MPs block Shs1.7trillion supplementary request
Mr Patrick Esiagi
Members of Parliament on the budget committee have asked Parliament to block a Shs1.7 trillion supplementary request from government, citing serious inconsistencies with the 1995 Constitution and Public Finance Management Act.
The vice committee chairperson, Mr Patrick Esiagi, a member of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) told the House on Wednesday that the government request fell short of the legal requirement and should be rejected in public interest.
“The Committee is therefore unable to proceed with consideration of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill 2019 because it was introduced in contravention of Article 156(3) of the Constitution,” Mr Isiagi said.
Although Section 12 of the Budget Act allows Finance minister to grant supplementary budgets of up to 3 per cent of the entire budget for a particular financial year and seek retrospective authority, the House heard that the disputed supplementary request in question was presented to Parliament after the government had already spent the money without permission of Parliament.
The Supplementary Appropriation Bill, 2019 was presented Parliament on July 9 to seek funds relating to unpaid salaries and wages for the financial year 2017/18.
Besides, whereas laws relating to Public Finance allow the government to make supplementary requests, such request are supposed to be made within a time frame, at least not later than a complete financial year; and requests are supposed to be made for permission to spend not with prior expenditure.
For instance, the Constitution under Article 156 (3) reads: “Where, in respect of any financial year, a supplementary estimate or supplementary estimates have been approved by Parliament in accordance with clause (2) of this article, a supplementary Appropriation Bill shall be introduced into Parliament in the financial year next following that financial year to which the estimates relate, providing for the appropriation of the sums so approved for the purposes specified in those estimates.”
This implies that the government request in question ought to have been presented at least in the financial year 2018/19 and not 2019/20. It’s was also irregular for government to spend Shs1.7 trillion without prior parliamentary approval.
Citing provisions in the Public Finance Management Act 2015, the budget committee members reminded the House that section 78 slaps liability to Finance minister to explain why he or she flouted the legal requirements.
“Where any institution or department of government which receives public money doesn’t meet the requirements of this Act or contravenes this Act, Parliament may request the Minister responsible for the institution or department to make a report to Parliament with an explanation on the matter,” the Act reads in part.
Debate on the Budget Committee report was, however, deferred to enable the committee come up with clear recommendations on what sort of action should be taken by Parliament. The Finance Minister will be given opportunity before the House votes on the report to explain what happened.
