Wednesday, 17 November 2004
Parliament met at 2.37 p.m. in Parliament House, Kampala.
PRAYERS
(The Speaker, Mr Edward Ssekandi, in the Chair.)
The House was called to Order.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is my pleasure to welcome you and to thank you for
finding time to come. Although yesterday’s proceedings were unpleasant, I appeal to you to
forget the past, to forget what happened yesterday, and to forge ahead and to work together
because we need each other, big or small. Thank you very much.
2.39
DR FRANCIS EPETAIT (Ngora County, Kumi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for
giving me the opportunity to seek some clarification from the Minister in charge of Defence. This
is arising from a press report that appeared in yesterday’s New Vision newspaper to the effect that
one Raymond Kramer of Pacific Trade and Commerce from South Africa was awarded a contract
worth US $ 983,544 to supply beans, beef and biscuits to the Uganda People’s Defence Forces.
And that, the same Raymond Kramer had also been given yet two other contracts to supply food
worth US $ 1.113 million, which is yet to be delivered.
Thirdly, that the same Raymond Kramer had been awarded another contract in 1999 to supply
food to the Army worth US $ 1.5 million, and which food was verified to be expired. The expired
food was stored and only destroyed last year having accumulated yet another debt of about Shs
100 million in storage costs.
Mr Speaker, I am also informed in the same paper that there were two other companies, which
had bid for a contract to supply food, and these included Britannia with its bid of US $ 772,400
and Franklin with a bid of US $ 767,400, but the highest bidder instead took the day. Now, I want
to find out whether the Ministry of Defence is going to clear the air and inform the nation what is
going on with the tendering process in the UPDF. Because, as it were, if the lowest bidder had
been given this contract, Uganda would have saved close to Shs 380 million and with that bad
track record of Raymond Kramer, whether the tendering process was really not floated - I mean,
the supplier has had problems in the past but all the same he continues to win tenders to supply
dry rations. So, I hope the Ministry of Defence will get us some clarification on what is going on,
lest we risk losing lots of money and also having quality food for the UPDF. Thank you very
much.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable Minister of Defence, how much time do you need, how many
days or you are in a position to answer now?
2.43
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As
Parliament knows, under the new arrangement about procurement in Government, the Ministry of
Defence is in complete compliance with the law. I do not remember the exact name, but a
procurements committee has been established in the ministry and it is responsible for procuring
whatever is required by the ministry under the law.
If the honourable member indeed gives us a formal question for an oral answer, we will be happy
to comply with it and we will answer in time because these are the kind of things a minister
would not have off his or her fingertips. So, we will be ready to respond to the question. But I
wanted to say that I think according to the rules, if you gave us a formal question, we will answer
it in the normal way. Thank you.
DR EPETAIT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the question is now on record, and I
would urge the minister to just state - the Speaker asked the minister to state about how much
time he needs to answer the question, and I think it would be very prudent of him now to tell us as
to when he hopes to get the answers to the question.
THE SPEAKER: I think, honourable Minister, in view of the background that the Member has
given to you, it is the answer we need really. Did they take into account the background as stated
by the honourable Member? Then you give us the answer.
2.46
MR FRED BADDA (Bujumba County, Kalangala): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In the
last sitting before we broke off for recess, I asked the Minister of Finance a question and the
minister asked for time to be able to look for the answer. He promised that on the following
sitting he would be able to answer the question and I expected the answer today. I do not know
whether I am going to get that one.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable Minister of Finance, anything to say?
MR AGARD DIDI: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, could he tell me exactly, what was the nature of the
–(Laughter)
THE SPEAKER: I think let us do it this way. Let the answer be given on Tuesday next week
because the question is with you; next week we expect the answer.
2.47
DR FRANK NABWISO (Kagoma County, Jinja): Mr Speaker, I am seeking clarification
arising from your communication to the House. You rightly asked us to forget the past, especially
the events, which took place yesterday. There were two major events, which took place: There
was the quarrel between hon. Otto Odonga and Minister Nankabirwa, that scuffle was one
problem. The second issue was about the alleged corruption which is continuing in this country
and which calls for Parliament to establish some moral standards of behaviour to guide this
country in the politics of this country. May I get further clarification on these two matters? Were
you asking us, Mr Speaker, to forget about the scuffle yesterday or to forget about the alleged
corruption, which is going on?
THE SPEAKER: I hope you were here yesterday and when I said you forget the past and work
together, you will see the central issue in the matter.
2.48
MR PETER MUTULUUZA (Mawokota County North, Mpigi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am
just raising a matter of public importance concerning the closing technical institutions in Uganda.
This question will go to the Minister of Education and Minister of Finance.
Mr Speaker, you recall very well that during recess National Teachers’ Colleges and Primary
Teachers’ Colleges were closed. I understand they are going to be reopened, funds have been
availed and they are going to resume. But now the technical institutes, some actually have already
closed. One, Kisubi St Joseph Technical Institute is closing on Saturday and the reason is that
students sponsored by Government have not paid yet the private ones have paid. They are going
to close two weeks to the end of the term. This is going to affect both the government-sponsored
and the privately sponsored students.
I want a clarification from Minister of Education and from Minister of Finance. This Parliament
passed the budget for these institutions, why is it that the money is not forthcoming? They are
saying these institutions were last paid in September – (Interruption)
MR NANDALA: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker and thank you very much honourable
colleague for giving way. The reason why the money is not forthcoming, MPs are collecting for
Kisanja.
MR MUTULUUZA: Thank you for that information but I do not think so.
Lastly, I am informed that these institutes always get monthly releases but they were last given
money in September and only 58 percent of the budgeted money was released. So, I do not know
why this is happening. I seek clarification from the minister.
2.51
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS (Prof. Khiddu Makubuya): Thank you
very, Mr Speaker and honourable members. First, I would like to thank my honourable colleague
for raising his concern. Secondly, I would like to effect some corrections in the statement. It is
true that the National Teachers’ Colleges did not open when they were supposed to open on the
18th of September.
Mr Speaker and honourable members, I take responsibility for deferring the opening of the
National Teachers’ Colleges. I am the one who directed that they should not open and I did it for
a reason. You open for two weeks and you run out of supplies, and you know what can happen in
these institutions! So, I said if we are not sure that we shall have supplies for the term, do not
open. We were not sure, we negotiated, we did what and finally when the funds were found, I
authorized that they re-open and they reopened on the 13th of November.
Mr Speaker, I think it is important that this one goes on record. Yes, I am responsible for
deferring the opening because the risks of opening without sure lines of supply were so high that
it seemed to me it was better to take my approach than to open for the sake of opening and two
weeks down the road, you have another crisis on your hands. The NTCs have reopened effective
13th November.
Mr Speaker, it is not correct to say that the Primary Teachers’ Colleges were ever closed. We
have not closed them and they have been running; the programme is on schedule. If you know of
any, which is closed, you will let me know.
MRS GERTRUDE KULANY: I was in Kapchorwa last Friday at Kapchorwa TTC and I met
the Principal. He told me they have closed down because of lack of funds. So, it is not there.
MS JALIA BINTU: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker and honourable Minister. I was in
Masindi for the last three weeks and Kamurasi Teachers’ College closed when the NTC Masindi
closed. So, honourable Minister, possibly it is not correct to say that the PTCs did not close.
Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think what we can say that by sampling, there is
evidence that the PTCs are also closed. Honourable Minister, can you react?
MR MWONDHA: Mr Speaker, probably the minister will help to clarify this matter; whether
the government now clearly has priorities or not, because it is not enough for him to say “do not
open” it is not enough for a minister to go on a strike, what is the government doing?
CAPT. GUMA: Mr Speaker, I think hon. Makubuya should go back and consult his department
of education in the country to find out what exactly is happening. All PTCs are closed; St
George’s College in Ibanda, on the account of lack of beans and posho; Rwentanga in Mbarara
also closed.
The other point where we want a fully-fledged explanation is his statement, that shortage of
supplies in case of National Teacher’s Colleges like here in Mubende and throughout the whole
country because we pass budget here. So, can we request you, Mr Speaker, to direct the minister
to go back so that he gets sufficient time to give us full explanation about what is happening in
his department because we pass money here.
PROF. KHIDDU MAKUBUYA: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank hon. Guma Gumisiriza for
the advice he has given me to go back to my department to consult and come back and give
details of what is going on, on NTCs, PTCs and technical institutes. I accept this advice; I will
make a statement next week. I thank you, Sir. (Laughter)
MR MWONDHA: Mr Speaker, I was asking the minister to include in his statement what
happened yesterday at Makerere. Thank you very much.
PROF. KHIDDU MAKUBUYA: Mr Speaker, I have undertaken to make a statement next week
on what is happening in NTCs, PTCs and in vocational institutes. I am very happy that an
honourable Member has raised the issue of what happened in Makerere University yesterday.
