Thursday 12th October, 2000
Parliament met at 2.05p.m. in Parliament House, Kampala
PRAYERS
(The Speaker, Mr. Francis Ayume, in the Chair)
BILLS
SECOND READING
THE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL, 2000
(Debate Continued)
MR.OKELLO OKELLO (Chwa County, Kitgum) I thank you Mr. Speaker. Towards the end
of last year, when we passed a motion to allow this Bill, I set out to record some data for about
two months. I would not like to bore the House with a long list of data but I will quote only a few
cases to prove my point.
On 3rd November last year we debated the Omongole Report here and on that day there were 12
Ministers in the House. That is on average. I used to take this data twice in one afternoon.
On 4th, the following day we had 21 Ministers and the motion on the Floor was AES Power
Purchase Agreement. The number went up almost by 50 per cent to 100 percent.
On the 9th of November, we devoted that afternoon to questions for oral and answers and Mr.
Speaker, at 3.00 p.m. there were only nine Ministers in the House.
On the 30th of November, we were debating Amnesty Bill and there were 14 Ministers at 3.30
p.m.
On the 1st of December, we were continuing with the debate on the Amnesty Bill and there were
only eight Ministers on average in the House.
On 2nd of December there was a Ministerial Statement on the Environment followed by a debate
on the Amnesty Bill and Mr. Speaker, there were 10 Ministers at 4.00 p.m.
I am quoting this data which I actually compiled for two months and with the knowledge of the
Mover of the motion and a few Friends. This data proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the
Ministers do not need this House and vice versa. This Parliament has done a lot of things and
whatever we achieved, we did so without full attendance at ministerial level. So, it is not really
necessary to have Ministers here in order to perform.
At one time in the past, polygamy was a very popular thing in Acholi land. It was a status
symbol. If somebody was not polygamous, that person was considered a poor person. But this
has died out. People have discovered that polygamy is wasteful, is difficult to operate and is
really a part time affair. The purpose of this Bill is that job-polygamy in this country must stop.
We have to stop job-polygamy, so that people can concentrate on whatever responsibility they
are assigned to do.
We all recall the acrimony that characterised parliamentary campaigns to come to this Parliament
in 1996, particularly in areas that were predominantly Movement. In some cases people died in
fighting to come to Parliament. Some good number of these candidates wanted to come here and
become Ministers. It is my belief that if this Bill is passed, the political acrimony, that normally
accompanies campaigns in this country will be toned down quite drastically.
I would like to conclude by saying that I really find it difficult to understand people who argue
against this Bill. All we are saying here is that, if you put on your Sunday suit and stand in front
of your dressing mirror and you think you look like a Ministerial material, wait for it; do not
come here. We want people who come here to do parliamentary work and not ministerial work at
the same time. The portfolio of a Minister, you know very well, is not a part time affair. The
responsibility of a Member of Parliament is a full time job. So the two combined cannot really go
down well with whoever is trying to do both of them because you will only have succeeded in
making both of them part-time occupations. Mr. Speaker, with those few words I thank you and I
pray that the motion sails through. I thank you.
LT.COL. MUDOOLA CHRISTOPHER (Kigulu North, Iganga): Thank you very much Mr.
Speaker. We, as Members of Parliament, should not be seen to be wanting to be everywhere. We
have known here that there are Members of Parliament who are Ministers, Directors, Chairmen
of some NGOs or Government bodies. And this looks as though there are no other people in this
country who could do this job as well as the Members of Parliament. Some Members of
Parliament have said that we are the leaders. We are the cream, but I think there are also so many
people out there, who can do the job as good as a Minister. It is like going to a party and
somebody puts so much food on his plate that at the end of the day is wasted. As Members of
Parliament, we have already too much on our plate. Now if you add on ministerial appointment,
you are like that person who have too much on his plate and will not be able to finish it, in that
case then efficiency drops. In other words there is inefficiency. You either abandon your
constituency or do not perform very well as a Minister.
It has also been said that charity begins at home. Yes, I agree but also somewhere in the Bible,
our lord Jesus said you cannot serve two masters at ago. Now as a Member of Parliament, you
are divided between two lovers. That is the constituency and the country. Which one are you
going to serve best? Can you serve them equally and fairly? It would be very difficult to serve
them equally. The first thing you think of is your constituency as we have said that charity begins
at home.
Many Members of Parliament here have given examples that when you visit a constituency,
which had had some Ministers, there is a big difference between a constituency, which has never
had a Minister. I said this one right from the beginning of this Parliament that it is true if you go
to constituencies where there are Ministers, you find that their development is much more than
areas where there are no Ministers. This makes people to scramble, to lobby, to struggle to
become Ministers in this House, which I think should not be the case. You should come here to
represent the people and nothing else.
Furthermore, we talk of sharing the national cake. I think sharing the national cake should not be
only on the district but also individuals through leadership, through jobs. If a Member of
Parliament should be fair and good, he could say that more people should share this cake and
thus create efficiency.
It was said here yesterday that some Ministers who are not elected decampaign the incumbent. I
think if this law is in place, this Minister will think of decampaigning the incumbent because he
knows very well that if he becomes a Minister, he will loose the ministerial attainment. So, I
think they work hand in hand as a Minister of that area and as an MP appointed from that area.
On this note, I support the motion. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DR.MALLINGA STEVEN (Butebo county, Pallisa): Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I
think this amendment is something we have to consider carefully. On one hand is the separation
of powers and on the other hand is the fact that we have a very young democracy, which we are
trying to nurture. There have been quotations of the British system, the American system and
how they work. What we forget is that it has taken these systems a long time to evolve. Ours is
just evolving and we do not have an established system. I agree that the Judiciary as an arm of
Government should be independent. But there is still need of very close co-operation between the
Executive and Legislature.
We would not have these problems if the people who have been appointed as Ministers from this
House had a national focus rather than a constituency focus. It has been rightly pointed out that
some Ministers tend to concentrate on developing their own constituencies in order to build their
political base. I think that is a failure of the present system, which should be corrected.
I do not think that the best people to make Ministers are those in the House. There is a very big
pool outside the House from whom the President would choose and have a very effective
Cabinet. I give an example of the hon. Prime Minister. In my opinion he has been one of the best
Ministers. He was not elected; the President nominated him. We all remember he has been
effective in every Ministry he has been and since he became Prime Minister, there has been
leadership in the House. I have not completely made up my mind because of the reasons I have
given. If I were to vote, maybe I would be one of those who are still on the edge. I am willing to
give a chance to the President to nominate Members of Parliament as Ministers but let the
Ministers show their value, have a national image.
I come from a constituency, which has never had a Minister, and we have suffered. It is one of
the most undeveloped constituencies in this country. I regret to say that from my district, every
time a Minister has been appointed, he has failed to unite the people. Our district is peculiar in
that we have about four major tribes. Every single Minister has tended to become tribalistic,
which is a sign of political immaturity.
We should focus on building this nation. I regret to say that we have not yet, as Ugandans,
become a nation. Whenever I observe Ugandans outside, they tend to disperse instead of keeping
together; they disperse into the neighbouring nations. Whenever we had a collection of Africans
outside, the people from Kisoro tended to go with people from the Republic of Rwanda; the
people from the East tended to go with the Kenyans; the people from the North easily associated
with Southern Sudanese. So, our problem is that though, we are a country, we have not really
become a nation. It would not have been difficult to oppose this motion if our Ministers had a
national perspective. But we still tend to have either regional or tribal outlook.
Since we are a young democracy, I would say, let us give it a chance and see how it goes. But if
the same thing continues, if some Ministers continue to be unreasonable and continue having a
tribal focus and developing their constituencies at the expense of other areas, when I come back
in the next Parliament, I will be the Mover of this motion.
Therefore, at the moment I am not very anxious to become a Minister. I think I have operated
very well as an independent. I can say everything I want in this House without the burden of
collective responsibility. I have seen very brilliant people who have come into this House, have
been made Ministers –(Interruption)
THE MINISTER IN CHARGE OF ECONOMIC MONITORING (Mr. Kweronda
Ruhemba): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you hon. Mallinga for giving way. I
would like to know how the Minister in this arrangement of ours could develop his Constituency
vis-à-vis other constituencies. I have seen communications from Ministers, for instance, of
Education to us all saying that this money is for the development of that district. I have seen the
Minister of Works, of Water and so on, communicating to us that this money is going to the
districts. I have not seen any communication to me saying because you are a Minister, this is an
extra budgetary provision for your constituency. May I be clarified on how the Minister can get
that extra budgetary provision for his constituency vis-à-vis the MPs?
DR.MALLINGA: I would like to thank the hon. Minister for the question. We all know, and it
has been raised several times here that Ministers put pressure at the district level. I will give you
an example, in Pallisa district there are two counties, which were affected by the insurgency.
There is a programme called Northern Uganda Rehabilitation Programme, (NURP). It should be
Butebo and Pallisa counties, which should have benefited from this programme. But to our
amazement, if you went to Pallisa, you will find that Budaka and Kibuku counties benefited more
from the building of schools, what they call TDMS and NURP schools, which were meant for the
rehabilitation of the disturbed areas. That is because – I told you about the house of lords and the
house of commons in Pallisa, the Minister puts pressure on the district to benefit his area.
As for the roads, if I did not come to the Ministry of Works here, roads in Butebo County would
still be impassable. But the Ministry of Works had to intervene directly - not from the district
where money is sent for the rehabilitation of roads.
Roads in the Kibuku and Budaka counties were rehabilitated maybe three times over before
roads in Butebo and Pallisa were rehabilitated. In the case of Butebo, the district did not
rehabilitate the roads, but it was by the intervention of the Central Government, by my directly
approaching the Minister of Works and he sent the road equipment there to rehabilitate those
roads. I am still struggling with bridges yet the bridges in the county where the Minister comes
from are properly looked after.
Most of the schools in those areas have benefited from three programmes at a time. I still have
mango-tree schools in my area – Butebo County.
So, if we can correct this, if our Ministers can start having a national perspective rather a
constituency or tribal perspective, then I would be one to fully support –(Interruption)
MR.ILUKORI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I would
like to give this information with a heavy heart. In my view, the motion being debated is actually
a protest motion because Uganda has an Executive which should look at this nation as one
country, whose external borders should be the constituencies of Ministers and not the counties
they represent in Parliament just as I do. Thank you.
DR.MALLINGA: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the information from the hon. Member. So
before I sit I think I will abstain from voting as far as this motion is concerned. Only with the
possibility in my mind that there will be a rehabilitation of the Ministers, there will be a change
in the view of the Ministers, they should start having a national image; they should start thinking
of developing this nation not their constituencies. The Ministers should be approachable. I get
embarrassed sometimes when I go to see a Minister about my constituency and then I have to sit
outside.
A Member of Parliament should be respected and wherever he goes he should be welcomed
especially when he goes to see a Minister. There is no reason why I should see relatives going
ahead of me, people who do not have important national responsibility, being seen ahead of me. I
have a constituency to represent and when I go there I have burning issues to see the Minister
about. He should not be burdened; he should not give priority to personal business. I would have
gone deeper to describe my experiences in the Ministries I have been to, but I will spare it this
time. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
MRS.BALEMEZI (Woman representative, Mukono): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would have
wished to support the motion but I still have some fears, which I wish the Movers to allay before
I can wholeheartedly support this motion.
My fears are that if these Ministers are appointed from outside Parliament, I feel that they might
be working like Permanent Secretaries. They will just be getting directives from the President
and the House, which directives they cannot have an opportunity to air out their opinions about,
and not even able to sit in Parliament to get more clarification as to how they are to carry out
their job.
Secondly, I feel that if these Ministers are got from outside Parliament, they would not have
shown to the public that they are ready to serve them. And they fear even to stand out in public to
be criticised or to be guided by public. So, if they are made Ministers, they might feel they are
serving like public servants or office workers. In one way or another, our Ministers, who are
elected Members, sometimes have some good public relations because they are elected people
and they always feel like serving the people to their satisfaction so that they can be returned.
That is why we get the problem of saying that most Ministers most of the time attend to their
constituents other than other Members of Parliament. This is an area I feel that if we had more
laws and guidelines given to the Ministers, maybe they could improve so that they become
nationalistic rather than constituent Ministers.
I feel that we might have a very weak top Executive. As a Member of Parliament, if I am to go to
a Minister who is almost at the level of a Permanent Secretary, I think I would just be giving
directives. I might talk to him in a humble way but I do not think I would give him time to give
excuses for not doing what I want him to do. This is because I would know that any time he
could be reshuffled because he has nothing to loose. If he is reshuffled, he can go back to his job.
But as a Member of Parliament, even the President has to think twice before he reshuffles
Ministers because he considers them as elected people who have the mandate of all the people
from their constituencies. If he is to disappoint that one individual, he will be disappointing a
whole constituency. That is one reason why some of our Ministers try to be nationalistic.
I would give an example of our Minister from Mukono. Much as some Ministers like the
Minister from hon. Mallinga's district tend to concentrate in their constituencies, I would not say
that the Minister from my district is concentrating much in her constituency. She is a
nationalistic Minister who is distributing her services to other districts, which is quite good.
Our people are very mindful of the material of the people they elect with a hope that the people
they elect might become Ministers. In Uganda, we still hold ministerial positions as the topmost
electable office. So when the electorate is called upon to go for elections, they have that in mind.
That is why they try to sit down and try to screen and get material people like us to come to
Parliament and they would like to get the top most Executive to come from elected people. But if
we are to recommend for civil servants, good businessmen whose public relations might not be
all that good and they might be looking down upon certain categories of people because of their
academic achievements. When I say this I think I am excluding our Minister here who were
appointed.
But supposing the President has to come up with a total of 60 or so Ministers, we are likely to get
a type of people who might not be mindful of the different categories of people that we have in
our constituencies.
My fears also extend to the Members of Parliament who might be appointed Ministers if they are
to resign their posts as Members of Parliament, yet when they were being elected in their
constituencies their electorate mandated them to a service of five years. But if he becomes a nonperformer and the President feels like reshuffling him or her, this Member of Parliament will
suffer greatly because he will have lost the confidence from his people. He will also lose the role
he wanted to play.
So, with such fears still hanging within my mind, I still find it very difficult to support this
motion.
As Parliament, we should look more into the rules and roles governing our Ministers so that they
stop concentrating in their constituencies, which is the biggest problem to all of us, and start
performing as nationalists so that they extend to all districts regardless of their position in the
country.
