Kadaga, AG clash over money given to MPs to fight Covid-19

Speaker Rebecca Kadaga and MPs yesterday castigated the Attorney General (AG) William Byaruhanga, accusing him of supporting the Judiciary “in scandalising the legislature” over the appropriation of Shs10b Covid-19 cash.

On Wednesday, Ms Kadaga summoned the AG to advise the House on how to proceed with the Shs10b allocation to Parliament, part of which each MP had been paid Shs20m.
Ms Kadaga said there was a court order stopping the payment but the money had already been sent to the MPs’ accounts. In the foregoing, she sought the Attorney General’s legal advice on how to handle the court ruling which she described as “confusing”.

Two days before, the High Court had issued an interim order stopping the payment of the money to MPs following a petition by Ntungamo Municipality MP Gerald Karuhanga and Erute South MP Jonathan Odur who challenged the legality of the money.

The MPs said Parliament illegally allocated itself the money because it had not been included in Report of the Budget Committee nor was it part of the Shs304b Supplementary Budget request to bolster the Ministry of Health in fighting Covid-19.

In the interim order, court indicated that the money should not be paid or if it had already been, the MPs should not use it until the hearing and disposal of the petition on April 29.

When the Mr Byaruhanga appeared in the House yesterday to give guidance on the matter, he reasoned that having been informed by Office of the Clerk to Parliament that the money was sent to the MPs’ accounts on Friday April 17, the interim court order stopping the Parliamentary Commission from spending the Shs10b “has been overtaken by events.”

However, Mr Byaruhanga riled the Speaker by saying MPs who received the money after the order was issued, would be in contempt of court if they spend the money.

“If the money was sent on April 17, that has been overtaken by events. But for the money of accounts of Members of Parliament after April 21, then the court order has to be respected. Those who spent after April 21, it will tantamount to contempt of court,” Mr Byaruhanga stated.

Speaker Kadaga immediately objected, telling the Attorney General that there was no way court can block MPs’ accounts who are not party to the suit. She declared that was unacceptable.

“I beg to differ with you Attorney General. The status quo upon which the court ruled is that the money has been paid,” the Speaker answered back.
Ms Kadaga also warned banks which will hold the MPs’ Shs20m will be sued.

Ms Kadaga had earlier given MPs guidelines on how to spend the Shs20m and would submit accountability to the Clerk to Parliament and district Chief Administrative Officers.

She also asked directly elected MPs and district Woman MPs to join the Covid-19 task forces of their own districts while MPs for Workers, Youth and People With Disabilities to join the national taskforce on the pandemic.

Below are the highlights on how the clash between the Speaker Kadaga and Attorney General Mr Byaruhanga unfolded on the floor of the House.

Kadaga: The Attorney General is here, sorry I had not seen you, please come and guide this House

Byaruhanga: Madam Speaker, yesterday you made a ruling that I should come and explain the order that was delivered by the court on the 21st day of April this year.

My interpretation is that, and this is my explanation...
My quick interpretation of this High Court order is that; the first part of the order is to the Parliamentary Commission in the event they have not yet distributed the sum of Shs10b, they should remain undistributed until the determination of the application. That particular application is the one for the injunction but this was a temporary court order.

The second prom was that in the alternative, if the Shs10b had already been paid out to the MPs, they were ordered not to spend the same until the main application has been determined.

It is important that the status quo relating to this payments as at April 21, be maintained. It is therefore imperative that this status quo be clarified by the Parliamentary Commission. What is in issue here is whether the Parliamentary Commission was aware of the court order before the payment was made. Similarly whether any member who has already spent the money was aware of the court order prior to expenditure.

On the facts availed to me from the Clerk of Parliament, I have found that the Parliamentary Commission paid out the money on April 17, before the court order was issued on the 21st. That being the case, that court order appears to have been overtaken by events in that particular respect.

However, needless to add the court decision in and of itself is binding on the parties to the suit and also on the Members of Parliament until it is reversed or until the court gives further guidance.

In accordance with Article 128(3) of our Constitution, it is incumbent upon the government and Parliament to ensure that that court order is respected. This is in addition that any action to the contrary by a person to whom that court order applies would expose that person to contempt of court.

The question shall be on monies which are on accounts of Parliament post the April 21, after the court order has been made to this House. Madam Speaker, needless to tell you, it is a general duty to obey court orders.

The general principle regarding this, is that a party who knows of the order whether the order is null or valid, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it. That principle is found in common law and it has been reiterated by several times by our courts.

The MPs who spent the money after the 21st of April would be held to be in contempt of court. Permit me then to say that of course the Parliamentary Commission or any member who feels aggrieved by this order is open to challenge it before that court before it is discharged.

Kadaga: Thank you, but I beg to differ with you. The status quo upon which the court ruled was that the money had already been sent out, that is the status quo which should be maintained. There was no money in the Commission at that time, it had been sent out by the time the suit was filed.

And for you to say that a court can garnishee [block] the accounts of members who are not party to the suit is something that we should really, really avoid. Members of Parliament were not party to this suit. The court had no business to interfere with their accounts. No no no...

Byaruhanga: Madam Speaker (he is cut short by the Speaker).

Kadaga: No way, no! Next time, the court will say “take off your clothes when you are in the House,” and we shall have to obey !

Byaruhanga: I hope they would not do that. Clearly that would be the first.

Kadaga: Even on the day of filing, the money had already gone. Don’t encourage the courts to overrun Parliament.

Atikins Katusabe (stood up on point of order): The Attorney General’s submission borders on the scandalisation of Parliament.
Is the AG somebody that has the Constitutional mandate to guide and advise government and the arms of government in order to proceed and go ahead to scandalise the institution of Parliament?

Kadaga: By interfering with the Shs10b, the judge is actually interfering with the entire supplementary [budget process], therefore all those are injuncted (halted] because they are one bill.

I have looked at the papers and the part of the MPs’ accounts was not in the prayers [submissions in the petition in court]. The judge just got excited and said, even the MPs’ accounts.

Isaac Musumba (raising an inquiry): My question is, can we justify within our rules a situation where a member whose motion is defeated in Parliament can go to court to have his/her motion to be heard and determined?

Kadaga: Within our rules there are avenues for redress for complaint; we have a channel for objecting... They lost and then they went out to court, I think we must find a way of dealing with these members. You can’t solve Parliamentary issues in court.

Honourable members, we have been complaining about the role of Attorney General in defending Parliament.

Sometimes we don’t know which side you are on, sometimes you have abandoned us there in court. You have consented with the other side, leaving us helpless.

Secondly, I want to warn the banks which try to interfere with members’ accounts. You will be sued. The members you are disturbing have no judgment against them...so all this is just stupidity, stupidity... anyway....

(House applauds Kadaga: calls Finance minister to address another matter)