This morning I explored the possibility of making a statement on the events, which occurred in
Makerere University yesterday. As a matter of fact, I asked for the permission of the Chairman of
Cabinet to go to Makerere, and I went to Makerere, exploring the possibility of making a
statement on those events. I have found out that it is not possible for me to make a responsible
statement on what happened today and I undertake to make a statement on this Floor on the 2nd of
December. I thank you, Sir.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think we agreed a long time ago as to what to do after
the Communication from the Chair. Hon. Epetait actually had approached me to say that there
was an urgent matter he wanted to raise with the minister so that the minister could make a
statement in a few days. But now I am seeing many Members standing up under this procedure
when they did not actually notify me that there was an urgent matter to make a statement on.
I insist that we follow the agreement we did so that if you want to raise something after the
Communication from the Chair, you do approach the Speaker’s Office or the Speaker and
explain. Otherwise our Order Paper is going to be disrupted. Definitely if tomorrow you have an
urgent matter to raise you may have to come to me after the adjournment of today and then I shall
consider it. Thank you very much.
MR AGGREY AWORI: Mr Speaker, arising from the Communication from the Chair, I am
seeking your guidance on Rule 76(1) on division. Yesterday when we reached an impasse, you
called for – (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: I think I have said, forget what happened yesterday and we move forward.
MR AWORI: Mr Speaker, I am sorry to continue notwithstanding your ruling. What I am saying
is that I wanted your guidance on this particular Rule for future reference so that I know how to
handle a similar situation. I am not digging up the substance of the emotions of yesterday. I am
simply asking; yesterday when you called for a vote when a number of us stood up to challenge
the vote calling for division, normally you count up to 40 people or more when there is cause for
division – (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Let me tell you what happens if the ruling of the Speaker is challenged and 40
Members stand up. I may order a division; unfortunately, it did not happen. But to ascertain that
my ruling of “the ayes have it” was merited, that is why those who supported it stood up, and they
were 106. But should you succeed in challenging the ruling of the Speaker on aye, and you get
40, I order a division so that those for this go this side. That is the way we do it.
MR MAFABI: Point of procedure, Mr Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, now you see, these microphones can be spoilt. When
you stand, I recognize you and I say, “Yes you”. You just do not hold the Floor without having
been identified by the Speaker.
3.03
MR KEN LUKYAMUZI (Rubaga Division South, Kampala): Thank you very much, Mr
Speaker. I would like to assure you that I will be very sober but I am standing on a point of
procedure in regard to today’s Order Paper and I think it is in order for me to make a formal
humble protest.
I have documentary evidence to prove that when we were adjourning the previous session, you
confirmed to me in writing that I would be given time to justify a motion on the use of DDT. I
moved a motion, overwhelmingly it was seconded, and the next course of action was for me to
justify the motion. I was denied the opportunity of justifying that motion but you assured me that
as soon as we start this session, I would have the opportunity of justifying the motion. As we
speak now, day after day, I receive inflammatory statement from the Minister of Health saying,
“We are about to spray DDT”. We are in the final stages of using DDT and I get environmentally
alarmed about such a statement.
Secondly, Mr Speaker, it is also on record that the petition on Electricity tariff as reported has
long been ready. As we speak now, we have acute load shedding almost in every area of Uganda.
So, I want and with a lot of patience and humility, to beg you to allay my fears that the two
dimensions will secure the attention they scientifically deserve. (Laughter)
THE SPEAKER: What I remember is that when this matter came up sometime ago, the Minister
of Health had promised to make a statement on the policy of use of DDT and I think he wanted to
get your debate when this policy is stated and I think this was supposed to have been done in a
months time. I would like to know whether the Minister of Health has completed this policy.
MR LUKYAMUZI: But, Mr Speaker, before he comes in, mine was a very simple demand. I did
not stop government from anticipating the use of DDT. I wanted to echo the fundamental laws
related to toxicity in regard to the use of DDT and the law is straight. You cannot apply DDT or
its equivalency without going through an environmental impact assessment process.
THE SPEAKER: Exactly, there is no contradiction with what I am saying because, if there was
no policy and therefore nothing was being carried out, the question of coming to educate us on
the issue would not have arisen. It should not have been a vacuum; it should not have been
academic. The motion could only be relevant if there was impending danger of use of DDT so
that you come in to educate us on that. And the minister had said that within a month he is going
to make a statement. So, I was trying to find out from the minister whether he has worked out a
policy on use of DDT and then I will definitely accommodate you on the order Paper depending
on that.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Mr Speaker, to be fair to me, the minister’s statement does not have to stop
my motion. My motion can come any time because I am stressing the fundamental law in
existence and defending the Constitution of Uganda.
THE SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Health, can we be informed about the position. Maybe he is
not here; well, definitely we will reflect you on the Order Paper.
MR NANDALA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a procedural problem. You have said we
should not talk about yesterday, but yesterday is history that we follow. I want to concur with
some colleagues of mine that by yesterday by this time the House was full to capacity because we
had something in mind to defend. Today we have UPDF Bill and nobody is here. (Laughter)
MR MUTULUUZA: Mr Speaker, is it in order for hon. Nandala Mafabi to claim that there is
nobody in the House when we are all here?
THE SPEAKER: I think he is out of order because we are here.
MR NANDALA: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know it was a slip of the tongue. By
yesterday the front bench was full to capacity and other people were sitting on the Floor. Today (Interruption)
MRS ZZIWA: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Is the honourable Member in order to
continue acting in disrespect of this august House, which House he knows is the fountain of all
the legislations in this country, and he continues to reflect it as inadequate? And he thinks that the
number in this House -(Interjections)- No, no, Mr speaker. Is he in order to continue reflecting
this House as inadequate yet in effect we are all here and we are able to transact business and we
are in quorum?
THE SPEAKER: My attention has not been drawn to the issue of lack of quorum. So, I can say
that the House is constituted and we can transact business.
MR NANDALA: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think some people come here to practice
their English, which is so unfortunate. A few minutes ago we were looking for the Minister of
Health and he was not in the House.
But my major procedural problem is that yesterday a petition was read out because of numbers
and I believe there are Members of this House whose integrity has been touched. And we believe
the only way to be clear - some of them, not all of them. We could leave others like the Office of
the Speaker has been mentioned in papers and whatever. I would be happier if you told me the
best way I should follow so that the Office of the Speaker is cleared of these issues, which have
appeared in the media.
Like yesterday there was a write up in the paper that our Speaker was one of the beneficiaries of
the monies. How do we clear the name of the Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: Please try to clear it yourself. (Laughter). Honourable members, I reminded
you the procedure to follow after the Communication from the Chair and I think we did agree that
whoever wants to raise something after the Communication from the Chair has to approach the
Office of the Speaker so that the Speaker can assess whether it is so urgent to be accommodated.
And as far as I am concerned, those who approached me were given the opportunity. I think we
should follow the Order Paper.
BILLS
COMMITTEE STAGE
THE UPDF BILL, 2004
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, as you remember, we cleared most of the clauses in
this Bill but there are certain clauses that we stood over and I have advised that we start from
clause 14.
Clause 14
THE CHAIRMAN: Because clause 2 deals with definition and we think we will deal with it
after we have cleared the others.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, I know I have received communication from the Clerk
suggesting that clause 14 and other clauses had not been finalised. But depending on my recollection and the record of the Hansard, the only clauses, which were stood over are clauses 2,
28, 80, 195 to 198; the rest were done and finished.
MR WANDERA: Mr Speaker, I concur with the record of the Clerk. Clause 14 was never
concluded and the outstanding matter was clause 14(1)(c) the one that we concluded was 13.
And, Mr Chairman, I would like to bring an amendment on clause 14(1)(c).
THE CHAIRMAN: Now what do we do! The record of the Clerk is that clause 14 was not dealt
with; you are saying we did; somebody says he had an amendment or a recommittal. Okay, let us
go to clause 28 and then if there is a recommittal, we shall come back to this one.
Clause 28
MR WANDERA: Mr Chairman, I beg to move that clause 28 be deleted. The justification is that
in peacetime, the life of a reservist should not be structured.
Secondly, if we retain this clause, the livelihood of a reservist will be greatly interfered with. I do
not want to make a longer submission than this because I ably did so just before we adjourned
and I am informed the front bench is likely to concede to this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, you have heard. The hon. Member is moving that we
delete clause 28 for reasons given. Honourable Minister?
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, as I did last time, I oppose that amendment because it
is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant to be achieved by clause 28 as it is. The
argument then, which I think hon. Martin Wandera is basing his amendment on today, was that
by retaining clause 28 as it is, we seem to be creating a new standing force, a Reserve force, but
which was standing in peacetime. And I answered that “No, that was not the intention.” When
you read clause 28, all it is talking about are functions of that institution of the Reserve force. By
passing it under clause (4) or wherever it was covered, we have already established a Reserve
force; this is a permanent arrangement. What is not permanent are the individuals who come in to
prepare to perform reserve services if there is a call-up.
