Parliament of Uganda Hansard - Third Session, Third Meeting - 23 March 2005

Wednesday, 23 March 2005

Parliament met at 2.40 p.m. in Parliament House, Kampala.

PRAYERS

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

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like you to join me in welcoming 62 history students from Nabisunsa Girls’ School, together with their teachers. (Applause). You are most welcome.

Secondly, for some time now you have been inquiring about the display of merchandise in the central lobby and I did undertake that we shall work out some guidelines on how it should be done. So, henceforth the displays will take place in the members’ lounge, next to the canteen. This is for your convenience. I know that you do not have time to go to the shops to look for these items, but at the same time it will not affect the dignity of the House. So the displays will take place in the members’ lounge and notice will be put at the gate for you to go there when there is merchandise.

The third issue concerns the demonstrations. As I informed you yesterday, the public has a right to demonstrate but at the same they do not have to disturb the work of this Parliament. So from now on, the gardens on Nile Avenue, Plot 13-15 Sir Apollo Kaggwa Road, popularly known as the “Luweero Gardens”, have been designated as the place where demonstrators can assemble. Instead of coming to block the main gate, they will go to the “Luweero Gardens”, on the other side of Parliament.

We shall also require those who intend to demonstrate to notify the Clerk to Parliament 48 hours in advance so that necessary arrangements can be made for them to be received by whoever they want to see. And, we shall require the Inspector General of Government to take charge of the demonstrators outside the gate and how they move up to here, because our responsibility begins when they enter our compound. What happens on the road and other places, that is the responsibility of the Inspector General of Government. We hope that will enable the members to move in and out of the Parliament to do their work without being disrupted. By doing that we feel that on the one hand we shall allow them to come but at the same time we know that they do so in an orderly manner. Thank you.

2.44

MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia-Bugwe County North, Busia): This is a word of thanks, Madam Speaker. I take this opportunity on behalf of a number of my colleagues who received Bibles in their pigeonholes, to thank the donor. (Applause).

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is it reverend John Major?

MAJ. KAZOORA: Madam Speaker, I am informing hon. Aggrey Awori that actually I am one of those who received the Bibles and when I opened it I was attracted to one verse in Numbers 30:1. It is a short one and it says; “Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: ‘This is what the Lord commands: When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said’.” (Applause)

Madam Speaker, I thank the Compassion Ventures for this wonderful donation. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I also received a Bible so let me take the opportunity to thank the anonymous donor - because I do not know who sent me that Bible - for taking care of our spiritual needs.

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, to finish my statement, I would like to also appeal to my brothers of the Islamic faith to do us a similar favour with the Koran, because we appreciate their word.

MS TIPERU: I would like to inform honorable colleagues that in Parliament we also have copies of the Koran in the Parliamentary Mosque and we are going to endeavor, through the Imam, to see to it that all your pigeonholes are equipped with copies of the Holy Koran.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Imam of Parliament want to say something?

2.47

MR LATIF SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, I thank you so much and indeed I am also very grateful to the Christians who have donated to us the Bibles. The Korans are also on the way, in all languages.

I have, however, risen on a point of concern. We discussed extensively, we raised our concerns in as far as the registration exercise is concerned, and we were assured by the minister that the exercise was going to run smoothly. But as we talk now the exercise is at a snail’s pace. The way it is being handled leaves a lot to be desired. We have only one day left, that is tomorrow, and the information we are getting is that at the registration centres, the registers are not there and those who are there with cameras, they are lacking films, those with films do not have cameras.

Madam Speaker, if that can be the case in Kampala District, where the headquarters of the Electoral Commission are just a stone throw away, how about in other areas? -(Interruptions)

MR KIKUNGWE: Madam Speaker, the information reaching me indicates that out of the 5,000 cameras that were bought for the Electoral Commission, 3,000 are not in place and that is why this exercise is taking this shape. The 3,000 cameras have been stolen. We would like to get this information from the minister; he should confirm whether the Electoral Commission is able to take the exercise up to the parish level. Thank you.

MRS OKURUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to add my voice to those of members, because my people are saying that the exercise is not moving well and there is only one camera per sub-county. There is no way everybody will register, among those people who are supposed to register. And they would like to request for a different time for students during vacation. They are asking for it to be extended, otherwise most people will not register. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honorable members, last week we had a debate on this matter and the minister made certain undertakings -(Interruption)

MR SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, I just wanted members to give information because it is very important. I believe that the role of the Electoral Commission is to ensure that we have free and fair elections, but we cannot have free and fair elections when the registration exercise is not handled in the best way possible. At some registration centers I was informed that those who do not know how to write were denied the chance, that the moment you go there and say you do not know how to write, the officers just send you back saying, “No, our work is for you to come and fill the forms.”

I believe that the Electoral Commission has to do something urgently so that we could have free and fair elections. And if we put it in parishes - because they told us that people who want to register should go to parishes - in Kampala the parishes are not all that big. But in rural areas the parishes are very big, they are equivalent to a constituency in urban areas. So, it is my humble request to the minister that if this exercise is really to be meaningful, let us have extension and also implement what we are supposed to implement. Everybody should be allowed to register and the exercise goes on smoothly, Madam Speaker.

MR KIBANZANGA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am being perturbed by the behavior and character –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that something else? Let us finish with the voter registration. Hon. Ruzindana, you wanted to say something about voters? Is it something different? Okay, Minister of Justice, you heard the complaints of the members.

2.52

THE MINISTER OF STATE, JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (Mr Adolf Mwesige): Well, Madam speaker, I made a statement to this Parliament last week about the exercise, which was scheduled to take two weeks by the Electoral Commission. I did explain that it could not take longer because of the resource constraints the Commission is facing. The Members of Parliament did agree to an extension of the exercise for three more days; that extension has been effected by the Electoral Commission and, therefore, the update exercise should end tomorrow.

However, I did point out that there is going to be another exercise after the next budget has been adopted, for one month, to complete the update exercise of voters countrywide. That is the information I would like to give and that is the information I gave then. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

2.54

MR WADRI KASSIANO (Terego County, Arua): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to seek this humble clarification from the minister responsible. In my own understanding, since every district has got the office of the Electoral Commission Registrar, I would have imagined that the issue of update of voters’ registers should be on a day-to-day basis. Why do we only have to wait until an election is around the corner that we begin thinking about updating of these registers?

In my mind it seems we are only concerned about the forthcoming referendum, which is supposed to be due in June. If we had all these things as part of the schedule of the district registrars, we would not go into these problems. The issue now is, there are many people who have matured to the age of voting and they would want to vote but now the machines and manpower on the ground are wanting. How are you going to continue to deny Ugandans their constitutional right of electing their leaders and of taking important decisions that affect them and the country? I think we need to do something about it.

Could the minister be a little more flexible and not be so rigid as to say he has nothing more to do? Does he have to wait for next financial year when this referendum is going to be earlier than the operationalization of funds due the next financial year? Can he be a little more flexible? Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: We had a debate on this matter last week. Honorable members do not switch on those microphones until I have recognised you.

2.56

MR MIKE SEBALU (Busiro County East, Wakiso): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate the concerns that the minister has raised but my concern is the methodology that we are going to use even in that period that he is talking about. Currently you find there are two people carrying out this exercise, at least in my constituency, for every sub-county you have only two officers handling the exercise. In that case just extending the period may not solve the problem of easy accessibility and convenience to the people who are wishing to register.

I am wondering what the minister has in place in the next phase of registration in terms of facilities? They have talked about cameras; one camera per sub-county, whether you give it two months, it remains thin on the ground in terms of covering the whole sub-county. So, what is he preparing in terms of personnel because if we are registering at parish level, it would be logical that every parish has someone handling it. Having two people handling a whole sub-county is rather thin on the ground. Does he intend to look at some of these problems in the next phase so that parishes are accessed, we have more cameras and, therefore, wider coverage? That is my concern, Madam Speaker.

2.57

MR SEBULIBA MUTUMBA (Kawempe Division South, Kampala): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like the minister to come out straight and tell this august House that he has no resources, he has no money, and then we know exactly what amount of money he needs and what shortcomings he is faced with, instead of dancing around the whole issue. Otherwise, the way things are, this situation is not going to yield the required results. So, the minister should come out and tell us the exact amount of resources he needs, where we can borrow from other sources, then we can assist the whole process.

Even civic education, which was supposed to start on the 1st of March, has not taken place. So the minister, as I wind up with this clarification, should come out clean and tell us the amount of money he needs and we pass it through this House to make the exercise successful.

MR KIKUNGWE: Madam Speaker, my question was not answered. I gave information to –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question of the 3,000 cameras?

MR KIKUNGWE: Yes, and when I visited some of these places where they update from, they have no diskettes and they send away people who have come to update their records. It goes back to what hon. Sebuliba Mutumba is saying in terms of resources. So, I want to know from the minister, is it true that 3,000 cameras were stolen and can these people parade the cameras for inspection?

2.58

MR KEN LUKYAMUZI (Lubaga Division South, Kampala): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. My impression is that the answer of the minister has been very speculative. Matters related to elections cannot be speculated upon. Could the minister assure us whether the coming elections will not be marred as a result of the shortfall? He said we are going to renew the records after one month. When we renew how will that be related to the coming elections? Do you mean that only those who are intending to vote in the presidential and parliamentary elections will be the main beneficiaries of well-organised arrangements?

Otherwise, as Parliament we have a duty to ensure that the population we represent duly participates in the coming elections without any speculation. Short of that, the minister is liable to be taken on in serious terms.

2.59

MR MICHAEL MABIKKE (Makindye Division East, Kampala): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The information the minister has given to this House seems to be contradictory to what is on the ground. As I told you last week, I have been on the ground and in the whole of Makindye there is only one camera yet there are over 16 update centers. I was at the Electoral Commission offices this morning because several constituents of mine wish to have many people added to the lists.

I went to the Electoral Commission this morning and I talked to the Public Relations Officer of the Electoral Commission and he indeed assured me that despite tomorrow’s deadline, the Electoral Commission is ready and willing to receive as many people as possible who are willing to have their names on the register.

The information we are getting from the minister is to the effect that after tomorrow’s deadline there will be no more registration. Can the minister assure us that the information we are receiving from the Electoral Commission that even those who have not been able to register in the prescribed period will have an opportunity of going to the Electoral Commission and have their names added on the rolls – is true? We want to know whether this information is accurate. Can the minister also confirm that he is in touch with the Electoral Commission -(Interjection)- on the voters register?

3.01

MR CHRISTOPHER MBALIBULHA (Busongora County South, Kasese): Madam Speaker, I want us to be scientific. We have a population of 25 million people and in this dot.com era, the Electoral Commission and the Minister of Justice should know how many voters we have. He says he is closing the updating of the registers tomorrow. So what is your target? Have you registered all the voters? You should know them. What is the targeted number of the people you intend to register for voting so that you can end the exercise tomorrow? And are you aware that registration and voting is a right anyway?

3.02

MR NATHAN BYANYIMA (Bukanga County, Mbarara): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am puzzled when everybody talks of “no money, no money”. If we cannot get money for this particular, important exercise, which money shall we get? This is Parliament that votes money. The honourable minister is talking of lack of money –(Interjection)- we cannot afford to hear that song anymore. We are going in for an important exercise of democratizing this country and we talk of no money? I think the Minister of Finance should come out - because we are setting priorities among priorities - we want to know why money cannot be found to have enough cameras and enough money to pay the people to do the job. I thank you, Madam Speaker.

MR AMURIAT: Madam Speaker, information the House.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, but the information –(Interruption)

MR AMURIAT: It is related to hon. Byanyima’s contribution, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You know, information should come when the member is still on the Floor.

MR AMURIAT: He has yielded. (Laughter) Madam Speaker, I remember on the Floor of this House some time back, we were assured by government that money that would be necessary for the successful conducting of the referendum was available, and at the time Shs 30 billion had been earmarked for that exercise. I imagine that money included the process of registration as part of the commitment. I would like to learn from government where that money has gone, because it appears the whole argument of the minister rotates around lack of money; “The Electoral Commission does not have money!”

We have been told before that the price of democracy is high and we have been made to believe that but today government is telling us something else. Where has that Shs 30 billion evaporated to?

3.04

MR SITENDA SEBALU (Kyadondo County East, Wakiso): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My concern is about the students who are now still at school for example in senior secondary schools, who have reached voting age. They have not been given a chance to register and yet the registration ends very soon. I am asking -(Interjection)

HON. MEMBER: We cannot hear you.

MR SITENDA SEBALU: Thank you my colleague. My concern is about the students who are now at school. They have not been given a chance to register while at school. I want to know from the minister, when is he going to give the students a chance to also register because most of the students have reached the voting age of 18?

3.05

CAPT. GUMA GUMISIRIZA (Ibanda County North, Mbarara): Madam Speaker, I want to point out one serious point. This business of saying there is no money is unacceptable. There is money. There is money in this country, there is money under the Movement administration; there is money. In economics they say that if someone says, “I have no time”, he or she is saying that, “I have a list of priority things I want to do. What you are telling me is simply not one of the priorities”.

Time is always there. Similarly, money as a scarce resource is always there. When hon. Mwesige talks of scarce resources, yes they are scarce, but money is there. So, tell us as a government that streamlining registration in the country is not part of your priority. Otherwise, money is there.

Hon. Kibanzanga has asked about the target people you are looking at. You must look at the population figures of 2002 and look at people who are reaching the voting age and tell us the number of people that ought to vote including job transfers, deleting the deaths, and so on and so forth. What is your target? The question of money is out honourable members. Money is always there and the President has always said in his own words that money is not a problem. The problem is about planning in his government.

MR OKUPA: Madam Speaker, I am just seeking a clarification from the honourable minister. Last week he did inform the House that the staff doing the registration update are two per parish. Is that the correct number that the Electoral Commission is recruiting? I am raising this issue because in Kasilo County there are two officers handling the registration updates per sub-county. Two people per sub-county who do not have transport!

Hon. Nasasira, maybe you should allow the honourable minister to listen to this issue because it is a serious one affecting the voters of Kasilo County. It may also be affecting the voters in your constituency, and other constituencies. Mr Minister, two officers cannot handle a sub-county, if we are to do serious work. They do not have transport, they do not have this facilitation and more so, it is only Shs 25,000 that you are giving these people.

In fact one of them resigned. She said she could not handle this work. So, I need a clarification from you; is it two people per parish or two per sub-county? And if it is two per sub-county, they will not be able to handle this work within this time and we still appeal to you to extend the time of this registration update. Thank you.

3.14

THE MINISTER OF STATE, JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (Mr Adolf Mwesige): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The updating exercise, as members know, is continuous. That is the principle. In other words, a voter can access the roll at the Electoral Commission; he can also access the roll at the district and register. That is possible.

The exercise going on now and the exercise that will be done for one month after this one is what we call concentrated registration of voters. It is to ensure that as many voters turn up for registration as possible. So, as I said last time, there will be another exercise for one month after this exercise, to make sure that all voters who are eligible to vote are registered.

In the next registration exercise, to answer hon. Sebalu, we will definitely make sure that we have reasonably sufficient staff to carry out the registration of voters. As of now, the number of registered voters is 8,300,000 voters duly registered. This exercise is meant to add on that number of voters. Of course our target - if members want to know - we would want to have all Ugandans eligible to vote to be reflected on the voters’ register. That is our target.

“Three thousand cameras have been stolen”, I cannot verify that fact now so the honourable member will excuse me for today. I will go back to the Electoral Commission, verify the allegation and come back to this House and give you the correct picture, on Tuesday.

MR SEBALU: The information I would like to give is that as far as we are concerned here, hon. Kikungwe is a suspect. He can help you to investigate this matter. (Laughter).

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members.

MR MWESIGE: I take that information. Madam Speaker, the process of civic education has actually began because the Electoral Commission has advertised -(Interruption)

MR LUKYAMUZI: I am standing on a point of order following the remarks, which have been made by hon. Sebalu. We should set the record straight. Hon. Kikungwe gave us information to the effect that about 3,000 cameras are reported stolen. That was information, which we all required, and the minister required it as well. Is it in order for hon. Sebalu to imply and insinuate that the information should lead to looking at hon. Kikungwe as a suspect other than a witness? (Laughter)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. What hon. Sebalu meant was that hon. Kikungwe has some information, which might be vital to establishing the whereabouts of those cameras. (Laughter).

MR MWESIGE: On civic education, Madam Speaker, the Electoral Commission has invited applications from civil society organizations, which would want to participate in the exercise. They are to apply, bid and be selected to carry out civic education. So the exercise of selecting civil society organizations for purposes of civic education has already began.

On the question of telling this House how much money the Commission would need to carry out an adequate update exercise, I will definitely bring the figures here on Monday for members to look at and make their input.

About the students, as I said last week the Electoral Commission will ensure that its staff are deployed at the schools especially when the update is taking place, when the students are at school, to make sure that the students are registered at school. In some schools in fact the Electoral Commission has been conducting this exercise.

The Government will have to sit and review the exercise and take members’ concerns into account, and come up with an appropriate remedy sooner than later. We are as concerned about the exercise as you are and we take your views very seriously. I promise that Cabinet will sit, review the entire exercise and find an appropriate remedy to all these problems you have raised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

3.16

MR CHRISTOPHER MBALIBULHA (Busongora County South, Kasese): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There is an issue I want to raise to the Leader of Government Business to clarify. It pertains to the political transition, the character, the behaviour and the utterances of our leaders. Unless this transition is led by responsible people we may end up in trouble.

In the Red Pepper of yesterday, while the President was in Ntungamo –(Interjection)- the Red Pepper of course - one of the leaders of the FDC was called a small dog by the President; a puppy. In the Monitor of today the President again called one of the leaders of the FDC, Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu, a small boy. In the same area, Ntungamo, a cabinet minister by the name of hon. Rukutana Mwesigwa closed the offices of the FDC.

