Speaker Kadaga acted within the rules of our Parliament

The Daily Monitor edition of September 28, carried some stories which distorted events at Parliament the previous day. The caption of the front page picture said the security forces that carried out the eviction of some of the suspended MPs from the House, were invited by the Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga. The lead story started with an introduction saying the Speaker caused pandemonium in the House and that she suspended the 25 MPs to pave way for Igara West MP Raphael Magyezi to table his motion.
Another picture inside the paper captured me, MP Nandala Mafabi and two other MPs looking on as some security officials were dragging out MP Theodore Ssekikubo after we had pleaded with them not to handle him roughly. Instead the caption said I led a team of security officials to storm Parliament.

This was very unfortunate reporting of the events that transpired and poses a challenge to reporters and editors, especially at this time when political temperatures seem to be going higher. Journalism takes the position of giving sobering influence in situations where the public or their elected representatives take extreme positions.
For clarity, the Speaker did not suspend the MPs to pave way for Mr Magyezi’s motion.

Every Member of Parliament is free to bring a private motion and indeed many have done so previously.
The Speaker suspended the MPs for offending the rules of procedure of Parliament. The rules of the House were arrived at by MPs themselves and the Speaker is the overall custodian of those rules. She did communicate that the suspended members violated rules 73, 74, and 7(2). In taking action, the Speaker invoked rules 77, 79(2), 80 and also rule 8, which gives the Speaker the authority to decide on issues not expressly provided for.
This rule even allows her to borrow practices from British Commonwealth.

At the beginning of the 10th Parliament, the Clerk to Parliament organised training for journalists accredited to cover Parliament. During the training, rules of procedure and how they work were exposed to those who attended the training. The copies of the rules were also provided and can still be provided by my office.
It is important for any journalist covering Parliament to understand the rules to avoid being conveyor belts of the emotions of political actors. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues appear to be allergic to reading and acquiring new knowledge.

On the issue of security officers who carried out the eviction of MPs, the Inspector General of Police, Gen Kale Kayihura, has already addressed the matter of who they were because he was in charge. But this is how the matter reached the point of security officials intervening. The Speaker read the rules and named the MPs who offended them. She suspended them for the next three sittings of Parliament, meaning that by Thursday this week, the suspended members should be free to resume their Parliamentary business.
After the Speaker had made her ruling, she invited the suspended members to vacate the House.

She did this three times. The members instead tried to challenge the ruling of the Speaker there and then, which again offended the rules of procedure. The rules provides for mechanism of challenging the Speaker’s ruling.
The Speaker, as per the rules again, instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to evict the suspended MPs from the House.

She suspended the House for 30 minutes to allow the Sergeant-at Arms do the eviction. The Sergeant-at-Arms did exactly that, but he and his team met stiff resistance from the MPs. The members charged at them and one staff who was trying to protect the Speaker’s chair and microphone, was hit on the face with a chair. He bled and had to be rushed to hospital and his eye narrowly survived damage. The Speaker’s microphone did not survive. It was vandalised.
At this point, the Sergeant-at Arms had been overwhelmed and the police took over the eviction.

That is when security officers both in uniform and civilian attire entered the chamber and it became regrettably messy for nearly two hours. The images captured by video attest to this. Evidently, there was failure to play by the rules and consensus had failed to be brokered. It is unfair to now personalise this to the Speaker because her guiding tools are the rules of procedure, especially where two parties are not agreeing to a consensus having taken extreme positions. The Speaker did what she did legitimately.
In any debate, there are usually two sides, which is good for democracy and in Parliamentary terms, whoever wins the debate, makes democracy win. In these debates, tempers can flare. The physical fighting in Parliament is not common, but it is not unusual because it has happened elsewhere. Even then, it does not make it the best practice because it does not necessarily resolve matters. Physical fighting sometimes can be construed as lack of tact and strategy. Parliament is traditionally a theatre of debate where the force of better argument has to prevail.
All MPs ought to know that use of any means that are not in the rules of procedure is wrong.

The institution of Parliament must be defended at all times because it is central in democratic governance. And by sticking to the rules, Speaker Rebecca Kadaga again demonstrated leadership as she has often done. She defended the institution of Parliament.

Mr Obore is the director of commincations and Public affairs of Parliament
[email protected]