If the country required the services of those who have trained to beef up the ministry, then those
that would have trained under this Reserve force would be eligible for call-up and service in the
Army, in which case they become regular. But before that, we simply have an institution called
the Reserve force. Its job is to create a reserve capacity in the country for call-up in case of need.
The institution itself is a permanent arrangement because the training goes on all the time; it is
only the individuals who come in when their time to serve comes. You train for one month and
then you go away and do your usual business.
PROF. LATIGO: Thank you, honourable Minister. Mr Chairman, the last time I read the issue
of the Reserve force, I pointed out, based on what was provided for in terms of command from
parishes to the highest level, that we would have a large standing force. In response to that
inquiry, the honourable Minister said that what was envisaged was not a standing force, and now
he is telling us that the Reserve force will be a standing force. I really seek clarification because if
it is a standing force, then it is another force, not just reservist as envisaged by all of us when we
have been discussing this. We want to know this so that when we come to Bills third reading, we
recommit some of these for reconsideration.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Mr Chairman -(Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe you should wait for them to make clarifications then you answer?
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: No, I wanted to clarify that; maybe it will answer them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: I answered this last time, and in similar terms as I have said here. In
response to hon. Ogenga Latigo’s point, I said, and you remember we deleted that part, which
seemed to create a permanent arrangement; Today I have not said a Reserve force is a standing
force; I have only said the infrastructure, the Reserve force, which we created under clause (4),
that infrastructure is there permanently, but it is not a standing army.
A standing army is an army of soldiers, who are on active service all the time. The Reserve force
itself, in terms of human activity is, those who go there for training for a short period are required
to brush up or to train. But otherwise I was talking about the infrastructure itself.
PROF LATIGO: If that is the position, then look at what you have provided for in clause 28(a)
“production”! What do you mean by production? Are you going to pick somebody from his home
to come and dig for Government simply because he or she is in the Reserve force?
MS ALASO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I recall the last time we discussed this particular clause,
the honourable minister agreed with the view that probably the wording was wrong, and he said
he would go and try to re-phrase this to capture what he is trying to explain. Because, as he
continues to explain now, I get an impression that it is the infrastructure that is going to do
production. So, assuming there is a school for these people, it is that structure there, the building,
that he seems to think is going to be involved in production and training, which is really wrong.
Mr Chairman, the problem with this particular clause is that leaving it as it is implies that we are
legislating for the reservists even at a time when they have not been called-up. And so, when
somebody is in his village during peacetime, you are legislating what she or he should be doing. I
think the honourable Minister should help us; let us re-phrase this thing; if it is something other
than that, let us get the right wording.
MR SSEKIKUBO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You will recall that we deleted clause 6(b), which
was categorizing the departments and they were seven of them: Personnel and Administration,
Training and Operations, Logistics, Political Education, Intelligence and Security, Production,
and Legal Services. When we come to clause 28 here, if the minister is saying, “Yes, we are
creating infrastructure or facilities,” and we said categorically that we omit this aspect, we would
omit these departments together with the structure. I would like the minister to look at it critically
once again and you may find that we might be creating facilities, which shall be rendered idle,
useless and not appropriate with the Uganda People’s Defence Force.
And in that respect, Mr Chairman, I would suggest that the minister should do away with the
entire clause. Since you will be leaving it hanging, it will not have any impact. And as my
colleagues have already pointed out, why should we tie members of the Reserve force to be
permanently obliged and having a duty when there is no cause for that. I suggest that the minister
yields to that because he has no justification for it whatsoever.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, I really must apologize especially to hon. Alaso
because obviously she does not understand –(Laughter)
MS ALASO: Mr Chairman, is the honourable Minister in order, of all things, to allege that I
cannot understand just a little thing like this, just a clause, which has about three or four sentences
at my age, when I have not been declared insane or something by the Ministry of Health? Is he
really in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think since you have been able to analyse, you do really understand –
(Laughter)- and, therefore, it is not correct to say that you do not understand.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was only using her own words because I
was apologizing, really that I should have done better.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Mr Chairman, this is a very serious honourable Assembly, you have
pronounced yourself to the effect that the minister was out of order. Now, that he was out of
order, should he proceed without apologizing to the honourable Member? Is it in order for him to
continue without specifically apologizing? What is wrong in apologizing if you have committed
an error?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I ruled on that and I said she clearly understands the provision.
Therefore, it was wrong to say he did not appreciate.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: So, Mr Chairman, in answer to what hon. Latigo was saying and
even hon. Alaso; in the Hansard of Thursday, 21 October this year on page 11381 in the first
column at the bottom, I am quoted as saying:
“Well, I will repeat- you know we have established a Reserve force. We need to have an
infrastructure, which is permanent so that Uganda at all times has a capacity in reserve to defend
itself. What do reservists, for instance, those on training and recruitment do? These are some of
the things, which are being listed.”
This is what I said; it is what is here and it is what I am repeating. What we have in clause 28 is
that in peacetime - first of all, when people have been called up when there is fighting or
something like that, then they are no longer reservists; they join the regular army in order to fight.
So, in 28 we are simply providing that in peacetime, this institution of reserve, apart from training
and so on, they also do, for instance, production or these things we have listed here. What it
simply means is that when hon. Ssekikubo is invited to serve his period of training as a reservist,
which obviously he will do, during that period he will train, he will be given skills of a military
nature. But in addition to that in the one month when he is there it is like a timetable of the work
they will do. some bit of production, they will do this, they will do that.
During that period when hon. Alaso is in training and when she goes away she goes back to her
usual job. When it is Mbabazi’s time to come after hon. Alaso, he will also go through the same
training. So, the activities in this structure will continue, although the actors will keep changing.
That is why I was apologizing that I had not made it clear enough for everybody to understand
that that is what we mean under this one.
MR WANDERA: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. What the honourable Minister is talking
about is not the import of clause 28. Clause 28 is talking of during peacetime generally; the
minister is talking about training. So, I am talking about something different, which is in clause
28 and the minister is also talking about a different issue. If it is training, Mr Chairman, it is
already catered for under clause 31. Why should we repeat ourselves? But, just for the sake of
Members who did not have the Bill, this is what the clause says:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
“During peacetime, the functions of the reserve forces shall be the following production;
training;
mobilization and sensitisation of the civilian population;
supporting the maintenance of security in Uganda;
reinforcing civil authorities with professional skills as the need arises.”
Given the information hon. Ssekikubo has given us to the effect that clause 6(4)(a) and (b) were
deleted, the ones that envisaged structures, then it means the kind of reservists that we are going
to have will be reservists gainfully employed elsewhere or on leisure; someone has retired and he
is enjoying himself and a good number of them are on Kafumbe Mukasa Road. Now, the
honourable Minister is saying that all those people should leave – the Government would have a
right to call them to engage them in production, for whom? Yet as I observed last time, Mr
Chairman, we have not provided -(Mr Amama Mbabazi rose_) No, let me finish, no, but I am
here to make a point; I will give way.
As I observed, Mr Chairman, we have not put in a mechanism for compensation of reservists
when they are called for service or training. Because when they are called for training, they will
leave their jobs and there will be no compensation for them. Now, what kind of law are we trying
to make? Are we going to make a law that is going to disorganize the lives of the people? So, as I
observed, we should not structure the lives of these people. They have already accepted that when
there is need, they will come out and defend us. So, we should not again go ahead and state
exactly what they must do during peacetime.
DR NABWISO: Mr Chairman, I wonder if this clause 28 is not intended to perpetuate the rule of
the army in the politics of Uganda, because this is the impression I get from this clause. There is a
belief that the army or reserve or standing army should continue to dominate the politics of
Uganda. If you look at clause 28(c), “mobilizing and sensitisation of the civilian population,”
what will the reserve army be doing in this area, which the political leaders are not carrying out?
“Enforcing, reinforcing civil authorities with the professional skills,” what type of skills would
the reserve army have?
We need to get rid of this clause in total, because Government is failing to mobilize people. This
is the problem of Government today. We have failed to mobilize people for production, for
development because we over-rely on the army. I really want to find out, what will they be doing,
supporting the civil authorities in the case of disaster? What have they done so far? We have had
some kind of reserve army supporting the maintenance of security in Uganda. If that is the only
thing, then you just say so. But these other rules should be left to the civilian population to carry
out. I want to persuade my friend, hon. Amama Mbabazi, that this is not necessary; let us delete
it.
MR RUHINDI: Mr Chairman, we may not appreciate the import of clause 28 unless we look at
Article 209 of the Constitution, which gives the functions of the UPDF. Once we appreciate that
we are forming the reserve force as part of the UPDF, then we may have to appreciate the
functions of the UPDF in general as laid out under Article 209.
“The functions of the Uganda peoples Defence Forces are: (d) “to engage in productive activities
for the development of Uganda.”
Now, this time it is for purposes of emphasis for avoidance of doubt. Actually you may not even
say it under clause 28 for as long as it is said under Article 209 of the Constitution. This is just for
avoidance of doubt, to spell out what these people should do during peacetime. But otherwise,
they are obligated to do so under Article 209. Thank you.
