Here Is Why The Push For And Expenditures On Regional Sittings Shall Be A Blatant Violation Of Our Laws.

OPINION: I am persuaded by the oath I took as a Member of Parliament, Article 164 (3) of the Constitution which bestows on Parliament a constitutional duty to monitor all expenditure of public funds and the observation of the Court in Bwette Daniel v The Parliamentary Commission, Miscellaneous Cause No. 85 of 2024) where court did not inquire into how Parliament performs its statutory functions of budget preparation and approval in drawing a conclusion on the legality of the service award. What that observation means is the Court did not address its mind to or examine into processes within Parliament that govern budget preparation and approval as dictated by Rules of Procedure which is a creation of Article 94 of the Constitution and should have been complied with and inquired into. 

Allow me draw your attention to sections 12 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) 2015 which enjoins Parliament to analyse policy statements of a vote and ensure public resources are held and utilised in a transparent, accountable, efficient, effective and sustainable manner in accordance with the Charter of Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Framework. For the issue at hand, I am particularly moved by sections 15 and 21 of the PFMA which prohibit commitment of public resources without or outside procedurally approved work plans and policy statements of a vote.

Cognisant of section 13(13) of the Public Finance Management Act 2015 and Rule 146(1) oblige the Head of a vote to submit to Parliament as part of the annual budget, policy statements of the vote which section 13(15) dictates shall contain work plans, procurement plans, recruitment plans, vehicle utilisation reports, reports on compliance with request for information by the public, gender and equity compliance certificates among others, the Parliamentary Commission omitted to execute its responsibility with prior consultation and determination of Parliament as required under section 9 (1) & 13(2) of the PFMA and 6(g) of the Administration of Parliament Act and as such, executive consent was sought using a work plan which does not include budget on regional sittings or work plan agreed upon by Parliament prior to seeking executive consent thus obtaining consent of the President and parliamentary approval of the budget through misrepresentation. What this means is that expenditures to be incurred on allowances, per diem and welfare of presiding officers, MPs, Commissioners and staff during these regional sittings shall be committed outside sections 15 and 21 of the PFMA.

By failing to plan for regional sittings yet move to spend without the President’s and Parliamentary approval or failing to seek parliamentary approval prior to seeking President’s consent or  process the expenditures in accordance with the law, the Commission will breach the PFMA and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament that govern preparation, approval and execution of budget.

Rule 148 required the Speaker of Parliament to refer all submissions in accordance with section 13  of the PFMA on behalf of the President to relevant sectoral and Budget Committee for review, consideration, harmonisation and recommendation to inform the budget of vote 104 pursuant to rule 149 but there is no evidence to show that Committees on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Budget ever received and considered these documents to support their recommendations since these documents are not on record and in official report of Parliament according to the Clerk’s response dated 2nd August 2024 despite rules 227, 228 and 232(1) charging the Clerk to Parliament with responsibility for safe custody of all records, documents and official reports of Parliament.

Attempts to access and inspect the documents pursuant to section 5 of the Access to Information Act 2005 and rules 227(2) and 232 (2) which provide for the right of access and inspection, have not been upheld in accordance with the laws.

The Clerk who is a custodian of the records and documents responded to my *requests dated 25th April 2024, 21st May 2024 and 26th July 2024 after the budget was passed and stated that the Parliamentary Commission is not in possession and control of the records or information I requested, a record the Clerk is mandated to keep thus contravening rules 227, 228 and 232 of the Rules of Procedure which guide how Parliament should conduct its business and are a creation of article 94 of our Constitution thus impeding me and others in execution of our duties.*

The question as custodian of our Rules of Procedure and laws of Uganda I invite you to ask those pushing for these regional sittings to address is: without proposed sittings being in approved verifiable work plans of Parliament supported by procurement plans or without Executive and Parliamentary approval being processed in accordance with the law, under what law is the Parliamentary Commission going to execute and spend public resources on activities without approval of relevant statutory bodies or outside the approval process of Parliament?

If these sittings exist in the work plan and are on record or in documents of Parliament, why have several requests to access and inspect them not being granted and enforced by the Commission contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure?

Rt. Hon. Speaker, without fear of contradiction, these meetings come with costs or extra for vote 104 and impose charges if not additional on the Consolidated Fund whose withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund is contrary to Article 93 of the Constitution. Without recommending to Parliament or seeking approval of Executive/Parliament on expenditures on these sittings pursuant to section 6(g) of the Administration of Parliament Act and getting virement approval pursuant to section 22 of the Public Finance Management Act 2015 to re-allocate within the vote, the Parliamentary Commission will be committing an illegality by expending public resources outside the armpit of relevant laws for which they can be held liable under Article 164 (2) of the Constitution. I hope the Clerk to Parliament as the accounting Officer and member of the Commission takes note and also acts in view of a recent indictment for okaying a service award expenditure under a different budget line of ex-gratia.

