Oil probe report puts House, Executive on a collision course

Quite easily the icing on the 10th Parliament’s cake, the impatiently awaited report on investigations into circumstances under which government officials received Shs6b is out.
Parliament now unanimously adopts the recommendations in their entirety, including the controversial one asking for an immediate refund.

Now the stage is set for a clash between Parliament and the Executive again as the recommendations left a sour taste in the Executive’s tongue.

Quite expectedly, the Executive shot back, through Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana, who stood in the way of one of the recommendations: asking the Inspector General of Government to further pursue the matter.

His was a swim in turbulent waters as MPs from his own ruling party took him on, with Manjiya County MP John Baptist Nambeshe accusing him of watching videos on YouTube, a video-sharing social media site.

Committee chairperson Abdu Katuntu (FDC, Bugweri) was quick to chide his learned brother, asking him to consult “kindergarten ENGLISH” to understand the term “refund”.
“When the Attorney General (Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana) stood up, I expected him to have read the PFMA [Public Finance Management Act],” said Mr Katuntu.

No refund
With the report already on table, and some recipients making it clear for all and sundry that there will be no refund, Parliament has effectively locked horns with the Executive.

Parliament’s resolutions are advisory, and may not bind government on a course of action; argues officials, but to tell that to MPs is to easily earn their wildest possible wrath.
Now the public’s attention to the matter is at peak, and Parliament now finds itself in a struggle to stamp its relevance, to re-emphasise its strength.

Ms Cissy Kagaba, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Coalition in Uganda, lauds Parliament for the report, but can’t hide her scepticism as to whether the report will be recommended at all.

“The report is supposed to be adopted by Cabinet; but it might be implemented selectively, especially the recommendation on refund; I don’t think that will happen,” she says.
Ms Kagaba argues that it is not the first time a report of such a kind is made, but the main concern is what government finally does with it.

There will be need for an extraordinary engagement with government if the report of the committee will ever be implemented.

This poses a very delicate situation; should the report not be implemented, Parliament will in the eyes of the public, be seen to be a passing cloud whose bite is inconsequential.

Mr Hippo Twebaze, a legislative researcher, concurs with Ms Kagaba in as far as expecting no refund is concerned.

“I think it [refund] may not be the case, I don’t see the public officials refunding the money,” he said, adding that there may be major scores in policy change, perhaps rightly so.

“As they say recommendations of Parliament are advisory, but the practice from the 6th and 7th Parliaments is that when recommendations made sense, government would find reason to implement,” Mr Twebaze says.

The policy talk is an impending major score for Parliament, and recommendation number three of the report speaks to that.

“The Executive should come up with a Bill within 90 days to regulate and streamline the Presidential Donations Budge,” reads recommendation number three.

Should this particular recommendation be implemented, there will be, perhaps once and for all, rationalisation of the presidential donations.

Mr Katuntu spoke in Thursday’s heated session, reminding Parliament that in the Financial Year 2017/18, there will be Shs74 billion allocated to presidential donations, with no policy in place to guide the disbursements.

Should the Executive, in Mr Twebaze’s word, “see reason” in the proposal and come up with a Bill to streamline the donations, it will be a bigger win than the refund of Shs6 billion.

Like Parliament, the rest of the public is kept in total darkness regarding donations made by the President. Even if he hands a Shs6 billion handshake to just one individual; there will be no nosing by Parliament, a crisis bigger than refund of the Shs6 billion oil cash.
All is set for interesting times ahead.

PAC-Finance Standoff
Another false start for the second session is in regard to an inquiry into a $92 million PTA loan that was acquired by government upon Parliament’s blessing in 2016.
Day Two of the inquiry was supposed to commence on Thursday, according to Public Accounts Committee vice chairperson Gerald Karuhanga.

Come Thursday, however, no meeting happened. Committee chairperson Angeline Osegge (FDC, Soroti) would later present a statement before the House, accusing Finance minister Matia Kasaija of undermining the probe.

Ms Osegge said the minister summarily rejected calls to appear before the committee, allegedly telling her that “the Public Accounts Committee can do nothing to me”.

Ms Osegge told Parliament that come Tuesday, the committee will spare no effort in causing the minister to appear, even if it means invoking the committee’s High Court powers to summon the minister.

Vice chairperson Karuhanga (pictured), who began the proceedings, said the minister should be rest assured that “should the committee suspect that the minister is intending to skip the Thursday meeting, we will invoke our constitutional powers and summon him”.

Mr Jim Mugunga, the Finance ministry’s spokesperson, maintained that their relationship with Parliament remains “very cordial”.
“He [Mr Kasaija] is not that kind of person and should not be thrown under the bus…he was merely unable to be in two places on official duties at the same time,” he wrote in a message to Sunday Monitor.

This newspaper understands that the Finance ministry, in a June 21 letter, wrote to the National Medical Stores, assuring them of paying their outstanding bills in the next Financial Year – one of the reasons why the probe was started.

On Tuesday, Parliament will be in week two of its second session, and while the clock ticks very fast, the public looks to see a stronger legislature keeping true to its mandate in screening government excesses.