MS ALASO: Mr Chairman, I would like to –(Interjection)- I thought I was on the Floor.
Mr PETER LOKERIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman and honourable members. In every institution
established there is always re-skilling and sharpening, and for this particular clause, we are
already providing it. There will be a reserve force, which should be re-skilled from time to time.
When the time comes for of a section of these people to be recalled for re-skilling, they will come
and do various jobs, may be for a period of one month and go away.
Today, technology is very mobile and versatile; you need to bring these people if you want to
engage them for the unforeseen eventuality in future. We re-skill them and they go back, and in
time of those exercises, most of these things can be done. But members seem to think about
production; where do you produce? What is wrong if it is part of the exercise that you can do
within 30 minutes, because a series of activities are there at the time of being re-skilled? If you
allow somebody to rust for about 10 years and then you say, “The job is now available, come and
work”, then you need to train that person on various aspects for a long time. But if they have been
coming on and off - if it is provided that your work can be stopped for that period of training,
even if you are a doctor, you can go and do that job for some time for purposes of being re-skilled
so that you are all the time prepared. So, this article in particular is for emphasis and very
important, and I do not see any contradiction.
MR SSEKIKUBO: Mr Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the minister, hon. Lokeris,
but in his submission he has trivialized the issue of production; that it is the normal work they do.
For that matter, do we have to put it in the Act if it is the routine fatigue the army is always
involved in?
And also, Mr Chairman, I pointed it out much earlier, we have farms like Kiryandongo farm,
which has been given out; we have other farms in Karusandara by the regular army, the UPDF,
which have not been put to proper use. How do you expect the reservists who are there for just
one month to be undertaking such activities? I would really suggest that let the minister yield to
this and we proceed, Mr Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, don’t you think we decide on this?
MR MBABAZI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am grateful to all those who spoke, and I think all
of them spoke in favour of retaining clause 28. I am particularly grateful to hon. Ruhindi for
pointing out the fact that actually what clause 28 captures is what is already in Article 209, 17 and
4 of the Constitution.
So, I really do not see why people should express any fear about reproducing what is already in
the Constitution. I, therefore, urge members to support clause 28. It says, “There is no harm
intended” and obviously it clarifies what is supposed to happen in this institution called the
reserve force during peacetime. I thank you.
MS ALASO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just have one plea to make. If we could rephrase that
clause, not as it is, we could easily capture what the minister is saying. But also, if you look at
what hon. Ruhindi pointed out in Article 209, it is talking about the UPDF as standing army, and
we legislate for all their time. But if we take it as it is, it looks like we are taking even the little
free time these people who have been out of service have to themselves. I believe that the drafting
section can help us to re-phrase it so that we leave out the free time that belongs to these people.
That is my plea.
MR KASIGWA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Taking into consideration what hon. Alaso is saying,
let us rephrase clause 28 to read as follows:
“During peace time, the reserve forces –(Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: You see, honourable member, there was a motion for deletion. So, if there is
a motion for deletion, re-casting does not arise. We should, first of all, deal with the motion for
deletion. If we succeed, the question of re-casting will not arise, but if it is lost, then we can
recast. So, let us put the question to the original motion and then you can come in. I now put the
question that we delete clause 28.
(Question put and negatived)
MR KASIGWA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The small amendment I was thinking about was to
rephrase it as follows:
“During peacetime, the reserve forces may undertake the following: production –” delete training
and the rest, because training has been captured in clause 30. I beg to move.
MR MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, I oppose the amendment because training is the primary purpose
of having a reserve force. The idea of having this institution is to create capacity within Uganda
for defence of our sovereignty and national integrity when it is threatened, and we can only create
that capacity through training. So, for hon. Kasigwa to suggest that we should delete training,
obviously you can see what it means. I, therefore, oppose it.
MR KASIGWA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If the honourable minister could read clause 31,
which reads as follows:
“Every reservist or member of a prescribed force shall be liable to be called out for training at
such a place and for such periods not exceeding 30 days.”
So the question of training has been captured under clause 31.
THE CHAIRMAN: As you have heard, honourable member, hon. Kasigwa is saying that
training which is mentioned in clause 28 is covered in the clause, which we have passed, that is
clause 31. That is why he is deleting it in clause 28.
MR MBABAZI: The two clauses are talking about two different things. That clause is talking
about a duty to train every year for not more than 30 days; that is the clause where this is eligible.
Now, clause 28 is talking about what happens in the institution of a reserve force. So the two are
not talking about the same thing and you cannot substitute what you have in clause 31 for what is
covered in clause 28.
MR MULENGANI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will seek some clarification from the Minister
of Defence. What is worrying members is for the reservists who will have left the army
officially, but thereafter go back to stay with their families. How is the bill catering for the
families of the reservists in the circumstance that they will be in production and training at the
time of peace? Possibly, if that is clarified, then we would really appreciate the time after one has
left active service. Thank you.
PROF. OGENGA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The minister overlooks the actual provision of the
clause. It says, during peacetime - training is not a function of reservists; training is an activity
that reservists undertake to be ready. Their functions are different and therefore to include
training as part of their functions, my ordinary English makes it look strange.
MR ARUMADRI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This House could benefit from the experience of
other countries, which rely very heavily on reserve forces. I have in mind Switzerland and Israel;
what do they do in such circumstances? Is the minister acquainted with the experiences of these
countries?
MR MBABAZI: My answer, Mr Chairman, to the last question is, yes. There is Switzerland,
Israel and many other places where the question of reserve forces is still operational. I also know
the history of reserves, because I studied it very carefully when I was Director of Legal Services
of the NRA. Hon. Ogenga was using the ordinary English language, which he is welcome to do,
but we are obviously talking about the formulation of a bill, therefore, we are talking about legal
language.
(a)
(b)
(c)
When you look at clause 4, which I will read for the benefit of hon. Ogenga, it says,
“Each service of the Defence Forces shall consist of:
A regular force
reserve forces”
It arises out of that that the language employed in clause 28 refers to Reserve forces in peacetime.
Clearly, what is meant here is that this is in reference to reserve forces as an institution, not the
individuals. So, Mr Chairman, training is an absolute necessity if we are to get a reserve capable
of discharging the function of supporting the Regular Army of the regular forces, and clearly it
suggests that we should do away with training, which tantamount to attempting to achieve what
the hon. Martin Wandera failed to achieve, to delete the whole of clause 28. I, therefore, oppose
that amendment.
(a)
(b)
(c)
PROF. OGENGA: Mr Chairman, I drew the attention of the minister in good faith. I appreciate
the character of the minister; he finds it very difficult even to concede to good things. But if we
were to go to the Constitution, Article 209, “The functions of the Uganda peoples’ Defence
Forces areto preserve and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Uganda;
to co-operate with the civilian authority in emergency situations and in cases of
natural disaster;
to foster harmony and understanding between the Defence Forces and civilians, to
engage in productive activities for the development of Uganda.”
Is the Minister suggesting that this Defence Force will not have a training function in itself?
When you go to the list of things that you have provided under clause 28, you will find that
production is part of what is provided for in the Constitution, mobilization is provided for,
supporting security is provided for, supporting civilian authority is provided for and reinforcing
civilian authority is provided for.
Training, Mr Minister, as hon. Harry Kasigwa pointed out, is provided for in clause 31; it does
not harm your bill at all. You just concede that there could have been a mistake here to include
training as a function. Training is a process of making the reserve forces function effectively; it
cannot be a function.
MR MBABAZI: Well, hon. Ogenga, since you insist on reading the Constitution, you should
read Article 257, which defines functions. It is on page 157. It says, “Functions include powers
and duties.” Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, we let us decide. The new formulation as by hon.
Kasigwa was to delete “training”. I put the question to the deletion.
(Question put and agreed to.)
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80
MR MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Honourable members may recollect that
last time I undertook to redraft clause 80, and yesterday we distributed the re-formulated clause
80. But for the benefit of those who may not have come with the copies, allow me, Mr Chairman,
to read clause 80 as re-formulated.
80(1)“Subject to this Act –
(a) pension shall be paid to a veteran; and
(b) pension and gratuity shall be paid in respect of a deceased veteran.”
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The pension and gratuity under sub-section (1) shall be paid in the manner and shall be at the rates that from time to time apply to the
like payments under this Act;
be computed on the basis of the current rate of pay applicable to the rank of the
veteran or deceased veteran;
in the case of pension to a veteran, be computed as if there was no qualifying
period for service pension; and
in the case of pension and gratuity in respect of a deceased veteran, be paid to
such dependants of the deceased as would qualify for payment in respect of an officer or militant
who dies in service.
(3) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires –
“liberation organization” means any of the following liberation organizations:
(a) National Resistance Movement (NRM);
(b) Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF);
(C) Uganda Freedom Movement (UFM);
(d) Former Uganda National Army (FUNA);
(e) Save Uganda Movement (SUM);
(f) Federal Democratic Movement (FEDEMO);
(g) Front for National Salvation (FRONASA);
(h) Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF)/Anti-dictatorship
“liberation struggle” means the struggle against the regimes of dictatorship in power during the
period between 1980 and the 26th day of January 1986.
