Tuesday, 21 December 2004
Parliament met at 10.44 p.m. in Parliament House, Kampala
PRAYERS
(The Deputy Speaker, Ms Rebecca Alitwala Kadaga, in the Chair)
The House was called to Order
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, today is the day we agreed to end business before we break for Christmas. So I would like to appeal to Members to remain here both for the morning and afternoon sessions so that we can accomplish what we agreed to do.
Secondly, I would like to amend the Order Paper in item 4 so that motion is to be moved by hon.
Nyombi Thembo in his individual capacity not as a chairman of the committee. I think that is the only amendment I have.
MR OMARA ATUBO: Honestly, Madam Speaker, this question of motion to amend Rules of
Procedure, the seeds thing and all this, I thought that last week we agreed to really deal with what we considered extremely vital and the Government having not made a statement on security situation in the country for the last six months, I thought that before the year ends, we should debate this matter. This has been a practice we agreed on.
And secondly, I want to express bit of surprise that here is a private motion to amend the rules and we are bringing it on the last day. I hope this is not a conspiracy to confuse the House,
Madam Speaker, because I thought that this sort of thing would go to the Rules Committee or at least –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, hon. Omara, why do you not wait until we reach the item? But concerning the report on security, by 8.00 p.m. yesterday I could not find any of the Ministers of
Defence to come here for this matter and I do not know who else can present it in their absence.
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First and foremost, I would like to thank you for exercising your discretional powers by amending the Order Paper. On the Order Paper, we have some serious outstanding issues, which seem to be pushed back and back every time because of new developments. So, Madam Speaker, I am in the indulgence of asking you to exercise the same powers once again that item No. 20 which is burning, very urgent, comes forward to take precedent over other items which are after number t3.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. Awori, yesterday I said that as soon as the Minister of
Education arrives in this House, we shall bring up this question. If the man or woman appears today, even now, I will move the matter up.
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Not that I am disregarding your advice or your direction and guidance, but persistently the Cabinet has ignored the pleas of this august House.
What are we going to do? We do not have any discretionary or constitutional powers to dismiss them from the august House, but they will not be here on time or in the right numbers in respect

to their duties and responsibilities in the august House. The “Right honourable Acting Deputy
Assistant Prime Minister” is here, can he tell us why –(Interruption)
PROF. KAGONYERA: Madam Speaker, is it in order for hon. Aggrey Awori, whom we have the courtesy to address appropriately notwithstanding what we think, to use fictitious descriptions of an otherwise honourable office that I hold in the Government of Uganda? Is he in order,
Madam Speaker?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he is out of order. Those titles do not exist. However, Leader of
Government Business –(Interjection) please wait. The rules say that when I am speaking you sit down, please. Now, Leader of Government Business, you know the question of school fees for the IDP children came up like two weeks ago and then the minister said that first, he is going to deal with what we had already asked him to do on the NTCs and the strike at Makerere and that the statement on school fees would be coming and the concern of the Members was that, the term will begin before we come back here and really they wanted to know what is going on. So, I do not know whether anybody knows where the Minister of Education is and his several assistants, and whether he cannot really come to this House today.
PROF KAGONYERA: Madam Speaker, I totally agree with you and I agree with the honourable members. As you might have even listened to the media yesterday, I was expressing
Government disappointment about matters like this and, therefore, as soon as I stop talking, I am going to go out and use the fastest means to locate ministers in the Ministry of Education so that they can come and respond to this question this morning. With your permission, Madam Speaker,
I will now leave.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, after reading today’s Order Paper, I got saddened on two important points: One, in the recent past, the item on a report on election violence has been featuring very prominently. We are soon going into a phase where the results of the report would be very relevant to our situation. So, I would like to know why it has not featured.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, I took it also after consulting you that the item, which was never justified in the recent past, related to DDT would feature. If you read the papers two days ago, there was a proclamation from the Government that they are going to use DDT effective from
January. By moving that motion, I was responding to the concerns of the Constitution namely
Article 245 and Article 39, which make it an obligation for Parliament to environmentally intervene to save the situation whenever there is a problem. So, I am wondering why it has not featured.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, honourable Member, you have talked to me about that matter and when I checked with the Speaker, he informed me that when you moved that motion, it was agreed that you await a report from the Ministry of Health on that matter and they will be debated together. That is what I have established.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, I have documentary evidence from the very person you are talking about accepting that there was a mistake made and that immediately we resume, that mistake will be rectified.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately, you are keeping that document to yourself; you wrote to me a letter and you did not attach it. Yes, you did not attach it. You did not attach that letter. I am not even sure whether it really exists. Normally when the Speaker writes he also gives me a copy.

MR MWANDHA: Two points, Madam Speaker. In view of the fact that ministers are never available even when they are on the Order Paper, I am wondering whether it serves the purpose of this House to continue reflecting those items where they are supposed to report.
Point number two. With reference to the election violence report, it has appeared on the Order
Paper for the last four weeks. Now it seems that there is no political will -(Interruption)
MR BAKKABULINDI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am rising on a point of order.
I understand very well that by the time you gave an explanation on that issue, the honourable
Member was present and a ruling was made on that and he knows very well that much as it is about the election violence, we are not preparing for elections today or tomorrow, it is a report which can be brought here, we debate it and we see the way forward. In your wisdom, Madam
Speaker, the Order Paper is presented before us and we have to follow it and you gave the ruling.
Then, is the honourable Member in order again to raise the same issue to derail us and yet you know very well that we have got a lot of issues we are supposed to accomplish today before we break for Christmas? Is he in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Member, you know the Business Committee sat last week and I believe you must have been there and we agreed on what should be done before we leave. So, I reflected that matter on the Order Paper, I called for it, nothing happened, so I moved on to other business.
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, that is the very reason why I am raising the issue. You put the item on the order paper and the ministers concerned have not taken trouble to make themselves available and report on the various issues that we touched on in that report and the various recommendations. Really, this makes me wonder whether there is political will for
Government to prepare ourselves for a peaceful election when it comes to 2006 if they are not prepared even to dispose of a report of this House. Should I now regard that this report has disappeared in thin air and nothing will happen to it? Because it was on the order paper for four weeks, now it has disappeared.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it has disappeared because today is the last day of sitting, unless you are prepared to remain here until Thursday. If you are, we will put it back. So, for now let me say that it will come on the 1 February 2005. So Clerk you are informed, that matter should come on the 1st of February when we resume.
LAYING OF PAPERS
10.57
THE MINISTER OF STATE (REGIONAL COOPERATION) (Mr Augustine Nshimye
Sebutulo): Madam Speaker and honourable members, in compliance with the ratification of
Treaties Act and in fulfilment of a promise made last week, I wish to lay on Table seven protocols that have been ratified by Cabinet and these are:
1. The Tripartite Agreement on Inland Ways Transport.
2. The Tripartite Agreement on Road Transport.
3. The Protocol and Headquarters Agreement on the Inter-University Council for East Africa.

4. The Agreement concerning the inter-state use of search and rescue facilities.
5. The protocol on Standardisation, Quality assurance, Meteorology and Testing.
6. The protocol on Decision Making by the Council of the East African Community.
7. A protocol against illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms their parts, components and ammunitions?
Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify that although on the order paper you see “Ratification of the Eastern Custom Union” this protocol had earlier been presented to this House by my colleague hon. Rugunda who was standing in for Foreign Affairs when both of us were away on other officials duties. So, Madam Speaker, I lay on Table a set of seven protocols.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Minister, you could probably address us on section 3 of the Ratification of the Treaties Act. They are just for laying not for returning here?
MR NSHIMYE: These are for laying on Table, they do not require ratification of Parliament.
MRS ZZIWA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and I wish to thank the honourable
Minister. May I just request that at an appropriate time, he avails the committee some of these copies so that we can have the opportunity to look at them.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but now they are property of the House. Thank you.
MR MWANDHA: Although these protocols are not for ratification, I still believe that it would be a very good idea if our appropriate committee looked at them and submitted a report to this
House in due course for our noting.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Committee on Presidential and Foreign Affairs can take over and peruse them and report back to this House.
MR LUKYAMUZI: As far as I know, Madam Speaker, I would like to challenge the Minister in charge of Regional Affairs that, if he is sincere to us, it is also true that there are protocols
Government has ratified before the sanctity of Parliament. Be sincere to us so that you tell us the details because I know what I am talking about.
MR NSHIMYE: Madam Speaker and honourable members, the law is very clear. It categorizes which protocols that may be ratified by Parliament and which may be ratified by Cabinet. It is not true that there are those which Cabinet ratified when they were required to be ratified by
Parliament. It is not true.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, finally on that, is the minister prepared to resign if tomorrow I produced data to the effect that Uganda has ratified certain protocols, which were supposed to come to Parliament?
MR NSHIMYE: That will be a new situation for consideration. (Laughter).
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you, Rt honourable Speaker. I want to thank the minister for laying down the treaties for ratification. I am seeking a clarification on other treaties. I was in the House and I vividly remember hon. Dora Byamukama requesting the minister to give a comprehensive

report on the general ratification of treaties, either by the Executive or by Parliament or together.
And one of the very important protocols that this House sought the status of government on was the African Union Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa and the minister has not reported on it.
May I know whether this protocol on the rights of women in Africa is in the category of those to be ratified by the Executive alone, or it is in the category where Parliament is also involved?
Because, Madam Speaker, according to the most recent summit of the heads of state, this protocol on the rights of women in Africa is supposed to be ratified at least by 15 countries before the end of 2004, and today is the last day for this sitting in 2004. So, may I know the status, may I go away comfortably that the Executive will ratify this protocol before the end of year? Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed, the Prime Minister had made a commitment to this House that he would come really with a comprehensive statement on all the protocols and their status.
MR NSHIMYE: Madam Speaker and honourable members, I would like to appreciate the concerns of hon. Bwambale. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for laying on
Table of these protocols, but these protocols normally originate from the ministries concerned.
Now, this protocol the honourable Member is talking about is supposed to originate from the
Ministry of Labour and Gender and the minister concerned has been indisposed for sometime but
–(Mr Felix Ogong rose_) Oh, well, let him speak by himself.
MR FELIX OGONG: My ministry has written to the Attorney General to seek advise from him and thereafter we shall pass it over to Foreign Affairs for ratification.
MRS MATEMBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Surely, this issue of this protocol cannot be just played about like that. The African Union has constituted itself with a new spirit and central to the work of African Union now is the issue of gender equality and that is why the summit deem it necessary to pass a treaty, the first African instrument to deal with issues of gender equality, to show the seriousness with which the African Union has constituted itself and in fact the last summit in July, the African Union also made a declaration on how to set standards on how they will follow up on the implementation of this treaty. As you have heard from hon. Bwambale, I think the deadline was 15th December or something like that by which 15 countries should have ratified and Uganda is very well known to lead in issues of gender equality.
And, Madam Speaker, the NGOs in this country dealing with gender issues have been making conferences, have been lobbying everywhere. In these conferences we called Ministry of Gender, we called Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General. Whenever we ask each one says,
“It is the Minister of Gender” the other one says, “It is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.” Now today he is saying Attorney General and it does not take anything much to ratify this treaty. Can we really now know the truth because if the honourable Minister of State is not sure of what is going on, then we should also know because we have been involved in this matter and we have hit a deadlock.
In fact, the last time I remember, the women had resolved to write to the President and hon.
Bwambale and I advised them that no, let us deal with the ministries and the Minister of Gender promised that in fact they were on the last, that very soon it will be ratified. Now the deadline is passing, can we continue to be played about like this between ministries? He should tell us the real status not just because you remember Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying, “The minister has been sick.” So, it seems that maybe the minister carries her file with her but because the
Minister of State is here, he stands up to tell us, “Well, for the Attorney General” - where is the

Attorney General here, he should tell us? Are you the Attorney General these days? If he cannot explain let the Attorney General explain to us. These are serious issues and in January hon. Loyce and I will be travelling to Pan Africa to be embarrassed when we have no news to give and we chair committees there. This is very embarrassing!
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, honourable Minister, can we have a serious commitment because it seems the issues of the protocol relating to women are not being given sufficient attention.
MR OKOT OGONG: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the House that we are not playing games and I am not known for playing any games here. I want to make a serious commitment here on the Floor of this House that, as a ministry we have tried our best, we have made consultations and we have already received a communication from the Attorney General and very soon we would make a commitment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ratify – (Interruption)
MR MWANDHA: Let the minister answer the query raised by my colleague. There is a time deadline, are we within or outside the deadline instead of beating around the bush? Why does he not answer the question?
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, I think this matter is something, which requires a specific period now within which ratification should take place. It is, therefore, important that the minister commits himself with the time frame, which we can now rely upon as a means to get the House settled because to say we are going to consult the Attorney General, we are going to do this, time might over take us. Can I request that the minister tells us within which period he expects this ratification to take place.
DR ALEX OKOT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The honourable Minister at first told us that they were waiting for the comments from the Attorney General, but now he has already got the report from the Attorney General. And as he has already got the report, he could have informed this House whether the report has a date when they are going to ratify or not, but just talking that they have got a report and not making the House clear on what next, makes us doubt whether they have really received this report.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Minister, the Parliament goes on recess but the
Executive does not go on recess. Can you please give this House a serious commitment and assurance?
MR OKOT OGONG: Madam Speaker, I have noted the concern of Parliament and I have also noted the urgency of this matter. I would like to assure this House that, as soon as I get out of this
Parliament, I would try to expedite a process so that we ratify the protocol as soon as possible.
MR MIKE SEBALU: Madam Speaker, the issue raised by my colleagues is a very important one especially as regards the position of the Pan African Parliament and African Union regarding gender balance and equity. And there were resolutions made in the session that was concluded, and one of the resolutions was to do with that specific issue of gender, and it called upon all
African governments to ratify and be in conformity and Uganda is rated very highly in matters to do with gender parity and all these other considerations.
So, like they have said, maybe we may need to have some consultations with him because if he talks of “as soon as possible” that is so relative, it should be such that by the time the next session is in place that process should have been concluded here and the results sent. Otherwise, it can be

embarrassing when you are rated highly and some countries have already ratified these protocols, some of them even with low credentials in these matters. So, I think we should take it seriously and we should work out a clear time frame within which this matter can be resolved.
MRS KULANY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also request the minister to speed up this ratification because we are preparing to legislate against female genital mutilation and we need this ratification in place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, from me finally on that point, I have noted a lot of laxity from the Government in regard to the amount of commitment we expect of you on matters related to gender. Uganda is part of the United Nations order of civilized progressive nations. In accordance with our Constitution, National Objectives of State Policy XXVIII, we have an international commitment. So, you should demonstrate the political will to act in accordance with that continental demand. Short of that we may take action.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Minister, in relation to our time table we are coming back here on the 1st of February, can you give us an indication of when you will report whether you will have ratified or not ratified? Just tell us when you will report.
MR OKOT OGONG: Madam Speaker, I should be given two weeks and after two weeks I will give you a clear report.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Two weeks after we resume?
MR OKOT OGONG: Two weeks from now.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we shall be in our villages. So, it means that by the 1st of
February you will have a report? You are going to write to us – ( Interruption )
MRS BWAMBALE: I think my question was not adequately answered. The honourable minister had just informed this House of the status of some treaties and some protocols, that some protocols are exclusively ratified by the Executive and others are ratified by Parliament. I wanted to know, and my question was not answered, whether this particular protocol is exclusively for the Executive or Parliament will have to be involved? Because if it is exclusively for the
Executive, Madam Speaker, then his two weeks are possible. But if Parliament is to be involved, it will not be so until 1st February. I need to know this status either now or later. Thank you.
MR MIKE SEBALU: Madam Speaker, you know we have so many of these pending and at one point it came to the Floor of this House whereby the ministries concerned and especially the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as a lead ministry, has always to proactively look at the status of treaties that may be existing to ensure that whatever needs to be done to have them ratified is always done so that we are in conformity with the requirements. Because some of them may come and until it is raised it is not handled. So, there is need to continuously check on the status of some of these instruments to ensure that we are up-to-date with our international obligations.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Minister, you have said that within two weeks you will be able to communicate to the Speaker about the position so that Parliament can take position when we return. Okay.
MOTION TO AMEND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF PARLIAMENT

11.18
MR GEORGE NYOMBI THEMBO (Kassanda County South, Mubende): Thank you,
Madam Speaker. Motion to amend the Rules of Procedure as per Rule 50 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda. Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the House –
( Interruption )
MR WANDERA: Madam Speaker, I do not have a copy of the motion and I am wondering why the Clerk’s Office has not provided?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is for discussion today, it is just for presentation and then it will go into a committee. It is not for discussion.
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In light of your guidance on the matter at hand, I would like to move that you exercise your discretional powers under Rule 9(1) so that this motion, which was supposed to come under Rule 50 - and Rule 50 is not protected under Rule 9
(2). The purpose of requesting or praying for you to exercise your powers at Rule 9 is that this particular motion is shrouded in mystery. One, it is not available to the august House. Two, it could be a serious motion; we need to know whether it merits being forwarded to the committee.
We have no idea what it is. What is it about? We do not have anything so we are only requesting that you exercise your powers to lift the veil on this motion.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I do not know what the motion is, let him present.
MR MWANDHA: There are two things: One, we should have copies of this motion, whether we are going to discuss it today or tomorrow. This is the usual practice in this House. But two, it is strange for a Chairman of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to move a motion on rules when we have a Committee on Rules – ( Interruption )
CAPT. BASALIZA: Madam Speaker, when the House began, you amended the Order Paper and clarified what was to take place. Now, is it in order for hon. Mwandha to take us back after you had clarified that the Order Paper was amended and hon. Nyombi was talking as honourable
Member of Kassanda South not as a chairperson.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, when I communicated, I informed you that this motion was from an individual Member not from the committee. I clarified that at the beginning.
MR OULANYAH: Madam Speaker, I am the Chairman of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
Committee. I have no knowledge of this motion, I have not seen it, I have not read it. So, it should not be attributed to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament. It is a personal motion of the hon. Nyombi Thembo who also happens to be the Vice Chairman of the
Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. It is not from the committee and I have not, as a chairman, even seen it.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Rule 50(1) of our Rules of Procedure, any Member of Parliament who may have invoked this Rule, should have gone through a process of not more than five days. If so, how come we do not have any written literature related to that motion?
MR KIZIGE: Madam Speaker, I happen to be a seconder to this motion, and I want to inform this House that notice was duly given to the Office of the Clerk, to the Speaker and the motion

was even copied to the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules more than five days than this day.
So, the motion is on the Order Paper, it is right, it is due and it is competent. It is not the mistake of the mover of the motion and the seconder that the motion has not been circulated -
(Interruption)
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of procedure because in the first instance, the hon. Nyombi Thembo has not yet moved his motion for us to qualify or disqualify that motion and, therefore, I find it procedurally incorrect for the House to debate a motion or debate whether a motion has been moved or has not been moved when in fact the motion has not been moved.
So, may I request that all these debates be put aside until Nyombi Thembo brings his motion on the Floor of the House and we see the merits whether it should stand or should be disqualified. I think that will be the right procedure, Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let the Member present and then you can determine whether it should (Interruption)
MR MWANDHA: No, there is a problem, Madam Speaker, with this motion.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let him circulate and then you determine whether it –(Interruption)
MR MWANDHA: No, Madam Speaker, it is not circulated.
MR BAKKABULINDI: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order, in order to protect your
Chair. You rightly ruled that let the honourable Member, in his capacity as a member representing his constituency, move his motion, we listen to it, see the merits and demerits and then we can react. Is it in order for hon. Mwandha again to continue arguing with you when you have already ruled?
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, it is only simple procedural practice in this House. Where are copies of this motion?
MRS MATEMBE: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to come in, but I think we made rules and we surely must follow these rules. About a week ago, a rule here was not followed one day, the next day it was strictly followed. We are not going to use rules when they suit a certain - selectively.
Therefore, I am standing up to draw the attention of this honourable House to this Rule 50, how it should be followed properly. First of all it says, ”A member may move that any of these rules be amended by giving not less than five days notice.”
In this House whenever there is a requirement for giving notice, notice is given here on this Floor and we discuss it. I am not aware of a situation when somebody intending to move a motion that needs notification gives the notice to the Clerk quietly somewhere and it ends there. They give notice, we discuss and then we move on.
Therefore, with due respect to hon. Kizige who says that notice was privately taken to the
Speaker and the chairperson, I would like us to follow this very one. Secondly, the notice of any motion for the amendment of any of these rules shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed amendment. When it says like this, Madam Speaker, it means that we honourable members seated here should be having that notice with accompanying draft so that we see the motion and then you refer it to the committee. Now we stand here completely ignorant of whatever is coming before us and only hon. Nyombi has got a paper, which he is going to read for us. Is this really

following the procedure? Therefore, I would request that this rule be followed properly today so that it is not followed selectively.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Matembe, can you remind me when the rule was last used?
Has there been any motion by a member to amend rules other than the Pan African Parliament rules? The reason why I am asking you is because this rule does not say how you give the notice.
Certainly the Speaker got notice, I got notice and I think the Clerk also got notice. This rule does not say you give to the House or to the Members, it says give notice.
MRS MATEMBE: Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that, there has not been any motion to amend the rules here and this is the first one. But we have been hearing motions here that require giving of the notice and these notice have always been given publicly. Therefore, when I request that the House follows the precedents it set for itself, I do not think I would be in any wrong and in any case (Interruption)
MR WANDERA: Thank you very much, honourable colleague for giving way. Madam Speaker and honourable colleagues, Rule 7 of our Rules of Procedures states as follows:
“(1) In case of any doubt these rules may be interpreted by the Speaker.
(2) Any question of procedure not provided for in these rules shall be decided by the Speaker whose decision shall be final.
(3) Interpretations of these rules and any decisions made under sub-rule (1) shall be compiled by the Clerk to form precedents to guide the House or committees in subsequent meetings.”
Madam Speaker, the Speaker has in this House ruled before that before a matter is tabled it must be circulated, and I take it that this has formed part of the precedents of this House. My honourable colleague, hon. Nyombi Thembo is privileged and has a right but I also do not think there is anything is hiding, and if is not hiding anything what wrong with him to comply with precedent that has been set. We are available and we shall listen to you. So I beg, Madam
Speaker, that we continue with the precedent that has been set, that matters that are discussed in this House must be circulated.
MRS WINNIE MASIKO: Madam speaker, I seek clarification from the honourable members that have been holding the Floor. First of all, I would like to understand what rule we have put in place to say that when a ruling has taken place and the precedent has been set that it becomes law.
Secondly, I want to know
–(Interruption)
MR WANDERA: Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. Winfred Masiko, and she is a Member of this House who ought to know the rules of this House. I have even had the courtesy to remind her about what Rule 7 provides. Is she in order to state that decisions of the Speaker do not constitutes precedents of this House?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules are clear it is in the rules.
MRS WINNIE MASIKO: Madam Speaker, I was still seeking clarification from what has already been presented. If it is true that whatever ruling we have made on the Floor forms a precedent and, therefore, shall be followed always, then I really need to be helped to understand when the rulings differ what happens and what provision do we have in the rules of procedure to cure that.

At the same time, it has been said that a notice should first be circulated. I also need to be helped to understand from our rules where it categorically puts it that for something to be a notice and to be recognized by this House we have got to have copies and each Member in this House will have read a copy so that that is taken as a notice. I need clarification on that because that will help me in future to know what a notice is.
MR THEMBO: Madam Speaker, I would like guidance from you because you rightly raised the point as to whether any Member of Parliament had ever raised an amendment to the Rules of
Procedure under Rule 50. When you raised that point, hon. Matembe could not come out with a particular incident where a Member raised these issues as per amending the Rules of Procedure which, means that there is no precedent that is set under this specific rule, because this is a specific motion under Rule 50; it is not any other motion and nobody has ever proposed to amend our rules. For that matter, I would think that there is no precedent that has ever been set on this issue; this is a specific issue handled under Rule 50. Thank you, I want your guidance, Madam
Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have amended rules two times in this
House. The first time we sat here, I think the first weeks of our arrival here, we debated the existing rules and then amended. The second time was when we instructed the Committee on
Rules to deal with the question of the Pan African Parliament. So, those were the only two occasions we have had the opportunity to amend the Rules of Procedure of this House. This is actually the first time that a Member has moved a motion to amend the rules, therefore, there is no precedent on this particular one.
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, I think hon. Wandera was misunderstood by hon. Nyombi
Thembo. We are not talking –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, let me also give you further guidance under Rule 37. It reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of Rule 38, no motion shall be moved unless the member moving it has given written notice of the same to the Speaker and the
Clerk not less than three days previous to the sitting at which it is intended to move the motion.”
So, the Speaker was served, the Deputy Speaker was served, the Clerk was served . (Applause).
Can I ask the clerk to arrange to circulate these copies?
MR THEMBO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that wonderful ruling.
(Interruption).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wait, honourable Member, please wait.
MR THEMBO: Thank you, Madam Speaker
–(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let him move the motion first then you can counter, you cannot counter what he has not moved.
MR THEMBO: Motion to amend the Rules of Procedure
–(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You cannot counter what he has not moved.
MR THEMBO: I beg to move, Madam Speaker, that the House amends its Rules of Procedure –
(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let us have some order. Let him move and then you can counter what he is saying.
MR THEMBO: That the House amends its Rules of Procedure under Rule 50 as follows -
(Interruption)
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, you have ruled that the clerk should circulate the motion, what is the hurry of tabling the motion before the clerk actually circulates the motion? We have a procedure here, you can amend this Order Paper any time, we can go on to some other business while the motion is being circulated. Why are we being ambushed?
MR MULENGANI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I have listened very well to the sentiments of our colleagues. It is true the procedure requires that some of these statements and motions be circulated. But it is also true that the Member should not be penalized because of the weakness of the Clerk –(Applause) because the Member is not obliged to circulate these papers, he does not have stationary given to him but he has a motion to move. Should we really penalize the Member who has brought his motion because the Clerk’s Office has failed to circulate papers? I just need some guidance. It is not provided for in our rules that if a Clerk fails to circulate papers, a Member should not proceed on the Floor of Parliament.
MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, some of us are in this House to speak about simple wrangling and this wrangle over our procedure is meant, as you rightly put it, to set a precedent on the future amendments of the rules. Madam Speaker, as a distinguished lawyer, you know that no law, which is made by Parliament can cater for all instances. Therefore, it is left to the wisdom of the judges, as they are to make important guidance and precedents. So, you are now in a very challenging position. And as you have said, it is –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I hope you are not intimidating me.
MR ATUBO: No, I am not intimidating you. I am saying you are in a challenging position to guide this House and set a precedent, and I fully want to contribute to this setting of the precedent. The first point you say is that the notice of motion on the other one under Rule 37 needs no notice to the House.
I also want to draw your attention to Rule 38(2) which says:
“Any oral notice of a motion shall be reduced into writing and handed to the Clerk before notice is given to the House.” So, you can say that in the other instance of Rule 37, the notice may be given to the Clerk and the Speaker and possibly you may not have to give it to the House. Yet it is up to the Clerk and the Speaker to have it circulated to the House. But Rule 38(2) is even more specific which emerges from Rule
37 that you have to give notice to the House.
However, in Rule 50 it is very clear that, “A Member may move that any of these rules be amended by giving not less than five days notice.” It does not say to whom the notice should be given, it does not say at what stage the notice should be circulated to the House. However, these are matters which in practice can be implemented because the precedents before this one have already set us some guidance.
Now, Madam Speaker, the rules for this Parliament are the constitution of this House. Therefore, it is of such vital importance that the way we handle it must be transparent and have integrity of the House.
(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But hon. Omara, I do not know – (Interruption)
MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, please, can I say something? Please, can you give me time and I think that if we really want to conduct business in this Parliament, we should allow as the Speaker has allowed me to speak – (Interjections)- please let me speak. Please, there is nothing to clarify.
You listen to me and you will understand. If you cannot listen you will never understand.
(Interjections).
No, no, I am developing a very important point and even Members who have come with decided minds, please listen to me.
Now I am continuing, Madam Speaker. The Rule 50 itself as you have rightly put it, does not talk about the way it is supposed to be handled and to whom the notice should be given and its circulation. But that is not a defect. As we say in law, that is not a defect. On the other hand, the supreme purpose of the notice itself should be able to guide the Speaker, the Clerk and the House.
Why has it talked of the notice? It has talked of the notice so that when Members come to discuss this in five days, it is more than the normal notice of an ordinary motion of three days. It is more than the oral notice, it is more than the other one.
(Interruption)
MR BIRIMUMAASO: Madam Speaker, Rule 50(3) states as follows: “When the motion has been proposed and seconded, it shall stand referred to the Committee on Rules, Privileges and
Discipline, and no further proceedings shall be taken on it until the committee has reported on it.” Is the Member in order to take time of the House to derail it - whether the motion was circulated before or not, nothing will be taken on it until it has been referred to the committee. Is he in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, you know, in the beginning I did tell you that this motion is not really for debate for us because it has not gone to the committee. Now, why do you not just listen and it goes and then when it comes back that is when we debate it?
AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?
MR ATUBO: Have some stabilisation and switch off. (Laughter). Madam Speaker, I am not debating the motion, I am debating the procedure, the precedent to the motion, which is very fundamental. I am entitled, on behalf of my constituency and the people of Uganda, to be given five days notice and to see what is coming in this House.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under what rule are you entitled to the five days?
MR ATUBO:
It is here: “
A Member may move that any of these rules be amended by giving not less than five days notice.”
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: To who?
MR ATUBO: To me, to you, to the public.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ahhhh!
MR ATUBO: I want to interpret it like that, Madam Speaker. There is a big, dirty conspiracy to undermine this Parliament and we are not going to accept this.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, on many occasions you have come here, you have said you have matters of national urgency, I have given you the Floor without a single document even to me and you have debated those matters and sent them to committees.
MR ATUBO: But the rule is very clear; it is five days.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the rule?
MR ATUBO: It is there, five days notice.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no. Order!
MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, you will go in the history of this country as having really –
(Interruption)
HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no!
MRS MWESIGYE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You have clearly ruled already, citing Rule 37 whereby notices must be given to the Speaker and the Clerk. You have already ruled on Rule 50.
It is extremely clear that the procedure for amending rules is giving the five days notice which was duly given to the Speaker and the Clerk and that when the motion is presented, it will be referred to the committee and that there is no anticipation of debate whatsoever today. Is the
Member, therefore, in order to keep wasting our time, not to respect the Speaker’s ruling as the rules provide? Is he in order?
MR SEBALU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The issue that was creating a lot of controversy was about having a motion circulated, and the information I want to give this House is that I am in possession of a copy and I see several copies around. (Applause) So, procedurally, a motion has been circulated and I think we could go on with the procedures of having it presented and it is referred to the committee.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Thembo, proceed.
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, I think it is not possible.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. Mwandha you are not on the Floor.
MR MWANDHA: Procedure, Madam Speaker?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, honourable members please, I have informed you that the honourable Member complied with Rule 37. He served the Speaker, served me and served the
Clerk more than five days ago. (Interjections) . No, no, no, honourable members, no! Please proceed.
MR THEMBO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that wonderful ruling. I beg to move that the
House do amend its Rules of Procedure under Rule 50 as follows:
1. Amend sub-rule 12(2) to read: “The House shall, subject to the direction of the Speaker – ”
(Interruption)

PROF. KABWEGYERE: Madam Speaker, if my ears gave me a loud message, hon. Omara
Atubo was saying “Shame on you.” Can I get clarification, to whom did he address that address?
Was it the Speaker who was having shame on her? This is important because this is not a bedlam, it is not a mud house but it is a dignified house. So, can he tell this House to whom he directed that abuse? Yes, but I heard it. Was it to me?
MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, you know hon. Kabwegyere has said, the Mayor of Kampala is naming streets in the name of drunkards, you know it is in today’s paper. So, I am saying it is shame on him; how can he name the street after drunkards in Kampala. (Laughter).
PROF KABWEGYERE: Madam Speaker, is it in order for flippancy and careless talk to be part of this House, when the honourable Member has been talking about a motion that is supposed to be on the Floor of this House, and he suddenly talks about a very irrelevant and very inaccurate story in a newspaper by a reporter who has no idea that this House was debating a motion on amending rules? Is he in order to misguide, actually to disrespect the House?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, honourable Member, we have not been discussing roads in
KCC, so you are out of order.
MR THEMBO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am continuing.
1. Amend sub-rule 12(2) to read: “ The House shall, subject to the direction of the Speaker, sit on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.”
2. Amend sub-rule 12(3) to read: “Sitting shall, subject to the directions of the Speaker and in consultation with the Business Committee, ordinarily be between 10.00 O’clock in the morning and 7.00 O’clock in the evening.”
3. Rule 75 to be amended by deleting, sub-rule (a) and (f) and inserting after 75(e) the following:
Voting on constitutional amendments:
Introduce Rule 76 to read: “All constitutional amendments shall be voted on by either show of hands or division as the Speaker may determine.”
4. Removal of the Speaker: Rule 83. Amend Rule 83(1)(b) to read: “ The Clerk shall, within twenty four hours of receipt of the notice forward it to the hon. Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be.”
Amend 83(1)(c) to read: “The motion shall be tabled in Parliament within seven days of receipt of the notice”
And insert between the current 83(1)(c) and (d) the following rule to read: “The Clerk shall within seven days of the tabling of the motion in Parliament forward the motion to the Chief
Justice who shall, within seven days of receipt of the same, institute a tribunal of three judges, to establish the prima-facie case for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.”
Insert new sub-rule 83(1) to read: “If the tribunal determines that there is a prima-facie case for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, then if Parliament passes the motion, supported by two thirds of all Members of Parliament, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall cease to hold office.”
Then delete 83(3) in its entirety.

