Speaker of Parliament Anita Among has dismissed a motion aimed at censuring former Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga and three backbench commissioners over a controversial service award.
The motion, which sought to challenge the Shs 1.7 billion disbursement, was declared legally moot by Speaker Among, who cited a prior court ruling that had addressed all aspects of the matter.
Among has taken a firm stance in upholding the integrity of the Ugandan Parliament and the judiciary. She dismissed a motion to censure former Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga and three backbench commissioners, who were awarded a total of Shs 1.7 billion in a contentious service award.
The motion, brought forth by MP Theodore Ssekikubo of Lwemiyaga County, sought to challenge the financial disbursements that had sparked public outcry. Ssekikubo’s call for censure aimed to hold Mpuuga, along with commissioners Solomon Silwany (Bukooli County Central), Prossy Mbabazi (Rubanda District Woman), and Esther Afoyochan (Zombo District Woman), accountable for what he termed as an unjustifiable expenditure.
However, Speaker Among, in her letter addressed to Ssekikubo, stood firm in her decision to dismiss the motion, pointing to a ruling by Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza in the case of Bwette Daniel versus the Parliamentary Commission.
The court had thoroughly examined the legality of the service award and provided a comprehensive judgment that, according to Speaker Among, resolved all matters pertaining to the motion.
“All aspects of the motion have been well canvassed in the ruling, and continuing with the same would not only be an action of legal mootness but also violate the res judicata principle,” Speaker Among stated in her letter.
The principle of res judicata, a fundamental doctrine in law, prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided by competent courts.
Speaker Among highlighted the importance of this principle in maintaining the integrity of both parliamentary proceedings and the judiciary, stressing that Parliament should not debate matters that courts have conclusively ruled upon.
In her letter, Speaker Among expressed her reluctance to allow Parliament to engage in discussions that would contradict established legal precedents.
“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 emphasized.
Justice Singiza’s ruling further clarified that the service award in question had been approved by Parliament under the appropriation bill, specifically titled “Ex-gratia for Political Leaders.” This approval, according to the court, was within the legal framework and, as such, could not be subject to further parliamentary censure.
Despite the dismissal, MP Theodore Ssekikubo’s motion highlights ongoing concerns within the Ugandan political landscape regarding transparency and accountability in government spending.
However, Speaker Among’s decision underscores the delicate balance between legislative action and judicial authority, reminding Parliament of its obligation to respect court decisions and the rule of law.
As the dust settles on this contentious issue, the dismissal of the motion by Speaker Among sets a precedent for future parliamentary proceedings. It is a clear message that while parliamentary oversight is crucial, it must operate within the bounds of legal principles and respect for judicial rulings.
In a quote reflecting her stance, Speaker Among remarked,
“Parliament must be a beacon of justice, not a battleground for settled matters. Our role is to legislate with wisdom, guided by the rule of law, and not to undermine the very institutions that uphold our democracy.”
Speaker Among’s resolute decision marks a significant moment in Uganda’s political discourse, one that will likely influence the conduct of parliamentary affairs for years to come.
