The decision delivered today by High Court judge Douglas Singiza states that the funds used to pay service awards to the commissioners went through a legal procedure, but also ruled out the claims of conflict of interest in processing the awards.
Mr Bwette Daniel petitioned court challenging the process and rationale in which 1.7bn shillings was shared between four Parliamentary Commissioners including; Mathias Mpuuga (500m) Prossy Akampurira (400m) Solomon Silwany (400) and Esther Afoyochan (400m), praying that court should declare the decision and process illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, high-handed, irrational, biased, unfair and therefore nul and void.
In the evidence presented, the impugned payment was described as service award, a term which is unknown in a Parliamentary system as it does not form part of the official benefits of the members of the Parliamentary commission. He also dwells on the fact that neither the full house nor any of it’s committees participated in the process that led to the decision whose legal and rational basis he is challenging. He insists that the decision was not only unfair but also arbitrary.
In response to the application, the lawyer argued that the Parliamentary commission’s fiscal powers to determine emoluments, gratuity, pensions and any other facilities of its MPs, and seemed to take a view that the challenged service award had been captured under the ex-gratia for political leaders. Against this background, he maintains that the service award was “lawfully charged on the consolidated fund” just like any other expense of Parliament.
The lawyer however noted that prior to the payment of the service awards, speaker Anita Among sought approval from president Yoweri Museveni who expressed an opinion which was embedded in the commission’s budget before it was presented for approval in Parliament by the finance minister.
The presiding judge declined the applicants plea to declare the awards illegal since it was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the executive. The decision however faults the clerk of Parliament during the decision making process culminating into awarding commissioners and therefore personally responsible under Section 43(8) and 77 of the Public Finance Management Act.
He also ruled that the PSST must institute disciplinary proceedings against the clerk of Parliament within 12 months from the date of the ruling. Each party will hear their costs of the suit -according to the ruling.
