Parliament of Uganda Hansard - Third Session, First Meeting - 14 September 2004

Tuesday, 14 September 2004

 

Parliament met at 2.30 p.m. in Parliament House, Kampala.

 

PRAYERS

 

(The Deputy Speaker, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, in the Chair.)

 

The House was called to order.

 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I will use my powers given under rule 18, to alter the Order Paper and permit the Minister of Ethics and Integrity in the Office of the President to make a ministerial statement on a matter of public importance.

 

Secondly, last week I informed you that the Parliamentary Commission was going to give guidelines on security in this building, and I would like to update you on some of the immediate and not so immediate measures, which the commission is going to take.

 

We have reviewed the security arrangements for Members and Staff of Parliament, taking into account that this is the only place in this country where 300 VIPs assemble at one time in the same place, and we think it is necessary that we make the necessary changes. There will be some changes that involve the infrastructure and some that involve personnel. But for now I will not go into the details. The changes will be visible to the members once we have executed them because I do not want to leak our secrets. However, taking into account the need for our security, these are what will be the immediate measures that we will be taking:

 

1. From today all Members of Parliament and Staff will be required to wear the official identity cards, which were issued to the Parliament at the first sitting of the Seventh Parliament - for as long as they are in the precincts of this Parliament. No one will be allowed to come in without the identity card, that is, both the staff and Members of Parliament. If you have lost them you will inform us and the Clerk will issue new ones, but everybody must have an identity card and must wear it.

 

2. All visitors, without exception, will be required to wear visitor identification tags; and any visitor found on the premises without the tags will be ejected.

 

3. From today, the Members’ Lounge and the members’ canteen are out of bounds to all non-members. (Applause) I repeat, only Members of Parliament and members of staff are eligible to use those facilities, and there will be no exception to this rule.

 

4. Members of the press accredited to cover proceedings of the House and the committees must wear their tags throughout their stay in this building.

 

5. On parking, we shall shortly introduce parking tickets, which will be issued to drivers of any motor vehicle that seeks to enter the precincts of this Parliament, which tickets will be surrendered at the gate when they exit. Overnight parking is prohibited unless it has been previously requested for and cleared in advance with security.

 

The details of how this is going to work will be contained in circulars, which are going to be issued to both the Members and staff of Parliament. I would like to ask you to co-operate with us to ensure that these measures work and with that we will be able to improve on our security. Thank you.

 

2.37

MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am seeking guidance from the Leader of Government Business, the Prime Minister. He should tell us about the procedure and code of conduct of public officers.

 

We were horrified to learn that a public officer, whose wages are derived from the kind of money we approve in this august House, used a gun, most likely government property, to shoot a suspect. Madam Speaker, we as legislators are very familiar with the law; we make the law. We know the difference between a suspect, a prisoner, a convict and a thief or a robber for that matter. Until such a time that a person has been tried and accorded all his rights - and convicted - he shall remain a suspect.

 

We also know from the public conduct of officers carrying arms that you do not use your gun, which carries an explosive called a bullet, on a person who is running away from you unless the purpose of shooting at that person is to disable him and stop him from proceeding further. It is definitely contrary to the established procedure for such a public officer to shoot anybody, especially in the head, unless the public officer has been threatened.

 

Is it possible, Madam Speaker, for the Government, especially through the Leader of Government Business, the Prime Minister, to give a statement to this august House on why there is such misconduct by the officer, whose wages are derived from the Budget authorised by this august House? I am referring to Mr Ofwono Opondo, a Director at the NRM Secretariat.

 

2.39

CAPT. CHARLES BYARUHANGA (Kibale County, Kamwenge): Madam Speaker, in the same vein, we also learnt from the press that the presidential aide, Fox Odoi, speared a nephew of his. So, we could also benefit from that and know what happened.

 

2.40

DR FRANK NABWISO (Kagoma County, Jinja): Madam Speaker, I was going to raise the same question, which hon. Aggrey Awori has raised. I happen to have joined the Movement in 1981 and it is very important for me to stress that the reasons, which persuaded me to join the Movement were that the Movement would definitely not encourage extrajudicial activities and summary executions of people. So, I want to find out why the Movement would allow its Director of Information in the name of Ofwono Opondo to behave as if there is no law and to brag, as the press has stated, to brag about killing somebody.

 

This is undermining the Movement Government. People may not take it seriously, and we know how Ofwono Opondo has been abusing some Members of Parliament when they raise issues of national importance. So, can I find out if the Leader of Government, who is an eminent professor of political science, can tell us how to guide the gun so that the gun is used for liberation of people and not for killing people?

 

2.42

MR CHARLES ANGIRO (Erute County North, Lira): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As if that is not enough, on the 9th of September at Agweng IDP camp, the camp leader, Lwak Tony and others Ayo Ogwang Jimmy and Acede Omara Leben, were arrested by the military authority on the allegation that Acede Omara Leben’s son had deserted the Army. The trio had prior to that been beaten about 200 strokes each, which led to the death of Acede Omara Leben on 11th September this year. People have been left to wonder why, if someone’s son deserted the Army, the father should be arrested and beaten 200 strokes or even more, and killed.

 

Equally, the chairman of the camp and then his officer, Lwak Tony, were beaten 200 strokes. Can this one be explained to the public? Is there a law in the Army, which allows these people to beat suspects to death?

 

2.45

CAPT. STEVEN BASALIZA (Burahya County, Kabarole): Madam Speaker, I am a bit perturbed by my colleagues who have been contributing basing on reliable sources in the newspapers. These thugs were armed, they had already stolen a handbag from the car and it has been the habit of these people to steal. One of them had been in Luzira prison sometime back. When Mr Ofwono saw the thugs, he blocked them as a volunteer and in the process the gunmen were about to shoot him. This is from reliable sources. In self-defence Mr Ofwono had to reiterate and shoot, with the intention of scaring the men off. If he shot him in the head, that was probably an accident. Therefore, I do not agree with members saying this gun was misused, because a gun is for security. Thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Prime Minister respond?

 

2.46

THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof. Apolo Nsibambi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have no hesitation in asking the Minister of Internal Affairs to interface with Mr Ofwono Opondo and make a reply to Parliament on Thursday. May I take this opportunity to state how delighted I am to know that hon. Dr Nabwiso was once a devoted member of the Movement?

 

DR NABWISO: I am a devoted member to important principles in politics. I am not devoted to emotionalism and to issues, which do not help this country develop.

 

2.47

MR DANIEL OMARA ATUBO (Otuke County, Lira): Madam Speaker, this is directly related to your communication from the Chair regarding measures being taken to protect us within the precincts of Parliament.

 

While I am grateful for these measures, I wish to note that while you can protect us within Parliament, I think individual Members of Parliament remain vulnerable when they are out of Parliament. Therefore, you may not be able to protect them or provide them with security individually or collectively. This is exactly the point I would like to tackle a bit because I think it is good to protect us here; we are many. If we were wiped out possibly it would be a great tragedy for the country. But after we leave Parliament and we are in Lugazi, Luwero, Kololo and so on, we are left to the whims for our own survival and, therefore, I want to provoke some thinking about that.

 

But over and above that I do not know how many Members of Parliament follow events, which go on in the city. Two to three days ago I happened to be involved in the burials of about three relatives who were just killed on the streets of Kampala here. I would like somebody, or even the minister to come out and tell Parliament using simple analysis, for example how many dead bodies are collected within Kampala City and taken to Kampala mortuary on a daily basis? And at the end of the month how many bodies are found in the mortuary in Kampala City Council?

 

That would be a pointer to tell you or to indicate to you the level at which insecurity is increasing in Kampala. I am very much concerned about this and you can see that thing of Ofwono Opondo just shows you the guns, which are in the wrong hands in Kampala. These are guns, which can shoot any Member of Parliament anywhere, in your house, on the street.

 

So, really the Government should not just look at the issue of protecting us inside Parliament and also look at the issue of how Ofwono Opondo handled that situation, but we should go beyond that and say, “Here is the level of insecurity in Kampala”. Take just Kampala, you do not have to bother because for us in the North the moment you talk about - people tend to think it is normal. I would like the minister to come out with statistics for the last one month just to indicate – and you will realise to the horror of this Parliament - how people are being killed in the dark places in Kampala. Just the other day a relative of a friend was walking from a house at 7.00 p.m. to go and buy something in Lugazi. She was hijacked, raped and killed, and the Police took two days to find the body.

 

While we are concerned about our safety within the confines of this Parliament, let us look beyond that. Something is going wrong outside Parliament and I think the ministers responsible for security should come to Parliament with simple statistics. In fact if I were a journalist I would take time and investigate and come out with - within the last 30 days - how many people have been killed around Kampala in suspicious circumstances, and the Police finds the body and takes it to Mulago mortuary. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has undertaken that on Thursday a statement will come regarding the incidents members have mentioned. I do not know whether that will be sufficient time to also do this one; but that is your responsibility, Prime Minister. Can you say something about the dead bodies?

 

2.52

THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof. Apolo Nsibambi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would request the honourable member to put that question to the Minister of Internal Affairs, and I think he will need at least three weeks in order to get evidence and make a statement. Normally the person doing the work should indicate the appropriate timeframe, but I can haphazard a guess to the effect that three weeks could be reasonable. May I also point out that our agenda is extremely heavy? I thank you.

 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

 

2.52

THE MINISTER OF STATE, ETHICS AND INTEGRITY (Mr Tim Lwanga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand here to make a statement regarding allegations of impropriety of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) board and management.

 

Madam Speaker and hon. Members of Parliament, you must have read in the papers this morning where it was stated that His Excellency the President has directed the Prime Minster to transfer the supervision of the National Social Security Fund from the Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. Also that His Excellency the President has directed the Inspector General of Government (IGG) to begin an investigation into NSSF. Those statements are true.

 

Since corruption is an ethical issue touching on the integrity of public officers, the Rt Hon. Prime Minister has instructed me to make a statement on the subject matter.

 

It is true that we have got information suggesting that there are anomalies in the operations involving various contracts in the NSSF. These, among others, include:

 

1. Arua project where NSSF, through a joint venture with West Nile Golf Club, is to construct a motel, club facilities and NSSF offices.

 

2. Lubowa Housing Estate, where land has been acquired for the development of houses for sale to the public; and

 

3. Nsimbe Estate project where NSSF, in a joint venture with Mugoya Construction, is to construct housing units for sale to the public.

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform Parliament that the IGG has been investigating the above issues, among others, at the NSSF, and is yet to report. As you are well aware, the IGG reports to Parliament and I am reliably informed that the IGG’s report will be presented to Parliament once the investigations on all the issues are complete.

 

Madam Speaker, I wish to state that government regards this matter to have significant ethical implications and this is the reason why it has been felt that this statement should be made. Thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, this is a ministerial statement, so you may seek clarification and make comments.

 

2.56

MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First and foremost I am absolutely disappointed with this statement. It is a knee-jerk reaction to press reports. That is my No.1 concern.

 

Procedurally, Madam Speaker, I brought to your notice a motion regarding this matter of the NSSF. We have not been able to proceed with this motion on the account of the fact that the relevant ministers have not appeared in the august House for more than a week. There has been no minister in this august House from that ministry for more than a week and to-date, even as I speak –(Interruption)

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE, LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (Mr Henry Obbo): Madam Speaker, I am the Minister in charge of Gender, Labor and Social Development, I am representing the ministry here and I have been in Parliament since last week. So, it is not true that the ministry has not been represented in Parliament. I thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable minister, your ministry needs to be reminded that when ministers are moving out of their station they must inform the Speaker that they are going to be away, for how long and who is in charge. For the last one week I have been looking for your minister, because I do not know where she is. I have been looking for her so that we can discuss this motion.

 

MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for reminding my honourable colleague. The same colleague who is saying he is the minister in charge of that ministry, I had the opportunity of interacting with him on the same matter. I said, “I have this motion with the Speaker, I would like to proceed”. He pleaded with me –(Laughter)- “do not bring it on the Floor until my colleague has come back”. So in that respect I assume nobody from that ministry had the capacity to guide this august House on such a matter, which is so serious. Therefore, procedurally as I put it, I would like to know whether I can now proceed with the motion or we postpone debating the minister’s statement and then it comes as part of the motion, a contribution from the ministry or what?

 

In regard to this particular statement, my honourable colleague in charge of Ethics and Integrity is introducing new scandals obtaining in the ministry. I am really disgusted that a minister can come to the august House and admit that over and above the scandals I am trying to introduce in the House, he also has other scandals. He says they were about to investigate, or are investigating. If he had come during the course of the debate on the motion and said, “Hon. Awori or the mover of the motion, yes, indeed your concerns are valid but over and above what you have raised we also have Lubowa Estate”; Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleague of six other scandals, which they have not even touched.

 

I can mention the following:

 

You are talking about Lubowa Estate, how did the NSSF come to possess Lubowa Estate? Lubowa Estate originally belonged to the National Housing and Construction Corporation. How does it become the property of NSSF? There was a scandal. NSSF got Lubowa Estate because of a bad deal they had with the National Housing and Construction Corporation on Crested Towers. They advanced Crested Towers more than US $10 million, which they could not recover from National Housing. As a result, in return they went and grabbed Lubowa Estate! Now, what are you trying to tell us, Mr Minister?

 

Udyam House: this august House came up with a select committee report, which has never been implemented by the same Executive branch of the state.

 

The building now housing the Electricity Regulatory Authority is a big scandal. For that property, less than half an acre of land with an old, dilapidated building, they paid Shs 1.3 billion and yet that property was worth less than Shs 0.5 billion. They put in Shs 5 billion to renovate it. Why do you renovate a property at a hundred times its value?

 

MR TIBARIMBASA: Actually, the property you are talking about did not cost NSSF Shs 1.3 billion but Shs 2.9 billion.

 

MR OKUPA: On that very plot where the Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA) building is, at one time we went around as a committee, looking at the assets of NSSF. We were shown a plot, that the plot was bought at Shs 2.6 billion including the house. So, I am even surprised now that the house has been sold to ERA. We did query the amount because if you looked at the area of that plot, it could not cost Shs 2.6 billion in 2001.

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform my honourable colleague in charge of Integrity and Ethics that at one time my committee interacted with His Excellency the President, who is the Chairman of the Cabinet, which he attends regularly. He told us members of the committee, not in secrecy but as an open statement that at one time he was negotiating with Metha Group of Companies to purchase Udyam House. They had agreed on a price of Shs 800,000,000. No sooner had the President left for the US to attend a meeting than - within seven days on his return - he found the property had been purchased by NSSF at a staggering Shs 9.6 billion. The head of state told me this, in the presence of my colleagues. He said he was staggered.

 

He told us he was staggered that he was negotiating for property for the NRM Secretariat and then a member of his Cabinet went behind his back and negotiated with the same person, totally oblivious to the contacts made by the head of state. And this person made a staggering offer of Shs 9.6 billion when the original vendor, the landlord and owner of the property had agreed to receive less than a billion shillings.

 

Madam Speaker, I assume that my colleague in charge of Ethics and Integrity could use the Government facilities to investigate such scandals. I could go on all afternoon narrating scandal after scandal pertaining to the NSSF, but I hope at an appropriate time you will allow me to table the motion so that I can come out with even dirtier linen. (Laughter).