Madam Speaker, I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seconded.
MR THEMBO: Madam Speaker, allow me before I speak to my motion to assure this House that I am bringing this in good faith, for the good of our country, for the good of this Parliament, that is why I have decided to dare this area where nobody has ever dared to touch. I have seen that these inconsistencies would cause us a lot of delays, could cause double standards in this
House, when Parliament is a fountain of integrity, it should be seen to be consistent in everything.
So, justification of amendments
Sub-rule 12(2) and (3): Given the amount of work facing Parliament, Madam Speaker, I thought it is only prudent that Mondays and Fridays be included as official days of sitting of Parliament.
Under Article 262 of the Constitution, while amending the Constitution, the votes on the second and third readings are separated by at least 14 sitting days of Parliament. Leaving the sub-rule as it is, it takes more than one calendar month, that is of 30 days, to complete the process of voting on any constitutional amendment bill and all of us –(Interruption)
MR LUKYAMUZI: I am standing on a point of order with humility. Madam Speaker, having noted that after the presentation of this motion it will go to the appropriate committee, is the justification necessary at this point in time? Is it in order for him to begin justifying the motion when it is going to be sent to the appropriate committee?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, honourable Member. The entire record of what he has presented is to be given to the Committee on Rules to use as their working document. Include justification.
MR THEMBO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I continue. Leaving the sub-rule as it is, it takes more than one calendar month to complete the process of voting on any constitutional amendment bill and all of us know and appreciate what such time lag can mean to our much-cherished transition. If the proposed amendment is passed, it will take less than three weeks to complete the process of voting on a constitutional amendment bill.
The proposed amendment on 12(3) is also in line with the experience with which Parliament is expected to handle work before it. The discretionally powers accorded to the Speaker under 12(4) can sometimes be misinterpreted in various ways, hence the need to expressly indicate the hours of sitting which in the proposed amendment can be adjusted by the Speaker in consultation with the Business Committee.
Rule 75: Article one of the Constitution, Madam Speaker, states: “
All power belongs to the people….
” It goes ahead in Article 1(4) to say, “The people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives….”
That being the case and the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, its amendment should be done in the full view of the people openly and transparently. Members of Parliament should be seen to present the views of their electorate.
Parliamentary practice world over puts a lot of emphasis, Madam Speaker, on political accountability, especially of Members of Parliament. With modern technology that has made it possible for electronic voting, open voting is no longer an issue of debate but a norm in most

parliaments in the world. As we consider having electronic voting in our Parliament, it would not be bad idea to start open voting on issues pertaining to constitutional amendment.
The constitutional making process in this country has been made highly participatory and transparent, it would be therefore a miscarriage of democracy to have representatives of the people make final decisions on such a process without the people knowing how their representatives have voted.
Voting openly will further decrease on the political risk of those Members of Parliament who always go against the wishes of their electorate and this will enhance representation and political accountability.
We have had arguments, Madam Speaker, that open voting on such important issues will open floodgates of intimidation by the state. There is always talk that representatives of the people could get compromised and those expecting favours from Government will vote to appease the powers that be other than their conscience and their electorate. To me, this sort of reasoning is self-defeating and really laughable since the only way to know and weed out such politicians is to let them be exposed to the full view of the electorate through open voting.
Leaders should always believe in what they say. In most cases, however, we have seen leaders who say things they do not believe in themselves. Such leaders will always want to hide under secret voting because they know that their “mouths and hearts” do not live together. Such behaviour should be discouraged. Leaders, especially representatives of the people, must always be consistent in whatever they do and should be able to stand up to be counted on issues of critical importance like a constitutional amendment.
Lastly, Madam Speaker, regarding the issue of intimidation on part of the state, a politician worth the title of a honourable Member of Parliament should be able to take on the state if the wishes of his electorates or her electorate clashed with those of the state. A true representative of the people should stand up to be counted fighting for the interest of his or her people. There is no amount of intimidation to some of us that should make a genuine people’s representative subordinate the interest of one’s electors on account of state intimidation.
Rule 83: Madam Speaker, I know that the Speaker is number three in the protocol of this country.
Therefore, he or she needs adequate protection and security, hence the introduction of this proposed amendment by bringing in the third party (the tribunal of judges) for intermediation in order to promote the principle of natural justice. Madam Speaker, I beg to move. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, we cannot go into the merits or demerits of this matter. Hence, it is committed to the Committee on Rules and Privileges to peruse, evaluate and report back to this House.
MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, I had a procedural concern that this particular motion was moved under Rule 50 sub-section (3) and I wanted to move a motion under Rule 9 that this particular motion does not enjoy the privileges of Rule 50 sub-section (3). In other words, I want to remove the veil behind this motion. If permitted, I can justify why I am moving the motion that we invoke
Rule 9.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, hon. Awori, the Rule 50 (3) is clear. It says that when such a motion is brought, it stands committed automatically to the Rules Committee. We can only debate

it when it comes from the Rules Committee. We cannot pre-empty the Rules Committee –
(Interruption)
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When you look at Rule 9 especially sub-section (2) - this particular motion was moved under Rule 50 sub-section (3) and the only exception to Rule 9 sub-section (2) are rules 4, 5, 6, 8, and 75. This one 50(3) does not qualify under this privilege.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. It says “With the consent of the Speaker.” But the Speaker has not consented. The Speaker has referred the matter to the Rules Committee.
MR AWORI: Under your guidance, Madam Speaker, I concede.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, “President.” Now I did say that, as soon as the Minister of Education appears, we shall bring forward the question on the IDPs. I see that he has arrived.
QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTION 13/2004 TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS
12.04
MR Alex Okot (Moroto County, Lira): “His Excellency, the President, on behalf of
Government promised to pay school fees for the students from IDP camps in Northern Uganda.
This started with a contribution of Shs 47,077 per student in the second term in the year 2004 for the 39,256 students. However, for the third term 2004, a meagre Shs 7000 per student was released.
(a) Why is money for school fees being released on monthly basis when school fees are paid at the beginning of each term?
(b) I am aware that Shs 1.7 billion only, has been provided for this financial year, leaving a short fall of Shs 3,944,164 164. Is the ministry coming up with a supplementary budget?
(c) Can the minister state how much money the parents in the IDPS should expect from
Government for school fees per student?”
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS (Dr Khiddu Makubuya): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. First, I would like to apologize for not responding when this question was called yesterday. It was not possible for me to be here and unfortunately, it was not possible for me to mobilize any of my colleagues to come and respond.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there has been some anxiety this morning whether I was coming or not. But the truth of the matter is that, today I began with the hospital, but I am glad I was not detained there.
The answer, Madam Speaker:
Hon. Dr Okot Alex, MP for Moroto County, wants to know why is money for school fees being released on monthly basis when school fees are paid at the beginning of the term.
While my ministry would have liked to ensure that all fees for students whose parents are in IDP camps are remitted at the beginning of every term, but the ministry must at the same time operate within existing financial guidelines.

The honourable Member will appreciate that ministries have to operate within cash limit ceilings, which are given to the ministries on quarterly basis according to monthly projections. It is against these projections that monthly releases are made.
However, and most importantly, my ministry is on the Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS). This system provides for 1/12 of the budget of every item and it is to be released every month.
The ministry, therefore, if it were to pay for all the fees of the term at ago, must first accumulate the required funds depending on the monthly releases.
Putting into consideration the strain experienced by schools in their operations, my ministry processes advance payments to schools every month when releases are made, for example, schools received advance payment of Shs 7, 750 per student per school in October 2004 totalling to Shs 281, 890,750. The schools also received another advance of Shs 7,700, which has been processed in November totalling to Shs 297, 610,299.
Hon. Dr Okot Alex states that he is aware that Shs 1.7 billion has been provided for this financial year, leaving a shortfall of Shs 3, 944,164,164. Is the ministry coming up with a supplementary budget?
Madam Speaker, honourable members, my ministry has already submitted a request to the
Ministry of Finance to authorize a supplementary of Shs 3, 844,164,136 to address the funding gap which has been identified. Madam Speaker, I will lay on Table the request letter to the
Ministry of Finance.
Lastly, hon. Dr Okot asks, can the ministry state how much money the parents in the internally displaced people’s camps should expect from Government for school fees per student?
Madam Speaker, honourable members, my ministry is aware that the fees of a day secondary school in the region in question range between Shs 35,000 to Shs 75,000 a term. Therefore,
Government agreed to provide Shs 47,077 as contribution to fees for students whose parents are in IDP camps. Until further notice, this is a sum per term, which the parents should expect.
Madam Speaker, honourable members, I thank you for your patience.
DR ALEX OKOT: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and thank you very much honourable Minister for the information you have given to this august House. Madam Speaker, I put this question for oral answer because of the situation, which is in the area. These are people who have lost everything even their plastic plates and they cannot afford to buy one plastic plate at the cost of Shs 250 per plate. Therefore, as it is a duty of Government to protect their property and lives and the situation is such that they have lost their property and lives, it is the duty of
Government to assist them overcome the problems they are facing due to the loss of their property.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, it is a test of the commitment of Government in helping to alleviate the problems of the people in the North. They have heard of different programmes on which they have not been consulted and they feel the test of the commitment to this programme which is running, is a test of what they can expect.

My first supplementary question is, the same Ministry of Education came with a programme of assisting two students per sub-county in this country and the money is being given in full per year. The whole amount of money, which they contribute to the two students per sub-county they give it in full Shs 270,000 per student per year in one cheque.
But then the ministry is saying they are using the guidelines where money is given in a contribution of 1:12 per month. Is the Ministry using two different guidelines in the same
Ministry? Can they use the same guideline, which they are using in giving this contribution to these two students per year in every sub county to apply also to the issue of the displaced students? Noting that even the schools were these students are cannot get supplementary assistance and therefore they are in urgent need of that money.
Secondly, usually when Government comes with a policy it is because they have resourced money. They do not come with policies and then look for money; they already tell people that we expect to get money from these areas. I want to find out whether resources are already available for this activity?
Thirdly, Madam Speaker, I wanted to know what the parents should expect, and the Minister has given us the answer that Government has agreed to provide Shs 47,077 per student per term? But the Minister himself has stated also here that in the implementation period they have been providing between Shs 7,750 to shs 7,700 per month per student, which does not accumulate to the value he is talking of Shs 47,077.
This is what we are talking about, what Government has agreed and what Government is doing.
There is a big difference, you can agree to do something but then your commitment falls short of what you have agreed to do. We want to know the commitment which a parent in a displaced camp now can be assured of that tomorrow school is starting I am getting Shs47,000 for my student per term. This is the commitment we want. A commitment which is very clear not saying that you have agreed but this is what you are going to receive. I thank you, Madam
Speaker.
MR ELIJAH OKUPA (Kasilo County, Soroti): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that this matter has come because we did raise these matters much early. First, you remember to take care of the children in the IDP camps. Last financial year it was through the supplementary budget. Is this now the order of funding, this known expenditure, that it should also be funded through the supplementary?
During the time when we were reviewing the policy statements most especially for the Ministry of Education, we did hint that that money is not provided for in the budget. Why is this so, and we had been assured because in that meeting we had the Minister of Finance? But today for us to be informed that it is going to be funded through the supplementary, supplementary has be approved by Parliament, we are breaking off, we are coming back when the schools are almost starting, will these children get back to school?
To me this is an abuse of the budgetary process because supplementaries always do cater for unforeseen eventualities, but this is something that was known long ago and Government did undertake to pay for these children. So now to come here and say it will be catered for by the supplementary budget defeats our understanding.
I think the government must come clear on this policy, supplementary is not the way to go through to help the children who are in the camps. We know the children are still in the camps,

their parents are still in the camps, so it is something that is known and which must be taken care of. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
12.19
MR JOHN ERESU (Kaberamaido County, Kaberamadio): Madam Speaker, I would like the
Minister to clarify the following things for me and for the House. This matter was known to this country and known to Government and Government had committed itself as earlier on said by my previous speaker who was on the Floor. I would like the Minister to tell me how many children are involved? How many children actually are those, which require this funding from the
Ministry?
Can I also be clarified whether this forms part of the priorities of Government, which is not yet funded so that we can cater for it as non-funded priorities for this country, which is within his
Ministry? I thank you.
12.22
MR ODONGA OTTO (Aruu County, Pader): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I wanted to know there is a rising complaint from owners of private secondary schools that this sponsorship programme is having a bias towards Government owned institutions. This is a serious complaint because the owners of private schools are seeing it as an opportunity of putting them out of business. I attended a meeting where Pajule College is now having no single student because their rates are high and all students have opted to go to Government schools. So I do not know if this programme is having any efforts to rationalize school fees so that you also do not put private institutions out of business? The question is should the benefit also go to private schools?
Secondly, in my Constituency there was a mini strike where the headmaster had asked the students to pay for school fees and when Government money comes they will refund them. In other words they were getting a loan from the students because the Government funds were delaying. So I do not know if the Minister could think about issuing a circular to the effect that no matter how much money has delayed the school by any standards should levy any fee on the students, notwithstanding the facts that the schools will not operate if there is no single fund available. Thank you so much.
12.33
MS BEATRICE KIRASO (Woman Representative, Kabarole): Madam Speaker, what I wanted to point out is not so much different from what hon. Elijah Okupa has asked as a supplementary question. Actually I wanted to draw this House’s attention to Article 156(2) of the
Constitution regarding supplementary budgets. When should there be a supplementary budget and when should there not be a supplementary budget?
I think two weeks ago or last week the same Minister came here to tell us about something to do with supplementary budget that he was going to ask for; yet what he was going to ask for is expenditure that should have been anticipated. Now my question is the same as hon. Okupa’s, are we going to finance activities in the Ministry of Education through supplementary budget as if they were unanticipated at the time when the budget was made and the Appropriation Bill was passed.
12.26
MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to expand the concerns of Dr Alex Okot on matter of education in the internally displaced people’s camp. The figures given to us by the Minister of Education pertain to

secondly education and below. My concern is for students from internally displaced people’s camps whose parents are in internally displaced people’s camp but are attending tertiary institutions, which demand a lot of money; and specifically my concern pertains to independent public tertiary institutions. Do you have any plans at all to assist the parents who are affected by the war in the north and for that matter who live in internally displaced people’s camp but are paying a lot of money for their children attending tertiary institutions which sometimes or which are independent in other words they do not get any money from the state.
Please, is there a way you can bend backwards and over and above that, slightly outside IDP camps; do you have any democratic approach on assisting students who go to tertiary institutions, why is it that those who go to tertiary institutions that are publicly supported can be given scholarships such as you have mentioned for secondly schools; and those who go to independent or private tertiary institutions like Nkumba, Mukono and others have to meet the whole bill and yet these students had the same admission qualifications before they were admitted to both public and private institution. Why are you exercising this discrimination against students who go to private institutions? But my concern is the parents who are in internally displaced people camps and their children are attending tertiary institutions. What plans do you have for them?
12.28
MR JOHNSON MALINGA (Kapelebyong County, Katakwi): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to know from the minister what plans the ministry has for the increasing numbers, because originally most of our children had gone to private schools because private schools were cheaper than Government schools. When we passed money here the policy was that the money was to go to those children in Government schools; and the trend is likely that as the year opens all the children in private schools will now go back to Government schools. What plan is there for the increasing number.
Number two, we were informed that Government accepted to give Shs47,77 per Student. When you look at the order of the releases of 7,750 per month, if you multiplied that by four months in a term that will come to about Shs 30,000 per student per term, where does the other 17,000 go.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we were grateful for the efforts the ministry is putting to have this money in the schools. But, unfortunately, the information given by the minister on the timing of the releases is different from what I know. For the last term the first money to be released to the schools in my constituency came in December whereas the Minister is saying that the money was released in October. Where is the delay, and for this term they have only released for two months? When will we receive the other money for the month of September and December for those schools?
12.30
MR CHARLES ANGIRO (Erute County North, Lira): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. My concern is one, when hon. Dr Okot was saying most of these parents have lost even their first plates. I think the issue is not losing the plastic plate, these people have lost hope and have lost confidence while other have already died and we have some of these IDP students as orphans.
Madam Speaker, honourable members, I wanted clarification from the Minister because when the first batch of these cheques were sent to the north, the ones for Aramo secondly school and others which I learnt later had a very serious default and this cheque was carried along by one State
Minister and a Commissioner for Education. This cheque had two faults, instead of being Shs15 million, it was written in figure Shs 1.5 million then in words Shs 15 million and the name of the

school was changed from Aroma secondly school to Aroma vocation secondly school. I am wondering why you carry a luggage which you have not checked the contents of, or it was by law that they were not supposed to read it but to go and present this cheque because since then nothing has been done to put it right.
I was in Lira on Friday, Madam Speaker, the headmasters of two schools are now facing court cases because they were instructed to get some credit facilities in respect of food and they did, but now they are unable to pay. Even the last payment which has been made some schools which have their accounts in Rural Centenary Bank Lira have not yet been cleared. Yesterday I was in the bank with some of them trying to find out what has gone wrong. So may be the Minister knows why some of these cheques have not been cleared.
Another clarification I am requesting from the honourable Minister, Madam Speaker, is, I wonder whether the Ministry is aware about a secondly school which has been created by the IDP parents in Mbala Stock Farm which is called Bara stock farm IDP secondly school. This school has about 400 students with 12 qualified teachers but they are just there under the care of the district and some of us go there regularly to contribute some money. I remember I contributed some money to buy beans and it was really a problem because they were sitting. So may be through you we request that the Minister tries to go and see this schools and if possible license it and grant aid it to have this IDP pupils.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have failed to understand why a serious concern has not been given to these IDP schools because even these two students per sub county in Aroma secondly school up to now they cheque was also carried by the same Minister and the Commissioner, the cheque was correct in amount but the name of the school, the same school Aroma, was changed to Oromo secondly school.
Now, why are they punishing this school in this manner because down there they are taking it for a punishment and I do not understand because I have visited the offices of the commissioner, the accounts sections and the Clerk concerned only to be told that they are preparing the cheques; and at one moment they said there was no money. So, may I get clarification as to when this cheque will be put right and the school will get the money to pay? Thank you.
12.35
MR OMARA ATUBO (Otuke County, Lira): Madam Speaker, in view of the very serious concerns regarding the situation of education in IDP camps in the war revenged areas of Teso,
Lango and Acholi, could the Minister assure this House that the substantive Minister for
Education, hon. Dr. Khiddu Makubuya, will personally lead a powerful delegation of Ministry officials to check on the situations in these schools in the IDP camps, verify the issues raised in this question and come up with immediate solutions to the problem. Thank you.
12.41
MRS BIIRA BWAMBALE (Woman Representative, Kasese): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for this comprehensive statement. My area of concern is about children who may be complete orphans because many members who have sought clarification have been stating that parents may not be able to raise even Shs 200 for a plastic plate. May I know from the Minister whether he takes particular administrative consideration for the children who are orphans? Those who have lost both parents are definitely more constrained than those who have parents and those who are born in the war situation and cannot identify any of their parents. Is there any special measure?

Secondly, is the Minister prepared to be more sympathetic together with the whole House and make education of the children in the internally displaced camps a priority so that next financial year we do not engage the House in debating supplementary funds to be allocated. But to be automatic upon the sympathy of the Ministry officials who draw the budget and the rest so that we know that his is a national social problem and it weighs very heavily on our shoulders all of us
Ugandans. I am saying this because I am not in position of a comprehensive policy on education of the children who are currently in internally displaced camps or who have been previously in internally displaced camps.
I come from the Rwenzori region, I do not know whether the Minister intends using this experience to look into the situation of the children of Uganda who have previously been in internally displaced camps and continue to be constrained.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has deployed any administrative measures to ensure that the girl child who is even more marginalized than any other children in the camps are being encouraged and administratively catered to go to school in such areas.
MS BINTU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, please just ask many members are giving us lectures.
MS BINTU: Madam Speaker, the Minister’s statement talks about those children or students who are in IDPs. I want to find out from him because there are some of those children and students who were displaced from northern region because of the war and they are living in the neighbouring districts in Masindi, Bweyale, Katurukhire and Mutunda. I want to know why are they not included among these people who are supposed to benefit from the school fees, and how do you expect them to go to school without paying there school fees, because they are being hosted by their relatives and some of them are just staying in the neighbouring villages.
12.40
MR NORBERT MAO (Gulu Municipality, Gulu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that the aguish of these people in camps has mainly been aggravated by the lack of a Government policy, I have recently heard that Cabinet finally approved a policy on internally displaced persons; will the Minister confirm this whether it is indeed true that there is now a policy which has been missing since 1996?
Secondly, the Ministry of Education has got to coordinate with the Ministry of Disaster
Preparedness to respond to these problems. On its own I do not believe that the Ministry of
Education is equipped or even technically versatile in that field. So, will the Minister assure this
House that there is a coordinated plan flowing from that policy which I have referred to, and will the Minister come back later and share this policy with us so that we can know to what extent we can utilize it in our own work? I thank you, Madam Speaker.
12.41
MRS BABA DIRI (Representative of Persons with Disability, Northern): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of Education for the statement, and I would also like to thank the Ministry in general for thinking about the education of the children who are displaced in the camps because truly their parents cannot afford to pay their school fees.
The Minister is already disbursing money; I would like to know the total number of the children for whom we are sending this money. How many girls are there, how many children with

disability are there, how many orphans are there so that when we are taking this money we take into account the problem of these peculiar children.
I would like to ask in particular what arrangement have they got for the children with special needs, the blind, the deaf and the physically handicapped who are already in secondary schools and whether they are catered for. I have met several in Kampala here whose parents are in the camps and they have not been considered. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
12.43
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS (Dr Khiddu Makubuya): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to repeat my thanks to Dr Alex Okot for raising this question and I would like to thank the honourable Colleagues who have made contributions by asking supplementary questions. Government recognizes its duty to protect the children whose parents are in the IDP camps.
I also agree that how we proceed is a major test of Government commitment to the welfare of not only the children but the very parents who are in these camps. But, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that most of what has been said here is really advice on how the ministry should proceed and how Government generally should proceed.
Therefore, I will disappoint colleague who may have wanted combative rebuttal and things like this. They are not available; what is available is to accept that this programme started; it has not worked as well as we expected and we will do better in the future – (Applause) I cannot contest the advice that since it is possible for you to pay one cheque for two children per sub-county, find someway of paying one cheque to these children. This is a matter that I will take up with other authorities and we see how far we can take it.
It is a good thing that this matter has come up because we go through the process of budgeting in the Budget Committee and on the Floor of this Parliament. By our calculation we needed Shs six billion to cover this item in this financial year. Well, the six billion was not available on this account and I started with what was available and we have struggled with what was available.
Fortunately, the October budget circular has come out, we will go through this same exercise and say- and by the way I appreciate the contributions which emphasize the empirical basis ascertained as much as possible, the magnitude and so forth.
I would like to assure hon. Omara Atubo- unfortunately he has stepped out- I would like to assure hon. Omara Atubo that as soon as logistics permit, I will do exactly what he has recommended and lead a delegation because we have had administrative delegations before which I have been there. One honourable member as you remember has reported that the Minister of State and the
Commissioners took the cheques. So, we have actually been on the ground.
What hon. Omara Atubo was insisting is that I need to personally check. I will do it. (Laughter)
We started with children in Government schools and the proposal is to extend this programme even to private schools. I cannot say that this will be possible but this is a good time for making this proposal because the first budget circular has come out, between now and April, it may be possible to consider extending the programme.
Yes, I agree that the name of the school may have been misspelled and the sum may have been stated differently in words and in figures. I apologise for these misprints in the cheque and we will try to be more careful with the next batch of cheques. I did not know that some cheques had not been cleared and I regret that my colleague talked to the PS and the Commissioner, but he

could not talk to me about this. You never know I could have sorted it out if I had known in good time. I am learning now, I will try to move the process. But if you had also included me among those you were consulting on this matter, I could have given results using something called political muscle - (Laughter)
Yes, I will take up the matter of balance stock farm, IDPC and exactly examine the possibility of licensing and grant aiding it. Because this is a very welcome initiative as far as I am concerned, although we were saying that they have lost confidence, at least they still have the sense of initiative to start a project like this, and I think it is the duty of Government to support this initiative.
There is this concern about the children who have actually left the area. Parents may be in the
IDP camps, but the children are not there, they have left the area and they have gone elsewhere.
We need to ascertain the numbers and see whether they can be incorporated in the budget we are writing now. You know many of the things that have been raised really relate to education, but some of them fall outside the scope of the particular question I was asked. But it is my duty to take them up and incorporate them in my planning.
Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat that this is a major Government programme. We are committed to it, we have started on it; it has not run as smoothly as we would have wanted but we have a commitment to do better in the future.
Hon. Norbert Mao, I wish you could pardon me from responding to this, because frankly it goes beyond my pay cheque. My pay cheque is limited to the education sector. The entire broad policy, I think that one, I really have to pass on to my bosses. But I agree with hon. Baba Diri, it is very important that I do not give a block figure, I should disaggregate and go into details, and I am committed to do this. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Minister.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
12.54
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Dr Crispus Kiyonga): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I did avail the statement to the Clerk and I just wanted to know whether it has reached honourable colleagues.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have members received the statement? Not yet? I can see it is being distributed.
DR KIYONGA: I thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. Members of this House. On a number of occasions in this House, doubt has been expressed as to the effectiveness of the implementation of the policy of affirmative action in regard to gender balance. I undertook to make a comprehensive review of this matter and report back to the House; and I am glad, Madam
Speaker, that I have the opportunity to do so.
In doing so, I would like to underscore the ideological and Constitutional base of the policy on gender equity. The Movement ideology is based on deliberation of the human spirit and to give dignity to the African person. We believe that a nation that taps the totality of its people is a stronger nation. Democracy can exist if the capacity to contribute is constrained by gender or

other structural marginalizing factors. The empowerment of women lifts others and Uganda stands to benefit from the added energy, talent and creativity that women bring to society.
The empowerment of women is, therefore, not just a matter of self-interest for the female; it is a matter of national interest. The debate, therefore, should focus on the benefit to society in having access to all talents and possibilities available to it. The empowerment of the marginalized groups in the country is a common good that should be protected by all. I will demonstrate soon, the Movement has led the way in this respect in Uganda and if we should move to multiparty or organizational political system, it is mandatory that all political players should emulate this leadership.
Since 1986, Madam Speaker, there has been demonstrable and significant progress in the empowerment of women as well as other hitherto marginalized sections of our community.
Despite the significant progress made in this area, it is critical that efforts be sustained to the point that parity and equity of all sections of our citizens is achieved.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda has provided the bedrock on which gender balance is being built. Article 32 in part states, “ Women shall have the right to affirmative action for the purpose of redressing the imbalances created by history, tradition or customs. It further states, “laws, cultures, customs or traditions which are against the dignity, welfare or interest of women or which undermine their status are prohibited by this Constitution.”
Furthermore, the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda in Article 180 dealing with the Local
Government Councils mandates women to occupy at least one third of the membership of each
Local Government Council. What has been the progress in this country? If we tress the history of Parliament, after we got independence and we matched through to 1986, we find the following picture:
Between the time of independence in 1962 and 1985, the representation of women in Parliament ranged from a mere 0.66 percent to 2.4 percent. In the NRC, which was formed as soon as the
Movement took power, women constituted nearly 19 percent, a jump of 1,126 percent reflecting the revolutionary commitment of the Movement to the women cause, social progress and transformation of our society. This however fell temporarily to 17 percent in the Sixth
Parliament, but recovered to the present 24.7 percent in the current Parliament where we have 75 women out of a total of 403.
What is more significant, Madam Speaker, about the Seventh Parliament and the gender balance is that, out of the 75 women Members of Parliament, 13 of them have come through direct
Universal Suffrage, in direct competition with men. This reflects the growing confidence our women have developed and points to the success of the policy of liberating our women.
For avoidance of doubt, let me state the 13 honourable Women Members of Parliament that have come through the direct Adult suffrage:
1.Hon. Zoë Bakoko Bakoru, from Ayivu.
2.Hon. Proscovia Musumba Salaamu, from Kamuli Bugabula South.
3.Hon. Jane Nantume, Buikwe West in Mukono.
4.Hon. Matsiko Labwoni Kabakumba, from Bujenje, Masindi.

5.Hon. Cecilia Ogwal, from Lira Municipality.
6.Hon. Juliet Kafire Rainer, Kibuku in Pallisa District.
7.Hon. Dr Speciosa Wandera Kazibwe, from Kigulu South.
8.Hon. Winnie Byanyima, from Mbarara Municipality.
9.Hon. Janat Mukwaya, from Mukono South.
10.Hon. Dora Byamukama from Mwenge South, Kyenjonjo District.
11.Hon. Syda Bumba, from Nakaseke in Luwero.
12.Hon. Sarah Nyombi from Ntenjeru North, Kayunga.
13.Hon. Mary Mugyenyi from Nyabushozi.
As we all know, we also have five Women Members of Parliament who have come through the special interest group and these include:
1.Hon. Margret Baba Diri
2.Hon. Florence Sekabira Nayiga
3.Hon. Rose Namayanja
4.Hon. Juliet Kabonesa Sekitoleko
5.Hon. Teopista Sentongo.
We also have one nominated Member of Parliament in the name of hon. Mary Mutagamba.
In the table on page 4, honourable Members, I do display sequentially the different Parliaments and the compositions that are reflected there under. I think it would be more complete for me also to inform hon. Members of Parliament that we fair very well in comparison to our sister
States in Africa.
I traced information for about 43 countries and I found that among these, Uganda ranked fifth after Rwanda, Mozambique, South Africa and Namibia, and the scores ranged from 48 per cent to
1.2 per cent; and as I have already stated Uganda scores 24.7. Again in table 4, I have displayed these statistics for our colleagues to see. So, we can say conclusively that the policy of the
Movement Government in regard to gender balance is making excellent progress at the national legislating level.
Lastly, honourable Members of Parliament, we examined the situation at the lower levels of decision-making. At the district councils level, 38.9 per cent is made by women and the subcounty level, this fraction increases to 44.6 (Applause)- From the legislative decision making, it is clear that a huge momentum is building up from the grassroots to the national assembly. The fundamental change, therefore, in this respect has taken root.
This trend is to ensure that this fundamental changes taking place in the Education Sector. Since the introduction of UPE in 1997, primary school enrolment, as you all know, has jumped from 2.5 million children to 7.5 by the year 2003, and out of these children, 49 per cent are girls; and at the

primary school level, the teachers now constitute approximately 33 per cent of the staff there.
Government is taking every effort to ensure that girl’s enrolment and retention in school to correct imbalances created by cultural and historical factors is sustained.
Furthermore, in order to ensure good quality education for girls, Government has taken steps to remove gender imbalance from all aspects of the education Curriculum. Honourable members, you will be pleased to learn that the proportion of women/girls has increased to over 35 per cent in the last five years at the public universities. I have no doubt that the 1.5 bonus points for girls have also made a contribution to this success.
To accelerate the reduction of the gender gap in literacy Government revamped functional adult literacy in 1992. Many more women constituting over 80 per cent are enrolled for these classes in all districts where the programme has been operating. I have no doubt that members, while appreciating this remarkable progress, would like to know the situation in regard to other public decision making centres like the Cabinet and constitutional bodies.
I was also asked by hon. James Mwandha to relate the situation in respect of people with disabilities. The information we have, honourable Members, shows the same general trend of improvement. I will point out some examples to illustrate this point.
As the level of the court of appeal from the information I have, we have three women who constitute nearly 45 per cent out of the seven Court of Appeal Judges. At the level of under secretaries in the Government system, women now constitute approximately 37 per cent. This corresponds to 11 women in a group of a total of 30.
At the ministerial level, women account for 23.4 per cent; if this is aggregated into senior ministers and ministers of state, the proportion respectively becomes 15 and 26.7 per cent. Again
I have given a table to illustrate this point.
The situation in the Constitutional Commissions, it is also quite favourable in terms of gender balance. The membership ranges from 43 per cent in the Education Service Commission to a row of 16.7 in the Judicial Service Commission. Again I have provided a table to illustrate this point and when we come to Education Service Commission, we should make corrections. The total is
7, men are four and the women are three, giving the 43 per cent that I have just read out. I also show the other Commissions like the Human Rights Commission where we have 43 per cent,
Public Service 33 per cent, Electoral Commission and so forth.
Let me also give other illustrations just to show the progress that is being made. I have already stated the issue of the under secretaries. You may take interest at the level of Chief Magistrates, we have 25 per cent; at the level U1 teachers, we have 23 per cent; at the Permanent Secretary level, we have 22 per cent; at the level of head teachers, we have 20 per cent; and really the rest of the table, colleagues can go through it.
It is also a known fact that traditionally women and girls children have executed the responsibility of collecting water for the family, while we must struggle to ensure gender balance in these area as well, actions are being taken to ensure that this heavy load is being lightened. Government has extended safe water closer to homes and as of last year, safe water coverage was over 50 in rural areas from a row of 10 per cent in 1986; and of course in the towns, it is much better.