I would like to also recommend that we as Parliament should think seriously in case we
recommend for people to be appointed from outside Parliament as to how they will be coming
here to defend the Bills. How they will be lobbying the Members of Parliament to have their
Bills go through because sometimes here I see these Ministers concentrating in the canteen there
and in the lobbies when they have a Bill to present in Parliament. But if we have a Minister who
is outside Parliament, I wonder whether they would feel comfortable and even feel at per to
discuss about their Bills with Members of Parliament who are the peoples’ choice and the
Minister are an individual’s choice. With that, Mr. Speaker, I beg to oppose the motion.
MR.NDEGE JOHN (Luuka County, Iganga): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to support
the motion because the objectives are very noble. We want our President to be more efficient; we
want our country to be run better.
For the last many years we have stack ourselves like a cocoon here, and we do not want the
President to have a free hand. During the Constituent Assembly, we tried to make this clear to
our Friends but because Ministers had a block vote, they added on another block vote, they made
this issue contentious and in the end it was lost.
My belief is that we should give the President a free hand. If we allow the President to choose
from outside or within Parliament, those people must make up their mind either to serve their
constituency or this country. We are going to have a smaller Cabinet because there will be no
elders coming to the President saying, ‘oh, you have dropped this one’. When the President
visits, they say, ‘our district does not have a Minister’. The whole thing is not for serving; it is
for display. This country has reached a point where the whole world will not wait for us to
develop; the whole world is looking at us, as Africa, to be efficient.
I was listening to the two candidates in US today and they are saying Africa is full of corruption.
And so it is all written. After all some people have said that if Ministers do not come from
Parliament, there will be anarchy. Is there anarchy in the United States? Is it not a most
economically strong country; is it not the military might of this world? They are the most
efficient. Therefore, if they can organise themselves, the Ministers from there do not come from
the Congress, they do not come from the Senate; they come from outside and we have seen
people coming and going. Today it is Kissinger, tomorrow is Albright, the day after it is another.
We do not see them becoming less and less efficient; in fact they are more efficient. Now, when
we come here the Ministers are reshuffled and jiggled around, but still there is a lot of
inefficiency. We want to get rid of corruption but we cannot get rid of it because people who are
supposed to be heads of Ministries are here in Parliament. Therefore, what they do there, they
come and cover it here. We want to be free of them; we want to be free of their activities. The
judiciary is free of us. Are they not independent and not part of this country? Why do not
Ministers? Are they not appointed from Parliament to become Judges?
THE MINISTER OF ETHICS AND INTERGRITY (Mrs. Miria Matembe): If I have heard
clearly, the hon. Member in his contribution says, the Ministers go in there and do their corrupt
things and get corrupt there in their Ministries and they come here and cover the corruption here.
Surely, is he in order to say that we Ministers are corrupt and we come here and cover our
corruption without him substantiating what he is saying? For sure I feel extremely defamed by
that statement and unless it is either substantiated or expounded, I would like you, to rule as to
whether he is in order because it is extremely serious.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the statement is rather grave, especially, when you say that
Ministers do their things there and come here to cover them up. Do you have any evidence to
substantiate or is it a slip of the tongue or what? The Floor is yours.
MR.NDEGE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I think we have already used our rule 118 twice here to
ask the President to relieve some Ministers of their duties, which he has, and some of these
allegations are supposed to be corrupt tendencies. I think those examples, which pass through
this House. So I think I am right to say that the Minister is the chief Executive to run his Ministry
and what the Minister of Ethics is saying is that –(Interruption)
MR.SAM KUTESA: Mr. Speaker, hon. Ndege has said that twice under section 118, Ministers
have been removed for corruption in this House. I do not recall any such charge against any
Minister who was censured. Is he in order to state that people were removed because of
corruption under Article 118 in this House? And if he is not in order - I hope he was still trying
to tell you whether it was a slip of the tongue or whether he was going to substantiate. But I
know that there is no Minister who has been censured on grounds of corruption under section
118 in this House. In any case, 118 there is no such a ground.
THE SPEAKER: You are quite right hon. Kutesa. I was still waiting for him to substantiate his
charges and I had not yet even ruled.
MR.NDEGE: I withdraw that statement Mr. Speaker. I will just rephrase it in that way that
Ministers are supposed to be chief executives.
THE SPEAKER: No, let us deal with your point. You have made very serious charges.
MR.NDEGE: I have withdrawn the fact that Ministers have corrupt tendencies.
THE SPEAKER: First of all, I have got to rule on it. You do not have any grounds to
substantiate your statement and therefore you are out of order. Then you can do the needful now,
which you are planning to do.
MR.NDEGE: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker for correcting me. I will not go in specifics. I
withdraw the comment about the Ministers having corrupt tendencies and covering them in
Parliament.
All I am saying is that to me the Ministers who are outside Parliament have proved very efficient
from the Prime Minister to Syda Bbumba, to the others. I think they have delivered better to this
country and they are controlling their Ministries much better than those who are within; because
they have only one responsibility and that is to serve this country and be efficient. I believe that
if we are to get more efficiency this will include many things including what I have talked about.
We shall have a country, which is run better.
Also I have seen my colleagues here, speak one thing and when they become Ministers, because
of collective responsibility, they withdraw a lot of things. There is a lot of behavioural change.
CAPT.BABU FRANCIS: Mr. Speaker, I would not have disturbed the hon. Member but
probably I should pose a question to him as a clarification. When this Parliament passes a law,
does that law become collective responsibility? If this Parliament passes a Resolution, does that
Resolution become collective responsibility? Therefore, the clarification I am seeking from the
hon. Member, when a group of people sit and pass a Resolution of any kind or a law, it becomes
collective responsibility.
MR.NDEGE: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows what collective responsibility is. If a Bill comes
here, whether a Minister wants it or not, he must support it and we want to get rid of those people
who have a block vote to get out of the Legislature and become non-voting elements in the
Legislature.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, before you develop your point on collective responsibility, I
would like to draw your attention to Article 117 of the Constitution. It states as follows:
“Ministers shall, individually be accountable to the President for the administration of their
Ministries and collectively be responsible for any decision made by the Cabinet.” This is the
Constitution. You can proceed.
MR.NDEGE: Thank you Mr. Speaker for clarifying this. It is exactly what we are saying; that if
somebody wants to be a Minister, let him resign and let another Member who can vote
independently. For the good of this nation, come and replace him. It is up to you if you want to
remain a Member of Parliament, do remain. If you want to take up a ministerial post and run a
Ministry, then do so.
MR.TIM LWANGA: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want a clarification. Is the Member trying to
imply that our Ministers do not vote responsibly? That for them they vote as they are told; it is a
block vote. The Constitution, from what you have just clarified in Article 117, says otherwise. I
seek clarification.
MR.NDEGE: I think the Speaker read the Constitution and it was very, very clear. Let me move
on to the next point. If you did not understand it, it is very unfortunate. We want to get rid of
corruption and it is one of the ways where the President will not be bogged down with possible
dead wood, which he cannot get rid of.
CAPT.BABU: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Member in order to refer to some Members who serve
with the President as dead wood? Is that parliamentary language? Is he therefore in order?
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I wish to advise you to check your language because you have
been interrupted about three times on account of the way you are developing your point. Maybe
you should be advised to use parliamentary language, not to refer to your colleagues on the Front
bench as deadwood without substantiating. I think unless you say who they are, then you will be
out of order. I give you the Floor to do that.
MR.NDEGE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for using non-parliamentary language. I withdraw the
statement.
Lastly, everybody is looking at us debating this motion, either for selfish ends or for this country.
I am going to vote for this motion because I love this country; because I want this country to be
run better by the people who shall be responsible to the President. I want to give the President a
free hand to hire and fire for the good of this country. I beg to support the motion, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The hon. Chebet Maikut is now available. He can take the Floor and he will
be followed by the hon. Okumu-Ringa who is also now available.
MR.CHEBET MAIKUT (Kween County, Kapchorwa): I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker
for giving me the Floor to contribute to this very important motion. I rise to support the motion.
In the Constituent Assembly where I had the privilege to serve, I supported this position. I have
not changed my mind. When this motion was being floated there, my name was number 27 to
append my signature as a supporter to this motion. I have my reasons, which of course many
colleagues have pointed out. But I would like to make few remarks. Before that, I am worried of
some of my colleagues, the hon. Members of Parliament, some of whom put their signatures on
that motion and they are now changing their minds. Are we principled? Why not? Well, let us put
that aside.
The point is that this motion is not about the Movement Government or parties. It is not about
multi-partism or about the Movement. It is not about the current Government but it is about a
legislation, which should stand the test of time. We should, therefore, legislate or make laws for
the good governance of this country. It should stand the test of time rather than looking at
ourselves. Even if the appointing authority appointed me a Minister even now, I would still
maintain my position; that a person so appointed to the Front Bench should relinquish his or her
seat in Parliament in order to ease efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services.
MR.BAKU RAPHAEL: Thank you, hon. Maikut. Mr. Speaker, may I inform the hon. Member
on the Floor that even under the current law, if one is appointed a Minister, he could actually
resign his Parliamentary seat. But what we are saying is that it should not be a legal requirement
but one should be having the option like hon. Jeje Odong did when he was not required to do so.
So, he is free to resign even now when he is appointed.
MR.CHEBET MAIKUT: Mr. Speaker, that remains to be seen from experience. We know that
a number of our colleagues have been made Ministers and I have not heard of any of them who
has voluntarily tendered his resignation as hon. Baku would like me to believe. So, I want to
reaffirm that this debate is not about who is supporting the Movement or who is not supporting
the Movement because there have been some kind of pressures of recent, a lot of intensive
lobbying to see if you are supporting this motion then you are anti-Movement. I think this is far
from the truth (Interruption.). Mr. Speaker, I submit.
MR.KUTESA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I thank hon. Chebet Maikut for giving way. The
hon. Member has said that we are making a constitutional amendment that will stand the test of
time and that is what motivates him in supporting this motion. I want him to clarify to me one
thing.
If we were to assume that five years, three years, ten years down the line we went multiparty or
the people of Uganda decided that we go multiparty and hon. Chebet formed his party and I
formed mine and he got 120 seats in this House and I got 100. Now, hon. Chebet would have to, I
assume, appoint Ministers from his party most of whom would have to be some of his most
trusted colleagues and some of his best people in the party who probably would be Members of
Parliament. If he were to appoint 62 out of them, that would mean that he would be left with 58
in the House if they were required to resign. I, who had lost an election with 100, would then
retain a majority in Parliament. How would he propose to pass his legislation in this House if this
is something that is going to stand the test of time?
MR.MAIKUT: I thank the hon. colleague for seeking that clarification. Many of us will
remember that the Constitution is the supreme law in this land and, therefore, any subsequent
legislation, whether regulations or constitutions governing various political parties and other
groups, must therefore, conform to the new constitutional provision if this Parliament so provides
for that. So, I do not see any problem as far as I am concerned if we have got a law in place.
To me, therefore, this motion is not about undermining the powers of His Excellency, the
President. No, it is far from the truth. If anything, this motion is intended to liberate colleagues
on the Front Bench. I know many of them who are often confronted with a myriad of problems
from their constituencies to the extent that in their various capacities, they may not have enough
time to attend to the national duties as required by law in their respective areas of work. I believe
even Parliament, whichever system of governance is in place, a Parliament is another arm of the
State, as all of us know. I do not see any reason why the entire Parliament can be hostile.
Parliament is supposed to work as a partner to other arms of Government, Judiciary and
Executive and, therefore, in my opinion the Presidency can enjoy a greater way of implementing
the desired Government policies and programmes with that kind of harmonisation.
At this point, I would like to commend the right hon. Prime Minister because he is the first
person from the Government side who supported this motion when a Resolution of Parliament to
come up with this Bill was presented here. I do recall very well that the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister
said Government had no objection to this Bill being presented to this House.
PROF.NSIBAMBI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I thank the hon. Member for giving way. This
Bill has been dealt with. We do have a Cabinet position and I will be articulating it. I thank you.
THE SPEAKER: I do not know whether I understood you correctly, you were arguing that the
Prime Minister supported the Private Member’s motion seeking leave of the House to bring this
Bill, is that your argument? Yes, I do not see anything contradictory with any position you took
at that time to give leave to the hon. Private Member to bring the Bill with another position
which you may take regarding the Bill itself. I do not see anything contradictory. Can you
proceed?
MR.CHEBET MAIKUT: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your wise counselling and
guidance. To me, this law will be consistent with other subsidiary laws that this House has
passed. I will cite one example, the Local Government Act. You will recall that when it was
debated here, some Members wanted a provision allowing Members of Parliament to sit as exofficial during the deliberation of their respective District Councils. That position was strongly
rejected by the Government and they gave very good reasons, which all of us agreed to.
I want therefore, to submit that the rational behind the Onapito/Mugisha Muntu motion now
before this House is exactly borrowing leaf from some of the provisions of that Local
Government Act. That Act is very clear; the Head of Department at the District level is not a
member of the Local Council. But that Head of Department, who is a civil servant, can attend
and participate in the proceedings of the District Council in ex-official capacity.
It has been demonstrated 100 per cent that our ex-official Members of Parliament who are
appointed as Ministers, who are here, I think they are three of them, are doing a very exemplary
job. I have no reason in my mind to doubt that any Member so appointed from outside Parliament
cannot deliver to the expectations of the public.
There have been arguments that it is still far the 7th Parliament of Uganda when the Bill is going
to come into force, that is 2nd July next year. To me, it is the contrary. Time is now ripe for this
Parliament to put in place this law which will guide the next 7 th Parliament which is not very far
from now, according to our political timetable.
With those few remarks I would like to thank you very much and urge fellow Members of
Parliament to support this Bill so that we have proper governance, efficiency and effective
delivery of services for this nation. And, of course, if a Member of Parliament is appointed a
Minister, somebody has got to bear in mind what some people call professional hazards of any
job. If you are a Minister and you are dropped today, be prepared and go home. I thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.OKUMU RINGA (Padyere County Nebbi): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose this
motion because the constitutional provision is very clear. When you look at Article 113(1), it
says very clearly that “Cabinet Ministers shall be appointed by the President with the approval
of Parliament from among Members of Parliament or persons qualified to be elected Members of
Parliament”. The framers of this Constitution were very clear in this provision. The wisdom the
constitutional framers displayed is so clear that the President who would be the Chief Executive
could appoint either entirely from among Members of Parliament or even entirely from outside
so long as the people being appointed have the qualifications of being Members of Parliament.