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, hon. Awori since there is a minister here; we shall put this matter on the Order Paper tomorrow.

 

3.06

MR STEVEN BAMWANGA (Ndorwa County West, Kabale): Madam Speaker, while I thank hon. Tim Lwanga for bringing out these three burning issues, I would like to say that it has been a long time since this information came to this House. About three years ago when Udyam House was being sold, the Movement wanted to buy property and they had been offered the property in the name of Udyam House at Shs 5 billion. The Movement wanted to be transparent and they had asked a number of valuers to attach evaluations. I happened to be one of those, plus others in town who are very highly regarded.

 

I put the figure of that Udyam House at Shs 6 billion and I think [Mr Mutuluuza: “Procedure”] - I am more learned on this matter than one talking about procedure –(Laughter)

 

MR MUTULUUZA: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of procedure. The honourable minister has read the statement and he is saying that they are going to investigate the NSSF. Is it not better for us to collect the information we are getting from here and give it to the committee, which is going to investigate the corruption in the NSSF? I do not see anyway this is going to help us. Since the investigation is going to take place, I think we should open up and invite all these people to come and provide information.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, the rules say a ministerial statement will be debated; that is what we are doing.

 

MR BAMWANGA: Madam Speaker, part of the reason I stood up was to give exactly the proposal that this matter is so urgent that we must open it up for public hearings. At the same time as I did the valuation, more than three valuers put the figure of Udyam House at around Shs 6.2 billion and Shs 6.3 billion. But as I said, the company that wanted to offer the building to the Movement was giving it away at Shs 5 billion. No sooner had the work started going on than the Chief Government Valuer colluded with the NSSF board and managers and they sold Udyam House at Shs 9.8 billion. They paid up in a very quick manner and by the time the President and the IGG realized it, the property had already changed hands.

 

Madam speaker, as I speak now Udyam House is being renovated at a cost of more than US $6 million. This is what I wanted to bring to the notice of the House. I think we should actually have a public hearing about how public money is being wasted in all these projects that we are talking about. I thank you.

 

3.10

MRS TEOPISTA SSENTONGO (Workers’ Representative): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is very unfortunate that we are getting such news on the Floor, and more so from the Minister of Ethics and Integrity. This issue of the NSSF has been on for a long time, since workers rose up to complain about their money, the way it is being kept, monitored and supervised by the Government itself.

 

I think everybody is aware that the National Social Security Fund has a board, which is composed of government representatives, workers’ representatives and employers. The day hon. Awori wanted to move this motion here, I was contacted by one pressman asking me about the motion. Unfortunately, when hon. Awori wanted to move this motion, I was not consulted; I was just surprised. When I came and picked up the motion, I went and consulted one of our representatives on the board about what is really happening about these so-called investments and joint ventures. I suggested to the representative that we had better go and meet the managing director.

 

On Friday, after addressing the workers of this other building that collapsed, I and brother Pajobo went and met the board of directors at their offices and we expressed our dismay about the incident that was depicted in the Monitor and the New Vision newspapers. They told us that this thing has the blessing of the Minister of Labour and that the investment is viable. We asked how it was going to be viable to the workers, the contributors of this money. They said this is going to raise their standards of living in the first place, that they are going to get rid of the slum areas with time, and people will just get mortgages, pay for these houses slowly and then acquire very good houses, which are permanent. They also told us that it is going to be viable in a way that creation of employment will be on the increase. For example the suppliers, the builders, the electricians and all such people would get jobs.

 

Then we asked how Mugoya came to be a partner in this venture and they said that they had put an advertisement to the entire country for people to apply for the contract. They gave us this copy, that it was advertised inviting people who are capable to come and have a joint venture with the NSSF, for which they received applications. And of all those they received, Mugoya ranked No. 1. After that they had gone out to see how Mugoya is really functioning and how it is doing work in Nairobi -(Interruption)

 

MR AWORI: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and my honourable colleague. I am seeking clarification on a statement you made in passing that when you consulted the Board of NSSF last Friday they told you that this project had the blessing of the minister. I want that repeated emphatically.

 

MRS SSENTONGO: Thank you so much. They did say that the project, or the venture, had the blessing of the minister because she is the one responsible for monitoring this money. There are also representatives from government on the board, and I understand the chairman of the board is appointed by the Government. So, it is just automatic that it had the blessing of the minister responsible.

 

So, we queried Mugoya’s involvement because in some corridors we hear that Mugoya Construction had failed the NSSF project in Nairobi, Kenya. But they affirmed that they went and saw what really took place in Nairobi and the construction of some roads in Zimbabwe, and they were satisfied that he had all the skills and ability to also do the same in Uganda, with NSSF.

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform my honourable colleague that the information she has on Mugoya Construction’s involvement in construction in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Kenya, is not accurate. It is on record, we can produce documents to the effect that Mugoya Construction Company was involved with NSSF Kenya and they left; that company left NSSF Kenya in a debt of US $33.7 million. As a result, all the projects they started cannot move because they would need US $60 million more, which means Kenya Government actually is about to declare NSSF bankrupt. And we are in the same path in Uganda. We could do exactly what happened in Kenya.

 

As a matter of fact, by coincidence the hon. Minister of Ethics and Integrity was once an employee of Mugoya Construction, he can tell us. (Laughter)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Hon. Ssentongo, can you please conclude your contribution?

 

MRS SSENTONGO: Yes, I just want to conclude by saying that recently, according to the board, they sent some officials from the NSSF board to go and try to sell the Nsimbe Holdings - this very venture we are talking about - and the result was that they have already got buyers for these buildings. They actually have got 500 people in the United States alone and, therefore, they confirmed that this venture is going to be viable and it has the blessing of the Government. So, when I hear that there is going to be a probe committee on the instructions of His Excellency the President, there is a lot to be desired and the workers are bitter about the use of their money.

 

My brothers and sisters I want to assure you, people are not happy with the way this money is being handled. We have kept complaining about it but we are always told and comforted that the money is safe and everything is okay. Now we want to get the true results of what is happening in the National Social Security Fund.

 

I would also request that we at least get some Members from Parliament to join the probe committee to get the truth of the matter regarding the workers’ money in this country out. Thank you.

 

3.18

MAJ. BRIGHT RWAMIRAMA (Isingiro County North, Mbarara): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable members, I want a clarification on the immediate steps taken. According to this paper, the National Social Security Fund is transferred to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The clarification I want to get – let me use a simple analogy of a bus. If I am operating a bus service on Masaka road and the conductor colludes with the driver and they run the business down, do I shift the route to Luweero with the same driver and the same conductor? (Laughter) Madam Speaker, I need your protection; this is a serious matter.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, please do not heckle the Chairperson of the Finance Committee.

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam Speaker, I have looked at this document in disbelief. I expected causalities. So, the minister should tell us why they want to transfer a contaminated organization to another ministry. Why do you not first investigate, bring the culprits to book and then find somebody who can appropriately run it or maybe transfer it after that? Why do you have to tell us that you are transferring it to the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, with the same culprit? I think the problem is in management. We need this matter to be clarified.

 

3.19

CAPT. DAVID MATOVU (Kooki County, Rakai): I thank you, Madam Speaker. I also thank government, and especially the President, for this timely intervention. Like you have rightly heard from the worker’s representative, hon. Ssentongo -(Interruptions)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

 

CAPT. MATOVU: You could see she was really in pain and that really there is a problem. In my culture when people raise an alarm, all of us move in that direction. So, the minister in his statement has raised an alarm to this honourable House. The National Social Security Fund falls under a certain committee of this House, most likely the Committee on Social Services. Much as the minister says the IGG has been investigating, I put the emphasis on “has been”, as I do not know how long ago this started.

 

I request this House that the Committee on Social Services, where NSSF falls, also goes in and gets a report. Yes, because we have also heard somewhere that officials from the Office of the Inspector General of Government at times jump from windows of houses and fall down, so we should not ideally leave this work to them alone.

 

The other issue, we are in an era of opening up politically, economically and whatever. We need to look at our policies and try to change this monopoly of the National Social Security Fund. Let us open up the NSSF to competition, allow more people to come on board, increase competition so that maybe people choose where to put their money. Maybe we will even get better packages for our people. Otherwise, we are very disappointed that this is happening to this institution, which has enough brains of our people. So, I want to recommend seriously that our committee of Parliament goes in and also, independently, gets us a detailed report on the way forward. I thank you.

 

3.22

MR DANIEL OMARA ATUBO (Otuke County, Lira): Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the urgency of the matter, the reporting procedure by the Inspector General of Government and eventually when it will come to the House.

 

We are dealing with a public fund, not an ordinary public fund but a public fund which is of a contributory nature for the workers, and this money is meant to be used by the workers as a pension, on retirement. Therefore, it is a huge saving scheme, which in the normal circumstances should only be invested in what they call very safe investments; there should be absolutely no loss.

 

Madam Speaker, in view of the gravity of this matter and the fact that the minister responsible, who has made a statement - well intentioned as it might be - we cannot allow this matter to be left hanging. My view is that the minister, on behalf of the Executive, which has taken the initiative in this investigation and reporting, should commit himself to the House on when this investigation will be complete. Because words like, “the IGG has been investigating”, are not something that we should just leave to pass. And I am reliably informed these are words, when you are a trained lawyer like hon. Bitangaro there is, you are not going to allow it to go like that. You have got to read into this.

 

I am not going to accept that this has been investigated and we are reliably informed that it will be; I want the minister to commit himself to the following:

 

One, that the IGG will be directed by the Executive to complete the report within such a period. I am sure since it is us who have asked the IGG to report then the Inspector General of Government will report to you. Immediately the report reaches the minister, you must –(Mr Awori rose_)- I will give you the floor. The minister must get the report to us and I want the timeframe – yes hon. Awori.

 

MR AWORI: I would like to inform my honourable colleague that while we are waiting for the Inspector General of Government’s investigations and report, about a month ago NSSF transferred Shs 8.2 billion to the accounts of Mugoya Construction Company, under very mysterious circumstances. We have got account numbers; we know the banks and out of the Shs 8.2 billion, Mugoya Construction, 24 hours later withdrew Shs 2 billion. This was may have been done to guarantee and to secure the Shs 8.2 billion already advanced. So, while we are waiting, more money is going –(Interruption)

 

MR OKUPA: Madam Speaker, to give further information to what hon. Aggrey Awori talked about. I want to be very specific and quote the account number. The account number is under the names of Nsimbe Holdings, 0140003648101, that is the account at Stanbic Bank; the dollar account is 0240003648101. So, these are the accounts in which this money was banked

 

Madam Speaker, it is not only UShs 8.2 billion; on the 25 August 2004, the Managing Director, Leonald Mpuma, signed off another $7 million, the sweet easy money of the workers to the account. This is on the Managing Director’s memo dated 25 August 2004.

 

MR ATUBO: So, Madam Speaker, you can now see that the two pieces of information from my colleagues reinforces my argument that this is a matter of public urgency and gravity. Therefore, when the minister –(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members.

 

MR ATUBO: Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business, together with the hon. Minister of Ethics and Integrity, you have now heard from the two pieces of information that this is a really grave matter. Therefore, when you are replying, I would like you to commit yourself that within a period of, say, two weeks, the IGG will be able to give you a report. After receiving the IGG’s report, you would be able to come to us within a week. If you are not able to commit yourself, before you sit down I am going to move a motion to commit you, but I would not like to do this. I would rather ask you to commit yourself and you can consult very quickly with a very amiable Prime Minister. I am sure he is going to direct you. Thank you very much.

 

3.28

MR EMMANUEL DOMBO (Bunyole County, Tororo): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. An Act of Parliament set up the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). I know through the necessary law, it must have been placed under the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development by the provisions of the law. Right now the honourable minister has just told this House that what we have read in the Press is correct, to the effect that an instruction has been given that the operations of the NSSF should be shifted to Ministry of Finance. I do not know whether the minister is going to make arrangements to make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure that what we are doing is in tandem with the law. I also want to seek clarification whether to him a presidential instruction is enough to vary the law.

 

Secondly, Madam Speaker, the issue of Aggrey Awori’s motion was raised on the Floor, and I think opportunity should be availed to hon. Aggrey Awori to provide the motion. At the conclusion of that motion, Madam Speaker, we would rather move that this House carry out a special investigation. We cannot rely on an investigation done by somebody else; investigation by Government should not in anyway preclude Parliament from conducting its own investigation. Madam Speaker, you are very well familiar that during the Sixth Parliament, through our Committee of State Enterprises, we investigated –(Interruption)

 

MR MWANDHA: Thank you very much. The information I want to give is that the honourable Minister of Ethics and Integrity is not very good at delivering promises –(Laughter)- because, Madam Speaker, we had a case here, which involved hon. Kahinda Otafiire having stolen timber and he told us that he was investigating and he was going to come to this House with a report.

 

What we heard was that hon. Kahinda Otafiire dismissed the man who had actually got hold of this theft, and we do not know what actually happened to that man called Okello. Mr Okello must be out of the system because he reported a matter of theft by a minister and the Minister of Ethics and Integrity promised that he was going to investigate and report. Therefore, I want to propose and agree with my colleague that we need a select committee of the House because the Minister of Ethics and Integrity cannot be relayed upon to deliver any investigation. Thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, I would not like an impression to be created that this debate is going to be the conclusion of this matter. I have already said that hon. Awori’s motion will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. So, it will be given time for him to present and for you to debate; so, I want that impression cleared.

 

MR OULANYAH: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and honourable member for giving way. The information I would like to give is in respect of Capt. Okello. He was in court this morning being prosecuted for the cases that hon. Dombo has just referred to; he was defending himself in court this morning.

 

Madam Speaker, the second kind of information I would like to give is on Article 227 of the Constitution on the independence of the Inspectorate of Government. The Inspectorate of Government is not subject to the direction or control of anybody or any institution. It would be improper for Parliament to move as if we are going to give a direction to the IGG giving a time frame within which he must report; it would be in breach of Article 227. That is why I would go in line with what the honourable member is proposing, that this Parliament as an independent institution has its own investigation machinery, and it can do that perfectly without stepping on any other person’s toes or violating provisions of the Constitution. I support what hon. Dombo is proposing.

 

MR DOMBO: Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I was just referring to what this noble House was able to achieve during the Sixth Parliament. Madam Speaker, you are very well aware that we investigated the Uganda Railways Corporation and what came out is very clear. This House investigated a number of enterprises. Therefore, whereas I do not wish to stop Government from going ahead to conduct their own investigations, I would rather suggest that as a House we conduct our own investigations whose terms of reference and time frame we can determine. I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

 

3.35

MR SEBULIBA MUTUMBA (Kawempe Division South, Kampala): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I also thank the minister for labouring to give us the statement. But, Madam Speaker, when I look at the statement, it has been so brief, and if it were not for the double spacing and the big font, it would have been more telegraphic - half a page may be. But somewhere in the first paragraph he says that also His Excellency, the President, has directed the Inspector General of Government (IGG) to begin an investigation into the NSSF. Then in the second last paragraph, he says, “I wish to inform Parliament that the IGG has been investigating the above issues at NSSF, among others, and is yet to report.” To me this is a contradiction. I do not know which is which. What are we going to believe now? This one must be clarified to us.