“Veteran” means a person who (a) was a member of the armed wing of a liberation organisation;
(b)
as a member of that wing actively participated in the liberation struggle;
(c)died as a result of such participation in the Liberation struggle; and
(d)after the 26th day of January, 1986, did not join the then National Resistance Army
4. Anything done or made in good faith before the commencement of this Act in relation to
pensions or gratuities in respect of deceased veterans, which could have been done or made
under this Act, shall be deemed to have been done or made under this Act. Mr Chairman, I beg
to move.
MR WAGONDA-MUGULI: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I thank the minister for his
effort in re-drafting this provision, but the effect of it in sub-clause 1(b) would be that a dead
veteran would be earning pension and pension is paid monthly for an indefinite period of time. I
find that rather disturbing.
Secondly, Mr Chairman, clause 80(1)(b), “pension and gratuity shall be paid in respect of a
deceased veteran”, means that there would be a gratuity paid to the survivors and in addition, a
monthly pension paid. Now that, Mr Chairman, is inconsistent with the current provisions
regarding pensions in other Government departments. My understanding is that definitely we
should be adopting a common nomenclature in respect, first of all, computed pension gratuity as a
lump sum, which is paid to any qualifying pensioner.
Two, pension, which is paid monthly for the initial 15 lives of – Mr Chairman, I am saying there
should be common nomenclature. So I will move an amendment.
Three, clause 80(2)(c) says, “in case of pension to a veteran, be computed as if there was no
qualified period of service of pension.” This means that every veteran would qualify for pension
irrespective of time, but then there must be a maximum period otherwise, how will you determine
what to pay? There must be a specified period of service, which will be applicable across the
board.
So, I would like to move the following amendments: Clause 80(1)(a) should be, “computed
pension gratuity and pension shall be paid to a veteran.” I can write it down.
Mr Chairman, I am moving an amendment in clause 80(1)(a) to add the words, “computed
pension gratuity.” This is the lump sum, which is paid to a pensioner on leaving service before he
starts accessing the monthly pension.
MR MBABAZI: Sorry for the interruption, I think the member was making a good point but I
just want to capture the proposed amendment. His proposed amendment reads, “Subject to this
Act - (a) computed pension and gratuity shall be –(Interruption)
MR WAGONDA-MUGULI: Mr Chairman (b) reads: “death gratuity” instead of “pension and
gratuity”. It should be, “death gratuity shall be paid in respect of a deceased veteran” – add,
“who would have qualified for pension”. Are we together?
Sub-clause (b) should read, “death gratuity shall be paid in respect of a deceased veteran who
would have qualified for pension.” Can I proceed, Mr Chairman?
THE SPEAKER: Let him finish, then you will ask him questions.
MR WAGONDA-MUGULI: Can I proceed? In sub-clause 2(c), “there being no qualifying
period of service pension, the case of pension to a veteran be computed irrespective of period of
pension but in any case not exceeding 360 months.”
Mr Chairman, 360 months is the maximum pension period allowed under the Pensions Act. I am
just trying to bring it in conformity with the rest of the pensions payable out of the public fund; it
is 30 years for pension purposes. I beg to move.
MS ALASO: Mr Chairman, the clarification I am seeking from hon. Wagonda-Muguli is to do
with gratuity and pension. I thought that for purposes of death gratuity, everybody qualifies and
then it is pension that is computed against the standard. If we also attach a condition to death
gratuity, wouldn’t we be moving contrary to the existing provisions?
DR EPETAIT: Thank you very much, honourable colleague, for giving way. The amendments
that hon. Wagonda-Muguli has brought up have come along with a little bit different vocabulary.
He is talking about “commuted pension gratuity”. He has also in clause 80(1)(b) deleted
“pension” and replaced it with “death gratuity”.
Clause 80(2) starts with “the pension and gratuity under this sub-section.” Now that you have
changed the vocabulary in sub-clause 1(a) and (b), wouldn’t it be prudent, to be in consonance
with your amendment, to have clause 80(2) also start with a vocabulary that tallies with what is
stated in clause 1(a) and (b)?
Two, in clause 1(b), he has proposed that death gratuity shall be paid in respect of a deceased
veteran, who would have qualified for pension. Now, if somebody dies before he qualifies for
pension, does he just go like that?
MR WAGONDA-MUGULI: Mr Chairman, a pension is paid monthly and it is paid to a person
who is living. When a person dies, what would have been pension earned monthly is paid in a
lump sum to the survivors of that person. That is why they are using different terminologies to
make that distinction because it would be difficult to continue paying a deceased person monthly.
I am taking those terminologies from a standard book issued by the Ministry of Public Service in
respect of computed pension gratuity, which is the lump sum given to an Officer on retirement as
an advance of his pension before he accesses the pensioners’ payroll. Thereafter, he continues
earning pension monthly for 15 years –(Interruption)
MS NANKABIRWA: Thank you very much, honourable member, for giving way. I thank you
for that information about what is happening in Public Service. I also want to inform this House
what is currently happening in the institution called UPDF. We have a package called the
“Survivors’ Benefit.” This one is divided into two. There is that gratuity which is paid when
somebody dies. There is another package where the widow continues to benefit every month until
she remarries or until she dies. The children have also got their package because each child you
produce - the officers who are here will bear me witness, is supposed to be registered. We must
know your children and the number is limited. So the children continue to benefit until they attain
the majority age, above 18 years. So, I thought I should give you this information so that you
know this institution has been operating under regulations that are special to the institution, taking
into consideration what the institution does.
So, we have to harmonize this and we have to debate bearing it in mind. This is what is
happening in the institution. We have “Survivors’ benefit” and we did not want to separate the
veterans from this. So, we are catering for the veterans because we agreed and we appreciated
their contribution. We want the veterans also to benefit. Thank you.
MR BYABAGAMBI: Mr Chairman, today I have learnt a new phenomenon. I do not know
whether what she was narrating is going to be included in this new bill, or it was already being
implemented. I have got an army of veterans in my constituency who have been moving up and
down with their children; they have never got these monies you are talking about. So, I would
like to know whether it has been going on or they are trying to introduce it now?
MS NANKABIRWA: Thank you, honourable member. The information I have given you is
what is happening. The problem is, the demand is too big. At one time we had more than 1,000
files, but if the release is to cater for only a quarter of those files then some people end up missing
out. So, we have been considering people’s files - sometimes they present peculiar problems
where one has a child at Makerere who is stranded. That is what we have been doing. When you
get in 2000 then you are not considered in the year 2001, somebody who missed in 2001 is
considered in 2002. But the principle is that that package is there and people are getting it. Some
are not getting it promptly, but that is the regulation we are following; it not that we are trying to
provide for it now.
The amendment that the minister read in clause 80 harmonizes this situation. In fact try to read
clause 80(1)(a), (b) with clause 80(2)(c) and (d) together then you will focus and see what the
ministry wants to come up with.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, as I see there is a problem of technical language to
use in this formulation. From the explanation of the minister, because of the nature of work of
UPDF, they have special considerations to make. The best way is to harmonize and see what you
can take from the ordinary pension law and then merge it with the special consideration, which
they take into the UPDF, and then we can get the appropriate formulation. I am sure we cannot
really do it here, it requires hon. Wagonda-Muguli and the other side to sit together, use that
language and we get the formulation. Otherwise most of us may not be conversant with the
pension language as hon. Wagonda-Muguli, the former Permanent Secretary.
MR MULENGANI: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Referring to what hon. Byabagambi said, there is
a lot of outcry in our villages upcountry regarding the pensions for veterans and compensations. I
propose that in this particular clause there be included a time element in which people, or rather
something that compels the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the pensioners in the Army get the
money in time.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is hon. Dora Byamukama’s motion, which we passed; it is of a
general application. It is not only the normal service; it is across the board. I think that is the
policy.
MR SSEKIKUBO: Mr Chairman, I thought I should throw more light on that. When the
member says that we should compel, it is as a result of our budget. He may be aware that we
provide for three and half billion for the veterans pensions and gratuity and the backlog is Shs 19
billions.
The point I want to make, Mr Chairman, is that the conditions of the UPDF may be to the benefit
of members. After one has been passed out as a soldier of UPDF and dies the following day, is he
entitled to gratuity and pension? This is why I do not support hon. Wagonda-Muguli on the
qualifying period. When you pass out today and you are a member of the UPDF, and the
following day, you meet your creator. So, under those circumstances, I would really like to appeal
to hon. Wagonda not to equate the two situations.
He may also take note that under the survivors’ benefits, the wife is entitled to three-quarters of
the officer or militant’s salary, and the child is entitled to one to sixth among the only six children
covered. I think if we had this in mind, it could guide us to know the peculiar circumstance
prevailing with the UPDF when we want to relate it to the main Public Service Pension Scheme.
So, I suggest that may be the minister together with hon. Wagonda-Muguli can come up with a
workable formulation.