When we come to financial services, particularly when we look at micro-finance, the finding there too is that more women are borrowing, more women are retained and it is hoped that this will be strengthened by trusting these fellow citizens with large amounts of money to trade with.
In the legal area, there is a lot of education going on so women can seek their rights. By coincidence the finding is that in the district of Kamuli, where Madam Speaker comes from, we have the highest rate of women consciousness to their rights and going to report cases of their violation. So to cut a long story short, Madam Speaker, and hon. Members, I want to state the following five points:
That in assessing gender balance, we should be comprehensive as progress in this requires complementary action in many areas. It is misleading someone to come here and say, in the
Ministry of Education there are few people; at this level there are few people. You should look at the totality. For example, when you see the picture in the Ministry of Education at the Primary
School level and to university, you really see a huge movement forward and if that is sustained, it is a matter of time when we come to appointments even at higher level and the gender balance will be automatic. So we should not just look at the cross section, we should be more comprehensive.
The second point is that the revolutionary commitment of the Movement in respect to gender balance has resulted into significant progress in this area. It is no wonder, therefore, that the largest support for the Movement comes from the women and girls of this country.
My fourth point is that the gender balance is a common good issue and all Ugandan patriots and political formations should support this trend, and let me here pay tribute to hon. Cecilia Ogwal.
We were having a debate in Entebbe. The women were telling us that they are now going to shop, to see which political formation they will go to. So in trying to attract them, I told them that a bird in hand is better than the bird in the wild; the Movement has shown and they should remain there, and hon. Cecilia Ogwal stood up and said, “I want to commit to you all in this committee that the days I will still have to leave on earth I will ensure that even within UPC gender balance is attained,” I thought this was excellent admission of progress.
My fourth and final point is really in respect to the request that my good Friend James Mwanda made in regard to the people with disabilities. I want to come here when the facts are clearer and we want to fine tune our research, but what cannot be denied is that really Uganda stands tall in the whole world in respect of ensuring that we have brought forward our brothers and sisters who leave with disabilities and right from the village to Parliament they are participating in decision making. I thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. Members of Parliament.
1.13
MR AWORI AGGREY (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the National Political Commissar, Minister without Portfolio, hon. Kiyonga, for his elaborate statement on the achievements of various Governments particularly this one on the gender parity. I do acknowledge success where it is, I do acknowledge attempts, I do acknowledge performance, but at the same time I condemn any failure.
Madam Speaker, I have been raising this matter of gender parity although my honourable colleague decided to call it gender balancing. Indeed it is true internationally, since 1985, every country has been trying their level best to achieve gender parity. In the past 20 years, the focus has been on affirmative action but time has come now for us to move beyond Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is a matter of helping a disadvantaged person to a particular position. Now, we are talking about equality, parity if not better.
As much as I acknowledge what this government has achieved and the general public, is not an achievement by Government per se on its own but also the people of Uganda and particularly women who have responded to the challenge, the positiveness of Government and also the challenges facing them and pull themselves up accordingly. I give credit to the women of
Uganda, you have done well, you have responded well to the challenges. For the Government I can only encourage for the next few months you still have in power that – I know you are still here up to 2006, I have no intention of pushing you out of the Government before the time you are allowed to stay there. You may make other attempts but we know- (Interruption)
MR LUKYAMUZI: Thank you, hon. Aggrey Awori. Madam Speaker, hon. Aggrey Awori has made a very important statement because after such a big struggle related to the protracted war of the Movement many of us think that the Movement is still in power, are they about to leave power?
MR AWORI: Yes, I would like to assure you that they are on the way out. Although we do accept what you have done, what you have tried- (Interruption)
MR ERESU: I would like to inform hon. Awori in respect with the question raised by hon. Ken
Lukyamuzi, the man, that power is not left but power is captured. It is up to those who want to capture power to come and capture power from the Movement otherwise the Movement is still in power, power will not be given.
MR AWORI: Thank you my honourable colleague. I do not want to spend too much time on power thing. I know how you got into power, it was through gunpowder and some of us are averse to gunpowder. We have lost lives, we are still loosing people and we have no intention of following your method of getting into power. So, please, take it from us that the only way we want to get into power is through constitutional means, which means using the ballot paper not the bullet. The bullet is gone and gone forever, you can use it to stay in power but we are not going to use it in order to replace you, power cannot be seized using the ballot power, it can only be seized using gunpowder. For us we want to ascend to power through constitutional means.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, as I said, I do acknowledge the achievements of the
Government although I give credit to the women who have responded to the occasion to go above the challenges. However, I note with great concern that Uganda being a signatory to various international treaties especially those pertaining to gender parity, we are still below the required
30 per cent. Next year before we go to this International seminars and organizations and conferences, we shall be called upon to account for what we have done for the women of Uganda and I do not know given the few months left, whether you can pull up your socks up to the level of 30 per cent.
I do acknowledge the fact that the Judiciary has done exceedingly well at least in the Court of
Appeal you have reached a mark of 47 per cent, the Magistrate you have reached about 30 per cent and forth. Politically you are below, in other areas you are below.
I note with great concern that the area, which matters in this country, which is very important and crucial is security. In this paper, my hon. Colleague, the NPC, notwithstanding the destruction by honourable neighbour, I note with great concern that you left out security in your answer to my concerns. When I talk about security I am referring to the police, the prisons and UPDF. UPDF is

a key factor in the NRM Government, so to leave it out; you are actually living people out of the management of power in this country.
If I were to put it to you, hon. National Political Commissar, how many women are above the rank of Captain in Uganda People’s Defence Forces? I do not think they are more than what I have on my two hands in terms of figures. How many women in UPDF are above the rank of
Colonel, I do not think there is any? How many women are above the rank of Brigadier, I do not think there are any and yet when you look at the history of NRA, eventually UPDF, women were there right from day one when you fired the first bullet against the constitutional Government at the material time and up to now you have sort of – let me use a comfortable word, you have used them sparingly for some reason you do not want to expose them to serious areas of policy making decision, no, areas of confrontation firing live.
MR MUTEBI KITYO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon. Aggrey Awori holding the Floor was a Member of the Uganda Peoples Congress Government. I would like to know how many women were captains, above the rank of Colonels and how many women were at the rank of
Brigadiers during their Government.
MR AWORI: Thank you very much my hon. Colleague for expressing concern about a past
Government, we are talking about today not yesterday. So really my hon. Colleague I do not know how to answer you but I can only sparely say please do not compare the past and present we are moving forward not backwards – ( Interruption )
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please try to wind up.
MR AWORI: Having said that, Madam Speaker, I am expressing concern seriously again in the areas of security. I have put challenge to the hon. Minister without portfolio that next time you come to address this august House include also security. One, UPDF I have mentioned; two, I have mentioned the police. How many are in Police? The only person we have high ranking is the Director of CID, fortunately for her she is there in merit. She is suitably and highly qualified for the position with a Masters degree, which most men in the police force do not have. So she is there suitably and properly qualified for the position. At the lower ranks again it is sporadic here and there.
Now, Madam Speaker, again the other day we were here debating the UPDF Bill and you saw the prejudice and the bias against women in that bill. We brought in even extraneous matters for the purpose of covering up our shortcomings in up lifting the role of women in UPDF.
Talk about high command, the high command never had women or NRA and up to now they want to insert them in the bill governing the management of UPDF. That shows that, notwithstanding the recent achievements, in giving women a role to play in our society there are certain reserve areas where women maybe can only come in at certain level, but critical areas were not there.
I am proud to say one of the most powerful Organs of the state, actually the most powerful is
Parliament and we have a person who happens to be a lady and she has performed admiringly. I wish there was a way of looking at things regularly whereby we could say every year we shall change Speakers but we cannot do it because of other reasons.
So, I am just saying that really given opportunity women can perform. Why are we hesitant in certain areas to bring in women in sufficient numbers? Members of Parliament, you have said,

well we have now 13 directly elected MPs, fine. Why don’t we also have an affirmative action in a way of direct election?
Why is it that when we come to district Members of Parliament we again qualify as if women do not have the capacity to elect their own representatives? We go for Electoral College, why don’t we go Electoral College? Why don’t we allow one woman, one vote? Why only nine women electing a Member of Parliament at various stages of selection? This in itself implies that women may not have the capacity to elect their own representatives given the opportunity to have one person, one vote.
Even the electoral area we have major electoral areas so gigantic, so big. How do you manage a district one person in terms of campaigning? This again shows some reservations in discriminations against women. The other day you were giving out money for influencing some political activity. Call it “ ekisanja”, some people call it “yellow money”, some people call it different types, why didn’t we give women a lot more because they have got a larger area of coverage? Instead others like my hon. Colleague here Cecelia Ogwal was left out deliberately because she is a woman– ( Interruption )
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Awori try to wind up.
MR AWORI: I am not so sure whether my hon. Colleague got any money at all – ( Interjection ) -
Madam Speaker, I have been challenged by hon. Colleague here, permit me to receive information from hon. Cecelia Ogwal –( Interjection )–I requested for your permission I do not see why there should be an intervention?
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, I am being asked to clarify whether I participated in the ekisanja funding and I think by record it is very clear that where things are dirty I do not mess up with it. So, I do not think my name would be associated with anything, which is kisanja or which is not endorsed by the people of Uganda and which I know was intended to bias the opinion of those that benefited from it. Therefore, I am clarifying to hon. Awori that I never, never ever got yellow money from the Movement. Thank you very much.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Awori, let us go back to the topic and please wind up, other Members want to contribute.
MR AWORI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker going back to the topic again, generalities are a good way of covering up deficiencies. When we talk about women
Permanent Secretaries take for instance - I hope this was a typographical error on page 9, the table. The table Permanent Secretaries a total number of 32, we have 25 men and then again 32 women! Is there something with my reading capacity, my comprehension or the compilation of the table? Because there is no way you can have a total of 32 Permanent Secretaries and then you have 25 men and then you have 32 women. The percentage of women among the Permanent
Secretaries boils down to 21.9, something is wrong with me or the NPC or whoever compiled the table.
Now, that being the case, I assume it was a typographical error but – ( Interruption )
DR KIYONGA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, hon. Awori is right, under the quorum of women, it should read 7. It should read 7 so that 25 plus 7 is 32 but the percentage stands.

MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Permit me to say one thing. I like a person who admits a mistake, I wish you were a little bit higher in the hierarchy of the system, we would get somewhere. However, having said that, again on this particular question of Permanent
Secretaries being seven, you have helped us to give the names of the politicians who are directly elected and can fight with men and acquire positions. Now, what about women? Because it is one thing to tell me you have got seven women but in which ministries are they? Key ministries, minor ministries or what? And who are they by the way?
Madam Speaker, with our permission can I yield the Floor to the NPC to tell us who are the seven women that you are referring to in this column? You gave us the names of the women Members of Parliament who contested with men and won. Now, what about these seven women, you cannot even remember the seven women, how many Commissioners, where are those commissioners, which ministries. I would like to know. Madam speaker, with these rhetorical comments please allow my honourable colleague to answer me so that I can rest in peace.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think he will respond when he is winding up.
1.31
MS BETTY AMONGI (Woman Representative, Apac): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me thank hon Aggrey Awori for bringing the issue to the attention of the NPC and let me thank the national Political Commissar for the response. But I want to start with correcting your data, I think the person who helped you with your data is not very much a researcher. One, it does not tell us the source because as of this year according to the Common Wealth women Parliamentary
Association Uganda is No.7. It used to be no.7, Rwanda elected and the number went to 48, we were pushed to No. 8. I see Seychelles is missing; it is one of the countries above Uganda. So, I think you should ask this person who did your research to consult a little bit widely.
Secondly, most of these issues really do not have source, it is very unfortunate because if you even talk about micro finance the person should have gone a little bit more to tell us what percentage are these women paying. Most of these micro finance are giving 17 per cent per month to women in the villages. If Members of Parliament cannot even access loans at 12 or 15 per cent per month and these micro finances are giving these loans to women at that rate. I think
National Political Commissar, fundamentally we need to look at what structure, what institutions, what legislative and administrative frameworks are in place at the moment to implement the constitutional Articles 32, 33 and all those other articles in the Constitution.
The Constitution envisaged that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Equal
Opportunities Commission was meant to do research, identify gaps, look at legal protocols and all the bindings that Uganda has entered into and make sure these are dealt with, the gaps identified and gender issues are brought to the fore front of the issues. At the moment as we talk the Equal
Opportunities Commission in the White Paper is meant to be merged with Human Rights
Commission. I think the women of Uganda shall reject this, not on political grounds because questions of marginalisation move beyond the issue of differences.
Hon National Political Commissar, the only structure that the women of Uganda know of is the
Ministry of Gender. Now, the Ministry of Gender if I am to make the assessment is another debate. If you go to all these ministries you only find a desk on women issues, which are not dealing with the fundamental issues of gender parity in those ministries, in the economic sector, social, health, all those you are talking about. If you bring a gender expert to make an analysis, it will be a big, big problem.

I want the National Political Commissar to recommit yourself to this cause. Recommit yourself on establishing structures, institutional framework legal, legislative and administrative framework to deal with the question of research to propose how gaps should be addressed. I think before you bring this White Paper, the Equal opportunity commission should be readdressed and we do not want to miss that Equal Opportunity Commission because it is the only structure that would actually deal with this issue of identifying the gap.
The other issue is on protocols, hon Awori tried to hint on that. Uganda is a signatory to the UN
Convention, which dictates 30 per cent representation of women. Recently African Union passed a protocol called Protocol on Gender Equality, which now actually says in Africa there is 50 per cent representation of women.
The women’s minimum agenda, which the civil society and women of this country and the women of Parliament anticipated through UWOPA, has come with a minimum women’s demand of 40 per cent representation. I think the 40 per cent minimum gender of women is in the middle of 30 per cent of the UN and 50 per cent of the African Union. So the National Political
Commissar should first tell us why we have not put those structures and institution to make us reach the 30 per cent because the constitutional legislative framework is talking of one third affirmative action but there should have been more institution to cater for us reaching the 30 per cent which Uganda signed long ago. So what are you going to do to ensure that we reach the 30 per cent (Interruption)
MR LUKYAMUZI: Thank you very much hon Amongi for giving way. I was contemplating when hon Amongi was talking. When you speak about equal opportunities we should be very serious. I suppose President Museveni and others initiated the portfolios of women district
Members of Parliament simply because they wanted to give a beginning to women in Uganda so that they get acclimatized with power and eventually be late to go in the wild.
That being so, the clarification I am seeking is the perpetual occupation of Women Members of
Parliament at district level a violation of the global equal opportunity Crusade because we men must also be protected after you have tested that experience why don’t you also participate equally and compete? Your continued occupation of those position negates the equal opportunity zone which must be protected and time is now. I wanted your reaction.
MS AMONGI: I think hon Lukyamuzi is confusing two concepts. The first concept of equal participation or equal rights, the other concept is equal opportunities. Equal opportunities realizes or is pinned on the issue or on the realization that their impediment does not allow certain category of people to participate equally, the opportunities are not there for everybody to participate equally that is the equal opportunities to analyse what are those circumstances that make a woman not have equal opportunities to participate in politics as a man.
What prevents me from going to stand in a constituency can be the traditional perception that as a woman I cannot represent a population and a man is in better place to represent the population.
Those are circumstances that the equal opportunity commission should identify and address. But what you are misunderstanding is actually equal rights, which we have not reached. That is a very big debate that I do not want to confuse you about now, you can visit me then I will
–
(Interjection) no- what time, it should not be beyond 8.00 p.m. and where, it should be in the
Parliamentary
–(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. Amongi, he can meet you in the Apac office, which is here in Parliament.
MS AMONGI: Oh! Yes, Apac office is room 211. But, really to put that aside what I was drawing at we are now going through the Constitutional amendment and the Constitutional amendment should now recognize the 30 percent. We should move away from the 24 percent, we should now move to 30 percent and beyond. We are signatories to this international declaration and sincerely with due respect there has been institutional frameworks missing to make sure that this international commitment we signed is implemented.
So, I beg the NPC that as we move through Constitutional review we should think critically of what institutional framework should be put in place. We are even more disadvantaged with the multi-party system coming, for us we want the constitutional principle to be put in the
Constitution so that all the parties abide by the constitutional framework because as women we are going to go beyond the so called party politics- (Interruption)
MS BINTU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and hon. Betty Amongi for giving way. I would like to inform the honourable Member and the whole House that even the a third that has been talked about in this report does not apply to the Executive at the District Local Government, even at the cabinet, even in all these institution and it is a gap that has been missing.
I want to add to what hon. Betty Amongi has said that the 30 percent during the Constitutional amendment should include the Executive on the District Local Government because there are some Local Executives which do not have even a woman on its Executive, like Masindi has got only one woman among so many. So, this should be included in all the structures according to the Constitution. Thank you.
MR OTTO: I would implore this Parliament through, Madam Speaker, by informing hon. Betty
Amongi that we should go along to demand and put quotas for all political parties, quotas which should be filled by women seats because we might have the main stream Government where we have only male people. So, we can put by law that any political party shall not be fully registered until 30 percent of its elective positions are filled by women so that we do not lose the gains the
NPC has been telling us about. Thank you so much.
MS AMONGI: Thank you for the information, you can see actually that the research you presented did not include Executives in the LC system. It does not include the employment in all this other Government parastatals, although you talked about Under Secretaries and Permanent
Secretaries. So, there are still so many gaps which research in Uganda has shown and we need to do something about it. We need the principle of 40 percent, you have signed the 50 percent of the
African Union but to be on a compromised basis we would demand the 40 percent to be put in the
Constitution and that any party that will operate in Uganda must abide by the 40 percent representation.
An equal opportunity should be reinstated to do those research finding so that we can really know where we are moving substantially in structural institutional framework. Hon. Aggrey
Awori, has talked about security, I do not want to go into it because my thesis for my masters is on national security and there are so many gaps globally on the security sector which must be addressed.
But largely I want to thank you and I want to thank the people of Uganda for the 1995
Constitution that actually has made most of us come here and articulate the women’s issue. I

implore Ugandans that we should carry forward the spirit of the 1995 Constitution so that we should move beyond this affirmative action in 20 also years to come. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members
–(An. hon member rose_)-
the new gender activist, yes, I will give you an opportunity. I want to thank the younger Member of Parliament for speaking out for his mothers
–(Laughter)
1.47
MR JAMES MWANDHA (Representative of Persons with Disability, Eastern): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I also want to thank the Political Commissar for his statement.
When he committed himself to bring the statement I was not sure whether he was not going to dodge and eventually we go for recess without getting the statement. But I am happy that he was able to bring it and this statement has given this Parliament an opportunity to discuss this subject.
I do not recall when this Parliament concretely discussed this subject since the 1995 Constitution and yet somewhere in this Constitution the President is supposed to report once a year on the status of the people who are marginalized. This report has never been presented but I am happy that we have a statement from the Political Commissar. We as disabled people have a major interest in gender parity, because in a family where there is a disabled person it is generally the women who face the responsibility to care after disabled people. Therefore, we have interest in ensuring that women should not be marginalized.
I am happy that we are making progress in the area of gender parity, gender equity according to this statement though not researched but I think it shows a reasonable improvement from the past.
I would like to encourage Government to continue improving on the situation. Let us move from the 24 percent quickly and get to 30 percent and then go beyond. But of course, this statement does not cover many, many, areas, you know in the field of employment as my colleagues have said and other fields.
I hope that as time goes on, we should be able to get regular statements on the status of people who are marginalized. I think it is good for everybody if we create a society for all where everybody has a role, where everybody is visible. We disabled people are not visible. That is why
I mentioned to the Political Commissar that he should include disabled people in his report and it is evident from this report that the research he undertook gave him new returns. Because when you look at page 7, after mentioning that I did raise the issue on that day, he does not mention how many disabled people are in these various fields. But of course we know we are represented in Parliament, and we are very happy.
I also would like to add to the comments made by my colleague hon. Amongin that we also thank the people of Uganda for including disabled people in the Constitution of Uganda, and this is applauded by very many countries. In fact, other countries are copying what Uganda is doing in the area of recognizing the role of disabled people in society, and I think we need to do more and more of this.
From the comments the hon. Minister has made, it seems to me that he is promising this House that he will come with a more comprehensive statement about people with disabilities with regard to the provisions of the Constitution and their representations in various fields. If you look at the commissions, say, the Education Service Commission, I am not sure we are represented. We saw them here the other day when they came to present their report, the Human Rights Commission is so important to us because the rights of disabled people are being violated all the time. We have a great interest in this Commission, but we are not there. The Health Service Commission is a

very important Commission to us, because again we tend to be left out on issues of medical care and so on. The Public Service Commission is very important, even the Electoral Commission and other Commissions. So, really – (Interruption)
MR LUKYAMUZI: Thank you very much for giving way. I have a record of commitment to marginalized people and I feel committed about their fate. I would like some clarification.
Marginalised people may not necessarily be only the disadvantaged. For example you have the category of people who are marginalized economically. How do you bring the plight of such people on board, the struggle for freedom and equality?
MR MWANDHA: I believe that is a question hon. Lukyamuzi would like the Minister to answer; it is not for me. But I just wanted to make the point that even between now and the time the minister reports to this House on the status of representation of disabled people in all these various bodies, I think this should be a message; this should be an eye opener that not much has been done to-date and they should begin doing something about it.
So, Madam Speaker, I do appreciate this statement. I think that there is need to improve on representation of gender for the reasons I have said, but I think it is important that we should continue to protect the rights of disabled people and give them an opportunity to speak for themselves. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: In addition, just to assist hon. Mwandha. Hon. Lukyamuzi, you like quoting the Constitution but I think you should look at Article 35(1). The state and society are enjoined to respect and give human dignity to people with disabilities. So, it is a constitutional obligation, and Article 40 deals with the economic rights. I hope you will move a motion on that for economic rights.
1.56
MR FRED RUHINDI (Nakawa Division, Kampala): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I also enjoin those who have thanked the National Political Commissar for a very informative statement subject to the amendments that were made. Madam Speaker, I would like us to look at
Article 78(2). It says, “Upon the expiration of a period of ten years after the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter, every five years, Parliament shall review the representation” –
(Interjection) Madam Speaker, can I be protected from hon. Mao. He is contributing without seeking your permission.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. Member, you should permit hon. Ruhindi of Nakawa to make his presentation.
MR RUHINDI: Madam Speaker, Article 78(2) if I may repeat because it is very important, says
“Upon the expiration of a period of ten years after the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter, every five years, Parliament shall review the representation under paragraphs (b) and
(c) of clause (1) of this Article for the purposes of retaining, increasing or abolishing any such representation and any other matter incidental to it”.
Madam Speaker, this clause presupposes a constant impact assessment in the implementation of those two provisions. I am wondering whether your statement emanates from an overall research impact assessment on the implementation of those two provisions in the Constitution.

I know there is the Constitutional Review report which gives rise to the White Paper, giving rise to the committee’s report (Legal and Parliamentary Affairs), which we are about to debate. Could it be that impact assessment is enshrined therein?
I agree with the National Political Commissar that the theme and focus of what we are looking at, whether we call it gender parity, gender balance, human rights, equal opportunities, are all really to tap effective capacity from our citizens. That being the position, the question of the Equal
Opportunities Commission has been raised. I attended one of the meetings of the Equal
Opportunities Committee in Parliament, and I was surprised because officials from the relevant ministry said that they lacked Shs 300 million to jump start and operationalise the Equal
Opportunities Commission.
Really, if you are talking, hon. National Political Commissar - I agree with you - you are looking at capacity; what do we lose in not creating such institutions? - A lot, when you compare it with the needed Shs 300 million.
Back to the point on impact assessment, if really there is thorough and well-researched impact assessment, I do not think we would even have had a recommendation, with all due respect, in the
White Paper, for instance, on universal adult suffrage, during the election for District Women
Representatives. I really do not think so, because as much as we are moving from Movement to multiparty, there is the presupposition that once you are a party, you campaign for your leaders.
But I can tell you, the Movement spirit will still live in us for quite sometime, and women leaders at district level to canvas a whole district looking for votes can easily be a nightmare. I do not know, I have not looked at the recommendation of the appropriate committee, but I believe that for instance, if there is thorough impact assessment, maybe such recommendations could not have come up.
I also saw another recommendation that Equal Opportunities Commission should be merged with
Human Rights. I thought you merge things, which exist? Human Rights Commission has never existed; I do not know what we are to merge. But hon. National Political Commissar, tell us more why really this Commission has never been established? Thank you very much Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, you know this is a very important topic, but I was thinking you should contribute on a full stomach. So, can we adjourn for an hour so that we start with hon. Latif at 3.00 O’clock? Yes, Members are sending me notes that they are very hungry. So please, the house is suspended until 3.00 O’clock. Please go and fill your stomachs and then come back. Thank you.
(The House was suspended at 2.02 p.m.)
(On resumption at 3.12 p.m._)
3.12
MR LATIF SEBAGGALA (Kawempe Division North, Kampala): Madam Speaker, I thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. The hon. Minister is yet to come, I will proceed.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can hon. Kabwegyere take charge and keep the notes for the
Minister?
MR SEBAGGALA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I have few points to make. One, when you look at page 11, the hon. Minister has told us about the financial services and I quote

“
Available data indicated that women dominate most of the services offered by micro finance institutions.
”
Madam Speaker, whereas this is true, it goes without saying that these micro finance institutions in many areas have caused problems to the women. Indeed, their cardinal objective of empowering women has been abandoned due to the high interests these micro finance institutions are charging. We have heard about fake micro institutions like the Burials, and up to now, so many micro finance institutions instead of sticking to their cardinal objective, are now trying to benefit from the rural poor, from the rural women and even in urban areas.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the Minister, having given us this data, that almost 69 percent have borrowed from these micro finance institutions, he would have gone ahead to inform us how effective this has been, because we know so many women are now in prison as a result of their failure to pay back the loans due to high interests and other conditions which are not in harmony with what these institutions are meant for.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to Women Councils, having been a product of Youth Councils, I know how effective these Youth Councils can be if they are empowered. And when we talk about
Women Councils, today all over the country these Women Councils are not facilitated to a great extent. They are there and at times they think about them when we are nearing campaigns.
Madam Speaker, the women and youth councils are very strong institutions and if they are facilitated, they can create a very good ground for training leaders of this evening and also empowering our women.
MR AWORI: I would like to take back my hon. colleague, on a matter of financial institutions with women. One, up to now I do not know if the hon. Minister is aware that a number of financial institutions in this country do not permit women to borrow without collateral of their husbands. The husbands must be signatory over and above the collateral they are offering. Are you aware of that problem, and as a Government, what are you doing about it? This is discrimination.
MR SEBAGGALA: Thank you very much, for that information. Madam Speaker, the area that the hon. Minister did not talk about is that of sports. We are aware that there are some women who have contributed greatly to the sports industry Inzikuru and others, and I think the Minister would have got the courtesy of informing this House that even in sports the women have gone a little bit ahead and mentioning some of the sports ladies or sport women who have contributed greatly to the sports industry.
Madam Speaker, about the functional adult literacy the hon. Minister talked about in urban areas we have what we call basic education for urban poor (BEUP). If the Government gives a lot of support to BEUP programmes, because we all know that even in urban areas there are so many women who cannot read and write - Someone may think that urban women can read and write, but statistically it has been proved that even in urban areas, there are so many women who cannot read and write. So it is my humble request that even this BEUP programmes in urban areas could be facilitated so that they could go hand in hand with functional adult literacy centres.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we have had so many groups of women activists that are empowering women, workshops are being held. But to my disappointment and dismay, these workshops are most held in urban centres. A lot of money is being spent on workshops, but when you look at the participants, they are women who have already been empowered.