 

Then, Madam Speaker, when I look at the second last paragraph on the first page it reads, “It is true that we have got information suggesting that there are anomalies in the operations involving various contracts in the NSSF.” He is talking about contracts only, but workers are also complaining that when their money is taken there the response they get is not on their account. They get negative or nil submissions on their pay slips. I would wish this to be included in these terms because the workers are being cheated. The money is submitted there, but when they get the feed back it does not reflect what has been deposited on the account in NSSF. Therefore, I would propose the scope to be widened and at the same time the private members and the public or the workers themselves must be included into this investigation such that they can come and give testimony. Also the terms should be clearly spelt out and even the time framework. My colleagues have already said that Parliament must be involved in this one.

 

3.36

MR JOHN ARUMADRI (Madi-Okolo County, Arua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to make a small clarification. Madam Speaker, whenever I meet some colleagues from the Karamoja region they refer to me as “Karamoja Develops Arua”. At one time a son of Arua was the Minister for Karamoja Affairs and because they did not see any tangible development in their place, the insinuation here was that the funds meant for Karamoja were diverted to Arua and so I am one of the beneficiaries –(Laughter). Now, I am seeing in this report of the honourable minister Lwanga mentioning Arua again –(Laughter)- I want to plead that we in Arua are not part of these kind of things –(Laughter)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

 

MR ARUMADRI: As these matters unfold please refer to these people individually not as Arua. I thank you –(Laughter).

 

3.38

MRS BEATRICE MAGOOLA (Woman Representative, Iganga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to support Colleagues who have voiced up the investigation to be done against NSSF. Having been in an institution, I have seen wage and salary earners who do not get their salaries from the Government crying as to the way NSSF has exploited them. Some people have worked for a number of years and have never received anything to show them how their money have been received by NSSF and how much they have earned as interest and how much there is on their account.

 

Madam Speaker, I remember two years back, 2001 may be, we were told that the board which was there was not doing a good job and it was dissolved. So, a new board, which I am sure is the one which is working now, was put in place to do the work of the NSSF. But I am really disgusted to see how people are mishandling little money that they get from individuals.

 

I want to say that, Madam Speaker, the investigations should take place so that we can have those voiceless wage and salary earners questions answered by the answers that we shall get from the investigation. Thank you.

 

3.40

MR OKUMU REAGAN (Aswa County, Gulu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to make a follow up of what hon. Rwamirama was saying. The clarification I want to get from the Prime Minister or the Minister is what special criteria did they use to say that now that the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development has some problem with National Social Security Fund and the supervision should be transferred to Ministry of Finance. This House is also aware that finance has had its share of scandals especially when it comes to handling funds and projects and other things in the privatization area. You remember the case of Westmont and UCB and others. So, what criteria did you use? Why did you not transfer the supervision to Ministry of Ethics, for example, since it is Ministry of –(Laughter)- thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister holding the portfolio.

 

3.43

THE MINISTER OF STATE (YOUTH AND CHILD AFFAIRS)(Mr Felix Okot): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and honourable Members of Parliament. I wish to inform Members of Parliament that when this matter came to my attention last week as the acting minister, I started the process of acting on this matter. Last week, I invited the Managing Director of National Social Security Fund to come and give me the detail account of the project that was referred in the Newspaper. I also did contact hon. Awori who was due to move a motion. I pleaded with him to give me time so that I fully get grip of this contract that was awarded. But when I called the Managing Director in my office, he gave me certain details of which I was not very much convinced. I told him to go and put those statements in writing so that I can come with his positions and the position of a ministry to Parliament. I gave him that directive on Friday. Today, I called the acting Permanent Secretary he did not have ready information because the matter was not fully discussed in the top management of the ministry. I believe within the week, as a ministry, we would be able to come here and present a full account of this project and matters regarding NSSF. I thank you.

 

PROF. NSIBAMBI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to inform you that His Excellency, the President has directed me to prompt the IGG or request - I am aware of Article 227 - to request the IGG to probe the affairs of NSSF; and naturally I had to write to him requesting him to probe those affairs. Now, if in addition to what is happening, you would like to have a select committee, it is up to you, because we have nothing to hide. That is number one.

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, while directing the affairs of this august House on this matter, twice you ruled that a motion is coming on this matter tomorrow. My senior colleague, Rt. hon. Prime Minister, is calling for a select committee. He is saying that we are free, in other words - I am just calling upon my Rt.hon. Prime Minister that in the light of the Madam Speaker’s ruling that this matter is coming up, do you need to start making offers?

 

Two, as the Prime Minister, in charge of coordinating all the ministries of the Government, your junior colleagues have come up to make two statements, which are totally uncoordinated. One minister says, “I checked with the Managing Director to brief me on the matter”. At no stage did he say, “I also consulted the Minister of Ethics and Integrity.” In other words, the Minister of Ethics and Integrity came to this august House to make a statement on a matter pertaining to a ministry he has not even consulted. Why do you not coordinate your activities under the aegis of the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister before you come to look confused and disorganized in this august House? (Laughter)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have already informed you that hon. Awori gave me notice of his intention to move the motion; he actually served that motion on me. My delay in presenting it here was because I was looking for a minister who had gone without letting me know where she is. But I have now said that tomorrow the matter will be on the Order Paper. So, if we now begin discussing, I will be breaching rule 60, because I do not know what hon. Awori and the debate will come up with. So, let us not anticipate what will come out of that debate.

 

PROF. NSIBAMBI: I did not suggest that we should have a select committee; honourable Members of Parliament stated it. Finally, I was asked, what criterion did His Excellency, the President, use to ask the Ministry of Finance to supervise the affairs of NSSF? It is simple, capacity, because the Ministry of Finance, whatever you may say, has a greater capacity to manage the supervision of this affair. May I also point out that the President has the discretion and the powers to do so under Article 99 of the Constitution, Article 114 and Article 113. I thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate will be tomorrow, we have spent more than an hour on this matter. Let the Minister respond for now about his short statement, then tomorrow you have the motion.

 

3.49

THE MINISTER OF STATE (ETHICS AND INTEGRITY) (Mr Tim Lwanga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we are not reacting to press statements. When the Prime Minister instructed me to have something to say on this issue, it was because it was considered to be a major issue of ethics and integrity in Public Service. I did not want to narrate all the various issues that are being investigated by the IGG. I did not want to talk about foreign trips, block funds, UTL board, sale of houses, and victimization of technical staff, etcetera. I thought that in the statement I gave, I did specifically say that these were just among others; there are so many others that are being investigated.

 

Madam Speaker, the details of the investigation by the IGG will definitely be availed to the relevant committee if it is so desired. I must say that the investigations that are being carried out are investigations of a financial institution of some sort; this is very technical. We are talking about auditing, we are talking about somebody working out an audit programme, we are talking about somebody following audit trails; these are things, which probably may not be easily followed by Parliament. This is why -(Interruption)

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, some of us went to school, some of us were educated, some of us are knowledgeable in matters of accounts, some of us are knowledgeable in matters of finance and economics. Is it in order for my honourable Colleague to stand on a high table of moral integrity, which is synonymous with arrogance, to say that we may not understand some of these nitty-gritty or may not even follow the economics, when we have got the capacity? Is he in order, Madam Speaker?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the statement made by the minister not only denigrates the capacity of members of this House, but it calls into question the capacity of the Speaker to select- (Laughter). So, unless you can confirm that the Speaker of this House has on previous occasions poorly selected Committees and the result has been poor, you must withdraw.

 

MR LWANGA: Madam Speaker, you see I was looking at a doctor on an operating table carrying out an operation and some of us are watching, seeing exactly what the doctor is doing, but it looks like I was misunderstood. So, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

 

MS AMONGI: Madam Speaker, I think he has now withdrawn; I reserve my point of order.

 

DR MALLINGA: Madam Speaker, the hon. minister has told us that the hon. Prime Minister asked him to look into this affair. From what we have been told, if it is true, that the honourable minister actually worked for one of the parties who are involved in this scandal; should he have turned down this request by the Prime Minister to look into this matter? Can he openly declare whether there is any hint of a conflict of interest in his performance of his duty?

 

MR LWANGA: Well, about 19 years ago, I was a shareholder in Mugoya. I am no longer connected with that firm and actually my involvement in this is because as a Minister of Ethics and Integrity about two months ago, I got a dozier here on complaints about NSSF and we sat down with the IGG and started an investigation. That is how I get involved, and you can trust that I have no qualms about what I am saying.

 

Now, Madam Speaker, I thought that I would use this chance just to clarify a few things, because we have got the facts. Madam Speaker, it was mentioned that there was a transfer of UShs 8.2 billion to Mugoya. Our records show that this was transferred to Nsimbe Holding, a company, which was held 49 per cent by NSSF and 51 per cent by Mugoya, and we also have already investigated the $7 million because we heard a rumour that they made an application to borrow this money from NSSF, but no money has been transferred. If the honourable members got more facts on this, we will be very happy to have it.

 

Madam Speaker, the issue of the law, as raised by hon. Dombo, I think this will be looked into if it is necessary by those concerned and then of course the necessary amendments will be done.

 

My Friend hon. Mwandha, I can be relied upon and the reason why we have not reported back on Otafiire is because there is still a court case going on. When the case is over, may be we will report. I am not a lawyer, but lawyers say that when there is a case going on, you do not interfere.

 

Madam Speaker, I want to assure this House that the IGG has been on this for two months and now he is reinforced by His Excellency the President to work faster. So I believe that as soon as possible, we will have a report. Constitutionally, I cannot commit the IGG here and say that he is going to bring the report in two weeks because as you know, none of us has got powers to direct him. I am advised by the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister, trust us, we will do a good job. We will get a report and those who are involved will definitely suffer the consequences. We are handling this thing without any mercy to any body.

 

MR OULANYAH: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and hon. Minister for giving way. In light of what you have just said on Article 227, would it not be proper for you to expunge from the records of Parliament what you stated earlier that His Excellency the President has directed the IGG to begin an investigation into NSSF? That statement is unconstitutional; the statement actually shows the President as somebody of a different character. Would you like to withdraw the statement, Sir, from the record?

 

MR LWANGA: I stated what was written in the paper -(Laughter)- excuse me, I stated what I was quoted in the newspapers. But actually saying that he was directed is really not constitutional.

 

MR MWANDHA: Is it in order for the hon. Minister of Integrity and Ethics, hon. Tim Lwanga, not to take advice that the statement which he has made to the House whether or not he was quoting anybody else was a statement in breach of the Constitution and advised to withdraw it from his own statement so that he does not take responsibility for apparent breach of the Constitution? Is he in order to insist on maintaining his statement that actually the IGG can be directed by Government? Is he in order?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now hon. Lwanga, I think if you could simplify our lives, this matter is in the Hansard, because it is the statement you read to this House. Can you say that the Hansard will expunge it? Because there is consensus here that the IGG is not subject to direction.

 

MR LWANGA: Really I withdraw. It is not constitutional and I thought that is what I said. So, Madam Speaker, I withdraw please –(Interruptions)- Madam Speaker, as I promised as soon as the IGG’s report is ready, it will be here. But we are working on it with a lot of speed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, procedurally I was seeking your guidance on a matter of procedure. But in the light of the debate, which has been difficult for my hon. Colleague in charge of Ethics and Integrity, would it not be proper if you withdrew the whole statement?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think the statement however short or difficult, it has generated some debate and we have all agreed that we shall continue with this debate tomorrow.

 

BILLS

SECOND READING

 

THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (NO.2) BILL, 2004

 

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES)(Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that a bill entitled, “The Supplementary Appropriation (NO.2) Bill, 2004” –(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members. I do not know why everybody is so excited today –(Interjections)- but you will handle that tomorrow. Please, members, we have the Appropriation Bill now.

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Speaker, I beg to move that a bill entitled, “The Supplementary Appropriation (NO.2) Bill, 2004” –(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members; that includes members of the frontbench.

 

MR RUKUTANA: I thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I beg to move that a bill entitled, “The Supplementary Appropriation (NO.2) Bill, 2004 be read a Second Time. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been seconded.

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for supplementary appropriation out of the consolidated fund under section 16 of the Public Finance and Accountability Act of 2003, a sum of UShs 126,326,159,000 to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 2003/2004. As honourable members will recall, during the implementation of the last budget, we presented to this House two supplementary schedules. We are now coming with this bill to have the amounts that were passed by Parliament appropriated as required by the law. I beg to move.

 

4.07

THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Maj. Bright Rwamirama): Madam Speaker, honourable members, this is the report of the committee on Finance, Planning and Economic Development on the Supplementary Appropriation Bill, 2004.

 

The Supplementary Appropriation Bill, 2004 was presented to Parliament on 9 September 2004, and referred to the Committee of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The committee has considered the bill and now wishes to report to the House its findings and recommendations.

 

Methodology. The committee reviewed the figures passed in this august House for Supplementary Schedule I, covering the month of July to December 2003 and Schedule II for the months of April to June 2004. The committee has accordingly compared these figures with the ones presented in the Supplementary Appropriation Bill, 2004.

 

The bill. The Supplementary Appropriation Bill was brought to Parliament in conformity with the provisions of Article 156(3) of the Constitution.

 

Observations and recommendations. Madam Speaker and honourable members, the Supplementary Schedule I for financial year 2003/2004 totaled to UShs 86.23 billion of which resource base totaled to UShs 42.249 billion, while non-resource amounted to U Shs 39.983billion. The Supplementary Schedule II for the financial year 2003/2004 totaled to UShs 40.90 bn, of which resource base totaled to UShs 31.3134 billion while non-resource amounted to UShs 8.9 billion.

 

The total supplementary approved in financial year 2003/2004 was UShs 126.326 billion, of which resource base supplementary totaled to UShs 77.383 billion while non-resource base supplementary totaled to UShs 48.943 billion.

 

The percentage of resource based supplementary to total approved budget of UShs 3,123.8 billion for the financial year 2003/2004 is 2.46 per cent, which is below three per cent as stated in the Budget Act, 2001.

 

Recommendations. The budgeting process should be improved in order to minimize or do away with supplementary budgeting, if possible. Ministry of Finance should continue adhering to the provision of the Budget Act by keeping within three per cent of the approved budget. I am glad to inform the House that this time around they will not burst the provided percentage.

 

Conclusion. The committee noted that this House already approved these funds and commends Government for keeping within the provision of the Budget Act. The committee begs the House to adopt this report. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: It seems members are contended because we passed these figures.

 

MR MUGAMBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the committee for the good report, and I again thank Government for having spent within the required limits. However, I wanted us to look at this recommendation 4(ii) of the committee. It says, “Budgeting processing should be improved in order minimize or do away with supplementary budgeting, if possible.” But I recall during our debate on the budget, the minister proposed areas where he will give supplementaries. I do not know what the minister would tell us about this recommendation here. Are you going to abide by this recommendation or should we hope for the supplementaries as you had promised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Speaker, it would be the wish of the Ministry of Finance to implement the budget exactly the way we pass it. But, of course, during the implementation time situations, which were not anticipated, arise and we find ourselves with no alternative but to come up with a supplementary provision; and indeed that fact was recognized and provided for in the law. I think the most important thing is that we do not go beyond what the law provides to be the provision that ought to be adhered to when we deal with supplementary provisions.