However, Mr Chairman, mine was to get a schedule of these groups when we come to clause
80(3) - they are now eight groups to be considered and the best I know among the UPDF or the
NRA in this group, the number of files that are still outstanding are 759 to be regularized under
this new law. Now, I don’t know whether we have figures about the Uganda National Rescue
Front, Uganda Freedom Movement, former Uganda National Army, Save Uganda Movement,
Federal Democratic Movement, Front for National Salvation, Uganda and National Liberation
Front. Could the minister can clarify to me.
As far as I know, FRONASA was from 1970 to 1980- once we say the “liberation struggle,” we
mean the struggle against the regimes of dictatorship in power during the period between 1980 to
the 26th day of January 1986. I thought that after 1980, it is being captured under National
Resistance Movement if we can look at it. May be if there are members that persisted and
continued as FRONASA- but I thought after 1980, those members who joined the bush came
under National Resistance Movement, which situation, therefore, we may not need.
MR BYABAGAMBI: Mr Chairman, in addition to what hon. Ssekikubo has said. I grew up
during the era of Idi Amin and I knew very well that the army which they used to call Uganda
army. It was a fascist army and tortured me about four times. I know very well that Uganda
National Rescue Front is a residue of Uganda Army because the leaders of that Front - I can quote
it clearly - they all came from Uganda army, which used to be a fascist army. I find it very
difficult today for a person who was tortured during that time by the same army to support
Uganda National Rescue Front or to regard it as a liberation army.
Secondly, Mr Chairman, I know very well after considering what Mr Ssekikubo has said in (g)
“Front for National Salvation”, which started in 1970s and looking at the job that UNLA did by
liberating this country, by getting rid of Idi Amin, the dictator, who had killed a lot of people, I
feel that UNLA should also have been included under this schedule. I want clarification from the
minister why that was omitted.
MR SSEKIKUBO: May be, Mr minister, before you can take the Floor, hon. Byabagambi
mentioned that the Veterans in the districts are carrying on without assistance for their children,
but the veterans were catered for under UVAB. Under UVAB, this is where those who are retired
could be taken care of. Unless the minister, in this particular bill, is saying that we are reintegrating it to say, “the Uganda Veterans Assistance Board is now being covered under the
survivors benefit as the article is saying.
MR KAGIMU: Further supplementary, Mr Chairman, so that the minister answers once. Thank
you. Actually adding on what hon. Byabagambi has said, (d) should be deleted – former Uganda
National Army, those were the dictators. I would like to emphasise the point of hon. Ssekikubo.
You see, hon. Muguli is confusing the civil service and the army. The civil service is peaceful
throughout. You can live up to 60 or 70 years, but for a soldier anytime is death. Today you are
recruited; tomorrow you die. Hon. Muguli has confused all these articles. He said, “Pension
gratuity computed” – It appears is for pensioners who have qualified in the army, but that does
not arise because you can die any time. So, actually he should not be included in that team
because he is going to influence - because he has the Civil Service in the mind. So, hon.
Wagonda-Muguli should not be included on that team. Hon. Nankabirwa raised a good point. She
said that people are being paid, but who is being paid? Veterans are not being paid, Mr Chairman
-(Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: You see, honourable members, there is a difference between administration
and making a law; we make the law and then we look at whether the administration is efficient or
not. Let us separate the two. Of course, if there is a failure we can look into it. Let us, first of all,
make the law and then see how to follow it up. You cannot say that hon. Wagonda-Muguli should
not be included - he has the technical know-how; he has been a Permanent Secretary and
therefore he has some experience.
MR KAGIMU: Lastly, Mr Chairman, I am asking about these “kawonawos” of World War II.
Do they qualify to be included? Were they not fighting for liberation, these old men who are
languishing in the villages? Mr minister, what do you have to say about those veterans of World
War II? Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, I suggest that for this formulation we set up a small
sort of committee or team to combine the normal civil service pension schemes and UPDF to get
a formulation. We cannot do it here. Some two, three or four people can assist us to have the
proper formulation. Don’t you agree?
MR SABIITI: Mr Chairman, I would love this article to be put in this law because I would
benefit. I qualify to be among those who were involved in the liberation. But my worry is this. If
you look at Article (1), about the defence of our Constitution, when at any given time we have
dictatorship Ugandans have been given a chance to make sure that they struggle and remove that
dictatorship.
Now, when you only assign this facility to those who fought between 1980 and 1986, it looks as
if we are just handling a situation for only those people during that period, that they are the only
liberators. We are going to have many more liberators tomorrow when we get other dictatorships.
Therefore, Mr Chairman, I would suggest that, let us make a law that will touch on any person or
veteran who will have liberated this country, instead of assigning it specifically to a number of
people in a given period. So, I request that we make some amendments. I hope to come up with
another amendment to include those people who will help this country tomorrow in case (Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Sabiiti, do you mean a sort of revolution situation?
MR SABIITI: Let me give another example. We have made a terrible mistake although our
people suffered to compensate anybody who lost his things during the war, and they are going to
continue paying whenever we get wars. So, I would not like to have a law that is going to cause a
big problem tomorrow. So, I would request the minister to look at this seriously. He should
formulate it in a manner that will also help anybody if –(Interruption)
MS NANKABIRWA: Thank you very much, hon. Jack Sabiiti. Hon. Jack Sabiiti is coming up
with a suggestion at this particular time when he was on a desk in the Ministry of Justice handling
the payments, some of which are the payments he is talking about; payments, which were going
to Luwero triangle war veterans from the Office of the Prime Minister to Ministry of Justice. So, I
do not know whether hon. Jack Sabiiti has just realized it now that it is not appropriate to
continue recognizing and giving people what you call “compensation,” which is not actually
compensation but is recognition. I am just seeking a clarification from him.
THE CHAIRMAN: When he was in Ministry of Justice, as a public servant, he must have been
carrying out policies determined by other people. Now he is in the position of a legislator, he is
saying the policy should be changed. That is how I see it.
MR SABIITI: Mr Chairman, even if I did implement a Government policy, actually your
policies as a civil servant, you know what a public officer should do. I am saying, if we can
remember, that even the technical people in that ministry advised Government that it was illegal,
and you have documents in that ministry. So, I would not want to go back because I was a civil
servant, but there is a document written by the technical staff. So, what I am saying is, let us
legislate not for a specific period or specific people. Let us have a law that is extended to any
veteran. For example, when you are paying compensation to civil servants, you are paying any
civil servant that comes in and passes away; that is the argument. So, I am requesting the
honourable minister to look at this issue and revisit it so that we do not only pay a specific
category of persons. Thank you.
MR MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, the first and main point I want to address is your suggestion. I
want to inform you, Mr Chairman, and the august House that hon. Wagonda-Muguli - I have
agreed that we will go and harmonize our positions because he is stating what obtains in the
conventional Civil Service and there is obviously something. There is a bit of difference with the
military, but we are happy to meet and harmonize our positions on this question and bring to
Parliament, maybe tomorrow, a harmonized position on this clause 80.
Now, I do not know how I should react to hecklers, and in that case I do not know whether I
should go on to respond- (Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: No, let us wait for the formulation and then we deal with it. We may have to
move to another clause. We will come back to this clause tomorrow if the formulation is
complete. Yes.
MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am looking at these forces in clause 80 (3).
I do not agree with hon. Jack Sabiiti. It is not true that the law only tends to recognize those who
fought between 1980 and 1985. The fact that these are being brought up is enough to show that
there was recognition. However, I need to be clarified by the minister. The force that liberated
this country in 1985 was known as National Resistance Army, which was a force behind National
Resistance Movement. However, because the makers of the Constitution wanted to create a
national army, all these forces that were involved in the struggle had been merged to make or to
be part of National Resistance Army (NRA). National Resistance Army (NRA) took the
responsibility of uniting all these fighting forces, so it changed the name to Uganda People’s
Defence Force (UPDF). Those of us who were known as National Resistance Army (NRA) in the
interest of the nation, we accepted to be referred to as Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF).
The clarification I want from the minister is, what if we did away with all these and referred to
those who are legible by the fact that you are merged in Uganda People’s Defence Force
(UPDF)?
MR MBABAZI: Mr Chairman, there are many other questions about FRONASA. I thought you
had made a ruling that instead of responding to them today - we are going to revisit this clause
tomorrow when we come with a harmonized position. I will do so tomorrow. Thank you.
DR CHEBROT: No, there is an important point I want the minister to clarify. I want this
committee, which is going to meet to make a clear distinction between national armies and
fighting groups - What I do know is that there have been fighting groups and national armies.
Now the fighting groups have also been many since 1971 up to 1986, even up to now there are
people who are fighting. Now, should we say all these people who have been fighting are not in
Government. Should they be pensionable, because when you are a fighting group you may not
necessarily have a regular army as such, or you do not even have records; they have no file
numbers, how are you going to pay them. One can claim at the end that he or she was in another
army. These are issues that need to be clarified.