MRS MATEMBE: The information I want to give is that actually I want hon. Sebaggala, when he is talking here, to bring data. I am a woman activist and I became an activist before I became a
Movementist and we have been struggling to get space. Yes, the Movement gave us space, I applaud it every day, it gave us space to enable us to intensify our activism through FIDA,
ACFODE, UWONET, and NAWOU. These organisations, especially the national ones, are constituted by we, the professional and the educated women, who go down to mobilize our fellow women to take charge of their lives.
The information I want to give this House is that we are not just organizing here in Kampala. For instance, ACFODE’s headquarters are in Kampala, but it uses the policy of networking in Lira. I will go there with you and you see. If you reach these places and you say Matembe, everybody is standing up to see this good woman who has been mobilizing women to take their rightful position.
Therefore, I would not want Members here to think that NGOs – For instance FIDA runs legal aid clinics upcountry. Hon. Speaker knows this; the battles we started long ago, even hon. Hope
Mwesigye. These are our struggles; there are legal aid clinics. This Ugandan Finance Credit Trust has been something wonderful to the women. Please, do not keep talking that we are here in
Kampala. Yes, Mary over there, she is one of the founders of Women and Finance Credit Trust, this law you see here. I am telling you when you go to talk about women activists, talk with quite a bit of caution because we have important information to give you. We are doing very well, not only in Kampala.
MR SEBAGGALA: Thank you very much, hon. Matembe, for that information. It is true that women activists have done a lot. But everybody here is representing a constituency. Go down to your constituency and see the impact of all the workshops that have been carried by NGOs, by women activists and see their impact in your constituency.
PROF. MWAKA: Thank you very much, hon. Sebaggala for giving way. I just want to give this information. You are telling us to go, but I am requesting you to go down to Luweero where such seminars - we call them “training programmes” they are not seminars, but they are training programmes. We have trained down to parish level. Just visit my office, next to the RDC’s office, it is one of the biggest offices in Luweero. Perhaps I am one of the few women or MPs who were given official offices at the district building. So you should not just generalize, we are going down to the grassroots. We train trainers, then those trainers go down and train their women and all these programmes are our making.
By the way, it is those NGOs, ACFODE, Uganda Association of University Women, which initiated the gender programme in Makerere University. Everybody now is proud of it, and I was the first head of the department of that institute. So how do you see a Makerere University professor heading a women’s department and you think that we cannot take those programmes down to the grassroots where we come from! Thank you.
MRS NANKABIRWA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and I want to thank hon.
Sebaggala for giving. I am just requesting my Colleague to leave Kampala Constituency and go down to Kiboga, instead of telling Members who are already down in the constituencies to go down. We know what is happening in our rural constituencies, probably the picture you have in your own constituency might be different from what is happening in our own constituencies. We have all those organizations that my female colleagues have been talking about deep down in the sub-counties. You come to Kiboga as far as Ntwetwe, you will find ACFODE and Matembe and

every body there operating. Women have come up from the grassroots they have taken positions at different levels.
But we have a problem, which all of us have to fight: the problem of women discrimination is a global problem. Even here in Parliament, there are certain instances where you feel women are discriminated even at this level, by colleague, by whoever. This is a problem which requires everybody’s efforts, not only government because it has cultural problems embedded there, which we must break together, not only women, but men and women. Thank you very much.
MR SEBALU: The information I would like to give this House is that all that has been said is appreciated; the women have gone to the grassroots. But my understanding of what hon.
Sebaggala is saying is that we need to do more. He is encouraging those to even go further and capture a bigger constituency. So I find him as a friendly force in as far as he appreciates what has been done and wants it to spread even further. So that information should also be appreciated that there are some women who are not reached yet by these programmes who should also access these activities, and I have done it in Busiro East, but we need to do more.
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to supplement information provided by my hon. colleague in charge of Defence on the matter of discrimination especially pertaining to
Parliament. I recall more than one year ago, I put to the Parliamentary Commission through the
Speaker’s office or chair, that in this august House, in the precincts of Parliament, they should provide a room where Women Members of Parliament who are either expecting or breastfeeding to look after their babies and that room has never been provided up to now. Why is Parliament discriminating against women who are increasing our population?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, perhaps I could also just give in a little. In
October 2001, I directed the administration of Parliament to provide a sanitary shop in this building for the Women Members, up to-date it has been resisted, and this is 2004, but please conclude.
MR SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, I thank you so much. Maybe hon. colleagues, especially the women activists, never understood me. I want to make myself very, very clear. We all know that some work has been done, but a lot is still needed in that field. Definitely if you compare the level of their emancipation and empowerment of the rural women the elites definitely the difference is very big. What I am trying to put across is that we should go down to the grassroots and continue empowering the rural women, emancipate them because to me having so many seminars and workshops here in Kampala is not enough when similar seminars and workshops are not down on our grassroots LC Is and LC IIs.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But hon. Latif Sebaggala, are you really sure that these things are not really conducted in the villages at the Gombololas ?
MR SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, if you compare the seminars that are conducted at the grassroots with those seminars conducted here in Kampala, the money being spent on seminars conducted here in Kampala could have done a lot of work if it was used to empower women down there in the villages. Madam Speaker, I thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.
3.27
THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Prof. Tarsis Kabwegyere): Thank you
Madam Speaker. I thank my colleague hon. Kiyonga for a well-presented paper. Taking off from where the last Speaker has ended, I think we should notice a difference. I think the hon. Member

who is representing an urban constituency is not as aware as those of us who are representing rural constituencies, the amount of women activities that go there, which apparently cannot go on to the same level in the urban areas.
I want the hon. Member to know with 500,000 LC 1s the meetings that take place with women present in the country in the course of a week throughout the country are many and women are participating. So the issue is not to focus on the formal aspects of the charges that have occurred.
We can count how many Members are Members of Parliament or how many women are permanent secretaries. These are physical, numerical indicators but what is actually happening in society is a huge change in power relations. The women never used to talk in meetings; they now talk officially, institutionally. They are talking about all subjects, they are no longer subjects, which are excluded from discussion in village meetings, they are talking.
MS SAUDA MUGERWA: Thank you, hon. Kabwegyere for giving way. Madam Speaker, I would like to find out from the Minister of Local Government whether women can participate effectively officially, institutionally if they were not given travel and lunch allowance to empower the women councils to participate in those meetings? This is your ministry; our ladies are not facilitated. I note from page 9 of the National Political Commissar’s presentation that only one woman out of 857 chairpersons in the 56 district chairpersons. How do you expect other women to participate when they are so marginalized, when they are not empowered financially, yet the other posts are empowered? If you are participating, you are doing it at high pain, thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to introduce to you 35 women leaders from Nazigo
Sub County, Kayunga district. They are here to see Parliament at work. Their arrival here has been coordinated by hon. Kakoko Sebagareka their Member of Parliament. You are welcome to the Parliament of Uganda.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Thank you Madam Speaker. Unexpectedly we have an illustration of one of those changes that have occurred in this country. Hon. Member, if you talk of LCI s you do not need night allowance, you do not need transport allowance –( Interruption)
MS MUGERWA: Madam Speaker, I have a lady representing the Women Council at LC V at the women Council V level. She does not get any transport allowance, he does not get any meeting allowance. I have Women Council III do not get any meeting allowance and any travel allowance. Other councils get but the women councils do not get. Minister of Local Government, are you in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister was beginning to explain the levels of operations.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Actually even those councils, the women councils and so on, are not directly under the Ministry of Local Government they are actually under the Ministry of Gender and Social Services but be as it is, you have one woman chairperson in the whole country at the district level, but Rome was not made in a day. There was no time when there was no such a thing and I think the momentum we are talking about is big and do not just focus on numbers, just focus on effect.
I was just saying that power relation has changed. I was talking to hon. Loyce Bwambale during lunch in our restaurant and my colleague from Koboko was there to witness and she was saying that in her tradition a woman was not allowed to own an animal. If she owned it, it would be the

first one to be slaughtered when visitors came. But now this has changed; women now do own zero grazing cows.
In my constituency, for example, I have put a pig in every one of the 400 cells in the district. I have given goats, and sheep to women because I am sure that they will look after them and the family will benefit; and that has changed the status of the woman in a home. So society is changing at a very fast rate – ( Interruption )
DR OKOT: Thank you Madam Speaker and thank you hon. Minister for giving way. We really appreciate hon. Minister that you are empowering women and we feel that you are very knowledgeable about the resources for empowering women that they get goats, pigs, cows and can zero graze. Could you share with us also your resources so that we are able to empower all our women?
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Madam Speaker, I do not think this is for parliamentary debate. If you want some ideas we can share outside this House, but I am not about to declare all the channels I use and make it an open book.
Madam Speaker, I was saying that because of the changes that have occurred, and not only in one area but in many areas women are involved now in church organizations; women are involved in businesses more than before. Hon. Sebaggala was saying that women are now in jail because they have failed to pay loans. I do not think it is true that many women have failed to pay their loans.
On the contrary women pay promptly their loans, very effectively.
Women are involved in civil society organizations more than ever before. So, Madam Speaker, what hon. Kiyonga’s paper has given us are just numbers, but if you were to evaluate the amount of work, the impact that you have heard on Mbarara District from hon. Matembe you will have difficulty in picking indices. One person can have such an impact and it is very difficult to measure, in this case we have had women becoming models. It is not a joking matter when hon.
Matembe says when I go Lira they say Matembe or when you hear a praise that goes to our
Minister of State, Nankabirwa, as a Minister of State for Defence.
When you hear about our hon. Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s office in charge of
Disaster Preparedness, Christine Aporu, the impact of the amount of work she has done is immeasurable. When you hear of hon. Grace Akello, when you hear that hon. Akech is the
Minister in charge of security and of course not to mention the Lady hon. Member of this House in the capacity of Deputy Speaker.
So, we are really talking of immeasurable impact as a result of the affirmative action. It is no longer affirmative action, because many people are now talking and doing things on their own without being simply patted on the back. Because now they have discovered it is their duty, it is their responsibility – ( Interruption )
MR SEBALU: Actually women have made great impact because even in the UPC party, when you mention the hon. Cecelia Ogwal, she is among the party ranks; recently she was the one raising the flag. So that shows how women are influencing different areas of our polity.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: I would like frankly to appreciate the decision that was made to empower women. Madam Speaker, I am talking now as a Minister of Local Government. If you look at decentralization the impact that it has made on our society, it is unbelievable. When you

go to programmes like AMP, like LGDP and the number of women who are involved in these programmes it is unbelievable.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker and this House, that when women get involved, the results are durable and they are fundamental. That is why I believe very strongly that with the backing of women, the backing we have to the Movement, there is no fear at all that we are going to lead this country for a longer time than people imagine. Because whoever is trying to move away she or he is always anchored. You cannot pull yourself away and go with the anchor - ( Interruption )
MR LUKYAMUZI: Thank you very much; I would like to thank Prof. Kabwegyere for giving way. He is a distinguished Minister in Government and I think he should not make statements, which cannot be justified. The information I want to give him is that while the Movement is popular, it need not employ the politics of ekisanja to remain popular. It could still remain popular without capitalizing on the ekisanja . That is the message from Lubaga South. ( Laughter )
DR NKUUHE: Point of information – ( Interruption )
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I would like the Minister to wind up so that I can give some other Members opportunity to contribute.
DR NKUUHE: The information I would like to give to the Minister is that much as we have tried to empower women, poverty still remains a very serious factor among women especially.
Because much as they try their best to borrow from micro finance Institutions to come out of poverty, the study, I by Makerere Institute of Social Research, has shown that unless you are borrowing over Shs 500,000 you are likely to remain in that cycle of poverty where you borrow and actually enrich the one who is lending you the money.
So, in addition to looking at inputs, you should look at outputs, outcome and impact so that we really see how many people we are pulling out of poverty rather than just a few samples like
Matembe and Hope Mwesigye. We need to look at the mass.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Just comments very brief, hon. Lukyamuzi who is a product of the
Movement and who cannot survive politically without the Movement – ( Interruption )
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, I hope the Minister by the name of Prof. Kabwegyere is aware that I am a whole Secretary General of a political party. So, even before I become a
Member of Parliament I had already internationally and nationally demonstrated capacity to win the support of the members of the public.
I have never identified myself with the Movement. If anything you could say part of what has made me survive is the character case of John Ken Lukyamuzi, the man. So is he therefore, in order to imply that John Ken Lukyamuzi, short of the Movement, would not be where he is when
I have already even internationally demonstrated capacity? What is he talking about, and should he remain Minister of Local Government?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the minister was only confirming that you have been elected twice on individual merit under the Movement system. Please proceed.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is all well and you can believe one thing when the reality is another, so that is a different story for me. On the point of poverty, I do not believe that empowering women initially politically, that conterminously you would also

get economic empowerment. The simultaneity of these things is not tenable in the short time we have had. But the political empowerment has certainly prepared ground for economic empowerment.
People are struggling now for their rights, we are trying to make a law here to make sure that women are recognized as property owners on the same basis as men; the Constitution already provides that. But you cannot erase many of the traditional beliefs overnight. For example, one of those painful enduring beliefs is the circumcision of women in some of our societies which should actually have stopped 1000 years ago but it is still going on, and women have to still fight to overcome that.
But you also hon Nkuuhe, you have got to realize that the poverty of women is not independent of the poverty of the men; that in fact the poor woman is staying with a poor man; this is happening at the same time. If the husband were rich, then you would have a woman who is rich but because the man is poor, the woman is also poor, and for all we know I have stood here and said Uganda is poor. How can you have a country, which is poor and have women and men who are rich? So there is poverty and the share of that poverty heavily goes to the marginalized. That is why the marginalisation must be fought first politically before you can empower the person economically.
MRS MATEMBE: Thank you very much, honourable Member, for giving way. Whereas I appreciate your argument that when you are a poor woman living with a poor man you definitely become poor. Internationally statistically it has been established that the feminisation of poverty is related to the gender in quality, it is established data and the UN has got all this.
On a small scale a poor man with a poor woman yes, but when we are discussing these issues on national, international basis it is very, very clear that poverty is seriously linked and feminine linked to gender inequality. You improve gender equality you remove poverty even in the millennium goals, the third millennium goal is very clear on this issue. It is squarely saying that gender inequality is contributing to the poverty, especially, in Africa here. So the two are seriously linked although I appreciate the argument you are raising here.
MR HILLARY ONEK: Thank you minister for giving way. I just want to enhance your point that actually empowering women automatically improves on the quality of life in a community or society. I just want to give an example, the former Minister of Northern Uganda, hon Betty
Bigombe, when she was still minister and IDP situation started, at the time people even had no blanket to cover themselves with. One of the things she did was to supply blankets and she gave to the men who were supposed to be the head of the family. Most men went and sold away the blankets and drunk the money. So she became clever. The next time drunkards came she gave to women and told men if you want to use a blanket then you will cover yourselves together with your wife. That way it saved men and they had blankets to cover themselves in that manner. So giving the women those blankets enabled men not to sleep in the cold.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just a comment on hon
Metembe’s observation. There is what we call one factor analysis where you pick one factor and use it to explain everything. I think that could be a problem because if you look at the developed countries I do not think that they empowered women first.
In fact the status of women appreciated much later after the economic changes occurred in the society.
What we have done here is to start with a political change, and this is the nature of our politics. And the nature of our society is that we accentuate politics and hope that other things

will follow. So we cannot explain the backwardness of these countries like ours here simply in terms of gender inequality. Gender inequality is a factor; it worsens the situation.
For example we have been neglecting half the population when you need everybody in the struggle, so obviously that makes you weak. But there are other factors other than gender equality or inequality that can explain the backwardness that we are suffering, and I entirely agree with your comment that when a woman is empowered – Dr Aggrey of Achimota College, Ghana said so. Educate a woman, you have educated society, when you educate a man you have educated an individual. That is why empowering women is not a favour; it is necessity for the survival of society. Protecting women from wars is simply a necessity because they are the ones who carry the babies for those nine months.
I was not sure when hon. Aggrey Awori was saying how many colonels we should have and so on, whether we should be surrendering, and subjecting our women to the dangers of war; going into the Congo, fight Kony and so on, when they have a better responsibility to perform in our society. So their known hierarchy in the Army is not necessarily a bad thing or that they should have a share of membership of the Army.
Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that this is yet one other area where a fundamental change has occurred. There are things when a fundamental change has occurred you cannot stop; when things have happened they have happened, there is no way you are going to arrest power from women; there is no way you are going to draw them back. They are on the match forward and anybody who thinks can divert them is actually going to have a serious problem. From the change that has been spearheaded by the Movement, women saw value.
3.57
MRS LOYCE BWAMBALE (Woman Representative, Kasese): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker, for this opportunity. I wish to associate myself with the honourable members who have thanked the National Political Commissar for this able statement. It is giving the status quo but I am raising to point out a few areas, which need strengthening as far as the women movement in Uganda is concerned.
We all agree, and there is no doubt the results are on the ground, that the affirmative action as a modality for increasing women’s participation in all ways of life, political, social and economical, is very good. When I first joined politics and His Excellency the President Kaguta Yoweri
Museveni was mobilizing for women to come up and join politics, he ably demonstrated the political will he was carrying along in the State house that the issue of involving women in politics was no longer an issue of politics alone but it was an issue of economics because by numbers women make up 51 percent of the population. The Hon. National Political Commissar has demonstrated that very well; Hon. Kabwegyere has done it and said when you empower women, and that was our motto in Mary Stewart, that when you train a woman you train a nation, when you train a man unfortunately you train an individual.
So, we are saying that for Uganda to be a powerful nation, and to be on a moving economic pace, more and more women must be considered. ( Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we are trying to move quickly.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, I had to intervene in protection of man. The hon. Member said when you train a man you train an individual but when you train a woman you are training a nation. Is she aware that in accordance with the African tradition namely the Ganda society,

which I have studied, a man shoulders the responsibility of buying food and even educating the children in that family? So according to the Ganda society when you train a man you are training a nation because that man shoulders national responsibility beyond what a woman can do as an individual. I hope she understands.
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you very much, hon. Ken Lukyamuzi, that is your opinion but the scientific information on the ground –( Interruption )
PROF. MWAKA: Thank you very much hon. Member for giving way. What I want to inform hon. Lukyamuzi is that the women labour and earn the money, they give the money to the men, and the men go and spend. The women are the ones who go in the garden, the men are doing nothing, their spending habits are also questionable; drinking, luxury and what have you. So, actually it is the women who earn and the men spend, and in Buganda in particular.
So, hon. Lukyamuzi, you should know that, that the men are there because the women are there.
That is why they are saying that when you train a woman you train a nation because it is the women who do the first training of any child who is born. Therefore, we do the training from the very beginning until the men die they are still being trained by their mothers, but the men do not do that kind of training. I thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, hon. Member, is it really, so important?
DR NKUUHE: The clarification I am seeking is whether we have heard that the women give their pay cheque to their husband, whether the learned professor gives her cheque to her husband.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order Members, proceed.
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you. I want to thank the honourable members for the information that has been given, but also allay the fears of hon. Nkuuhe that where the female Members of this House put their cheques at the end of the month is a private affair. The debate on the Floor of the House is about the economic empowerment and the development and the participation of women and men. I normally do not like debate taking the dimension of man to women. I would like the debate to proceed in the spirit of partnership between men and women; that is how we can proceed, Madam Speaker.
My second point for standing up was to show that although we have moved very far through affirmative action there are still many challenges and opportunities, which are not utilized. Today we have been fed to the national standards; how far we have gone we are the 7th or the 8th, but remember that Rwanda, which started the affirmative action after us is already having over 48 percent in Parliament. So, we are asking ourselves, “why can’t we attain the same, why have we stagnated in spite of having had a gender sensitive Constitution 1995?”
We have not yet made up to the standard of UN 30 percent minimum. We are signatory to the
Beijing Platform for Action which also directed that at least we attain a minimum of 30 percent. It is 10 years down the road. That is why we are standing up to say, okay we have had it, but it is not yet enough. We need to attain regional and national standards. Why have we remained at 24 percent throughout?
MR SEBALU: Information.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to really wind up. The Members on this side have not yet spoken. So, please -( Interruption)
MR SEBALU: It is useful information. Please, take it.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay.
MR SEBALU: The information I would like to give really supports the view she is putting across. Uganda has been able to do a lot in this area; other countries are even doing better. But I would also like us to appreciate certain critical interventions that the Ugandan Government has made; and this is in the area of UPE.
We need also to look at the level of input in terms of creating a strong foundation. You realize that at the level of primary, most of the families that were not capable of educating their children, if there was a possibility of educating one against the other, it had to be Paul to go to school and
Mary had to remain behind. But with this principle now, all the kids are going to school and it will help in building a critical mass of highly educated and skilled women to till we attain the balance in terms of encouraging other interventions to apply.
So, this is a critical area, which we should also appreciate which may have to bring value say 20 years from now, but it is a process that is working towards building that critical mass. I think we need to bring it to light.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has already told us that. It is here.
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you very much, hon. colleague for bringing up the issue of a critical mass and it is indeed what I was talking about when I stated that 10 years down the road we are still at 24.6 percent, and this is not because women have not been sensitised, I want to quote two figures. In 1996 135 women from this House and from civil society who thought they had been ably empowered through participation and training and seminars and awareness, went to stand for
Parliamentary elections. Less than 15 ended up here on the general seat, very many were left out.
Therefore we are still participating on unequal grounds; we need more of the affirmative action.
In 2001, the number increased, Madam Speaker, to 203 women who registered and were ably nominated for the parliamentary seat. The hon. Minister and National Political Commissar, in his presentation has enumerated only 13 who made it, which means scientifically although the opportunities have been given, Government has got to do more in terms of legal instruments being put in place, in terms of institutional capacity building, which my colleague was talking about.
Take an example of the regional commitments to which we are signatory and we are busy trying to ratify. The African Union has taken a landmark this season of promoting and getting our heads of State committed to gender equality in the African region. They went ahead after 2001 and decided that 50 percent of the directors at the African Union Commission, that is the Secretariat, they are 10 directors and as I speak, five of them are women and five are men. Now, that is a regional standard.
They have also recommended that all the organs of the African Union, including the Pan African
Parliament where we are represented, should in the near future be represented in such a way that it reflects the number of women and the important role that women play 50, 50 percent. That is

why we are speaking clear and loud at this material time of the Movement Government because it is the time when we are amending the Constitution.
So, we are saying that in addition to retaining the affirmative actions that have given us a third at the local councils, can we go in that direction to fulfill a gap that has existed of not having a third at the executive level of local government?
I would like to call upon Members of Parliament that when the actual time comes for us to propose even our own amendments, we come up with amendments so that that gap of lack of women at the representation of the executive is fulfilled. The same at the cabinet level, the same with the position of the President vis-à-vis the Vice President so that when a man is a president, a woman is the Vice President and vice versa. (Interjection)- Yes, we are looking towards such amendments including this crucial time of the review of our Constitution –(Interruption)
MRS SEBAGEREKA: Vital information, just very briefly.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then as soon as she informs you, wind up (Interjection) Yes.
MRS SEBAGEREKA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to inform this House about the
Vice President. We were having that bargaining power, when the President is a man, the Vice
President should be a woman and we want it made into a law. It should not be to the whims –
(Interjection) - Yes, we were very disappointed and we do not want it to be on whims of the
President, but we want it – (Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order, Members.
MRS SEBAGEREKA: We want it to be made into a law, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you very much hon. Sebagereka for that information. I believe the women of Uganda who will be voting for one government or another are listening to that proposal and will request the male and female Members of this House to do the needful.
Madam Speaker, we are talking about very serious things. Colleagues in this House especially hon. Sebaggala charged the women activists to reduce the number of awareness and sensitization workshops in Kampala and go down to the ground. That was a very good request. But I want to remind all the hon. Members of this House that as we sit here, we are voted for by men and women of this country. So, each one of us is mandated to come up with programmes, seminars in your own constituency for men and women.
But to leave aside the sensitisation and the training of women only to the Women Representatives of this House is very unfair. We want to use this opportunity to create this awareness and many women have informed me that they will be looking at the men’s programmes, at the political party manifestos and if those manifestos and election programmes do not comprehensively cater for women, many of you will be shocked to find that your own women have voted the other way unlike the way you expected them to.
So I would like to appeal to the National Political Commissar, that he holds a very, very important post and I want to put it on record, that hon. Dr. Kiyonga mobilized me to be in politics
(Hear! Hear!) . Yes.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, order Members. Order please.

MRS BWAMBALE: Madam Speaker, when the National Resistance Movement took over
Kasese, very many people were worried to run fundraisings under the new Movement and I was a headmistress of one of the secondary schools in Kasese. We worked together with hon. Dr
Kiyonga to mobilize a wonderful and successful fundraising for the area, where hon. Alhaji
Moses Kigongo was the guest of honour. Because of that period, I also became visible and I was encouraged to leave the classroom and go into politics and now that I am even in the Pan African
Parliament, I have not regretted that time when I was mobilized by hon. Kiyonga.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please wind up, hon. Member.
MRS BWAMBALE: I am winding up. Can I be protected from hon. Norbert Mao?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, please do not intimidate hon. Bwambale.
(Laughter) But hon. Members, why don’t you want hon. Kiyonga to mobilize Members?
MRS BWAMBALE: Because I think it is political discipline for people to recognize their elders.
I have heard people in this House who are benefiting and who have developed individually and in their constituencies from the Movement Government and they forget it very quickly (Hear!
Hear!) So, it is very important that we know that we have promoters and at a time like this you need to go back to your routes and know who your promoters are and you support them when they need you.
So Madam Speaker, I am being very political, I am making a political statement and I am appealing to the hon. Members of the Movement Government that the women of Uganda have been assisted to participate in politics economically and socially, but that the gap is still existing and that many gaps need to be filled. With that I would like to support the statement. Thank you very much.
MR OULANYAH: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that these matters are very important. When we sat in the Business Committee last week, we scheduled business and committees worked tirelessly day and night, some up to 2.00 a.m. in the morning to get ready to have these presentations done; and we are not even now sure whether these reports will be presented given the trend of the discussions now going on. All these matters can be raised in the debate that will come.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Oulanyah, I have not read your report and I have not even heard it, and I did assure you that I was going to give you an opportunity. I know you are anxious to present and you are going to present this afternoon.
4.20
MRS MIRIA MATEMBE (Woman Representative, Mbarara): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker. I will try to be brief because some of the honourable members who have talked have given my points especially my colleague, hon. Bwambale. I wish to associate myself with her presentation except the last statements. (Laughter)
I would therefore, like to thank hon. Kiyonga for this statement and I wish this statement was headed like “Progress of Implementation of the Principle of Affirmative Action”, because gender balance is nowhere. The policy of gender balance, if you can see the statistics he has given us, is not there at all. It is the affirmative action, which Government has been implementing, that is why

you see these figures. If you look at the figures page 10, unless the weighing scale of hon.
Kiyonga is extremely defective
–(Interruption)
MR GAGAWALA WAMBUZI: Madam Speaker, really, I am not happy that I am interrupting the hon. Member of Parliament, but you remember very well Madam Speaker, we really struggled here and voted hon. Matembe on the AU on the Policy of gender balance, purely.
Madam Speaker, I will not take this lying down, is she really in order to insinuate that we have not been taking the issue of gender balance and affirmative action seriously to the extent that the policy is not there? Is she really the one who is representing us in the AU to stand on the floor of this Parliament? Is she in order to take that line of argument?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think on the question of the Pan African Parliament, efforts were made to try and make a balance of the Membership.
MRS MATEMBE: You see, Madam Speaker, I wish some people who do not have sufficient knowledge in the terms which we use, could learn from us. I am talking of the principle of affirmative action as opposed to the principle of gender balance. I am talking of the word gender and I am talking of balance and I am looking at the figures on page 10. I was continuing to say that if hon. Kiyonga had headed this like “The Implementation of the principle of Affirmative
Action” because affirmative action has been applied. In other words, some kind of positive discrimination to put –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Information from the Minister.
MRS MATEMBE: I am not allowing it; I want to finish a statement so that I allow her, because
I want to distinguish the two. There is balance; you know all of you who know calculations and mathematics. There is where you balance, put a weighing scale –(Interruption)
MRS MWESIGYE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The principle of affirmative action is a principle to enhance gender equality and equity. Therefore, when you are implementing the principle of affirmative action, you are precisely trying to balance gender imbalances. So is hon.
Matembe in order to mislead this august House by misinterpreting the principles of gender balancing and affirmative action, which are interrelated and one is in fact reinforcing the other?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, when hon. Awori brought this issue, he wanted to know how we are faring in view of the reports we are going to present to the United
Nations next year, and this is the response to it. So let us not just go into the principles and concepts, just go to what he has said and we finish.
MRS MATEMBE: It is extremely unfortunate that when somebody stands to talk about what she knows, people really stand up to vehemently oppose when she is in fact talking about the issue and supporting the point. I was in CA and we put two things; the principle of gender balance and the principle of affirmative action. The principle of affirmative action, if implemented in increasing levels, you will reach a balance. So I know what I am talking about. I am very schooled in these matters.
If this heading was “implementation of affirmative action” fine, but implementation of gender balance where you give figures, one against 20, then 15 against 3, you can see there is no balance.
So I know what I am talking about. Anyway let me proceed. I am supporting the hon. NPC for putting these figures for us, and I am saying if the heading was the other one, it could be more

understandable and appreciated rather than using the word “balance” when there is –
(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, please do not continue on that line, this question arose just from the Floor, it was not written, and I think the NPC has attempt to answer what was asked. So about the headings, that is a different matter, go into the body of the statement.
MRS MATEMBE: Anyway, Madam Speaker, it is already on record; I finished that. Therefore
I want to continue debating my points, and I want to say that certainly no doubt, the NRM
Government has done a great deal in this area, and the results are seen and known. But I want to say that when we were putting the principle of affirmative action and gender balance, we were not just saying that women should go there. We were looking at women participating in decision making and having the capacity and the ability to influence decisions to make them gender responsive so that in the final analysis, women and men would enjoy good quality of life because there would be gender equality.
What I want to say now is that, -(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have a problem of time. Please, make your contribution.
MR EKANYA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask hon. Miria Matembe to clarify whether the policy that the government put in the Constitution of Gender and affirmative action is being implemented effectively. Because as I speak now, statistics from
ACFODE and Action Aid indicate that there is high rate of drop outs of boys in schools in
Tororo, Busia and Bugiri and Pallisa and if not looked upon, we are going to have only girls in school. So hon. Miria Matembe I wonder whether the people who are implementing this policy really understand what gender is and affirmative action is, or they are taking gender to mean females. Please, can you clarify?
MRS MATEMBE: Since I have not read that report, I do not think I am competent enough to comment on it. But what I know is that at primary level there is more school dropout by girls. I think, honorable, you could be better in that area.
But let me continue with my point, that gender affirmative action or gender balance principle, are not an end in themselves. They are a facilitator to enable both men and women influence decisions that affect their lives positively. Although to a very, very minimal extent, women have been able to influence decisions, but on the whole, we have not achieved much in terms of influencing decisions to make them gender responsive. And in fact that is why you see that even when many numbers of women go and contest at this mainstream constituency, they do not win because we have not been able to influence the decisions that affect our lives.
For instance, even here in Parliament, you can imagine, we failed to influence the law on land.
The majority of the women in this House were interested in the co-ownership, but we were incapable of influencing that decision.
Secondly, ever since we came here, this is 18 years down the road of implementation of NRM policy, we have remained to cry over the law of domestic relations. Soon it may come to this
House, but I wonder how much we shall get out of it. I have been reading in the papers and seeing the debates, I do not know how much we shall gain.

Therefore, in terms of the numbers, we are still very poor, we are not yet a critical mass capable of influencing decisions to make them gender responsive. Therefore, many women have continued to suffer.
When hon. Sebaggala was talking about seminars, in fact I think may be he wanted to talk about the status of situation of women on the ground. They are still being chased out of their homes, they are beaten, gender violence has increased, even in the area of AIDS, these marital rapes continue to take place because there is no law to govern them. Domestic violence, you know the criminal law does not protect the women. So we have got women in high positions, yes, but what is the situation of women on the ground in terms of their rights, in terms of their capacity?
Yes, a little has been achieved, some have become economically empowered, some have where to report in case they are beaten; yes, those things never used to be there, now they are there, we can appreciate, but still women are suffering, women are disinherited, women when they lose husbands, the relatives chase them away. So the situation is still bad on the ground especially so that there is no operationalisation of the constitutional affirmative action provisions.
I want to make my concluding remark by saying that the fact that the NRM Government has been positive with the women question high on the agenda should not be a fact used to patronise women. I note hon. Bwambale talking of where we came from and then – I cannot remember the words she used, it is as if since the NRM Government brought space for us, and brought a conducive environment we must hang on to it for all our lives. That is why I want to say that if the principle of gender balance and affirmative action is just to depend on one view or on one party, then it is in vain -( Interjection)yes, I know what I am talking about.
This principal must be fundamentally institutionalized so that it outlives any government, any party, anybody, because I cannot be a prisoner of circumstances. If you ushered in a conducive environment, which after all I was unduly denied, and you continue arguing that way, it is as if we were supposed to be down there, trod on, sat on as if that was our destiny and now God in the name of NRM came and picked us and, therefore, we must be its prisoner, then I disassociate myself from that kind of argument.
The principle must be properly institutionalized in the Constitution, in the laws, in the structures, so that even the structures are positive and not in the head only but in law. They must be in the law and the policies so that whichever government comes in will take it forward. I am telling you, women all over this country, you just give the affirmative principle to just one party and then you are lost! You must ensure that it is institutionalized.
I conclude by saying
–(Interruption)
PROF. KAGONYERA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you Matembe for giving way. The important thing is not that honourable members want us to rig for the Movement. The fact is that the other parties must justify why they should be supported by women or anybody. It is not the
Movement wanting to make people prisoners but it is a challenge to parties like the UPC to justify why they should be supported by women.
MRS MATEMBE: I heard you, hon. Bwambale -( Interruption)
MRS BWAMBALE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am rising on a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Matembe to misquote me on the Floor of this House when I ably and clearly stated that the women of this country are the watchdog for the manifestos? I did not refer to one manifesto -

and election programmes for provisions that concern them. And if they do not see those provisions in any party or any Member of Parliament, they will vote them out. Is she in order to misunderstand my presentation?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. And the Hansard is clear. You were giving notice to all the political actors that whoever does not take interest in the women will be surprised by the outcome. That is what you said. Please, wind up.
MRS MATEMBE: Madam Speaker, I was referring to a statement in her concluding remark where she sounded a caution to the women. When she was thanking hon. Kiyonga she certainly said she knows women who have come here on the NRM ticket and they are now opposed. She said all this. I heard it clearly here and that is the statement I was referring to that we should not be intimidated with this kind of statement because affirmative action does not necessarily mean that you patronise us and you own it. That is when it will be anything. It will only be useful for the women when it is institutionalized and I am telling you that is the way out. I thank you,
Madam Speaker.
4.40
MS MARY AMAJO (Woman Representative, Kaberamaido): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I would like to thank the National Political Commissar, hon. Kiyonga, for bringing this statement. I would also like to say that we appreciate the NRM Government, and those people who made the 1995 Constitution, for putting in the provision of gender.
However, Madam Speaker, it is one thing to have the provision but it is another thing to come up with enabling laws, which we are still lacking. Most of the speakers have said it in different ways.
I would also like to note that much as we are in the forefront, we are now no.7 or eight, even after
Rwanda, which is not very pleasant.
I would like to concur with, and be party to, ideas of the people who have raised very pertinent concerns about the White Paper especially as it relates to the Equal Opportunities Commission. I think this is one example of how government must match their words with action. The women of this country are concerned about the commission being misdirected to the Human Rights
Commission. I think we have said it loud and clear that this is going to be a test to the
Government to show if they are really committed to this affirmative action.
Like I said, it is one thing to have the Constitution, another thing to have the provision, and yet another to make sure that what is provided for in the laws is matched by relevant interventions and especially equity in the allocation of resources. Effective capacity from both women and men will depend a lot on how much we spend on them especially at a very young age in terms of building that capacity. In particular I am talking about the education of the girl child. We are all very familiar with the rate of dropout of girl children from school.
Much as we have affirmative action in terms of the 1.5 points at university, I think we should reexamine that affirmative action and find out if we cannot have other interventions especially at lower levels. And that is especially so for those who are doubly disadvantaged like the girl child in the war torn areas. Even when we talk about tertiary institutions, what are we doing in terms of resource allocation to make sure that the girl child is as comfortable in the tertiary institutions as their boy counterpart?