 

Otherwise, while we undertake to adhere to the budget we may not be in position to guarantee that unforeseen circumstances may not arise, which may necessitate coming back for a supplementary budget. But, otherwise, the recommendation is okay; it would be our wish, to implement the budget the way this House passes it.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I now put the question that the Supplementary Appropriate Bill (No.2) of 2004 be read for a Second Time.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

BILLS

COMMITTEE STAGE

 

THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (NO.2) BILL, 2004

 

Clause 1.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I propose the question that Clause 1 do form part of the bill.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

Clause 2 agreed to

 

The Schedule.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that the Schedule do stand part of the bill.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

The Title.

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Chairperson, I have to apologise that there are a number of minor typographical errors, which we have to correct in the Schedule. They are to do with figures – I withdraw, we shall come to this at a later stage.

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA : Madam Speaker, I think the honourable minister is confusing the Appropriation Bill with the Supplementary.

 

MR RUKUTANA: That is true, I had mistakenly looked at the Appropriation Bill instead of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that the Title do stand part of the Bill

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

MOTION FOR THE HOUSE TO RESUME

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES) (Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Chairperson, I beg that the House do resume and the Committee of Supply do report thereto. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that the House do resume and the Committee of Supply do report thereto.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

(The House resumed, the Deputy Speaker presiding.)

 

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES) (Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of the Whole House has considered the bill entitled, “The Supplementary Appropriation (No.2) Bill, 2004” and passed it without amendments. I beg to move.

 

MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FROM THE WHOLE HOUSE.

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES) (Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the report of the Committee of the Whole House be adopted. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question that the report of the Committee of Whole House be adopted.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

BILLS

THIRD READING

 

THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (NO.2) BILL, 2004

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES) (Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the bill entitled, “The Supplementary Appropriation (No.2) Bill, 2004” be read a Third Time and be passed.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question that the Supplementary Appropriation Bill (No.2) of 2004 be read a Third Time and do pass.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

BILLS

SECOND READING

 

THE APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (GENERAL DUTIES) Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the bill entitled, “The Appropriation Bill, 2004” be read a Second Time.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded.

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FINANCE (General Duties) (Mr Rukutana Mwesigwa): Madam Speaker, the object of this bill is to provide for the authorization of public expenditure from the consolidated fund of a sum of 3,185,252,561,000 for the financial year ending 30th June 2005. Madam Speaker, the law requires that for any money to be drawn from the consolidated fund this House must appropriate. I am here to call upon the House to do the needful. I beg to move.

 

4.21

THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Maj. Bright Rwamirama): Madam Speaker and honourable members, this is the report of the Committee of Finance, Planning and Economic Development on the Appropriation Bill, 2004.

 

Introduction:

 

The Appropriation Bill, 2004 was presented to Parliament on 9 September 2004 and referred to the Committee of Finance, Planning and economic Development. The committee has considered the bill and now wishes to report to the House its findings and recommendations.

 

Methodology:

 

The committee reviewed the figures passed by this august for supplementary Schedule 1 covering the months of July to December, 2003 and Schedule 11 for the months of April to June, 2004. The committee has accordingly compared these figures presented with the ones presented in the Supplementary Appropriation Bill, 2004. The committee did not find it necessary to meet the minister because the bill is supposed to reflect exactly the figures that were debated and approved by this august House.

 

The bill:

 

The Supplementary Appropriation Bill was brought to Parliament in conformity with provisions of Article 156(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

 

Observations:

 

Some of the figures reflected on various votes in Appropriation Bill, 2004 do not tally with those that were pronounced by this august House when passing the budget as shown in the proposed amendments attached.

 

Recommendations:

 

Minister of Finance should always save time of this august House and adhere to what Parliament passes in its wisdom and powers in accordance with the Constitution.

 

Conclusion:

 

The proposed amendments in Schedule (I) are in line with the figures passed by this august House on 1st September 2004 as the provisions for the Budget for the Financial Year 2004/2005. The Committee begs the House to adopt this report and the proposed amendments to the Bill. I beg to move.

 

CAPT. BYARUHANGA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope the Minister this time is going to adhere to the object of his Bill because time and again we have had audit queries of money withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund without this House appropriating it. So, I hope the Ministry of Finance is going to adhere to this constitutional provision that no other authority, apart from this Parliament, has the authority to appropriate funds; and no money will be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund without approval of this House. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

MR SABIITI: Madam Speaker, I only need your guidance. Given that the figures presented in this House by the Minister did not tally and that we have come to make some adjustments, if it is allowed, that on Vote 07 - Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Shs 75 million be appropriated by this Parliament to cater for the registration of political parties. This money, as you will recall, was never included in this Budget and the entire exercise is at halt. And this is a very urgent matter if we look at the way the political transition is going on. So, I am seeking your a guidance on this matter, that the Minister includes just a mere Shs 75 million under Vote 07.

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam Speaker, we are not transferring any funds. We are actually approving the figures we pronounced ourselves on. The duty of this committee was to make sure that the figures passed by this august House are the same figures in the Bill. The issue raised by hon. Sabiiti can only be catered for by a supplementary, if it has to come.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe let me ask the Chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, is this not part of the package agreed in the mid-term review – the Shs 75 million?

 

THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Mr Jacob Oulanyah): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is part of the money we agreed to, but I thank hon. Sabiiti for constantly raising this matter because it is a matter of concern to the committee.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Sabiiti, when we were debating the Budget and when we were passing the figures, we came to an agreement with the Executive that there will be a mid-term review in January where the special matters, which the Chairperson of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee had raised including services to the Judiciary and Parliamentary Commission and others, would be catered for.

 

MR SABIITI: That I understand, Madam Speaker, but if we are to wait until January the registration of parties will not be taking place, and really it will cause many constitutional problems. Because if by mid-2005 parties have not been registered, and 2006 we are going for elections, it will be a real technical problem – (Interruption)

 

MR OULANYAH: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and hon. Jack Sabiiti for giving way. The information I would like to give relates to that. The compromise we came to with the Ministry of Finance in the presence of the Prime Minister is that the Ministry of Justice is authorized to use money, which it has now to conduct the registration of parties, and the undertaking is that they will refund that money when they do the mid-term review.

 

MR SABIITI: Madam Speaker, that one is illegal - Yes, we have appropriated fund for given specific functions. Now, there is a function under the Department of the Registrar General, and these functions are supposed to be funded by this Parliament. So, I do not see how you can come on the Floor of Parliament and say, “shift money from the Ministry of Health or shift the money within a department of the Ministry of Justice to perform certain functions”. Supposing this money does not come? This is why I am saying a mere Uganda Shs 75 million surely can be catered for under this appropriation, and I am sure the Minister –(Interruption)

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Speaker, the compromise that we made is exactly as the Chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee has mentioned. There is no illegality in a ministry accelerating the usage of monies that are budgeted under it for an activity pending that activity to be funded later. All that has to be done is for the ministry to come to the Secretary to the Treasury and seek permission to reallocate. Since we have already agreed that that should be the course of action, there is nothing in the law that precludes them from doing what was agreed upon at that time of the compromise.

 

Secondly, Madam Speaker, the proposal by hon. Sabiiti said that we just put a sum of Shs 75 million; you cannot just put. A budget, as I have always said, is a balance sheet. In order to put Shs 75 million, we must get it from somewhere. Where do we get it from? We do not have anywhere to get that money from.

 

Thirdly, procedurally at this stage where this House has pronounced itself on the figures and approved them, unless the motion is made by a Minister, and I think under our Rules a Member cannot move that we alter the figures as already approved. So, I would say that much as I sympathize with hon. Sabiiti’s proposal, he is both procedurally and practically incompetent to raise this proposal.

 

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Presidential and Foreign Affairs, we were informed by the National Political Commissar (NPC) that he spent Shs 285 million on registration of parties. When the NPC came to support his budget at the committee I asked him specifically “How much money have you spent on sumbusas for people who came to create political parties. I deliberately used the word “sumbusa” to provoke him, and he said, “we spent Shs 285 million”. I said, out of that kind of money how much did you spend per party if registered at all? He said, an average of one million shillings per party per month. Now I am just wondering when my hon. colleague in charge of the treasury says I just do not pick money from anywhere, when my colleague hon. Sabiiti says really, Shs 75 million is mere tokenism, we need more serious money! Where did you get the Shs 285 million to get these brief case parties to come and attend meetings in Hotel Africana with National Political Commissar, Fairway, buying sumbusas at a cost of Shs 285 million?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But honourable members, we passed these figures here. This Bill came to confirm what we passed. So why are you now bringing the sumbusa and all these other things? (Laughter) This is the budget we passed, honourable members.

 

MR SEKIKUBO: Madam Speaker, I would not have raised this matter but it seems to be a crucial point to this country at this point in time. It touches us all, Madam Speaker, because whatever we are appropriating here to go to the governance of this country and the functions of government. I think for purposes of ensuring stability and cohesion, we cannot speak one thing and then we do another. We can not tell groups to organize and then we strategically step up a nut to stop them. I think we should have good, and good faith Madam Speaker. I am not raising it on a point of technicality, (Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What does that have to do with the appropriations we made?

 

MR SEKIKUBO: But to enhance the spirit -(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No please hon. Members, why don’t we deal with the appropriations? You have time to raise these matters; you can raise them tomorrow but let us deal with appropriation and get it out of the way. Which part of your appropriation is affected by your statement?

 

MR SEKIKUBO: Not in the Bill per se, Madam Speaker, but it should be put on Government. Government should be honest, Madam Speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the matter? You have not even told us where they are dishonest, you are the one who knows it, I do not know, yes, you are the one who knows what dishonesty you are talking about.

 

MR SEKIKUBO: Madam Speaker, I know after this you have a constituency you are representing, Madam Speaker, and what I am saying is the general aspiration of Ugandans. It is from that context, Madam Speaker, that once we say that groups should be organized, should register and be able to carry out their activities freely in a law and orderly manner, I think it also touches on this. How can we be blind to that aspect, Madam Speaker, by saying everything is okay when a crucial stage in this country is being suffocated? It is from that background, Madam Speaker, that I am saying that Government should really come up with a promise here and now instead of the mid-term review in January because January is too far. We should be seen to be moving and here we are, we cannot be held back by a snag of Shs 75 million.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But honourable members, the chair of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs has said there is a solution. What do you want me to do? The chair has said that there is actually a solution. If in October or November you find that there is no action taking place on that matter you come here with a motion and say I am raising this matter because things are not moving, yes.

 

So I put the question that the appropriation Bill 2004 be read the second time.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

BILLS

COMMITTEE STAGE

 

THE APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004

 

Clause 1

Clause 1 agreed to.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson.

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam Chairperson, I realize that on the amendments on the report I would like Members to adjust as follows so that we can move together. Between vote 225 and vote 516, you add on vote 507 and replace Shs 65,601,5800,000 -(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Now hon. Chairperson, we have not reached the schedule. When we reach the schedule then you raise it.

 

Clause 2, agreed to.

 

Clause 3, agreed to.

 

Clause 4, agreed to.

 

The Schedule.

 

Vote 220:

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: I would like to look at the proposed amendments so that we have a full list and we can move together.

 

On page 3 of the report, the Members who came with this approved list of the Budget Estimates will find that what I am going to read tallies with this document. Add on Vote 507, and replace “656,158” with “6,506,158”. Then immediately after the last sentence “The replacement is the right figures pronounced on by Parliament” add on Vote 20, this is Development; replace 4,254,592 with 4,252,592.

 

Then page 20 of the Bill, Vote 529, replace 2,429,09 with 2,429,095; this is on Development side –(Interjection)- Yes, Kumi District.

 

On page 21 of the Bill, Vote 553, replace 3,377,73 with 3,377,733. On the same page 21, Vote 764, replace 639,625 with 639,675.

 

On page 18, Vote 016 replace 64,377,555 with 367,677,555. The same page, Vote 103; replace 399,375 with 3,399,375. Page 18, Vote 136; replace 16,446,823 with 16,446,825. Page 20, Vote 508; replace 2,397,209 with 2,367,209. Page 21, Vote 538; replace 1,789,822 with 1,798,822.

 

Justification:

Madam Chairperson, these are the figures that were approved in this list. Those who have the lists, the figures I have adjusted tally exactly with this Schedule.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Does the Minister have anything to say?

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Chairperson, yes it is true there were some minor typographical errors when the Bill was being printed, and the amendments were necessary to bring the figures in conformity with what we passed. But I find also on page 20 of Vote 510, replace the figure of 4 – (Interjection)- you did? If it is done, then that is okay. Madam Chairperson, we apologize for the minor typographical errors.

 

DR NKUUHE: They call them minor typographical errors, but I do not agree with that because there is a pattern. Typographical errors cannot follow a pattern. The figures suggested by the chairperson tend to be slightly higher than the figure suggested by the Minister. So, can that be a typographical error or is it something else? I get the feeling that the committee is saying, “Let us stick to the original figure,” the Minister is saying, “We reduce them” and somehow they seem to be compromising. I have a feeling that the Minister will go back and reduce them anyway.

 

CAPT. BYARUHANGA: Madam Chairperson, I want the committee chairperson to look at Vote 538. I do not know whether he had changed that figure. The figure on the list is 1,798,822. Vote 538 - you replace 1,789,822 with 1,798,822 and Vote 764 - Tororo Municipality, you replace 639,625 with 639,675. Those are the figures we have here.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I think they were done.

 

MR ARUMADRI: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. In view of the errors, which we have just corrected above, can the Chairperson now give us the totals as at page 21 of the Schedule? Thank you.

 

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam Chairperson and hon. Members, the totals agree, the discrepancies were in the figures of various Votes. To allay the fears of Members, these figures I have adjusted are in line with the figures we have approved. We are not adding on, if anything, we are trying to correct the Bill to tally with what we approved, and these are the amendments we have proposed.

 

MR SABIITI: Madam Chairperson, given these amendments, it will be fair for this Parliament to come out with that figure after all the adjustments so that we know how much we have appropriated. Where is the total?

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: But, hon. Sabiiti, you are a member of the committee and you give us so much trouble!

 

MR SABIITI: Madam Chairperson, I am a member of this committee, but when this Schedule was being discussed I was attending another committee meeting. This is why –(Interjections)- No, I do not have to apologize, I was still doing Parliamentary work.

 

So, Madam Chairperson, sincerely I brought this matter up because I felt at the end of it all we should be able to say that the amount of funds appropriated for this financial year is this. This is all I was requesting for.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Hon. Member, I do not know, we have been informed that the total is the same, that nothing has changed; there has been no increase and no reduction, only realignment.

 

MR RUKUTANA: I thank you, Madam Chairperson. As I have explained before, when we passed these figures, they were sent to the Government printer. It is at the Government Printer’s place that these topographical errors were made during the process of printing. That is why though there are variations in these votes which we have read when you look at the Bill and the figures we approved, the totals completely agree.

 

So, really nobody should think that there is any substantial variation in the figures. When you look at the figures really it is just either a lapse of an eye, failure of somebody who was printing at the printer’s press to cut a particular figure or to read one figure when he means another. Otherwise, the totals are exactly the same.