Critical for the proponents of regional sittings to clarify is whether they have asked the Parliamentary Commission to engage MPs as stakeholders? Whether the proposal for this expenditure on allowances and per diem of MPs, Speaker, Deputy and staff in these regional sittings has been introduced for determination by Parliament as required by section 6(g) of the Administration of Parliament Act? Whether the Parliamentary Commission in accordance with section 22 of the PFMA has sought a virement permission if they intend to re-allocate within vote 104 and has the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development granted the request for them to spend on these sittings? In the absence of an appropriate budget line in the work plan, shall these sittings be financed through Supplementary Appropriation yet to be introduced?

There is no doubt accounting Officers of other votes who choose to spend public resources on these sittings by sending Ministers and staff to these meetings without those activities being in their approved work plans will be committing an illegality. I hope the Prime Minister as Leader of Government Business, Minister of Finance, Economic Development who are members of the Parliamentary Commission and the PSST will take note for the enforcement of transparency and accountability in the utilisation of public resources.

Rt. Hon. Speaker, I appeal to you to save us from public outrage on wasteful, irrational expenditures. I also pray H.E the President is not misled into attending and legitimising an activity whose expenditure is tainted with illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality.

That said, should you agree with the proponents and insist on these regional sittings going forward for whatever reason, kindly address your minds to the opportunity cost. Article 93 of Uganda prohibits anybody from proceeding on any activity that imposes a charge on or okays drawings from the Consolidated Fund without evidence of Executive approval of expenditure on an activity. My understanding is that Executive consent can only be deemed to have been sought and given for an activity which is in a work plan and policy statement of the Parliament processed in accordance with the law. Other than that, I am afraid, in future, the accounting Officers and the Parliamentary Commission risks being indicted for violation of the laws of the land and for misconduct, incompetence or misbehaviour. We MPs also run a risk of becoming political victims of this violation.

If I have misdirected myself on application of the law, in the alternative please put this matter on the Order Paper for justification, debate and approval so that the proponents will have an opportunity to prove with evidence that the expenditure on these sitting have been complied in accordance with  the law and all I have outlined as irregularities are not.

For the record, this letter is not intended to doubt your powers to summon Parliament to sit anywhere under the General Authority of the Speaker. However, such an undertaking with a charge or extra on the Consolidated Fund and makes provision of withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund conceived and implemented arbitrarily without evidence of Executive consent and parliamentary approval or approvals obtained through misrepresentation of facts is barred under the laws of Uganda as argued above. Most importantly, this is not a matter you can singlehandedly place under rule 7 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure because it is clearly and expressly already provided for in our rules.

Accordingly, Pursuant to the Electronic Transactions Act and rule 41 42 and 43 of our Rules of Procedure, I ask the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and Parliamentary Commission to justify and explain to me how expenditures on these regional sittings comply with the of laws Uganda and Rules of Procedure relating budget preparation, approval and execution. By copy, the Clerk is urged to relay this question to the respective responders above.

Secondly, pursuant to rule 54 of the Rules of Procedure, I seek leave to make a statement on this matter of urgent public importance.

Last but not least, Pursuant to rule 222, I give you NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER DECISIONS OF THE HOUSE ON REPORTS OF LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND BUDGET COMMITTEE ON VOTE 104 – PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSION FOR FY 2024/25 so that these matters can be interrogated and put to a logical conclusion. Please note that this motion does not seek to impose any charge or withdraw from the Consolidated Fund and as such, I do not expect you to find it offensive to Article 93 in anticipation or without me being heard on any question of facts during your determination.

By copy of this letter, the following  below in copy are invited to exercise their statutory functions and powers under the Public Finance Management Act 2015 as amended and other laws to ensure expenditure on these regional sittings is in compliance with the laws of Uganda.  The PSST and Clerk to Parliament are particularly invited  in accordance with sections 11, 15 and 21 of the PFMA to ensure no public resource to vote 104 is committed outside a work plan and policy statement of the vote. The Minister of Finance, Planning & Economic Development and Accountant General are urged to ensure no credit is authorised, warrant issued and withdrawal permitted from the Consolidated Fund for this activity until the raised concerns are dealt with and discharged accordingly.

Yours Sincerely,

The author is MP for Maracha County