In fact, we would be doing a lot more good to this country if we had more halls of residence allocated for the girl child rather than vice-versa. Because the boys are not disadvantaged when they live outside campus.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to agree with all my colleagues who raised the issues of the protocols and conventions, which have been signed. I am also very glad that the Minister for
Gender has committed himself to bringing some of these protocols here as soon as we start business again next year. The commitment to protocols was one of those issues, which were discussed in the last Beijing Plus Ten meeting, which took place in October in Addis Ababa.
I would just like to share this with my colleagues. There are some countries, like Namibia, where we were told that the protocols, which are signed by the head of state, are automatically made into law. In Zimbabwe the conventions are debated in Parliament and sections of the conventions are adopted into law. So, I just want to share this so that maybe this country can also start taking these protocols very seriously and they have a place in this august House.
I would also like to say that during this Beijing Plus Ten meeting, which was a preparatory meeting for next year’s summit, there was a tool, which was launched. It is the African Gender in
Development Index Tool, which among other things will monitor how far countries have gone in terms of implementing these conventions. So, I would like to appeal to colleagues that come
March 2005 when we meet in New York for the world conference, let us not be left far behind – we are almost at the tail.
I would also like to tell the Ministry of Gender that during the meeting in Addis Ababa we realized that whereas most other countries had gone with a country paper, which had been presented to Parliament. In Uganda we did not even know what paper was being taken to the
Beijing Plus Ten preparatory meeting. So, there should be more of these interactions on some of these issues, with Parliament.
Lastly, I would like to concur with colleagues who are saying that it is high time we had a matching mate. When the president is a man, the vice president should be a woman, and viceversa. I think if we are to talk about our affirmative action that is how far it should go and not just remain in tokenism. Thank you very much.
4.48
MR ODONGA OTTO (Aruu County, Pader): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. I also want to thank the Minister without Portfolio, hon. Crispus Kiyonga, for presenting such a statement. I have a few recommendations to make and I would request the minister to pay attention because I have volunteered a lot of my time now on gender issues. Just like my friend Lukyamuzi is an environmentalist, for me I would deal with gender aspects.
I strongly support the view that if the president is a man, the vice president should be a woman, and vice-versa. This need not be constitutionalized but it should be accepted practice. These are my views and I have very strong reasons to support this. If we may consider the tenure of Vice-
President Kazibwe, she did a condemnable job. She was not seen in any of the shrines but hardly a year after you have a male Vice-President, he is found in a shrine, bare chested, and smoking pipes. This would now help Ugandans to appreciate the fact that gender is not there just for the sake – ( Interruption )
MR AWORI: I would like to inform my honourable colleague that probably you had not reached the precincts of Parliament but at one time the same Vice-President had the portfolio of

agriculture and water and we had a problem with the valley dams. As a matter of fact Parliament came up with a very serious report literally condemning her performance. With the current Vice-
President, our methods of worship are different and guaranteed in the Constitution.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, the information I would like to give to hon. Otto is that he should from now on refer to the former Vice-President as Dr Speciosa Naigaga. Court has seemingly outlawed the other name.
MR OTTO: Without much ado I would still say I am a Catholic and being an ex-seminarian we do not worship without shoes. This is one of the indicators of the latest events.
But to stick to the point, I insist that the NRM/O Government still has an opportunity to do better in the remaining one and a half years. These are the recommendations I have:
In some countries like Sweden when your wife is pregnant they also give the man paternity leave.
The practice here in Africa is that when the wives are delivering, the men are drinking their heads off in bars because they think they are very strong men and they make no practical input towards the delivery of the baby.
So, hon. National Political Commissar, we want to see a situation where we also get paternity leave to go and help madam look after the newborn child. These are some of the practical steps -
(Interruption)
MS NAMUSOKE: Madam Speaker, I want to thank hon. Odonga Otto for his seeming concern about men and paternity leave. However, I want to inform this House that I have enquired from my constituents about whether they felt that men should have paternity leave, and the majority of them said no. They do not want to have two babies in the home. Why? Because once the man is at home he will be looking at his watch wanting to have food, wanting to have water to bathe, generally being idle and eventually disorderly.
So, the women have said that in this culture of ours where men do not do anything in the household, they do not want to have them in the home when they have delivered. They want to at least have only one baby to attend to; and moreover when you have a man on paternity leave, suppose he is polygamous? You are just giving him an opportunity to go and make more babies and make even more women really have more problems. So, hon. Odonga Otto, please before you ask that men should have paternity leave, I want you to think seriously about the effect of such a law on the women who will be attending to you a big baby, and the small baby. Thank you.
MR OTTO: Thank you so much for that information. I am giving this advice on the basis of proactiveness. Once we accept to have this as part of our laws we shall have conditions attached to it.
This is a good idea. Perceive it like you will find a Member of Parliament on paternity leave in a supermarket buying things and rolling the baby on the other side. This is the kind of visual perception I am giving to this thing. I am not imagining it in terms of difficult men who would end up in bars or who use that paternity leave to look for other women. Besides many people have women that they are not legally married to so they might end up not working the whole year because they will be on paternity leave. But those minor details can be attended to.
Hon. National Political Commissar, you should also think hard in terms of tertiary institutions.
For example, in Makerere University you have only two halls of residence for girls and most of them are walking across hostels day and night. They are more vulnerable to being raped than the men and we need more of these halls like University Hall and Livingstone Hall, you can close

them up and you leave the real halls like Lumumba and Northcote, for men. We need to see a situation where we would really have these issues reflected practically in the society.
Perhaps I would also want to take this opportunity to recognise my colleagues the women
Members of Parliament who have made outstanding contributions in this Parliament. Much as some of us male Members of Parliament admire greatly the contribution of some Members of
Parliament, I want to do justice by mentioning a few according to my own list and understanding.
I begin with the Deputy Speaker of Parliament; then hon. Miria Matembe, hon. Salaamu
Musumba, colleagues like hon. Dora Byamukama who has drafted the Domestic Relations Bill single handedly; hon. Loyce Bwambale, hon. Hyuha, hon. Kiraso, hon. Ogwal Cecilia, to mention but a few. The list can be endless - not forgetting hon. Ruth Nankabirwa. (Laughter).
The issue of gender is now one of the most selling things in the world. I wish hon. Tarsis
Kabwegyere were here; and for those of you, who go to libraries, go and check a book written by
Prof. Tarsis Kabwegyere, “ A Thesis on Sexual Behaviors of Akamba Women” and you can find such books of doctorates and professorships. If you read the book it will be more than interesting for you to find out that it is really a wide discipline that has to be explored. And perhaps those of you who know Akamba women would even have more reasons to appreciate why the great professor chose to carry out research on their sexual behavior. (Laughter)
The last two issues, which I want briefly to ask the National Political Commissar to clarify on, are on page 1. You said the Movement ideology is based on liberation of human spirits. I wish you could substantiate on this because an ex-seminarian like me has a very difficult and different understanding of spirits. You should help us to understand it; and the perceptions and data you have brought out, like on page 9 on the distribution of women in different offices. I think this is a typical indicator of imbalance. If I were you I would not have brought this tabulation because we are seeing imbalance.
In one office you have 11,3000 men and 2,883 women, and you say balance? I think the best heading would be “the gender imbalance and how the NRM was trying to get rid of it”. I do not see any sense of balance here. It is like asking, “Shs 10,000 and Shs 1,000, which one is heavier assuming they are all converted to coins”? I understand all the efforts you are making, and we also want to see this balance reflected regionally. We are talking of gender balance and all the people you are identifying come from the Northern region. It is an imbalance on other regions.
So, next time you come to this august House, would you give that breakdown?
I urge government to be serious. The Gender Ministry by any standards should not be with a male
Member of Parliament in charge of children affairs. Honestly speaking you would not compare the information women have about children to the information a man might have about children.
These posts like Minister for Child Affairs and Minister in charge of Gender, they should automatically be mandated for women Members of Parliament until we reach a stage where women are so empowered that we see imbalance with men.
Finally, I appreciate the role women have played, especially the Mosa Courts delegation; they did a very tremendous job. I see hon. Anifa Kawoya smiling. You know, when you involve women in such issues like that of the Mosa Courts of dishing out the Shs 5 million, you do not find complaints and these are all indicators that women are honest. Even if some hands would appear from under the table, there was at least no corruption reported. Thank you so much, Madam
Speaker.
5.01

MR JAMES KUBEKETERYA (Bunya County East, Mayuge): Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, I have brief comments. I would like to thank the National Political Commissar for the statement. On page 9, I seek for his clarification where he talks of head teachers being
11,300 male and 2,883 female. I want to know at what level that is. Could he categorize them for us?
What I know is that at secondary level we may be having even less than 100 head teachers whereas to the best of my knowledge female head teachers are the best managers. I think if I had the opportunity I would ensure that almost two-thirds of the head teachers in this country are female. That is because wherever they have been they have performed well.
At primary level still you may find that the ladies who are head teachers have really tussled it through their husbands, given the decentralization. So, it has not been a smooth task for the female head teachers at primary level. In the case of most of them maybe the husbands have ended up bribing the district service commissions for them to be taken up. So, we need to do something in as far as that is concerned.
About water coverage, the NPC has clearly said that we have moved from 10 percent to 50 percent in order to assist women in as far as the problem of water is concerned. But I would like to mention that it is very unfortunate that in this country the most marginalized and oppressed women in as far as water is concerned, are from the district called Mayuge. While he is talking of
50 percent for us we are at 23 percent. So you can see how gender imbalance is and how oppression is. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the Prime Minister to ensure that there is some intervention because people walk distances of about five to six kilometers in that district to get water. We are really the worst hit, and I beg the Prime Minister to intervene.
There is a belief in some societies, religious and traditional, that ladies are not supposed to be leaders. I would like to urge the Prime Minister and the National Political Commissar to write circulars because like in the Moslem belief the ladies are not supposed to lead prayers. Could we have reminders to such groups that in as far as our Constitution is concerned we should give priority to ladies in order to close that imbalance? There is that belief, and as long as you have colleagues who came here –(Interruption)
MR SEBAGGALA: Thank you honourable colleague for giving way. I have heard that Moslem ladies are not allowed to lead prayers and you are kind of saying that there should be a law to address that. I would like to inform this august House that that is our religious norm. Ladies are not allowed to lead prayers and it cannot be changed. I would request the honourable member that if he is talking about having laws to regulate our religious functions, I think we are going too far.
MR KUBEKETERYA: Thank you very much for that, but I think it was a misconception of the information. The point I was raising is that given that females are not supposed to lead prayers in
Mosques, it goes in as far as politics is concerned. The Moslem women will look at – if you are to vote between a woman and a man they will say that a woman cannot lead us politically. So, my argument is that circulars should be written to all local levels saying that for the sake of our
Constitution and in order for us to bridge that gap, we should allow women to be considered for leadership, but not in Mosques. I know that one very well. Thank you very much.
MR AWORI: Thank you, honourable colleague. For the same reason would you recommend to the Rt hon. Prime Minister that it is high time the Judicial Service Commission recommended a woman, Moslem judge? We have never had a woman, Moslem judge.

MR KUBEKETERYA: Thank you, I think that is for the consumption of the Prime Minister and
I agree with you.
I was looking at the point of imbalance. We have decentralized but it happens that in the whole of this country you rarely find a woman being chairperson of a district service commission. In any case the numbers are so minimal. The argument I am giving is that we should, at the center, give circulars to chairpersons of these committees that as they carry out interviews, it is mandatory that a-third of whatever human resource they will have taken up should be women. We should always be making annual reminders because most of the people have really forgotten this matter.
About the disabled people, it was mentioned that we are top in as far as the African continent is concerned. However, I would like to mention that down there, there is a lot lacking. We have
Members of Parliament representing the disabled but society still has the misconception that a lame child - I remember I went to meet my people in a school and there was some lame boy who was hidden behind. When I walked around to find out why he was not moving I discovered he was lame and he had been instructed not to be infront. The point I am trying to make is that we as leaders should make regular reminders that amidst somebody’s disability we should treat them equally.
The lame people are really marginalized up to now and the Ministry of Gender and Social
Development should take it upon itself and have however tiny a budget to cater for them. The burden is now on Members of Parliament that when you assist one disabled they will think you are the one supposed to provide wheel chairs and all that. So, why do we not do it like the
Ministry of Health? Let us have something small to address this. Let us ensure that more emphasis is put on addressing that issue of not marginalizing the lame people.
I would like to appreciate the role played, or the statement given, by the National Political
Commissar. I would also like to add my voice to hon. Bwambale’s that this government really nurtured the women movement. I think it would be unfair for them to leave it at this stage for the sake of others. I agree with her. I thank you very much.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, I appreciate the importance of this matter and this is the first time in ten years that we have had time to discuss this, but I have given it three hours. I cannot do more than that. Let me ask the minister to respond.
5.10
THE MINISTER OF STATE, YOUTH AND CHILD AFFAIRS (Mr Felix Okot): Madam
Speaker, Ugandan women are on a journey and a journey that is progressing very well. On this journey we need collective efforts and we need collective participation of all people, including
Members of Parliament. We have registered a number of remarkable achievements in our struggle of empowering our women, but still we have a number of challenges that we need to work on together. There are a few things that have been raised by Members of Parliament here. I would like to respond to them briefly due to the time limitation, and the rest will be concluded by the
NPC.
Members here talked about the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I would like to state as follows: as a government we have realized the importance of this commission. It was raised by our Cabinet and a new directive has been given to our ministry and we are in the process of implementing that directive. After presenting it to Cabinet, the end results will be reported here by the Leader of Government Business.

Secondly, we have a number of protocols and conventions that we have ratified and now I would like to state here that many of these protocols have not been given to Members of Parliament. I think it is important that we compile all the protocols and conventions that we have ratified and we give to Members of Parliament so that they know the protocols and conventions that we have ratified.
Members talked about institutional framework. I would like to assure you that our country
Uganda has been selected among African countries that would pilot gender mainstreaming. We as a government have started a process and this process brings in all the stakeholders, government ministries, NGOs and everybody, onto a round table. It is chaired by the Ministry of Gender,
Labour and social Development. Our intention here is to bring into play all issues affecting women so that we integrate them into our policies, and this is going on very well. We should commend our government for that struggle.
Another point that I would like to respond to is about discrimination against women. It is clear that in the past and in some communities in our country here women are discriminated against.
As a country we need to come out to defend and protect the rights of our women. There are a number of laws that we need to amend, and there are a number of laws that are obsolete. We need to come together, bring them here on the Floor of Parliament and amend them so that the rights of our women are protected. Madam Speaker, our ministry is in total support of what members have raised here. We are going to work together towards achieving the best for our women in this country.
I would like to commend the Movement Government for the achievements that we have registered in the process. I would like to appeal to women, and everybody, to support the
Movement so that we continue with the struggle. I thank you.
5.15
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Dr Crispus Kiyonga): I thank you, Madam
Speaker and I thank colleagues for the attention they have given to this discussion. I intend to be brief so that we can move on to other business.
First let me thank my good friend hon. Awori for two reasons. First for his insistence that we make this statement since we had undertaken to do so. Secondly and more importantly, for the spirit he has demonstrated during this discussion and really he has insisted on advancing national interests. He got the facts and he appreciated that there has been progress. I would like to appeal to him to continue this spirit.
This statement that I made is brief, well thought out and candid. We did not come here to cook up figures. We came here to lay on the Table the situation as it is so that together we can appreciate the progress we have made, see the gaps left and chart out a way forward. So, for me there is nothing to be embarrassed about in telling you that in some areas we have hit the 40s and in some areas we are 1, we are 2 or 3 percent. It would be unfair for us to give you a picture, which does not obtain on the ground.
I would like to also go back to the point I made about hon. Cecilia Ogwal. When we were having a debate in Entebbe she stood up and said, “Yes, I acknowledge the gains made under the
Movement, but I undertake that within the UPC I will also ensure gender balance”. Really the point here is that this is a common good, this is for national interest. We should move together, appreciate –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think there is some vital information from hon. Ogwal.
MRS OGWAL: Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you my brother hon. Kiyonga for allowing me to give some clarification on the point he has been repeatedly communicating to this
House. First of all, I am embarrassed that whenever we talk about gender dust is raised and not by the men but by the women. I am embarrassed about that as a woman. I was not comfortable saying to leaders of the Movement – what I mean is that it is not the whole Movement but the women movement hitting each other on matters of gender. That is something, which must stop if we are to succeed.
Number 2, I would like to inform the NPC that this document you have tabled to this Parliament is shallow. You have told us what is obvious. This government is spending money on funding the
NRM Secretariat and you come to this House with a substandard document; this is a shame! The document has told us the obvious. You should have done a thorough analysis and given us qualitative information so that we can debate and feel challenged to debate the issue of gender.
But what you have given us is nothing. It is what we already know.
So, I think you should really –(Interruption) Madam Speaker, I am just challenging the NPC because maybe his staff are not doing work hard enough. I am just advising you that you should tell them to pull up their socks.
Finally, – (Interruption)
MR BASALIZA ARAALI: Madam Speaker, is hon. Cecilia Ogwal in order to say that the report is shallow when it has been debated exhaustively for three hours. Is she in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The paper was good enough to generate so much debate, and members still wanted to continue.
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, the information I wanted to give the NPC is that this is the moment when we are opening up political space. The women should form a strong lobby and be able to lobby all political forces not only political parties but also the civil society who are involved in gender issues. This is the only way we can move forward.
It is wrong to tie the struggle of women to any single ideological position. It is dangerous because if the Government changes and you know with Africa anything can happen; then the woman will be dumped. For us we want whether it is this government or that government, the women issue must be no. 1 on the agenda, and that is important. It is important for the NPC to know it, and that is why I am saying this document is shallow. The NPC should have told us the position of East
Africa on the issue of women (Interruption)
PROF. KAGONYERA: Madam Speaker, you have ruled that the honourable member is not in order to call a paper, which has generated so much useful debate from members of this House, shallow. She has used an abusive word “shallow”, which is non-Parliamentary. Is she in order to continue to insult the integrity of this House by insulting a report that has generated so much interest and debate? Shallow! Is she in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Honourable members, in this House whenever something has been brought here that is not quite up to standard, it has to be dismissed within ten minutes or less. But this paper has taken three hours of our time, and many of us want to continue. Please, you are out of order. Do not call it shallow anymore.

MRS OGWAL:
Madam Speaker, we can change the word from “shallow” and say that it is not well researched. (Laughter).
I am just trying to help my brother. He should have told us the position the East African Legislative Council has taken on the question of gender. We would like to know what position the African Unity has taken on the same issue. It is because we are becoming more and more global and we need to be fitted into this international movement. I want the NPC to come to this House and educate us on what they intend to do or what is already happening. That is important.
Finally, I would like to inform my brother, hon. Kiyonga, that the women struggle did not start with the Movement. It started a long time ago. Some of us do not blow our horns, otherwise Mrs
Ogwal would be claiming credit for having created a women’s bank in this country, yet we do not do that.
When it comes to this issue, it is important that women should be educated on their rights and women should be empowered. We should stop bringing in politics because it is through that politics that women have been given a raw deal. Every time the women fight and put you in power, then you drop the women. This issue of politics must stop. We must emancipate the women, we must empower them and you must leave the women alone to make their choice. That is the information I wanted to give you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Kiyonga.
MR BIKWASIZEHI: I want to give further information. It is very helpful, NPC. Mr Minister, you have mainly dwelt on the public sector, but if you stray to the private sector you will appreciate that the atmosphere created has actually empowered men. You go to the banking sector, for example; women are not only in the clerical positions but they have moved to managerial positions and partly because, they are taken to be more honest, like you have pointed out in the micro finance sector.
So, if you widen this research it can really show you that the empowerment of women may not necessarily be analysed perfectly from the public sector but the private sector where there is proper competition. You will see how they are emerging and I think that is very important.
Also in the education sector, I would like you to appreciate that in a family where you have got an educated wife or an educated woman that implies that automatically the children of that family will all be educated. So, we need to go beyond that. I thank you. I thought I should give that information.
DR KIYONGA: I thank you very much. Madam Speaker, there is something called political agitation and I want to inform hon. Cecilia Ogwal that I know about that subject but it can never intimidate me. I expected hon. Cecilia Ogwal to toe the line of hon. Awori to appreciate the facts.
You cannot run away from politics if you are going to move a country forward. You cannot run away from the point of ideology if you are going to make change.
I do hope that hon. Cecilia Ogwal is not agitated by some of the statistics. It is clear that in UPC I we had only two women in Parliament and when we came to UPC II we had only one woman.
These are facts, which are here, and I would like them to be counted.
MRS OGWAL: Hon. Kiyonga stood for elections under the UPM Party and he won the elections. Other parties like the Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Uganda

People’s Congress also participated in the election. Is the honourable minister in order to say that there was only one UPC woman in Parliament when the UPM had none, the DP had none, and CP had none? At least UPC had one and that was the seed for the whole of Uganda. At least we had one. Is he in order? (Laughter).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the minister was just going through the history of this country from independence up to today. He was giving us figures of what has been happening with each Parliament, and I think there was one lady in the UPC Government, which is good.
(Laughter).
DR KIYONGA: So we shall stop the political agitation there. Let us move forward. Really, ideology is very important. We are now talking of a constitutional basis, and we are judging the
Movement against the Constitution. But this Constitution was only possible because there was a correct ideology brought by the Movement. Therefore, I go along with colleagues who have taken this Floor to say that even if we go Multiparty, if the people should decide that we go Multiparty, every party should undertake to fight for gender balance and ensure that we redress marginalisation of any section of our society.
Hon. James Mwandha did request me that I should fulfill the promise I made that I would return to the House and make a statement in regard to the people with disabilities. I want to undertake that I think it is important that we become more complete in that respect.
The key contributions in my view were made by hon. Ruhindi and again hon. James Mwandha.
Hon. Ruhindi asked me, “Is this an impact assessment; are we using this statement to look at the ten years of the Movement and the gender balance question”? Hon. James Mwandha said we need to be revisiting this point frequently and we need to be using even the communication of the
President in the State of the Nation Address to visit this question. That is the direction I would recommend that we take both in the Executive and in the Backbench, because to me this is critical to the transformation of this country. The question of gender balance, the question of removing marginalization must be answered. We must be seen to make progress if we are going to change this country.
While I appreciate the issue of protocols and agreements and that we should indeed fulfill them, I think this Parliament should be more interested in what is happening to our own country. We should set our standards and fulfill them. Of course when you look at the international protocols, they really give simple standards. Any serious country can surpass those standards. So, our responsibility here is to our people and to our country and we should now ensure that we fulfill the desires and aspirations of the people that have brought us to this House.
Finally, I intend to discuss with the Rt hon. Prime Minister and the rest of government to the effect that we
–(Interruptions)
PROF. KAMUNTU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want the honourable minister, before he concludes his remarks, to look at his page 9, if I can plead with him. If you look at page
9 you will realize first of all that if this is leadership in public sector, the list is not comprehensive. I would have wanted to see ambassadors, I would have wanted to see RDCs, I would have wanted to see - why not – the Presidents, Vice-President, and the Speaker.
And more importantly, this percentage indicates that we are nowhere near balancing the genders.
Mr Minister, you should put a time target when you think the balance you are reporting about will be achieved. If we do not have the targets, we cannot hold you to account, whether you are

making progress or not. You will be reporting year in, year out and there will be nothing to say whether the milestones are being achieved. So, in your concluding remarks, please can you indicate when we shall have the genders balanced? Thank you very much.
DR KIYONGA: I would like to refer hon. Kamuntu to page 2 of my statement. In the second paragraph of this statement I have said:
“Despite the significant progress made in this area, it is critical that efforts must be sustained to the point that parity and equity of all sections of our citizens is achieved .” This statement was not intended to give a programme of what next. This was an assessment of how far we have gone so far so that this becomes a basis for us to decide together how we should move forward.
Madam Speaker, I was concluding by saying that I am going to have a discussion with the Rt hon.
Speaker and other leaders in government - given the interest that colleagues have shown in this subject - so that the theme for the celebrations on the 26th of January next year could be this subject. That way, between now and then we can have more discussions. I thank you, Madam
Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Minister without Portfolio.
ADOPTION OF THE MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT TO AUTHORIZE
GOVERNMENT TO BORROW US $5.9 MILLION FROM THE OPEC FUND FOR THE
DELIVERY OF HIPC RELIEF IN UGANDA
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: This matter was debated last week, and concluded. There was only one thing remaining; so I now put the question that this House do adopt the motion for a resolution of Parliament to authorize Government to borrow US $5.9 million from the OPEC
Fund for the delivery of HIPC relief in Uganda.
(Question put and agreed to.)
MOTION SEEKING LEAVE OF THE HOUSE TO INTRODUCE A PRIVATE MEMBER’S
BILL
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: This item was debated here, and hon. Wandera is only seeking leave of this House to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. So, I now put the question that leave be granted to hon. Martin Wandera to introduce a Private Member’s Bill.
(Question put and agreed to.)
PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT ON THE WHITE PAPER
MRS ZZIWA: I beg your indulgency, Madam Speaker. Earlier on in the day I pleaded with you that on item No. 5 as it is being dealt with, particularly item No. 5(2), you would give me some little space to express a matter of national importance with regard to Mulago Hospital; and you had granted that space.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I know that you made that request but let us receive this report because it is not for debate. It is only to be received so that you go and discuss it further with your constituents. Let us receive it and then go back to those items.

MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, I am seeking your guidance. I would like to be advised on how I should move forward. You have said that the report is going to be presented and it is not going to be debated. I have instructions from the people of Lubaga to move a motion before the report is presented, namely that the report should take another trend; that it should be rejected.
What advice do you give me?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, I think you are out of order. Under rule 60 you should not speculate and anticipate what is contained in a report. Let the chairperson proceed.
5.36
THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Mr Jacob Oulanyah): Madam Speaker and honourable members, I have the honour of presenting the report of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
Committee on the Government White Paper.
The committee considered the White Paper on the Constitutional Review and Political Transition,
2004 in accordance with our Rules of Procedure, and I now make the report.
The constitutional review process that we are embarking on is a major political landmark in the political history and economic development of our country. The outcome of this process will be judged on whether or not it promotes national stability, good governance, constitutionalism and economic prosperity for our country.
Let us also emphasize that we cannot engage in a dialogue on the political transition in Uganda without looking at the bigger picture: the regional and international peace and security implications of a democratic and prosperous Uganda. This region is bedeviled by intra and interstate conflicts in Uganda, Burundi, Sudan, Rwanda, the DRC et cetera. All the countries are also categorized by either stalled or fragile democracies, weak economies, crippling debt burden and poverty.
However, the recent emerging trends such as the progress on the peace processes in Somalia,
Sudan and Burundi, the political transition process in the DRC and the successful elections in
Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda present hope and a positive picture of a region that is gradually moving towards peace and stability. Given Uganda’s geo-political influence in both the Great
Lakes and the Horn of Africa regions, a successful political transition could significantly spread the zones of democratic peace, catalyse regional integration, deepen democracy and consolidate regional peace and security.
Madam Speaker, is the constitutional review necessary now? The Government set up the following as the main background leading to the necessity for the constitutional review:
(i) The setting up of the Constitutional Review Commission became necessary because experience had shown from operating the current Uganda Constitution since it came to force in
1995 that there are several defects and several areas of inadequacy, which needed to be addressed in the interest of proper administration in the country.
(ii) It became necessary to address various complaints from several quarters to the effect that the interests of certain communities had been not adequately addressed such as federo and the status and functions of traditional, cultural leaders.

(iii) It became necessary further to create procedures for settling deadlocks arising between the
Executive and the Legislature in the discharge of their functions assigned to them by the
Constitution in order not to cause paralysis in the administration of the country.
As a result of the decision of the National Executive Committee and the National Conference of the Movement taken in March 2003 to open up the political space, it became necessary to cause a reassessment of those articles of the Constitution relating to political systems and democratic governance to accommodate the decision of opening up the political space.
Finally, it also became necessary for the Government to hold various discussions and consultations with other political forces not wanting to be part of the Movement in order to ensure smooth and orderly transition to multi-party political system.
The committee came to the conclusion that the process is necessary. It is, therefore, important for us to ask all the possible questions and raise all the possible issues and make qualified proposals for your consideration and possible adoption.
Was the White Paper approach the best method?
The Advanced Learners’ dictionary defines the “white paper” as “a report published by the
Government about its policy on a matter that is to be considered by Parliament”. This is originally a conventional British parliamentary procedure, which has been adopted by several countries, which were once British colonies or territories.
A white paper is actually a discussion paper. It is not an end in itself. The committee believes that the white paper approach adopted by the Government is a good method for involving the largest number of people in discussion in the Constitution and what changes should be made in it. We should not limit the discussion to what is contained in the White Paper. We should also focus on any other relevant issues concerning the Constitution, which might have escaped the attention of those who drafted the paper.
The reasonable presumption would therefore be that the Government will include in the White
Paper all the various issues concerning the Constitution, which have been raised from time to time by the different groups ever since the consultations for changing the political system started in this country. The Government should, therefore, be willing and ready to accept some of the additional points, which were contributed by the public and also the debate in public. We should expect further that when the Bill for the constitutional amendment is eventually drafted, it will incorporate the views, which were incorporated by the public debate. We also expect that the views, which will be expressed in this august House in the general debate, will find their way into the constitutional amendment Bill.
Methods of Work
When this committee was constituted this Session, it was clear that it could play a pivotal role in the question of political transition in this country. The anxiety that was caused by the process of constituting the committee itself almost destabilized the whole process of selecting members.
Even when the committee was finally constituted, the question as to who would lead the committee became a deeply paralyzing issue and led to the walk out of many members.
Standing before you today I am glad to report that we have overcome a lot and we are able to present to you our report on the Government White Paper taken by consensus and without a single vote taken. The simple lesson we have learnt is that where there is a will there is indeed a

way. Let me share with you some of the few fundamentals we agreed on right from the beginning. These fundamentals relate to the method of work and as long as we stuck to them rather than to expediency, we always found that we made progress:
Facing facts: we agreed from the outset that we could lay facts on the table and use them as a reference point when expressing sometimes divergent opinion.
Reason as a guiding principal: we agreed that members would use reason and sound logic in tabling their position. This enabled us to derive the correct interpretation from the agreed facts.
Tolerance and mutual respect: we agreed that the no view would be suppressed. All views would be received with tolerance and given fair treatment based on known facts and reason. The committee overruled intolerance.
Harmony: we agreed that monumental as the task before the committee is, it was still important that we adopted a collegial approach and to debate in such a manner that would bring our collective wisdom to bear on the problems presented before us. The spirit of harmony kept us conscious that the House did not give the task to any individual among us but rather to the committee as a whole. Therefore, we had a collective responsibility to work together harmoniously.
National interest above self and party. In one’s lifetime one can change many things: party affiliation or even leadership, but it is very unusual that you are likely to change your citizenship.
We, therefore, resolved from the outset that our supreme guiding star, unchanging like the true north of a magnet, would be the enduring interest of the people of Uganda. As individuals we have interests and even as members of political parties we are party to partisan positions. These interests we found the occasion to declare boldly before the committee but when decision time came we measured them alongside the national interest and more often than not the national interest shone through.
All of us, without exception, faced moments when we had to abandon strongly held positions when the bright light of reason and national interest was shone. In short, Madam Speaker, our work enabled us to learn more about each other. Prejudices were abandoned as we discovered how much we all cared about our people. Convictions were entrenched as we found new reasons for working together. None of us can claim not to have learnt something new in the course of our work.
I can say without any fear of contradiction whatsoever that whether you agree with the opinions of the individual committee members or not, these are men and women of conviction and they worked long hours at night and over weekends. They listened to sometimes really offensive viewpoints. They endured threats of lawsuits and even other veiled threats. I can only say,
Madam speaker, that I feel honored to call myself their chairman.
I only hope that my presentation to you this afternoon of the decision they have all taken will make me deserve the due confidence they showed in electing me to chair the committee.
I invite the House to pick a leaf from the committee and adopt these methods of work. Harmony is bound to be the inevitable result and our people will delight in our handiwork. They will refer to us no longer as mere politicians but rather as true leaders and patriots. ( Applause ).

