Here is why Kavuma court order was stupid

There have been media commentaries that are veiled attacks against the Speaker of Parliament and Parliament in general over the adjournment of the House sine die and demanding that the Attorney General vacates the Justice Steven Kavuma order before Parliament resumes work.
Of course, people have every right to express their opinions. However, they need to consider the following:
First, the innuendo that Parliament was questioning the authority of the President to give a ‘thank you’ to the 42 public servants is misplaced. The proponents of that line of thinking are attempting to use the name of the President to shield them from scrutiny.

Parliament agrees that the President has power to reward anyone. It’s the reason Parliament, among other things; appropriates a budget for donations for the President.
Secondly, when the President gives instructions to anyone, he never asks them to implement his instructions illegally because he is a public proponent of rule of law. Where the President’s instructions are seen or suspected to have been executed illegally, there are institutions that check the perpetrators of that. Such institutions include Parliament.
There is a growing tendency by public officials and political actors to drag in the name of the President whenever they feel cornered.

There are different layers of government and each layer must be accountable.
In this case, the President did not complain that by investigating how the payment was done and where money was picked from, Parliament was questioning his authority. Instead, it’s the beneficiaries and their cohorts purporting to complain on behalf of the President.
Thirdly, some elements have since unsuccessfully tried to divert the debate away from the substantive matter of Shs6 billion to the Speaker’s description of the court order as stupid.

Indeed, the order was fittingly described as stupid because it had ordered the entire country to shut up over the Shs6 billion cash bonanza to select 42 public servants. The court order had in effect extinguished Article 90 from the Constitution. It was no longer a court order but a Constitutional amendment done by one judge!
The same order had shut the offices of IGG, Auditor General and any other oversight bodies doing any investigation into the matter.
Hopefully, citizens with analytic minds appreciate the fact that the order had moved out of the legal realm, to encroach on wider rights and freedoms that the citizenry must enjoy unhindered in a democratic dispensation.

For a court order to say no authority should inquire, investigate or even question the Shs6 billion payout, it meant that it was no longer Parliament alone being gagged but the entire nation. By implication, the 42 public servants had hijacked the country.
If that order was not stupid, then the entire country of 37 million people would have been stupid to allow to be gagged by 42 people.
Parliament exercises a direct mandate from the citizens, therefore; it could not allow such an order to exist.
Negative critics of Parliament and those who reason like them, must not be allowed to disguise their intentions using legal robes. The Speaker did not undermine the Judiciary by suspending Parliament.

She, in fact, demonstrated legal and political competence, and high regard for the rule of law by suspending the House until the order is vacated yet she had the power to ignore the order and proceed with parliament business.
What would have courts done if the Speaker had ignored the order?
Would they have ordered the closure of the National Assembly? The Speaker did not want a situation where the National Assembly is seen as ignoring courts. The suspension of the House was a sign of respect of the judicial processes. Had the Speaker allowed the motion in disregard of the court order, the entire August House; its committees and all individuals would be liable of contempt of court. What a bad precedent Parliament would have set!

Indeed, the chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, Justice Benjamin Kabiito agrees with the decision of the Speaker (See Judicial body commends Kadaga on oil order, New Vision January 19). One wonders what interests some critics of Parliament in this matter, serve.
They may benefit from wider appreciation of the concept of accountability. It’s not merely adherence to accounting principles and provision of receipts. Accountability in wider terms means citizens must be free to ask questions, demand answers, debate those answers and make judgment.
Parliament is an arena of debate and a theatre of citizens’ dreams. It has the power to even discuss—if need arose—how some law firms do business with government.

Some have alleged that there was no crisis requiring Parliament to be adjourned indefinitely. They even went ahead to say Parliament had more business to handle “than just this one item.”
If the gagging of the voices of 37million people by a court order is not a crisis, then some people would be advised to serve their personal interests in silence than provoke other Ugandans.
Secondly, by assuming that Parliament had other business to transact, critics demonstrated lack of desire to understand the rules of procedure of Parliament; and the authority of the Speaker.

Next time, they might want to determine what goes into the order paper of Parliament. Any other business of Parliament would have a connection to the Shs6 billion because we are in the budget period.
Lastly, I sign off this commentary with a statement that critics of Parliament should by now have appreciated that it’s unsustainable to have every dispute sorted by the law because it has a higher possibility of disrupting social cohesion.
Social order should stem from the population (elected leaders) more than the Judiciary.

Mr Obore is the director, communication and public affairs Parliament of Uganda.