So, what better provision would one have? In my view, this provision in the Constitution is
appropriate and would stand the test of time. It is against this background that I oppose the
proposed amendment.
When we talk about Executive functions, what does the Executive do whether in a corporate
entity or at national level? An Executive performs, basically, managerial functions. In our case
the President presides over the executive functions of the State and he delegates those functions
to Cabinet Ministers. And those functions are again delegated by Cabinet Ministers to those
below them to perform specific functions. If executive functions are managerial functions, is this
amendment simply asking whether or not the current executive is performing appropriate
managerial functions or we have deficiency?
Arising from that analogy, if one was to look at the recommendations of the Committee on Legal
and Parliamentary Affairs on page 3 - those observations marked one to three - one would say the
Constitutional amendment Bill, 1999 which is before us is by default. If it is before us by default,
are we simply exercising academic theorisation? Is it simply for us to debate this -(Interruption)
MR.DICK NYAI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The procedural clarification I am seeking from you
following the rendition of hon. Okumu Ringa is that there was an application for a Private Member
to move such a Bill, and this House passed that application. So, is it really in order and correct
procedurally for the hon. Member to say that this Bill is before this House by default?
THE SPEAKER: I think the origin of this Bill is well known. It is a Private Members' Bill and the
procedure for its coming to this House is also well known. First, that the Mover must seek
permission of the House to introduce it, and that motion was carried. That is why this Bill is here.
So, this Bill is here in its own right and in accordance with our Constitution. It is not here by
default.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your wise ruling. However, mine has been
simply -(Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Dick Nyai, I do not know whether you wanted a clarification?
MR.DICK NYAI: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for that clarification. I hope the Member
holding the Floor will take note and not persist in saying that it is here by default.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: Mr. Speaker, when you look at page 3 of the report of the Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs Committee, this Bill would have been complete and more appropriate if it
had encompassed Articles 78(1)(d), 83(1) and 116(b)(ii). It is against this background, that I make
these remarks. The end result of all these debates will go back to the fact that we need consequential
amendments to what has been recommended by the Committee, and there is no provision in our
rules of Procedure. That would allow simply consequential amendments without introducing these
amendments substantively. That is the reason why I have made that argument and I would like it to
remain on record, as an analytical argument.
As I said, an Executive performs managerial functions, the Constitution is very clear. The
constitutional provision, which is currently in place, will stand the test of time. It is my humble
submission that when it comes to vote, we should throw out this motion.
It is incumbent upon this House in its wisdom to create certain checks and balances on the
Executive if we want efficiency in terms of management style. For instance, a chairman of a Board
may not bother to chair a board meeting effectively. He may just delegate one of the Board
Members to chair Board meetings whether they are on crucial issues or not. It is the same at
national level. The Chief Executive who chairs Cabinet meeting may adopt a style where the
chairing of all Cabinet meetings may be delegated, and even the process of delegation no effective
work is being done. That is where one may ask if the functions of the entire Cabinet are effective?
Are the individual Members of Cabinet effective? Do we have a system of rating the performance
of all or some of these Cabinet Members? Maybe this Parliament could come up with that method
of work. Without it, it may be wrong to say that a Member of Parliament who is appointed Minister
will fail to perform his or her functions as a Cabinet Minister.
The Committee of Parliament responsible for appointment has, on many occasions, taken the
appointing authority to task as to why certain appointments are made. It would be better for this
House to devise measures, which can check the process of appointment of those from within
Parliament and those from without. Otherwise, the current constitutional provision under Article
113 gives the President the right to pick the right people, people who are competent, people with the
will to serve and work for the people and can deliver.
The current constitutional provision protects Members of Parliament also. Let me give you a
scenario where you are a sitting Member of Parliament, you have a constituency and somebody is
picked from your constituency to become a Minister, maybe you defeated that person in the
elections. He is a Minister, he goes back to the constituency to harass you; you will be creating war.
And why would you create that kind of secondary war when we already have problems because of
the poor management of our society by some of the Ministers who are there.
The other thing this Parliament could look at is the tenure of office of these Ministers. Let me take
in the case of the Movement Government. When NRM came to power, if we look among us, among
our Senior colleagues, we have Ministers who have served in one Ministry for a long time, with due
respect to my Senior colleague, hon. Bidandi Ssali. For example, he has been a Minister for Local
Government for quite sometime, and he has gained a lot of experience, he is an expert in matters of
decentralisation. He has a lot of expertise knowledge in that area. What we as Parliament could ask
is, do we have Ministers who can stay longer in their positions so that at the end of the day we can
judge whether they are performers or not?
DR.CHEBROT STEVEN: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for a Member of Parliament from Kajara and
a Front Bencher hon. Kweronda Ruhemba to come to the House dressed as if they are going for a
disco.
THE SPEAKER: Sit down hon. Member, I think I am in such a great difficulty. When it was not
raised, I closed my eyes. Now that it has been raised, I am reluctantly ruling that you are not
properly attired, but you are certainly encouraged to come back to the House when you have
done the needful.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
MR.MUGISHA MUNTU: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am seeking clarification from hon. Okumu
Ringa. He raised a question about one of the longest serving Ministers that we do have and many
Members have harped on that point as well. Hon. Bidandi Ssali has already indicated that he does
not want to stand for Parliament again. If that is true, would there be any problem if any serving
President in future picked him from his private business, and if hon. Bidandi Ssali accepted to go
and serve as a Minister, even if he would not be a Member of Parliament? Thank you.
MR.CHEBET MAIKUT: Thank you very much, hon. Okumu Ringa for giving way. I would
like to give information that while hon. Okumu Ringa is citing hon. Bidandi Ssali who has been
in Local Government for many years, it is also true for him to note that hon. Nyanzi who has just
returned from a three months course on small scale industries in India has just been transferred
from the portfolio of Industry to another field. Thank you.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: I thank you Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. colleagues for seeking
clarification and giving information. With regard to the clarification sought by the hon. Maj.
Gen. Mugisha Muntu, it goes without saying. Article 113 is very clear, so, we do not need to
amend the Constitution. The President has the power to choose from among elected Members of
Parliament and any competent individual who qualifies to be a Member of Parliament to be
nominated Minister. So, there is no contradiction. I brought in our senior colleague in respect to
method of work; that the only issue we could raise as Parliament is to have some kind of tenure
of office by these people who serve the Executive. This brings me to the point raised by hon.
Chebet Maikut.
He said that hon. Nyanzi came back with expertise knowledge in Small Scale Industry and was
transferred to the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. Those are issues we
could raise. That if he is there, he can use that expertise, but now that he has left the Department
of Industry, he would still enrich the Department. So, there is really, no contradiction. The point
we should focus on as Parliament, is, ‘what do we want?’ Are we focusing on the style of
management of the Executive today or are we looking at the general management of our society?
For example, what is being introduced in this motion, if it were to go through? But I am glad it
will not go through. We are comparing our democratic development and our economic base with
that of the United States; we cannot! The United States has developed at different levels. Where
we are today would be what the United States was 180 or 190 years ago. So, we cannot compare
ourselves by way of our development, economic, democratically and societal.
My last point is with regard to constituency. What do I mean by constituency? Constituency in a
loose term would be where you refer to, where you fall back to, where you draw your support
and authority from. For example, if you are picked because you are an economist or an engineer
and made a Minister without management skills, you will be a very poor and inefficient Minister.
What we fail to see sometimes is that, we imagine that anybody with a University Degree in
Engineering, or in Law, or in Commerce, or in Medicine, is necessarily a manager. No, you must
acquire management skills in order to perform the function of a Manager. So, it is upon the
appointing authority to look at the people he or she wants to work with and if these must be
people with sufficient managerial skills. If there are those with insufficient managerial skills,
they could be given more skills so we improve on service delivery to our people. We need people
who are coming from constituencies, people who have been tested, people who have gone round
and canvassed for votes and people who will defend the population. You pick somebody who has
not – (Interruption)
MS.BABIHUGA WINNIE: Thank you Mr. Speaker and hon. Okumu Ringa for giving way. The
hon. Member on the Floor was intimating that the appointing authority would give skills to the
Minister who did not match up to the required standard. Could he inform this House which
college you can train a Minister and what qualifications one needs to be a Minister? I thought
that to be a Minister is a political appointment. One does not need particular skills to be a
Minister. So, could he help me and expound on where these Ministers are trained.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: I thank you Mr. Speaker and I thank hon. Babihuga for seeking
clarification. The point I raised with regard to training is not that you must be trained to be a
Minister. No, the point I developed is that, Ministers perform managerial functions and as such,
if one is appointed a Minister and the person does not have adequate skills in management, if a
person wants to perform, one would rather acquire some extra knowledge in order to perform
those managerial functions. But you do not need to go to a school, which trains you to be
Minister.
CAPT.BABU: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you hon. Member for allowing me to give this
information. There are, in some very developed countries, institutes of strategic studies. In these
institutes, they have experts in different fields and the leadership of those countries is exposed to
this important information. And therefore, in their leadership the quest to lead their countries in a
better mode is done by these very important bodies. We have to establish those. We have already
started. The lead is Kyankwanzi you can –(Interruption)
DR.MALLINGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. Member for giving
way. The purpose of a Minister is really not to be a manager, but to oversee Government policies
in whatever Ministry he is assigned. He has got the technicians in form of Permanent Secretaries
going down the road. I am aware that the hon. Member has got management skills and I do not
know what he is trying to market. But a Minister does not necessarily have to have a degree in
management; he has to be a skilful leader, and by being elected to Parliament you have already
shown that you can be a leader. There are technicians under him to oversee the technical aspect.
He is there to oversee Government policies. Thank you very much.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: I thank hon. Dr. Mallinga.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Okumu Ringa I do not know how long you have to go.
MR.OKUMU RINGA: Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I have only a few points to wind up. The issue
I raised is fundamental in the sense that we need to have a sense of belonging as a constituency.
If you do not have a constituency you cannot relate properly. It will be a disaster to have the
President appointing as Cabinet Ministers people from outside Parliament who will not even
come to Parliament.
The technicalities have already been well stated by the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and
the Committee responsible for this Bill. But I still wish to emphasise that the Executive performs
managerial functions. You may not realise that you as the head of your family you are the
manager of your family, and yet you did not go to school to study how to manage your family. If
at that level you are performing a managerial function, what about at Ministerial level? It is not
enough to say a Minister who presides over political issues will give direction. You cannot give
direction if you do not have adequate knowledge about what you are going to give as direction.
This is not theoretical; it is practically true.
So, with due respect, the provision in the Constitution is adequate. Article 113 should not be
disturbed for the time being. The proposed amendment should conveniently be defeated through
the vote, but we justify that it should go to the Constitutional Review Commission so that it looks
globally at how our Constitution is being entrenched.
I would like to end by requesting my colleagues and those who would like to look at the
development of our constitutionalism, to oppose this thing, defeat it, but with a recommendation
to the Executive that we should development a management audit system. Such a system should
enable us to audit the performance of the Executive so that periodically we appraise the
Executive on what should be done, so that the President is made effective. This is because the
President is busy, he cannot chair Cabinet meetings all the time, but for that matter he must have
competent people who will handle the affairs of the nation. With these remarks, I oppose this Bill
and I request all my colleagues to oppose it. I thank you.
MAJ.GEN. MUGISHA MUNTU (Army Representative): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand
here in secondment of the Bill. First, I would like to say there is a Chinese saying that “may you
live in interesting times”, and I think we are living in interesting times. There is a lot to be done
and we have really gone through a lot.
This country had gone to pieces, these pieces were gathered and the country started on the path
of reconstruction around 1986. Since then we have really gone a long way. Government has done
a lot of things, the Executive plus Parliament and we need to consolidate what has been done so
far.
Secondly I would like to remind ourselves of a proverb which is told to us quite a number of
times by His Excellency the President. He always tells us that “you reap what you sow.” You
cannot sow weeds and reap millet. You cannot. If you sow weeds, you reap weeds, if you sow
millet you reap millet.
But thirdly I also like to remind ourselves of a proverb; I think it is a Luganda proverb, which
says that “Olwatta nnanyinimu nnalumannya.” And what follows normally is that, if you knew,
what did you do to prevent it? - Oh, the translation? I think the translation says that, “I know
what killed the head of the house”. So the question is, if you knew, what preventive measures did
you take to stop it?
For us, the mover and myself as the seconder, I think we have already achieved our first
objective. We have generated a debate whatever outcome; that is our choice here. It is within our
means to shape our destiny. We can shape our destiny, it depends on what we do but also there
are certain challenges if they confront us in our faces and we do not confront those challenges
and appropriately handle them. We should never have anybody else to blame other than
ourselves.
There is a disease in this country, really not only in this country; I think it is still an African
condition; it is a condition of underdevelopment, I think. We will get out of it. We are already
moving, I do notice. The disease is quite often displayed when a group of people in leadership
and do not do well. They end up pointing fingers at individuals. They always point at a President
saying, ‘he made mistakes’. Presidents lead with teams! Nowhere can you have a President in a
developing country running all matters of state individually to the extent that it is only the leader
who must be blamed where there is failure. Leadership is a collective responsibility. We would at
least appreciate it if there were failures, whoever was involved stands up and takes responsibility
other than jumping on the side and pointing fingers at only one person. I tend to believe that it is
criminal but we are still developing. I realise that it is a process and I am also confident, and I am
an incurable optimist; I know we will get there. There have been a lot of achievements by the
Government, really perfectly handled by the Executive in co-ordination with Parliament. I would
really like to appreciate what has so far been achieved.
I would like to give a brief background to this Bill. The mover and myself as a seconder first
tried to sell this Bill to the Executive. I think we had some friendly discussions with the hon.
Minister of Constitutional Affairs and the hon. Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. Our attempt
was to sell this Bill to Government so that it would move it as a Government Bill. We were even
willing to discuss, to negotiate for amendments that would suit the Executive. The whole purpose
was to co-ordinate efforts and we see how we can build and strengthen institutions for the future
governance of this country. We were doing it in good faith but of course, we did not succeed. But
that is not a big problem.
Secondly, we also tried to negotiate at a later point with the Executive that, okay, this is a Private
Member’s Bill but it has got nothing to do with the systems of governance. This Bill has got
nothing to do with whether it is Movement System of governance or whether it is under a
multiparty system of governance. All said, if that is the case, why do you not let free voting by
the Ministers so that they do not have the block position and over time, we thought that would be
the case. But it seems the Executive has got reasons why they must have a block vote. We know
it is not going to be an easy task unless that block vote is going for us. If it is not for us, it means
there are already 61 votes against the Bill. That is not the problem again, because our intention
was really to generate debate on this Bill and we are really thankful to the Members of
Parliament who made possible for this Bill to survive up to the Second Reading.