I sincerely want the Leader of Government Business to tell us, what is this political transition all about? What do we intend to achieve out of the political transition? Where are you leading us to in this transition with such behaviour and character? If we cannot afford it as individuals, above and beyond these divides, why can the state not take charge –(Interruption)

MR SITENDA SEBALU: The honourable member holding the Floor is wearing a T-shirt. He is badly dressed. Is he in order?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member is wearing a Kaunda suit, which is allowed in our rules.

MR MBALIBULHA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker for your ruling. The T-shirt inside my suit is for the Forum for Democratic Change, and this is a Movement pen.

I really want the Leader of Government Business to explain something. The President is the fountain of honour. He can afford to leave Ofwono Opondo to abuse people but really the President should not abuse. He should be advised. In the Bibles we have been given today, there is a verse, which reads -the book and the verse are your homework - but it says that the fear of God and respect for your fellow man and woman is the source of knowledge. I thank you.

3.20

THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof. Apolo Nsibambi): I thank you, Madam speaker. Recently the Red Pepper said that I went to Mulago Hospital for treatment and I stepped in pupu. That story was total rubbish! I did not even care to correct it because when I read rubbish I just ignore it, and I have more serious matters to deal with. Now we are being told that according to this Red Pepper His Excellency said this and that, how do I know that this is a correct statement? How do I know?

3.22

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (Dr Crispus Kiyonga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think one key point has been made by the Rt hon. Prime Minister that matters that are in the press indeed should attract interest but we should not take them as the gospel truth.

The second point in supplementing what the Rt hon. Prime Minister said, I was at the fundraising functions in Kitwe, in hon. Ruzindana’s constituency. There were about 20 –(Interruption)

MR KIKUNGWE: Madam Speaker, some time back hon. Lukyamuzi was roasted in this House over a newspaper report, but the changing of goalposts has continued in this House. Is the hon. Kiyonga in order to say we should not depend on newspaper reports when there is a precedent to go by?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The National Political Commissar is saying we should not place too much value on the papers. That is all he was saying. I do think that is a problem.

DR KIYONGA: I thank you, Madam Speaker.

On what is attributed to the His Excellency the President at the fundraising in Kitwe, more than 20 members of this House were there, His Excellency the President spoke in a Runyankore proverb and that proverb is understood by all the people who come from that area. The meaning of that proverb is that when you have a big problem you need more experienced hands to solve the problem. That proverb was not intended to call anybody a dog, so I am surprised that my good friend and brother misunderstood it.

Lastly, just as I came into the House this afternoon I met hon. Ruzindana, with my good friend hon. Kassiano. We discussed this report attributed to hon. Rukutana and how he is said to have closed an office of the Forum for Democratic Change. We agreed that the right thing was for us to wait for hon. Rukutana and discuss this matter to see whether it has any value. So, I do not think this should cause us concern here. These matters will be followed up and if there is any action to be taken, that action will be taken.

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

INSPECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT REPORT TO PARLIAMENT, JULY-DECEMBER 2003

3.26

THE MINISTER OF STATE, ETHICS AND INTEGRITY (Mr Tim Lwanga): Thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. Members of Parliament. I have with me the Inspectorate of Government Report to Parliament, July to December 2003, submitted in accordance with Article 231(1) of the Constitution, which requires the IGG to submit an annual report to Parliament. I beg to present it to Parliament.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report will be committed to the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs for scrutiny. They will report back to this House.

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

REPORTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

3.27

THE MINISTER OF STATE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Dr Richard Nduhuura): Madam Speaker and honorable members, section 89(8) of the Local Governments Act, 1997 requires the Minister responsible for Local Governments to lay before Parliament the Reports of Local Government Public Accounts Committees.

I now wish to lay on the Table 157 Reports of the Public Accounts Committees of the following local governments as required by the provisions of the Local Governments Act referred to above: Adjumani District, Apac District, Arua District, Bushenyi District, Busia District, Gulu District, Hoima District, Iganga District, Kabale District, Kabarole District, Kalangala District, Kamuli District, Kampala District, Kanungu District, Kasese District, Katakwi District, Kayunga District, Kibaale District, Kitgum District, Kotido District, Kumi District, Kyenjojo District, Lira District, Masaka District, Masindi District, Mbale District, Mbarara District, Moyo District, Mpigi District, Mubende District, Mukono District, Nakapiripirit District, Ntungamo District, Pader District, Rakai District, Rukungiri District, Sironko District, Tororo District and Wakiso District. I beg to lay, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honorable minister, if there are districts, which were not read, what has happened?

DR NDUHUURA: Madam Speaker, that is very simple. It means we have not received the reports from the respective Local Government Account Committees of those districts.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reports are referred to our Local Government Accounts Committee for scrutiny. They will report back.

MR RUZINDANA: Madam Speaker, for which years are they? He did not mention the financial years; which years are they?

DR NDUHUURA: Madam Speaker, that was an oversight. For Adjumani District it is 2002, Apac District 2003, Arua District 2003, Bushenyi District 2002 and 2003, Busia District 2000 and 2004, Gulu District 2003 and 2004, Hoima District 2002 and 2003, Iganga District 2003, Kabale District 2001 and 2002, Kabarole District 2001 and 2003, Kalangala District 2001, Kamuli District 2001, Kampala District 2000 and 2003, Kanungu District 2004, Kasese District 2003, Katakwi District 2004, Kayunga District 2003 and 2004, Kibaale District 2002 and 2003, Kitgum District 2003, Kotido District 2002, Kumi District 2004, Kyenjojo District 2003 and 2004, Masaka District 2002 and 2003, Masindi District 2002, Mbale District 2002 and 2003, Mbarara District 2003 and 2004, Moyo District 2000 and 2002, Mpigi District 2004, Mubende District 2002 and 2003, Mukono District 2001 and 2002, Nakapiripirit District 2004, Ntungamo District 2003, Pader District 2003, Rakai District 1999, 2001 and 2002, Rukungiri District 2000 and 2003, Sironko District 2003, Tororo District 2002, 2003 and 2004, Wakiso District 2002, 2003 and 2004.

3.32

THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Prof. Tarsis Kabwegyere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to take this occasion to request Members of Parliament and indeed all leaders and the public to take interest in the expenditure of public funds in our districts. Those districts, which are recorded here as not having submitted up-to-date accounts of 2004, should be of interest to all of us. And if we come from those areas, please be of assistance by inquiring as to why the law has not been followed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honorable members, we do not debate papers that have been laid on the Table, surely!

3.33

DR JOHNSON NKUUHE (Isingiro County South, Mbarara): We are not debating; ours is a procedural matter. I would like to thank the minister for having preempted our anger because the rules are very clear. We should be receiving 2004 reports; I hear of 1999, 2000 and 2001. Does this ministry have people in charge? It is not a ritual for us to just receive reports. These are monitoring reports but they should be monitored every year. We are supposed to have all these reports up to 2003 and we should be receiving 2004 reports. I hope the minister can explain this, much as we shall look at these reports, definitely there is a role that the ministry can do and they should help us.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the Local Government Committee sits, please go there and express your views. The report will come back here and we shall debate it.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

3.34

MR JACOB OULANYAH (Omoro County, Gulu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek your leave, under rule 36(1), to make the following statement, which is a personal explanation.

On 15 March 2004, on the invitation of the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, a team of leaders of the Acholi sub-region traveled to the Hague, the headquarters of the ICC. The team was led by His Highness, Rwot David Onen Acana II, the Paramount Chief of the Acholi. The team members were Archbishop John Baptist Odama, Bishop Nelson Onono Onweng, Col Walter Ochora and two Members of Parliament, the hon. Jane Akwero Odwong and myself.

Upon this invitation we took the decision that our mission to the Hague would be to explain to the chief prosecutor the concerns of our people about the ICC investigations currently going on in Northern Uganda.

We chose three issues that we knew were of great concern to our people and we felt the chief prosecutor could clarify to the community and us.

1. Whether the national mechanisms based on both the existing legal framework, the Amnesty Act and the Traditional Justice and Reconciliation Systems, would form part of the source of information that would inform and guide the prosecutor in taking a decision to prosecute.

2. Whether his office recognised the constructive dialogue initiated by President Museveni and being implemented by Mrs Betty Bigombe towards a peaceful resolution to the Northern conflict and the continued call by the whole world to the parties to support the process.

3. Whether those persons who had already benefited from amnesty are still liable to investigation and eventual prosecution by the ICC.

We were mindful, Madam Speaker, of the justification that government gave in the referral statement to the prosecutor in December of 2003, which resulted in the prosecutor deciding to investigate and hold the persons with the greatest responsibility for these crimes to account for them.

The referral statement was in respect of Article 53(b) - I have a copy of the referral statement. For the benefit of members I would like to lay it on the Table later on. It states as follow:

“With respect to article 53, paragraph (b), any case arising from LRA crimes would be admissible under Article 17 of the ICC Statute because of the ‘inability’ of the Uganda judicial system to prosecute the crimes within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 3. The inability in this instance does not in any way imply the total or substantial collapse of the national judicial system within the preview Article 17(3), but nearly the ‘unavailability of the system, because Uganda is unable to obtain the accused’ since those most responsible are either sheltered in the Sudan, or in remote regions of Uganda for limited time periods, making arrests and prosecution difficult without international assistance. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the case is ‘of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the court’ as required by Article 17(1)(d).”

The referral went to say:

“Having exhausted every other means of bringing an end to this terrible suffering, the Republic of Uganda now turns to the newly established ICC and its promise of global justice. Uganda pledges its full co-operation to the prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of the LRA crimes, achievement of which is vital not only for the future progress of the nation, but also for the suppression of the most serious crimes of concern to the internal community as a whole.”

The referral concluded:

“Uganda has referred this situation to the ICC primarily because without international co-operation and assistance, it cannot succeed in arresting those members of the LRA leadership and others most responsible for the above mentioned crimes. Furthermore, Uganda is of the view that the scale and gravity of the LRA crimes are such that they are a matter of concern to the international community as a whole. It is thus befitting both from a practical and moral viewpoint, to entrust the investigation and prosecution of these crimes to the prosecutor of the ICC.”

We were painfully mindful, therefore, of the state of the insecurity that continues to confront our people in the camps, in Lukung and several other places where fresh attacks have been meted out on our people. These worry us. Our focus, therefore, is on the 1.6 million people still holed up in the state of permanent insecurity. Where is their hope?

We were further mindful of the statement of the President to the LRA that the Government would consider withdrawing the case referred to the ICC if the LRA could demonstrate willingness to end the conflict through a committed peaceful settlement.

We also knew that while there is no statute of limitation on criminal responsibility, there must be a limitation on how much suffering a particular community can be subjected to. How do we balance the interest of justice, the interest of the victims and our peoples’ desire for peace?

We agreed that the ICC investigations must continue and those found to be bearing the greatest responsibility should be held accountable. We also acknowledged that the current investigations that are going on have contributed to the pressure on the LRA to consider adopting methods that would not lead them to a trial in the Hague.

We are aware that the military pressure has taken its toll on the LRA resolve to continue with war and the peace dialogues have offered them the necessary confidence to pursue another line. The combination of all of them should be balanced and promoted. The prosecutor should periodically review any action that would stop the dialogue. Investigations and preparations should continue; nobody objects to this.

The chief prosecutor informed us that our invitation was part of his consultation with the affected communities and very soon he will be meeting the representatives of the other affected communities in West Nile, Lango, Teso and other affected communities.

Madam Speaker, let the records show that none of the persons herein before mentioned is opposed to the arrest and eventual prosecution of Joseph Kony and other leaders of the LRA, but are only weary of any action that would just expose the people to further danger. What will work in the end is what will count to our people.

May I now ask hon. Jane Akwero Odwong, Member of Parliament for Kitgum, to read to the House the joint statement issued after the several meetings we held with the chief prosecutor and other officials of the court? I thank you.

3.45

MRS JANE ODWONG (Woman Representative, Kitgum): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I move on to read the statement of the Acholi leaders and the International Criminal Court, allow me to comment on these few issues.

We did not travel to the Hague to defend Kony.

We went to the Hague to urge the ICC to increase the pace of investigations because as they operate now, it is like they are operating in a clandestine manner. Nobody knows the issues of the ICC even within our communities, and the country. We want them to make the work of the ICC more domesticated in terms of information.

We wanted to know how, together with the ICC, we could manage the notions and feelings of revenge within the communities, and also building relationships amongst the affected people.

We wanted to further the issue of dialogue with the affected people, in order to create further coalition.

And even when dialogue is going on, prosecution should continue.

Children in captivity should still be catered for.

Those who have surrendered under the amnesty law should not be prosecuted. We got word from the chief prosecutor that those who have already benefited and surrendered under the amnesty law will not be prosecuted. That is a major message that our people were really yearning to hear, especially those who escaped from captivity and some of the rebel commanders who surrendered.

Last but not least, I also wish to state categorically and to be very distinct in what I utter that my going to the Hague with the Acholi community leaders was not in any way a statement that we are anti-government, no.

Madam Speaker -(Interruption)

MR AWORI: Point of Order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is with great reluctance that I stand up to call my honourable colleague to order. My other colleague who has made a personal statement made it abundantly clear to us and we heard him clearly requesting that you accord his colleague, who accompanied him to the Hague –(Interjections)- oh, they went together as a team, I beg your pardon. I do withdraw. Is it in order for her to start explaining in detail a matter, which could have been reserved for a debate or further clarification under the appropriate rule?

Otherwise, it will be very difficult for us to query what she is saying, to seek clarification, when the rules prohibit us. I wish she would stick to the request of hon. Oulanyah that she reads a statement from the Hague. Is she in order to go outside our Rules of Procedure?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let her proceed as provided under rule 36.

MRS AKWERO ODWONG: Thank you for your wise ruling, Madam Speaker. I now proceed to read the text.

“The International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor. Press release No. ICC-OTP 205.042-EN, the Hague, 18 March 2005.

Statements by the ICC Chief Prosecutor and the visiting delegation of Acholi leaders from Northern Uganda.

On 16th to 18th March 2005, leaders of the Acholi community of Northern Uganda visited the International Criminal Court in the Hague, the Netherlands, at the invitation of the Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who heard their views on the situation in Northern Uganda.

The delegation was led by Rwot David Onen Acana II, and included Archbishop John Baptist Odama, Bishop Onono Onweng, hon. Jane Akwero Odwong, Member of Parliament, Kitgum; Col. Walter Ochora and hon. Jacob Oulanyah, Member of Parliament, Omoro County.

The delegation held talks with Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo and other court officials. The following are statements by the Acholi delegation and by Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo.

Statement by the Acholi leaders:

Having been invited by the chief prosecutor, our mission to the Hague was to explain the concerns of our people about the ICC investigation currently going on in Northern Uganda. We have held very successful meetings with him and now we have understood his position, mandate, independence and also the limitations he has in what he can do and what he has no control over.

Arising from these meetings, the prosecutor was asked to address the following:

1. That he is mindful of our traditional justice and reconciliation process.

2. That he is also mindful of the process and dialogue. That is why he is continually assessing the situation.

3. That whoever already benefited from the amnesty will not be investigated or prosecuted by the ICC.”

I now read the statement by the ICC Chief Prosecutor:

“I invited the Acholi leaders in order to hear their views about the situation in Northern Uganda. Under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor has the responsibility to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes, taking into account the interest of victims, and justice. I am mindful of traditional justice and reconciliation processes, and sensitive to the leaders’ efforts to promote dialogue with different actors in order to achieve peace.

The prosecutor has a clear policy to focus on those who bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities committed. I also recognize the vital role to be played by national and local leaders to achieve peace, justice and reconciliation.

We agreed on the importance of continuing this dialogue in pursuit of the common goal of ending the violence.”

That is the end of the statement. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DR NABWISO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I get the impression that this should have been a report to Parliament so that we can have time to discuss it. As it is now, it looks like it is a personal statement over which we are not allowed to make comments, and I am wondering whether this was really a personal statement. It seems to me that our two Colleagues were really telling us about government’s position, which they went to explain, and what happened in the Hague. So, may I ask for guidance on this matter? I think it should be a report to us so that we can discuss it.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it cannot be a report to this House because the Speaker did not send them to the Hague. Therefore, we were not expecting a report from them. However, last week one of the members complained about the members being in the Hague and what they had gone to do there. So, this came to explain what they had gone to do. But they were not on a parliamentary mission. It was entirely the peace efforts of the leaders of Northern Uganda.

3.55

MR HILLARY ONEK (Lamwo County, Kitgum): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday I expressed concern over the mission to the Hague led by Rwot Acana in the company of Members of Parliament and other leaders from the region. Definitely that statement I made arose out of the anguish we are going through in Lamwo County and Acholi sub-region, particularly the recent upsurge of violence where up to today about 14 women in my constituency have had their lips cut off - and the rest of it - which you know.

My statement came about because; first of all there was no wide consultation among ourselves as leaders of the Acholi sub-region.

Secondly, there were press statements, which you all read, about the mission to the Hague. Because of that I came out strongly that Acholi leaders were not collectively responsible for that.

However, yesterday we held the meeting of the Acholi Parliamentary Group, Madam Speaker. The position of the delegation to the Hague was explained clearly by the delegation and we realised, as the Acholi Parliamentary Group, that there was a communication gap. Therefore, the explanation they put before Parliament is accepted by the Acholi Parliamentary Group because at the time when I issued that statement I was really worked up after – the previous day four women had their lips cut off in my place. I made very serious statements here some of which were touching on the leadership. So, for that reason I would like to apologize to those who were affected by my statement. (Applause)

But I would like to affirm to you, Madam Speaker, that I will not back from my position that Kony must be severely punished for the hell he has created in Acholi land and the northern part of Uganda. Thank you, very much.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Honourable members, there is not going to be a debate on this matter; these are personal explanations.