 

PROF. LATIGO: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I need clarification from the Minister of Finance because, honestly, things have changed. When the Minister of Finance takes their document for printing, they do not take them to be retyped. All these documents when you take for printing and it is already done you do not take them to be retyped you take a diskette and that diskette unless it is tampered with by those guys in the printer they will merely format it. So, for the Minister to suggest that up to now with all the resources we have been giving them; they still take papers to be retyped in Government Printery, this is a big shame.

 

DR NKUUHE: The reason we use computers is that things do not change like that, and that is why we put passwords so that nobody can tamper. You see, this thing is very serious; these things come from a database. A database puts a red mark if there is an error in the figures, so there is no question of figures just changing. People are telling us “8” was made a “3” how these things are done in a computer. So, how does the error come in; tell me?

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Now, honourable members, the reason why we send the Appropriation Bill and its accompanying documents to the Committee on Finance is to tell us whether what we agreed on in the plenary is what has come out in the Bill, and I think the chairperson has noted the areas of change and he has said, correct this and correct that; so he has done his work. So, what more do you want us to do? (Interjection)

 

The money you sent to the ministry: Minister of Finance, can you explain why you do not have diskettes, whether you still send papers to –(Interruption)

 

MR RUKUTANA: Madam Chairperson, you are very right; the committee has looked at the Bill, the committee has compared the figures as we passed them with what is contained in the Bill. They have noted these variations, they have come to this House proposing amendment to the Bill and I am saying that I have no objection. I concede that these were topographical errors and that the amendment to the report of the committee should be effected as proposed by the chairperson. So, I do not know what the honourable members want us to do? I have apologized for the seemingly many topographical errors, that it is true there are topographical errors. Since the committee has scrutinized them and corrected them and, I do not have any objection to the amendment, what else should we do?

 

HON. MEMBERS: Apologize!

 

MR RUKUTANA: I have apologized for these errors. Madam Chairperson, I beg that we should move.

 

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Honourable members, I put the question that the Schedule be amended as proposed by the chairperson and as agreed by the Minister.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

 

The Title, agreed to.

 

MOTION FOR THE HOUSE TO RESUME

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, GENERAL DUTIES (Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move that the House do resume and the Committee of Supply do report thereto. I beg to move.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

(The House resumed, the Deputy Speaker presiding)

 

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, GENERAL DUTIES)(Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana): Madam Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of the Whole House has considered the Bill entitled “The Appropriation Bill 2004” and passed it with amendments. I beg to report.

 

MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, GENERAL DUTIES (Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana): Madam speaker, I beg to move that the report of the Whole House be adopted. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question that the report of the Committee of the whole House be adopted.

 

(Question put and agreed to)

 

BILLS

THIRD READING

 

THE APPROPRIATION BILL, 2004

 

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, GENERAL DUTIES (Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that a Bill entitled “The Appropriation Bill, 2004” be read the third time and do passed. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question that the Appropriation Bill, 2004 be read for a third time and do pass.

 

(Question put and agreed to.)

 

THE APPROPRIATION ACT, 2004

 

CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES ON THE PETITION OF THE STUDENTS FROM FORT PORTAL SCHOOL OF CLINICAL OFFICERS

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, last time we had the committee report and the minority report and we were due to hear from the Minister of Education. So where is the Minister of Education?

 

THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof Apolo Nsibambi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to request hon. Members that you defer discussing this report because Cabinet has to harmonize different positions on this matter. So, I request that we discuss these reports next Tuesday, 21st September. I request you to accept our request.

 

CAPT. BYARUHANGA: Madam Speaker, this was a petition to the Speaker and a committee of Parliament is the one considering it. I want to know where Cabinet is coming in because this is a petition to the House, not a petition to Cabinet. So, I want the Prime Minister to tell me where they are coming in; this manoeuvre, I do not understand it.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the sector Minister is expected to give us policy positions in this House on this matter. I believe that is what the Prime Minister is interested in -(Interjection)- well, I do not know how they work; he knows how they work.

 

PROF. LATIGO: Madam Speaker, the Rt. hon. Prime Minister said that Cabinet has harmonized its position. Now, if the position is harmonized - Did you say harmonized or you are going to? My understanding of what he said was that the position was already harmonized and that it would be given to us on Tuesday.

 

MR WADRI: My own understanding is that there is a Government policy on education, and therefore, the need to have it taken to Cabinet does not arise if it is a matter of policy. All we need from the Minister responsible is to come here and refute, if any, the findings of the committee. So, really to take this matter to Cabinet is rather, with due respect, very frivolous.

 

PROF. NSIBAMBI: Honourable members, this is an intricate matter involving students and wrongdoers. The deputy chairperson is also disagreeing with the Chairperson. So, given these scenarios, we think that Cabinet should discuss this matter carefully and come with a position; these are grave matters. You normally – as you know I am a political scientist - you may have a policy, but a policy is subject to the contingent element; the contingent element is with us. I request you, honourable members, to defer this matter to Tuesday. I thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, that is now Government Assurance, that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education will present themselves here on Tuesday with a position on this matter. Thank you.

 

BILLS

SECOND READING

 

THE UGANDA PEOPLE'S DEFENCE FORCES BILL, 2003

5.02

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I beg to move that the Bill entitled “The Uganda Peoples Defence Forces Bill, 2003” be read a second time. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I do not think anybody should really say they do not have the report; it was distributed –(Interjections)- What did you say? I thought you are organizing a walkout. (Laughter). They should be brought in; those who are not there will find theirs on the tables; just bring and distribute. I think, Minister, you can move now.

 

MR MBABAZI: Madam Speaker, I had moved.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are now supposed to speak to your motion for a second reading.

 

MR MBABAZI: Madam Speaker, the object of this Bill is to make a provision for the regulation of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces, pursuant to Article 210 of the Constitution. I beg to move. Thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that all? This is interesting -(Laughter) – Okay, chairperson, since the Minister says he has introduced the Bill for the second reading.

 

5.05

THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr Simon Mayende): Madam Speaker, honourable members, I know this is a long awaited Bill. We do have a very brief report because we anticipate at committee stage the details will be spelt out.

 

The UPDF Bill, 2003, was read for the first time on 4th December 2003. It was then referred to the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs for scrutiny and subsequent reporting. The committee has sufficiently scrutinized the Bill and now begs to report.

 

Methodology:

 

While we were considering the Bill, the Committee held several meetings and discussed with various stakeholders, including:

 

• The Ministry of Defence,

 

• The Minister of State for Defence,

 

• Ministry officials - technical team,

 

• Representation from Action for Development (ACFODE),

 

• The Country Director - UNICEF,

 

• The Uganda Joint Christian Council representation,

 

• Several Members of Parliament,

 

• A representation from the Uganda Women Parliamentary association,

 

• A Member of the East African Legislative Assembly representing his colleagues.

 

We also studied and analyzed a number of relevant documents, which included:

 

• The NRA Statute, 1992;

 

• The Deployment of Forces Bill, 1999;

 

• The National Resistance Army (Amendment) Bill, 2002;

 

• The Hansard of the debates on the Deployment of Forces Bill, 1992; and

 

• The National Resistance Army (Amendment) Bill, 2001.

 

• The Armed Forces Pensions Act,

 

• The South African Constitution,

 

•The Tanganyika Military Forces Law Amendment Act, 1963,

 

• The Convention and Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979,

 

• The Uganda Constitution of 1995 and

 

• The NRA Standing Instructions.

 

The Bill seeks to make provision for the regulations of Uganda Peoples Defence Forces pursuant to Article 210 of the Constitution, and in particular to make provision for the following:

 

(i) The organs and structures of the UPDF;

 

(ii) Recruitment, appointment, promotion, discipline and removal of members of UPDF, and ensuring that members of the UPDF are recruited from every district of Uganda;

 

(iii) Terms and conditions of service of members of the Uganda peoples Defence Forces;

 

(iv) Deployment of troops outside Uganda.

 

The passage and implementation of this Bill is expected to achieve among others the following:

 

i) Harmonize the military law with the Constitution of Uganda.

 

ii) Consolidate and rationalize the military law.

 

iii) Streamline the command structure of the UPDF.

 

iv) Improve terms and conditions of service of all officers and militants.

 

v) Improve the administration of justice in UPDF.

 

The above activities and expected expenditures have been integrated in the Medium Expenditure Framework as indicated in the Certification of the Financial Implications, a copy of which is attached to this report.

 

General Observations:

 

1. The Bill is about a unique institution, a military Institution, aiming at unique standards, faced with internal challenges, constraints, external threats and aiming at fulfilling its constitutional mandate.

 

2. The UPDF institution has the duty of transforming willing civilians into military minded persons of the highest calibre and who cannot afford to compromise standards.

 

3. The UPDF institution would gladly work with and operate along with civilians who appreciate the constitutional mandate of the UPDF, its challenges, constraints and threats.

 

4. The UPDF institution expects the highest conscious and mechanical discipline from its officers and militants and any shortcomings are precisely, immediately and appropriately punished.

 

5. The UPDF expects high standards of performance from its members and aims at keeping the morale of its members at its highest.

 

6. The UPDF has endeared itself to the people of Uganda since its inception and would forever like to remain a people’s army basing on a strict Code of Conduct, discipline and high performance levels.

 

7. Provisions of the UPDF Bill and some amendments proposed by the committee are in line with the aforementioned general observations and aspirations of the UPDF.

 

Madam Speaker, honourable members, our committee did point out only those areas, which there was extensive debate and these are some of them.

 

1. The expanded structure and establishment in the UPDF:

 

The committee observed that the need for the expanded structure and establishment of the UPDF was necessary and in line with the current levels of growth of the UPDF, its internal challenges and perceived external threats.

The committee further observes that the expanded structure and establishment demands enhanced flow of resources to the UPDF. However, it was not immediately clear to the committee and basing on a certification of financial implication that the trend of resources would be that. We have attached a copy of the certification of financial implication and it shows more or less a static level of provision for funds.

 

For the last three years, the committee has reported to this august House that the UPDF has been operating at a mere 20 percent of its actual annual budgetary requirements. The committee therefore, recommends that the appropriate budgetary provision be made available for the expanded structure and establishment of the UPDF in the post passage of this long awaited law.

 

2. Historical high command on the UPDF:

 

The committee observed that the historical high command of the UPDF (then National Resistance Army) is valuable in terms of expertise and vision of the UPDF.

 

The committee also observed that although the entire group is few, they are still quite energetic, knowledgeable and capable. The committee believes that the UPDF would benefit from their experience in strategic planning and policy formulation.

 

The committee therefore, recommends that the membership of the Historical High Command on the UPDF High Command and the UPDF Defence Forces Council remain until otherwise. Ugandans should not forget too quickly that this Historical High Command of the current UPDF created and nurtured, a capable discipline pro-people force for this country. (Applause).

 

3. The recruitment, training, deployment, promotion, terms and conditions and exit from the UPDF:

 

The committee noted with satisfaction that the detailed provisions relating to the recruitment, training, deployment, promotion, terms and conditions plus exit by officers and militants from the UPDF, the civilian staff is equally elaborated upon in the Bill.

 

Indeed, it is stipulated that the regulations for finer details relating to these shall be made by the Minister.

 

The committee recommends that when regulations are made, they should be laid on the Table of Parliament as soon as possible.

 

4. Dismissing pregnant female cadets and recruit trainees:

 

Observations:

 

a) Dismissing pregnant female cadet officers and recruit trainees is not being gender sensitive

 

b) In the past both female and male cadets have met the required standards of the cadet courses and have passed out as military officers.

 

c) In the past some female and male cadet officers have failed to meet the required standards of these cadet courses and have been discontinued.

 

d) Many have failed to complete the requisite training due to various reasons.

 

e) Therefore, the issue in meeting or failing to meet the required standards of a training course and the reason why one fails to meet the standard is a mitigating matter for possible concessions. In the past, no individual has been re-admitted to a course if he or she ever failed or was discontinued. Conception (getting pregnant) can be advanced by anyone or for anyone discontinued for reasons of pregnancy or temporary ailment in a given course so as to retake fully the course when they are ready at a future date.

 

f) The UPDF standard to be achieved by a cadet on course cannot be compromised. To do so would be to lower the standards expected of a platoon commander of the UPDF under such circumstances.

 

g) A qualified cadet trainee under our current circumstances is invariably a field-based person, with no office. He or she is expected to cover long distances with a force under his or her command, on foot, in order to accomplish strenuous military tasks.

 

h) We observed that the course invariably has to transform a civilian relaxed, soft, into a military minded human being in the interest of Uganda, the people and the UPDF.

 

i) Any person interfering with the process of transforming a willing civilian into a military minded being deserves a harsh punishment, particularly when a person is serving under the military law.

 

MR AMURIAT: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the chairperson, Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs, but I do this concerning a statement that is on page 4 of this report. It says, under 3.1, third bullet:

 

“It was not immediately clear in the certificate of financial implication for this Bill that this was to be the trend.”

 

My understanding of this statement is that a certificate of financial implication is not adequate since it does not have the capacity to provide for the expanded structure and the establishment in the UPDF.

 

I do not know whether it is even useful for us to continue to listen to this report, yet a certificate of financial implication is unable to address the issues that are being raised by this report. I would like some bit of guidance from you, Madam Speaker, because then it will look as if we as Parliament will be wasting our time listening to this report, thereafter debating it, and yet the Ministry of Finance does not have the money to provide for what we are talking about. So, I require some bit of guidance from you and probably from the Ministry of Finance and from the committee. Thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, in my view, if the certificate is insufficient, I think the debate in this House would be a ground for causing the Minister of Finance to make additional provisions. So, let us debate it and see how to help the ministry achieve beyond the 20 per cent.

 

MR AMURIAT: Then I even get more confused, Madam Speaker, because there is value in having the certificate of financial implication attached to whatever bill comes to this House, and the law provides for this. So, it is really supposed to be consistent with what the bill seeks to provide.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Amuriat, how many years will it take to achieve the objectives of this bill? How many years will it take to achieve it?

 

MR AMURIAT: The timeframe of how Government wants and when it wants to achieve this.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, can you allow the debate so that we hear from the Government, how they are going to implement this bill, whether in one year, which parts of it are going to come first, which come last and then next year you can give them more money.

 

LT COL KATIRIMA: Madam Speaker, there is something in the signatures that I want clarification on because it says some Members have signed, save for Clause 97. Does that mean a minority report?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Katirima, leave that matter to me, I am the Speaker of this House. I will guide the House accordingly. Proceed.

 

MR MAYENDE: Madam Speaker, honourable members, we are on page 6 (3.5) Carrier enhancement, delayed marriage and reproduction in the UPDF:

 

There are several military courses to be undertaken by junior military officers in the first four years, including but not limited to the following:

 

• Platoon Commanders course.

• Junior command and staff course.

• Captaincy Commanders course and

• Several other specialized courses.

 

A junior officer who entangles himself or herself in marital affairs in the first four years of his or her service, will most likely miss out on nearly all these courses and will at best remain “stunted”. Invariably it will be the country, the people and the UPDF to suffer the consequences.

 

At the same time, the UPDF is minutely aware of its scarce resources and the need to provide decent accommodation for, especially its married officers, corps, in a planned and phased manner.

 

Recommendations:

 

1. The cadet, who cannot meet the required standards in a given intake, should be discontinued.

 

2. The discontinued cadet should not be a burden to the UPDF given the budgetary constraints of the UPDF.

 

3. The cadet discontinued on grounds of pregnancy or certified temporary ailment should be given another chance when he or she is ready at a future intake.