So number –(Interruption)
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: Thank you Mr. Speaker and I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I
just want to be reminded as to how the hon. Member came to make the statement that the
Executive is having a block vote? I thought this was a Constitutional amendment debate initiated
by a Member of Parliament. I want to be reminded how he comes to make the statement that the
Executive has got a block vote, which seems to be worrying him.
MR.MANZI TUMUBWEINEE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek clarification from hon. Maj. Gen.
Mugisha Muntu, when he says that his intention was to generate debate and that he has achieved
what he went out to achieve. Does that mean that he intends to withdraw this motion because he
has already generated a debate, what exactly does he mean?
MAJ.GEN.MUGISH MUNTU: Thank Mr. Speaker. First, in response to hon. Manzi
Tumubweine, I said, I would like to clarify what I said before, and that was that we had achieved
the first objective, to generate debate. The second objective, of course, is to win. My worry was
that there is a collective position by Cabinet, which I was not aware of, to be honest with you,
until about 20 minutes ago. It was specified by the Rt. hon. Prime Minister whom I have great
respect for. So that is the position. We were not aware and, though we hope that that position
could be reversed and allow free thinking and free voting on this question by the hon. Ministers.
We do not see any basis –(Interruption)
MR.BAKU RAPHAEL: Thank you hon. Mugisha Muntu for giving way. May I seek this
clarification that if the Executive has got a position to vote as a block and as the UPDF is a part
of the Executive, would we not also say that the representatives of UPDF in this House would be
bound to go with the Executive?
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have heard that position before.
But you recall that this is not the first time to debate this Bill. Actually we debated it during the
CA. And during CA there was free choice. There was independent thinking and independent
voting, which is healthy. In fact, by then I was still in command and I publicly supported this Bill
then, and I again support it today. There is nothing new.
I would like to briefly go through the points that worry those who are against the Bill. But first, I
am also glad that one of the reasons, which were being used by those who oppose the Bill, is no
longer valid. A lot of water has passed under the bridge because the Bill has been pending for the
last ten months.
When we moved this Bill, many Members were saying ‘you cannot tamper with the Constitution
now. If you tamper with the Constitution, there might be disaster’. Fortunately, recently we
amended the Constitution and there is no disaster (Laughter.). So that reason can no longer be
valid and I am glad that none of the members has raised it so far. The question of not touching
the Constitution. My view is that if it is necessary to amend the Constitution, there are valid
reasons for it and there is enough support for it. And there are procedures through which you are
supposed to go. Go ahead and do it. Constitutions are not written in stone.
Two is about the increase in costs. Hon. Mukula raised it the other time and of course I doubt
whether anybody was convinced. The figures were also not correct. Anyway the figures which he
was using arithmetically you find that it would costs Shs.3 billion a year to support 62 Ministers.
But if you look at the amount of money that we could raise if there is increased efficiency, it
would be much more than the Shs.3 billion that they are talking about if Ministers were left to
concentrate on their duties as Ministers. I have got a lot of respect for a number of Ministers.
I know there are many Ministers who are hard working. I know there are many Ministers who are
patriotic, but they are also human beings. That it one thing we keep losing sight of. We are
human beings; we have got limits. If you push a human being beyond the capacity that he or she
can contain, he will break or they will not perform as well as they should. Unfortunately, the hon.
Minister of Finance is not here. You look at the hon. Minister of Finance. All the hon. Ministers
of Finance; they are about three. They have got to go to New York to negotiate with the World
Bank and IMF. They have to go, come back and carry out the duties in their Ministry, which is
one of the key Ministries; go and deal with the constituencies, deal with their businesses. Surely,
is that humanly possible? (Applause) And you see if we already had functioning systems where
there is enough technical support to the Ministers – (Interjection)
MRS.IKOOTE ALLELUYA: I am seeking clarification through you Mr. Speaker. The Member
on the Floor has very clearly said and continued to impute that actually the Ministers are
inefficient. I heard it has been repeated again and again but the clarification I am seeking at there
the meeting no one seems to challenge this. Is this a point?
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, again I am in great difficulty in appreciating that point. But if I
heard the contributor well, he was saying that Ministers are human beings. First of all, he
appreciates a lot of them are doing very well, they are hardworking; but he goes to argue that
they are human beings. If you press them against the wall so hard, they will break. That is the
point he made. And I did not understand him to say that by succumbing to this kind of pressure;
they will necessarily be inefficient. That is my understanding. May be the contributor can
correct.
MAJ.GEN.MUNTU: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Your understanding is consistent with what I
said. In actual fact, there are some Ministers who are top-notch I must say. It is natural if you
have got - but again as I said, we are all human beings.
There are some Members who said that the intention of the Bill is to weaken the Executive. I
would like to appeal to the Members who have got that view that they should give us the benefit
of doubt. Why on earth would we intend to weaken the Executive? If you weaken an Executive,
how can you have a well functioning country? How can you have stability? You can be accused
of being reckless or irresponsible, or a person who cannot tell what is right from what is wrong.
We are only trying to point out that by passing this Bill, if anything; you will strengthen the
Executive and Parliament. It is an institution-building process and we think this Bill would
support that process, and we are going ahead to give the reasons for it.
Some Members also say this would be a cause for conflict but why should there be any conflict. I
thought what guides us are common programmes. If there is a Chief Executive who has a
Manifesto on the basis of which he or she is elected, and there are Members of Parliament who
support that programme; what brings the Executive and Parliament together other than to see the
success of such a programme? Once there is a common programme, I do not see how there can be
conflict unless there are other reasons why we come here. If there are other reasons, then, I am
sorry to say there is nothing we can do about that. I feel that we should keep on working towards
the situation where whatever effort we put into the development of the country, that effort should
be guided by common programmes, known by Chief Executive and those who support him, not
only in Parliament, but even down in the districts. I do not see how there can be conflict as long
as there is a common cause.
For example, our situation where there is a Movement system of governance and the Movement
has got about 200 plus Members here. Once there is a common programme, how can there be
conflict between the Executive and Parliament unless there is mismanagement of such numbers?
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you once again, Maj. Gen. Mugisha
Muntu. I thought that we are debating a constitutional provision to amend for the future of this
country. I got the information from some contribution yesterday that we are assuming that the
Movement system or the system where the Chief Executive and Parliament and those below will
have the same programme. May I wish the hon. Member on the Floor to also imagine a situation
where the Chief Executive, ten years from now, or whatever the period, having this programme
and the majority of Parliament is having the other programme so that what we are now seeking to
amend runs caters for all situations – the present and any possible future, as indeed is anticipated
by our Constitution. Could you make some clarification?
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, programmes must also
be consistent with national interests, which is also another common ground where efforts should
made regardless of the political inclination of whoever is in Parliament or in the Executive.
There is a point where you have got to leave whatever other secondary interests you have, as long
as you know that what you are going to do is in national interest. That is the culture we must
strive to build, and we must pool that persistently and consistently. If we put all our efforts in
that, we will definitely succeed. All these developed countries more-or-less started from where
we are now, but see where they are! So, it requires effort. But the situation I read is the tendency
to say, ‘things are like that’, and we fold our arms.
Then, of course there is an argument that there are no experienced people outside Parliament. I
do not know whether this argument is advanced because of lack of knowledge or to due
arrogance, because we must be very careful. We are about 300 people in this House, plus the
non-elected Members of the Executive who are about five or so. So, at the top level of leadership
in this country, we are about 350. Now, some people are saying that you cannot pick 40 or 50 or
60 other Ugandans outside the 350, who can ably lead as Ministers!
We really need to re-examine the positions we take. But it is also a false assumption because in
any case, what hon. Okumu Ringa raised, that is why I sought for clarification about hon.
Bidandi Ssali. With time there is going to be a pool of experienced leaders outside of elective
politics if we keep on opting out of politics at a certain point and doing other things, like hon.
Bidandi Ssali has indicated. Once there is such a pool, nothing will stop a Chief Executive from
picking from it.
Two, there are Members of Parliament who will have had experience, even who would not have
been Ministers, but who also opted not to run for Parliament again, there will also be such a pool.
There will be a pool of Chief Executives in the private sector of people with managerial
experience; people who can run some of these Ministries that seem to be causing some
difficulties these days. There is a wide pool unless we do not look closely in the population;
there are many people who are able, who can be Members of Parliament, who are better than us,
who can be Ministers, who can definitely perform much better than some of us. So, I would like
to tell people who are taking that position, that it is erroneous, and I request them kindly not to
raise it publicly.
Then, of course, there is the argument that how can you run to be a Member of Parliament, spend
your money, and then when you are appointed a Minister, you resign from Parliament? There are
options. You know the presidential elections are held first. Between the presidential and the
Parliamentary elections, we have about two or three months. I do not see what would stop the
President elect from selecting his or her team and saying telling them not run for Parliamentary
seats. What would be difficult with that? Of course, people say, ‘suppose he tells me and
changes his mind?’ Hard luck! (Laughter.). But you see there is a cost to everything. Why are we
trying to make politics the only risk free area anyway?
If the President does that to one or two or three people, he or she would simply be exposing his
or her character, which means that if he or she were to run again for office, he or she should pay
for that. So, why should it be a worry? We are in a process of building a culture, and there are
some costs in the process of building anyway. There are some occupational hazards too, and I do
not see why politics should be the only area where there are no occupational hazards.
There is another argument that suppose he picks you from Parliament and then drops you when
you get there? Again hard luck! Again there is a cost to it. But the worst part of it is that it is
mentioned at all.
Hon. Kutesa the other day talked about insensitivity. How can there be insensitivity to such an
extent? If you raise such a reason in public and you know there are soldiers also listening, what
are we supposed to think? Soldiers pay the maximum price for the country any day. They go,
knowing very well that they could die, that they may not return to their barracks. That does not
stop them from going again tomorrow to defend the country. If soldiers can go and die and they
do not question, how can anybody question that suppose I resign and then I am dropped, what
other extreme measure of insensitivity do you want?
MR.KUTESA: Mr. Speaker, when I made my contribution here, I said if non-elected people are
made Ministers, they would be insensitive to the feelings of ordinary folks. I did not say that if
you are appointed and then you are dropped you should not take the risk. I think I am being
depicted incorrectly. I was saying that non-elected Ministers are less sensitive to the feelings and
concerns of the electorate than those who are elected and I stand by that position.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: I am sorry but I must really clarify this point because what
hon. Kutesa is saying is correct. I was simply borrowing a term used but using it in a different
context. He never referred to the question of being dropped. It was raised by another Member
who incidentally is not even a Cabinet Minister. But I have also heard it quite a lot in the
corridors. But honestly, hon. Kutesa I would like to apologise and I would also like the press not
to mis-represent what I have said and connect to hon. Kutesa. It is not hon. Kutesa who said that.
He said it in connection with a different topic, which was far from what I have just talked about.
Of course, people should be careful when they are uttering some of these statements because I
think they are insensitive.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member I do not want to interrupt you. I believe you still need some
time.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: I still need a few moments, Sir.
THE SPEAKER: Okay.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: We think that once this Bill is passed, it will increase on
efficiency. That is not to say that the present Ministers are not efficient. In any case, this Bill is
not about the Sixth Parliament. This is a Bill that once passed, is supposed to become operational
in the Seventh Parliament.
But as already indicated it is not humanly possible to concentrate on so many things at the same
time, more so in a situation like we are in now. There are so many things that need to be done.
Look at the economy, if there is no concentration on the key sectors of the economy where
people work close to 24 hours to turn around the situation even when they fail. I personally I do
not think anybody could blame them because you must appreciate the problem. You cannot deal
with so many situations at the same time. That is why we think that if they concentrate on only
one job of being Ministers, that it will increase efficiency. Of course, there is also the question of
paralysis.
Recently, I think about two or three weeks ago, there was a workshop about good governance. A
number of representatives from other African countries attended and it seems the problem is not
only with us here. I think there was a former Prime Minister from Ghana who said that they have
got 40 Ministers in Ghana, and that at any particular time, a significant number of the 40 are
doing everything possible to maintain their positions. But that they are also close to the same
number in Parliament who would be doing everything possible to get to the Executive, which
causes conflict. That is an area that we need to look at.
I would really to apologise to hon. Baku. I think I was a little bit hurt by a point he raised the
other day. It was about this same point. I know that it also happens here. Unfortunately hon.
Baku is not aware that it happens and that is why I got a little bit off the handle; I more or less
attacked. I would like to apologise for that. But it happens here. He said that the moment you
acquire a position you must do everything possible to maintain it. So you will find that a
significant number of Ministers would definitely be trying to maintain their positions. And it
looks like a significant number of Parliamentarians will always be trying to catch the eye of the
Chief Executive to get there. And many times you notice it really creates conflict; at other times,
it creates paralysis. You may or may not know it, but it happens.
There is also the money factor in politics, and the debate tends to indicate that in most cases,
pouring money into the constituencies is a way of getting into Parliament. That is a debatable
point, but it carries a lot of weight. If we do not cure that and we keep pouring money and money
becoming the highest influencing factor in the way people are voted into Parliament, I am sure it
could even become a way of weakening Parliament itself. It does not necessarily mean that it is
those who have money, who have got the commitment to the country or who even have the
intelligence to come here and perform efficiently. That is a point we need to look at; we should
not shy away from it.
There is also the question of giving a free hand to the presidency. The problem is that we have
got a hybrid system of governance - Presidential/Parliamentary, which has a number of
weaknesses. For example, if I am made a Minister and I have solid support from my area, if the
Chief Executive wants to fire me because I am inefficient or I have committed errors, there is
always a problem because he will not be looking just at me. He will have to look at the
constituency behind me. So, in a way, the President gets blackmailed. And in African politics, we
have had many experiences, which are even humiliating.
I understand in one of the past Governments, someone who had fought and was wounded was not
picked to be a Minister and then he or she went and undressed before the President and said,
look, how can I not be made a Minister? We have also heard of instances where a member of
Cabinet is about to be dropped, not necessarily here in this country and even in other African
countries, and they threaten to commit suicide. Now, Chief Executives are also human beings,
they have got sentiments. If they look at you and they really find that you are messing up
yourself, they may feel sentimental, they may keep you around and of course, there is a damage
that you cause in the process of performance of duties. This is also another fact that we need to
look at.