3.58

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have been conducting, on behalf of Government, the relationship between Government of Uganda and the International Criminal Court in respect of the matter of the referral of this case to the court by Uganda.

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, rules governing past statements of personal nature are very clear. Madam Speaker, the only way out of this difficult situation in order to permit another person to add to the statement is to apply rule 1(9)(a) in order to suspend rule 36(a) so that we can debate it. Is it in order for my honourable colleague who is familiar with the Rules of Procedure and could have actually sought your permission to apply rule 9, in order to wave rule 36 and enable him as a minister who has been involved in a matter to explain in a greater details this particular position. Is he in order to be totally oblivious of the rules and procedure of the august House and disregard your previous ruling?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now honourable minister, you know, this matter was raised by one of the members, I do not recall who. So I expect you actually - it will come up in your response. So, let us close the matter of personal explanation and when you are responding you can bring it up.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

4.00

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, PLANNING (Mr Isaac Musumba): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Honourable members, we did undertake to make a statement to this House on matters relating to the restructuring and reorganizing of the Uganda Revenue Authority.

Madam Speaker, and honourable members, as you are aware revenue mobilisation and efficient service delivery to taxpayers requires an optimum and optimally staffs tax administration that uses modern administrative systems. This is more so in Uganda where the levels of revenue collection is still low due to a poor culture, corruption and perceived inequity in the administration and enforcement of tax laws. It is therefore, imperative that to improve revenue collection the reforms in URA be undertaken to ensure that the organization is manned by a highly skilled, motivated and efficient staff capable of offering quality services to taxpayers and using modern management systems.

Madam Speaker, URA had a simple organisational structure in its initial years consisting of a Customs Department and Internal Revenue Department plus a few support units. Over its 13 years of existence, the simple structure become complex through splitting of departments and creation of new ones as URA tried to cope with the changing circumstances brought about by developments in the global economy and in Uganda. The changes were piece meal and not designed consciously to fit smoothly within the institution. This led to loss of focus and it created unnecessary bureaucracies leading to long and laborious decision-making processes.

Madam Speaker, URA is in the process of restructuring both its organization structure and its personnel hence the requirement for a new structure. The new structure has been necessitated by the following:

1. The new changes are necessary consequent upon our accession to the new East African Community Customs Union. This new arrangement has imposed on URA certain requirements in terms of organization of the Customs Department. Some functions are being integrated within the East African region, others are being phased out, while some are to be reduced.

2. Emphasis in revenue collection is now shifting to domestic taxes. This means that we must rationalize the current tax collection efforts internally. This involves reducing tax administration fragmentation by consolidating all functions within the Domestic Taxes Department that fully integrating collection of direct and indirect taxes.

3. There is need to reduce on bureaucracy and duplication being subjected to the taxpayers. The hitherto applicable structure had several layers of bureaucracy and this resulted in extra hardship to taxpayers, delays in revenue collection and extra expenses to taxpayers.

4. There was also need to enhance transparency in the tax body while strengthening controls and establishing integrity-building initiatives in the organisation.

5. Initiatives to re-engineer and modernize tax collection are to be more IT based so as to lead to less reliance on human beings in areas such as assessment, return processing, auditing and tracking.

6. De-layering and right sizing the institution so that costs of collection are brought down.

7. Out sourcing of non-core activities of the URA like fleet management and estate management consistent with the general policy of government to divest itself from such non-core activities. Madam Speaker, the organization structure of URA has been rationalized to focus on the core function of URA, which is revenue collection. The structure was also de-layered reducing on the layers if I may clarify Madam Speaker.

We had several layers; we had Revenue Officers, Senior Revenue Officers, Principal Revenue Officers, Assistant Commissioners, Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and so on. So these are being reduced such that the total organisational structure has reduced from 11 layers to seven layers. The old structure had 10 departments; there were also 11 layers in each of those departments with 53 management positions and a total staff of 2,046 people. The new structure has five departments, seven layers and 28 management positions, which brings a total staff of 1,804 people required. So, Madam Speaker, that in itself gives a difference of 242 people who the URA will have to shed off from its personnel.

The benefits that will accrue to the organisation as a result of restructuring:

The new structure will lead to a stronger tax administration and will improve the GDP ratio that has currently stagnated at 12 per cent. Madam Speaker, our tax to GDP ratio has stagnated at 12 percent for the past five years while that one in the rest of the region like Kenya is well over 20 percent.

It will also help us to reduce the level of bureaucracy and improve quality of service of delivery in the institution.

The other benefit will be to strengthen controls and establish integrity-building initiatives.

Madam Speaker, the restructuring will also result in the integration of domestic tax administration with the creation of a large taxpayer office that will therefore remove duplication of functions in audit and collection functions.

The other benefit, Madam Speaker, will be the re-engineering and modernisation of business process taking advantage of Information Technology (IT) solutions in order to provide quality service to the taxpayer.

The Process of Reform:

The process of reform started with the appointment of Commissioner General on 1st November 2004. In December 2004, the five Commissioner positions were internally advertised, and three were filled on 17 January 2005; the remaining two will be filled this month. In January 2005 the 22 Assistant Commissioner positions were internally advertised and 21 positions filled on 9th February.

Madam Speaker, I invite, the House to look at the attachment, which shows the time lines in which the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) will be able to recruit or to fill the positions under the new structure.

Madam Speaker, it is not correct, as has been reported in some sections of the Press, that URA is laying off 2000 staff as at 31st March; it is not even practical, it is not even logical. The Press reports are wrong and I wish to categorically say so.

The second phase of the reform process involves placing the staff cadre in the new structure. The new structure has new positions with new job descriptions and new levels. Staff will therefore be interviewed and placed in the new structure in accordance with the job specifications and competences for those new jobs. In order not to disrupt the operation of URA, the process is phased of a period of two months. Two months is considered optimal because you do not want to let the process too long, the state of un-certainty can be injurious. But you also cannot do it in one day as the Press seemed to imply.

Only staff who may wish to voluntarily retire, and this is important, Madam Speaker, because option has been given to staff who want to voluntarily retire. Those who want to voluntarily retire are going to be facilitated to do so and those who will not have passed the interviews will have their appointments terminated with a severance package. The total number of people will only be 242 and not 2000. They will be paid terminal benefits as has already been done for some of the management staff, who have hitherto left. The terminal benefits will include their gratuity, the leave pay, severance pay, long service award and transport.

Madam Speaker, the total package per person will range between Uganda Shs 10 million to Shs 40 million. I will give an example, Madam Speaker; for a Principal Revenue Officer, who has been getting a salary of Uganda Shs 1.4 million, he or she will go home with Uganda Shs 32 million as a severance package. A Senior Revenue Officer, who has been getting Uganda Shs 1 million will go home with a severance package of Uganda Shs 21.8 million and a Revenue Officer, who has been getting Uganda Shs 700,000 a month, will go home with Uganda Shs 15.7 million. Madam Speaker, it is intended that this payment will be made promptly.

Madam Speaker, the exercise is being handled in a humane manner and steps are being taken to minimize undue hardship. Madam Speaker, at this point we want to welcome the vigilance of the Workers’ Members of Parliament and the House, in ensuring that the process remains humane, but the process inevitably has to go on. All staff have been subjected to pre-retirement seminars to prepare retirees and advise them on investment opportunities. There is voluntary retirement with a package, which is quite attractive, and there is also in place a counseling service unit to help counsel those who may require those counseling services.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the restructuring and re-organisation of URA is expected to improve our revenue mobilisation. As you know, Madam Speaker, this House has been calling upon Government to increase its revenue mobilisation and reduce on its dependency on donor funding, and this is one of the ways in which we hope to attain that. The restructuring of URA is also designed to streamline tax administration and improve services to the taxpayer. Madam Speaker, the URA will then be manned by high calibre personnel to meet the challenges of tax collection, improved system to enhance revenue including modern technology for the administration of domestic taxes.

Madam Speaker, the salient point that I am making here is that the restructuring in URA is necessary and inevitable. We will do it humanely and we want to seek the support of the whole House to ensure that this country helps URA to deliver the much badly needed revenue for the development of this country. I thank you very much. (Applause)

MR MARTIN WANDERA (Workers’ Representative): Madam Speaker, my take is that this statement is a response to the motion that I tabled last night. I am, therefore, suggesting that we move to my motion and we consider the minister’s statement along with my motion. I beg to move, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I thought that was my ruling yesterday? We are still dealing with your motion and this is part of it. Yes, this is part of the debate.

MR WANDERA: I am most obliged, but the order paper states that –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t worry about the Order Paper. I made the ruling last night, that your motion is alive and the Minister will kick off the debate by his statement.

MR WANDERA: So, Madam Speaker, with that wise ruling, I beg to submit as follows. First of all, I take a lot of pride in being part of this House, because whenever I have serious issues to raise, my colleagues always give me a listening and I hope you are going to listen to me the way you always do -(Laughter)- because as you know, I come with very serious issues.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable minister for his statement and largely I am in agreement with the honourable Minister of State for Finance. I am in agreement that restructuring is one of the measures that can be taken to improve the performance of an organisation and in moving my motion, I had no intention whatsoever to say that down sizing should not take place and I hope I am very clear on that one.

However, I take few exceptions on some points raised by the honourable minister and one of them is on page 3 and that is 4.2 and 4.3. The minister states, “It is not correct as has been reported in the press that the URA is laying off 2000 staff by 31st March”. He continues to say in 4.3; “Only staff who may wish to voluntarily retire and those who will not have passed the interviews will be terminated from employment”.

I beg to submit, Madam Speaker, that it is not only the press that has stated so, but even honourable Martin Wandera Member of Parliament for Workers has also stated it and wishes to re-state it as I hereby do, that on the 31st of March 2005, all employment contracts below the position of Assistant Commissioner are going to be terminated and I take this from an Internal Memo from none other than the Commissioner General of URA. It states as follows: – Madam Speaker, this Internal Memo was put on staff notice board and was also electronically disseminated to the workers.

Madam Speaker, it states as follows in part:

“Staff are further requested to take note of the following, (a) all remaining contracts below assistant commissioner and acting positions are terminated with effect from the 31st of March.”

I have had extensive interaction with the URA workers and this is what they have been told and I have no reason to doubt what they have told me and what I see in the Internal Memo from the Commissioner General of URA.

Madam Speaker, I have clearly stated that down sizing is not a problem, but down sizing should be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of service of the workers. The Uganda Revenue Authority Human Resource Manual does not provide that when the authority wishes to restructure, all workers are terminated and asked to re-apply.

On the contrary, in clause 13 of the URA Human Resource Manual, it is upon the employer as is provided here, in case of redundancy – because if you talk of terminating all contracts on the 31st of March, then that is redundancy. In case of redundancy, the staff to be laid off shall be selected taking into consideration the employees performance, record, skills base, convertibility, capacity to learn, conduct and length of service.

That is why I am saying that if employment contracts are to be terminated, they should be terminated in accordance with the existing terms and conditions of service. The terms do not require that people re-apply. The terms of these workers require that the employer, basing on the criteria I have stated, determines, which workers can still continue within the new structure.

Otherwise Madam Speaker, the only reason that could be based upon to ask everyone to re-apply, is to purge. Why create a new method of carrying out restructuring, when the Human Resource Manual clearly spells out the procedure? I am a firm believer in the rule of law and procedure and I am just praying that the minister listens to me as he does and advises URA not to go against its own procedures.

Madam Speaker, if all contracts below the Assistant Commissioner position are terminated on the 31st March, URA is going to pay heavily, because apparently when I read this Internal Memo from the Commissioner General, the authority seems to be oblivious of that fact and it is my duty as a responsible citizen, to volunteer information. Terminate all of them on the 31st, you will have to pay them and the minister has already informed us that, people will be paid between ten to forty million. This is taxpayer’s money and it will mean you pay them money, then immediately you re-engage some of them.

The other point honourable members is that, we should not set a precedent that in public organisations, workers just on account of trying to restructure, will be laid off en masse. The government of Uganda has carried out restructuring and I challenge anyone to tell me when all workers in the Public Service of Uganda were ever asked to re-apply. Why do we apply double standards? Let us not set a bad precedent, if we allow this to happen in URA, it will go to CAA, it will go to Wild Life Authority and many other places.

So, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that Uganda Revenue Authority is very central in the economy of this country. The moment we turn URA into a bad employer, a place where there is no job security, competent people will not be attracted to work for URA. So I request you honourable members to support my motion, which is seeking to halt the mass dismissals that are planned for 31st March. My motion is as follows: That the Minister of Finance –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Didn’t you read that motion yesterday?

MR WANDERA: Just to refresh the minds of Members –(Interjections)- Yes, Madam Speaker, because it is on this that a decision - I am just reading the last bit of it; it is less than half a page, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, remind them.

MR WANDERA: Now therefore, this Motion is moved that this House resolves that as a matter of urgency;

1. That the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, with immediate effect, suspends the planned mass redundancies slated for 31st March 2005 pending further deliberations with stakeholders.

2. That the Minister explains to Parliament within seven days the policy considerations behind the planned mass redundancies as well as the cost benefit analysis.

3. That the Minister explains to Parliament within seven days what the Uganda Revenue Authority has done by way of succession and career planning with human resource to ensure that the Authority continues to meet its statutory obligations in the meantime.

I beg to move and I thank you, Madam Speaker.

4.23

MRS TEOPISTA SSENTONGO (Workers’ Representative): I thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity. First and foremost, I think this august House will prove the Workers’ Representatives right to demand for the human labour laws to be put in place in this country. If we had human labour laws, it would be very ideal for us to go through such exercises very amicably. So in this case, I call upon the Government to bring the labour laws to this House to enact them because labour laws are not the only laws that have financial implications. We have truly passed many other laws that have financial implications, but I do not know why workers’ labour laws are not brought to this House for enactment.

But regarding this motion, this afternoon the Workers Representatives in this House had an opportunity of meeting the Minister of Finance to discuss this motion, because it is very disheartening and dangerous to the future of these young workers in URA. The explanation we heard depicts very well, especially the Appendix indicating the timeline, that the restructuring or the downsizing is inevitable, and we accept that.

In view of the explanation of the Minister, it was very clear and explicit to us that this exercise is not going to end on 31st March as you see the appended timeline. It means these workers will continue to work so each category from category A, which entails the managers’ posts will go through this exercise.

For example, the posts for Category A are to be advertised on 22nd March, the closing date for application will be on 31st March, short-listing on 1st-5th April, interviews from 11th to 14th April, notification of results will be 16th April. Category B will be for supervisors, which entails 182 posts, and then it goes on like that with different varying dates. According to this appendix, it seems the whole exercise of downsizing will be ending on 20th May. In this case, according to the explanation of the Minister, those who may fail in the first category will have the opportunity to continue to be interviewed in the next category.

For instance, those people who might have wished to be managers but failed the interviews will be able to come in for category B for supervisors. So is the case with other categories. This means, according to the Minister, that these people, the whole number of 2000 who were depicted in the papers, is not the right number of people who are expected to fall victims of the circumstance, it is only 246 –(Interruption)

MR WANDERA: My honorable colleague, I know you had a meeting with the Minister of Finance, but I want to inform you that all workers according to the internal memo are going to be terminated. Now, you go to the timeline that has been given, that posts on the 22nd of March 2005 will be advertised, which was yesterday, for managers. Closing date for application is 31st March, short listing 1st March, interviews 11th to 14th April, notification is 16th April. If you have terminated people by the 31st March and you are saying you will notify them on the 16th of April, under what contract will they be working?

MR TIMOTHY LWANGA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have had the privilege of looking at the memo - hon. Wandera allowed me to look at it. This memo - and honourable member, I ask you to listen carefully - on page 2 says, “The old titles SPRO, PRO, SRO, RO and RA and Secretary will cease from effect of 15th June 2005 when all the positions in the new structure have been filled”, and then you go down to 3 where they are talking about all the remaining contracts.

However, in 2, it says that the implications of this are that levels will be reduced from 11 to seven and staff numbers reduced from 2,046 to 1,804, which means that up to the 15th of June many of these positions will be in existence; and that during this period, when you look at the Schedule from the Minister, they will be doing various interviews and people will be taken on accordingly; and the last interview for notification of results is for officers, these are 1,184 posts on the 14th of June. So, Madam Speaker, there is no mass dismissal of people.

MRS SSENTONGO: I thank you very much for the information from the hon. Minister of Ethics. Now what this means is that the difference between the 2,046 workers, those are the existing posts. The number of workers who are needed in the next restructured system will be 1,840 - something like that - so the difference will 246, who are going to be catered for according to what has been read by the Minister that people are going to be paid their packages accordingly.

In view of this, we have agreed between the Minister and ourselves that we should be engaged in the whole exercise to see how the calculations are going to be done so that people go with their packages. This is what I understood from the explanation of the Minister and I think what URA has done is to at least first advertise these posts within the institution other than having an open advertisement of the posts externally. So if there are any vacancies that cannot be filled by the existing staff they will then be advertised external. Thank you.

4.32

MS BEATRICE KIRASO (Woman Representative, Kabarole): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to support the principle of restructuring of URA without any reservation, because both the 6th and 7th Parliament of Uganda have time and again complained about the staffing, the recruitment process, and the competence of the people serving in URA. I am talking about the principle first and foremost, before I come to the process.

So, the process, as far as I am concerned, is welcome and Madam Speaker, if there was a technical team, as the Minister’s statement indicates, which recommended a new structure that would be more competent and prescribed who should go where, I think it is only logical that some people have got to be laid off, the process of how they will be laid off notwithstanding yet.

