Kadaga courts controversy over rules

PARLIAMENT. Speaker Rebecca Kadaga was on Monday on the spot as she skirted around legal hurdles to allow the Constitution Amendment Bill to be tabled for Second Reading.
As Ms Kadaga was preparing to allow Igara East MP Raphael Magyezi table the Bill, she was confronted by Rule 72 that governs sub-judice in relation to an ongoing case in the East African Court of Justice challenging the legality of the Bill.

Ms Kadaga had also ruled last week that there would not be debate on the statement by the Leader of Opposition, Ms Winnie Kiiza, regarding the raid on Parliament on September 27, because it offends Rule 52 (2).
Rule 52(2) states that: “The Statement made by the Leader of Opposition may be debated by the House provided that such debate may not exceed one hour.”

Ms Kadaga, however, did not allow such debate to take place last week, saying the case is in court.
Challenged with the rule on sub-judice, Ms Kadaga ruled that there is lack of clarity on the dispute envisaged by the Treaty.
“I am aware that Uganda is not a member of the East African Treaty. However, I do not know whether Article 38 has been tested in any of the jurisdictions in the region. I do not know the nature of the dispute that is envisaged,” Ms Kadaga ruled.

Solving disputes
Article 38(2) of the Treaty says: “Where there is dispute and which dispute has been referred to the counsel of court, the partner state shall refrain from any action which may be detrimental to the resolution of dispute or which might aggravate the dispute.”
Ntungamo Municipality MP Gerald Karuhanga then retreated to Rule 201(2) which guides on the report to be signed by the chairperson and members of the Committee.

Rule 201(2) stipulates: “Debate on a report of a Committee on a bill, shall take place at least three days after it has been laid on Table by the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson or a member nominated by the Committee or the Speaker.”
Challenged under this rule, Ms Kadaga changed.
She first ruled that the report had been uploaded.

on the Ipads of MPs, ignoring the fact that the rule stipulates that it has to be laid on table, before allowing a motion by Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana calling for the suspension of Rule 201(2).
Opposition Chief Whip Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda raised a procedural issue, based on Rule 201(b) regarding the authenticity of Certificate of Financial Implications that was used to back up the disputed Committee report.

Rule 201(b) states: “In case of a complaint as to the authenticity of the report, the Speaker shall halt the debate on the report and refer the matter to the Clerk for investigation who shall report back to the Speaker before the next sitting of the House.”
Ms Kadaga did not bother to refer the disputed Certificate of Financial Implications to the Clerk for investigation as demanded by the Rules.

Validity
Lwemiyaga County MP Theodore Ssekikubo questioned the validity of the report, questioning the membership of Adong Lilly and Prossy Akampurira.
Mr Ssekikubo argued that the report was invalid because it had been signed by two non-members, in violation of Rule 154(1) that governs committee membership.
Rule 154(1) states: “Except as provided by these rules in respect to the Business Committee, Appointments Committee and Budget Committee, a Member shall not belong to more than two committees.”

It is this ruling regarding the membership of the duo that Mr Nuwagaba moved a notice of motion to challenge under Rule 86(2),which Ms Kadaga still turned down.
Rule 86(2) states: “The decision of the Speaker or Chairperson on any point shall not be open to appeal and shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the House, except upon a substantive motion made after notice.”

Shadow Attorney General Wilfred Nuwagaba said: “We have painfully endured the Speaker’s blatant breach of her own rule of procedure. She is the custodian of the Rules of Procedure but she has deliberately decided to breach the rules to justify the quest for President Museveni to rule for life. We have raised three different court matters which are active.”

Rebecca Kadaga.
“I do not know what nature of dispute was envisaged. I do not know whether it is a border dispute. I do not know whether they [the court] can sit in Arusha and say that we do not work. Under 79(1) of the Constitution, Parliament is mandated to make on matter of peace, order and good governance of Uganda.”

Winnie Kiiza.
“In her opening statement, the Speaker started by issuing threats. It was evidently clear that she would not allow any member who is against the removal of age limits to even say a word. Many times, Speaker Kadaga has suspended some motion because they are matter are before law.”

[email protected]