Parliament fails to show evidence of summons in Zaake case

Lawyers representing Parliament in the case in which Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake is challenging his impeachment from the parliamentary commission admitted that there is no proof that he was summoned.

Contrary to earlier arguments that Zaake declined to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of Parliament, the lawyers said they did not have evidence of documents.

Mr Solomon Kirunda, the lawyer representing the Parliamentary Commission told the Constitutional Court that they do not have the actual letter showing that he was summoned and refused to appear before the committee.

"My lords, we admit, we do not have the actual letter. We have the order paper," Mr Kirunda submitted.

He was responding to the queries raised by Justice John Oscar Kihika to present evidence to back up their argument that Zaake was actually summoned to appear and defend himself since he is entitled to a fair hearing.

Mr Zaake is challenging the legality of the process of his impeachment from the Parliamentary Commission.

Mr Erias Lukwago representing the legislator asked the court to refer to the proceedings submitted to the court as proof that there is no evidence of service.

"There is no notice yet rules require that a formal notice be made within 14 days before the motion is moved," Mr Lukwago said.

On the issue of the order paper, Mr Lukwago submitted that it does not state the person who was subject to the proceedings.

A panel of five judges including; Catherine Bamugemereire, Muzamiru Kibeedi, Eva Luswata, Irene Mulyagonja and Kihika are hearing the petition.

“The Parliament passed the impugned resolution without quorum in the House in contravention of Articles 2(1) and (2), 88 and 94(1) of the Constitution and Rule 110 (6) of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure,” the court documents read in part.

Mr Lukwago also contends that each member of the Parliament’s Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline, who participated in his client's removal, received a kick-back of Shs6m.

“The ex-gratia payment of Shs6m to each member of the committee as a reward for their participation in the committee’s proceedings and subsequent decision prejudicial to the petitioner imposed an illegal charge on the consolidated fund in contravention of Article 8A, 93 and 79(3) of the constitution,” Mr Zaake claims.

A total of 155 MPs voted to remove Mr Zaake from the position after being found guilty of disparaging the speaker.

Mr Zaake also challenged the presentation, debate and adoption of the motion, the lack of supporting signatures and also the failure to put the impeachment motion on the Order Paper of the day.

The MP claims the move by his colleagues to investigate him over allegations that were committed outside the House on social media contravened Article 94(1) of the Constitution.

However, the Attorney General while relying on the affidavit of the Clerk to Parliament Mr Adolf Mwesige, asked the court to dismiss Zaake’s case with costs on grounds that it did not raise any questions for Constitutional interpretation and that it was misconceived without any merit.

Meanwhile, the court has ruled that judgment in the matter shall be delivered on notice.

The case was heard for the second time following demands by Mr Zaake to have the matter decided after it was first heard in June 2022.

Justice Bamugemereire explained that the court could not deliver judgment after the first hearing because two of the justices on the first panel were elevated to the Supreme Court.

They are Stephen Musota and Christopher Madrama.

[email protected]