MR BYABAGAMBI: Mr Chairman, I am seeking guidance from you in regard to the
consultations, which are supposed to take place between the minister and hon. Wagonda-Muguli.
If I heard you properly, you said it will be addressed in clause 80(1), that is, on pensions and
gratuity, but we erased some –(Interruption)
THE CHAIRMAN: The entire clause 80– (Interruption)
MR BYABAGAMBI: The whole of 80?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR BYABAGAMBI: Oh, I am comfortable because I can raise my point tomorrow. Thank you,
Mr Chairman.
MR OMWONY: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to give brief information to
hon. Chebrot regarding the section that we are discussing. This particular clause 80 is specific,
not on fighting groups in general but on liberation organizations. The term “liberation
organization” was deliberately chosen because there could have been very many groups fighting.
Some were in fact fighting not to liberate but to create more trouble, some might have been
fighting with objectives, which were not clear at all. The list, which is here, is specifically in
reference to those organisations, which had been defined as being committed to liberate this
country from dictatorship and that is why you have got that list there. So, it is not fighting groups
in general but specifically liberation organisations and each of these has got a very specific
history that can be defined. Thank you.
MR BYABAGAMBI: Mr Chairman, you have ruled that we should stand over clause 80 and we
consider it tomorrow after the consultations. I do not know whether it is procedurally right to
continue talking about the same issue, which has been referred to tomorrow?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not correct because in the Committee Stage we are concerned with
clauses; it is not a general debate. The debate should be directed to a clause. So I suggest that
matters under this clause should be dealt with when we get the redrafted clause tomorrow.
Clause 195
THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 195?
MR KAGIMU: Yes, Mr Chairman, I remember that clause - when we broke off there was a
problem. Honourable – I forget his name. He had moved a motion that a lawyer should be
adopted to head the court martial at the lower level. By the time we broke off you had said that
you would give me chance to contribute. I opposed it. He was saying that a lawyer at all levels
should head a court martial. The General Court Martial in Article 200 - For the Court Martial of
Appeal, the advocate will be there. He will be qualified to be the judge of the High Court.
At the lower level, Mr Chairman, it is not necessary that the chairman of the court martial should
be a lawyer for four reasons: One, a lawyer may not be available. Two, Mr Speaker (Interruption)
MR TWAREBIREHO: I thank my colleague for giving way. Mr Chairman, my colleague is
arguing that the lawyer may not be there. I want to give him the information since he has
prompted it. During this recess, Mr Chairman and honourable members - I made my research and
I have actually compiled a list of 64 lawyers in the UPDF. I have it here and I am ready to lay it
on the Table.
Mr Chairman, these 64 members of UPDF are qualified lawyers excluding those who are attached
to other Government department or those who are at Law Development Centre (LDC). There are
even more who are studying at Makerere, and we are talking about professionalising the Army.
So, Mr Chairman and honourable members, permit me to lay this list on Table for everybody to
see.
MR KAGIMU: Mr Chairman, may be I finalize my contribution. The list notwithstanding –
(Interruption)
MRS BYAMUKAMA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The information I would like to give to my
colleague is that there are two issues to be considered. Even at lower levels there could be
consideration of not only facts but also of law, whereby lawyers would be very necessary to make
these interpretations. It also depends on the kind of crimes committed and are being handled. It
might be very difficult to do away with lawyers at any level where there are issues concerning
justice.
The other issue I would like to raise is that of professionalising the Army. It is in the interest of
this Ministry of Defence that more lawyers are encouraged to join the ranks. As evidenced by
hon. Twarebireho, it is an aspect that you cannot dispense with, just like any other profession, the
Army should have lawyers and these would help in the dispensation of justice within the UPDF.
I thank you.
MR MBABAZI: I would like to thank the holder of the Floor for giving way for me to make this
clarification. I made the point the other time. What we are proposing in the law is not that
lawyers must not be on the Courts Martial; of course, we are not saying anything like that. We
are simply saying that the constitution of the Courts Martial shall be in accordance with the
condition of the Army. In other words, should a situation arise, for example, where we do not
have a lawyer in the Army, still the administration of military justice should go on.
Hon. Twarebireho is a lawyer; he is a retired Captain of UPDF. I am sure he is not on that list
which he presented. So, hon. Sabiiti, the obvious logical point being made is that in case the
lawyers were not available, the administration of justice should still go on. That is point number
one.
Point number two, we are making the point, which hon. Kiwanuka is making, that at the level
where determination of issues is technical and legal then we must have lawyers. In other words,
at the level of appeal, the Court Martial Appeals Court, it is provided that both the presiding
officer and the other members must be practicing members of the High Court of Uganda or the
Courts of Judicature and must be qualified to be a judge of the High Court. So, we are taking care
of the professional need of determination of technical issues in the Army. But in terms of
determining fact at all these levels in the whole country or even outside, where the UPDF will be
operating, to require that we must have a lawyer in the Court Martial may cause injustice and
failure to administer military justice. We are not saying that the lawyers, if they are available,
they should not serve; of course, should and they are doing so even now. Thank you.
MR TWAREBIREHO: My argument, Mr Chairman, was that at the stage of appeal it is already
too late. We should know that actually trial begins with charging a person and that is where
technicalities begin. By the time it reaches appeal and the case is already messed up, the Appeal
Court cannot remedy any situation; it is already completely finished. Here I would like Members
to agree with me that there are cases like treason, which are supposed to be tried by these courts.
A court like a Court Martial; you just give it to a layman and you expect to remedy the situation
at the appeal stage! That is impossible. So, we should really consider the magnitude of this
matter. I thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR KAGIMU: Mr Chairman, I understand they have laid the names on the Table, but you may
find that that number may be big today because of the frustration in the country where there is
unemployment and hardships; but tomorrow if the situation allows and the economy is booming,
you will find very few lawyers.
MS KIRASO: Mr Chairman, is the hon. Kagimu Maurice from Bukomansimbi in order to
suggest that people join the Uganda Armed Forces because they are frustrated, the economy is not
doing well, they have nothing to do? Is he in order, Mr Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: He is out of order because people go to serve the country rather than those
considerations. They do not go out of frustration, so he is out of order.
MR KAGIMU: Thank you very much, I withdraw. Mr Chairman, sometimes - I want to end. I
do not want to go very far at this point. There are some areas where you must have some extra
judicial executions, for example - you see, with the lawyer all these legalistic –(Interruption)
MR WAGONDA-MUGULI: Mr Chairman, is the honourable Member in order to suggest that
extra judicial executions should be justified by the UPDF, and that UPDF should be allowed to
carry out extra judicial executions when actually we are trying to talk about a law to regulate the
behaviour of UPDF? Is he in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, the law, which we are making, should be subordinate to the
Constitution and the Constitution does not allow extra-judicial killings.
CAPT. TWAREBIREHO: Mr Chairman, I had moved a motion and I remember we voted twice
without getting the results. I had moved that instead of adopting what the Chairperson of the
Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs had suggested in Section 195, we adopt the original
position in the Bill as it were in Section 193.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So, the position is that we maintain the original clause rather than the
one proposed by the committee. Chairperson, you want to say something? Okay.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Yes, it is true that the hon. Member had moved that motion and it is
true that I had also opposed it, and the reason why I had opposed it then is the reason why I
oppose it now. That for this Parliament to pass a law, which has the possibility of causing maladministration of military justice is not correct. That by passing the clause as proposed by the
Defence Committee which does not exclude lawyers but is permissive, we are making it possible
for UPDF to manage the administration of justice in the Army practically.
I made the point that what we have established is that there are all these courts of administration
of justice, in some cases you can have a unit court which handles administration of justice in
combat situations and which is meant to maintain the discipline and cohesion of the unit in
fighting formation. So, for this Parliament to say that that should not be handled if there is no
lawyer in that unit, I think is not correct.
As far as I am concerned, we have managed this thing all this time and I have not heard serious
complaints that the administration of military justice has been faulty. It has been handled in other
militaries in the world. I have not heard of any military in the world, including the most
established, which makes it compulsory that the administration of justice in the military all the
way must be by professional legal experts.
I, therefore, oppose that motion and call on Members of Parliament, for practical reality, to accept
and support the amendment by the Defence Committee because, it was an error in the original
Bill, which we presented to so demand. I am the one who presented the Bill and I was
withdrawing it in recognition of the error I made. I, therefore, would like to urge Members of
Parliament to support the formulation by the Committee for which I am very grateful for
correcting me.
MR SABIITI: If we took hon. Mbabazi’s explanation and we passed it, would not that contradict
Article 28 of the Constitution on the right to a fair hearing? Because in the case of, for example,
executions which normally are carried out, such people who are supposed to be executed need
legal representation, need lawyers to help them. But if we pass it the way you want, we may in
the end find that the soldier to be convicted is convicted when actually he did not have a fair
hearing. So, does your proposal not violate Article 28?