 

4. UPDF officers should undertake all requisite courses in enhancing their careers.

 

5. Delayed marriage and reproduction is in the interests of all stakeholders.

 

UPDF officers and militants in a Movement or Multi-party political environment:

 

The Committee observed that it is currently acceptable for a UPDF officer or militant wishing to stand for the political office in a Movement system of governance, to apply for leave and when successful to resign and to immediately resume the duties when not successful.

 

The Committee observed that the Movement system of governance is non-partisan, all-inclusive, democratic and elections are based on individual merit not exclusive party ideology and rigid discipline.

 

The Committee further observed that it is not acceptable during a multi-party political system of governance for UPDF officers and militants, wishing to stand for political office, to apply for leave. Instead they should apply for retirement or discharge before proceeding to participate in electioneering at any level.

 

The Committee observed that it would not augur well for an officer or militant, who has been publicly partisan, to return to the UPDF and serve. The Committee holds the same view with regard to civilians, who will be serving with the UPDF. There are some civilians who work with UPDF and those are the ones we are referring to. Partisan politics compromises the otherwise high technical expertise and competences of those who choose to declare their party leanings publicly.

 

Regarding the officers and militants who have been in active politics since the advent of the Movement politics in this country, and indeed the recent political developments, the same considerations should apply.

 

Deployment of the UPDF for peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations outside this country:

 

The Committee observed that the most crucial need is to preserve national security and the security of the forces being deployed.

 

The Committee further observed that whenever a Status of Forces Agreement is entered into, it should be laid on the Table of Parliament as soon as possible. This is in reference to what we shall meet in the actual bill. There is a section relating to this.

 

The Committee agrees with the proposal allowing for the President to deploy forces outside this country and then informing Parliament when concerns of eminent danger have been taken care of.

 

Pensions and gratuities:

 

Under pensions and gratuities, the Committee observed that provisions in the bill relating to pensions and gratuities of the UPDF are intended to harmonize them with those of their counterparts in the Public Service, and in some cases to make them better.

 

Administration of justice in the UPDF:

 

Under administration of justice in the UPDF, the Committee observed that besides the court martial, the UPDF Bill is introducing summary trials, which in effect are one-person trials meant to speed up the administration of justice through all levels of command.

 

The Committee further observes that both summary trials and the courts martial have a system of appeal and will, therefore, adequately serve the purpose of administering justice in the UPDF.

 

The Committee also agrees to the establishment of the field courts martial as proposed in the bill for the administration of justice under those unique circumstances.

 

The Presidential Guard:

 

The Committee received some presentations to the effect that the presidential guard should be a separate, independent force inorganic to UPDF.

 

The Committee wishes to observe that the representations received were quite inadequate and were not convincing.

 

Further, the Committee wishes to observe and recommend that the presidential guard should consist of arms and elements that reflect the discipline, professionalism and capacity of the country’s highest force which is the UPDF and must by necessity be organic to it.

 

Rules of Procedure and UPDF organs at headquarters:

 

The Committee observes and recommends that due to the size and nature of the UPDF, rules of procedure of some of the organs therein should be left to those organs to resolve in consultation with the Minister responsible for Defence. For example, the quorum of those organs when sitting and taking decisions, the frequency of those meetings etc.

 

Subsidiary services in UPDF:

 

The Committee observes that when men and women join the UPDF, they should be aiming at the primary and not the subsidiary roles and functions of the force which tend to retard the progress in terms of rank and appointment in the organs and structures of the forces.

 

The Committee, further, wishes to stress the need to meet all necessary training standards for everyone to meet the capacity needs of the stakeholders.

 

Conclusion:

 

As a cornerstone of democracy, the military of any democratic state should reflect the broader values pursued by society in which they are part. Issues like the rule of law, gender mainstreaming, discipline and professionalism should be projected and practiced at their best in the military.

 

As we strive to build our democracy, we should put a lot of leverage on the development of an agile military that can meet the challenges of the nation building. The military as a profession should be comparable with any other professions, if not better. Young men and women joining the military should have hope and confidence that they will be successful in this demanding career and everything including training and career development should be done to ensure that everyone’s potential is tapped to its best.

 

The law that we are about to pass ensures that the above objectives are met whereupon the onus will now be on the Executive to ensure its implementation to the latter.

 

Madam Speaker and honourable members, I beg to report and move that this report be adopted. However, I wish to report that this report has a minority report. I am informed that somebody was requested to present the minority report attached to this report.

 

Hon. Patrick Amuriat, had raised a question about these financial implications. What the Committee noted was, if you can note immediately after the signatures, the figures we were given in the year 2004/05 are similar to the figures that were given for 2005/06. That was our comment because we thought if we pass this bill it would require additional resources, but subsequently the Minister of Finance did indicate that as need arises, the funds will be made available. I beg to move, Madam speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is a minority report which was compiled by hon. Katirima who is unable to be here at the moment. He had assigned honourable Muzoora the responsibility for presenting the report but when I perused the report I found that hon. Muzoora had not signed that report, he wrote his name but did not sign it. So, I now invoke my powers under Rule 7 (2) to invite hon. Kayizzi Asanasio, can you present the report because you signed it?

 

PRESENTATION OF MINORITY REPORT ON THE UPDF BILL, 2003

 

5.34

MR ASANASIO KAYIZZI (Kassanda County North, Mubende): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and honourable members. I wish to present this minority report on behalf of my colleagues who have signed it and on behalf of the chief petitioner Lt Col Katirima who is not present here and it reads as follows:

 

One entry one exit in the UPDF - this means that you come just enter and you leave in the same entry - A minority report by Lt Col Katirima and some Members of the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee:

 

This minority report and opinion is made to Parliament in accordance with Rule 171 of our Rules of Procedure. It is about Clause 97 of the UPDF Bill 2003, now before Parliament. It is, thus, a minority opinion on the report of the UPDF Bill submitted to Parliament, as presenters are in agreement with the entire report, save for Clause 97, on which both the committee and the ministers of defence have proposed amendments that are at variance, to say the least.

 

Madam Speaker, the minority opinion on Clause 97 is presented in the interests of national security, the discipline, cohesion and morale of the UPDF as well as the desire for a strong UPDF, constitutionalism and rule of law.

 

There were lengthy debates in the committee, on many issues, involving stakeholders, on which Members developed consensus and the production report to which we subscribe. It was only on this Clause 97 and the proposed amendments on which consensus could not be realized. The minority opinion is hereby presented to Parliament, alongside that of the main report for final resolution and adoption.

 

The case for the minority report and opinion is presented, here below, and it is as follows: -

 

(a) That for the UPDF there has been only one entrance and one exit.

 

(b) That for sustained strength of UPDF, there should continue to be one entrance and one exit.

 

c) That one entrance into the UPDF should be by decision and guidelines of UPDF Council and that that one exit should be by decision and guidelines of UPDF Commissions Board, both which have been in existence and are upheld in this UPDF Bill.

 

d) That the standing Supreme Court ruling regarding exit from UPDF should guide actions of all stakeholders, which was to the effect that one may exit the UPDF only through the procedures stipulated in the service legislation, that is, via the Commissions Board for officers as by the decision of the Army, UPDF Council for militants. I beg to table the judgment. The clarifications on the judgment are being clarified as we go along, you will have to see it below.

 

e) That Parliament should not by legislation automatically exit - I wish to lay the judgment on Table and it is here.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Kayizzi, please read out the judgment, who the parties are, which case number it is, then you lay it.

 

MR KAYIZZI: This is the Republic of Uganda, Supreme Court of Uganda, the constitutional appeal number one of 1997 between Maj. Gen. David Tinyefuza and Attorney General, certified copy edition. I beg to lay it on Table.

 

(e) That Parliament should not by legislation automatically exit some of the members of UPDF from forces but should rather leave matters of exiting the UPDF to the structures and organs of UPDF currently in force and may choose to strength them further in the UPDF Bill before it.

 

(f) That the minister’s amendments to Clause 97 UPDF Bill, 2003 be passed by Parliament.

 

(g) That the committee’s amendments to Clause 97 of the UPDF Bill, 2003 be rejected.

 

Further observations and arguments for the retention of that Clause 97:

 

Institutional arrangements the world over, over the years, have worked towards setting standards and working towards the achievements of these standards for efficiency, effectiveness, harmony, confidence building, predictability and maintenance of the moral of human resources, to mention but a few. The principle of one entry one exit, among others, has helped the achievement of our aforementioned objectives.

 

In the Uganda civil service, the principle and practice of one entry one exit has worked positively for the stability of the service and all other achievements it boasts of currently. The same principle works in prisons, police and teaching services. It has not been and cannot be any different in the military and UPDF, in particular.

 

The UPDF Commissions Board has retired officers of UPDF in accordance with the law and interests of all stakeholders, and should be left to continue to do so. Likewise, militants have also been discharged only in accordance with the procedures laid down in military law.

 

Officers and militants, currently in politics, in the Parliament of Uganda and lower local governments applied and were granted leave before they went into politics, and their leave was extended over since they won the political offices. Their colleagues, who did not make it for political offices, returned on duty in accordance with terms and conditions of leave they had been granted.

 

Would it be procedurally correct for Parliament to legislatively retire militants and officers of UPDF who were granted leave by their mother institution to serve Parliament or in another political office for a specified period? Can Parliament not leave this administrative duty of handling retirement matters of the UPDF officers and militants on leave, in politics, and all other deserving cases to the UPDF itself? Will Parliament also retire civil servants?

 

Members will recall that recently when RO/00001 Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the President, wished to retire as a serving UPDF officer, who was also at the top of politics in the country, had to follow the law through the commissions board and was not only retired but also promoted according to the law.

 

There are also many other cases to cite - those who were active in politics - who followed the law and were retired in accordance with the law, for instance, Col rtd Dr Kiiza Besigye, Brig. Matayo Kyaligonza to mention but a few.

 

Why should the rest in politics currently not follow the law and good example set by the aforementioned colleagues?

 

The UPDF has records of all its officers and militants, some shortcomings, here and there, notwithstanding. It is a fact that UPDF has assured some military training for its officers on leave and on secondment in politics, as well as their promotions to higher ranks and some cases can be cited. The UPDF has details about the terms and conditions of all its officers and militants in active service in UPDF and those in politics and elsewhere. There are those on short-service commission, long-service commission and all these serve their service brackets according to age and rank, among other terms and conditions of service.

 

It is the UPDF best positioned to know which officer and militant will render services or otherwise in the service force upon retirement, and Parliament cannot easily discharge these duties. Why, therefore, should Parliament undertake to discharge or retire militants and officers when it cannot easily address matters relating to discharge, retirement of individual members of UPDF, including pension, gratuity, deployment to reserve forces et cetera?

 

The rumour mill doing the rounds in and around Parliament has it that UPDF Commissions Board will not allow the retirement especially, of officers who have been in Parliament, and have rather been critical of the state apparatus. This rumour is not founded and there is no evidence to support it. Even if there was, would Parliament best resolve this by retiring officers and militants currently in politics? Moreover, there are officers and militants still in active service who have not at all been critical of the state apparatus or indisciplined in any way, who have not been able to retire or get discharged due to internal challenges and budgetary constraints facing the UPDF. Will Parliament also intervene to sort out cases falling in this category?

 

Entrance into the UPDF is clearly stipulated in the law, as well as exit from the UPDF. It is one entry one exit. Entry is by decision of the UPDF Council and exit is by decision of Commissions Board for officers and the UPDF Council for militants. That is how the UPDF was able to retire and discharge over 40,000 soldiers during the reduction-in-force exercise. Let Parliament not create another exit via the “ventilator” and risk opening a Pandora’s box.

 

The UPDF officers and militants on leave in politics have skills, expertise and strategic vision the UPDF stakeholders would like to benefit from. Many of them are quite energetic, young and resourceful. Parliament should not rush to legislate them out of service of UPDF when avenues of their exit from UPDF are clear and open and they are not few.

 

We should not count only those in the Executive and Parliament but also those in mass mobilisation, the local governments and the lower local councils. The UPDF officers and militants on leave, in politics are not the only political animals in UPDF. There are those who lost election for political offices and went back to serve. There are those who applied to go into politics but could not be afforded leave because of the challenges that obtained in UPDF then. There were also those who were interested in politics but had not taken firm decision. There are those who have, over the years, developed the interest in politics. Would Parliament like to open UPDF gates wide so that whoever is interested in politics may retire from service? Would such a decision be in the best interests of our country and national security? Serving officers whether on leave or not or whether seconded outside the UPDF or not should be subjected to the same law. Anarchism, sectarianism and discrimination should be avoided. Principles, justice, constitutionalism and rule of law should guide our actions and decisions we legislate. Let us fight selfishness with objectivity and strategic vision.

 

Some of the officers of the UPDF now on leave in politics, were at one time at the helm of UPDF leadership and saw to the implementation of the UPDF law, including the retirement and discharge of the officers and militants of UPDF. They know the nitty-gritty about this unique institution of the state that needs the protection and full support of all stakeholders. It is doubtable whether they would objectively support the retirement of some of the officers and militants of the UPDF, including themselves by any authority outside the existing structures and organs of UPDF charged with the responsibility.

 

Members of the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs, after a long debate, failed to reach a consensus only on this issue of exit from UPDF under Clause 97 of UPDF Bill, 2003 now before this House. Some lobbyists, including some UPDF officers on leave in politics and in Parliament, in particular, want Parliament to retire them from the UPDF upon passage of the UPDF Bill and are pulling this line with some Members of the committee. Would this not amount to forgery and manipulation?

 

Conclusion:

Madam Speaker and honourable members, I beg to move that this minority report and opinion to the UPDF Bill, 2003 and amendment appended thereto be adopted by this august House. I beg to move.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Kayizzi, for presenting the minority report on behalf of your colleagues. So, honourable members, you are now free to debate.

 

5.50

MAJ. JOHN BASHAIJA KAZOORA (Kashari County, Mbarara): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to congratulate the honourable Minister of Defence, my senior colleague, whom I respect very much, the Chairperson of the Committee of Defence and Internal Affairs and their committee, the country at large for this achievement in our development especially in matters of military affairs.

 

We all know, Madam Speaker, the history of our country. Uganda having been a colonial state, I do not want to take you into history lessons - the Rt honourable Prime Minister knows better - but the kind of Army this nation had through colonialism at independence, after independence and what we went through: the cause, the interference in politics and all that. I come here with an open heart to debate this report and the bill given those circumstances. That is why I am congratulating ourselves that we have reached a stage where we are sober and we know what we are talking about.

 

If I forget the other armies and just talk about UPDF resulting from NRA - first of all, I agree with the opening statement of the minority report of one entry and one exit. It is unfortunate that my brother comrad,e Phenhas Manoni Katirima, is not in the House. He knows the circumstances under which, for instance, him and myself entered NRA, which has now transformed into UPDF. Certainly, it was not one entry and I do not see it being one exit. He knows that history very well and the officers here and men can bear me witness on this one. The circumstances, Madam Speaker, were very different. For instance, I did not join the Army on my own will. I am essentially a political animal; I just solved political problems at the time and, therefore, we could not now just desert the NRA after victory. We had to be patient and wait for normal recruitment for those who were interested in military career.

