Parliament has adopted a report by the Rules, Privileges and Discipline Committee that recently recommended a censure process against the Minister of State for Housing, Persis Namuganza.
The report follows an inquiry into allegations of misconduct levelled against Namuganza, who also doubles as the Bukono County MP by his Bukooli Central counterpart, Solomon Silwany on July 13, 2022.
Silwany accused Namuganza of using social media and television to criticize the operations of Parliament and questioning the powers and integrity of the presiding officers of Parliament to form Adhoc Committees.
Her comments against parliament came after another report compiled by the Adhoc committee that investigated the giveaway of Nakawa-Naguru land, which recommended that Namuganza steps aside as Minister for falsifying a presidential directive that led to the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) to allocate the land to some investors. But Namuganza reportedly questioned the way investors and people who appear before parliamentary committees are handled, equating it to a torture chamber.
In the subsequent probe, the committee found that statements by Namuganza were unfounded, baseless, malicious, demeaning, and contemptuous. The committee added that the Minister’s statement undermined the authority and integrity of Parliament and brought the House and its members into disrepute.
The report tabled before Parliament last week by the Vice Chairperson, Charles Onen further stated that Namuganza’s conduct and behaviour constitute gross misconduct and misbehaviour and are not befitting of a Member of Parliament, more so a Minister. Today, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament Thomas Tayebwa steered a heated debate in which several Members of Parliament supported the committee
But before debate on the committee report took shape on Wednesday, Namuganza raised a procedural matter in which she informed parliament that she had found that the Rules Committee report contravenes and offends several constitutional provisions and that she had made a petition to the Constitutional Court challenging the actions, findings and conclusions of the report.
“The Attorney General has already been served, we have been looking for Honorable Onen to serve him since he is part of the petition. Therefore, under Rule 73 of our rules, this matter is subjudice. That is the information and procedural matter I wanted to give,” said Namuganza.
However, her effort to block the parliament debate did not yield fruit. Deputy Speaker, Thomas Tayebwa said that he had not received any single government official in his office concerning the issue and that it had not been brought to his attention that Namuganza had gone to court.
“You have made it very clear that you have not served parliament, you served the Attorney General. Parliament is different from the Attorney General. So, rule 80 of our rules of procedure prohibits me as a presiding officer and this House to act in anticipation. So for us to sit here and anticipate that there is a court order or someone has gone to court, will be against our rules of procedure,” said Tayebwa.
He ruled that the debate on the committee report proceeds.
Abdu Katuntu, the Rules Committee Chairperson also emphasized that rule 73 (2) is clear that a matter shall be considered subjudice if it refers to active criminal or civil proceedings and that in the opinion of the Speaker, the discussion of such matter is likely to prejudice its fair determination.
“If the speaker is not aware of the contents of the matter, how therefore will he be able to determine that the matter is subjudice or it will likely affect the fair determination of your petition?” Katuntu wondered.
During the debate, Gilbert Oulanya, the Kilak South MP supported the committee report saying that statements by Minister Namuganza were uncalled for and disrespected the House. Susan Amero, the Amuria Woman MP accused Namuganza of taking parliament for granted.
“In the Tenth Parliament, the same member was on the neck of another leader of this House, this time again, the same member is standing up to think that because she is on the front bench, she cannot be touched. Really! We are going to be tempted to touch. I pray that a motion of censure is put before this House very quickly,” said Amero.
Before the House pronounced itself on the committee report, Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja appealed to MPs to forgive Namuganza.
“I want to appeal to members that when you are in such a situation, sometimes you may fail to express your inner self. I want you to feel for her. We are all members of the same family and I want to beg you on her behalf to forgive her,” said Nabbanja.
She then asked Namuganza to apologise to the House.
In response to the request, Namuganza said; “Right honourable and honourable members, if I hurt you in any way, I regret it.”
However, this apology was challenged by Busiro East MP Medard Sseggona saying that Namuganza had demonstrated that she does not want to apologize.
“Discipline is a personal matter, it has nothing to do with government, it has nothing to do with leadership. I have been here watching, the Prime Minister tried to persuade her Minister and she refused. What we are witnessing is a cagey, cosmetic apology…which she does not even believe in,” said Sseggona.
Asuman Basalirwa, the Bugiri Municipality MP also said that an apology is not done in a casual manner and that it should be a process, through an admission of wrongdoing.
In his ruling, Tayebwa said that Namuganza’s apology would only be made by following a formal process which requires her to stand in the dock, offer admission and apologise. He said that this would also involve the withdrawal of any court process against parliament.
Following his ruling, Tayebwa put a question to the committee report and this was adopted with a recommendation that parliament commences the censure process against Namuganza.
Mathias Mpuuga, the Leader of Opposition told parliament that the Rules committee report is a culmination of another report that speaks to impropriate and improper dealing by the Minister. He demanded that since a decision was made on an earlier report about the Minister, the Prime Minister reports to the House on action taken on the earlier recommendations by the House.
Censure Process
MPs will invoke Article 118 of the Constitution and Rule 106 of Parliament rules to censure Namuganza. Article 118 provides for a vote of censure. It provides that Parliament may, by resolution supported by more than half of all members, pass a vote of Censure against a Minister on grounds of abuse of office, misconduct or misbehaviour, physical or mental incapacity, mismanagement, or incompetence.
“Upon a vote of Censure being passed against a Minister, the President shall, unless the Minister resigns his or her office, take appropriate action in the matter,” reads part of the Constitution.
On the other hand, Parliament’s Rules of Procedure provides for the Vote of Censure Process against Ministers and requires any member desirous of moving this motion to notify the Clerk in writing of his or her intention, citing the ground for the proposed censure motion and giving detailed particulars supporting such grounds.
“The Clerk shall, within three days upon receipt of the notice of censure notify Parliament by causing the notice, the ground, and particulars supporting the ground of proposed censure motion to be pinned on the Members’ notice board. The Clerk shall on the date and time of pinning the notice of censure cause to be prepared and deposited with the Sergeant-at-Arms, for a period of ten working days, a list of all MPs with an open space against each name for purposes of appending signatures,” the rules read in Part.
The rules require that any signature appended to the list shall not be withdrawn and after at least one-third of the MPs have appended their signatures in support of the proposed censure, the Sergeant-at-Arms shall forward the list to the Clerk.
Out of the total 529 MPs in the 11th Parliament, a successful censure motion would require 176 signatures.