Published on 02/10/2024
Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa declared on Tuesday that Parliament will not consider any further demands on the censure motion against four backbench Commissioners. He emphasized that Speaker Anita Among has already closed the matter with her ruling.
“The ruling was read on the floor and is on the Hansard. This is a closed matter, and we shall not put it on the Order Paper,” ruled Tayebwa.
This declaration followed a renewed push from Theodore Ssekikubo, MP for Lwemiyaga, and Odria Yorke Alion, MP for Aringa North, the movers of the censure motion. They are seeking accountability for a UGX 1.7 trillion service award and insisted on answers regarding when the debate would take place.
The four Commissioners under scrutiny are Mathias Mpuuga, who received a UGX 500 million service award as Leader of the Opposition and Esther Afoyochan, Prossy Akampurira and Solomon Silwany, who each received UGX 400 million.
Ssekikubo and Alion, who have formed a close alliance during their efforts to gather the requisite 177 signatures for the motion, have been accused of ignoring the Speaker’s authority. They have persisted in their demands to speak on the issue, even when out of order.
“We are all equal. The duty remains with you, as presiding officer, to guide us. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. How do you treat your members? A third of your members seated here supported the matter,” Ssekikubo argued. He referenced a recent motion that had been placed on the Order Paper, suggesting an inconsistency in how the Speaker handles such requests.
Alion also voiced his frustration, emphasizing that the Speaker’s ruling was based on a previous member’s submission and called for the censure motion to be placed on the Order Paper for debate.
The insistence by the two legislators prompted Kasilo County MP Elijah Okupa to raise a point of order, accusing them of being “unruly.” He expressed concern that they were monopolizing the floor with the same topic despite the Speaker’s ruling. “For the last month, we see the same people on the same issue. Is it in order for the two members to continue taking time when we have other concerns?” Okupa questioned.
In response, Tayebwa maintained that he would not allow members to disrupt the House, as it would lead to “disrepute.”
Odur’s Challenge
Last week, Odur, who had previously backed Ssekikubo and Alion, challenged the Speaker’s ruling, arguing it was based on incorrect legal advice from technical staff. He claimed that the Speaker was misled into believing that the service award was approved by Parliament and formed part of the Executive’s budget.
“The ruling cannot block the motion from being debated,” Odur insisted, asserting that the legal principle of res judicata—which prevents the same issue from being tried again—does not apply to Parliament. He described the legal advice received by the Speaker as a product of “laziness, incompetence, or sabotage” by technical staff.
“Parliament is still legally able to debate the censure motion and make its own decision,” Odur stated. He argued that the doctrine of res judicata should not bar parliamentary processes, especially when the movers of the censure motion are not parties in the court case that informed the ruling.
While addressing the matter, Tayebwa suggested that those unhappy with the Speaker’s ruling should challenge it in court, highlighting the potential for further litigation if the motion were debated post-court ruling. Ssekikubo and his colleagues have continued to assert that their motion addresses not only the service awards but also allegations of corruption involving the Speaker, other legislators, and Parliament staff.