Madam Speaker, I do not want us to be emotional about things. I think sometimes we have got to look at the technical side of things. If the old structure accommodated 2,046 people and the new one caters for only 1,804 people it means that URA was over populated, isn’t it? There was over employment, in other words, there were people in there – excess luggage, over staffed.

One of the issues that has come up, including in the Committee of Finance by the URA staff themselves was that of remuneration. Much as the rest of the population including ourselves think and know that URA staff are very well paid, they came before our Committee and said that actually, reviewing of their employment conditions had been long overdue because of the investigations which were taking place. So, I welcome this.

If this is part of making it be more efficient; maybe it will improve on our tax collection. If there is going to be a transparent way of having interviews, people appearing, being interviewed and those who do not qualify are dropped, I welcome that, because we have questioned so many times the criteria of integrity hunting.

Who decides somebody who has got more integrity than the other? It was not even an interviewing board! That complaint has come up in this House; it at one time caused a problem in the caucus - I think that was in the last Parliament - a very big problem, because people were seen to be very negative criticizing His Excellency for integrity hunting. So, for me I welcome this.

Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister and hon. Wandera to reconcile for our benefits so that we debate from an informed point of view. The Memo, which hon. Wandera has read to us written by the Commissioner General I have not seen it, I do not know the Commissioner General’s signature. But would the Minister want to verify that, that memo was written by the Commissioner General, because the information in the Memo is different from the information the Minister is giving us.

The Minister says that, ‘In order not to disrupt the operations of URA, the process is phased over a period of two months’, but this one says come 31st March, bang! Everybody goes and reapplies; there is no reapplying from the way I understand it. Posts are going to be competed for internally first, if you do not qualify then you leave, I mean that is it, if you do not qualify, you go and somebody else will be sourced for from outside, I do not see much contradiction.

I know there are concerns of workers, but the concerns of workers for me have got to be looked at in the context of what we are trying to protect and what we have complained about in the past. Otherwise, we will be practising double standards; to complain about employment, which is not transparent, and over staffing and then say people should not be laid off. I thank you.

4.37

MR AUGUSTINE RUZINDANA (Ruhama County, Ntungamo): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Restructuring is normal, Madam Speaker. So I am not sure we can quarrel with restructuring. However, URA has had many restructurings, this is not the first one and when you look at the Large Taxpayers Department, which has been given as an example, it was there but was abolished, now it is coming back.

So, when you look at this, is this the last one, is it one of many, how many restructurings of URA are there going to be? That is my main worry. There have been very many of them - this department is created then it is abolished, then next time the department is brought back and so on; that is my worry.

Secondly, it is said that it is caused by the East African Customs Union. Is this same thing happening in Kenya and Tanzania? If it is happening here, why is it happening here and not in Tanzania or in Kenya if the Customs Union is one of the causes?

Then the other reason mentioned is about enhancement of transparency. When you create uncertainty, you can enhance transparency, you cannot enhance integrity. You are creating uncertainty in this department. Even if people get their jobs, they will not be sure that the same thing will not happen again, and you will see that the increase of corruption will actually take place even if salaries are increased. So, we should avoid creating uncertainty among the employees in the public sector.

Lastly, if you look at the timeline and you see the period of interviews - you look at (c) - 1,184 posts, the interviews will be conducted within 10 days and probably with a weekend. Now, how many interviewers will there be? Unless decisions have been made before, it is not physically possible to interview 1,184 employees and then within another four days they have been notified and that one looks a bit of a problem.

When you look at the numbers in the other posts, it also looks very difficult that you can interview so many people within so few days. Unless decisions have already been made, it becomes very difficult to see that – anyway the Minister can tell us how many will conduct the interviews. I suspect it will be the Board in some aspect, and I cannot see the Board covering so many of these employees.

I had said finally; but is this something Parliament should be concerned with? I think we should be. In the Committee of Finance, when we were looking at the supplementary schedule, there is already an amount of Uganda Shs two billion for this exercise, and so it is a fait accompli and so maybe there is not much we can do. But there is need to be very careful in these matters. If it is true that people have been terminated I think that might be regular, you cannot terminate people, who have got employment terms. That should be looked into. You can restructure them, yes, you can change posts and designations, but to terminate people creates uncertainty and is not going to be very useful for this department. Thank you.

MR JOHN NASASIRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am rising on a procedural matter. I realise that we have a long list on this Order Paper for the business of today. When the mover of the motion rose he said, “I agree with most of what the Minister had stated here” and we appreciated that one. When one of the Workers Representatives contributed, she said, “We Members representing the workers met the Minister of Finance and having looked at the programme is we agreed that we will work together on this process as representatives of workers.”

I recall when hon. Kiraso was contributing the main issue that remained was actually what is right, are all the workers going to be terminated on the 31st of March or not? We have what the Minister has presented, the timeline; we have the purported memo that is being referred to, of course which we have not had an opportunity to look at. But there is no way on this timeline where all the 2000 plus people are going to be terminated on 31st of March.

Now, the only difference I see between the Mover of the motion and the Minister is whether people are going to be terminated on the 31st of March or not, or whether this timeline is the correct one where there is going to be internal advertisements and people are interviewed as they stay on their job and then they are recruited; and eventually at the end of the exercise those who will not fit in these 1,804 jobs, that is the 242, get their packages and leave peacefully.

The Minister also referred to the training, the counselling that is going on, which shows a humane way of handling the process. So I see no problem, the Workers Representatives have agreed to be part of the process to ensure that, that process is okay. I do not think the Minister is against number two and three in the resolution, where the resolution is requesting the Minister to come here in seven days and make the statement. the minister has said he has no problem with that.

So what remains in resolution 1, that you suspend the mass 2000 termination on 31st of March. If that is not true and if we go with the Minister’s timeline, I do not see any departure between the Mover of the motion and the Minister, and therefore I do not see why we should waste a lot of time on this matter because the only point of departure is 31st of March.

MR AWORI: Thank you, my honourable colleague. Speaking as a Minister yourself, have you considered this matter in the Cabinet, and if so what is the legal opinion of the Attorney General on matters of contract?

MR NASASIRA: What I was concluding is which part of the motion where there is a departure between the Minister, Government and the Mover of the Motion. There is no problem with resolution 2 and 3, but with resolution 1, we have to agree on who is telling us the fact. Are people to be terminated on 31st of March or not? So, we have to decide on that, and that is all.

MR WANDERA: Madam Speaker, with me is a duly signed copy of the internal memo, which clearly states that all remaining contracts below Assistant Commissioner positions are terminated; and with your leave, Madam Speaker, I beg to lay it on the Table and leave the rest to you, honourable members.

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The procedural question I want to raise for your ruling is that whereas hon. Wandera and mover of the motion may agree with the Minister, but now the motion is a motion of the House and it has actually brought so many issues to our revelation and this is the time to bring these issues and iron out them so that the problem is resolved once and for all.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, honourable members, the Mover wanted two things, which he presented to this House. He wanted the exercise of mass dismissal to be stopped.

Secondly he wanted the report within seven days. So part of the process has started by this statement. He wants the statement within seven days, but the main thing is the mass dismissals. So can we know whether the memo is genuine whether they are actually going?

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SPORTS (Mr Charles Bakkabulindi): Thank you, very much, Madam Speaker. I do share the concern of my colleague, hon. Martin Wandera, and indeed we had some interaction over this issue. Madam Speaker, this afternoon we had a meeting with the Minister of Finance. We the workers, as he stated and as it has been repeated, we are not against restructuring, neither retrenchment, we are against the mode and the way somebody will go, or how the calculation will be done.

Madam Speaker, in our meeting we agreed and we looked at the timetable on how the restructuring started last year. Indeed what the Minister of Finance forgot to say has something to do with marketing. In marketing if you do the packaging in a wrong way, it will either promote you or distort whatever you are going to sell.

What happened, Madam Speaker, is that we all agreed that the way that internal memo was written was bad. But the way the whole exercise is being done since last year was not something that is ending on 31st March, as has been portrayed. We even went ahead to discuss various issues and how they should be handled. We agreed with the Minister of Finance on the remaining 240 plus who will be completed phased out. We even looked at how they had calculated the packages and realised there was some slight error somewhere. We corrected it agreed that we have to move together.

Madam Speaker, we workers have got different fashions of handling issues. Just on Saturday we had a serious meeting with the Minister of Water and workers of Water. Yesterday, we finished the negotiations of Water without even causing alarm. This is the same formula we have agreed to use with the Ministry of Finance, that we want to call the URA person, sit down, if she is not conversant with the terms and conditions of service, this is the time she has to be addressed to these terms and conditions of service and know how we should proceed. We have agreed on that and I think having finished that meeting, Madam Speaker, I beg to request even my colleague, hon. Wandera that since he is part and –(Interruption)

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform hon. Bakkabulindi that some members have already been sacked. So, - (Interruption)

MR WANDERA: I would like you to go on record that I was not in the meeting where my three colleagues met the Minister of Finance. I was in the Committee of Works participating in a meeting that is considering terminal benefits of Uganda Railway workers. So I think I can take serious exception of some of the things they agreed upon. But I am very disappointed that my colleagues are putting me in a nasty and very funny situation, but I leave it to the House.

MR PAJOBO: I am sorry, but that should not mean that we are clashing amongst ourselves. But I wanted to make absolutely clear. Before we went to meet the minister, there was an agreement between all of us, four of us, that we all go and meet the Minister. It was not behind our friend that we excluded him, he accepted. But what we went there, we have not agreed concretely that we are not going to discuss or the Parliament should not debate, but Parliament should continue to debate.

We are only informing you of what we have done and what we think could in actual fact make the big issue narrow in a way; that is what I understand. But we have not yet said that our friend is wrong to bring the matter in the House. We first of all also met with him and we discussed with him that this matter should be tabled here. Therefore, we are really behind him. But the issue is procedure; there is nothing wrong. Thank you.

MR BAKKABULINDI: Madam Speaker, I need to wind up on this issue. What remains as administrative or procedural matter is on how we normally make our internal arrangement – (interruption)

MR BEN WACHA: Madam Speaker, before the Minister winds up, could I get clarification from him? Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister holding the Floor made reference to the Internal Memo, which has been tabled. He said, according to their meeting this morning that Internal Memo was not properly handled, if I got him right. To me, Madam Speaker, the gist of the Minister’s statement is actually on paragraph 4. We either take the Minister’s statement as being truthful or we reject it on the basis of paragraph 4. This paragraph 4 is in direct conflict with the internal memo, which has been tabled.

I want the honourable Minister holding the Floor, the Representative of the Workers, what was their final conclusion in respect of the Memo? Is he going to tell us now that the internal memo holds no water, and therefore, we take it that no member of staff of URA is going to be sacked come 31st? Is that the gist of his statement?

MR BAKKABULINDI: I think, Madam Speaker, let me start with where my colleague was saying that we are disassociating with him and what have you, before I come to that point.

Madam Speaker, there is a way we conduct our issues. We have got our office Room 300. We agreed to meet and unfortunately or fortunately, our colleague was representing us in another committee, which was good. When we went to the ministry after failing to get him, after ringing him several times, I wrote a small chit complaining that we looked for him and he did not respond to our phone much as it was ringing.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised, my colleague responded to me in a very good tone, he saw my call, but he was committed in a meeting, he could not respond and I have not taken it badly. So, when he is saying that we went without him, it defeats my understanding.

But leaving that one aside, Madam Speaker, I have said that regardless of the internal memo of which we have said the way the packaging was done was wrong, and that is what we agreed in the Ministry of Finance I am not here to be bound by the internal memo, I am here to be bound by what the Minister of Finance is going to commit himself to this House. In addition to that, -(Interruptions)

MR WACHA: Can I clarify my position, Madam Speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable minister, it would help this House if you came to an agreement that this memo is either withdrawn or clarified to fit in with the time frame of the Minister. I think that is what the Members want to know.

MR BAKKABULINDI: You see, Madam Speaker, with due respect, the majority of my colleagues here were once managers of different organisations. What capacity do we have to withdraw an internal memo, which was done in URA? We shall be lying ourselves, but we have the mandate to be bound by the Minister’s word, which is superior to the internal memo, this is what I am taking –(Interruption)

MRS SSENTONGO: The information I want to give in as far as the internal memo is concerned is that according to the Minister, he did not know about the internal memo and he was prompted to call the Chairman of the Board to clarify on the memo hence bringing this kind of format of how the whole exercise is going to be put in place. So, it seems the internal memo is nullified indirectly by the chairman.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But can the Minister of Finance, who was in this meeting, please tell us; do not allow us to speculate; tell us what you agreed on about the memo. Honourable members, let the Minister tell us; let us not speculate anymore.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE, PLANNING (Mr Isaac Musumba): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It was only around 2.30 p.m. today when I was walking into these Chambers that I met hon. Wandera together with hon. Pajobo, and it is only then that I was made aware that there is a memo. I asked hon. Wandera to give me a copy of the memo, which he did. I looked at it and I was not even sure whether it originated from URA; the copy he gave me to look at was not signed -(Interjection)- Excuse me, I have the Floor.

I looked at this copy, it was not signed, it did not even appear to be original; I did not even have - because I was rushing in here I did not have opportunity to study it. I asked hon. Wandera to try to get me a photocopy; he came back and said he had not been able to get a photocopy.

So, up to now I have not had time to study this memo; I have not had time to analyse it. I have tried to crosscheck by phone with the URA Commissioner General whether indeed such a memo exists, I have not been successful.

However, the conclusion of what I am saying, Madam Speaker –(Interjection)- and I will not yield the Floor - the conclusion of what I am saying is that, whether there was whatever documentation, I in this Parliament have read a statement that comes from the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, who is by law the one that regulates and supervises the URA and I stand by every word of what I have said.

Madam Speaker, it is not possible to close the whole URA on 31st March by saying, “All of you go home”; it is not conceivable that this Government can do that. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I stand by what I have said in this House; this is how it is going to be implemented. If the Commissioner General has different views, she is hereby directed that this is what is going to happen. I thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, honourable minister, you are giving an assurance to the Parliament of Uganda that the process you have introduced, which is on the Hansard, is what going to happen?

MR MUSUMBA: Yes, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair of Government Assurances, can you take note of that?

MR WACHA: Madam Speaker, in view of what the honourable minister has just stated, that no staff of URA will be terminated or any contract of a staff of –(Interjection)- Yes, that is what he has said; if he wants to withdraw it let him withdraw it, but let me state how I understood him. I understood the Minister of Finance to have stated that no staff of URA will be terminated come 31st of March 2005. In effect he is also stating as a lawyer that no contract of a member of staff of URA will be terminated come 31st March 2005. In view of what he has just stated, I move that Madam Speaker, you put to question to the motion of hon. Wandera.

MR KAKOOZA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to amend his motion by saying that since the primary objective of the motion - yesterday I was here and I contributed - the primary objective was to protect uncertainty of losing revenue to the economy because of the mass sacking, I amend the motion of hon. Ben Wacha that the Minister of Finance goes back with the honourable colleague, Martin Wandera, they reconcile and give us the true information so that we can deal with that.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable minister, according to your programme the first redundancies, or whatever you call them, will take place on the 16th of April 2005; that is what your document says. So, if it is going to be in April nothing will take place in March –(Interruption)

MR MUSUMBA: Madam Speaker, you have authorized me to make a statement in this House. This statement is part of the Hansard, there is an appended timeline which, Madam Speaker, if you so authorize I can read although I believed it was already part of the Hansard, but I can read, and it is the timetable by which I will be bound. It goes: Managers, 67 posts will be advertised internally by the 22nd of March 2005, the closing date for applications will be 31st March 2005, the short-listing will be 1st to 5th April 2005, interviews will be 11th to 14th April 2005, notification of the results will be 16th April 2005.

Category B: Supervisors, 182 posts. The posts will be advertised by the 29 of March 2005, the closing date for application will be 19 April 2005, the short listing will be 20th to 25th 2005, interviews will be between 2nd and 7th May 2005. Notification of results will be 11 May 2005.

Category C: Officers, 1,184 posts. The posts will be advertised - again all this is internal - on the 2 May 2005. Closing date for application will be 16 May 2005. Short listing will be done between 17th to 22nd May 2005. Interviews will be between 30th May to 10th June 2005. Notification of results will be 14 June 2005.

And the last category support staff, they are 342 posts. Posts to be advertised on the 8 April 2005. Closing date for application will be 22 April 2005. Short listing will be 23rd to 28th April 2005. Interviews will be 2 to 13 May 2005. Notification of results will be 20 May 2005.

Madam Speaker, this is the time line that I have submitted to this and I will be bound by this time line. Thank you.

MR WILLIAM NSUBUGA: Madam Speaker, there is a pertinent issue which hon. Ruzindana raised especially on category C whereby 1,184 posts, interviews are going to be held in 10 days including Saturday and Sunday whether it was actually viable internally?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, are you really going to dictate how they organize, maybe they have got a panel, and I do not think we can go into that. Now, honourable minister, if you are sticking to your time frame, it means that this date of 31st March is of no consequence. So, in that case if it of no consequence, then we can go on to the matter –(Interjection) - No, let us vote.

Honourable members, I now put the question that the motion as moved by hon. Wandera be approved by this House in particular the first one, the others have been undertaken already.

MEMBERS: Yes.

MR MAO: No, we have the motion.

MR RUZINDANA: I know the motion has been moved and it has been debated. But what is the purpose of our voting on it? Because –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: How do we complete the process?

MR RUZINDANA: I mean, what are we going to achieve? The main thing was to get an undertaking from the minister that certain things are going to be done. Some questions have been asked, now the minister can given an undertaking that certain things which are not fully explained is going to make another statement. Otherwise, what is the purpose of our voting?