I feel we also need to demystify leadership the way we demystified the gun. Really, it is one of
the areas that we need to tackle head on because if you do not demystify certain aspects of
leadership, we may not be able to influence positively the culture we are building.
MAJ.KAZOORA: Thank you hon. Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu and thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
have followed the arguments of hon. Major General and I would like to comfort him with a
quotation from a newspaper on the streets called Sun Rise. The first copy - and I beg your
indulgence Sir that I read it. I am quoting, the language is not mine; it is what is written here.
And it is politics, how true. “This little boy goes to his Dad and asks, what is politics? Dad says,
well son; let me try to explain it this way. I am the breadwinner of the family, so let us call me
capitalism. Your Mum is the administrator of the money, so we will call her the Government. We
are here to take care of your needs, so we call you the people. The man will consider her the
working class -(Interruption)
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Mr. Speaker, I would request hon. Kazoora to leave that
quotation. I know it is a joke and I would not want that kind of joke to be on the Floor of this
House because the language is not good.
MAJ.KAZOORA: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to my senior Brother, I will leave the
quotation.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: The language used in that joke is a little bit vulgar and I
would not – but I imagine those who are interested can go and read that newspaper. It is called
Sun Rise.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Kazoora, the Member on the Floor has withdrawn his permission for you
to clarify or give him information.
MAJ.KAZOORA: Mr. Speaker, I said that with due respect to my senior Brother, I concede to
his request. I will not read the quotation.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: I would like to thank hon. Kazoora for withdrawing
gracefully. I was talking about demystifying leadership so that we can build a positive culture.
When you look at the African continent, we engage in back-stabbing, in intrigue, in telling lies,
in treachery just to either keep in positions of leadership or to get into them. Unless we
conscientiously build a culture that negates that, it will be very difficult to get out of the mess in
which we are.
In my own opinion, there are three ways. One is long term, through a process of education that is
going to take generations. And two, to build strong institutions that check the desires we have,
and the third one is one area that I share with the hon. Minister of Constitutional Affairs is the
spiritual world. A number of us engage in that religious guidance but at the same time you may
find that there are many who do not.
There must be other ways of how those will also be guided. I think we must build institutions, we
cannot rely on the good will of men. Our societies can only rely on institutions. We must
strengthen institutions that exist already and build those that are not yet in existence and build
checks and balances in systems of governance. I do not see us having any other alternative.
Now, the long-term solution we must keep doing is the one of education. Why do we bring a Bill
like this? We think that there is another way. We are actually trying to bring it through a
technical way to say, ‘look, how do you check this relentless desire?’ But it stops at nothing to
either keep in a position or to get into it unless you create the question of choice. We may be
right, we may be wrong, but we think that is the right way as of now because we know the
educational process is going to take a long time and we are not in charge of time. So we think
there should also be separation in the sense that you come from the village as a Member of
Parliament very well knowing that if you are nominated to become a Minister, then you are
confronted by choice. You either become a Minister or remain a Parliamentarian.
And once you are performing, there is no way a Chief Executive is going to drop a winner. If you
do not perform, the President should let you go. But it will be after you have made a conscious
choice to go and serve as a Minister. When you leave Parliament, someone else is elected, he
becomes a Parliamentarian and Parliamentarians also concentrate on legislative roles. So it does
not create conflict, everybody looking over the fence. I think we should look for ways of dealing
with it. For us we are offering peace.
I hope those who are going to contribute hereafter, if they think this is not the immediate way,
should be able to tell us which other way they think is going to check the culture of engaging in
intrigue, lies and back-stabbing simply to attain positions. We really would like to be advised on
what other alternative means you want to put in place. We are not saying that this is the cure for
all. Do not take us wrong. We are not saying this is the only cure. We are only saying if we are
bold enough to take some of these measures, even if we take them piece meal, we will create
impact in the institutions of governance.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I still wish you to indicate when you are likely to conclude.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: About ten minutes will be enough.
THE SPEAKER: I think let me give you five minutes because there are other speakers, I
understand.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Thank you Mr. Speaker. We are also mindful of the fact that
separation should not lead to conflict. When there is separation of powers, there must also be cooperation between the different branches of Government. That is something, which is catered for
like a Member said yesterday. We have got caucuses, which can be developed so that when there
are Members of Parliament separate from the Executive, the caucus can be used. In any case,
there will be a common programme on the basis of which the two would liase to build the
country.
I think hon. Toskin was saying that Uganda is still a young country depending on donor funds,
that we should take steps with caution. We have no problem with that. We all realise that it is a
young country. That is why we should nurture it carefully because some Members are taking the
position that forward movement is automatic. It is not, because if you do not nurture this forward
movement cautiously by checking on the ills, which are penetrating us, you can reach a situation
of paralysis. It must be avoided and that is why we are moving a Bill like this. There are many
actions we think we should think about and see how to implement them.
With those few comments and also in view of time, I would like to wind up and really appeal to
all the hon. Members and the Front Bench of course, to be open-minded and flexible. Do not take
pre-conceived positions. Listen to all these arguments and look at what our country needs and do
what you think is right. May God guide us in the positions we take and may God bless you all.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. Bidandi Ssali): Thank you Mr.
Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Sorry hon. Minister for interrupting you. I think you have noticed that I have
not applied the usual rule of time allocation of seven minutes because of the importance of this
matter. I think those who wish to contribute should do so as long as they have some ideas to
impart for all of us to benefit from. But, of course, this is not to say that we are going to speak
and go on and on. I think we should be mindful about time. Thank you very much. The hon.
Minister, proceed.
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose the motion, not as a Minister of
Local Government but as a Member of Parliament representing Nakawa. This debate reminds me
of a debate during the Constituent Assembly when we were arguing that because of our historical
background and experience, it was very, very necessary that the army should have representatives
in Parliament so that there is a cross-fertilisation of appreciating each one’s role although the two
were independent. It was a very long debate until those who believed in it carried the day. I do
believe that has Parliament benefited from the presence of Members of Parliament representing
the UPDF. The UPDF itself has not only benefited from being kept abreast of what goes on in
Parliament but also I am sure helped to temper situations that this country has been prey to in the
past.
I entirely agree, for example, with Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu that we need to think about our
future as a country; that we should debate this freely without preconceived positions. That one is
definite and it is in that spirit that I rise to contribute.
My name has been mentioned here as having been one of the longest serving Ministers. There is
nothing I can do about that. It is a fact that my contribution in Cabinet at various meetings, my
constant advice or views to the President, has been reinforced by the fact that I represent a
constituency. On that ground, I am able to tell the President that, ‘Sir, this is wrong’, ‘Sir, this
will not be possible’ because x, y and z and that x, y and z is derived directly from the pulse of
the people I represent.
I can assure you that if I were a direct nominee of the President from outside Parliament, I could
have continued to be in Cabinet up to this day. There are so many occasions when I would have
kept quiet for fear of my boss or contradicting a view of my boss. After all, he has the manifesto,
which I am appointed to help him implement. He says this is how it should be done, and all I am
required to do is to implement. The only divergence of views could only be based on my whims
and feelings and not the feelings of the people amongst whom we are going to implement a
programme. I would like Members of Parliament to take that in good faith and also as something
that comes from my own experience.
Two, hon. Mugisha Muntu has talked about the need for patriotism. He is assuming that when
this separation comes, the way the Bill is suggesting, people will be patriotic. Those in Cabinet
will be patriotic, those in Parliament will be patriotic and, therefore, it is likely that there will not
be a possibility of conflict. But there is a difference between patriotism and politics. Where there
are various schools of opinion, one school will oppose the opinion of another, not simply because
of the logic, but because of the exigencies of politics. If I can win, I will argue that, that is
politics. I do not care whether somebody has been brought down. That is politically what I am
looking for but as to whether it is in the interest of the country and as to whether it is really
patriotic, that comes second. That is why I rose earlier on to give clarification to Maj. Gen.
Mugisha Muntu to look at this amendment to cater for the present and the future. To look at the
present where most of us are birds of the same feathers, and also look ahead, five, ten or fifteen
years from now when a different school of political opinion might be at the top.
Although Members are saying that the Bill strengthens the Executive, I think this Bill alienates
the Executive. And because of that alienation, it is likely to cause more political confusion, more
tag of war, more misunderstanding, more lack of appreciation of each other’s role and it will turn
into the Executive against Parliament.
I also feel that this proposal is dangerous to the Office of the President to always receive advice
from people who have not gone through the rigours of the vote. I do not want to quote some past
experiences, but in many cases, advice was given in a certain Cabinet in which I participated
earlier, From the point of view of the people who were there, none of whom had been elected.
They were completely oblivious of what obtained on the ground, and in a number of cases
decisions taken were withdrawn because it was impossible to implement them.
There are so many assumptions made by people who have not gone through the political course
you have gone through, hon. Members. And if the President - I am not talking about the present
President, I am talking about the Office of the President - is surrounded by such a group of
people, meeting every Thursday to implement policies that connect with the people, I do not
know. I feel that it would be very dangerous and many of such laws would be withdrawn from
now and then.
I was amused the other day when an hon. Member was contributing and said, ‘you know, this
question of appointing from Parliament, you consider regions, you consider religions, you
consider this, we are tired of this’. I am afraid that the level of our politics in Uganda today, like
it or not, still has these to be considered. Only a few months ago, a Member of Parliament came
here and analysed the people who were employed in the Revenue Authority and Uganda
Railways and so on. What fairness is here in Parliament?
Even if you say there is separation of powers, there is no way a President can pick Mukasa,
Namukasa, Ssali and maybe, Musumba and nobody from the North or South and you call this
efficiency of the Executive! This is the prerogative of the Executive. Therefore, you just cannot
run away from it, if you want stability in our politics. This is one very important contribution to
the present political stability over which we are now trying to establish security throughout the
country. You cannot deny it. Look at what is happening with an innocent exercise to rationalise
the education institution. After the announcing the names of the institutions, delegation after
delegation led by the heads of religious denominations came over this matter. So, to come here
and say that this system encourages making a Cabinet based on balancing, I am afraid it is a
reality –(Interruption)
MRS.ZZIWA MARGARET: Thank you very much, Member for Nakawa. The Information I
want to give is in support of the Member’s argument. Even in Britain, which we regard as one of
the most advanced countries in politics, they still argue that some Members in the Cabinet are
from the North or in the South.
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: So, Mr. Speaker, when we are making arguments for our sides let us not
bring in arguments out of contest in order to advance a position and yet the facts on the ground
are different.
On the question of pouring money into constituencies, the other day I was joking with one of the
Members and said, ‘you are one of them in Nakawa, look at Nakawa’, and even now somebody
has said yes. First of all, there is what the position was before decentralisation and the position
now. I would like to caution you Members of Parliament who want to come back to immediately
devise points you are going to convince your electorate with on minus ‘I am going to do this for
you, I am going to do that for you’. The population is already sensitised that provision of services
is their responsibility down there. So, when you say you going to build schools and roads –
(Interruption)
MR.OKUMU RINGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. Bidandi Ssali for giving way.
The clarification I am seeking from hon. Bidandi Ssali who is responsible for the implementation
of decentralisation policy. The argument he is advancing on the Floor seems to be advanced by
the Chairman of Local Councils, which argument is basically to undermine Members of
Parliament that Members of Parliament do nothing on the ground, that it is the Local Councils
working.
The clarification I am seeking from the Minister is that we debate a national Budget; we
participate in passing Resolution for Government to borrow money which money goes down to
the districts, which money is managed by the Local Council. If Members of Parliament were not
participating in that process, how would the Local Councils and the people at the grass root
receive these services? This is the clarification I am seeking because in some districts, Local
Council Chairmen are using this argument to undermine Members of Parliament.
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Member does not imply that in my
statement I was trying to undermine any Member of Parliament. And if this is happening in his
own constituency, I am not responsible for that. I am only saying that when you go back for
campaigns, those are the arguments you use. Because you sit here and pass a Budget for Nebbi,
because you authorise the borrowing of that money, when you go back for campaigns, these are
the arguments you use. You say I was there and this is what I did, otherwise if I was not there,
you would not have received as much. So, if you send me you will even receive more. Rather
than telling the people that I am going to do this, I am going to do that, and especially when I
become a Minister, I am going to that. I am afraid that there is nothing in the office of a Minister
under decentralised system of provision of services. I see the Minister responsible for Lands
here; I do not know what he can do for his constituency –(Interruption)
CAPT.GUMA GUMISIRIZA: Hon. Bidandi Ssali thank you for giving way. Maj. Gen.
Mugisha Muntu said that when there are rumours of impending reshuffles, people threaten
committing suicide and cry. In fact, I want to add that some even threaten to join the opposition.
So could the hon. Bidandi Ssali explain the reason for a possible committal of suicide of some of
our people? What exactly is there, if under decentralisation, these Ministries are nothing as he
always tell us? Why do some of you suffer from incurable fevers when you are dropped?
MR.BIDANDI SSALI: You see, this problem of arguing on the basis of rumours. Why does not
the hon. Member quote somebody who committed suicide and left a note saying why he committed
suicide? But if you say some people commit suicide because some people, you know, - that is a
general statement. Yes, can I also say that perhaps you are one of those who said to keep quite and
try to catch the eye of the executive every now and then so that you are promoted to this?
This school of opinion is still lagging with the hunger-over of yesterday's Minister. Historically, the
office of a Minister in our country has been a very, very powerful office. You could do anything,
you could say anything, you could order anything either with a Permanent Secretary or anywhere
you go. Today, the office of a Minister is a different affair. Can you imagine a Minister of Local
Government not being able to fire a Muluka chief even if the Muluka chief steps on me? The best I
can do is to report him to his boss.
So, there is still this hunger-over about the office of a Minister, and I am only cautioning hon.
Members that the office of the Minister has changed tremendously, the more we sensitise Local
Governments. The more Local Governments down in the sub-county take on their real mantle, the
less the office of a Minister and the office of a Member of Parliament demystified.
So many Members of Parliament in their contribution have built on the fact that the President has a
Manifesto, and therefore, Members of Cabinet help him to implement it. That is true. But a
Manifesto in the life of a President is only a part of the policies he implements. Some aspects of
those promises in the Manifesto keep changing every now and then, the environment keeps
changing; new policies come, both administrative and those that need to come to Parliament.
Therefore, it is very important that some of the people involved in this policy that has got to adapt
to a new environment, have the pulse of the people. You cannot simply say that some fellows are
there.
