How election petitions are taking a heavy toll on MPs

To give or not to give them money for vehicles was the first unpleasant debate Members of Parliament with cases in court had to endure.
Encouraged by voices of protest from civil society organisations, ministry of Finance officials held their ground of objection, forcing the Parliamentary Commission to cut committee budgets to raise money for the troubled MPs’ cars, a move that left committee heads chocking with fury.
Then enter the endless court journeys which Nansana Municipality MP Wakayima Musoke Nsereko describes as confidence-draining and unsettling, leaving the legislators with a less than honourable feeling.
“You don’t have confidence; you sit in Parliament knowing that tomorrow you could be sent out,” says Mr Wakayima, who is battling for his seat against former MP Robert Sebunya in court.
Save for a few brave faces, most MPs battling for their seats are a rarity in Parliament. For Busiiro South MP Peter Sematimba, court cases notwithstanding, “I still legislate and focus on parliamentary work because I am still the MP”.
He concurs with his Nansana Municipality comrade-in-arms Wakayima, that the court cases are altogether frustrating.
“It distracts you from being able to concentrate on your constitutional work; until the judgment is read out formally, you cannot concentrate, it keeps you in that limbo; that lack of absolute definition of your status is not what you want to be in,” says Mr Sematimba, whose political rival Mr Stephen Sekigozi is struggling in court to shorten his stay in the House.
Pocket wise, Mr Wakayima laments, they suffer high priced lawyers, most of whom he says won’t take less than Shs50 million.
“Instead of working for the people, you are busy paying lawyers and you know how expensive it is. You become incapacitated financially and you need good lawyers who cost not less than Shs50 million,” he said.

By-election butterflies
Known for its do or die nature, a parliamentary by-election is the worst thing a court-stuck legislator would want to have.
They now juggle parliamentary responsibilities, court and having to appear on the ground in preparation for the eventuality of a by-election.
“Visiting the voters means carrying at least Shs5 million to contribute to fundraising and energise our campaign networks,” says a Woman MP who requested to speak in confidence.
But to Luweero Woman MP Lillian Nakate, the threat of an impending by-election cannot keep her on toes, cryptically saying if court decides so, she will go for the battle.
“When the judgment comes, it will come,” says Ms Nakate. They failed to bury the hatchet with political rival Brenda Nabukenya, ending up in court over the 2016 election results.
Warding off calls to appear more often in the constituency, Ms Nakate says: “Some people in the constituency say; look here, you are not in the people (sic) yet you have a case in court. I tell them; I try to execute my mandate. I cannot do effective work and then go back to the constituency because I have a court case that can end in a by-election.”
Mr Sematimba looks at preparations for a by-election as “irrelevant because it to be concentrating on a force that is not relevant”.
Serere Woman MP Hellen Adoa, who vanquished political rival Alice Alaso, says court cases are troubling and it would be better to have alternatives.
“It interrupts you, it disorganises you. It strains you and you feel out of place; there should be an alternative to settle things out of court,” she says, to the agreement of Mr Kagole Kivumbi, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
“We encourage alternative dispute resolution rather than court battles that are long, protracted and expensive,” Mr Kivumbi told Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on Wednesday, where he had led a team of officials from the Judiciary to present their budget proposal for the next Financial Year.

Judiciary blamed

Kamwenge Woman MP Dorothy Nshaija, also in court, took issue with the Judiciary’s delay to hear and determine her case.
“I have a case in the court of appeal, they have never called me for hearing; my case has never been brought forth. In Parliament I can’t even get what is due to me because of the case,” Ms Nshaija, a member of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.
West Budama North’s Jacob Oboth Oboth put the Judiciary on the dock over the delay to determine the election petitions, saying it breeds aspersions on the Judiciary’s image.
“Election petitions are a public interest matter; why are you delaying the appeals? The speculation is that the delay is deliberate,” he said.
Apprising affected MPs of soon to come glad tidings, High Court registrar Paul Gadenya told MPs they will hold their breaths only up to the May 30.
“We want to assure the country that for all cases that have been heard in the last 60 days, judgments be delivered by May 30, 2017, including election appeals,” he said.
Chief Justice Bart Katureebe said Mr Gadenya “is going to issue a clerical order to the courts because it is an embarrassment for the courts to hear the cases and fail to deliver judgemnts”.
Mr Gadenya roots for a legal timeframe to the Court of Appeal. “The Court of Appeal should be given a time limit; that should also be put in the law,” he said.
The delay in disposing of election petitions, observes human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo, “causes uncertainty among the voters and MPs in performing their parliamentary functions due to cases in court”.
He prescribes adequate resourcing as a remedy to the delays, and a time-frame within which High Courts should transmit cases to the appellate court.
“We cannot overstate the fact that the courts need to be well resourced and have the necessary manpower, then we need to have a time frame within which they should dispose of these cases and how quickly should court transmit records to the Court of Appeal,” he said.
Mr Opiyo said although most parliamentary cases end up in the Court of Appeal, transferring all jurisdiction to the appellate court, “the fact that several cases end up at the Court of Appeal should not extinguish the right of appeal”.