MS KIRASO: Madam Speaker, in addition to what hon. Ruzindana has said, I am sorry to revisit this memo again because it is very important that we understand what the memo is talking about. Because you can read something and understand it in one way and somebody else understands it in another way. “ Staff are further requested to take note of the following:” - I think this is what has been disturbing hon. Wandera – “(a) All remaining contracts below assistant commissioner and acting positions are terminated with effect from 31 March 2005.” What does this mean and why should it not disturb us? It should not disturb us because not all appointments below the rank of assistant commissioner are on contract.

In other words, there is a reason, which the minister should come to explain to us in this House why the Commissioner General is particularly pointing out remaining contract workers and people who are in acting positions. She is actually getting them out of everybody else who is below assistant commissioner and there must be a reason for it. I think it would benefit this House if we got the reason. I will take the clarification honourable.

MR WANDERA: Yes, I think authorities are very relevant in matters like this. Can you tell us your authority, the basis on which you are saying that all people in URA below assistant commissioner are not employed on contract? –(Interruptions)- yes, I want this House to understand that what that clause is talking about is that, employment contracts and any one below assistant commissioner is going to be terminated as long as that memo still stands. That is it. So, you give me your authority.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. Kiraso, please finish.

MS KIRASO: Madam Speaker, I cannot claim to have worked in Uganda Revenue Authority like some other people did here. They may actually give us guidance, and hon. Okupa is here. I know the minister himself worked there. I know for a fact and it is undisputable that not all officers of Uganda Revenue Authority below the rank of assistant commissioner work on a contract basis, and I think many other people know that. And the memo is referring to those particular people, who are on contract and those who are in acting positions, which means they are being isolated from the rest of the people under that rank.

MR MAO: Madam Speaker, this memo is very controversial. It is being denied by those who did not author it; it is being challenged but in reality I think it affects about 2,000 people. So, can we now direct our debate about that fate of 2,000 Ugandans? I would like to inform the House that while the minister says there is no mass lay off, whether you call it restructuring, whether you call it lay off, whatever you call it the end result is that somebody is going to end up without a job. I think it is not about semantics here.

Madam Speaker, the process will be presided over by the board. Those who are going to fail the interview will be told to go. Now, the process is what we are questioning and that is why hon. Wandera’s motion is saying, “Stop right there, come back after seven days and tell us how you are going about it.” If people here are denying that they are even in the knowledge and information loop of this process, why do we not just go ahead with hon. Wacha’s motion, vote on hon. Wandera’s motion, the government can do what they want but let this Parliament be on record to have said, stop right there, the process is shabby.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, I think the question is one. Hon. Wandera, are you now dealing with 2,000 redundancies or 240 people?

MR WANDERA: About 2,000, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Despite the explanations you have received?

MR WANDERA: But, Madam Speaker, I do not know why Members of this House can choose to disregard an internal memo. One Member in this House has said that some people do not work on contract. Is there anyone who can work in URA without an appointment letter? An appointment letter is a contract of employment; this is simple, you know it. Madam Speaker, I would like to take it from hon. Mao, let my motion be put to vote and the House decides on it.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think let us vote on this matter. If you want the motion to be passed you will pass it, if you do not want you reject it but let us get it out of the way one way or the other.

PROF KAGONYERA: Hon. Wandera’s motion has many components, and the House has generally agreed that the different components have different merits. In fact, we have been told that one of them is based on information that is not accurate therefore, it may not be quite correct to vote on them at the same time. Do you get what I mean, Madam Speaker? In other words, we ought to look at them separately.

MR OKUPA: Madam Speaker, I just want a clarification from the honourable minister. You know very well that we have a parallel body without a legal basis working in Uganda Revenue Authority, and we have kept raising this issue wherever we meet the Minister of Finance and he has kept promising that we shall legalize, and that is SRPS. Is SRPS part of this restructuring process under Uganda Revenue Authority? I need a clarification, and he should go further to clarify us on these issues of the contracts.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I do not think we can start by asking what these officers are called, what they do, please this is not our work.

MR SABIITI: The honourable Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development came with a statement and hon. Wandera moved a motion. There are many issues in this statement of the minister that require clarification. Now, you seem to want only to look at hon. Wandera’s motion and you are disregarding important issues raised, particularly in the process of reform. So, I was requesting you allow us also to give our views. Is it procedurally right to ignore important issues raised by the minister?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, it was hon. Wandera who brought the motion, which gave rise to this statement; we demanded for it and they have responded. So, let us finish hon. Wandera’s motion. If you have other matters, you can raise them at a later stage. Let us dispose of the motion.

MR SABIITI: Madam Speaker, could you allow me in a form of question –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us vote on this motion, and let us do it one by one. Part one: The Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development with immediate effect suspends the planned mass redundancies slated for 31 March 2005 pending further deliberations with the stakeholders. I now put the question –(Interjections)- yes, you have the motion part one of his resolution. (Interruption)

MR BAMWANGA: Is it mass redundancy or it is 242?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us vote on the motion as it was produced because the honourable member insisted that he is dealing with 2,000 not 242. That is the resolution; let us vote.

(The Members voted by a show of hands)

MR RUHINDI: Procedure, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is it, hon. Ruhindi?

MR RUHINDI: Madam Speaker, to be frank, I think this is becoming ridiculous. Why? Because the honourable Minister of State for Finance went on the Floor of the House and accepted that this is now the binding document and the 31 March 2005 is no longer a deadline. Now what are we voting on?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, there are 101 voting Members. Those for the motion were 13, those against were 58, those who abstained were 11 and I think the nominated and some others did not vote. So, anyway, the motion has been lost.

So, the position now is that we retain the government assurance as made by the minister on this particular issue. And when are you reporting? You are reporting next week?

Now, on the issue of the reporting part II: The minister explains to Parliament within seven days the policy, consideration behind the planned mass redundancies as well as the cost benefit analysis. (Interruption)

PROF. KAGONYERA: We have a bit of a problem; Friday is Good Friday, Monday is Easter Monday and we are going to be on holiday, I wonder whether we have looked carefully at the seven days whether they are enough. The honourable minister I can see is shaking his head, if he is able to do it that is okay.

MR MUSUMBA: Madam Speaker, paragraph two of the motion is premised on paragraph one. So, that is why even the intervention of my honourable colleague falls by the way side because paragraph two assumes that paragraph one is in fact, standing.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay that is true. Now, three, minister explains to Parliament within seven days what he has URA done by way of succession and career planning of the human resource to ensure that the authority continues to meet its statutory obligations in the meantime. So, okay, the motion has been lost.

MR PAJOBO: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I did not understand when you said the motion is lost and at the same time I do not also understand whether the minister’s statement is now taken seriously, I want to understand that. Secondly, I want also to say that the way the motion was put to vote was not to mean – that is why I did not vote, I absconded.

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The honourable member did not vote for the motion, is he now in order to start insinuating about the fate of the motion when actually he did not support it.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, this motion was moved and it was debated. Members supported the principle for restructuring, the question was the numbers and the process. Now, I asked the Member whether he is still insisting on the number of 2,000 and he insisted that it is 2,000 and we put it to the vote, he did not withdrawal nor amend so we voted on it as he presented it and that is what it is. Now, we take the minister’s assurance and I have asked our committee to remind him to produce the relevant information. He has made an assurance here.

RESPONSE ON THE REPORT ON PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE NORTH AND NORTH EAST

CAPTAIN MATOVU: I thank you, Madam Speaker. I want your indulgence and guidance on the Order Paper. Yesterday when Members raised a number of questions to the minister, I noted that most of them are really dealt with in the UPDF Bill. Matters of children recruitment, matters on Amuka, matters of Somalia there is something on troop deployment, actually Clause 37 and 38 of our Bill. Hon. Omara Atubo also has circulated his motion already and it is essentially UPDF Bill.

I want, Madam Speaker, your guidance that in the interest of our soldiers - this Bill has been in this House for almost two years - that we bring forward the UPDF Bill to No.7 and really conclude it. Yesterday, when I raised something about the UPDF Bill, I got almost over 30 messages from soldiers who are really ensuring our safety here, soldiers who are giving us the peace and liberty to say whatever we want. I want to pray and also to plead with the minister that really we dispose of this Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Bill. Once we retire this Bill, most of these questions, most of these motions are going to be catered for.

Uganda Peoples’ Defence Force has been central in dealing with the Northern rebellion, much as we have the amnesty response is slow, much as we have the International Criminal Court (ICC), you hear what is coming, much as we have all those other approaches but I can assure you once we can boost UPDF with this Bill, address their welfare, address their terms of conditions, address their pension, I am sure you are going to see wonders. I beg your guidance and indulgence, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chair of the Internal Affairs Committee, what is your state of readiness in relation to the UPDF Bill?

MR KABAREEBE: Madam Speaker, we are ready to dispose of the Bill just now.

MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the parties concerned in the armed forces. Indeed, we should finish this Bill, as quickly as possible but at the same time, Madam Speaker, you are the authority in this august House. Wherever there is going to be a change in the Order Paper, you normally tell us at the beginning of the session and that is what we have been following. Now, all of a sudden, my honourable colleague, with due respect I would like to support you as an officer and someone who is suffering, how do you start changing suddenly? If that was the case, I could also say Domestic Relations Bill should be brought forward, women are suffering even men some of us are also suffering. So, why do we not deal with the Domestic Relations Bill first?

CAPT. MATOVU: Madam Speaker, hon. Aggrey, I think he never got my argument. The questions that were raised by Members yesterday are really addressed in the law. I am looking at ourselves, Members of Parliament, as doctors. If you are a genuine doctor, you have a patient before you, you know the problem, you know the cause, why go around and give a wrong treatment? If we give UPDF a law, I can assure you most of these issues are going to be addressed automatically.

Hon. Aggrey Awori was questioning about Somalia deployment. Somalia is here, once there is a law he will have the basis to challenge government or to ask. The issue of recruitment of child soldiers, I do not know whether it exists. So, let us not treat symptoms, the answer is the UPDF Bill and I beg your guidance –(Interruption)

PROF. LATIGO: Thank you, my honourable colleague. You have a very wonderful point, but I would like to inform you that actually we are already testing the Bill in all these discussions that we have, so that when we now go to the Bill we know that any proposed amendment addresses the real world situation. In fact, what is happening is actually helping you to end up with a good Bill, and instead of thinking that you should bring the Bill first, let us dispose of these matters that actually affect the Bill, benefit from it and make a good law.

Secondly, I think the point that hon. Aggrey Awori brought is very important. If the Bill has taken three years, another one day is not sufficient for us to breach procedure because you will be setting a very dangerous precedent. If you allow this one, what right will you have not to allow another one tomorrow? So think about it, it is just one day.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, hon. Omara Atubo’s motion is a bit wider than the UPDF. It concerns cattle rustling, which I think is not in the UPDF Bill, it deals with the auxiliary forces and others, so it is a bit bigger than the UPDF Bill. So, I think let us deal with those issues, get them out of the way and then tomorrow we can conclude the Bill. Honourable minister, all this is your business, there is a technical problem that is why I have said we cannot do that today.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, I would seek your guidance on this matter, but I think it is still about procedure. Since this is such an important matter and I always see the minister so irritated whenever people have other views on the subject, shall I propose that tomorrow we have lesser things to handle and we handle UPDF once and for all and we clear it out of the way because all matters that are being raised need to be either incorporated, if they are such grand worries or not. I ask that we jump the request of today from Capt. Matovu, and then tomorrow you give it sufficient time, we clear UPDF once and for all so that this issue ceases to be here anymore.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, honourable members, I hope you are not insinuating that the Speaker has made it difficult for you to conclude this Bill. The Speaker has given this Bill more time than any other Bill; the failures have not been in our office. But let us get rid of hon. Omara Atubo’s motion and then we conclude the UPDF Bill.

MR KABAREEBE: Madam Speaker, this Bill has been here for a long time, but it is only one clause that has been recommitted. It was already done and then a corrigendum that has been given to Members is already done; we are only remaining with adding in three clauses that accompany the court martial, which are already done, just one clause and an addendum and we conclude it. So, there is nothing more to discuss, it is a matter of a corrigendum and we conclude it, it will take less than ten minutes, there is nothing to insert -(Interruption)

MR AWORI: I would like to inform my honourable colleague, Deputy or Acting Chairman of the Committee, in terms of the gravity of the matter, the priorities, you can see the Cabinet was here when we were discussing the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), but now we have come to the UPDF they have fled. Is that important?

MR OMARA ATUBO: Madam Speaker, I know the situation in the field and really I am also concerned very much with the UPDF Bill. My motion is likely to be a long one and it is likely to take quite a few hours to debate, and I would really like to see the UPDF Bill out of our way. And as Capt. Matovu has said, some of the issues I raised there are really touching on the actual law of the UPDF.

Madam Speaker, the UPDF Bill is already on the Order Paper today, adjusting it in one way or another is not a basic problem and for the Chair, if it is only one item I am ready to concede. Getting the Minister of Defence is rather difficult in this House, but my motion can be debated in his absence with the Minister of Internal Affairs here, with the Prime Minister and all these other people.

So, Madam Speaker, I consider the UPDF Bill very important, and I really would concede that we handle it. It is a very small part remaining, let us finish it, these soldiers’ welfare are very important. My motion is simply informative we are going to do a few things and out of that UPDF Bill a lot of good things will come, which will also affect my motion. So, I concede, it is already on today’s Order Paper, so reorganization and say let it come up is not a problem. In any case, it is older than my motion anyway.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, honourable members, it seems the mover of the other motion is not ready today and is willing to surrender time to the UPDF Bill, so let us now have the UPDF Bill.

BILLS

COMMITTEE STAGE

THE UGANDA PEOPLE’S DEFENCE FORCES BILL, 2003

5.44

THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr Amon-Revees Kabareebe Muzoora): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chairperson and honourable members, Clause 80 was recommitted by hon. Mwandha. However, the committee had pronounced itself on this matter in the House, and the House had passed it by adding Kikosi Malum, which was missing right away from the beginning. Hon Mwandha’s position was that, he does not see any reason why these people should be paid although some of them shed their blood others are still claiming, but he feels they should not be paid at all. But the House had pronounced itself on this matter and concluded by adding Kikosi Malum. I beg to move that the list be retained, Madam Chairperson.

MR AMAMA MBABAZI: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. It is true that the amendment was moved and although I had doubts about it, I eventually accepted it, so I have no problem with it. We passed that list and added Kikosi Malum. So, I accept that.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: So therefore nothing has changed. I put the question that Clause 80 be amended as proposed by the chairperson.

(Question put and agreed to.)

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

MR KABAREEBE MUZOORA: Madam Chairperson, you will recall that according to our report we replaced what was in the Bill in connection with the chairman of the court martial that is from Clause 192 up to 198. In this House it was agreed that we replace with what we had in our report. We did so, Madam Chairperson, but because the clauses in the existing Bill not amended did not go beyond 198, therefore, the corrigendum that has been drawn which has been called a recommital for all the clauses from 192 to 198, has an addendum. The corrigendum is to guide Members so that they can see that everything in this recommital has already been done except adding on Clause 199 up to 201. That is what I am going to do. I beg to move as such:

Clause 199, "There shall be at any proceedings of a court martial or unit disciplinary committee the following officers appointed by the High Command or any other high authority as may be authorized in that behalf by the High Command:

(a) A secretary who shall record all the proceedings of the court.

(b) An advocate or in case of a unit disciplinary committee a paralegal who shall sit on and advise the court during its proceedings on the law and procedure, and

(c) A prosecutor.”

Clause 200, (1) “There shall be a court martial appeal for the defence forces which shall hear and determine all appeals referred to it under this Act from decisions of the General Court Martial.

(2) The court martial appeal shall consist of;

(a) A chairperson who shall be an advocate qualified for appointment as judge of a high court of Uganda.

(b) Two senior officers of the defence forces and

(c) Two advocates who are members of the defence forces.

(3) There shall be a registrar of the court martial court who shall be a legally qualified person appointed by the High Command.

(4) The quorum of the court martial appeal shall be;

(a) when considering an appeal against a judgment involving a sentence of death, five members and

(b) in any other case, three members including the chairperson.”

Clause 201: (1) “The verdict of a court martial or unit disciplinary committee shall be by majority opinion, and when a decision is reached in that manner shall be binding on all members of the court concerned.

(2) It shall be an offence for any member who takes part in the proceedings of the a court martial or unit disciplinary committee to later disassociate himself or herself from some decision of that court, and anybody found guilty of that offence shall be dismissed from the court by the High Command.” Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that a new clause -(Interruption)

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like the clarification on a definition of “a person legally qualified” because to me it appears vague. Is he a lawyer, what is it?

MR KABAREEBE MUZOORA: When we talk of somebody qualified we are talking about law it cannot be legally qualified in medicine. So, amend accordingly.

MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Madam, may I seek to delete “a person legally qualified” to replace it with “an advocate.”

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: What are your reasons, honourable Rwamirama?

MRS DORA BYAMUKAMA: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I agree with hon. Bright Rwamirama because, when you say, “legally qualified” is not the same as having legal qualifications. But again when you say “an advocate” you may have to go a little bit further and talk about the specific qualifications. But I would like to second hon. Bright Rwamirama’s proposal that “an advocate of the High Court of Uganda”, if you so wish.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but hon. Byamukama, what will happen to a chief magistrate who is not enrolled? Would a chief magistrate be eligible for this appointment, a chief magistrate who may not necessarily be an advocate?

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Chairperson, that is where I had a problem because all lawyers are not advocates. I think what we need to say is that “a person with legal qualification” and we need to qualify what these legal qualifications are. We could say a Bachelors Degree and Diploma, I do not know what, maybe the minister could guide us, what kind of calibre of person do you want? I think the minister should guide us on this.

