the accounting officer placed them under ex-gratia payments,” Justice Singiza noted. “And if this item was for retirement benefits, then why are the beneficiaries of gratuitous awards mixed up in this item?”
He added therefore: “It was a dereliction of duty for the Clerk to Parliament to have failed or neglected to detect such an obviously flawed process. Even if an accounting officer does not participate in a decision-making process, as the paying officer he or she has all the legal powers to decline to make payment which is procedurally improper. In this case, the Clerk both participated in the decision and proceeded to make payment.”
Before taking leave, the Judge indicated that Newspaper articles and social media posts in this country are awash with reports of allegations of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves prizes in the form of money.
St. Peter’s CoU P/S Seeks sh700m for Storeyed Building to Ease Overcrowding
He said this is common in government agencies and entities whose staff are already highly paid. “If this practice continues unchecked, there is a likelihood that our nation’s coffers may be depleted”, added Singiza.
Accordingly, he said a proposal is made to the Attorney General to urgently consider a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill, whose object would be to review and harmonize Emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders.
“Such a board would reduce the temptation of leaders adopting rather ad hoc ways of enhancing their emoluments under the cover of prize money, these being matters which the board should in fact report directly to the President,” said Singiza.