By Kabuye Ronald
The censure motion against four backbench Commissioners Mathias Mpuuga (NUP), Prosy Akampulira (NRM), Solomon Silwany (NRM), and Esther Afoyocan (NRM) faces uncertainty following a High Court ruling that validated their service awards.
The ruling, issued on August 12, 2024, concludes a contentious debate that had garnered significant public and media attention, particularly from anti-corruption advocates. The motion to censure these Commissioners, spearheaded by MP Theodore Ssekikubo (NRM), was driven by allegations of improper service awards and perceived as a tactic for public acclaim.
Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza’s 28-page ruling confirmed that the service awards—UGX 500,000,000 for Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga and UGX 400,000,000 each for the other three Commissioners—were lawful. The decision was based on its approval by Parliament and inclusion in the budget, as mandated by the Public Finance Management Act.
The court dismissed claims of conflict of interest, affirming that the allowances and awards for Parliamentary Commission members are determined by the Commission with Parliamentary approval, as stipulated by Section 42 of the Administration of the Parliament Act (AOPA).
The ruling highlighted that the awards were part of the Appropriation Bill under the title ‘Ex-gratia for Political Leaders’. The court noted that the Minister of Finance had the opportunity to scrutinize these payments and that they were included in the approved Appropriations Act.
The court’s findings also addressed the itemized budget details, including ‘Retirement Benefits for Former Speakers and Deputy Speakers’ and service awards for the Leader of the Opposition and backbench Commissioners.
With the court’s decision upholding the legality of the service awards, the proposed censure motion, which was pending allocation on Parliament’s order paper, is now in jeopardy. The ruling has effectively nullified the basis for the motion, shifting the focus back to the legitimacy and procedures surrounding Parliamentary compensation and service awards.
Daniel Bwete, the applicant had asked the court to declare the parliamentary Commission’s decision on service award “ultra vires, illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and therefore null and void,” and pecuniary interest {conflict of interest.”
He had thus asked the court to quash the decision by the Parliamentary Commission, and he had applied for the cost, of which the Court declined all reliefs, after an in-depth scrutiny of all submitted evidence on record.
The ruling is a significant blow to those who had sought to politicize the service award for it upholds its legality and validates the Commissioners’ payment.