MR MBABAZI: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I think that we could use the word “advocate” without qualifying it. We simply say, “advocate” as we are doing in 199(b), simply “an advocate” and that will be fine with me.

MR AWORI: On the matter of majority opinion, the court martial sitting on the matters of capital nature - I just wanted to know for avoidance of doubt and for the purpose of clarity whether it should be simple majority as we normally know it, or majority consensus or what. Because in the Constitution we are always specific, but for the avoidance of doubt, what type of majority are we referring to?

MR MBABAZI: Well, I heard the other day from hon. Wambuzi Gagawala that my good friend, hon. Aggrey Awori, did not study Mathematics and he confirmed it later that he had not studied Mathematics –(Interruption)

MR AWORI: Madam Chairperson, we took great strains, a lot of debate to bring back this item on the Order Paper, which means we are very serious we want to conclude this matter. When I ask a question in this august House - and for the purpose of making a law we always say, “for avoidance of doubt.”

In my mind, whether I did arithmetic, algebra, calculus or whatever - and to correct the wrong impression, which may have embedded in the minds of my colleagues, I got an aggregate 9 at O’ level. In Mathematics, as a matter of fact, he may be right, I got a two, which may have spoiled my case. However, Madam Chairperson, is it in order at this juncture for my honourable colleague to start trivializing an important matter by bringing in far-fetched examples, which will not help us? Is he in order that I do not know Mathematics, when I know very well that during our time I was one of the best in class? Is he in order?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Now, honourable members, yesterday I ruled that the friendship between hon. Aggrey Awori and hon. Mbabazi should not be used to divert the work of this House. Today we have had to push aside other business to try and finish the UPDF Bill. Can I appeal to the minister, you leave hon. Aggrey Awori and we finish this Bill today.

MR MBABAZI: Madam Chairperson, I was simply making the point that the point is mathematical, simple. It is arithmetical in fact, not even mathematical, because that is more complicated. When you look at sub-clause (4), which says, “The quorum of the court martial shall be (a), when considering an appeal against a judgment involving a sentence of death, five members.” So, what is the majority of five members? Three.

(b), “In any other case, three members including the Chairperson.” How many can possibly be the majority of three? Two. So, Madam Chairperson, I thought the matter was self-explanatory, and I am happy that my colleague can see it now. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that a new Clause 199 be introduced as proposed by the Chairperson and as amended by the same Chairperson.

(Question put and agreed to.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I now put the question that Clause 199 do stand part of the Bill.

(Question put and agreed to.)

Clause 200

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I now put the question that a new Clause 200 be introduced as proposed by the Chairperson.

(Question put and agreed to.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I now propose that the new Clause 200 do stand part of the Bill.

(Question put and agreed to.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I now put the question that a new Clause 201 be introduced into the Bill.

(Question put and agreed to.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that Clause 201 do stand part of the Bill.

(Question put and agreed to.)

MOTION FOR THE HOUSE TO RESUME

6.02

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Madam Chairperson, I beg to move that the House do resume and the Committee of the Whole House reports thereto.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: I put the question that the House do resume and the Committee of the Whole House 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 DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Madam Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of the Whole House has considered the Bill entitled, “The Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Bill, 2003” 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 DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the report from the Committee of the Whole House be adopted.

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 UGANDA PEOPLE’S DEFENCE FORCES BILL, 2003

THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (Mr Amama Mbabazi): Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion to recommit Clause 37(3), which is about deployment of troops outside. This position, which is in the Bill is a position, which does not reflect the agreement we had reached with the committee and which was reflected in the committee’s report. I believe so, because at the moment Clause 37(3) reads as follows:

“Where the President deploys troops under this section, when Parliament is in recess, the Speaker shall immediately summon Parliament to an emergency session to sit within 21 days after the deployment for purposes of ratifying that deployment.”

Madam Speaker, as Members may very well recollect, we debated this at length whether it should be ratifying or to be notified. The consensus in Parliament like it had been in the committee was that we should have notified instead of ratified. So, this I think was an oversight, it was not corrected and that is the reason why I am seeking permission of the House to recommit this particular clause. Thank you.

MR KABAREEBE MUZOORA: The committee has no objection to that because that is what we had agreed on.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You agreed on notification?

MR KABAREEBE MUZOORA: Yes.

MS KIRASO: Madam Speaker, if I remember this debate well, I think the people with a dissenting view were that Parliament should have a say in deployment of troops abroad, and calling you to notify you is neither here nor there, you may as well not be told anyway. So, the argument was that Parliament should ratify so that Parliament has got a say in the matter, has got the opportunity to say, “No we do not agree with that” if Parliament feels it is wrong. I think that is where the crux of the matter was, I mean, the agreement between the minister and the committee not withstanding.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, honourable member, that will be after they have gone, they will not be here. So, how do we handle that because they would have gone already?

MS KIRASO: Madam Speaker, I will give an example of a supplementary budget, which comes here for approval after the money has been spent. If Parliament withdraws its approval that money would be deemed to have been spent without parliamentary approval and it will be an illegal expenditure. In other words, this is a safeguard to enable the Executive or the President to as much as possible convince Parliament that this deployment was called for, was done in a proper manner, was decent, was in good faith and all the nice thing you can think about and in the interest of the country. Actually, it might even for that matter prompt the head of state to carry out some consultation even if Parliament is not sitting before that deployment is made.

MR MBABAZI: Madam Speaker, I did not give the full body of the argument that I have. I simply told the House why I am seeking their permission to recommit, then in the committee we can have a full argument because, you see, it was obvious then as it is now, when you look at clause (1) which we passed it reads as follows: “The president, may deploy troops outside Uganda for the purposes of peace keeping or peace enforcement or both.”

This is what is covered under 37 (2), “Where the President deploys troops under sub-section (1) he or she shall notify Parliament immediately but in any case not later than 14 days after the deployment.”

Then (3) says, “Where the President deploys under this section when Parliament is in recess, the Speaker shall immediately summon Parliament to an emergency session to sit within 21 days.”

So, the point here is, already this Parliament has passed (1) and (2) that when Parliament is in session the President can deploy troops and notify them. Now, in (3) it is saying that when however, Parliament is not in session, the Speaker must call it and ratify this case. So, why do you say that when it is in recess there should be ratification, when it is sitting there should be notification that is a contradiction in terms. So, we were saying that clearly this had been – and we had agreed in the committee even in this House. So, it was an oversight on my part –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are saying it is a consequential amendment?

MR MBABAZI: I imagine it is, but I was not sure. So, since it was not captured, I wanted the House to come back to it so that we sort this out.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable minister, how many clauses did we intend to recommit? Only this?

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Chairperson, I thank you and I would like to thank the minister. I remember there is an issue I raised earlier and my concern at that point was that when you look at Article 210(d) of the Constitution, deployment of troops outside Uganda is a substantive item under this particular clause. When you go back to Article 124 on declaration of a state of war, which in my mind is akin or has some relation with this kind of deployment it could be for peacekeeping purposes indeed, but I thought for maybe war. But when you look at the ingredients of Article 124 it says, “The President may, with approval of Parliament.”

Then under Clause 124(2) it says, “Where it is impracticable to seek the approval of Parliament before declaration of a state of war, the President may declare a state of war without the approval but shall seek the approval immediately after the declaration and in any case not less than seventy-two hours after the declaration.”

Then it goes on and say, (3) “…when Parliament is in recess, the Speaker shall, immediately summon Parliament to an emergency session to sit within seventy-two….” So, what I mean is that, if you are going to make this law and it has some relation to this Article 124, which I believe it would, we need to take all these issues into account and maybe we may borrow a leaf form Article 124 in order to adequately address this particular issue the minister is talking about. I thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I put the question Clause 37(3) be recommitted.

MR OMARA ATUBO: Madam Speaker, I am also moving to amend this motion that we recommit the whole 37, because he now wants to reopen the whole issue.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, I put the question that Clause 37(1)(2)(3) be recommitted for consideration.

PROF. LATIGO: Madam Speaker, the issues that hon. Dora Byamukama raised are important. Are they adequately covered in this Bill? If they are adequately covered then we can only address the issue as raised by the honourable minister. But if the issues as she raised are not adequately covered, then we will only be fair to ourselves to find a way of covering that.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, can the minister tell us whether hon. Dora Byamukama’s queries are taken care of?

MR MBABAZI: Madam Speaker, it is true that hon. Dora Byamukama raised that point, and it is true that I answered it very clearly. Now, Clause 37 as you can see in (1), is about peace keeping and peace enforcement. As I said then, peacekeeping is something that is done well in advance. The question of peace keeping is the responsibility of the United Nations, and no one can carry out this function anywhere in the world without the United Nations.

Just to educate my brother, the African Union (AU) and other people can only act on authority of the United Nations. So, I remember telling this House that the United Nations plans its programmes ahead, like now they have already asked us if we are ready to contribute troops for peace keeping generally; not even for a specific mission because they would like to plan ahead, to budget ahead, to know that they have forces to help them.

So, Clause 37 is about peace enforcement and peacekeeping. And you can imagine where a president or where a government has committed itself under the United Nations, it has taken troops for a peace keeping mission, and then you come here after 14 days or something like that and you recall them. We discussed all this.

This is different from declaration of war. Declaration of war simply means we are at war, it means the budget has to change, we must run a war budget; it simply means that Parliament must change the allocation of resources of the country from what it had decided them to cover to war. These are totally different situations. Obviously it needs approval of Parliament because of the reasons she gave, that you need to fund them.

In most of these cases of peace keeping and peace enforcement under the United Nations or under the region, it is budget neutral. It is budget neutral in the sense that even if we were to spend money we as a country, we will spend the money we would have spent on battalion or two battalions here anyway. Any extra funding is met by either the United Nations or those who are funding the process. So, the two are different, please.

MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, I know this Clause 37 was ably debated, but to give power to the President without the approval of this House to send these people outside, yet even sending just one ambassador outside this House must approve. But when you are sending thousands of our troops for peace keeping and peace enforcement where some of them may lose their lives, and you are just saying the President may wake up one day and talk to somebody in the United Nations and say, “Yes, we can send them out.” For good public relations you notify Parliament. What are other countries doing like America? Do they just send them out without their Congress, or do they for purposes of getting the country’s support - in British Parliament, they did -(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, honourable members, why do we not go to the recommittal and then you can have those arguments?

MR ATUBO: That is why I am saying let us recommit the whole thing.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, honourable members, there are two positions here –(Interruption)

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, I want to seek clarification from the minister. Is it just about money and the budget or it is even about lives of our soldiers or many other commitments, psychological to the President who is deploying troops, the commanders - Madam Speaker, I was saying that I need clarification from the minister. If you are doing peace enforcement, for example, what is the difference between peace enforcement and war itself? Is it just about the budget or it is about lives of the troops? Actually, if I could give you, an example, technically what is happening in Iraq today, the Americans call it peace enforcement -(Interjections)- technically that is what it is; others could have other views, but that is what it is. So in any case –(Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Members.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, let us leave Iraq aside. All I want to know, is it about the budget or it is about the lives of soldiers or even the interest of the country? In fact, the spirit of Article 210, and I was there when we were debating it, was to make sure that Parliament gets involved. It is very important!

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So try to help us, hon. Tumukunde, there is a question of notification as against ratification. I think that is really what the issue is. So, can you please help us there?

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, it is ratification because from day 1 Parliament must have an interest and must actually sanction such a move.

MAJ. KINOBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am trying to refresh my mind. This question of notification versus ratification I remember was debated extensively. The minister told us that for peace keeping sometimes governments have long-term undertakings that may not need a destabilizing clause in your law if you are to be relied upon for peacekeeping purposes.

Sometimes they even sign agreements that are standing agreements that, when the time needs, you just get requested for troops for peacekeeping. But I think argument arose on the Floor that we need to separate peace keeping from declaration of war that may necessitate deployment of troops outside.

If I remember correctly, we had agreed that we spilt this clause, so that peace keeping has its clause, which is notification because definitely the country entered into undertaking with other countries and then the clause that talks about deployment, Parliament at this stage can get involved.

If I remember correctly, my chairman, that is what we had agreed on, because the minister had convinced us that on peace keeping really, you do not need a destabilizing clause because over time you sign multi-lateral, bi-lateral agreements, whereby you may only need to commit troops and to have that clause will be a destabilizing factor, you really need to notify Parliament. But the concerns were on declaration of war where your soldiers may have to move out in response to 124, which hon. Dora was talking about. I do not know whether that 124 is provided for anywhere else other than in 37?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What does the Chairperson say?

MR KABAREEBE: I thank you very much. Hon. Kinobe has brought in what we actually put in the law as reflected in the Hansard. The minister had agreed with that position previously, but I am wondering why you are bringing in a new item.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: You address the House, do not worry about the minister.

MR KABAREEBE: Madam Speaker and honourable members, this matter was discussed for about two hours here and the positions on notification and ratification were agreed upon. So, I do not know what is disturbing my honourable minister; maybe he can explain better if he wants to add on anything.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you as the committee chairperson, what is the position that you know?

MR KABAREEBE: The committee on (3) agreed on what is down here now, ratification.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is in the Bill is what you agreed to?

MR KABAREEBE: 37(3) it reads: “ Where the President deploys troops under this section when Parliament is on recess, the Speaker shall immediately summon Parliament to an emergency session to sit within 21 days after deployment for purposes of ratifying that deployment.”

MR KUTESA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It defeats my understanding to agree on 37(2) that when Parliament is in session, the President can deploy and notify then in (3), when Parliament is on recess and he deploys, then he does not only report but will need to ratify. So, what is important? Is the problem being on recess or being in session? Because in (2) the President can deploy and he notifies Parliament, that is what was passed. (3) is only describing a situation where Parliament is on recess. So, they call back Parliament and notify it, rather than ratify. I do not see why in one case when you are in session you are only willing to accept being notified and when you are on recess, that is when you acquire the power to ratify. Once you have passed (2) in (3) it is a consequential amendment. So, (2) we have passed it as “notify” and consequentially in (3), it should be “notify”.

Let me also add, Madam Speaker, that nations are required to have a percentage not exceeding 20 percent of the strength of the Army ready for deployment for peace keeping. It is an obligation we have as countries to the United Nations as members. You cannot deploy more than 20 percent. In fact, right as we speak now, Kenya is about to exceed its percentage that it is allowed to have people in peace keeping. So, there are standing obligations that we have as members of the United Nations to contribute troops to peace keeping. It is absolutely different from declaration of war, because declaration of war in fact should be beyond the President alone and I agree that Parliament should get involved when you are declaring war. But for you to fulfil an international obligation, which other nations have committed themselves to, I think notifying is sufficient. I thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, is this not a consequential amendment, because if you have passed the others, then this one should fall into line.

MR MBABAZI: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier on, because it had remained and really this is a technicality, if it is a consequential amendment because clearly we had passed (1) and (2) and I was saying that (3) does not flow, then I would withdraw my motion to the committee.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, honourable members, I think let us go to the committee stage and conclude this item.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: We have got Article 210, which reads: “ Parliament shall make laws regulating the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces, and in particular, providing for (d) the deployment of troops outside Uganda.” In fact, all along, Madam Speaker, I imagined that the minister was saying that we could amend 37(2) and change it from “notify’ to “ratify”, actually I started supporting him. Later on, I discovered that actually it was otherwise.

The spirit of this Constitution is that Parliament has an interest in the deployment of troops outside Uganda. Your interpretation or any others’ interpretation is of course respected, but this is a correct interpretation and, Madam Speaker, you remember there was a hot debate about who should deploy troops outside. The other issue is that, peace enforcement is war, technically. It is about exchanging bullets, it is about fighting.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But honourable, can you propose something, you are just complaining and complaining, can you propose the way forward please?

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, I support that we re-commit the whole of 37, and that actually to simplify it, we amend 37(2) to add “rectify” and therefore, there shall be consequential amendment on (3). In fact, it shall technically fall in line “rectify” in both cases.

MR MBABAZI: First of all, I want to make it clear that from the explanation given to me by the speaker, I have withdrawn my motion to re-commit 37(3). Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move that the Bill be read the third time. I beg to move.

MR BEN WACHA: Motion.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, honourable members, the Minister has withdrawn his amendment, so the bill remains as it is.

MR WACHA: Madam Speaker, can I move that Clause 37 of the bill be recommitted.

PROF. LATIGO: Madam Speaker, the honourable Minister brought his proposal for amendment in good spirit, but is not withdrawing it in good spirit because there is a problem. We are here, we cannot make a law the issues of which we know do not rhyme; and to avoid honest discussion we assume that we should just withdraw and leave it like that -(Interjection)- yes, he has withdrawn. But, hon. Babu, where there is ratification in recess and there is no ratification there, there is something wrong. Even if you withdraw, you do not change the fact that there is something wrong. Can’t we see this?

MR MWONDHA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Defence is bordering on mischief by withdrawing his motion. If the purpose of recommitting this article is to make a consistent flow of the law then he cannot withdraw because the inconsistency will still remain in the law.

It is better this House deals with the whole of Clause 37, gets it recommitted so that we can put our thinking in flow. Committing troops outside the country is not a simple matter; it involves lives of our children. The country has to be prepared, and the only way of preparing the country for such -(Interruption)

MR BAKKABULINDI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We need to be slightly more serious on these issues. We did not force the Minister of Defence to bring the motion. In his consciousness, he has withdrawn the motion. We were almost going to a Third Reading; in the process hon. Ben Wacha brought his motion. We recall very well that we had done a serious debate on most of these serious crucial provisions of the bill. So, I would suggest that let us vote on his motion then we proceed with a Third Reading.

MRS MWESIGYE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on a procedural issue. Rule 112 of our Rules of Procedure provides as follows: “If any member desires to delete or amend any provision contained in a Bill as reported from a Committee of the Whole House he or she may, at any time before a member moves a Third reading of the Bill, move that the Bill be recommitted either wholly or in respect only on some particular amendment or amendments.”