Recently, I am sorry to say this, but I think I must say it. You might have heard of a course that took
place in Kalangala. If that advice was given by somebody who had gone through the riggers we all
have gone through, such a thing would not have happened. But what happens? Functions are held in
your own constituencies without your knowledge, even without the knowledge of the Secretariat,
and in many cases without the knowledge of the RDCs. People who have no pulse of the people
think that by just manipulating one, two, three, you get people here, then you have got all the
support from under somebody.
Now, that unfortunate day when they came back, they were all stranded here, and many of them
turned to you. Those who came without your knowledge turned to you; you got telephone calls for
help. No Member of Parliament or politician would handle such a situation that way because you
have the sensitivity of the people. How can you bring people from several places and you do not
even give them Shs.15,000 as a refund of your transport? I am talking of the things that you know
very well.
So, do not deprive the office of the Presidency of advice from people who are people-based. You
will cause problems for this country, not necessarily in this period. The good thing is that this
motion talks of taking effect after all of us are no longer Ministers. So, the impression that we are
fighting for our survival does not arise. At the end of it all, by May or even earlier, all of us might
be gone; but we are talking about the future of this country. This interaction is very, very important.
Lastly, a politician has ambition. There are steps, some of you and I really do not know that. On the
day I draft something to thank everybody, I will thank them for their appreciation and respect and so
on and so forth. But what is behind this? I have been a leader at the village level, I have been a
Deputy Mayor in Kampala, I have been a Director of a number of companies, I have been a
Member of Parliament, and I have been Minister for quite a long time. If I was four years younger
and I said I was going to stand for Presidency, and Sebagala and Mayanja are also standing for
Presidency, you would be better off to get somebody who has gone through all this because he
would have stabilised.
The majority of you are our leaders of tomorrow. You form the pool where we will get leaders
tomorrow. Do not limit your opportunities. Okay, you may limit yours, but do not limit ours (Laughter)- us who want to pick from you. Fortunately, there is no permanent person here; many of
you have been here. Yes, some Members of the Backbench have had the experience here and even
then, some of us are coming back here. If I were to come back, I would be coming back to the
Backbench. So, this is a wealth of experience for the good of the country. Let us not argue; let us
not debate this case subjectively.
All of you may remember when this particular motion first came. It was a reaction to a situation
where, I think Cabinet came up as a block on certain decisions, and it seemed to say, ‘no, no, this
block, no, these people should be out of Parliament’ and so on and so forth. That is why I
objected to this issue of Constitution amendment; I am not bound. This is not a Cabinet decision
to implement something. That one I am bound, but on a matter that affects a section, an article,
unless the initiation is by Government to amend as we did it, to survey the country, no, no. I
reserve my individual view about the future of this country. So, on this one, I think Members
should, as Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu said, be free and look at Uganda in the years to come.
I end by recommending from my own experience that it is vital that when you are advising your
President, you have ground to say, ‘No Sir’ and not always to say, ‘yes Sir, yes Sir’. It will not be
in his interest and in the interest of this country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: The catchword is time management.
BRIG.MUHWEZI JIM (Rujumbura County, Rukungiri): Mr. Speaker I will not take as
much time as the previous three speakers did, because I do not intend to repeat what has already
been said.
I have had time to consider this motion right from its inception when it was introduced in the
corridors of Parliament. I have had time to discuss with the Mover, the Seconder, especially hon.
Maj. Gen. Muntu. I look back at where we came from, I look at our present and I look in the
future, not like hon. Kazoora’s joke which fortunately, he did not read, and which I know about.
But, I have considered all these issues, such as whether the President’s arms should be tied; that
he should not select from people who have already been selected by the people; that, that group
should not be touchable. If touched, then they should resign, even when the members who
elected them may have no objection. I have considered the President’s problem if he appoints a
Member of Parliament to a ministerial position and yet he feels he should now drop him.
We are not talking about individuals who have been appointed, but the President who is sensitive
to the feelings of the people, who elected him and probably elected this person. He may have to
remain with a Minister who probably, he would have wanted to drop because of that sensitivity. I
have considered useful people who maybe want to serve in strategic Ministries but still wish to
remain Members of Parliament. I have also considered Ministers appointed from outside
Parliament, once they are Ministers preparing a constituency for themselves, once they have left
the Ministry, which is possible. I have considered many things but I do not think that, that is the
fundamental problem.
Hon. Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu asked whether we have another alternative and I think that is the
crux of the matter. I appreciate the concerns of hon. Onapito and Muntu and all supporters of this
motion. I know the grounds disclosed or undisclosed, but it touches something hon. Bidandi Ssali
has said, being subjective.
I was in the Constituent Assembly, I saw that there was a likelihood of having a problem,
because most of the members of the Constituent Assembly were hoping to be in this Parliament. I
noticed it and we talked about it and there is now a fundamental problem. In fact, many people
feel that the people who made the Constitution should not have served, because there was so
much thinking about yourself as a Member of Parliament when we passed that Constitution. That
one should go on record. Many people made the Constitution knowing that President Museveni
would be the President. This was a grave mistake, because that Constitution, while the
Movement supported the amendment of the Constitution because of the crisis that came from the
courts of law, I still support the idea of not subjecting a Constitution to changes every now and
again. I know why, I am a lawyer. The Constitution should not be made like Club rules, where
you say we have changed, because another President or another Parliament would do that for
wrong reasons. But anyway, let me come to my point.
I said that I know why many people feel that there should be absolute separation between the
Executive and the Legislature. I know it and I have been at the centre of this arrangement, as you
know. In fact, one senior colleague of mine, recently, because of other things that were
happening, told me a saying in Luganda, which I must tell you, pardon my accent, but I think you
will get the meaning. It says that “gwekitalilidde nyina agamba nti linda bukye, tunanonya”. I do
not know whether there is a person who can translate it better, but I understood it this way: “If an
animal eats your mother, a person whose mother was not eaten will say, but why do we not sleep
and go searching tomorrow morning?”
I went through some experience here and not in the far distant past. There was an issue and the
same person was up in arms. So, my senior colleague reminded me of that saying.
There are so many things that happen in our society because even those Ministers who will be
appointed may behave as, or worse than the Ministers we have had. I am not saying that the
Ministers are bad, but the reasons we are moving this motion, must be based on certain
experiences here. But the point is we are the problem. Excuse me; give me that report, I want to
quote the right wording which was used. It says, “reducing the patronising influence”. If you are
easily patronised or compromised, it is not a ministerial appointment that can compromise you or
patronise you. The Government has capacity to compromise you anywhere, anyhow. Once you
have a problem in your head such that they can dangle a ministerial post and are swayed, then
you are the problem. With all due respect, I have seen Members of Parliament taking positions
that are not their own. They first look where someone has voted and they vote.
Secondly, the one patronising and the patronised are all guilty of moral weakness. The one
compromising and the compromised are all wrong leaders. I am a Member of Parliament I was
elected by the people of Bujumbura, they believe that I am reasonable enough to decide on their
behalf and vote. And even now, that is why I am not a Minister. But my conscience tells me that
at this material time our country still needs this arrangement. We are not yet able to take politics
more-or-less as a game that we separate. This is the ideal, but it is not realistic in my opinion.
What we need to deal with is the problem. Let the Members of Parliament be Members who can
take a stand. And if I am a Minister and I do not support the Government position, I resign and
go back to the Backbench on my own.
So, my answer to hon. Maj. Gen. Muntu as to whether there is another alternative, I think that is
the alternative. The alternative is to expose people who – I do not want to use non-Parliamentary
language - but to expose people who have no spine. When you are a Backbencher you speak
against the Government, when you are in the Front you speak for the Government, what sort of
person are you? Why? Yesterday you were saying I do not know what is going wrong? When you
are made a Minister, the Government is the best. Why? Who are you? (Laughter) I think we have
a Chinese saying that “may you live in interesting time.” Indeed they are interesting, but I think
let us build a culture where we can unite on principle –(Applause) - on an issue and we should
encourage it as the Movement. If someone we regard as an opponent politically has a point; we
should support him and vice versa. So the problem is with us. If there is a problem in the
Executive, they should also look into it and stop it. If they are going around and they say this
come in, that is really unfortunate. I hope it is not true. But let us also examine ourselves, this is
the only point because most of the other points have been made.
But I wish to say that I oppose this motion for the two reasons. First of all, I do not want to be
idealistic, I know we still need to interact. Secondly, I believe that even if you bring these
Ministers from outside, Government and the country will suffer because they may also use their
ministerial position to compromise the Members of Parliament and also to create constituencies
for themselves as a fall back position when they are dropped.
Furthermore, we should create a culture of exposing weaklings; people who sleep here so that we
identify them as dangerous people who are not suitable to lead our country. Thank you very
much.
THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof. Apolo Nsibambi): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been
greatly enriched by this discussion, but I wish to preface my remarks by thanking many of you
who have appreciated our contribution. I must add that whatever little we have done should be
attributed to teamwork. In other words, we have learnt from people who were elected and also
from those who were not elected. Each has a unique contribution.
I noted that a lot of tribute was paid to non-elected Ministers and I wondered how these people
could be less sensitive if so much tribute is paid to them. It is possible that my Friends, such as
hon. Kutesa, might have made an assertion that those who are not elected are less sensitive than
those who are elected. It has to be demonstrated and it must not be asserted. But empirically, it
has got to be ascertained (Laughter.).
MR.KUTESA: Mr. Speaker I thank you, and I would like to thank the hon. Prime Minister for
giving way. The assertion I made about different levels of sensitivity between elected Ministers
and non-elected Ministers is not just based on a sample of four whom we have in this House. I
want to tell you Rt. Hon. Prime Minister that I have had the fortune or misfortune of serving both
in an elected Government and in a Military junta as a Minister. And I can tell you without any
fear of any contradiction that Ministers in a Military junta are much less sensitive to the
problems of the population than Ministers in an elected Government, and Ministers who are
particularly elected. I think this sample of reverence and praise that you may have received in
this session about four Ministers, is a small sample; my sample was bigger.
PROF.NSIBAMBI: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. Kutesa. As you know, there are many
methodological issues he is now raising. Sometimes when you are dealing with sampling, you
may choose data, which is so fundamental that it affects your findings and conclusions even
when it is a small sample. But those are methodological questions and we can spend weeks of
discussion.
The Onapito/Mugisha Muntu Bill is a very important Bill. It is addressing the institutional
arrangements which facilitate prompt and timely and efficient delivery of services by political
leaders, especially in Uganda. During our discussion, we have discovered that we have problems
of overload. There are also problems of conflict of interest and of vulnerability. So, it is
important to prescribe accurately. What I would argue today is that the Bill and the discussion
have grasped the problem but when it came to prescribing, that is why it is wanting, and that is
why I will reluctantly oppose it. What it has prescribed creates many secondary wars and other
problems, which I shall be addressing shortly.
Let me deal with the first one. That is, when Ministers are Members of Parliament, they capture
the mood and the tone of Parliament on the spot. What do I mean by the tone and mood of
Parliament? Moods deal with the state of mind. Are people friendly to the issue I am discussing
or not? The tone deals with shade, colour and the general spirit. When Ministers are in
Parliament and they are looking at you, they grasp the tone and the mood of Parliament and
therefore they become more accountable and sensitive to your demands. It is a two-way traffic
because you equally capture the tone and mood of the Executive. And this mood and tone are not
static; they change by the minute. In one minute people are hailing you, in another you make a
statement, they are cursing you.
So, it is important to have the ministers in Parliament to be capturing the tone and the mood of
parliament by the minute. When you take them away, they will not be able to capture these
important elements. They will not be able to capture them by proxy because they may suffer from
information distortion. They will not capture your –(Interruption)
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: I would like to seek clarification from the Rt. hon. Prime
Minister whether he would change his position if the Ministers became ex-officio? In this case, it
would be possible for them to sit in Parliament and capture the mood of Parliament like the Rt.
hon. Prime Minister always does. Thank you.
PROF.NSIBAMBI: Well, first of all, I have not addressed that matter. I always want to address
an issue extensively before I come to the microphones. But my initial remark was that you need a
mixture because each group has a unique contribution. You get cross-pollination and therefore I
am personally for a mixture.
I was saying that when Ministers are not in Parliament, there is double injury, injury to the
Executive and to Parliament. For example, when we were discussing the National Planning
Authority, you really put us to task. You said that under Article 125, the National Planning
Authority should have been in place. What have you been doing, you asked? I captured your
anger and it was legitimate, but we also explained the circumstances that led to that delay. So, we
were not receiving signals in a mutual manner and when went back, we responded.
So the issue of capturing the signals and the tone of Parliament on the spot is vital and it is
facilitated by physical and mental presence of Ministers here. Physical and mental because one
may be here and be denied that experience when that person is slumbering. So again, we should
not take experience as good in itself. There are people who imagine that they have had a lot of
experience but have not captured the essentials.
A related matter, which I must discuss here, is political, intellectual and legislative inbreeding. If
you do not have Ministers here, Members of Parliament would be inbreeding. You will suffer
from intellectual, legislative and other forms of inbreeding because you will be talking to
yourselves most of the time and you will be congratulating yourselves –(Interruption)
MR.NYAI: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you very much the Rt. hon. Prime Minister for
giving way. The clarification I am seeking is a very simple one. When Cabinet meets, Members
of Parliament do not attend. The Cabinet meets alone. Therefore, is the Prime Minister
suggesting that Cabinet suffers from inbreeding in the example he has given?
PROF.NSIBAMBI: I thank the hon. Member. Ministers are Members of Parliament and
therefore, they have that very facility not to inbreed. The problem with inbreeding is that the
quality of our Legislation is going to suffer.
I happen to be dairy farmer. When I have a bull and it stays on the farm for sometime, I remove it
lest it inbreeds and perpetuates the weak points. I would pray and trust that you will not have an
institutional arrangement, which perpetuates legislative, intellectual and other forms of
inbreeding. May the Lord forbid!
I will now go to my other point. There was an argument that this Bill will weaken the Cabinet
vis-à-vis the President. People have different form venerability. For example, some people are
fond of power in its own right, so they will go to any length to acquire it. Others want wealth,
others are found of the spiritual experience. For example, when my late father was asked to
become a chief by a King, he refused. He said the lord had assigned him the role to be spiritual
leader. Should you have that kind of person in cabinet who does not have an electoral base, he
may not be as vulnerable as a person who is power-hungry. And therefore, there are different
forms of vulnerability. But the point I would like to make is that the Bill creates institutional
vulnerability.