Madam Speaker and honourable members, the committee discussed the Government White Paper and received written memoranda from many people and organizations, and we appreciate them all giving us their valuable time to discuss this important matter. We are indebted to them. The list is from pages 4 to 5; you have the Action Party and several other individuals, of course including organizations, which have never publicly participated in these processes. They appeared before the committee. Justices of the Supreme Court, political parties, the Uganda People’s Congress and several other political parties appeared to express their views on the way forward for Uganda.
For ease of reference the report is structured in this way: let me point out from the outset that out of the 39 chapters contained in the White Paper at least eight in part I and two in part II have a direct bearing on the political transition. The report is structured following the chapters of the
Constitution and the articles of the Constitution are in chronological order save for instances where it become necessary for clarity purposes to draw related provisions together.
The report is divided into three parts. Part I are proposals that require constitutional amendment.
Part II in fact running from page 47 to the last page 70, are proposals that do not require amendment of the Constitution, and part III are proposals that were made to the committee.
Part I is divided into three sections. Section I deals with proposed amendments that require referenda under 259; section II deals with amendments that require district ratification under
Article 260, and section III are proposed amendments under 261, which can be dealt with squarely by Parliament.
As you will see in the report we have listed three items. The first are the views of the
Constitutional Review Commission and their recommendations, the second the Government proposals, the third the committee’s recommendations. The gap that follows immediately after is where this House must take a decision.
Madam Speaker, the report is fairly detailed touching on over 200 proposals that are made, but I would like to give a summary, in five minutes, of the decisions we took on some of them. On the first part, section 1 under part I, we dealt with five articles that require amendment by this
Parliament but approval through a referenda. We started with Article 1, then we dealt with Article
69, Article 74, Article 151 and Article 246. All these five articles require amendment leading to approval by a referenda.
In terms of Article 1, on sovereignty of the people, we looked into history and examined the views of all the philosophers that have ever discussed this matter. We looked at for example the philosopher king Plato’s concept; the law and not the person is supreme, as raised by Aristotle; the views that sovereignty rests in the people by Marsilius of Padua, the view that sovereignty belongs in the prince, when he is satisfied then he can lend power to the people, of Machiavelli.
The view that sovereignty is for the people held by John Locke; that sovereignty belongs to the people, reported by John Jack Rousseau a French philosopher. The view that all sovereignty is about class struggles and the most powerful class dominates and its interest must reign, by Karl
Marx; the view of Frank Fanon; and we wound up with the view held by the late Mwalimu Julius
Nyerere that socialist democracy means free elections.
We came to the undoubted conclusion that the 1995 Constitution resolved this matter fairly well.
An attempt to upset the regime set by Article 1 of this Constitution would set the entire achievement of the 1995 Constitution in jeopardy. We, therefore, strongly recommended that
Article 1 should remain as it is and should not be amended. ( Applause ).

Secondly, we did not say the people cannot take a decision. We said they can take a decision but decisions on constitutional matters. The referenda should not be the first reference. Other processes must be exhausted. If there is still a stalemate in the processes then the matter can be referred to the people for their final adjudication.
On Article 69 we agreed with the Government position and recommend that the Constitution in
Article 69 should be amended in terms proposed by the Government.
Article 74, change of political system, we accepted the Government position that an amendment is necessary to move directly to pluralism without having to go through any other processes.
In article 105(2) the proposal to explain circumstances under which a Vice-President can lead a country, for what period, under what circumstances, the clarities required were agreed with the
Government that this needs to be clarified and there should be an amendment of Article 105(1) in the terms proposed by the Government.
On Article 246 we agreed with the Government that the provision of the Constitution as it exists now are sufficient to handle the matter. The only thing required is for Parliament to pass the necessary laws to implement these processes. There is no need to amend Article 246. ( Applause )
Madam Speaker, on the next part we deal with Article 5, 176, 178 and Article 189. All these relate to matters of districts, functions to be given to government, the creation of regional government and matters related to that relationship with federo.
The committee examined the proposals of the CRC, examined the proposal made by government and we found that the committee could not come to any immediate conclusion on this matter for one reason that even the Government had not raised the matter finally. They are for example suggesting that we will propose either a one tier or a two tier system. This should not be something that can be considered to be already definite. So, we recommend to this House that we need to hold on this matter. Let the Government finalize its position on this and bring it back to
Parliament at an appropriate time. Madam Speaker, that is how we concluded the discussion on these parts of the law.
Then we move to articles that require amendment by Parliament only. For all the proposals in the national objectives and directive principles, we agreed with the Government that some words be amended to reflect a better image. We agreed with the Government on Chapter 1, Article 4 of the situation relating to the public awareness of the Constitution, should be amended.
On citizenship we agreed with most of the proposals of the Government but the committee was of the view that dual citizen should be accepted as a principle but there should be some restrictions on political participation. Where people continue to hold dual citizenship there should be a guide through an Act of Parliament that should be able to regulate this.
On fundamental human rights, we agreed with most of the proposals of government on the fundamental right to bail, prerogative of mercy and so many other things we found.
However, we found greater difficult in accepting the proposals under Article 26 on compulsory acquisition of land. It was presented to us and we were convinced that the mandate provided under Article 26 related to public matters, public use, public health, public everything but the proposal that is being made is about investment and this country has for years has adopted a

policy of liberalization and privatization. So, there is no public investment in Uganda. Therefore, there cannot be a requirement for compulsory acquisition of land held by the public, for private investment. We found it difficult to support the Government position and we have discussed this further. And we have come to the conclusion that this matter cannot be dealt with this way.
Secondly, we showed that under the existing provision of the Constitution the President can still acquire land on a case by case basis. If the case is made to Uganda that we want this for this purpose it will have the following effect in the overall performance of our economy, the people of
Uganda and this Parliament are reasonable people. They will adopt that the President can still, under Article 26, now do this on case by case basis. But we were of the opinion that it should not be made a general rule because that terrain is a bit difficult. If you make the general rule it will mean you are making everybody in this country feel threatened that there is some motive somewhere that people want to take land. In my place I can tell you this, they say, “These people just want our land”, and they react with emotion on these issues. We were even able to discuss this with the President and he understood our position as to why we could not recommend this.
( Applause)
We examined other matters. Madam Speaker, on chapter five, representation of the people, we agreed to the proposal to re-name the Electoral Commission.
The proposal on the qualification for chair of the Electoral Commission generated a lot of debate.
We came to the conclusion that a similar provision, similar to the one of the IGG, be adopted.
Under Article 223(3) an IGG or deputy IGG is created but the constitution says one of them can be a person qualified to be a judge of the High Court. We thought if this was adopted it would resolve the issue because it even became very difficult as honourable members started charging that lawyers want all the jobs for themselves. So we felt shy and submitted to some of these, even if we had contrary opinions.
The other matter on representation was a proposal under Article 70 of the Constitution. Under
Article 70 of the Constitution the proposal was to introduce a phrase that would recognize the rights of people who profess to the Movement System to continue enjoying a new clause in the
Constitution that would be created simply for that purpose. We came to the conclusion that that was unnecessary. The provisions of Article 29(10)(c) are sufficient and amendment of Article 70 unnecessary.
On the right to form political organizations and several other proposals forwarded by government on this issue, we agreed with the Government that these changes should be made in the
Constitution.
On Article 269 there should be no need for review because the Government has already proposed a repeal of the Article and the committee has accepted that. So, there is no need to review Article
269; just repeal it.
Both presidential and parliamentary elections should take place on the same day. Here we agreed with the Government position, which extended that process to include the election to the LC V chairperson. So, we support the Government on this and agreed that this Parliament should support the efforts to hold all elections: presidential, parliamentary and local council V chairpersons, on the same day. And on this we were advised by the Electoral Commission, which said they have capacity to actually hold four elections at once. So we felt very comfortable.

On the secret ballot, the proposal by government was that all elections under the Constitution should be by secret ballot except for local council I and local council II, which could be done by other means. This did not find favour with the committee. We said the principle must be extended to cover all elections. Expense is not the issue. They should be held by secret ballot.
In chapter 6, on the Legislature, government proposed to insert a new Article 82A to create a constitutional position for leader of the opposition. This one we adopted very quickly because we knew there were possible candidates who would - and I am sure my friend hon. Aggrey Awori is smiling very broadly.
There are proposals to improve the office of the clerk. We agreed with the government that this improvement is necessary.
There are other provisions relating to reducing the number of Members of Parliament to 120.
Here we quickly agreed with the government that no, the status quo should be retained. But there is need to actually define what status quo means because the understanding was that status quo means you remain with the 240 Members of Parliament. But if status quo of the procedure for determination of a constituency continues, it would present a complication because you could be having two or three new constituencies coming up every year. This would be a problem. We thought that the Government should get itself advised better on this so that “the status quo” can be given a proper definition.
On the establishment of the independent salaries and remunerations board, we agreed with the
Government to the extent of regulating all other public offices except the office for the Judiciary and Parliament. Parliament should retain its mandate under Article 85 and the Judiciary should retain their process. This is only to enhance the separation of roles so that –(Laughter) the hon.
Prime Minister may not become unhappy one day and decide say to reduce salaries and then they are reduced. So, we thought we should keep this clause, and to play these cards close to our chest.
On Article 78(1), there is a proposal by the Constitutional Review Commission to remove all references to the army, the youth and workers. We considered this and we came to the conclusion that this matter is safely handled under the same article because it provides a procedure under which Parliament can review this. For the first ten years then after that every five years
Parliament can review this. We said Parliament should exercise its mandate under this to determine these processes. Therefore, there will be no need for amending the Constitution and here we agreed with the Government.
On independent candidates, we agreed with the Government position but we insisted that it should be inserted that you can only be an independent candidate if you do not go as far as contesting and losing in the primaries of an elections of a political party. (Laughter)
On the quorum of Parliament
–(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members.
MR OULANYAH: On the quorum of Parliament we agreed with the Government that the situation should remain as it is.
On the Executive, the broad proposal is that
–(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, listen to the report.

MR OULANYAH: The broad proposals is that first of all Cabinet should be reduced and then secondly, all ministers appointed must resign their seats as Members of Parliament; and the third proposal that the entire Cabinet should be ex-officio. We did not find favour for this argument so we supported the Government that on this position the status quo should remain, and we urge
Parliament to support this position.
On making the office of the Prime Minister a constitutional creation we came to the conclusion that this is a validation act and this Parliament should support it because we have had a Prime
Minister all along. Now we are constitutionalising it to realise a reality. We find no difficulty in accepting this and all the amendments that are consequential to this were adopted. We agreed that they should be done, including the oath of the Prime Minister.
On the office of the deputy Attorney-General we agreed with the Government that it should be created and the proposed qualifications adopted as proposed by the Government.
There are proposals on censure. Here we agreed with the Government position that it is wider. If a minister is censured he is not allowed to be reappointed in that same Parliament, which censured that minister. But the Government position is that it should be five years so it would extend the period and make it longer than ordinary.
There are proposals that if there is an allegation that a Minister cannot perform/function on account of health, a medical committee should be appointed by the President to review these processes and then make a decision. A report of this committee should be laid before Parliament.
The committee agrees with the CRC recommendation on the number of votes to initiate a recall.
The committee recommends that Article 118(1)(c) should not be amended in the terms proposed by the CRC but that we accept the terms proposed by government.
In case of a deadlock the CRC proposed that if they disagreed the matter should be referred to a referenda and depending on the result of the referenda the President will resign or Parliament would be dissolved. Government thought of improving on this and said that, no, what happens is that the President just dissolves Parliament and the President resigns. He or she only stays on to organise elections for the
–(Interjection)-
we did not find favour with the CRC proposal but we even had no better reasons not to accept the proposals by government. We said suppose you actually go back to elections and you return the same President and over 90 percent of the same
Parliament, will you have solved anything?
So, we propose that if a matter is contentious and has become a “matter of confidence”, it should be referred to the people directly. Their result should determine the course of action. If the
President’s position is right that becomes the policy; if Parliament was right the President abandons it and does not insist but nobody should resign and nobody’s Parliament should be dissolved
–(Interjections)
On the proposal to improve on Article 103 and recognise the election of a president unopposed, we saw no problem with this. It is usually the obvious. I think we have hon. Members of
Parliament who came here unopposed.
On the issue as of the limiting of terms the President can serve and here I must pose for a moment of silence –(Laughter) on this issue there were strongly argued positions on both sides and we have stated the reasoning in support of lifting the presidential term limits.

We have stated the reasons in support of retaining the constitutional provision as it is and we came to the conclusion that the two positions are irreconcilable except through a vote in this
House. Let this House determine the matter finally. The two arguments, as you will read, are strong and we were able to inform the President even yesterday that this was the position. We could not say lift or keep the limits. The arguments were too strong and the emotions involved too. But we were advised that we should not hesitate to ask this Parliament –(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, please you will discuss this with your constituencies later. First listen to the report.
MR OULANYAH: The matter will be decided by a vote. We recommend that it should be decided by a vote but a question asked. Those are the questions I ask you to go with because they asked us, “If you vote what is going to be the likely result in terms of acceptability? If it was the
President’s wish that it is being lifted how is he going to take it? If the people who wanted the term retained lose, what is going to be the likely course of action”, and so on and so forth. So, is there another way? In other words, conceivable to human intelligence, which can resolve this tension? Those questions were left hanging but as far as the committee is concerned, we said the two positions are irreconcilable. It must be put to the vote.
On the Judiciary, the proposal is to amend Article 128(7) and introduce –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members.
On the Judiciary, the proposal is to amend Article 128(7) and interpret it to say that judges are not exempted from paying taxes. We found that this was an unnecessary area for constitutional review because the instrument that created this stalemate was actually not even an Act of
Parliament. It was a statutory instrument. So, this matter can be resolved administratively. If decisions are taken between the two people, whatever the implication will be, sometimes you have to be firm even when you are wrong.
The Constitutional Court
There are two proposals affecting the Constitutional Court, under Article 137. One is to remove the power of review from the court; the power to review repealed Acts or expired statutes so that once an Act of Parliament has expired, the court cannot enquire into it. But the argument that we present to you is that some of these Acts of Parliament that have lapsed have had implications that extend beyond the period of their lifetime. So, it should not prohibit the courts’ mandate and jurisdiction to enquire into them and establish their constitutionality. So, we honourably reject the proposal to amend Article 137 to that effect.
The second leg is to amend the Constitution to incorporate the popular doctrine or prospective of our ruling. To try and protect the people after Parliament has passed a law and they go into transactions leaving the law to be a valid law; in fact all Acts of Parliament operate by a presumption that they are valid until the contrary is done by any court of law. So, for those who have taken the law and acted on them in good faith and in terms of how the law was not proper, what happens to the rights or responsibility they have acquired under those laws? So, there are times to us to use the doctrine of prospective of our ruling to incorporate these and protect people under this law.

But we are of the view that the application of this doctrine is not a firm constitutional principle. It is a discretionary doctrine that should be applied by the court. So, we should not incorporate it in our Constitution. The court will at the appropriate time take a decision on this. If you extend the same procedure to statutory instruments issued by ministers, which are subject to approval of
Parliament, you will find that by that principle Acts that are done under the power of a statutory instrument will remain valid until the date when the statutory instrument is nullified by
Parliament. But whatever is done under it is protected. We thought that same principle could be extended without an amendment of the Constitution.
Qualification for appointment of judicial officers: the committee did not find any compelling reason for reducing the years’ of experience from ten to seven.
On the retirement age we agreed with the Government that it was not necessary to have a compulsory retirement age. So, we took the Government position.
On appointment and supervision of non-judicial staff by the Judiciary, we agreed with the
Government in this proposal - and this is in line with what the Committee on Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs has been discussing with the Judiciary – that the de-linking of staff is necessary. Staff that are for the Judiciary should be under the control of the Judiciary for discipline and promotion. All these things must be a matter within their mandate so that they can
– as of now they are seconded to the Judiciary but their matters of discipline have to be handled by the Public Service Commission. We think this is a good move and should be supported.
Chapter 9, financial year estimates: the proposal by government is that this should not be fixed by the Constitution. It should be left to the discretion of Parliament to determine when the financial year begins and ends. We are of the opinion that this will create an unnecessary uncertainty in planning and difficulties in how we know what will happen next. Suppose the next day
Parliament says the financial year ends today, what do you do? So, we thought that the tradition that has been in place over the years has not contradicted anything and should be held the way it is. So, we did not support the Government proposal to amend Article 257 in the interpretation, which says the case should be changeable by Parliament.
Article 155(3) is on whether budgetary proposals from constitutional commissions and organisations can be reviewed by the President. The proposal is to change and say the President can review the constitutional provision. The President can make recommendations but cannot review. We thought that even if the provision may not be working at the moment, it is a good check that is there. So, it should be retained.
On the office of the Auditor-General we agree with the proposals of government that are contained but we have two extensions to it. One, we think that it should not be called a public office bringing it within the mandate of the Public Service Commission with all the restrictions.
The office of the Auditor-General should be an independent office equivalent to the office of the
Inspectorate of Government.
We also propose that the office of the Auditor-General should be removed from being under the
Ministry of Finance and a way should be found so that it is put under Parliament. Now it sits as a legal department in the Ministry of Finance and investigates its boss, who is supposed to have sent it money. The duty of the Auditor-General is to enhance Parliamentary oversight functions and should be the mandate of Parliament to find a proper place to house the Administrator-
General who should report directly to Parliament.

In Public Service, the proposals that are made by the Government in terms of functions of other service commissions, health, education and the establishment of a constitutional head of the
Public Service, we accepted all of government’s proposals on this and recommend that they should be adopted and the necessary amendments be made.
On local governments, Article 188(2), and the chief administrative officer, two things were note.
One is appointment, and the other is the double function of the chief administrative officers in the
Constitution, which make them the accounting officers. The Constitution says so and I am told one CAO sued the Government when the Secretary to the Treasury appointed somebody else to be the accounting officer. He went to court and said, “You are violating the Constitution”, and yet the intention was different. This man did not want to leave a coin with him, so they thought they would cure this. This is a proposal to correct this situation.
First, make the appointment of the chief administrative officer centralized, the supervision centralized – (Applause) - the firing centralized. In this country no district has managed to remove a CAO and yet so many of them should have been removed. So, there is a bit of difficult. We thought that this would also – so, we support government’s proposal on central appointment of
CAOs, for those reasons. (Applause) . It does not in any way affect the principle of the evolution of power in a big way.
On the CAO automatically being the accounting officer, we recommend that the same procedure provided, under Article 164(1) relating to permanent secretaries, applies. The permanent secretaries are not automatically accounting officers. They may be appointed accounting officers.
The mandate is given to the Secretary to the Treasury to determine who can do that. We thought this should be made similar to that so that if the CAO is good with finance, you can appoint him or her but if he is not, you have an avenue and flexibility to appoint anybody else.
And we also said that in terms of the CAOs, there should be incorporated a principle of transferability. Transferability may not necessarily be across districts but it could be in terms of promotion because as of now the CAO’s office is a ceiling. Once you are there, you are stuck and this might be one of the reasons that one says, “Well, where do I go, I have to take all I can now because this is a last moment”. So we want to open this so that there is a possibility of growth in that office.
On Article 203(2)(a) on the RDCs, there were strong views that since the CAO now is going to be centralized and since you had a political leadership in the district, just abolish the RDCs. That was the argument, strong at it was, but the Government proposed that for all practical purposes and intentions, an RDC is actually a political person. So, a person qualified to be an RDC should be a Ugandan qualified to be a Member of Parliament.
Having put the functions of civil service under the CAO, we found no difficulty accepting the
Government position that this should be done. Anybody who qualifies to be a Member of
Parliament can be appointed an RDC but the function of supervising local councils in the district, we thought this was not good, it would be an area of conflict that should be avoided. When you say the RDC is going to supervise all central government projects and other activities in the district; then you say he or she will also supervise local governments, you could run into a dangerous conflict. We thought we should avoid this. So we said that except for the function of supervising local governments, the other proposals by Government should be accepted.
On chapter 12, Defence and National Security –(Interruptions)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members, order!
MR OULANYAH: Under Chapter 12, Defence and National Security
–(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, please, the chairperson is trying to be in the
Hansard . Please, do not interrupt.
MR OULANYAH: There are proposals affecting the Uganda Police Force, and also to create a deputy commissioner of prisons and make the office of Commissioner of Prisons to be that of the
Commissioner General of Prisons, and other related matters relating to the prison service. We agreed with the Government proposal and we recommend that the Constitution be amended in terms proposed by the Government.
On creation of specialized courts to handle terrorism, the committee did not find any compelling reason to do this. We think that specialised departments in the courts can just be created to deal with this situation, just like they created the commercial courts to handle commercial matters.
There is no need to create parallel court structures. If you see the recommendation on this on top of page 41, you will see there is a big “not”, in capital letters. That “not” was a mistake; it should not be there.
It says, “the committee recommends that the proposal NOT be adopted”, that “not” is wrong. We are saying the proposal should be dropped of creating a special court on terrorism. It should be dropped so take out the “not”. It is bold enough for easy identification.
On the Inspectorate of Government, we agreed with the Government prepositions on the proposal to create a leadership code tribunal. We thought this is unnecessary. It is creating another level of governance, another office and then it is delaying the processes of implementation of decisions of the Inspectorate of Government. So it would not be useful to create hierarchy in that process. If somebody has a problem with the IGG, that person should have access straight to the court without going to a tribunal.
On land and the environment, there are proposals on minerals. The definition that is proposed by government is that the term “minerals” should exclude petroleum, and also that these rights be vested in government. We thought that the existing provision of the Constitution is sufficient and since the Government is not proposing any alternative for petroleum in the Constitution, we thought the wider definition of minerals should remain encompassing petroleum.
Under Chapter 17, general and miscellaneous; on the salaries and remunerations board, we agreed with government that this needs to be done. The two articles should be created for this purpose with the exceptions I highlighted earlier.
On Article 250, there is the proposal to insert a new Article 250A on corporate governance. The committee understood the Government very well that there is need to recognize these processes to bridge harmony among the three heads of government so that they could consult. It happens in other countries and we do not see any problems with it. But the committee felt that this was not a constitutional matter.
If you put it in the Constitution and actually provided that it should be twice every year, then during the whole half year there will be preparations for this meeting. Are there decisions going to be made - formal decisions, and will those decisions be binding? If the Speaker goes for that meeting, Madam Speaker, if you went to meet the President and you agree on certain things, will

it bind the Members of Parliament? We think it should be left at the informal consultative level so that any time there is need for consultation, the three heads should meet. The backdrop on this was when the Speaker had a meeting with the President and the honourable members were very upset here. But we think that from now on we should accept this as a principle of practice and corporate governance, but it should not be put in the Constitution, with any conditions assigned to them.
On the recommendations on the referenda generally, the principle is agreed and the exceptions that we are seeking are also agreed. It should not be on the constitutional provisions as a first recourse. This one we had opportunity to discuss with the President at length yesterday. When the committee met him we were able to explain to him why it should not happen in the terms proposed, but this can be catered for in other provisions.
On transitional provisions, there are 17 articles listed for repeal because they have lapsed. They served their purpose, and this includes the infamous Article 269. The Government has now proposed that they all go and we said, “Let them go”.
On the First Schedule, the proposal for amendment of item 6 is to correct the spelling of Kibaale, and item 7 is to correct the spelling of Toro. It will also include the new districts. Madam
Speaker, we saw that the new districts, which were put here were only two, but ever since the promulgation of the Constitution there have been several districts that were created including
Pader, Wakiso, Mayuge, Bugiri and so on. We thought this should be all encompassing to list the six new districts. Although the proposal mentions 56, it would only add up to 41 if we add these two. The rest of the proposals are there.
Honourable members, as I said from page 47 to the end are proposals that do not require constitutional amendment and there are many important areas there, which you should look at on citizenship, official language, human rights including the death penalty, and the representation of the people.
There is another proposal, which does not require a constitutional amendment, that “in a multiparty system, all persons holding public or military office should resign upon seeking nomination to a public office.” They should resign and not go on leave, so that the stakes are higher. That is a proposal from the CRC and the Government accepted this recommendation. We found no difficulty at all in asking these people to resign especially when we have gone pluralist .
The Constitutional Review Commission recommended that all electoral laws should be passed at least six months before the date of that election. And if the period is less than six months, the new law should only apply to the elections after that, but not this one. Government did not accept this.
They said, “No, this is a rigidity in the law”. We found a lot of difficulty agreeing with government on this. We went with the Constitutional Review Commission position that there should be a period for this law, which you are passing. Give it time to be understood by the people.
You remember the day when we passed the Local Governments (Amendment) Act here in one day, we had that problem. When we sat here and passed a law in a short time, when the law finally went to the Electoral Commission for implementation, it could not be implemented. They said both nominations and voting should be on the same day but the voting should be by secret ballot. How do you nominate a person today and create a ballot for that person and then facilitate them to vote the same day, secretly?

So, it made sense here when the heat was high but when the Electoral Commission went with it, it did not make sense. They had to come back to have that changed. We, therefore, think it would be good practice to have this period inserted between the passage of legislation and the actual implementation of the elections.
On qualifications of Members of Parliament and the organization that should deal with this, the
Government proposed that the A’ Level or equivalent qualification remains but the organization that should verify this should be the National Council for Higher Education. We accepted the
Government proposal and we think it should be implemented. But there were submissions to the effect that it is only in Uganda where there are minimum qualifications. I do not know how true it is but that is what they say. The persons who submitted on this said the best speakers that have ever spoken in this House, that this House has ever seen were primary school teachers who had no standards of A’ Level.
They mentioned Mzee Tibero Okeny Atwoma, the late Max Odur Lotyang, Mr Lubone and several others, and in fact he even concluded by saying that President Daniel Arap Moi would not have been a President, because he was a primary school teacher. So, he said that what used to happen is that you subject these people to an examination to assess their understanding of
Parliamentary documents like Bills and so on and so forth. If they pass, then that is it. If they fail, then that is it. I thought I should share this with the honourable members for their consideration.
On elections of district women representatives, the Government proposed, and we agreed with the
Government, that the elections should be through universal adult suffrage. (Applause)
On regional electoral colleges for people with disabilities, the Constitutional Review Commission proposed a regional electoral college. The Government proposed a national electoral college and we merged the two and came out with the formula that all nominations for the elections must be done regionally. But the elections themselves can be carried through national elections and the nominations should come from the regions to balance up the process.
On the Police, the Electoral Commission should be empowered from the Police and election constables trained in time. The Constitutional Review Commission and the Government agreed with this proposal, and we recommend that this should be implemented immediately to enhance the capacities of the Police. Our recommendation is that the Parliamentary Sessional Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs should take this up in the next budget cycle, and these matters should be handled in preparation for the next elections.
Chapter 7 includes granting of limited legislative powers to the President on the matters of investments; archeological sites, public health and the environment.
The committee came to the conclusion that legislation is a collaborative effort and it is in always initiated by the Government Executive. All of them can be initiated by the President and there has not been one occasion in this Parliament where a legislation has been rejected by this Parliament.
So, we think the process in itself is participatory, it is initiated by the Government and it should be maintained that way.
The proposal is also limited to the extent that this Parliament only passes law but all the authorities for implementation of these laws, through statutory instruments, is given to the
Executive. They actually exercise more legislative powers than Parliament itself. So there is no need to deal with this through an amendment in the law or the creation of a new Act of
Parliament to give the President limited legislative powers.

Honourable members, I am trying to rush through this. I am now going to page 57, the public defender. Legal representation is a right and it is the best guarantee to a fair trial, which is a guaranteed right in our Constitution. We think the Government should do put in more efforts to implement what the Constitutional Review Commission proposed that the Government should consider.
The Government cited laws and organizations, but what the Government did not do is to show how much funds are committed to these organizations to implement the public defender programmes. Yes, the law society has Legal Aid and FIDA does legal aid too, but what about the
Government? In other countries they actually have a defender-general, almost standing opposite the Director of Public Prosecutions. So, why do we not at least commit to these processes if only to guarantee our citizens the right to a fair trial?
I go to page 59, on Finance. We think that the Constitutional Review Commission recommendation that the Bank of Uganda should file six months’ reports to Parliament was reasonable especially when the reports are only relating to monitory matters. It should be necessary for this to be done, but this does not affect the annual report that Bank of Uganda gives.
So on this we did not agree with government. We agreed with the Constitutional Review
Commission that this report should be every six months.
Public Service: the recommendations we make are there on page 60. In the details you will find that we did not find reasons to disagree with the Government, so we accepted the proposals by government, and in most of the proposals actually, they agreed.
But on page 63, recommendations (e) and (f) are from the Constitutional Review Commission.
Recommendation (f) says, “Districts should consider the option of forming joint or regional district service commissions”, but the Government rejected this particular proposal and we saw justification in that rejection. So we agreed with the Government that the rest should be adopted, except item (f).
On local government, there is a proposal that the procedure for removal of the district chairman be changed in the terms that the matter should now be given to a magistrate to handle. We are of the view that the chairman of the district council is a big political office, especially given the process we are now going in of multi-partism, and so on and so forth. It could be a highly sensitive area and a High Court judge will be more competent to handle the removal of such a person. So we said the constitutional provision should be retained in that area.
Honourable members, the other proposals do not require constitutional amendment and we have indicated where we have agreed with government and where we have not agreed with government.
The last part of the report is on additional proposals that came to the committee. The first one, which is on page 68, contains additional proposals from the committee.
The first proposal is on pornography. It is becoming a menace and the matter had better be straightened out by the Constitution. Enabling laws must draw their power from the Constitution that the right to publish, the right to information and whatever is guaranteed but there should be some exception for the preservation of public morality and the public good. ( Applause )
On graduated tax, we recommend that it should be abolished.

On creation of new districts, we think the criteria used leaves a lot to be desired. There should be new rules set for the creation of new districts.
On the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, there are instances where the Court of Appeal takes a decision as a Constitutional Court the matter goes to the Supreme Court instead of the Supreme
Court taking a final decision on it. They have to just pronounce themselves on one aspect and send the matter back to the Constitutional Court. We think this process is cumbersome and should be clarified.
Article 80 of the Constitution, on the rules that govern the internal procedures of Parliament, we think this Article should be reviewed. And if it is still consistent, the whole Act of 2000 in the terms it was proposed should be re-enacted in this amendment to protect all the other things and the actions that have been done by this Parliament when the Constitution was amended.
On implementation, the committee had prepared a report to be presented but the report lacked certain information in terms of the time line that we are going to use in determining this process of constitutional amendment. Some of the information we only got yesterday, so the committee is not able to present to you today a report on the roadmap of what should take place, and when and where. Some of the provisions have already been passed in the referenda and other provisions were passed by Parliament. That law has already provided for some time to be followed.
Honourable members, this is a report of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on the
Government White Paper. I am glad you have listened on the committees’ views on this note and
I beg to propose. Thank you. ( Applause ).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much Chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs Committee, and your committee for that comprehensive report. The editor of Hansard is directed to transcribe the whole text for our records. (Full text of the report can be found in the
Appendices, page12109.)
Honourable members, since you have done some plenary consultation and now you have the position of our committee, as you go on recess continue taking into account what our committee has proposed.
The other things we still have on our agenda are the following:
1. Ministerial statement from Health
2. Report on the liberalization of cotton
3. The report of the Pan African Parliament
4. The report on the computerization of the driving permits.
I want us to agree, because this requires perhaps maybe another two hours, are you prepared to stay here until 9.00 p.m.?
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, I seek the following clarification. I am sorry to take you back but
I would like to be clarified by the committee chairman, or minister for that matter. Why do we not have patience with each other?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are going to open the debate now. Other members are going to start asking for clarification.

MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, it is a simple matter and I wish I could be given audience. What I want to know is that you have rightly ruled that we are going for consultations over this report, as we go for our recess. Can I know whether we are restricted to the committee report or the
Constitution will be open from chapter one up to the last chapter so that we can discuss it adequately?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, if you were listening carefully, the honourable chairperson in his report indicated that there are other areas, which other people should bring up if they feel it is necessary. It is in the report, so now do we proceed?
MRS MATEMBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to ask a question because the
Constitutional Review Commission had two volumes of its report and we got only one. When shall we ever get the second one since we are now going to be dealing with this report before we come back? When shall we ever get the second one to be informed more about the whole package?
MR OULANYAH: Madam Speaker, we raised the same question with the Minister of Justice when she appeared and she said that owing to the size they only produced a few and they put six copies in our library for reference for Members of Parliament, they are about this size. So for reference there are copies but they cannot produce enough copies for members. That is what we were told as a committee.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Madam Speaker, I would like to give testimony that I have taken trouble to scrutinize the whereabouts of those two volumes in the library physically, and I have been told that they are not there. We must speak seriously. Where are the copies? They are not in the library.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will check on that one.
6.51
THE MINISTER OF STATE, YOUTH AND CHILD AFFAIRS (Mr Felix Okot): Madam
Speaker, I have noted the content for this report and I have listened to the presentation of this report by the Chairman of the Legal Committee. It is befitting for this Parliament to pay tribute to the members and the chairman of this committee.
I would like to inform Parliament that hon. Jocob Oulanyah, Member of Parliament for Omoro
County, was my roommate at Makerere University, Mitchell Hall. So I thank you so much for this clear presentation and I hope that this report will form a basis of our democratic process. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
MRS ZZIWA: The Clarification I want to seek from the chair is very simple, actually I had wanted to get it earlier. He talked about Article 80, which he has referred to on page 70 and I think that article does not talk about Rules of Procedure. I wanted just to be clarified whether he is referring to the White Paper or the Constitution? I just wanted that simple clarification.
MR OULANYAH: That was a mistake; it was supposed to be Article 90. Sorry, please make that correction.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it is a correction, let it be corrected accordingly even in the
Hansard . Honourable members, let us now move to the Report on cotton.

THE REPORT OF CABINET ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE
ON THE LIBERALISATION OF THE COTTON SECTOR IN UGANDA.
6.53
THE MINISTER OF STATE (FISHERIES) (Dr Fabius Byaruhanga): Madam Speaker and hon. Members, on the 14 December 2004 Parliament passed Resolutions on the cotton sub sector.
One of the resolutions that required an immediate response was that the Minister of Agriculture should issue by Thursday, 16 December 2004 the minimum price for cotton, which should not be below 500 per kilogram.
Madam Speaker, I undertook extensive and protracted consultations with the key stakeholders who included: the ginners, the cotton farmers, the Committee on Agriculture, the Ministry of
Finance, the Ministry responsible for Trade, the Cabinet and also His Excellency, the President.
It was, therefore, not possible for me to make a statement on Thursday as demanded by
Parliament.
Madam Speaker and hon. Members, as I continue to make consultations on the other issues in the resolution, I wish to announce the Government position on the issue of the indicative price of cotton offered to the farmers for this season. I would like to start by giving a brief background of the cotton industry. Before the Movement Government came to power in 1986 cotton production had collapsed to 14,000 bales. In 1994 Government intervened by liberalizing the marketing and processing aspects in the cotton sector. But in recognition of the level of our cotton farmer,
Government retained the role of advising them on the indicative price below which they should not sell their cotton so as to protect them from exploitation by middlemen and ginners.
But even with this liberalization policy and several interventions by Government mainly under the cotton sub sector development project, which run between 1994 and 2001, production stagnated at around 100,000 bales.
Major causes were identified as the following:
1.The lack of farmer education on relevant agronomical practices for their cotton production.
2.The lack of pest management and control due to farmer’s inability to access the right and approved pesticides for cotton.
3.In the year 2001/2002 season the ginners agreed with the Government through CDO (Cotton
Development Organization) to intervene and take over support to the farmers to overcome the above constraints with the view to increasing farmers yields through providing farmer education and pesticides and by establishing demonstration plots which act as classrooms for teaching an average of 20 to 30 farmers. As well as procuring upfront the recommended pesticides and spray pumps and providing them to farmers at a subsided price usually 50 percent of the cost.
This intervention of ginners working together with the Government through the Cotton
Development Organization is what has helped farmers to increase yields from the miserable 200 kilograms per acre to the current 500 kilograms per acre. In some areas even to 800 kilograms per acre in areas where the farmers have adopted the good practices, for example, Pallisa, Kasese,
Nebbi, Lira, Apach and Masindi.

It is expected that if this is allowed to continue all farmers will achieve these yields. The increased yields have resulted in an increase of cotton output from the 100,000 bales in 2002 to
158,000 bales in 2003, and now to the expected 230,000 bales for this season.
Government appreciates this positive impact of the partnership with ginners given that
Government does not have the funds to support cotton production of our small-scale farmer countrywide. For this reason and others Government strongly supports zoning for cotton production, marketing and processing. This is the only assured way of moving towards achieving the desired goal of one million bales. Zoning will also create confidence for the ginners and other investors to continue investing in production and this confidence will lead them into value addition.
There are, however, new challenges despite this increase in productivity. One of the challenges is the subsidies paid by the developed countries. The developed countries are subsidizing cotton production. For example, on average the USA subsidizes its farmer by 10 cents for every pound of cotton produced. China subsidizes by 15 cents per pound; Greece a whole 97 cents per pound,
Spain one dollar and one cent per pound, Turkey one cent, Mexico four cents and Egypt two cents per pound.
This has resulted into over production of cotton countrywide because of this excess cotton on the world market demand and supply are not balancing. This is what has caused the price collapse; this is why price has reduced from last year’s 67 cents per pound to this year 37 cents per pound, x ginnery. If these countries were not subsidizing their production the farmgate price today in
Uganda would be Ugshs650 per kilogram of seed cotton.
Apart from these external factors, we also have our own internal weaknesses, first, the shilling has stress need against the US dollar from Ugshs1950 to a dollar of this time and last year
Ugshs1690 of now per dollar; and secondly the energy costs are becoming higher, and these are due to the power rationing and the increase in the world oil prices; and thirdly, our flight costs are high as compared to our neighbours.
Whereas it costs US$23 to move one bale from Moyo to Mombasa, it costs US$15 to move one bale from Geita in Northern Tanzania to their port in Dar-es-salaam and it also cost US$11 to move one bale from Busia Kenya to Mombasa. There is also interference by Local Government
Councils who charge additional levy on cotton, for example, Pallisa district charges Ugshs10 per kilogram of cotton - for each kilogram that is produced and sold in Pallisa, the district charges
Ugshs10. And Nebbi charges Ugshs30,000 -( Interruption)
MR AWORI: Point of procedure.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the problem, hon. Awori, why don’t you let him present and finish.
MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, these lamentations, lamentations, we had these things during the debate before the resolution was reached. Why can’t he tell us the way forward instead of lamentations?
DR BYARUHANGA: Another factor is the lack of value addition to our cotton in Uganda, 95 per cent of the lint processed in this country is exported as low material and little is consumed by our spinning industries. If there was value addition, the backward linkage to cotton production

would have improved the farmgate price to the farmers because of the multiplier effect in the value addition.
Finally, there is also the influence of the so-called free riders. The free riders are those who trade in cotton when they have not invested in its production, and these free riders are able to offer high farmgate prices because they do not invest in cotton production. This is not good for the economy because if it is allowed to continue the ginner who support production will collapse or become bankrupt. Cotton production would eventually collapse and both the farmer and the economy will suffer.
But the question we should ask ourselves is the farmer or our farmers necessarily losing money?
The answer to this is that, no because productivity has improved over the recent years as I had already said from 200 kilogrames per an acre to 500 per an acre. These increased yields will mitigate price valuations. Hence the farmer is set to benefit from high productivity. High productivity will best be achieved through zoning.
The way forward: Government understands that through cotton with its by-products is a strategic crop and has a lot of economic uses, the by- products of cotton of course include the oil, the soap and seed cake and material for making gun powder and of course the lint cotton which goes into the making of textiles. Cotton is also purely grown as a cash crop because one cannot eat it, and cotton is also an annual or seasonal crop as compared to our other cash crops like coffee and tea, which are perennial crops.
In recognition of the above, of these unique characteristics of cotton, Government has decided to proceed as follows: One, Government will provide a subsidy of Shs 50 per kilogram for seed cotton this season. This is equivalent to Ugshs 6.4 billion for the estimated production of 230,000 bales. The maximum the Government can afford for this season because this problem came up in the middle of our fiscal year –(Laughter) Therefore, the indicative price now for seed cotton as from today is Ugshs350 per kilogram.
Two, Government will work out a long-term plan for cotton price stabilization through a farmer generated stabilization fund in years of good price.
Madam Speaker and hon. Members, as directed by the resolution of Parliament which was passed on the 14th of December, Government working together with the Sessional Committee on
Agriculture will handle the remaining issues in the resolution and report back to the House within two months. I thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. Members.
7.12
MR JOHN KAKOOZA (Kabula county, Rakai): The clarification I am seeking from the
Minister maybe it can help people to debate very well on page 3, because I do believe that at least with a Budget of 2003/2004 when you say that there is Cess and levy on cotton when there are tariff barriers on any agriculture product within the budget and they are still instituting it, it is still a bit confusing. That means if people do not charge this cess it means the farmers can get even beyond Ugshs350 if you go into detail because I believe the Minister of Finance said, “No, neither a Local Government nor anybody else can charge this”, and we passed a law here. So, which means if this one is not there even the price can go to Ugshs350 or Ugshs400. So, this is what I was asking the Minister to clarify whether that one is still binding as we passed it here.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, why don’t we just give opportunity for Members to raise the matters they want to raise?

MS TIPERU NUSURA: I thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am standing here on a matter of procedure because this matter was debated last week and the matter was thrown back to the
Committee, consultations have been made to the extent of the Committee meeting the President, it is good that the Minister has presented. Now, I would only request that the Chairman be given time to report to this House before we can make any more submissions. I thank you.
7.29
MR JOHN ODIT (Erute south, Lira): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the
House for the resolution passed and the quick action taken by Government. One, the resolution had two parts, the short term demands which required quick action and this was on the price of cotton which had slumped from Ugshs600 per kilogram in the last cotton season down to
Ugshs300 as announced by CDO.
Two, the resolution also demanded for some reviews on the Statute which established CDO and these needed some time. But following this resolution, Madam Speaker, we took some action and as a Committee of Parliament and some more Members of Parliament who are interested in the industry, we had three rounds of consultations with His Excellency the President. On Thursday last week and Friday we had two sessions and yesterday we had a meeting from 9.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. in State House. This morning I was supposed to go back and witness the final decision taken by Government.
So, I would, therefore, support the position presented by the Minister that I support definitely the position taken now because, one, this price slump came at a time when Government was already in the middle of implementing its budget and so, we looked round together with Government and there was no way of raising the price to Ug shs 500 that would necessitate raising Ug shs 22.4 billion that was virtually impossible and so, what we agreed upon was that there was Ug shs 1.9 billion appropriated by Parliament in support of cotton sub-sector this financial year.
Fortunately, that money had not been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture for onward transmission to CDO, so the money was available. Then the other balance of 4.5 billion was supposed to be raised by Government and this is what was done this morning. When we raise
Ugshs6.4 billion that would be able to raise the minimum farmgate price for this cotton season from Ugshs300 to Ugshs350 and that is minimum.
Now, the cotton farmers are free to sell their cotton at anything beyond Ugshs350 but not below
Ugshs350. So, I think this is an area which of course, Government is just coming back to inform
Parliament on what steps they have taken in far as the indicative price of cotton for this cotton season is concern. It might attract debate, you might express your opinion but really for this season this is the best Government has come with and we cannot change much. But probably the way forward is what we should dwell on and this is what the Minister
–(Interruption)
MR AWORI: Thank you, Mr Chairman for yielding the Floor. Since you went to State House and you were there from 9.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. what new information surfaced that came into your possession that has shifted your position from the position we had the time we passed the motion as a resolution and up to now, that is number one. Number two, -(Interruption)
MRS SEBAGEREKA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is the honourable member in order to try and interrupt the report that was being given of the findings that were received from State House?
Is he in order? The Chairman of the Committee is giving the information, what our findings were and now he is interrupting, is he in order?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members you know when we made these proposals we said that Government should receive them as our proposals and discuss them and get a report. So, the
Chair is really just reporting on what has happened to our proposals that is what he is reporting on.
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Essentially, I was seeking clarification from the
Chairman and I cannot comment since you have ruled on the matter of my hon. Colleague calling me, “interfering,” I cannot comment on that. You see, I am an elected Member of Parliament, I have every right to raise any matter within the quorum of Parliament and I come from a cotton growing area, unlike my colleague who grows vanilla, however, that is irrelevant.
The most important things is, in terms of arithmetic, Mr Chairman, through you, Madam Speaker, you know very well it is the same Government which levied Ug shs 50 per kilo for the CDO. Is the same Government from the left hand pocket now giving it back to the farmer. Is this an act of balancing of books, why don’t you just instruct CDO that hence forth stop levying Ug shs 50 per kilo so that the farmer automatically has increased his earnings by Ug shs 50 that he has in the past ceded to the CDO.
Two, the Government has got full authority on all organs of the State, why do they consider levying of Ugshs 11 by Local Government on the farmer and simply say that is interference by the Local Government. It is not interference, come out and say –(Interruption)
MS TIPERU: Madam Speaker, it is true that all of us are elected and we have a right to seek clarification. However, is the hon. Member in order not to give the chairperson of the Committee time to actually give explanation on all the matters that he is raising? We would all want to raise the same questions, but we are patiently waiting. Is he, therefore, in order to interfere with the chairperson’s presentation and put us in irrelevances, which actually could all be explained by the chairperson? I thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you should not intimidate the Chairperson. Let him present his report – (Applause)
MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I go by your ruling and I sit - (Laughter). I do agree with your ruling and I allow the hon. Mr Chairman to proceed with his explanation.
MR ODIT: Thank you, Madam Speaker and I think the senior Colleague in the House understands that it is not very easy for us to instruct CDO just to raise money the way he believes it should happen. It is not all that simple. It took Government a long time to the extent that even the President was proposing to cut from Defence Budget, from Public Administration, from Local
Government, from many other items and those areas were found to be impossible. So, a
Parliament resolution is one thing, action being taken by Government is another and if we come back to report what we have jointly raised out of our consultation, I think we should take it in good spirit- (Applause )
Our Committee of Agriculture is among the most honest Committees. Yes, it is very clear and did a lot of work and I want, therefore, to appeal to the House that there are some areas in the resolution, which require time. We are going to handle them. This particular item is the one, which needed immediate action, and it is only my hope that this message goes across the country, and we believe that getting Ug shs 350 is much better than remaining with Ug shs 300, which could have been the choice Government could have taken in the present circumstances.

I also know that this is not very acceptable, but looking round the coffers of the Government, we were all convinced that this was the best to arrive at. So, therefore, hon. Members, you are free to make your contribution and we shall listen and Government is on the other side. I thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, this was a report back on our proposal. So, the
Government has said that we have looked at all the areas and we can afford Ug shs 50 for now.
So, what more can we do about that? Except hon. Chairperson, can you transmit this message in such a way that the farmer knows that he is free to receive Ug shs 1000? Can that be transmitted to the population?
MR ODIT: Madam Speaker, this is very clear. What Government does as required by the
Statute is just to give minimum farm-gate indicative price. That means this is the lowest a farmer should receive for a kilogram of cotton. But the upper side is open. An example is that last year a minimum farm gate – (Interruption)
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, we have just listened to the report and the report says that the zoning of marketing and production is in place. Now, which means that if a farmer wants to move his cotton to sell to anybody who can give higher price, he has no powers to do that because there is a law which has been imposed not to allow a farmer to move his cotton from one place to another to sell to the highest price, and I am a farmer myself. The law does not allow me, which is illegal; this illegal law does not allow me to sell my cotton to any highest bidder. So, is the
Chairperson in order to confuse –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But can I get information, which Act is that? Is it a statutory instrument; is it an Act of this House? The one which says do not move –(Interruption)
MR ODIT: I think, Madam Speaker, this is the very reason why we should go back to our Act and look at it carefully. There is zoning basically for production and that falls under the Ministry of Agriculture and there are good reasons for zoning for production and therefore if somebody is complaining that the zoning restricts them from marketing, that is a different story for now.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now let us hear from the Minister. Hon. Byaruhanga, I want to know whether a farmer in Kamuli can sell his or her cotton in Kayunga. That is what I want to know because if they are free to receive money from anywhere, I want to know whether it is clear so that the country also knows whether it is clear.
7.29
THE MINISTER OF STATE (FISHERIES) (Dr Fabius Byaruhanga): Thank you, Madam
Speaker. This issue was debated in this House last week. But I will refresh the members’ memories. We said that there are two reasons why we zone. One, is for production so that you keep a seed variety in one area. But we also said that if you allowed the ginning or the marketing to be haphazard, the seed would quickly be mixed up. That is one reason.
Now the second other reason, is actually also related to production. We have told you that since the year 2002, the private sector has been in partnership with the Government to support production. Now, if the person who has invested in production is not allowed to buy his crop, do you expect him to invest the following year? And by good luck (Interruption)
MRS OGWAL: Can I give you information?

DR BYARUHANGA: If you could allow me to give you this information.
MRS OGWAL: Let me give you information.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let him finish.
DR BYARUHANGA: Let me finish. By good luck all the ginners in this country belong to this association; there is no ginner who is outside this arrangement. Now you who wishes to buy cotton outside this arrangement, where do you hope to gin it, where is your ginnery? Do you trade in cotton or do you buy cotton?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order (Laughter).
MRS KABAKUMBA MASIKO: Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister in order, one, to loose his temper and two, is the hon. Minister in order not to answer a precise question posed by the speaker and instead keeps on meandering round and round, and saying the obvious which he told us last week? We want to get an answer for your question. Is he in order to keep meandering around and dodging the question?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, hon. Minister, you know, the resolution did not only contain the price and it touched on the question of zoning. Now, after our consultations with our
Committee, what is the position on the zoning in marketing? That is all and please cool down, hon. Minister- (Laughter)
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, can I give him very useful information to help him in the point he is trying to – on the point of zoning.
DR BYARUHANGA: Madam Speaker, the production zones are not very many, but, unfortunately, I am not carrying the map here, but what I know is that there is a zone, the Kasese
Kazinga Channel zone. There are now four ginners there; and there is the Masindi zone and then the West Nile zone; then the Lira-Apac zone, the Acholi zone, the Pallisa-Bukedi
–(Laughter)-
That is how they name it, but it is Pallisa-Tororo–Busia sort of zone.
I do not know where Kayunga falls. But within this zone, a trader is free to purchase cotton, but you must sell it to a ginnery within this zone. But the same trader can now move to Kasese zone and purchase cotton, but is only allowed to gin or sell his cotton within that zone. He can then jump to Arua and buy cotton, but he must do the ginning and the selling from there. That is what
I understand, Madam Speaker.
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, I thought it would be useful for the Minister to know that not all ginners support this idea of zoning. It would be very useful for you if you could get information from Uganda Investment Authority who are very well informed about investment in this country, particularly the policies and that Investment Authority is very much opposed to monopoly in this cotton sector arising from zoning.
I would like to read, Madam Speaker, for the purpose of this House, a complaint lodged by one of the ginners because of the unfairness of the zoning. It reads- it was actually dated the 10 March
2004 and it says: “For your information, there was a meeting held between three operators in
Pallisa for the forthcoming season. It has been proposed for unknown reasons that Ladoto be only allocated 10 per cent of which some percentage is to be donated to some other ginners of crop from Pallisa.

This is entirely unacceptable, we were excluded from operating last year and we made a loss and this year again we are being excluded by being given only 10 percent; and yet the lead ginner is being allocated 68 percent and leaving other ginners to share the balance.
As we were excluded from last year, we suffered huge losses for which we kept quiet. Which means there is a bit of intimidation. Naturally, we need to operate our ginnery this year to capacity in order to survive. This requires us to receive our rightful 20 per cent. We were advised that the total budget is Ugshs 12 million, which is about 20 per cent. We confirm that we are prepared to contribute that much.”
But the point that this letter says is that even if you are a ginner, there is a concept they have created called lint ginners and these lint ginners monopolies the production of a particular area and they are given a monopoly to ensure that they gin probably 70 per cent and then the rest of the ginners share and that is what is happening in Lango, it is happening in Pallisa, it is happening all over the place. That is why there is a lot of problem.
In other words, if you are a farmer say from Pallisa and you want to sell to a ginner who is willing to pay better price in Lira, you are not allowed to move your cotton, because that ginner there will use even Police to arrest you and your product. I thought this kind of information would be very useful to the Minister before he confuses Parliament. Thank you.
7.39
MS JESSICA ERIYO (Woman Representative, Adjumani): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I want to begin by thanking the Minister for his statement and I also want to thank the
Chairman of the Committee for the additional information. I will talk in support of the ginners last.
But first, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Government for this Shs 50 addition to this price.
But as I thank Government, I would like to caution Government to prepare early for next year and
I would like the minister to take this matter here seriously, by having something in the budget to support cotton farmers beginning from next year so that in case the prices are low, or even lower than what we have this year, or slightly higher, they will support the farmers. But in case the prices are good, then that money can be used for other things.
I want to say this, Madam Speaker, because first of all, we have a number of regions in this country that are unfortunate because they cannot produce certain crops which are high priced cash crops and lucrative, and that is why poverty is very high in those regions and it is persistently high. Therefore, Government and all of us must have affirmative action for those regions. This is a request and a demand.
I am speaking for my area, first and foremost, Adjumani and Moyo. We used to have the cooperative union, which supported people there because they were growing cotton as the sole cash crop and the only ginnery in Madi sub-region was destroyed during the war of 1979 and early 80s, and people abandoned growing cotton. People have been scratching here and there, they would attempt this crop and the other, but those crops would not do well and yet our people do not even grow tobacco, which is grown in Arua and some parts of West Nile. We do not grow tobacco and anything else.
When we started sunflower, people abandoned growing sunflower because the prices for sunflower were differentiated due to the unique problems of our area. Due to difficulties of

reaching there, because buyers would not go to buy sunflower there at a good price, they would not offer good price, but very low price compared to the price of sunflower in Lango, for instance. People abandoned even growing sunflower.
People attempted to grow simsim, which is also a one-season crop, but still because of the poverty levels, simsim is bought at a very low price at the time of harvest. So, our people have been suffering and have been looking around for some support.
The minister here in his statement on page 2 says that, CDO has been there and has intervened in the cotton sector and taken over support. But I would like to say that until this year, we had not seen CDO support in our region. It is because we lobbied some ginners to come and support us in the region. CDO simply collaborated with some ginners to go to easy areas to reach, but our area is like a difficult area to reach and CDO would not go to that area. (Interruption )
MR OGOLA: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that some people can be properly employed, some people can be under employed and others can be misemployed. When we employ people in vital areas, we should use people who know that product. I do not think I,
Akisoferi Ogola, can become a chairman of cattle development organization because I do not know much about cattle. But it is in cotton where the chief of the Cotton Development
Organisation has never seen cotton. Now, when hon. Eriyo says she has never been there, it is possible that she has never been there because she is a square peg in a round hole. That is what I think is true. Thank you very much.
MS ERIYO: Thank you very much, for your information. Madam Speaker, I would like us to support especially the ginner that has come to our sub-region because, if you go to the sub-region now, you will see how much land people have opened for cotton, and how much people are preparing to grow more cotton next year and that is why I am insisting that there should be affirmative action in support of the cotton farmers. CDO should actually take more interest in the region.
The issue of zoning, Madam Speaker, I still do not understand very well and the minister’s explanation is not very much convincing. But I would like to say that, in my own understanding, I think this would assist ginners like those who have gone to very difficulty areas, because these ginners have invested a lot.
I remember about three years ago, people were interested in growing cotton, they grew cotton at their own expense and some middlemen, went especially from the Lango sub-region and bought cotton from Adjumani at half the price they were buying this cotton in Lango sub-region and people abandoned cotton growing.
Therefore, I would support the support that has to be given to the ginners especially in an area like mine, because they have really gone a very long way to support these farmers, and no one else other than this ginner should go and buy cotton from my district, because they have invested, they have given seeds, they have given pesticides, they have given herbicides, they are even supporting in ploughing the land.
So, how can someone else who has not even supported farmers in any way come and buy off the cotton yet this ginner is there? If somebody else goes and buys off the cotton, this ginner will be discouraged from continuing to support these farmers. The same incident of the three years ago -
(Ms Namaggwa rose_)let me complete my statement, please do not disrupt me. The same people

who went and bought cotton at half price will go and buy and the people will again abandon growing cotton. So, the ginners there must be supported.
MS NAMAGGWA: Madam Speaker, I am standing on a point of order because of the way my sister is taking us for granted that actually we do not understand the free trade, the competition.
What she is agitating for is going to cause a big problem to this country. She is agitating for monopoly, she is agitating for curtail and this is what we are experiencing in tourism.
For somebody who knows marketing, for somebody who knows economics, whatever a ginner does in terms of production, whatever support he is given, will be taken back in pricing. There is no free assistance. So, she should not really confuse us and that is why I am wondering whether she thinks that we do not understand what economics is. Is she in order to confuse us, Madam
Speaker?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, she was explaining the special circumstances of Adjumani and
Moyo.
MS ERIYO: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and I have not said that they should not go to other areas; they can actually go especially where ginners have not invested. But for me, I am crying because my region is unique and many people here have not reached there. Very few people are interested in reaching there to go and buy (Interruption)
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, Uganda will soon, together with Kenya and Tanzania in January next year, have a customs union. In the process and as a result, we shall have trade and tariff rates all removed within the region. How shall zoning fit in? Is the Member, therefore, in order to mislead the House?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members and the minister, I think from what we heard last week and from what we heard today, there is urgent need to review the cotton sector right from the low practical work of zoning, production and marketing and so on. So, I think even these two months you are talking about are too far, why do you and our committee not report back immediately we return back from recess because it is now very clear the sector is in trouble, it is in shambles and we need to examine how it is going to move in the future.
MR ODIT: Can I seek clarification, Madam Speaker? Because of the urgency of this exercise and we are going for recess, it is not possible for us to remain behind unless there is special arrangement for us to tackle this exercise so that when Parliament resumes, we are ready with our report.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those are administrative matters, which we can handle because it very urgent.
MRS OGWAL: I think we can reach a compromise. We can reach a compromise because, one,
Government has come up with a subsidy, something we were not expecting. I would wish to advise that we go back to our earlier observation where we examined and found that the costing of the ginners were inflated. For example, they had included depreciation as a cost and depreciation for those who know commerce is just a book figure but it was all included. We think actually what hurts the farmers most is the levy and as Parliament, we cannot allow a private organisation to impose a tax on the people and we just keep quite.

So, all we now need to do is to remove that levy, add it on our Shs 350 and we end up with Shs
400 and even more because depreciation must be removed. And I am surprised that this costing was even presented to the head of state and the head of state knows very well that there is no banking institution today which is charging 21 per cent for long term loan. The head of state knows, there is no banking institution now, which is charging 28.6 per cent for overdraft; it is not possible. So, we feel that these issues must be reviewed realistically and really sympathize with the farmers so that we reach a compromise.
So, Madam Speaker, instead of just chasing us home and we go with a burden, we could actually strike a compromise; accept the subsidy, strike off the levy and then review something reduction from depreciation and what have you at Shs 450 then we can go home when we are happy. I think that would be a better compromise.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, all these matters you had a very strong list, which you raised as unnecessary expenses when you made a presentation. Do you not think that time is required by the committee to go round through all these things one by one, discuss with all the stakeholders, all those ginners, bring the small farmers and middle level farmers. I think we need time. How will you effect the removal of the levy just by Parliament here? I would like us to proceed –(Interruption)
MR GAGAWALA: Madam Speaker, the issue of competition is worrying me. When we deny the farmer to be competitive in the market and the way cotton had been arranged in the 1950s and the 1940s, ginners were allowed to have stores anywhere, even somebody from Tanzania would come and buy cotton here as long as that cotton was properly labelled and it was ginned and stocked. It could be sold in the name of the stock whenever he harvested it. It is a pity we are now decaying to a level we do not know how to label our cotton, we do not know how to sort it out to know that this cotton came from Lango.
Two years ago, when Lango was in trouble, there was a lot of insurgency in Lango, the cotton was ferried across Bukungu, it was ginned at Bulumba, it was properly categorized as natural cotton and then it was swivelled out of this country under a proper label and even seeds were taken with their proper label. If we deny the farmer the capacity to compete for the highest price, tonight our farmers are going to have no Christmas, Madam Speaker. This is an area which
–
(Interruption)
PROF. APOLO NSIBAMBI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable members of
Parliament, these matters are extremely intricate because, for example, you are saying ginners are exploiting, but they are not here to tell their story. If you listen to them, you may find yourselves amending your positions. I, therefore, feel strongly, Madam Speaker, that your recommendation was excellent that these matters be examined fully outside the Chamber of this august body so that even the ginners can come and testify in the open and we shall have a well-researched position. But what we have today, and I think it was item - I have got the resolution here. The state –( Interjections) - please let me clarify because I lose track of what I am articulating and I do not want to these matters being critical.
Today, we are to hear from the Minister of Agriculture what subsidy the state was in position to give and he has given that position and it was very hard to realize Shs 6.4 billion. So, I suggest that we leave it as she has suggested then other issues be fully examined outside the walls of this
Chamber so that other people may also be able to defend themselves. But we should not listen only to ourselves because what I heard from the ginners was also persuading that, they have made a contribution but we are being told that they are doing nothing, they are useless, they are

exploiters. That is not fair. They must also be able to defend themselves. So, I support your position, Madam Speaker, that we have heard what subsidy the state can give, let other issues be sorted out as agreed in the resolution. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
MS ERIYO: Madam Speaker, can I conclude? I was interrupted by a point of order and I have not concluded. I just have one issue to raise for the minister to answer.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it not part of the resolution?
MS ERIYO: No, I was still concluding my presentation, Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, conclude.
MS ERIYO: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank my colleagues who have given in more information about the problem of cotton. I appreciate all that they have said and as you wisely ruled here, I think the committee should look more into the issue of cotton sector so that our people who grow cotton can be supported in this country.
I was just left with one point in support of what hon. Cecelia Ogwal said about the prices and the charges that the ginners are trying to recover from the farmers. I would like to suggest that even the cess should be dismissed, if possible. Because the local governments have contributed nothing in the growing of cotton, why should they charge cess? Why can it not be dismissed, Madam
Speaker? ( Interruption )
MR KAKOOZA: The information I would like to give is that, if people do recall the budget speeches of 2002/03 and 2003/04, because of the global trend of the competitiveness in production, Government has been trying to remove the tariff barriers. That is why you remember that even a road toll was removed for farmers to access the market. As the minister has said, that it is an internal weakness. Something can be arranged by local governments to scrap off this levy.
Which means the minister can organize with the local government to remove this tariff barrier so that farmers can involve themselves in production in order to get a higher price and even internal revenue to the Government will be more. So, I do not see any problem on this.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Minister, do you have any objection to instructing the ginners to label the source of the cotton so that it is not mixed up? Because that will solve the problem so that they can put labels that, “This is from Apac ginnery and this is Satu” that will solve the problem.
DR BYARUHANGA: Madam Speaker, the consultations that have gone on have actually removed some powers from me. I cannot now decide on something that I have discussed with others and agreed upon a certain position unless I go back to them and present a new position. I am, therefore, unable to tell this House that I have a position other than what I read to you today.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MS TIPERU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to give this information because I feel that we are moving off the track. First and foremost, I want to appreciate the information given by the chairperson of the committee and the presentation of the minister, not forgetting Members of the Agriculture Committee who have been involved in thorough consultations on this sector.