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Defence moved that the bill be read a Third Time and I seconded it. So, is it procedurally correct, therefore, for another motion for recommittal to be sustained on this Floor?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, honourable members, the stage for recommital is really open to everybody. So, since he has moved, let us vote on his motion and proceed. So, honourable members, I put the question that clause 37(1), clause 37(2) and clause 37(3) be recommitted as proposed by hon. Wacha.

(The Members voted by a show of hands).

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, those in support of the motion are 21; those against it are 61; those abstaining are two. So the motion is lost.

MR MAO: I rise to draw the attention of the Speaker and the House to Rule 16(1). I have seen from the list you have just read the total does not amount to the number required by Article 88 of the Constitution. Therefore, is it in order for this House to proceed to vote on important matters without quorum?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the House is suspended for five minutes.

(The proceedings were suspended for 5 minutes)

(On resumption_)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think for the time being we are unable to conclude the UPDF Bill; let us move to the next item.

BILLS

SECOND READING

THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION

BILL, 2004

6.56

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR INFORMATION (Dr Nsaba Buturo): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill entitled, “The Access to Information, Bill 2004”, be read for a Second Time.

HON. MEMBERS: Seconded.

DR NSABA BUTURO: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking on this Bill. Permit me to express my appreciation to hon. Zziwa, the Chairperson of the Committee on Presidential and Foreign affairs and all the Members of the same Committee for their diligent work of scrutinizing the bill.

Madam Speaker, honourable members are aware that Article 41(1) the Constitution confers on every citizen the right of access to information in the possession of the State or any other organ or agency of the State except where release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right of privacy of any other person.

The object of the Access to Information Bill is to prescribe in accordance with Article 41(2) of the Constitution the classes of information to which Clause 1 of that Article relates and the procedure for obtaining access to such information.

Madam Speaker, for the interest of my colleagues in this august House, Article 41(2) of the Constitution reads as follows. I quote, “Parliament shall make laws prescribing the classes of information referred to in Clause 1 of this Article and the procedure for obtaining access to the information.”

Madam Speaker, I take special pride on behalf of the Movement Government to be presenting this particular bill.

This is a historic bill being presented to Parliament for the first time in the history of independent Uganda. No other Government in the history of this great country has come up with such an important bill.

It will not be lost on honourable members, Madam Speaker, that in the whole of Africa there are only two countries that have a law on access to information, before long, therefore, Uganda will join this exclusive club of countries that have this law.

Now that The Government has come up with this bill, Madam Speaker, that the House is about to debate, an equivocally confirms its unwavering determination to imbed into the country’s psyche, values that will cause Uganda to increasing become a land of liberty and freedom.

This Movement Government, Madam Speaker, does not shy away from doing the unthinkable in its quest to transform Uganda into a more progressive and civilized nation.

Finally, the Movement Government believes that a Government that inoculates itself so that it can operate in secret is not serving the best interests of the country. Government believes that good Government depends on openness with the public at all levels of Government.

To have a healthy democracy requires a satisfactory degree of public access to information. It is with this spirit that Government is recommending to hon. members the right of Access to Information Bill, 2004 for general debate and passing into law. I thank you.

7.00

THE CHAIRPERSON, SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mrs Zziwa Margaret): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wish to present the Report of the Committee on Presidential and Foreign Affairs on the Access to Information Bill, 2004.

Madam Speaker, the Access to Information Bill, 2004 was read for a First Time on the 14 April 2004 and in accordance with Rule 154(c). This bill was referred to the Committee of Presidential and Foreign Affairs for detailed scrutiny.

The object of the bill is to operationalize Article 41 of the Constitution, which states: 41(1)”Every citizen has a right to access to information in possession of the State or any other Organ or agency of the State except where the release of this information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with right of privacy of any other person.

41(2) Parliament shall make laws prescribing the classes of information referred to in Clause (1) of this Article and the procedure for obtaining access to that information”.

The committee wishes to report on how it proceeded in scrutinizing this bill.

Methodology. African Parliamentary Network Against Corruption (APNAC) conducted a one-day seminar on the 18 May 2004 to sensitise all Members of Parliament on the bill. At the workshop, key speakers presented papers and observations and recommendations were made.

The Committee studied the recommendations, which are contained in the Report on Parliamentary Consultative Workshop on Access to Information Bill, 2004. The Committee held meetings with the Minister of State for Information who was accompanied by a team of officers from his office.

The Committee also held meetings with the following stakeholders, who made presentations about their views on the Bill: Hon. Abdu Katuntu, who had earlier presented a similar Private Members’ Bill to this House, Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives and the Uganda Parliamentary Press Association, the Human Rights Network (HURINET) and Coalition for Freedom of Information (COFFI), the African Parliamentary Network against Corruption (APNC), the National Libraries of Uganda and the Uganda Libraries Association and the Acting Government Archivist.

The Committee also received and considered a written memorandum on the bill from the Uganda Broadcasting Council.

The Committee studied the other related laws, namely, The Official Secrets Act, 1964; The National Records and Archives Act, 2001; The Press and Journalists Statute, 1995; The Electronic Media Act, 1996; The Communications Act.

Observations and Recommendations:

On the principles of an access to information law, the Committee observed that an access to information law is instrumental in fostering public transparency and accountability, good governance and the strengthening of democracy in all countries aspiring for democratic governance. Uganda is not an exception, and must therefore ensure that her law in this respect is properly formulated.

A good access to information law is based on the overall principle fostering open Government and the strategic principles as follows: Maximum disclosure, proactive disclosure and obligation to publish, minimum exceptions and exemptions to disclosure; inexpensive, prompt and simple procedural requirements, independent appeals and enforcement, facilitation of implementation of legislation, openness of meeting of public bodies to the public and protection of whistle blowers.

The committee recommends that the stated principles must form the basis of all clauses of this bill and guide the direction of debate.

Conformity with other laws:

The committee observed that some of the issues and concerns that are contained in The Access to Information Bill, 2004, are already provided for in the existing laws.

For example, The Official Secrets Act, 1964 already categorizes the nature of information that could be prejudicial to State’s security, and The Access to Information Bill, 2004 also attempts to do the same but vaguely.

The Committee has addressed this vagueness and has recommended that this law should not duplicate or contradict issues that are already contained in other laws.

The Acting Government Archivist pointed out some of the laws that relate to this bill and some of these are:

The Official Secrets Act, 1964: This deals with the security classification of the records.

The National Records and Archives Act, 2004: This also applies to the Government security instructions on records, for example, of all public records that are supposed to be opened for inspection after a period of 30 years.

The Press and Journalists Statute, 1995. Section five of this statutes stipulates that journalists may access official information subject to existing laws, and schedule one also provides for wrongful access of classified information.

The Copyright Act, 1964: This Act affects access to information, but it is under review - it is important to note here that Uganda is yet to ratify the Universal Copyright Convention.

The Communications Act, 1997: This Act relates to the electronic media and is concerned with licensing, monitoring and regulating communication. The Electronic Media Act, 1996, provides for licensing of televisions.

The Information Communication Technology Policy Framework, which will go a long way or which goes a long way in operationalizing Article 41 of the Constitution. It also recognizes Article 41 as being supportive of other Articles like Article 21, Article 1 and Article 37 of the Uganda Constitution.

Definitions: Madam Speaker, the Committee observed that some terms that are used in the bill have different interpretations from those, which are already in the existing laws, and yet they are also not defined. These include terms like: Privacy, security public interest and sovereignty.

There is also a need for re-definition of the term “information” to include “printed”. The Committee recommends that all these and other terms in the same category be defined.

Local Government: Madam Speaker, the committee observes that the application of the bill inadvertently excludes Local Government in clause 2, yet there are very important institutions in Uganda’s governance system and they have lots of information that can be of interest to the public. The Committee recommends that the bill should be adjusted to include Local Governments.

Cabinet Minutes: Madam Speaker, on the application of the law the committee was concerned that the bill when passed shall not apply to Cabinet minutes and those of its Committees, which is an area of interest to the public.

The Minister informed the committee that The National Records and Archives Act, 2001 already provides that Cabinet minutes can be accessed after a period of 30 years.

The committee, however, observed that the period of 30 years is too long. It recommended that Cabinet minutes should be categorized into those that may be accessed to the public in the short-term, medium-term and long-term. The short-term should be seven years, medium-term should 14 years and long-term be 21 years.

The Committee was further informed that the present Government arrangement of having weekly press briefings is relatively adequate in informing the public about Government positions and recommended that the briefings should be formalized.

Information Officers: Madam Speaker, the Committee observed that clause 10 of the bill, which stipulates that: “For purposes of this Act, each public body shall designate an Information Officer, and such number of persons as Deputy Information Officers as are necessary to render the public body as accessible as reasonably possible for purposes of its records,” is not properly conceived, particularly in accordance with Public Service mode of operation.

The Committee observed that in all Government bodies the respective Chief Executives are answerable for all the operations and activities of the organizations. It is the duty of the Chief Executive to perform these duties, though it is the prerogative of these Officers to assign the duties to their subordinates.

Secondly, it is against the Public Service mode of operation to open up other channels through which the public may access the Government body other than through the Chief Executive.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Chief Executive shall be the Information Officer of any public body. This Officer will in his or her mandate appoint such other staff below him or her to assist him or her in this respect.

Fees for accessing information: The bill stipulates that a person seeking information has to pay a prescribed request fee to access it. The Committee observed that a request fee may hinder a poor person in need of information from accessing it.

The Committee, however, appreciates that in some instances there could be costs incurred in retrieving and reproduction of information. For this purpose, the Committee recommends that a person requesting for information be asked to pay a fee, but it must be limited to the cost of retrieving and reproduction of the information.

The period within which a request for information must be responded to: Madam Speaker, the Committee observed that the bill proposes different periods within which a request for information must be responded to under different circumstances.

The committee appreciates these different circumstances, but they do not warrant different periods. The Committee recommends that a uniform period of 21 days within which a request for information should be responded to be stipulated in the bill.

The justification for 21 days is that the period is long enough to allow the information officer to access information and not unnecessarily too long to frustrate the person who needs the information. This period, however, does not cover information that relates to life and liberty of a person. The Committee recommends that the information officer should respond to this category of information within 48 hours.

Operations of public bodies: Madam Speaker, the bill provides that an information officer may refuse a request for access if the record contains opinion, advice, report or recommendation obtained or prepared for the purposes of assisting to take a decision in the exercise of the power or performance of duty conferred or imposed by law. The Committee observed that once information comes into the custody of a public body, it becomes an official record.

Secondly, it is important for whoever cause a decision in a public body to take a particular direction to be responsible for the outcomes. The Committee recommends that officials records unless otherwise stipulated in this or any other law should be accessed to the public.

Complaints and Appeals: Madam Speaker, some stakeholders were opposed to the provision that complaints should be lodged to the Inspector General of Government. They were of the view that the IGG should only deal with the allegations of corruption. Any complaint regarding access to the information should be taken directly to court.

The Minister informed the Committee that taking complaints relating to access to information to court may delay the process of dealing with these cases because of the complicated judicial procedure and the courts already have tied schedules.

Secondly, the public is generally weary of the court procedure, that includes among others, court charges to those who have filed cases. So many people are likely to give up on their complaints or appeals if referred to the courts of law. So the Committee concurred with the Minister and maintained that appeals should be addressed to the IGG.

Private bodies that access Government funds: Some stakeholders observed that there are some private bodies, like charities, that access Government funds, for example, through donations. They were of the view that any funds sourced to Government coffers should be open to public scrutiny. They propose that where private bodies have accessed State funds, their expenditure must be open to private scrutiny.

The Minister informed the Committee that the bill can only cover information in the public domain. Since Article 41(1) of the Constitution gives a citizen a right of access to information in the possession of the State or organ or agency of the State, not in private hands.

The Committee observed that opening the accounts of the private bodies for public scrutiny amounts to invasion of their privacy. It notes that it is the responsibility of the Auditor General to follow up the use of Government funds and compile a report on the same. Any such information could then be accessed from the Auditor General’s report.

Secondly, there are other laws that cover misuse of public funds, like the anti-corruption laws and the Political Parties and Organizations Act.

Whistle blowers: Madam Speaker, the Committee was concerned that the bill provides for whistle blowers, yet its objective is to operationalise Article 41 of the Constitution, that provides for access of information in the possession of the State, not for the State to access information from the public.

The committee was, however, informed that one of the good principles of Access to Information Bill, 2004, is to provide for the protection of the whistle blowers. The Committee recommended that the expression “Whistle blower” should be replaced with the expression “persons giving information”.

The committee was further concerned that persons may give wrong information, but it was informed that such scenarios are dealt with in other laws.

Records that cannot be found: Madam Speaker, the Committee was concerned that Clause 14, which provides for records that cannot be found could be manipulated to deny access to information particularly since it does not provide any sanctions for the officers who deny access to information.

The Minister assured the Committee that practically a situation where records cannot be found could arise due to the persons seeking information having a misconception of the information or placing the request erroneously. It was agreed that the clause remains in the bill.

In conclusion, the Committee considers the Access to Information Bill, 2004 when enacted very instrumental in promoting good governance in this country by operationalizing Article 41 of the Constitution. The committee, therefore, urges this august House to support the bill with the proposed amendment. I beg to move, Madam Speaker. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon. members. We want to certify that the report was signed by 17 out of the 22 members, so it exceeds the one third required. We can now debate it.

7.20

MR KATUNTU ABDU (Bugweri County, Iganga): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the committee for this wonderful report. Similarly, I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of State for Information for having successfully brought this bill and whatever happened between him and me is behind us.

I would like to say one thing basically a technicality on Article 41. When you read Article 41, it is very clear. A citizen has got a right of access to all information within possession of the State, only and only when that information is likely to prejudice security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right of the privacy of any other person, that is the only exception. So, any attempt by the bill to go beyond this and create other exceptions will have a problem with the Constitution. So, in an attempt to either classify which information, so long as it is within the ambit of Article 41 is correct, anything beyond that will be unconstitutional.

So, I would request the Committee and the Minister really to reconsider the few exceptions that have been brought but arising within the bill and not in the Constitution.

Two, the bill purports to introduce what they are calling an information officer or any officer designated. Every public body the committee is talking about a Chief Executive.

In Government institution, Public Service, we have got what we call Accounting Officers. For example, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry is the overall accounting officer. He should be the officer responsible for this. We do not need to appoint any other officer in the ministry, because it will be very clear for any body going to the ministry to know that I am going to the Permanent Secretary. Then it is up to the Permanent Secretary to look or designate which officer. That is an internal arrangement within the ministry.

So, we do not have to create Officers because once you do that you will have financial implications. You are going to create new posts, you are going to create new personnel and that will be a problem. I foresee a situation of again looking to Public Service to recruit Information Officers, and then this bill will not come into force as soon as possible.

So, Madam Speaker, I would request the Committee - eventually I will have a few amendments - to designate the Accounting Officer because giving information to the public is – you are accounting for the information you are awarding, it is not any information you are creating. So, all this should be given - the role and duties should be designated to the Accounting Officer, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the IGG Statute and we also need to look at the Constitution. What is the mandate of the IGG, because if the IGG is to be burdened by this responsibility, he will be going far beyond what he was created to do.

Madam Speaker, you only go to the IGG if there is a mismanagement by a Government Officer. An Information Officer might not give you the information not because he is mismanaging it; it will call for just ordinary interpretation of the law. If somebody is discontented, let him just go straight to the court. When you go to the IGG, you will be creating a problem for him. I do not think the IGG has got the resources or the manpower to handle these complaints because they will be arising all over the country.

When I was drafting the bill originally, I talked to the then IGG about it and he said he has got enough. So, I really urge my colleagues, even the Committee, to think about this matter again. We do not have to over burden the IGG with more responsibilities.

Madam Speaker, the rest will come at the amendment level because I have got many amendments to move. I thank you.

7.25

MR JACOB OULANYAH (Omoro County, Gulu): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thank the Committee for a good report. I also thank the Minister for making the bill go this far.

I would like to support the submissions of hon. Katuntu, and I want add just one thing to it. The Committee concurred with the Minister to maintain that “appeals” should be addressed to the IGG. The Inspectorate of Government has no appellant jurisdiction, so we would be creating one in this law and it might not be right.

What we are trying to do here is devise a system of judicial review of administrative action, and that is very well taken care of under the Judicature Act in this country. If there is a complaint about the conduct of an Officer, if there is a complaint about the decision taken by a particular Administrative Tribunal, the recourse to address that is called judicial review of administrative action; and that goes to straight to the High Court to do that, lift the decision, look at it and either quash it or recommend that other decisions be taken. Now to give this to the Inspectorate of Government would not be right.

I am supporting hon. Abdu Katuntu in saying that after the –(Interruption)

MR KATUNTU: Madam Speaker, hon. Oulanyah is putting even another angle to it. What will happen if you are dissatisfied with the decision of the IGG, you will be appealing against the IGG. So, the IGG again is also dragged in this whole crisis. So, instead of the problem being of the Officer, who either irregularly or even corruptly or unlawfully denied you that information, you will now be appealing against the decision of the IGG in a court of law. That is the information.

MR OULANYAH: Thank you, hon. Katuntu. So, the thing is that you should remain with the IGG, if there is a complaint, because the Inspectorate of Government only receives complaints of mal-administration, mal-action or corruption. So, if the problem with the Information Officer is that he has solicited a bribe or he has abused his office, then what goes to the Inspectorate is a complaint not an appeal. So, these should be structured properly to avoid creating something, which should not even exist.

