Why vetting for public appointments took a wrong turn
Speaker Kadaga
Parliament- Analysts have reduced Parliament’s Appointments Committee to a “toothless watchdog” and wondered why a committee previously praised as a “harbinger of hope” particularly in the fading shadows of the Eighth Parliament is now behaving like a “gang of hired mob”.
By questioning the integrity of the appointments committee, the analysts, independent-minded lawmakers and civil society organisations have resurrected the debate on whether having a closed-door vetting system would ensure transparency and accountability in public affairs.
“I really don’t know what’s wrong with the appointments committee but I think too much fatigue and pressure on a few individuals automatically leads to some of those ridiculous decisions they sometimes make. The Speaker is involved in so many pressures but the only solution is to open the committee to public scrutiny,” said Mr Alex Ruhunda (NRM, Fort Portal Municipality).
The latest hullabaloo over the efficacy of the appointments committee chaired by Speaker Rebecca Kadaga was provoked by reports that after approving Gen Aronda Nyakairima, a serving army officer, to be the political head of Internal Affairs docket, contrary to Article 208 (2) of the 1995 Constitution, the committee is about to approve retired Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki to head judiciary.
Justice Odoki officially retired on March 23 after clocking the mandatory retirement age of 70.
But later the President reportedly disregarded individuals recommended by Judicial Service Commission and re-appointed Justice Odoki on a two-year deal as CJ in total contravention of Article 142(1).
The President has since written to Ms Kadaga to consider and approve Justice Odoki amidst protests from legal fraternity.
According to analysts who spoke to the Daily Monitor, the appointments committee had started well until President Museveni started meddling into its affairs using the ruling party majority.
Pundits argue that, a closed-door committee “added insult to injury” and that the committee is now a rubber stamp to the extent that the members are too shy to look the President in the eye and say no to blemished nominees.
In defence of the committee, Ms Helen Kawesa, the spokesperson of Parliament, said approval committees all over the world face off with the executive and that does not make them weak. “It’s no rubber stamp. It’s a strong body which has carried out its mandate authoritatively and responsibly,” Ms Kawesa said. “The committee is not spineless and it has vetted and approved many qualified competent nominees who are now serving in respective positions in the country.
The committee has also rejected some people from the President.”
The committee has only managed to block President Museveni’s ministerial nominees; James Kakooza (Primary Healthcare, Saleh Kamba (Bunyoro Affairs) and Ms Margaret Mbeiza (Economic Monitoring).
The committee members who spoke to the Daily Monitor, but requested not to be quoted in order to speak freely said the controversial appointment that arguably, broke the committee’s back was that of junior Lands Minister, Ms Idah Nantaba, last year.
The committee had rejected Ms Nantaba on “moral grounds” but the President ordered that she must be approved and she was approved in a disputed meeting chaired by deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanyah.
In his defence, Mr Oulanyah said he was following instructions from Ms Kadaga who was out of the country.
Ms Nantaba’s appointment was first rejected in August 2012 on the grounds that she did not have the minimum academic qualifications to occupy the post. But when she proved that she had the academic credentials, some MPs on the appointments committee then questioned her moral character.
Ms Nantaba reacted angrily, claiming some people on the appointments committee and senior army officers, who she had exposed as land grabbers in Kayunga, were fighting her.
Mr Nicholas Opio, the Secretary Uganda Law Society who spoke in his personal capacity, said the “political gymnastics” in the appointments committee confirms one thing: That the institution of Parliament is not independent.
He said MPs especially those of the ruling party, who are the majority on the committee normally, “throw themselves about in an attempt to gain the favour of their party”.
He said the appointments committee as is the entire Ninth Parliament, is in re-election mood.
“More transparency is required in the form of making the appointments committee proceedings both public and subject to debate on the floor of the house,” Mr Opio said.
He said the appointments committee must be required to report to MPs just like other committees, adding that: “This will protect both the committees from accusations of bias and nominees from unfair disapproval.”
To restore confidence in the committee, Mr Opio reiterated that a clear criteria for approval or disapproval of presidential nominees must be set out and made public “so we know why the Inspector General of Police who has presided over bloody and murderous riots is approved when a political novice in Idah Nantaba is tossed around by the committee or a Mbeiza is disapproved.”
Presidential powers
The Minister for Presidency, Mr Frank Tumwebaze, said the work of the appointments committee is only to assess the suitability of the nominees. That, the rules of procedure of Parliament are clear on the grounds upon which any nominee can be rejected, that is on lack of academic qualifications and not on any other.
“The power to appoint certain people is for the President and so nobody should try to usurp that responsibility by trying to use some other platform,” Mr Tumwebaze said.
“Where the committee has rejected people with reasons that are within their mandate the President has agreed with them. If there are questions of constitutional interpretation then the constitutionally mandated offices like the Attorney General and Constitutional Court can be asked to give opinions and interpretations.”
Guided by history, the coordinator Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU), Mr Crispy Kaheru, said the head of the Executive must have imagined that the appointments committee would transact business not as conservatively as the previous appointments committees.
“Because of the image of loyalty to the establishment in power that previous committees had imprinted in the mind of the President, this committee enjoyed a honeymoon of flexibility, and independence not until its verdicts - which mainly (undesirably) affected appointments of folks from the NRM political party attracted the keen eye of the president,” Mr Kaheru said.
Illuminating on what might have gone wrong, Mr Kaheru said the Executive has stepped up both covert and overt tactical pressure on the committee to ensure that party loyalists are successfully vetted and appointed.
“It is because of this real or perceived pressure and undue influence that the independence, impartiality, and objectivity of the vetting committee are currently in question (or better put, waning).”
Because the head of the Executive seems to maintain an unmatched character and wit to influence processes and outcome of the committee, Mr Kaheru and other analysts said his interests will in most times surpass the objectivity of the committee.
However, Mr Kaheru said this does not mean that the entire committee is trapped in this cycle of unwelcome presidential influence; some members still espouse ethos of diligence, integrity, objectivity and impartiality as they serve on the committee but because they adhere to principles of collective responsibility, their individual doctrines may not be reflected in the committee’s decisions.
Vetting Saga- As Parliament prepares to vet retired Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki amidst protests from the legal fraternity, analysts weigh in on what happened to the appointments committee that used to bite in public interest.