Madam Speaker, lamentations were made and colleagues are actually in order because there was a lot of cry from the countryside as far as cotton is concerned. Questions were raised, questions like creating monopoly, questions like unfair levy and we were sent to consult. The President even raised a few questions; he asked us whether these ginners would make more profit if they went to Kenya. We reported and debated the matters in depth, Madam Speaker.
I just want to give information on the issue of zoning. We were properly clarified that zoning does not mean monopoly by a particular ginner. We were informed that zoning was for the purpose of improving production, marketing and ginning. If you want to open up a ginnery in your area, all you are advised to do is to liase with other already existing ginners in that locality.
The reason why zoning is done is to create confidence in the investors, who have already invested their money in a particular area. We even discussed about the fears of the free riders.
All in all, I want to say that the discussions were really far fetched. We acknowledged the fact that when we were debating, the President was open-minded. This petition was by hon. Okupa -
Madam Speaker, I want to inform colleagues that, hon. Okupa acknowledged that the President’s attitude towards the Members of the committee was so good. He did not look at Okupa as a member of the FDC – ( Interruption )
MR OKUPA: Madam Speaker, I was the mover of this motion; I have been listening patiently and attentively and I thought finally I would give my position on this matter. But before I do that,
I want to put it clear that allegations made here by hon. Tiperu associating her statements - after I made my presentation yesterday in state house and the President gave his view, I did not agree. I did not object to him, I kept quiet until I left. So, to come here and say my silence meant I totally agreed with the position of the President is totally out of order.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we really need an end to this matter. I do not think we shall agree on anything all of us here. I do not think we are going to agree; all those things need more information, more understanding and more consultation – ( Interjections )-I thought I was on the Floor?
MS KABAKUMBA: Madam Speaker, is it in order for Members to continue standing when you are addressing us, when they know very well you are supposed to be heard?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, they are out of order. Honourable members, the Minister has said he has no power to make any changes. Now, what are we going to do, are we going to make the changes ourselves? Why do we not move as we agreed that our committee carries out consultations with all the stakeholders the farmers, the ginners, all the interested people and we solve the problem so that for the future, we can advise the Government on how the cotton sector should be managed.
MR SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, having heard from the honourable Minister, from the
Chairman of the Committee and even from the various contributions from various Members, I beg to move that the issue of the cotton sector be forwarded to the relevant committee for further investigation, in as far as all the concerns of honourable Members of Parliament are concerned.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question.
( Question put and agreed to.
)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: And please it is very urgent hon. Odit and minister, and I hope you will keep your cool during the consultations with the members and you must report I think in the first week of February.
REPORT ON THE PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
8.09
MR JACHAN FRED OMACH MANDIR (Jonam County, Nebbi): Madam Speaker and honourable members, in accordance with the resolution of Parliament in December 2003, and in line with Article 3 sub section (9) and Article 18 of the protocol to the treaty establishing the East
African Economic Community relating to the Pan African Parliaments, we wish to report to the
Parliament of the Republic of Uganda what transpired during the Second Session of the Pan
African Parliament which took place in Midland South Africa from 16th September up to 1st
October 2004.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. Omach, do present in summary.
MR OMACH: Madam Speaker (Interruption)
MR WAGONDA MUGULI: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Member has to make a report on behalf of his colleagues to this House. But is that report not subject to debate by this
House and if that report is subject to debate, would it not be also correct for Members to be availed copies of the statement for scrutiny so that we can follow very closely?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER : I think the copies are being circulated in the House.
MR AWORI: Supplementary concern, Madam Speaker, on procedure.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. Awori.
MR AWORI: In accordance with our Rules of Procedure, this particular report, is it going to be made in total to the House or it shall be referred to the relevant committee for assessment and then back to this august House for plenary debate?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is just for the House.
MR AWORI: Is it strictly for the House?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, he is just reporting back on what they have been doing.
MR OMACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker and honourable members. Five of us were elected to the Pan African Parliament and we would like to say, “Thank you” to each and every one of you.
We are hon. Mike Sebalu - Busiro East, hon. Abdu Katuntu- Bugweri, hon. Miria Matembe –
Mbarara, hon. Loyce Biira Bwambale Kasese and myself Fred Omach - Jonam County.
The Pan African Parliament was inaugurated on the 18 of March 2004 – and, Madam Speaker, the copies have been given out and we would like to say that Uganda is a historical member of the Pan African Parliament. The Parliament of the Republic of Uganda is a historic member and so are the five Members whom you ably sent to the Pan African Parliament.

The Constitutive Act of the African Union on page 2, Madam Speaker, the Assembly of heads of state and government did ratify this protocol and it gave birth to the African Union with a vision of an Africa integrated, prosperous and peaceful, an Africa driven by its own citizens, a dynamic force in the global arena. To fulfil this, the African Union nine organs - and the Pan African
Parliament is one of these nine organs.
Now, the protocol to the Pan African Parliament which copy we have included here as Appendix
II, gets its powers from Article 17(1) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which states that in order to ensure the full participation of the African people, in the development and economic integration of the Continent, a Pan African Parliament shall be established. Now, we do give you the objects and aims of the Pan African Parliament as contained in Article 3 of the protocol.
On page 3, we have the report on the second session and the seat of the Pan African Parliament.
As you are aware, Madam Speaker and honourable members, the permanent seat of the Pan
African Parliament is now in Midland, South Africa and it will be there until determined otherwise.
In accordance with Article 14(2) of the protocol of the Pan African Parliament, there shall be at least two ordinary sessions in each year and we are happy that we were able to participate in the first session and also in the second session.
Now the business that we transacted are the following, which you will get on page 4: There were swearing in of new Members, there were keynote addresses from the President of the Republic of
South Africa His Excellency, Thambo Mbeki and there were other speakers as you will read from the report.
The third thing that happened in the Parliament is, the Rules of Procedure were adopted and we would like to give thanks to, hon. Miria Matembe, who was then the Vice Chairperson of the Ad hoc Committee of the Rules and Procedure of the Pan Africa Parliament. We also give special tribute to our Parliament here particularly the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline, which did a commendable job for three days when we stayed at the hotel in Entebbe. And I could say that over 80 per cent of the Rules of Procedure of the Pan African Parliament really is from the Parliament of Uganda.
Number (d), the constitution of committees, designation of Members and elections. Committees were constituted as you can see on page 5 of the report; they are 10 committees and Members were designated to these committees as follows, particularly the Uganda Members of the African
Parliament: Hon Mike Sebalu went to the Committee of Cooperation, International Relations and
Conflict Resolution; hon. Abdu Katuntu Justice and Human rights; hon. Miria Matembe Rules,
Privileges and Discipline and hon. Loyce Biira Bwambale Gender, Family, Youth and People with Disability and I went to the committee on Monetary and Financial Affairs.
There were elections and each region, out of the five regions of Africa, was supposed to have only two position of full chair. But, Madam Speaker and honourable members, I would like to report that Uganda alone got two positions of chairpersonship one was for hon. Biira Loyce, who became Chairperson of the Committee on Gender, Family, Youth and People with Disability
–
(Applause)- and the second was hon. Miria Matembe who became the Chairperson Committee on
Rules, Privileges and Discipline and we also swept yet another position hon. Abdul Katuntu became the rapporteur of the Committee of Justice and Human Rights.

As I mentioned earlier, there are five regions Eastern, Western, Southern, Northern, Central and
Uganda took three and there were four chairpersons from Eastern Africa, one went to Tanzania and one went to Sudan.
Madam Speaker, we went ahead also and looked at the Budget of the Pan African Parliament and this budget was passed and a total of US dollar 6.9 million was passed and this is supposed to be sent to the heads of state, the Assembly of the African Union. Once they approve this, this will be used to enable the operations of the Pan African Parliament, albeit each member domestic
Parliament is supposed to ensure that they maintain their Members for the next five years starting from the 15 March 2004.
As far as the Pan African Parliament Members from Uganda are concerned, Madam Speaker, our budget has not been approved. We did present a budget of 713 million under the Parliamentary
Commission but this has not been approved and on page 7 we are praying that this should be considered under supplementary budget.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Parliament of Uganda and the Government of
Uganda for the two sessions that we have been able to attend, and we pray that we continue to represent Uganda at the Pan African Parliament. As I talk now, the three Members who are elected in positions in the African Parliament will be going for committee meeting in January this year and the third session will take place in March 2005.
Madam Speaker, in the same vain, I would like to commend the Government of Uganda for ratifying the protocol to the Pan African Parliament, and we urge the Government of Uganda to be update with its payments with the African Union. As of now, out of 53 member states only 46 have ratified the protocol and out of these, unless otherwise advised, only 13 members have fully paid.
Now, there were a number of topical issues that we debated in accordance with Rule 11(5) of the protocol. We debated on peace and security in Africa, in the NEPAD and African PRV
Mechanism. On page 8, Madam Speaker, we are appealing to the Government of the Republic of
Uganda to ratify the protocol on the African PRV Mechanism which is something which will benefit all of us and it was something which the heads of state and government agreed on from their own hearts. We believe that Uganda should ratify this and I have a copy of the African PRV
Mechanism, which I would like to Table to this Parliament.
Madam Speaker, we also did discuss issues on the role, mission and vision of Pan African
Parliament and we ended up with recommendations and resolutions as contained on page 8 following a resolution on peace and security, women and children in armed conflicts a resolution, which was moved by hon. Abdul Katuntu from Uganda, resolution on oversight, resolution on corruption and the resolution is requiring each member state and each Parliament to ensure that its members join the APNAC so that we correctively fight corruption. We are also appealing to the Government of Uganda to ensure that we sign and deposit the AU Anti-Corruption
Convention.
We had a resolution of ratification of protocol on Women Rights in Africa, which was moved by hon. Loyce Biira Bwambale. Madam Speaker, this was discussed this morning and Uganda has not ratified this protocol and on page 10, we are praying and appealing that Uganda should ratify this.

We had a resolution thanking the Republic of South Africa for hosting the Pan African
Parliament and did a commendable job to host this Parliament.
We had a resolution on establishment of the Pan African Parliament, a resolution on a new partnership for Africa development and African PRV Mechanism, which I have already talked about.
We had a resolution on peace and security in Africa and we had three recommendations, one on the budget of the Pan African Parliament, the second one was on the role of the Pan African
Parliament and the third recommendation was on NEPAD Secretariat to speed up the process of completing the NEPAD projects on different issues for mobilisation of resources and implementation.
Additionally, Madam Speaker and honourable members, the Pan African Parliament appointed a select committee to assess the turmoil that is raining in the Darfur region of Sudan and make recommendations. I am happy to mention that the team leader, hon. Katuntu Abdu of Uganda, has just come back from a successful mission, and he is now compiling his report to the African
Parliament and this report will be debated in March 2005.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we are appealing to the Government of Uganda to ratify the protocol on the Rights of women in Africa without further delay, and as you were told this morning, the closing date is 15th of December. Libya, Namibia, Comoros, Lesotho and Rwanda have already ratified this protocol and we expect only 11 more countries to ratify this protocol so that it comes into the force.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker and honourable members, I have already mentioned to you that the third session of the Pan African Parliament is expected to take place in March 2005 in
Midland South Africa, and we are making every possible arrangement to be present at that
Parliament. I also wish to thank the Government of Uganda for giving us the enabling environment and advise, and we pray for closer relationship with the Government of Uganda particularly through the Ministry responsible for Foreign Affairs. I thank the Members of the Pan
African Parliament, who are working as a team to ensure that Uganda’s banner is held beyond the skies. I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I beg that the report be adopted.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, you know when we made our rules we said that the Pan African Members should report to us. But, now having listened to the report it seems there are some action points, which needs to be followed up by someone. So, I think that although they have reported, we need to give this report to the Committee on Presidential and
Foreign Affairs to follow up on issues of the full budget, the protocols and so on. So, if you do not mind, we will send it to that committee since they are going for a meeting in March, we should be able to discuss the outcome of that committee before they leave for the meeting in
March. Thank you! So, Committee on Presidential please, examine this and report back.
Now, honourable members, shall we go to health? Health, that is the last item because the others are not ready. (Interjection)the Minister of Health will do the needful in the canteen after here .
8.27
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR HEALTH, PRIMARY HEALTHCARE (Dr Alex
Kamugisha): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a statement from the Ministry of Health on concerns on the safety of Nevirapine and people getting false HIV reports in order to get medicine free of charge and sell it on the black market.

Madam Speaker and honourable colleagues, I would like to respond to two serious observations made by hon. Aggrey Awori, MP for Samia Bugwe North, namely:
1. That the medicines in circulation namely Nevirapine is not safe for human consumption.
2. That people are now getting false HIV reports in order to get medicine free of charge and sell it on black market.
Madam Speaker and honourable colleagues, anti-retroviral drugs in Uganda are used for the following three main purposes.
1. Treatment of AIDS patients.
2. Prevention of mother to child HIV transmission popularly known as PMTCT.
3. Post exposure prophylaxis in case a needle sticks in a health worker or rape.
In Uganda free ARV drugs are being given for all three categories. For PMTCT, Nevirapine, that is the name of the drug, is one of the ARV drugs in use. This drug was developed following a number of studies including HIVNET 012, a study sponsored by the United States National
Institute of Health (NIH) and implemented by Makerere University together with John Hopkins
University Research Collaboration. Prof. Francis Miiro a Ugandan and Dr Phillipa Musoke also a
Ugandan, were two eminent Ugandan investigators on the study team.
The above study showed that two dozes of Nevirapine one to the mother and another one to her new-born baby lowered the risk of HIV transmission from mother to child by 50 percent. Results from this trial were initially released with preliminary data in 1999 and final data in 2003.
Madam Speaker, in the recent past, questions have been raised regarding the conduct of HIVNET
012 study and the safety of Nevirapine used for prevention of mother to child transmission of
HIV infection. Specifically, concerns were raised about the deficiencies in reporting of adverse events that would question the safety of this short course of Nevirapine, implying that investigators hid drug related to toxicities in the safety reporting. This is absolutely untrue. Based on available records, there were no deaths or serious adverse effects that were definitely related to
Nevirapine in this study. Some unrelated adverse effects however occurred, the majority of which were illness common in Ugandan children. A bit of fever and mild cough were some of the symptoms noticed.
Madam Speaker and honourable colleagues, let me also point out that these same issues related to the accuracy of the trial results were initially raised in 2002. Following that, extensive and exhaustive reviews of the HIVNET 012 study were completed by the United States National
Institute of Health (NIH), which validated both the efficacy and safety of Nevirapine. In addition, several other independent clinical trials in the United States, Europe, South Africa and Thailand have examined the safety and efficacy of this Nevirapine regimen for prevention of mother to child HIV transmission and concluded that the drug is efficacious and safe.
Based on the above findings, Nevirapine is now being used extensively for PMTCT. The single dose of Nevirapine regimen to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV has been used in hundreds of thousands of women and their babies in 60 countries here in Africa, Asia and
America etc., both in practice and in clinical trials without any significant toxicity for mothers and the babies. It is important to understand that there are no data demonstrating significant

Nevirapine induced to toxicities in women or infants receiving short course Nevirapine for
PMTCT.
Studies have shown a low risk of toxicity with long-term use of Nevirapine in combination with other Anti Retroviral drugs for HIV treatment. Here the difference is to notice the short-term treatment and long-term treatment; you need to capture that one. In Uganda Nevirapine is also used for treatment of AIDs patients in combination with 3 TC and Efervirenze or in combination with d4T and 3TC. These are abbreviations for drug names, ARVs. This same drug combinations that include Nevirapine are being used in many countries including the United States.
Furthermore, all Anti Retroviral drugs have toxicities as associated with their chronic use.
However, the risk of the drug related toxicity is lower than the benefit of Anti Retroviral therapy for HIV treatment. For example these ARVs taken on long term basis, there are lots of adverse effects, but of course patients benefit. We have to look at the options and the benefits and advantages of that long-term treatment versus the adverse effects.
Madam Speaker and honourable colleagues, last but not least, in response to current concerns, another independent review is being conducted by the US Institute of Medicine to dispel any lingering doubts about the conduct and results of the HIVNET 012 study.
Finally, I would like to allay the fear of hon. Aggrey Awori and any other Member who might have similar concerns. Nevirapine has been tested and found to be safe. The World Health
Organisation, UNICEF and Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation still recommend
Nevirapine as one of the ARV options for PMTCT and, Madam Speaker, I have here a brief report from this Foundation, which explains their own view about the use of Nevirapine and I would like to lay it on the Table for reference by anybody who might want it. We should continue to use it. Together we should continue to support this very important programme of PMTCT using the Nevirapine to prevent our children from becoming infected with HIV.
In regard to the second concern, which was raised by the same hon. Member, that people are now using false HIV test results to get medicine free of charge and sell it on to the black market, the
Minister will investigate and then report back. However, I want to inform the House that there are clear guidelines on when to initiate the patient on ARV drugs. You just do not walk into a clinic and you get HIV ARVs, it is not possible. Whoever has made that report does not understand how the system is working.
Initiation is based on a combination of the following criteria:
1. A positive HIV test result – this is mandatory.
2. CD 4 counts of a certain level where available, here we use about 200.
3. clinical signs of the disease and
4. Readiness of the patient to start and remain on ARVs. These are the combination of the criteria that we use to assess a patient for HIV and Anti Retroviral treatment. It is only AIDS patients by this definition who meet the above criteria and are ready to start that qualify to get the drugs. It is therefore, very unlikely that anybody can be started on ARV drugs based on a false HIV test results. Personnel in all accredited ART centres have been trained to strictly follow the above criteria while recruiting the patients.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, there is an annex here, which is listing 19 countries which are being supported by the centre I mentioned earlier on, which are using Nevirapine. I do not need to read them. But let me also mention that in another document, which has been circulated outside this Chamber, titled: “
Current Status Report on Anti Retroviral Drugs and HIV Test
Kits”
– we were sharing this one with a Committee on HIV/AIDs. It has an annex at the end and I have already been requested by a number of you asking me, if you were to tell your constituents where to get some of this treatment, where do you go?
Unfortunately the annex is not paged. But it says, “Allocation list for triomune-30 procured by
Uganda Global Fund…”. It has got a list of health facilities and the way patients have been allocated to receive these drugs. You can check it; some of them are regional hospitals, national referral hospitals, regional referral, district, government hospitals, private for profit hospitals, private not for profit/NGO hospitals, centres of excellency and research centres, Health Centre 4s, they are all listed here by name.
I need to conclude by saying that our intention is to continue accrediting more centres which can provide ARVs so that people get them from as very near as possible.
Madam Speaker, I wish to conclude my statement on that note and I thank Members for listening.
Thank you.
8.40
MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
May I also thank the hon. Minister for promptly coming to the august House to give an answer to my concerns. In the same breath, I would like to tell my hon. colleague in charge of Health services that this is not a matter emanating simply from the media; it is a major concern and as I said yesterday, it is a big debate in the US House of Congress. The main concern by the US scientists and congressmen was that; one, that the people who have been subjected to this particular drug have developed a resistance.
Two, that the research being done in Uganda was not subjected to enough period of testing before it could go commercial or be applied for general treatment. The Congress men who expressed this concern equated it with a situation that happened in the US 40 years ago when a certain drug was developed for treatment of Syphilis and it was exclusively tried on people of colour. In other words, black Africans born or who live in the US.
As a result, after ten years of that kind of treatment, they developed a resistance and a lot of blacks developed a difficult situation regarding syphilis affecting their mental capabilities. One wonders whether this kind of situation could also develop in Uganda after a certain number of years. So really people who doubted it said a drug of this nature needs a long period of testing, not only in the lab, but also on specified specimen. That is where the question came in.
Three, politically, people expressed concern that while it had been put on halt in the US, at the material time President Bush was planning to pass through Uganda that ban was hurriedly lifted because Bush did not want to come here and find reports on the research done by Ugandans but literally rejected by American researchers. So they said, politically convenient to list the ban, but scientifically it has not met the yardstick yet. That was the concern.
Four, the email I have seen being circulated and this particular foundation being quoted by the hon. Minister Okaying this drug. Actually, that foundation is involved in the marketing of the drug. So, one could say, they are financially motivated to support the distribution of this drug. My

concerns are based on the health of the people of Uganda and if things are going to be done for political ends, we have to be conscience. I am surprised and a little bit disappointed with my hon. colleague in charge of Health Services simply saying, oh, my hon. colleague should know better or if he was familiar with A, B, C.
As a matter of fact this concern started from scientific centres and researchers, not from the political circles. People like Jersey Jackson, a well known Black American activist, brought it to the attention of the White House and the matter went to the Congress and that is again when the
White House had to respond that “No”. It was not President Bush who really re-activated this interest and thereby causing the lift on the ban. So, really I would like to know, hon. Minister, this matter should be dismissed at this level, you need to look into it much more seriously. There is more to it than meets the eye; that is the first part of it.
The second part of it is a question of the corruption, which I mentioned as a concern. Fine, the procedure you have outlined here for obtaining this medicine is two official procedure of accessing the ARV. I am not talking about official access, I am talking about fraud and most people who commit fraud do not follow the normal official procedure; that should be known to you as a highly placed person not only in the world of medicine, but also as a public officer.
People who commit this, as a matter of fact, you will be surprised if you investigate further, this matter is already in the hands of the CID. I am surprised you have not mentioned here that some detectives are looking into this matter of people obtaining these certificates of HIV or sero status fraudulently and thereby going to these so-called institutions you have enumerated here and accessing free ARVs and then peddling them on the open market.
I am sure the hon. Minister is also aware of the difficult situation obtaining at the Air Port whereby there are serious allegations and once again being investigated by detectives that actually a substantial amount of ARV sent to us here are being re-exported to Europe where they fetch higher prices. This might sound like high-flying rumours, but where there is smoke, there is always an element of heat. So I will not dismiss it in a flippant fashion that may be these are just allegations.
I know of somebody who had an interest in investigating the matter, but unfortunately he is no longer because he stumbled on the very serious matter, and this young man strangely went to
Tororo one weekend and he just disappeared; he lost his life. These are not simple issues. I think you should check with the people in charge of detecting crimes of this nature. I am sure you have seen it in the papers, in the courts of law; I cannot comment on it now. A serious lawyer and a pharmacist - there is a matter before the courts now of re-exporting ARVs. As I said, since it is in the courts of law, I cannot comment.
These are not matters of politics; this is life and death, and if we are going to sink bad law in our morals for people to pretend they are sero status as positive when in the actual fact their primary motive is to make money. There are many of us who are still living in the cupboards; we do not want to declare our sero status because of our social status and therefore we have to buy these things on the black markets. These are the people who are funding this industry. That is why it is very difficult in this country to come up with the law compelling people to declare their Sero status.
Madam Speaker, this kind of situation does not just come about; it comes as a result of scarcity of a particular commodity. If you look at the global fund, the 15 million dollars we got as campaign against AIDS: We had a list here yesterday of the companies and NGOs involved in this, you

will be surprised that a Member of Parliament is one of the distributors, an in-law of the President is one of the people. When corruption enters a vital and strategic area concerning our lives, we have a reason to express concern.
Madam Speaker, I call upon the hon. Member of Parliament in charge of Health Services, when he goes back to check on the last part of my concern, which he has told us that he is going to, he should also include the global fund. Who are the people that have accessed that particular fund?
My colleague here got Shs 400m, the in-law of the President got Shs 500m for the education; it is not a secret, I can say it. TERP Advertising Agency, it belongs to a one Mr Rwabogo who is a son in-law of the President Museveni. He is one of the leading advertisers in the country. He has been operating from Nile Conference Centre, now he is one of the leading persons in terms of publicity. You know if these things were openly competitive so that everybody can compete for accessing this kind of money, I would not be worried about it. But when you look at the people who have accessed this kind of money, then you say, there is something around here.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for according me this opportunity, but at the same time, I call upon my hon. colleague –(Interruptions)
MR ETONU: Madam Speaker, hon. Aggrey Awori has made a very serious allegation and he has mentioned a name of a person whom he says is a son in-law of the President, but he said a hon. colleague also is one of the exporters. Can he also help us, maybe we shall be suspected to be such a Member of Parliament; can he name the Member of Parliament he said he is also involved?
MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, this is not a nuclear weapon secret. It is common knowledge. My hon. colleague from Rukungiri, hon. Winnie Masiko is a director of a company or an NGO involved in this exercise. I am not accusing them of ill motives.
I would like to put that one on record, I am not accusing anybody of bad motives on accessing this money or how they use it but I am simply saying when this kind of fund becomes available, we have to be very careful, the level of transparency should be beyond doubt. Otherwise, will certain people, well positioned, access this kind of money and the money which is meant for people, innocent people, most vulnerable in our society, I have a reason to come to this august
House and query it. If we had more time I could have come with documents and tabled them here, these public documents.
Mr Minister, I would like to ask the hon. Minister to come next time, when he is coming to explain on the matter I have expressed concern about, also to bring information how many of which companies in Uganda, NGOs that are drawing from this 15 million dollar fund. Bring it, let us look at the names, let us look at the Directors, you will be surprised, my hon. colleague, Ben
Etonu.
8.53
MR OGWEL LOOTE (Moroto Municipality, Moroto): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to appreciate the statement made by the Minister after the concern raised by hon. Awori and I think we have been also following the media especially as he mentioned about the Congress and also among the consumers of this drug. But what I want to raise to the Minister and his team of researchers is that although we encourage and continue to use this drug to administer to our patients in our hospitals, I think there is a reason why we should be now very cautious and

possibly engage in investigation by some of this population that we have already carried out treatment and to monitor their behaviour caused by this drug.
I think we need also to be cautious and use this opportunity to conduct an investigation to see whether there are some new things developing because there could be changes within the behaviours of these patients that are administered including the children that have been born so that we are very sure and we are on the right track.
I think we have taken quite a number of years administering and so we can conduct a survey to see the behaviour so that the doubts are cleared. Even if there are found in some countries, some effects may not be the same in our country taking the geographical location, the humility of the people, the one they devolve so that it may not be applicable somewhere else. It maybe still useful but I think we still need to inject some funds to carry out investigations so that the doubts are completely cleared.
8.55
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Dr Crispus Kiyonga): Thank you Madam
Speaker. I know hon. Aggrey Awori should be a very serious person and when he raises an issue we need to take it seriously. But I have some difficulty on how hon. Awori raises some issues.
You see, the statements we make here go on record and they can go against us or indicate that we are doing our work properly.
Now on the issues of corruption, hon. Awori has named names, I think it would be facilitating our work if hon. Awori would not only substantiate, but also bring some palpable evidence so that follow up becomes easy, and we follow the matter to its conclusion. It would be unfair to this
House to hear such accusations and we just leave them in the air. So, I would request that our colleague hon. Awori, maybe at our next sitting or in a committee, to present some more substantive information.
MR AWORI: I am trying to confirm what you are saying about me. Are you implying I am making an allegation against anybody? I made it very clear that the two persons I mentioned their companies are accessing global fund not for any bad motive. I made it very clear, I am not accusing anybody, I am simply saying to access public resources, the level of transparency should be clearly beyond doubt.
So, please, I would like to go on record that I am not accusing my colleague hon. Masiko, a highly placed person close to President or Director of TERP that has wrongly accessed funds or either misusing them or there is an element of corruption. I am simply saying accessing public resources should be in terms of transparency, at a very high level and I am also requesting that the
Minister comes to this august House with a list of NGOs and companies that are accessing the global fund to fight against HIV. If you do not have that list in your ministry, then something is terribly amiss.
MR KUBEKETERYA: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. The list of the drugs or NGOs accessing that was brought here by the Minister and I think every Member was given a copy.
Thank you.
MRS ALISEMERA BABIHA: Thank you, I just want to be clarified whether a CBO or an
NGO where a Member of Parliament is a Director or maybe a Patron or something like that cannot access funds. Is it illegal for a Member of Parliament to be a director of one of the

organizations? Do we have it in our rules that one should not be a director or a patron or something like that? That is what I want to be clarified on.
MR AWORI: With your permission Madam Speaker, I would like to assure my hon. colleague, I have not at any stage implied that you are not allowed. The only statement I made regarding corruption is that when we are considering competitors or bidders to public resources we have to exercise the highest level of transparency.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think hon. Awori really what you are asking is that; how are those people selected, that is what you are asking? Is it not? I think that one can be answered by the Minister.
DR KIYONGA: I have no problem Madam Speaker with the hon. Awori questioning any procedure, it is his is right as a Member of Parliament but I think what helps us to move is people to be specific because the Ministry as Colleagues have said did bring a list here. One would expect that hon. Awori or other Colleagues interested could have studied this list and become firm that we see this list, we know that the procedure was not correct and we want to call the people concerned to order then we have a specific problem to pursue and that would be in our right but just be specific and move forward.
Two other points Madam Speaker, first the issue of scientists here and scientists abroad. Some of the issues we are discussing are complex and it is true in our search, we can also come across question marks; but the best way to protect our country is when we have a complex matter like this, to search whether we have an appropriate capacity amongst ourselves maybe a committee like now we have a Committee on HIV/AIDS. Like this subject of ARV’s, the question of prevention of mother to child transmission is not a matter you can finish on the Floor here.
So when our colleague has palpable information that we are having a dangerous situation and it is presented, it would serve us better if we immediately call our Committee into action so that they can discuss with these experts, get to the bottom of the truth but when we discuss matters here on the Floor, sometimes we intimidate even our own scientists, they fear Members of
Parliament, they know we are very powerful but if you put them in an appropriate environment, in an appropriate committee, they can come up with the right information either to convince us or to realize that there is a danger they did not know.
This issue of transmission of HIV from mother to child is a serious matter in this country. At one point, Madam Speaker, the percentage of mothers who got pregnant and got HIV was as high as
30 and 40 percent. When you take the information that every year we have about 1 million women pregnant and for those who are positive, 30 percent of those will transmit that means every year we will have 55 children being born into this country already positive. That is a very serious issue. Even when we say the prevalence has fallen from 10 percent it still means we are going to have 33,000 children every year being born HIV/AIDS positive. That is a very big number and a serious issue when you consider families.
Our own scientists, as the hon. Minister said, Prof. Miiro, a retired professor, with other young scientists worked on this simple drug, Nevirapine. It is just taken orally or as a syrup for children and it has been demonstrated in this country that out of otherwise 33,000 children you will get only half of those being affected. When we go to 10 percent we will get even a lower figure. So this is commendable work and of course there are differences in technology.

In the United States, mothers who are pregnant and are HIV/AIDS positive are attending a clinic from day one. When they know they are pregnant they are already with a doctor and they are put on much more expensive medicines for a long time. You almost get zero transmission. So, sometimes what you hear in the Congress is not necessarily what will apply here in terms of what we can afford.
So, I would really appeal particularly to the Committee on HIV/AIDS to take this statement by hon. Aggrey Awori and return here with a very serious response to this situation. It cannot be just on the Floor, it is a serious matter and we have to find an answer.
It is also true that because the ARVs we are using in this country are highly subsidized, people are now paying about Shs 100,000, Shs 200,000 for a whole year to be on ARVs and now even free, but abroad these drugs are still very expensive. So the temptation is there; hon. Awori is correct that the temptation is there for re-export. But the person who is going to re-export, hon.
Awori, does not need to take a false test. He just creates a network with the people who are in the drugs, not just to get a hand full of drugs in a glass; he will be getting boxes for re-export.
Obviously, that will deny our people this advantage.
So, again I would appeal to hon. Awori that if he has a good indicator, not necessarily refer to the
CID or to the Minister because if the Minister knew, I have no doubt that he would be moving.
But if we have another indicator, again this is something we must pursue. It is possible that people are exporting medicines because they are almost for nothing here. So we need a good indicator that we can follow and be able to curb this situation.
Lastly, on the issue of resistance, that is also true - if the drugs are not used properly, they will become useless. But that just means the drug is okay but because you are mishandling it, you are not taking the sufficient doze, you are not being monitored properly, you become resistant and also that spreads to other people. That also is equally a serious matter.
So, I would end by first requesting hon. Awori that on the charges he has made, let us get a little more information even if confidentially. Two, that the Committee on HIV/AIDS is a Standing
Committee that is why we pay them, that is why we created them, they must take this matter seriously and return to this House with a clear answer on the information we have heard. I thank you Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, what do you think about the NPC’s proposal that our committee which we mandated to look into the issues of HIV really examines this matter? I am not knowledgeable about these things by the way - so that they examine the matter and they come back and we have a full-fledged debate.
So I think hon. Tumwesigye and his committee should examine hon. Awori’s complaint. His statement should be extracted from the Hansard and passed on to the committee together with the
Minister’s statement so that the committee can report to us early in the New Year when we come back.
Honourable members, I want to thank you for the work we have done. I regret that we have not been able to organize a dance this evening; it would have been appropriate to send you home.
There is “lugubriousness” in the Clerk’s office but we undertake that when you return we shall start with a bang. So, please keep your dancing shoes; as soon you return we shall immediately begin with the dance and some kyamucation.

So, honourable members, I wish you a very good Christmas and happy consultations with your voters. We will see you on the 1st of February as we have already indicated. Thank you. The
House is adjourned.
( The House rose at 9.13 p.m. and adjourned until Tuesday, 1 February 2005.)