Already in Africa and in Uganda we are suffering from a lot of institutional fluidity. Our
institutions are very weak. We have yet to agree whether we shall move from a Movement
system to multi-party system. All those are institutional matters exercising our mind. We are
suffering from institutional fluidity but do not compound the problem by a Bill which creates
further institutional fluidity. When a person who had been elected is dropped, he or she will
suffer from double injury. And that arrangement creates what I call institutional fluidity and we
should not be a party to creating institutional fluidity at time when we are busy creating
institutions.
Let me - because I am a person of few words - finally say that –(Laughter)- we need a lot of
flexibility. In fact, when we were making the Constitution, we tended to be rigid and we have
now discovered that a number of the things we did are difficult to amend because are doubly
entrenched and some constitutional institutions we created are not fundable. I therefore, make a
plea for flexibility. The current arrangement is flexible because the President can pick from
Parliament and from without. If people have the requisite – (Interruption)
MR.KINTU-MUSOKE (Kalungu East, Masaka): Mr. Speaker sir about two years ago, I
relinguished the responsibility of being a Prime Minister and Leader of Government Business.
When I took that decision, I also took another decision that I would soon retire from elective
politics. Ever since then, I have returned to my constituency to persuade me to retire from
elective politics. It has taken me one and half years until yesterday when I got that permission
from my people. The point I am making is that when people elect their representative, they
would like that representative to rise to the highest possible office. And therefore, this debate we
are having here is between us who are already here and those who expect to come here later. But
people out there, in principle, want their representatives to rise to the highest possible office in
the land. Therefore, they would not like any arrangement where Ministers are barred from being
MPs at the same time. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
PROF.NSIBAMBI: I thank hon. Kintu-Musoke, the former Premier of this land and I agree with
him. That is precisely why we want a flexible arrangement which makes it possible to have
technocratic Prime Ministers, technocratic Ministers and Ministers of State and Prime Ministers
who have an electoral muscle and they enrich each other. I must oppose the motion. I thank you.
THE SPEAKER: I do not know how long you will be hon. Members and I do not want to deny
you an opportunity. But what is tomorrow? Is it a Thursday? Or we can meet tomorrow, why
not? But I think let the two hon. Members speak. What do you say? Let us have these two to
speak and then we - how much time do you require? Chairman and the Mover, how much time do
you require? Any idea? A lot of time? Okay let us hear the two and the catchword is time
management. Time is of essence. Let me give the opportunity to the hon. Minister of State for
Regional Co-operation to be followed by the hon. Member from Ndorwa.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION (Mr. Amama
Mbabazi): Thank you Mr. Speaker sir. I did not attend most of the debate and therefore, I did not
intended to speak for fear of repeating what others have said. But on the basis of representations
today, I feel I should make a point or two.
First of all, I have a considerable sympathy for the motion but I do not think this is the time for it.
It is too early. The conditions do not exist in Uganda for us to have the kind of thing that the
motion is seeking.
In the Constitution, there is clear separation of power and function by the different arms of
Government. It appears what the motion is seeking to do is to add physical separation and I do
not think it is absolutely necessary. It is not necessary to do that as long as each arm of
Government is autonomous in exercise of the function given to it by the Constitution. I think you
have actually achieved separation of power.
I think the legitimate question to ask is, ‘what does leadership in the country have as its
legitimacy to lead?’ In the case of the President, of course, I should say what everyone must have
said before me, that this debate was carried out in the CA very comprehensively, and you know
for the both, open and non-open, and I am afraid I do not see new issues arising.
The question of legitimacy of leadership was addressed. In case of the President under the
constitutional arrangements we have, the President is directly elected by the people by adult
suffrage. What about his Executive? It derives its legitimacy from his or her election because he
is the appointing authority, and from the fact that the Legislature has given stamp of approval
because we say, every Minister can only be a Minister if approved by Parliament. But what about
the process of selection? I think either one has to follow what I think the Prime Minister was
calling, “technocratic merit”, whatever that means, or some other leadership quality. We have
been saying that it would help the President considerably knowing that we have very little
opportunity to interact with each other in the country for him to pick laws that enjoy the
confidence and support of the populations.
The Movement system that we have in place is meant to broaden governance to make every part
of Uganda feel that this Government is theirs because they are there. Then how would the
President or how would we achieve this objective unless the people had a hand in that process?
So, the idea of allowing the President choose from those that the leaders have expressed their
confidence in is really to help this process to be achieved, broadening governance. We should let
the President or the Chief Executive to have the opportunity to establish things with the
population through their own leaders because it is them that know best who the leaders are.
I also get a feeling that there are different understandings about the roles of MPs. I think in the
Constitution we said the role of the MP is to make laws for the peace, law and order,
development and good governance of the country, and that, that function is to be exercised
through legislation. The role of implementation is that of the Executive. I have heard people ask,
how can a Minister have enough time for his Constituency and for his Executive function? In
fact, someone asked me, ‘How many times do you go to Kinkizi West?’ I said, ‘hardly’! I hardly
go, because I am performing the Executive Function. But is Kinkizi West a victim; does it suffer?
I have interacted with my Constituency very, very actively on this question, and I think we are in
agreement that it is not their detriment that I do not appear before them every day. I do not think
the role of the MP is to be in the Constituency drinking malwa, mwenge bigere or whatever you
call it.
CAPT.GUMA GUMISIRIZA: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for hon. Mbabazi to imply that some
of us to go for a fortnight to our constituencies go there to drink ajono, malwa? Is it in order for
the hon. Minister to make that serious allegation?
THE SPEAKER: But I think the hon. Minister is stating, saying that, that is not the role of an
MP.
CAPT.GUMA GUMISIRIZA: The hon. Minister has said that, in his own confession, he is rare
in Kinkizi. I do not know whether Kinkizi East or West, and I can add that he is rare even here.
Now, is it in order for him to say that some of us who go to discuss a number of things really is
nothing more than generally being there with our voters and interacting with them, laughing with
them in markets and drinking ajono, waragi and so on? Is it in order really to imply that we there
for no serious programmes?
THE SPEAKER: Right, you have now used the correct words. At first you said the Minister
said so. I did not hear him say so. But he may have implied that those who go there so regularly,
probably do so because they like to be there with their constituents and drink ajono and so on. If
it is true, it is good; that is – he is also a public relations officer in his constituency. So, I think
the Minister is wrong if he implied that those who go there regularly do so to drink ajono, and
also to imply that if they do so, it is wrong. Hon. Minister, if that is how you implied, then you
are out of order.
MR.AMAMA MBABAZI: No, I did not imply that. Mr. Speaker, -(Interruption)
MAJ.KAZOORA: Thank you, hon. Amama Mbabazi, for giving way and I thank you Mr.
Speaker. I would like hon. Amama Mbabazi to appreciate that there are several ways of
galvanising constituencies. For instance, if you take long without going to Kinkizi West, and
when you eventually go, you land in a helicopter and donate a million shillings to a church, the
people of Kinkizi West will be very happy. But if I do not go to Kashari regularly by road and
contribute one hundred thousand here, fifty thousand there, it may be very difficult. So
constituencies, hon. Mbabazi, are not the same. Thank you.
MR.AMAMA MBABAZI: I thank hon. Kazoora for the information. But the point I was
making - of course, I also interact with my constituency once in a while. I was in fact, informing
this House about the debate I have been having in my constituency on the same matter. It is
legitimate that leaders should interact with their electorate, and of course if you can do your
parliamentary business and then go to your constituency, say every weekend, I would have no
problem with that.
I was saying that the principle that you must be with the electorate personally is not wrong, but it
should not be at the expense of an MP exercising the constitutional function of legislating for
peace, order, development, and good governance; and that is done here. Of course, one should go
back and seek the opinion of his electorate, inform them and come back so that when one is
debating, he is speaking the mind of the electorate. But the primary place for that to happen is
here.
But I was saying that I have heard people say that because when you are a Minister you may not
go back to the constituency. Or if you do, you may take all the money of Government to develop
your constituency at the expense of your national duties. I am not sure that this is the case. In
fact, I know many places including mine where the Ministers anyway do not access funds of
Government even if they wished to go and develop their constituencies. I know that we have
been arguing in another forum that we must have a road map for development of this country so
that when Parliament meets to make a Budget, when this country receives development partners,
we have something to present to them. And we can talk about equal development in the country
according to those whose function according our Constitution it is to make it possible to have
development and good governance in this country. I think primarily that can be done here.
Now, the question of who actually makes peace and keeps law and order and actually implements
this development programme is a separate function done by other people. I was telling a very
close Friend of mine an MP here present now, that sometimes I feel that there is some
expectations that the MP should go in the constituency and dig roads and do things like that. This
is not my idea of the function of Parliament. So whereas we must strive for excellence and
emulate the examples of those ahead of us, we must be conscious of the conditions in our country
in which we live and make plans which are realistic and viable. I mean, when you compare us
with United States of America for example, it is possible to separate the two functions because
the legislature can go directly to the people and the Executive can do the same, and President
Reagan perfected this, as you know. He used to make a direct appeal to the population. Here you
cannot. The President can hardly do that. So, he must have that network, that ladder through
which he must interact with the population.
Now, who does not want to be a Minister? I do not know anyone here particularly from Ayivu (Laughter)
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, I would obviously not be a Minister under hon. Amama Mbabazi. I
thank you.
MR.AMAMA MBABAZI: Clearly not because, Mr. Speaker, I was a very close friend of his
elder brother. A political partner in trying to fight for democracy here and that partnership was to
the exclusion of my elder brother hon. Dick Nyai. So, it is not possible that under my
Government when it comes - (Laughter)- that there will even be a consideration that he will
participate in it.
When you look at this motion, it seems to say that the existence of Ministers, or the fact that the
President can choose MPs as Ministers and they remain here compromises the role of Parliament.
But when you look at this amendment, it is not proposing to bar the President from selecting MPs
as Ministers. It simply seeks to prevent these MPs from remaining MPs when they are elected
Ministers. But if all of us, including hon. Dick Nyai, aspire to be Ministers or higher, then
obviously the President or the Executive still has hold of you -(Interruption)
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, whereas I am loath to interrupt my junior Brother hon. Amama
Mbabazi, in his submissions, I think you advised correctly yesterday that the standard of debate
in this House would be enhanced if it were not personalised. If hon. Amama Mbabazi chose to be
away and not benefit from your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, maybe you can guide him again and let
him say what he wants to say if he has anything to say, without reference to Dick Nyai. I thank
you.
THE SPEAKER: For the Minister's sake, I would like to confirm that that was my advice. But I
think the impression I get is that the two of you are fond of one another - (Laughter)- and you
would like to inject a bit of humour but that should not be at the expense of time. I am sure there
is a convenient place up there on top of this roof - you will be comfortable there. Proceed hon.
Minister.
MR.AMAMA MBABAZI: Thank you Mr. Speaker. When you said up there, I thought you
meant Ayivu. But this was my last point, Mr. Speaker. I said the fear that the legislative function
of Parliament is likely to be undermined because of the existence of Ministers here may be based
on the fear that once you are a Minister, you may not want to displease the Chief Executive, and
therefore you must tow the line. And I said that even if, according to the arrangement proposed
now, the Executive can pick an MP and since most of us aspire to be Ministers, then of course,
he can always use that to beat MPs into line if he or she so required.
Finally, under the current constitutional arrangement, legislation is both by Parliament and by the
Chief Executive, the President. You know we pass legislation here then it has to have the assent
of the President for the complete process of enactment. If the Executive has not substantially had
a hand in the debate itself, it may be a recipe for legislative instability, which could deteriorate
into worse things. I know under the arrangement we have is that, if the legislature passes a Bill,
and the President refuses to assent, and the legislature passes it again, I think second or third time
then it automatically becomes an Act of Parliament.
But we must remember that under the arrangements we have, the President has direct mandate of
the people. In fact, the mandate of Parliament is equal to the mandate of the President. So you
can imagine the amount of instability if this arrangement was such that there was no
disagreement, and yet the arrangement we have in the Constitution is that Parliament cannot be
dissolved; it must stay. So what would happen? I think it makes good sense that when the
legislature finally comes up with a Bill, the Executive arm feels that what comes out is something
which they have participated in making so that we identify with it.
And of course, the Ministers being here interacting with the President makes it possible for the
President to participate so that for every piece of legislation that passes, he has a hand in it. One
would have the kind of fear I have, that if they are not there, there is a possibility of having
instability when the Executive does not assent to a Bill and then Parliament cannot be dissolved.
Where there is rigidity there may be a break. I therefore, urge the Movers of the motion that this
is really not the time for it; let us wait. The conditions are going to change. Maybe a time will
come when something close to this can be acceptable because it would be workable. Thank you.
MR.BAMWANGA STEPHEN (Ndorwa West, Kabale): Thank you very much Mr. Speaker
for allowing me to contribute to this historic debate. First of all, I wish to remind my colleagues
in this august House that the political history of this country did not begin with the advent of the
NRM Government, nor with the making of the 1995 Constitution. I am sure history is there for
everybody to prove that these problems date back to the colonial and post independence times,
up to now.
As Members of Parliament, we need to be reminded that Ministers are Members of Parliament
first and when appointed Minister, that is additional responsibility that is bequeathed upon the
Minister by the head of State, who is the appointing authority. These Ministers on the Front
Bench are also backbenchers of tomorrow as much as the Backbenchers of today are likely to be
the Ministers of tomorrow come the year 2001.
I therefore, wish to warn my colleagues that politics is not the kind of stuff careers is made of. I
wish to appeal to my colleagues who have got spanners like engineers, the surveyors who have
got the tape measure, and the doctors who have got the telescopes, to keep them safely for you
never know what will happen come the year 2001. Politics is a very risky business whose returns
are not as exciting as people think. But the achievements that this Movement Government has
brought to this country cannot be shelved off because of sheer emotions and jealousies among
some people.
I was a young man during Obote one regime but I remember seeing some Ministers, who were
untouchable. The Ministers of Amin were also untouchable. In the early days of NRM
Government the “historicals”, Ministers were untouchable and used to call some of us
“Kipingamizi”. But now after 14 years we are all Movementists and we are all together.
I would like to thank this Parliament for the good working relationship and the harmonisation
that we are going through since Ministers started realising that they are Ministers first and
foremost and Members of Parliament too that they are also potential Ministers.
When I looked at this Bill, one of the highlights mentioned in the memorandum was that the
backbone of any democratic state is transparency and checks and balances of the organs of state.
