Parliament does not increase MPs’ allowances arbitrarily
What you need to know:
Act was never invoked. Clearly, even when the Parliament Act existed, at no time was it ever invoked by the Parliamentary Commission. It would never have been invoked anyway without the media capturing it since the requirement was that half of the members must agree to it
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling nullifying section 5 of the Parliament Remuneration of Members Act, has attracted widespread commentary from the media and some civil society activists. This is welcome because Parliament strives to be a people-centred institution in its operations, therefore, feedback is needed.
The unfortunate bit is that some of the comments are premised on well-crafted malice intended to stoke public anger.
Indeed, the now struck off Section 5 of the said Act, in theory, provided for MPs’ to increase their allowances.
It read: “ Parliament may, by resolution supported by not less than one-half of all members of Parliament, review an allowance granted under subsection (1) having regard to the prevailing cost of living.”
This provision in the Act conflicted with Article 93 of the Constitution thus: “Parliament shall not, unless the Bill or motion is introduced on behalf of the Government - (a) proceed upon a Bill, including an amendment Bill, that makes provision for any of the following - (i) the imposition of taxation or alteration of taxation otherwise than by reduction
(ii) the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public fund of Uganda or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction.
(iii) the payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or other public fund of Uganda of any monies not charged on that fund or any increase in the amount of that payment…
The Supreme Court has struck off Section 5 of The Parliament Remuneration of Members Act because the Constitution is the superior law of the land. The ruling had no order to refund or pay any damages as some Parliament-hating crusaders have tried to tell the public. But most importantly, the ruling has simply confirmed the practice in Parliament. Any increment of MPs’ emoluments only happens after the national Budget proposals come from the President through the Finance minister.
Once in Parliament, the Parliamentary Commission, which makes its own institutional budget proposals, like any other government agency or department, engages in discussions with the President. At the end of the day, Parliament approves what has come from the President.
Clearly, even when the Parliament Act existed, at no time was it ever invoked by the Parliamentary Commission. It would never have been invoked anyway without the media capturing it since the requirement was that half of the members must agree to it. In essence, the increment would have to be discussed on the floor of the House. That has never happened.
This is why the Supreme Court ruling is much welcomed by the Commission because the existence of that section 5 in the Act has been a propaganda tool used by the Parliament-hating advocates without giving evidence.
May I, also reiterate that the Act only dealt with allowances and not salary of MPs. The salary of MPs was last increased more than 15 years ago when it was consolidated from the then Shs2.6m per month to Shs11.180m monthly taxable pay with a take home of Shs6.1m. Instead of putting the Supreme Court ruling in the right context, some groups which are often eager to stand on a high moral podium, took to public spaces to vent their long-held biases.
They argue as if Parliament takes the biggest lump of the national Budget yet the figures show the contrary. Why twist facts just to nourish personal biases? In a Budget of Shs40 trillion, Parliament operates on about Shs550b and it is described as greedy. What if it operated at Shs2 trillion? Amazingly, some of the people at the forefront of ridiculing MPs as high earners, are members of NGOs and agencies, who earn not less than Shs40m monthly ‘to fight for the poor citizens.’ They drive state -of-the-art vehicles as they cry for the suffering of the citizens!
Lest we forget, the media recently burst their accountability challenges and the mafia-like operations yet they are lead champions of financial discipline and accountability! This is the tragedy of the Pearl of Africa. These kind of people ask others to avoid pursuit of the factual requirements of life yet they reel in them and never cease to pursue.
I deeply believe Parliament is not above reproach but if we want to flourish as a nation—if we want to make our lives the best, happiest, most fulfilling it can be—we need a moral code geared to that purpose.
We cannot create a perfect governance system because we can’t create perfect human beings—imperfect beings cannot create a perfect system. But we can create checks and balances at various leadership layers.
The obsession with MPs’ imperfections appears to be a strategy to mask failures at other levels.