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: The answer is no, it does not. What Article 28 is talking about is
that everyone who is charged with a criminal offence in the case of capital, I think you are talking
about 28(3)(e). In the case of a capital offence, that person who is charged would be entitled to
legal representation at the expense of the state. What this means is not that the trial court must be
manned or “womaned” by lawyers, but that he or she must be represented by a lawyer at the
expense of the state. And this we meet even today even if, for instance, current general court
martial is presided over by someone who is not a lawyer. But anyone who is charged with a
capital offence, in other words an offence which if convicted may lead to passing of a death
sentence, then that charged person is entitled to legal representation at the expense of the state.
That is what it means and we are meeting it. We are complying with that constitutional
requirement and my proposal will not be in violation of it at all.
CAPT. TWAREBIREHO: Mr Chairman, that is why I was insisting that the members be
lawyers. Now you can imagine a situation where an accused is being defended by a lawyer and
the members of the court are laymen. It is only total confusion! At the end they will not even
understand what the lawyers arguments are and it becomes a problem. Now that we have the
manpower, now that we are after professionalising the army, let us have the professionals go to
where they belong. The doctors cannot be in court, for example, they go to hospitals.
MS KIRASO: Mr Chairman, the clarification I am seeking is, if we want to accommodate hon.
Mbabazi’s argument that we may have these people now in the numbers that hon. Tungwako has
laid on the Table, but tomorrow those numbers may not be there. What if we say in as far as
possible? I think if we said that, then it is only and only in the absence of the lawyers that there
would be a fall to other people who are not competent in the field.
MR KAGIMU: Mr Chairman, hon. Ruhindi brought an amendment that is in line with what she
is saying, that preferably there should be a lawyer; but in case there is none then –(Interruption)
MR EKANYA: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. The knowledge we have is that in the
military there is what we call field court martial, and there are normally summary trials that take
place within 24 or 48 hours. So, in case of capital offence, the presiding judge or whatever, who
may not know the constitutional provision, may not be able to allow the person being accused to
seek legal presentation.
So, if you say that you want to violate the Constitution and the person will say, “I need legal
representation,” that will require that the trial will take more than maybe 24 hours. He or she may
need to get a lawyer of his or her interest, and the lawyer may be far from that field and so it will
take time. I do not know how it meets your request that sometimes you need speedy justice and
yet the Constitution says, the suspect also needs legal representation. How do we marry the two
so that at the end of the day we arrive at real justice?
MRS BYAMUKAMA: Mr Chairman, apart from the fact that you need a lawyer to discern what
is a fact and what is a law, we have already legislated in this particular UPDF Bill that in
accordance with Article 221 of the Constitution, “It shall be the duty of the UPDF… to observe
and respect human rights and freedoms in the performance of their functions.”
In this particular instance, I would like to urge the minister to take into account what goes through
anybody’s mind when they are informed that they are going to go before a court martial. I think it
is also in the interest of all of us that we ensure that the people who preside over these courts do
have capacity to discern what is a fact and what is a law rather than having many cases of appeal
to straighten out what may have gone wrong.
Like hon. Tungwako has said, in some instances there would already have been gross abuse of
rights. Therefore, I think maybe the minister had initially thought along these lines and that is
why he actually gave us what is in clause 193. I urge him to reconsider and go back to the spirit
of what he had presented in the Bill.
MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Thank you, honourable members, for your contribution. I just want
to answer hon. Twarebireho Tungwako that it is not true that if the tribunal, which sits over a
dispute, is not constituted by professional lawyers, it cannot administer justice. As you know,
there was a huge backlog in the country of cases mainly arising out of land disputes and things
like that. This Government solved it by giving judicial powers to Local Councils (LCs). Mainly
disputes are about fact; the question is, “Where is the boundary between my land and hon. Dora
Byamukama’s land?” Now, who is best placed to determine that, is it a legally professional
person, or is it determinable even by ordinary people?
As you know, when we gave powers to the LCs, most of these problems were resolved. In fact,
the backlog we used to have is no more because they resolved these.
What we are saying is that in the case of determining fact, to know whether it is this soldier who
stole that money or something like that, the tribunal need not be constituted by lawyers. But of
course you are entitled to have legal representation, you can have a lawyer representing you if
you are accused. So, that is point No.1.
Point No.2, it is not true - I think hon. Ekanya was raising the question of field court martial. The
Constitution is very clear on this and it makes an exception as you know. If you look at, for
instance, the prerogative of mercy in Article 121(6), “A reference in this Article to conviction or
imposition of a punishment, sentence or forfeiture includes conviction or imposition of a
punishment, penalty, sentence or forfeiture by a court martial or other military tribunal except a
field court martial.”
So, the field court martial is accepted by the Constitution itself. That is recognition of the
Constitution for the circumstances of field courts martial and these are clearly very serious
circumstances when you are in combat operations, not anyhow.
So, honourable members, all I ask of you is really not to legislate for the impossible. Simply pass
a law, as all laws should be, which is permissive, which does not prevent the employment of legal
experts to man or to preside over these tribunals; but where it is not possible for the military still
to administer justice in the Army, but have at a level where legal questions that require expertise
are to be manned by experts. And that is what I said is being provided; that where really we know
that the problem is technical then we should have people who are technically competent to do so.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: I suggest that we sleep over this one, and tomorrow we will find a way of
disposing of this matter.
MR RUHINDI: There is an amendment. I do not know whether this one should be carried
forward to tomorrow, but I was proposing an insertion after Clause 246. So, I do not know
whether it should be stood over until tomorrow also?
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will deal with it.
MOTION FOR THE HOUSE TO RESUME
5.13
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Mr Chairman, I beg to move that
the House do resume and the Committee of the Whole House do report thereto.
THE CHAIRMAN: I put the question.
(Question put and agreed to.)
REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the
Committee of the Whole House has considered the Bill entitled, “The Uganda Peoples’ Defence
Forces Bill, 2003” and has passed clause 28 with amendment and it has stood over Clauses 80
and 195. I beg to report.
MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
HOUSE
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the
report from the Committee of the Whole House be adopted.
THE SPEAKER: I put the question.
(Question put and agreed to.)
THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. The hon. Minister told me he has a statement to make.
5.15
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Mr Speaker, I felt that this
information, which I have, is so important especially for this august House that given the
opportunity the House ought to know. This is in respect of Constitutional Petition No.7 of 2002
Dr James Rwanyarare and others against the Attorney General.
Mr Speaker, honourable members, the Constitutional Court today delivered its judgement in this
petition and the brief summary of the judgement is as follows:
The court held:
1.
That following the court’s pronouncement in the earlier petition No.5 of 2002 Dr
Ssemogerere and others against the Attorney General, the Movement under the Movement Act is
a political organisation. However, they held that Section 2 of the Political Parties and
Organisations Act, which excludes the Movement from the definition of the political
organisation, does not contravene any provision of the Constitution.
2.
That Section 6 sub-sections (2) (3) and (4) of the Act of the Political Organisations
Act, which requires existing political parties and organisations to register as bodies corporate
within six months from the date of the enactment of the Political Parties and Organisations Act,
was enacted in fulfilment of the mandatory constitutional requirement for political parties and
organisations to register contained in Articles 72 (2) and 270 of the Constitution and is, therefore,
not unconstitutional. (Applause)
3.
That it was within the mandate and authority of Parliament to require political parties
to have at least 50 members in at least half of all the districts of Uganda under Sections 5 and 7 of
the Political Parties and Organisations Act, to ensure that any political party or organisation that
is formed conforms to the principle of national character.
4.
That the true import of section 8 of Political Parties and Organisations Act is that
existing political parties that were saved by the Constitution are free to use their identifying
symbols and slogans.
5.
That Section 10(4) of the Political Parties and Organisations Act, which requires
parties to have elections to their national conferences only in the fourth year of the term of
Parliament, was unjustifiable and unconstitutional.
6.
That the requirement under Section 10 sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of the
Political Parties and Organisations Act is unjustifiable in so far as it restricts the number of
meetings of parties in each district.
(i)
That is, after the issue of certificate of registration and in so far as it
requires that any structures put in place to elect the national conference shall cease to exist.
7.
That the requirement under Section 10(b) that any person who has lived outside
Uganda for three or more years cannot be a leader of a political party organisation, is contrary to
the right of freedom of association and assembly and is null and void.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, honourable members, out of the seven issues, four were decided in favour
of the Attorney General, three in favour of the petitioners and each party was asked to bear its
own costs.
I want to make two final statements: One, that the court made it clear - I thought hon. Wadri
Kassiano was here - that existing political parties must register within six months after today or
else they cease to exist.
Mr Speaker, this is a judgement which was issued today which was pronouncement by the
Constitutional Court and I am happy that we have won many of the grounds, and we are going to
study very carefully the grounds that we lost and we will decide what to do about them. Thank
you.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you, for your information. Honourable members, with this we come to
the end of today’s business. House is adjourned until tomorrow 2.00 p.m.
(The Parliament rose at 5.21 p.m. and adjourned until Thursday, 18 November 2004 at 2.00 p.m.)