 

I have never been interested in military career myself, but there was a national problem that necessitated or prompted some of us to be in the forces at that particular time and when we joined then, we found people who had been career militarists, who had been to Monduli, had been in FRONASA in all these. We certainly now cannot ignore that kind of history.

 

I have nothing to fear whether one entry or one exit, but I just wanted the honourable members who presented the minority report to know that there is that history.

 

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would welcome this bill in the current professionalisation process of the Army, and let it be seen in that spirit and in that light, and not in the spirit of barging certain officers or men from the Army for whatever reasons at a particular point in our politics. I have in mind the recommendations of the committee, particularly on the members of the High Command of UPDF or NRA as contained in the report. How did they become members of the High Command? What were the circumstances at the time, and what are the circumstances today because the Army is expanding?

 

The necessities at that time I am sure were very different, and the honourable Minister of Defence knows this very well. For instance, the President has said it here a number of times, if you were a good mobiliser for cassava at that time because the soldiers wanted something to eat, you could be considered to be a member of the High Command. But now we are in dot.com age and some of those members of the High Command may not live to that expectation, because the High Command at that time was an arm of the National Resistance Council, the political wing of the Movement.

 

You know very well, Madam Speaker, that when we came here, the National Resistance Council was absorbed as the Parliament. But circumstances necessitated that they go back and be elected in the new dispensation of politics. If you served your purpose at that time and today the circumstances have changed, why do you remain an excess baggage to the Army for sure? Because now if we are talking of professionalising the Army, there are new young officers, who have come up, who have undertaken serious courses. The command is now no longer seriously on who shoots best, but you know you can do this on very many things, wires inclusive.

 

So, I would really be a bit hesitant, Madam Speaker, that we take en masse all the members of the former NRA/UPDF High Command to be members in this bill, just as the members of the National Resistance Council played their role and even when the NRC was expanded, it was expanded on the historical National Resistance Council. But time now has changed, we all go and when they are relevant, people will vote them, when they are not, they do not come.

 

Madam Speaker, this transparency we are talking about, and good governance must permeate into all the pillars of the state including the Army. It must be an all-rounder. The officers currently in Jinja on training, I do not think they are now in tactics and shooting, no; they are appreciating the politics of the world. It is not about who fights better, who is a tough fighter; that could be an element. Therefore, this situation and these circumstances now of the changing world must not escape our understanding.

 

The honourable Minister for Defence knows, for instance, our neighbours in Tanzania here, there is a level where they reach and you find these Generals are Governors of Provinces, are Ambassadors. You are not going to say because I participated in this, I must die in the Army. And as an original cadre of the Movement, I remember what the Commander-in-Chief used to tell us in those days, that the problem with the Army, you find that even people of 70s, people who have lost teeth because of old age, they still want to remain in the Army. If I have served like any other profession, at a particular time I should quit.

 

I will be talking later as we move on the amendments, as I am being warned about time. But let me say that in this bill we should try to guard against preferential treatment. Because in the minority report presented by my friend, hon. Kayizzi, in whose constituency I had my camp in those days, he is quoting RO/00001 Yoweri Museveni having requested to retire and he was retired. He requested in one month or so and he was retired. How come that there are other officers, who have requested for retirement for over five/ten years and they are not retired? What is the criterion now of getting Gen. Muntu, getting Gen. so and so, Brigadier so and so? You get the whole exercise in a guessing atmosphere.

 

I wrote and requested to retire in July 2001; as I said, I was not interested in military affairs. Having taken back my line of politics, I knew that up to 10 years I have not undertaken any course, and the parliamentary discipline is certainly different from military discipline - July 2001, I have not got a reply! But somebody applies in a month, in a week, he is allowed. This causes some kind of absurdity and some suspicion. I hope, Madam Speaker, other issues I have not touched on will be addressed by this bill in this report. Thank you.

 

6.03

DR FRANK NABWISO (Kagoma County, Jinja): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the minister and the Chairman of the Committee on Defence for their reports and so for the minority report because, I think, as a Parliament we would like to see people with different views to be able to present them.

 

I want to begin by asking for a clarification. This question has come from the people that I represent - villagers. They have asked me that they heard the President had retired from the Army but then they see him wearing a military uniform on some occasions. It is not my question but it is a question from peasants. They want to know why somebody who says he has retired from the military is still putting on a military uniform even on political rallies.

 

I see some Members of Parliament here who were serving in the Army, they joined politics and now they come in military uniforms. Can this also be explained about these military uniforms? When do we wear them and for what purpose?

 

CAPT. BASALIZA: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to my brother, hon. Nabwiso. Is it in order for the hon. Nabwiso not to understand the Rules of Procedure, because military uniform is part and parcel of parliamentary wear if you are a serving Army officer? Is it in order for him to allege that the coming in military uniform –(Interruption)

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, Rule 62 on the dress code provides as follows:

 

“All Members shall dress in a decent and dignified manner, that is to say –

 

(a) a pair of trousers with a jacket, shirt and tie, a Kanzu and jacket or a Safari Suit for male Members.

 

(b) a suit; a jacket, blouse or skirt; dress or busuti for lady Members; or

 

(c) military attire for Members of the armed forces;

 

(d) all Members shall put on dignified shoes….”

 

They are allowed to wear military attire in this House. (Laughter)

 

DR NABWISO: Thank you, for your wise ruling on those who come here with military uniform. What I was trying to point out is that these are the issues that frighten peasants and people who want to debate issues, and I believe the minister will clarify this position on the military uniform for the President.

 

I want to go to page 4 and raise a question on this argument that a mere 20 per cent of the budget, which the army requires, is being given out yet we know that in Uganda the military takes a high percentage of our budget. How do we reconcile this problem? The Army needs more money and yet in terms of the total budget and allocations to development expenditure, we see that we cannot really give more money to the Army. So, what does the committee feel is the way forward on this matter?

 

I also want to go further down under (3.2), which talks about the role of the historical High Command. I really appreciate the role of the historical High Command but I am worried that in Uganda since independence, 42 years of independence we have not really resolved the role of the Army in the politics of Uganda. What should be the role of the Army in the politics of Uganda? Some other countries have said that the Army will not be treated in the same way that we in Uganda have perceived the role of the Army. In 1971, we saw Gen. Idi Amin take over power and abolish Parliament. So, for nine years, there was no Parliament and he ruled according to his wishes, including his dreams. In July 1985, Parliament again was closed by the Army. Now, it is extremely important that when we are talking about the role of the Army in politics, we should not over-exaggerate it.

 

We have used words like, “this unique institution”. The Army is part and parcel of a nation. Every institution in Uganda is unique, whether you are talking about universities, whether you are talking about the police, whether you are talking about the Parliament itself. So, I would suggest to the committee that we should down play these words so as not to give the impression that what is most unique is the Army and not other institutions.

 

When we go further, the Committee leaves us hanging, at least in my mind. It says, “The Committee observed the historical High Command of the UPDF is valuable in terms of expertise and vision of the UPDF.”; and the question is, so what?

 

“The committee observed that although the entire group are few, they are still quite energetic, knowledgeable and capable…”; so what? What are the practical implications of these statements –(Interruption)

 

CAPT. BASALIZA: Can I ask the honourable member to read the next recommendation?

 

DR NABWISO: Yes, I am coming to it. On page 5 they made this remarkable statement: “The committee recommends the membership of the historical high command on the UPDF high command and in the UPDF defence forces council until otherwise…” they are saying it should remain “until otherwise”. Hon. Kazoora has said people come and go; even we as Parliamentarians, we came in and we shall exit. So, this institution - even in the Church, people who represent God on earth also come and go. So why this particular institution?

 

I really do not believe that the committee itself believes as it says on page 8. In spite of my being a historical member of the Movement, I do not believe that the Movement system of governance as it stands today is non-partisan. I do not believe that it is all-inclusive and although elections are supposed to be based on individual merit, I know what happened to me in the elections of 2001. So, I do not want to perpetuate this kind of thing when in fact the courts of Uganda have ruled that actually the NRM is operating as a political party. I think we should tell the people the truth and not maintain this kind of statement as it is here.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, wind up.

 

DR NABWISO: I also want to find out why in these two statements we have not emphasized the importance of nationalism. For us to get a good army we must have a nationalistic army, an army that consists of people who are patriotic, who will serve the national interests and not serve interests of individuals. This should be highlighted in this report.

 

I also want to find out if we can get more details, maybe when the press is not here, of how the army is to be constituted. The officers in the army, where do they come from in parts of Uganda, how many people are in the Presidential Guard, and whether it is necessary for these people to be in that guard? These are extremely important issues, particularly when you are talking about security for everybody in this country. I thank you.

 

6.17

MRS DORA BYAMUKAMA (Mwenge County South, Kyenjojo): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also like to salute the Minister of Defence as well as the committee for the work done. I have a few comments to make, limited to page 7 of the report, and this in particular refers to recommendations under point No. 3.5.1.

 

I thank the committee for recommendation 3, which states that, “The cadet discontinued on grounds of pregnancy should be given another chance when she - I do not think the ‘he’ is applicable –(Laughter)- is ready at a future intake”. This is gender sensitive. However, when you look at recommendation 5, it detracts and contradicts what is in recommendation 3 because the reasons given from page 6 are that military courses are to be undertaken in the first four years.

 

Second reason given is that if you entangle yourself you will most likely miss out on nearly all the courses and be “stunted”. The third one is scarce resources and lack of accommodation. Now you ask yourself: who is most likely to be affected by marriage or reproduction? It goes back to the women who would be recruited. So, although the proposal may seem gender blind, it is gender insensitive in that even without looking further, it is clear that it is pointing at the female Ugandans who may wish to join the Army.

 

When you look at this and you try to reconcile it with our Constitution, there are a few issues, which I would like to get some clarification on as well, as perhaps the rationale for proposing this. When you look at Article 31(1) it says, “Men and women of the age of eighteen years and above, have the right to marry and to found a family…”.

 

When you look at Article 40, on economic rights, it provides that Parliament shall enact laws on economic rights and in particular when you look at Article 40(4) it says: “The employer of every woman worker shall accord her protection during pregnancy and after birth, in accordance with the law.” So, how would you reconcile these constitutional provisions with this particular proposal that for career enhancement they should be denied marriage and reproduction in the UPDF? I find this a little complex, and I also find it unconstitutional as well as gender insensitive.

 

Madam Speaker, my second point, still on the same issue, is that when you consider current circumstances, we do have family planning services. And although we do have family planning services, these may not be 100 percent efficient such that if for example you choose to join the Army and you are already married, you may accidentally get pregnant and you may have to forfeit this chance of getting employment. It also means that for example if you are already married and, therefore, have capacity to reproduce, you are not eligible, you cannot join the UPDF because you may not be able to take part in the training in the first four years.

 

On the issue of accommodation, when you look at our Constitution, Article 40(1)(a) says that the laws that we should enact on economic rights should provide for the right of persons to work under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions and it also says in (c) that workers should be accorded rest, reasonable working hours and periods of holidays. It is well known that for physiological comfort, it would be proper for people who wish to marry to do so. It gives them hope, it inspires them and, therefore, if we enact a law that is against this particular right, what are we doing?

 

Even where we have for example religions that restrict marriage, you know what happens because we do not have angels on this earth. This particular law will promote irresponsibility because men in the Army will refuse to take responsibility in case they are to be sent away. Women in the Army - if they get pregnant in the first four years – may be forced to abort and yet abortion is legally restricted. These are dire considerations, which the committee should take into account. Otherwise, this law may be challenged even before it has been in operation for the first one month. Thank you.

 

6.23

MR JACK SABIITI (Rukiga County, Kabale): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Let me thank the minister and Cabinet for at last having brought this Bill to the Floor of Parliament. It has taken long - since the 1995 Constitution was promulgated. I, therefore, congratulate you for having brought this Bill here. I also thank the chairperson of the committee and his committee, for this beautiful report. Allow me to make a few observations.

 

Madam Speaker, when we are making the law of the national army of Uganda, the UPDF, we should look at the history. We should know the type of armies we have had and the army we have today. I am disturbed by the statement by the committee on page 4, recommending that we should have a historical high command of the UPDF. It is important for Ugandans to understand that life did not begin in 1980 and 1986. There are many people in this country who have contributed immensely to this particular sector. After independence you are aware very many officers in our armed forces did a great job. They defended this country; they protected the people of this country.

 

Later of course there was mess after mess because of the politics of the country, and our army did not retain the name that it had. So to only recognize those people, only those people who at the time of the fall of Kampala were the senior officers in 1986, these people who include my brother Mbabazi, Tinyefuza, Tumwine and others, in my opinion we are trying to erase the history of this country and assume that the history of this country started in 1986, when we captured power. I would have expected that if we want to have the big high command, we should look at the senior officers, retired and non-retired, to help the army and advise the President. There ate those from former armies like Uganda Army, those from whatever and then we will have an institution, which we think is really important for this country.

 

But to talk of history, the National Resistance Army and you forget that Uganda has been here and we have had armies that have done a good job. Tomorrow when you officers, hon. Mbabazi and others who are in the high command, when you are not there, the future generation will also be looking at what the NRM did. They will be looking at you in a completely different perspective. So, we should create a structure that we think is going to help this country.

 

We are talking about professionals. Surely, if we are going to talk about professionals as the Constitution demands, let us have these young men and women trained and allow those who want to retire to do so. There was a reference to the Public Service. In the Uganda Public Service when you want to retire you retire and there is no prohibition. I have never seen it in the Uganda Public Service - if I have served in the army because of the circumstances at the time and you stop me from leaving the army and you want to conscript me in this army and I am there when I do not want, still you will not get the service that you need. So, I would really request the committee that for your recommendation to be taken seriously and for this minority report, which has been appended not to be seriously discussed - because the circumstances that made some of us join this army and to go out of this army, are well known. So, you cannot say that when I enter I should be made to stay in this army when I do not want to.

 

We used to have in the Public Service what they call “bonding”. If you train me on government money, you can bond me for five years. Even in the army, if I enter the army and you train me, bond me for a certain period then I can provide that service. In the civil service we have doctors who are best trained in one specialty, they have left Public Service and you find we do not even have the right people to work in the Public Service. They are in politics; they go and join politics. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I request –(Interruption)

 

MS NANKABIRWA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank hon. Sabiiti for giving way. I listened to hon. John Kazoora and hon. Jack Sabiiti, and there is a situation that is created by their submissions that there is a submission from the report which bars members of the UPDF holding political office from going. As far as I know and as far as the report is concerned, the report is saying there must be a procedure and the regulations that is followed by the institution. There is no report that is denying the Officers chance from retiring from the institution, but it is the procedure that we are trying to establish. What procedure, is it automatically from the political office or you should go back to the institution and apply? So, as I continued listening to hon. Jack Sabiiti, I got that implication which is not correct. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know whether he is not addressing the question of historicals who are required to remain part of the army. Is that what you are talking about, hon. Sabiiti?

 

MR SABIITI: Yes, the historicals, the senior officers who joined the army because of certain circumstances through an entrance, which was even not known. So, if they want to exit, why do you put some sort of a stoppage?