I do not know why hon. Onapito forgot to put mention accountability, but there should be
accountability of the organs of state. I believe that it should be all organs of state including the
Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and all these are supposed to be subjected to checks
and balances. In the absence of a law that will be checking on the excesses of the Chief
Executive and of the Members of Parliament themselves and the Judiciary, I believe that the
doctrine of separation of powers cannot work so smoothly in this country.
While Members of Parliament check on the Minister and the Executive, nobody checks on
individual Members of Parliament or individual Judges. We are supposed to be checked on by
the electorate but we have not passed the law on recall, we have not passed the law on the
impeachment of the President should he misbehave excessively. So, I think when we say we
Ministers should be appointed from outside this Parliament without political muscle, they are not
going to be accountable to the electorate because they have no mandate of the people. They are
going to be blackmailed and intimidated -(Interruption)
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Ndorwa West for giving way. I want one
clarification to be made because you have made a statement which, if it passes as it is, would
seem as if Members of Parliament are free to do as they wish. He said nobody checks on the
Members of Parliament. I am very sure that we have rules of procedure here which include our
dress Code to which he was present when, Mr. Speaker, you kindly advised one Member of the
Front Bench go to and attire himself properly. So with the direction and guidance of the Speaker
and the powers invested in the Speaker, is it fair for the hon. Member to say that nobody checks
on the Members of Parliament?
THE SPEAKER: May be I did not hear you well, did you say nobody but -(Interruption)
MR.BAMWANGA: Mr. Speaker, I said that while the Members of Parliament check the
excesses of the Executive, nobody checks on the excesses of the Members of Parliament outside
this Parliament. Our rules of procedure apply within this House. But when you go out there and
you do excessive politicking and excessive misbehaviour, there is nobody out there to check on
you. Your constituency is the people who gave you the votes but they do not check on your
excesses in the absence of the law of recall.
MR. NYAI: Mr. Speaker that is why I rise seeking clarification. This House has in-built systems
to check on each other. Hon. Sam Kutesa made grievous allegations against hon. Nathan
Byanyima. I think it would be wrong for the hon. Member to persist that nobody checks on the
excesses of the Members of Parliament. I think he can rephrase otherwise.
MR.BAMWANGA: Mr. Speaker, I say there is no law. The law of recall is not in place, the law
on the impeachment of the President is not in place and yet Members of Parliament day in, day
out continue to censure Ministers for alleged excesses.
MR.MWANDHA: Does the hon. Member on the Floor imply that Members of Parliament are
above the law?
MR.OGALO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I think the problem here is mixing excesses of individual
MPs with those of an institution. I think excesses as an institution is catered for by the Judiciary
in interpreting the law. But if you go out there and commit a crime, that is upon you. The police
will deal with you there. The Police will check on you.
MR.BAMWANGA: Thank you very much for your clarification hon. Ogalo. When we compare
the British and the American system of governance with Uganda’s, it is unfortunate because we
are talking of two different worlds. I compare the Uganda’s system as a young democracy still
growing up, being only 38 years old with our traditional cooking pot. The majority of Ugandans
are still cooking their food in a pot supported by three stones. If you are in a situation of that
nature, any slight tremor, any slight movement, it will just move stone and the pot will collapse,
spill the food and the whole family sleeps hungry.
I compare the American system and the British system with an electric cooker or a pressure
cooker or a gas cooker where you have got functions, three or four different plates performing
different functions. You can cook beans here; you can cook meat there. When one plate blows
up, you will not sleep hungry. You will use the other plate. But even if in Africa we copy this
western style of doing things, the African will just wait until one plate blows up, the second plate
blows up tomorrow, the third, until there is a short circuit in the whole cooker and the whole
system collapses. This can easily be explained with what happened to the Referendum and Other
Organisations Bill by the constitutional court when they declared it null and void because we do
not have strong institutions. We do not have the foundation of our institutions.
I think the biggest problem we have in this august House is not that people are opposed to the
performance of the Ministers, not that they are opposed to the system. I think 14 years along the
road, some Ministers have become professional Ministers in this Government. They are recycled
all the time. Even when they are blown up, they have expired; they are still recycled like a cooker
plate. When it blows up, you should replace it. This is the reason why some Members are likely
to be bitter to move this Bill at this critical time because really 14 years we have been very happy
with the Movement. We have been happy with the performance of the Ministers. We all know
that we are potential Ministers including you and I.
The other day I said that when a Member of Parliament is in the constituency, the majority of the
voters look at you as their President. They look at you as the deliverer of services and goods. We
come to see the Prime Minister; we come to see the Ministers, kindly help us so that we can
deliver the goods. Therefore, who would hate to be a Minister? I would be more than happy to
serve as a Minister if the appointing authority thinks that I deserve to be a Minister. But we
cannot all be Ministers. 279 Members of Parliament cannot be all Ministers. We must have 61
Ministers at ago and I do not believe 61 Ministers out of 279 Members of Parliament can really
tilt the balance in this House. Somebody was saying that Ministers could do kakuyege and make
sure they throw out the Bill on the Floor. But 61 Ministers are too few.
When I look at the merits and demerits of the Onapito motion, I feel that if this Bill is passed in
the form in which it is then the spirit of separation of powers cannot work in this country. As
somebody has already said, this will be tying the hands of the President because he will not be
able to choose a team he wants to work with to run the Government.
Appointing Ministers outside the Parliament, who have no political backbone, are just civil
servants like Ministers with their bureaucracies. I heard hon. Muntu saying that we should have a
reserve of eminent persons from whom we can appoint Ministers even when they have reached
their retirement age. This is not a reserve force like in the army.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: I would like to inform hon. Stephen Bamwanga that it is not
always those who retire would have reached retirement of 60 or more. There are many people
who retire voluntarily in their 40s. There is a new culture coming up and I hope we are going to
encourage people not wait to reach a point where they walk on sticks before they retire from
whatever job they are doing. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
MR.BAMWANGA: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are here in Parliament and few of us might have
come through the elections unopposed. But we defeated some of those people we are talking
about. These people are not coming from mars. They are part of this society; we are part of the
society. Actually, when I heard hon. Muntu’s lamentations, I got concerned. He said we have
been appointing Ministers from among ourselves but they are failing to deliver. We are failing to
do our job; we are not efficient. That is a terrible lamentation! To say that you have failed and
you want to give responsibility to somebody else without political mandate of the people. I think
it is necessary to reduce our lamentation.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Hon. Bamwanga should realise that actually we are saying
that even from Parliament –Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I want to caution you about what I said yesterday. I want to
remind you to keep sobriety in the House. You keep hammering at the Chair.
MAJ.GEN.MUGISHA MUNTU: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the guidance. I would like hon.
Bamwanga to know that actually the Bill is saying that the Chief Executive can pick Ministers
from even within Parliament. The only thing the Bill is saying is that when they are picked, they
should resign and other people elected to replace them. Thank you Mr. Speaker.
MR.BAMWANGA Mr. Speaker, I think I will try to be brief. My colleagues have already
mentioned that it will not be in the interest of this country to tie the President’s hands in choosing
the people he wants to work with. I think this motion is intended to alienate the Presidency and
the Executive arm of Government and I think this is not really good for this country.
If this motion is moved with good intentions, if this motion is moved for the alpha and omega of
the doctrine of separation of powers, then this Parliament would have no business with
Presidential appointments and directing them. I think the President will have a choice to appoint
Ministers, therefore, the Parliament should not have any business of trying to look at these
appointments.
I also think the argument that this Bill is for the separation of powers in order to hold the
Executive accountable for its actions. It is known in the whole of Africa that this Sixth
Parliament is unequalled in the region for exercising its oversight role on the Executive in the
censure motions and throwing out Government Resolutions. I think this Sixth Parliament is the
first in Africa to censure powerful Ministers from the Executive who would otherwise have been
classified as untouchables in the previous regimes and in our neighbouring countries.
In the legislative function of this Parliament, as I said, Parliament has been very effective in the
authorisation of Government Budget and expenditure and as everybody knows, Ministerial
appointments are not really permanent and pensionable jobs for Ministers. The rate at which His
Excellency, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni reshuffles his Cabinet would be very risky for anybody to
accept a ministerial appointment on condition that he will resign his Parliamentary seat unless
the Ministers are given a contract to give them security of service. Otherwise you can see what
happened to hon. Joan Rwabyomere, hon. Pulkol. You are appointed a Minister today, when the
mood changes you are dropped from being a Minister; and where will you go? You have no fall
back position. Why am I saying that? I know you will be keeping your own tools of your job but
definitely it disgruntles you to lose your seat when actually you are going for a ministerial
appointment.
A Parliament that does not check on the Executive becomes an extension of the Executive as a
rubber stamp. The role of Parliament is not to govern but to make the Government govern better.
For example, the situation of civil servants, politicians tend to put pressure on them. I am sure
that the Prime Minister, hon. Nsibambi, cannot succumb to peer pressure from politicians but we
know politicians some where else like our neighbours in Kenya, pressurise civil servants. So, I
think we do not want to take these risks because we are all stakeholders in this country.
As I said before, it should not only be the Parliament always to check on everybody. I think hon.
Nsibambi and hon. Bbumba are doing a good job like any other Minister but this does not stop
hon. Nsibambi, hon. Omony Ojok, hon. Bbumba from lobbying for the regions they come from
although they are not elected by the districts. They must fight; they must lobby for the areas they
come from. It does not mean that because their constituencies are with the Presidency, they
cannot lobby for roads and springs in their areas.
This Sixth Parliament was given powers with wide-ranging checks and balances of the
Executive. As I said, this Parliament approves the presidential appointments. It authorises
Government revenue and expenditure and estimates by way of budget. This Parliament has
power to stop Government from external borrowing or excessive borrowing.
The collective responsibility of Ministers and their presence in the House does not really
undermine their ability to pursue objective parliamentary debates in this House. It does not
undermine the independence of Parliament and it is not in conflict with the doctrine of separation
of powers. But how about the MPs who are here and are Directors at the NRM Secretariat? Are
they answerable to the Movement Chairman? Are they answerable to the President? Are they
answerable to the Parliament? How about MPs who are directly elected by the people but have
remained Officers of UPDF and they have not resigned? Does their loyalty with their
constituency or the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces who is also the President? Do you
not think they have divided loyalty like Ministers and, therefore, should we not also kick them
out of this Parliament just as we are advocating for kicking out the Ministers?
Lastly, we should not apply double standards to our colleagues by using the doctrine of
separation of powers.
MR.MWANDHA: Mr. Speaker, I think I am failing to follow the argument of the hon. Member
when he talks about MPs representing UPDF. He knows very well that this is a constitutional
provision. Does the hon. Member want to move another constitutional amendment so that the
hon. Members representing UPDF are removed from this House?
MR.BAMWANGA: Mr. Speaker, I said UPDF Officers representing constituencies and there
are quite a number here, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, if the doctrine of separation of powers has
to be applied to the letter, then the presence of Ministers, UPDF Officers who are directly elected
by constituencies, MPs who are also Directors in Government organisations including Movement
Secretariat undermines the independence of this Parliament. It is in total conflict and the very
doctrine of separation of powers of this -(Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I think let us -(Interruption)
MR.NYAI: No, just on a very small -(Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Let him conclude and -(Interruption)
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, when the issue of Members of Parliament being Directors at the NRM
Secretariat was debated here, I remember quite clearly the hon. Member holding the Floor
arguing very eloquently why it was absolutely in order for them to be Directors in the Movement
Secretariat. I am seeking clarification from him whether he has now changed that position?
MR.BAMWANGA: Mr. Speaker, I am not a born-again on this matter. This Bill had not come
to this House and when we were debating that motion, it had nothing to do with this Bill which
has come on the Floor today. So, I would like to end by asking my colleagues that they should
throw out this motion with the biggest blow it deserves because it does not help us to build unity
and to create good governance. I beg to move.
THE SPEAKER: I would like to find out from the Mover of the motion and the Chairperson
how much time you require to respond. Can you give me an idea so that I take a decision?
MR.ONAPITO: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine about 30 minutes.
THE SPEAKER: What does hon. Mwandha say, is it a long time?
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking guidance from you on a procedural matter. We are
debating a matter of constitutional amendment. Even if these people were supposed to wind up
the debate now, would we get the necessary 186 persons to establish and move the debate to a
conclusion?
THE SPEAKER: No, I thought we go by the quorum of the House and the quorum is 93. But
when it comes to voting, the movers of the motion can mobilise people from outside so that they
come to vote.
MR.NYAI: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is why I am a little confused. I know the quorum of the
House is 93, but the Constitution also says to amend any part of the Constitution needs twothirds majority. So, maybe, -(Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Dick Nyai we are not in disagreement. I merely said for business to go
forward, the Constitution says we need a quorum, and a quorum is stated. Going to the next step,
it is up to the people concerned to mobilise people to cast their vote, it is by secret vote. Let me
give an example; it maybe that inside we were 130 and yet there are people who are outside who
when it comes to voting they make up the –(Interruption)
MR.MAYANJA NKANGI: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of voting, it is 93, if you want the Bill to
pass, then you need 186; if you do not want the Bill to pass, you do not have to bother about 186.
See what I mean?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, but you see what I am saying is this. When we want to vote, the quorum
is 93, but in order for the motion to succeed, the Movers can mobilise the required numbers
which is two thirds of the House and that is when the Bill will pass. But for the business to go to
the next stage, the quorum is 93. I am not saying that we are going to do it now. That is why I
was asking the Mover and the Chairperson to advise us on how much time they require in wind
up, and he has said he needs half an hour. What about the Chairperson?
MR.WANDERA OGALO: Mr. Speaker, about 20 minutes will be enough for me.
THE SPEAKER: About 20 minutes?
MR.WANDERA OGALO: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: I have been advised that there is an important Cabinet meeting tomorrow
starting at 9.00a.m. For that reason, I will adjourn the House. But before I do so, I have been
requested by the Minister for Security to let you know that this weekend there will be a number
of fundraising activities in the North, particularly in Gulu and Kitgum districts. Because of the
recent happenings, particularly, in Gulu town, the hon. Minister wishes to assure all of you who
may wish to attend those functions that all has been done to ensure your security so that you can
go and assist our colleagues who are trying to develop their areas. The House is adjourned to
Tuesday 2.00p.m. and that will be the time when the Mover of the motion and the Chairperson
will wind up and then we proceed from there.
(The House rose at 6.45 p.m. and adjourned until Tuesday 17th October 2000 at 2.00 O’clock).