Parliament’s Commissioners have got off the hook after the High Court has ruled that the Shs1.7 billion Service Award given to them was lawfully approved by Parliament and provided for in the institution’s budget .
However ,Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza of the High Court’s Civil Division who heard the case in his ruling also called for reforms and ordered the Secretary to Treasury, Ramathan Ggoobi, to take disciplinary action against Clerk to Parliament, Adolf Mwesige, over the controversial payments.
The court dismissed the applicant’s prayers, stating that the argument of conflict of interest was not sustainable.
The court explained, “the allowances of members of the Parliamentary Commission are determined by the Commission with the approval of Parliament,” as prescribed by Section 42 of the Administration of the Parliament Act (AOPA).
The court further stated, “the impugned [questioned] payment was approved by Parliament in the Appropriation Bill under the title ‘Ex-gratia for Political Leaders… the fact that this vote formed part of the Appropriations Act is proof that the Minister of Finance had the opportunity to scrutinize the payment and that Parliament approved the ex-gratia vote.”
“On scrutinizing the Parliamentary Commission Recurrent and Development Budget, one sees that, under ‘ITEM 2-1-1-1-05: Ex-Gratia Payment for Political Leaders and there is a there is a sub-heading, ‘Retirement Benefits for Former Speakers and Deputy Speakers’, and under this, a list of eight beneficiaries.” the Judge noted in his decision.
The Court further noted that, “the first six beneficiaries are named former speakers and deputy speakers of Parliament. The seventh beneficiary is entitled ‘Service Award to Leader of the Opposition’, and the eighth is the ‘Service Award to Backbench Parliamentary Commissioners.”
Daniel Bwete, the applicant had asked the court to declare the parliamentary Commission’s decision on service award “ultra vires, illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, biased, high-handed, irrational, unfair, and therefore null and void,” and pecuniary interest {conflict of interest.”
He had asked the court to quash the decision by the Parliamentary Commission to award themselves over a billion shillings of tax payers money . He had also applied for costs of arguing the matter but the Court declined all the reliefs sought after a careful study of all the submitted evidence on the record.