 

MAJ KAZOORA: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that my honourable sister, hon. Nankabirwa, referred to my contribution- probably she did not follow me properly. I was appealing to the authorities that be, that after passing this bill, I hope the exercise now will be smooth so that I do not apply and stay even without a reply of saying, “You are not leaving or you are leaving for three, four or five years.” I had wanted to engage myself in certain business but I could not because of military discipline; I have lost that money. This is the kind of situation I am talking about, and not that I have not read their report to understand it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Sabiiti, please conclude.

 

MR SABIITI: Thirdly, we are trying to look at how we de-tribalize this army. If you look at this army, because of history, we are finding it a problem to call it a national army because if you look at the Officers, those who are from General to whatever, we are finding it a problem. We want this army actually to be saved so that we retain the best; and those that came in because of the history of where we came from, let them go out. But even if you want to retain them, put them in historical high command. We have a few people from the same area; surely this army does not belong to anybody, it should be a national army. So, really I have a lot of misgivings, particularly when we are going for multiparty politics, we are going to have a lot of problems. You have a historical high command of people from the same area, may be from the same party and it is going to be a problem. So really, I appeal to the minister and the committee not to allow that structure of historicals in this bill.

 

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I heard hon. Kayizzi who was presenting the paper saying that this Parliament is taking over the duties of the relevant institutions. I think really this Parliament is empowered under the law to make laws, and if they can amend the army statute, they can amend whatever, they are not interfering, but they are doing their duty as Parliament. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

DR JOHNSON NKUUHE (Isingiro County South, Mbarara): I thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the committee Chairperson and the ministers for really distilling this enormous bill and then coming up with this report. The bill was given long ago, I had a chance to look through it; it was a very big bill and I am glad that something has come out although there are some areas of controversy.

 

First of all, I would like to say that I am glad that something is coming because the welfare of soldiers is of concern to a lot of us. I know young boys from my constituency who were in Congo, they left, went to Sudan and some of them went elsewhere. Their families have actually broken down because they have not gone on leave for five years. Mr minister, how can you as a lawyer really run an institution that does not really allow people to go on leave for so many years? I think that is really unfair because these are people who do not get a lot of money and they have families, and you find that they are away from their families for extended periods. So, I hope this law will address some of these concerns.

 

The second point is that normally a law should not have eyes; the lawyers say a law should never have eyes. I attended a diploma course in legislative drafting and my professor told me that when you are making a law you should imagine a law 10 years, 20 years or 50 years from now; it will be relevant. So, if we want to remove the eyes in the law, then I think we can understand and this would come as we discuss this law itself.

 

The third point is that an army can make or break a country. The soviet army was one of the most – the soviets spent a lot of money on their military, but unfortunately they forgot to balance the military with the civilian economy. So, all the best engineers, all the best scientists, all the best brains would go to the military and they forgot the civilian economy; so, you have to really balance this. So, when we professionalise an army, we should look at what the army is spending, what it is consuming and try to balance it with the economy because the army is really dependent on the civilian economy.

 

Now, the controversial areas, the ones I found are the treatment of women officers. I do not think pregnancy is a crime; it is actually a biological process without which we would not be here. So, I do not see why they should punish people for doing their biological function and continuing the human race.

 

Secondly, the modern army values brain more than muscle. So, the women’s brain is as big as my brain, they just happen to have – so in the modern army programming we are going to find the rockets, determining the angles of all those things; they do not need muscle at all. So, we should really look at an army, 20, 30 or 50 years that is dependent more on technology and programming rather than just running and shooting; that is outdated.

 

The other was the presidential brigade, and I do not know what the argument was, because this committee was trying to be so careful. Sometimes the report was very vague; I do not know what it was that they were talking about the presidential brigade. But the arguments I hear out there is that the presidential brigade is too big for just one man. You see we are 24 million Ugandans. So we have a whole brigade guarding one person and then another four brigades guarding the rest of us. That is not really fair.

 

The retirement of political soldiers: I call them political soldiers because most of the guys who are here went to the bush and for a good reason, and then they achieved what they did. Now they want to go, I think they should let them go because after all, hon. Nankabirwa, if you want soldiers, those who want to stay can actually apply and stay. In fact it is only the military where if you want to leave, they try to go through a hard process. In other areas, if you want to leave, you leave. In fact they are very happy to let you go. Considering the unemployment we have, there are so many people who would like to join the Army, so why do you want to retain others who do not want?

 

The historical high command: Let us assume the law has no eyes. Imagine the law, ten years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, what will be the relevance of this historical high command? -Totally irrelevant, so scrap it.

 

Finally, I want the Minister to do this exercise for me: Get pins of three colors, pins with red dots, pins with blue dots and pins with green and give them to all the soldiers. Get the map of Uganda, and ask them to put pins where they come from. The red dots for senior officers, the blue dots for junior officers and the green dots for non-commissioned officers. My impression is that there will be the concentration of red dots in one corner and there may be a concentration of blue dots in another and that should really cause concern, because access to all these resources and to the jobs and so on, especially in the military, should be balanced across the whole nation. Otherwise, we will run into all sorts of political problems and then we will try to use the military to solve them. The military is not good at solving political problems. You solve them through political means. So let the recruitment be on that fair basis so that everybody feels part of Uganda Army and therefore, -

 

CAPT. MATOVU: Thank you, colleague for giving way. This issue of spreading of ranks where we come from has been surfacing on and off. I think we need to resolve it. Whereas some Members are worried about the top brass, some of us are even worried about the lower brass. An Army is like a pyramid there is the top, the middle and the base. When we look at the structure now, actually some of us are worried about the base of the pyramid. Look at recruitment through the quotas; we have been given other districts, some districts do not fill their quotas, others finish their quotas.

 

Look at thorough integration of forces, the various labour groups that we have had in this country. Out of that alone, some regions have accessed more in take. You know that, I do not need to elaborate. Look at the auxiliary forces we have, the Amukas, the Rhino. Look at the private security companies we have in the country. Who are the majority in these ranks?

 

So actually if we are talking about security, we are talking about a modern Army, a nationalistic Army, to me I think we should emphasize that. Otherwise, that historical perspective should not derail our debate to forget the bottom. Actually as an officer in the Army, I am worried about the bottom of the pyramid, who are at the bottom? I thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, conclude.

 

DR NKUUHE: In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for giving the information because in fact that goes along my line. The red dots, the blue dots and the green dots: so you are worried about the green dots. I want the dots to be spread evenly and therefore that is part of monitoring and evaluation and I think if we do it, then we shall avoid problems in the future, which are usually very, very costly. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

PROF. LATIGO (Agago County, Pader): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like also to thank the Minister and the Ministry of Defence for bringing this bill before us, and the committee for their report.

 

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, as I went through the Bill and then the report that was given to us today, a number of questions started churning in my mind, and I would want to address those. But there is one matter that has been moving which I believe that we should not address emotionally. This is the issue of pregnancy in the Forces, and particularly even when you are just a recruit.

 

The Army is an institution that demands a lot of sacrifice and discipline. If a recruit now goes and becomes pregnant, even with the use of condoms now available, then you must worry about the kind of Army you want to create with those kinds of people. Therefore, without disregarding the issue of gender, I think when a person decides to join the Army the person must play by the rules that the institution demands. (Interruptions)

 

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Speaker, is it in order for the hon. Member to start talking about rules and laws, which are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution? When I did make my contribution, I highlighted those aspects in the Constitution, which fundamentally give women a right to employment and participating in economical and social activities, as well as guaranteeing the states protection. Is he in order, Madam Speaker?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now hon. Ogenga, you need to reconcile the right to employment together with Article 33, which says it is the duty of the state actually to provide facilities for women, to protect them, their rights, taking into account their unique status and natural maternal functions in society. You also need to reconcile it with the article on the right to form a family. The Constitution says anybody above 18 has a right to start a family. You must reconcile all those when making your contribution.

 

PROF. LATIGO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I made the statement I made, I was not in any way disregarding what hon. Dora Byamukama said. It was an opinion I formed before she spoke and I thought that as a Member of Parliament, I would express that opinion here. But I accept that those rights are there.

 

Now joining the Army is a deliberate decision you make. You choose between being a housewife, a teacher or something and you choose to go and join the Army.

 

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Speaker, I am perturbed because procedurally you had ruled and for your information, some of these women are made pregnant by the senior officers.

 

PROF. LATIGO: Anyway, I had said that this was a matter that I would address as a by-the-way, and I think we will come to that and debate it substantially because I think it would be important for us to agree. But, Madam Speaker, when you read this report and the report concurs with certain key recommendations in the bill then you ask yourself, what is the spirit of this law and where does this law intend to take us as a country? And that is where I have a big problem because, for instance, if you look at page 3 item three in the report says: ”The UPDF institution would gladly work with and operate along with civilians who appreciate their constitutional mandate, challenges, constraints and threats.” Then on page 6(h), the report again says, “The course invariably has to transform a civilian relaxed, soft, into a military-minded being in the interest of the country, the people and UPDF.”

 

In those two statements, a discerning reader would see something that must cause fear to this country because this committee, in those two statements, is treating the UPDF as some unique entity distinct from this country and its institution. Because to say that “being in the interest of the country, the people and the UPDF” what is that interest of UPDF, which is different from the interest of the country and its people? This is very serious, and maybe in this then you begin to see the relevance of the minority report because that minority report is probably defending that UPDF interest, which is different from the interest of the country and of its people.

 

I come to the minority report and I dare say that the way it is authored, it is obviously intended to defend a position, which should not cause any crisis at all because the UPDF that are now in this House as representatives of constituents would not be in this House if this law had been in place and if the Movement system was not in place. Therefore, we must recognize that the circumstance of those who have already tasted politics is a transitional circumstance that we should provide for, and the recommendation of the committee is ready to provide for us to move from that transition where the UPDF will now be responsible for the affairs of the Army without this close linkage between the civil responsibility of my Captain there, my Major there and many other UPDF officers who represent constituencies. I think we should not have taken this so badly that we even have to call meetings to tell people that this must go. Let this transition go and the UPDF is free.

 

Secondly, when you come to the organs of UPDF, UPDF Council, High Command and the question of historical High Command and, Madam Speaker, allow me to dwell on this a bit because I want to bring this aspect. If you look at the composition and they are talking about historical members first, the historical High Command. The Chairperson of this Committee will tell us whether they actually called the historical High Command to their committee, interacted with them to see what value they will add to the structure of the new UPDF.

 

Two, I have looked through this Constitution. The historical High Command, all these groups that are now coming into the Army were never saved when the UPDF was formed by this Constitution in 1995. Now, under what provision of our law are you going to bring these organs or bodies or individuals who are not recognized anywhere in our Constitution, to become again part of the UPDF, which was formed under that Constitution? I dare again say that when the NRA went to the bush, it fought against governments and by historical mistake or fault or whatever, the groupings in the NRA were fairly distinct in terms of geographical origin or ethnicity.

 

I think it is incumbent upon us as Ugandans who want to see peace and unity to try and resolve what was the historical factor by avoiding stagnation in our thinking, and avoiding going back to those things that definitely will hurt some of us and will make us see the intent of this law and the UPDF that they want to create under this law has been motivated. Therefore, I really beg that when we come to debating this bill, considering the clauses of this bill, those aspects about UPDF High Command and those aspects of those historical officers who are supposed to be in the Army Council by virtue of being officers as at 26th January 1986, that those get eliminated. Because what if those guys are now politicians and the law does not allow politicians to be in the Army, and they are not politicians that can take care of the Army by virtue of the offices they hold constitutionally, what happens?

 

Let us imagine that in 2006 the NRM/O loses to FDC, which is very likely, what would be the relevance of this historical High Command? And what if at that time FDC decides to amend this Constitution and those who are in the historical High Command decide to resist would we, by just fighting for sentiments, have introduced an element of instability that we had hoped that with the people like the honourable minister going to the bush would resolve? I really appeal to everybody that we should really consider this.

 

Lastly, I was looking at this bill and I was wondering because if I were to pick this bill I would ask myself, where can I know how our Army is constituted in terms of ranks? Because there is no provision that tells me either in a schedule or in some relevant clauses what constitutes Army ranks in our Army. Is it not important that those ranks are introduced as a Schedule so that we know that the highest rank that you can attain in the Army under our law is this? Otherwise, I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

 

7.04

MR JAMES KUBEKETERYA (Bunya County East, Mayuge): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to add my voice to that of other honourable colleagues. On page 5 observation (a) they say: “Dismissing pregnant female cadets and recruit trainees is not being gender sensitive.“ In my opinion I would think that this is being humane. First of all, if we are going to say that a female cadet is free to be pregnant during training I think we shall be inhuman here and we shall end up having stillbirths and maybe we may end up having the mother dying. So, I would say let us try to be very realistic and humane because if we allowed that in secondary schools girls are free to be pregnant we would not be having proper output. So, I think here we are really being fair by saying if one is pregnant she should be dismissed because there is a provision for her to come and retake this course.

 

The other bit is that I know that discipline is really embedded within the Army. So, if you are got pregnant when you are training it seems you are undisciplined and there is going to be inconsistence in administration of the people who are actually conducting the training because we shall have those inconsistencies.

 

So, in my view, I would think this is being human other than being gender insensitive as stated. I know we can stick to the Constitution but let us try to be humane. We are trying to say, this trainee should not leave as a corpse she should leave training when she has come out alive. On page 6 – (Interruption)

 

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Speaker, when we are talking about the law especially the Constitution, issues of being humane do not take precedence. Therefore, in your so-called humane manner, if what you do contradicts the Constitution and if what you do denies women equal opportunities, then what you are legislating is unconstitutional.

 

Madam Speaker, is it in order for the Member holding the Floor to propose that this honourable House breaches the Constitution in a so-called act of humaneness? Is he in order?

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think I have indicated to you that in making your contributions you should reconcile yourself with the provisions of the Constitution, either distinguish them and give us direction of how we should go about breaching the Constitution because, these are constitutional provisions. So, also address the constitutional provisions how we should avoid them if it is necessary to avoid them.

 

MR KUBEKETERYA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Since I had left that point I think I should proceed. On page 6 (i) they say: “Any person interfering with the process of transforming a willing civilian into military minded being deserves a harsh punishment…” I would like to get a clarification from the chairman, how harsh is this punishment going to be? What is the magnitude of the harshness? Is this person going to be subjected to a firing quad, a court martial? I think you have not been clear there. So, I wanted that clarification.

 

On page 7 they say: “The discontinued cadet should not be a burden to the UPDF, given the latter’s budgetary constraints.” Can I have more clarification on this? What burden are you referring to here for somebody who has been either discontinued and maybe after having conceived?

 

The other one is the recommendation saying: “Delayed marriage and reproduction is in the interests of all stakeholders.” I do not know, is this one a recommendation? If it is, then I think it is really lacking there is nothing clear there. Can we say that you have recommended that delayed marriage and reproduction is in the interests of all stakeholders. That one is a bit lacking. Either it is just an observation but I do not think it is a recommendation. I thank you.

 

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it seems some Members are thinking deeply about the contents of the report so I would like to adjourn the proceedings today to 2.00p.m. tomorrow so that we may continue. So, the House is adjourned to 2.00p.m. tomorrow.

 

(The House rose at 7.06p.m. and adjourned until Wednesday, 15 September 2004 at 2.00p.m.)