So, I would recommend that the Committee should look at this again and whoever is aggrieved by the decision of the Information Officer should seek judicial review of that action. But if it is a complaint about other issues related to issues that fall within the mandate of the Inspectorate of Government, then a complaint can be lodged with the Inspectorate. Thank you.

MR ERESU: I am a member of the Committee, but I would like to give this information. The recommendation that the IGG was to be the person to whom a complainant would go rather than going for the outright litigation. Madam Speaker, it was considered in this light. The cost of litigation was considered to have been prohibitive for a certain section of society if they went straight to court. What will happen is that someone would therefore find himself prohibited to get his problems easily addressed. So, the best way to go where the cost would be so minimal would be to the IGG. That was the background against which the IGG was brought in to be the next office to go to for redress to the problem without necessarily resorting in the first instance to litigation.

MAJ. (RTD) KINOBE: I thank you, Madam Speaker. The submission was raising some concerns towards courts and their procedures. I was wondering whether one of these you may not have an access to Court. The procedure involved to access the Court as the lawyers know has a lot of technicalities, to draft the legal phrases, then the costs involved and so forth.

Supposing instead of calling it an appeal, maybe we called it a complaint. If you are not satisfied you lodge it as a complaint and not as an appeal. Otherwise, administratively to reach the IGG’s Office is more practical and easier than to access courts given the legal limitation to lay people. I do not know what you think if we changed it from an appeal to a complaint.

MR OULANYAH: Thank you. If it is a complaint, that is what I said, you go to the Inspectorate of Government, but it has to be grounded on the mandate of the Inspectorate of Government that he can receive such a complaint. There they would be no problem with it. But if it is an appeal, you cannot appeal to the Inspectorate of Government.

MR KATUNTU: Madam Speaker, let me clarify this. You see, there is no law that stops anybody from going to IGG if he has got a problem; he will always go there. If, for example, the Information Officer is deliberately withholding that information either corruptly, you have got a right under other laws, not even this one, to go and complain against the behaviour of that particular Officer.

But what we are looking at is, if the Information Officer takes a decision and you are not satisfied with this decision - I do not know whether I am clear - such that if you are not satisfied with this decision, then you do not run to the IGG. You cannot do that because then you will be appealing against this decision. But if the Information Officer has either corruptly or even destroyed the information you need and you have a little bit of evidence, then you have got the right to complain to the IGG against this decision.

But if the information officer has either corruptly or even destroyed the information you need and you have a little bit of evidence, then you have got the right to complain to the IGG against the decision. In that case you do not seek your remedy from Access to Information Bill. What the law is now seeking to do is to have the IGG administer this bill like he is administering the Leadership Code.

7.30

DR FRANK NABWISO (Kagoma county, Jinja): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very grateful to the Committee for the report. I want to raise three issues.

The first one is on page 6, the last paragraph. The Committee seems to have done some diplomatic work by trying to please the Minister of State (Information) saying that the present Government arrangement of having weekly press briefings is relatively adequate in informing the public about Government policies.

I was listening to a press statement read by Betty Kamya of FDC. In her words she said the Minister of Information had misled the public when he tried to interpret the position of Government regarding holding of political rallies. According to her, the Minister of State was giving the impression that up to now political parties have to wait until a referendum on political parties has been carried out before they hold political rallies.

I want to challenge the Minister of State (Information) and the National Political Commissar to state the actual position on this matter. This is an issue where we need a clear Government statement to the public on this matter.

The second issue appears on page 10 –(Interruption)

DR NSABA BUTURO: Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague for giving way. The problem of relying on certain sources, which are not reliable is simply demonstrated by my colleague there. What I am quoted to have said, I never said so.

DR NABWISO: Madam Speaker, I have not understood the explanation.

DR NSABA BUTURO: Madam speaker, I am informing my honourable colleague that really to his responsibility. He thinks that Mrs Kamya is a reliable source for him to quote. I am informing this august House that I never said what I am said to have said. Thank you.

MR SEBALU: Point of clarification.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clarification from who?

MR SEBALU: Hon. Nabwiso. Yes, he quoted the Committee as having acknowledged the fact that the weekly press briefings have gone a long way in helping out in terms of giving information to the public. I am wondering whether his context – he is on the content that he is given out or the practice of holding these weekly press briefings.

My understanding is that sector ministers have always come in this briefing. It is coordinated and organized by the Minister, but he gets relevant people handling particular sectors that need to inform the public. On a number of occasions we have found that they have informed the public from technical and other grounds.

So, is he contesting the procedure, the content or the people involved in this press briefing? Otherwise, it is one source that is now available through which the public accesses information from Government.

DR NABWISO: I am contesting that some of these weekly meetings are misleading the public. Therefore, this statement should be amended. This is my opinion.

MR ERESU: Can I seek clarification from the Member on the Floor when he says some of these weekly briefings mislead members of the public. Can he provide evidence to the effect to clarify his point?

DR NABWISO: I have requested the Minister to now make a statement regarding the issue of political parties. Are they allowed to hold political rallies or not? This is an issue of great contention. We want Government’s position on this matter, because there is a lot of confusion about what he says and what the public understands. This is the point.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: But, honourable members, the report says is the information received. They are not recommending anything about it. There is no recommendation on the weekly press briefing. Can you focus on the recommendations of the Committee?

DR NABWISO: The recommendation is that the Minister of State for Information and other ministers who come to give these weekly briefings should be well informed about the subjects that they are informing us about- (Laughter) Can I continue, Madam speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Chairperson want to say something?

MRS ZZIWA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate hon. Nabwiso’s concerns. He is more concerned about the content, but the committee was concerned that this arrangement is very useful in informing the public. This is why we recommended that this arrangement should be formalized and remains in place.

As regards the content dispute. We can have other channels on which we can deal with the content dispute. We think this procedure should be formalized- (Interruption)

MR SEBALU: The information I would like to give my hon. chairperson regarding the issue of hon. Nabwiso is. For instance, he has got a problem with the interpretation of the status of political parties in terms of holding rallies and definitely the competent person would not be Betty Kamya.

I purpose that maybe the Attorney General would be a more competent authority on such matters of interpreting the legislation available for such activities. But to quote Betty Kamya as an authority in these matters –(Laughter)- he is really misinforming this House.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, I just seek that you help me clarify this whole matter. This kind of law is only useful and relates to situations where otherwise in accessible information in hands of Government is sought by an individual using what at that time he sought should be Article 41, so that he can access it and for a purpose.

Now, Madam Speaker, I want some clarification. I get an impression that this is touching too much of the general areas of information. Can I be clarified if actually we are moving on the right frequency or not, Madam Speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Minister has said he brought this bill under Article 41. So far I have no reason to doubt it. If you have got areas which you think are not under Article 41 you raise them. I will give you an opportunity to speak after he has finished.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, the issue now at hand is what hon. Nabwiso is raising. What Government gives is what it prefers to give and is not always very interesting to the public. What the public wants to look for are things, which are otherwise inaccessible, or things that are actually called secret, categorized as very confidential. I thought that is what - this kind of law in other countries, certainly that is what it covers, it does not cover general areas. I am very sure about that, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Chairperson, do you have a recommendation and an amendment to include formalizing that in your proposals. If it is not, that was obiter. Was it obiter, or you actually have a specific amendment to include those as a source of information in your –(Interruption)

MRS BYAMUKAMA: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker. I also have the feeling that, for example, when we were discussing issues of the Public Accounts Committee in this Parliament, one of the issues, which was always raised was classified information, especially to do with military expenditure. We were promised that when this law comes into force, we will be able to have access to such information and the Public Accounts Committee will be able to do its work effectively. That is what I recollect.

Now, the point is, when you look at Article 41(1), it has an exception, “except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to privacy of any other person.” Now, if we do not have any particular indicators or guidelines as to what this exception would apply to, then whatever we make as a law will be rendered virtually unenforceable in that anybody could use the cover of this exception to disenable one from accessing information that, that person feels is entitled to access. I do not see that very clearly, and maybe when the Chairperson comes up, I hope she will tell us.

MR ERESU: Can I give some little information before the Chairperson comes? The Committee has been quite clear in the de-classification of this information. If you read through the report of the committee, the periods by which some of this information is given to the public or can be accessed by the public, invariably defines the extent to which such information, which you consider as classified information, is provided to the public depending on the extent to which that particular information is considered prejudicial to the State security. So, that one has been taken care of in time, that is, five years, seven years and so forth.

This period indicates that this kind of information is no longer prejudicial to the State security. It can be given out between such given periods unless you want all information, which is even prejudicial to the State security given out. But if you read Article 41, you get clearly that care has been taken that, although all information can be given to the public, there are exceptions. These exceptions have been, therefore, regulated in terms of time of disclosure as given by our report.

MRS ZZIWA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to react to hon. Brig. Tumukunde’s concern. I want to say that we have not carried a recommendation or an amendment in the bill because this is not an area to be covered in the bill. You should also note that not all recommendations in the report are meant for that specific bill or to be enacted in law. I can quote many other areas where we carry recommendations, which can be used for other areas of operation by Government.

For instance, in this particular area, we could look at other records. When the Minister of Information makes that exercise the information is taped. This bill now can guarantee somebody to go and access this taped information. So, we are looking at it from that perspective.

But, for instance, if it is just aired and that is that, the kind of formalization we are talking about will be done procedurally so that the Ministry of Information or Directorate of Information goes ahead to have those as records. We know very well that after maybe three or six weeks or whatever, they erase them. Now because there is a law and we know that this is an arrangement in place, they will have to keep them so that after a period of time, somebody can say that on such and such a time, this information was released on air and I would like to have access to it and listen to it to be able to present it or use it for other information.

I appreciate that hon. Dora Byamukama’s concern is to do with that exception, which is within the Article itself. But you realize that when the bill is being explained, it creates situations of that exception, and that is why the Committee was concerned about defining those particularly terminologies.

The bill talks about privacy and sovereignty, we are going to define those terms. So, it is going to narrow the perspective of exception. Even where the exception could have arisen to the existing laws like the Official Secrets Act, we are now trying also to narrow this situation. So that the opportunity of the public to access the information can really be more accessible than just when it is right now, 30 years blanket. The Committee was concerned about this.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Nabwiso, please make your two points.

DR NABWISO: Yes, just one more point. This is on page 10 the last paragraph. Where you say that opening the accounts of private bodies for public scrutiny amounts to invasion of their privacy. I would like to get clarification as to how best to classify political parties, because political parties are public bodies. They belong to the public, they are not somebody’s private company like Uganda Manufacturers’ Association - I mean any company. Now, this is an area where the public in Uganda is very interested as to how we leaders spend money, some of which may have been obtained from the State or some of which may have been obtained from private hands, because it is that money that we use to manipulate people.

Now, the public is very interested to know how political parties use money and how they get money. This amuses me; because when I was recently consulting people in Kagoma, they kept on asking me, “How about this five million shillings, where did it come from?”

MR ERESU: The honourable member is leading us to another discussion, which this Parliament successfully passed. It included the party behaviour and party performance. It is covered in the Political Parties, Organisation Act. Now I do not know why you are bringing in this point as if you are unaware of an Act that exists to establish discipline and prescribe existence and functions of political parties.

I believe what the member is raising on the ground is adequately covered in that Act. If it is not adequate enough for him, he could move that amendment to take care of that interest. I do not think it can be covered in the Access to Information Bill.

DR NSABA BUTURO: Madam speaker, the more I particularly listen to hon. Tumukunde and now Hon. Nabwiso, the more I am convinced that they have not really read the Access to Information Bill. There is a whole part three, which is about exemption from access. Therefore, I would like to encourage my colleagues that as they read the report, they read the bill at the same time.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Nabwiso that matter is provided for in the other law, the matter of accounts of political parties.

DR NABWISO: Madam Speaker, my problem is that these issues are interrelated whether you are talking about Organizations Act or you are talking about Access to Information bill, we are accountable to the public. What is it that the public is interest in? The public is interested in transparency, the public is interested in accessing information and if this is related to accessing information, the ordinary person in Kagoma would like to know if this bill will help him to go to a public party and say, “Look, I want this - (Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Nabwiso, the matter is provided for under that Act, the provisions for finding out what political parties are doing! There is no battle for people in Kagoma where I pass when I am going to Kamuli from seeking the information.

MR SEBALU: Hon. Nabwiso should appreciate that when we are making legislation we do it for particular activities and it becomes interesting to read one law together with another in order to appreciate it.

Now, for him to appreciate how this law can help him to look into matters of the political parties, he needs to read this together with the Political Organizations Act. He should be able to appreciate and inform his people in Kagoma accordingly. So laws are made specifically to address specific issues, so if you are going to use one law to interpret everything then we are likely to face a problem.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, hon. members, we have done enough work for today. I have noted those members who want to speak. I have said I am noting down those who have indicated that they want to speak so that the Clerk can take their names. Can I finish- when the Speaker is on the Floor members are expected- So Clerk take down names so that tomorrow we begin with those- What is the problem, hon. Tumukunde?

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I have not been picked properly. I am trying actually to restrict, you know we waste a lot of time on this Floor Madam Speaker, sometimes going into every dimension of a subject.

I wanted to bring notice to you, Madam Speaker and to the people moving the bill and the members of the Committee that we need to draw lines and demarcations about this very subject; so that we spend lesser time on it.

The Minister is saying we have not read the bill. Yes, we may have read the bill but if the bill is going way beyond the areas of what we think is supposed to be the actual subject in this very bill, we will have to raise it.

Madam Speaker, what am I saying? Having read through this report, and I took time when the Chairman was going through, we are going too far off from what would be the area and subject of this- it is about information that is otherwise not easily accessible and here citizens press that they access it.

In fact, when I heard the Chairman, talking about 30 years, this is for Governments, which do not have Bisanja- this is for people who spend less time in power- If you are talking about 21 years, it means me who has served like for 21 years in particular area, if you want some information- Madam Speaker, I am current and I may even obstacle that information and if we are not careful we are going to cause disappearance of information.

In fact I pray since it does not exist in this law -(Interjections)- we must also provide for protection of information. I do not know whether it has been provided for elsewhere. I was saying in fact reducing years and seeking more and more Bisanja for Members of Parliament and other people, you are actually contradicting yourself.

MRS ZZIWA: The information I wanted to give to my colleague is that when the law of Official Secrets Act passed in 1964, it never envisaged these Bisanja context, even now, whether we are seeking more Kisanja or not, it is in place. So it is biding to any Government, which will come in place. So when we are looking at this, I think this should be the basis or the background on which we are putting it. It does not mean that when the current Government takes another Kisanja, it will be the only one. I am sure any other Government which comes in power will be affected or will have to be governed within that law. So we should not look at it in that perspective, let us know that we are enacting laws of this country for the good governance of this country.

Those who passed the laws in 1964 were envisaging that some of the information when it gets in the domain of the public, before a certain period, may either prejudice or hurt the Government that is why it was put in such a manner. But now we are saying that with all this kind of information requirement, we need to lessen the period so that many more people can access this information maybe at a more lesser period.

We recognize that some of the information can be classic or classified but some of the information could be general information. We do not also over look the fact that there is some general information, which has not been accessible in the simplistic terms.

BRIG. TUMUKUNDE: Madam Speaker, my points may be I should line them very easily. One; let us go to the years. When you talk about 30 years in other Governments, the presumption is that these Governments do not stay as long as 30 years and therefore, will not obstacle information when it is needed. It presumes people would have cleared and they cannot obstacle information- (Interruption)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Tumukunde, really you are a lawyer, you are aware that in most Commonwealth countries this 30 years exists. Recently in the United Kingdom they were releasing information, I think it was last week, Tony Blair was not there when they made that law. This 30 years rule exists in many of the Commonwealth countries. It is not an innovation, yes, hon. Tumukunde, I think this one you know as a lawyer.

MR KATUNTU: Madam Speaker, can I be of help?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

MR KATUNTU: Madam Speaker, we are looking at this bill being brought under specific provisions of the Constitution, and the Constitution is very clear. The exception it gives says: “Information, which is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State.” So, when the Chairperson referred to Government, I thought that was a problem. There is a world of difference between a Government and State. So, let us not look at Government, and indeed if we are creating exceptions having in mind Government and not the State we are going to be unconstitutional –(Mr Eresu rose_)– let me make my point, hon. Eresu.

When you look at Article 41(2) it gives Parliament the mandate to do one thing, Madam Speaker, to prescribe the classes of information only. It says: “Parliament shall make laws prescribing the classes of information referred to in Clause 1 of this Article, and the procedure of obtaining that information.” It is very clear. That is why I was saying that at an appropriate stage, Madam –(Interruption)

MR ERESU: Let us not run ourselves into nothing and think we are running somewhere. Article 41 is silent on the timeframe. I am sure hon. Katuntu is aware of this. Article 41 is silent on the timeframe. But Article 41(2) gives Parliament the procedure of getting this information, and one of the procedure is that Parliament in its own wisdom will see how this information is given and as to when it should be given, as simple as that.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I think –(Interruption)

MR KATUNTU: Madam Speaker, that was information. Let me summarize. That is why it is good to read laws, so it becomes easier for you to interpret the laws. If you are talking about time, you are now talking about substantive procedure, you do not have power – because once you talk about time you are limiting my right, say within this right you cannot access this information. Therefore you infringe on my right under Article 41(1) automatically because this right is constitutional.

The Constitution is the supreme law and any other law as long it contradicts the Constitution it is null and void to the extent of the inconsistency. So, if you limit me under Article 41(2) without you having that right then you will have infringed on my constitutional right. You know sometimes it is not as easy as we think it is.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable Members, there is time for debate and time for amendments. If you want to make amendments, prepare them tonight. So, debate continues tomorrow; the House is adjourned until two O’clock tomorrow afternoon.

(The House rose at 8.03 p.m. and adjourned until Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 2.00 p.m.)