Court narrows focus in case challenging Parliamentary Service Awards to top leaders

The High Court in Kampala has narrowed its focus in the case challenging the Parliamentary Commission's "service awards" to top leaders.
Although the executive and parliament approved these Ex-Gratia payments in the Appropriations Bill, the Court will not review the procedures but will instead scrutinise the Commission's decision-making process.
Keep Reading
- > High Court Declares URBRA Board unfit for governance in landmark ruling
- > Socialite Don Nasser committed to High Court over defilement, human trafficking
- > Judge raises concern over increased cases of mob justice in Mukono
- > NUP to Appeal High Court Ruling Dismissing Case on 18 Missing Party Members
The Court has dismissed conflict of interest claims, referencing Section 42 of the Administration of Parliament Act, which permits the Commission to determine its members' allowances with Parliamentary approval.
In its ruling, the Court stated, "the decision, dated May 6, 2022, to award the former Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga Shs 500,000,000, and three other Commissioners Shs 400,000,000 each, as a service award was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the executive, as required."
Justice Douglas Karekona Singiza noted that, according to Section 42 of the Administration of Parliament Act (AOPA), the Commission determines the allowances of its members with Parliament's approval.
The Court further ruled that the service award was approved by Parliament in the Appropriation Bill under the title "Ex-gratia for political leaders."
“The impugned [questioned] payment was approved by Parliament in the Appropriation Bill under the title ‘Ex-gratia for Political Leaders… the fact that this vote formed part of the Appropriations Act is proof that the Minister of Finance had the opportunity to scrutinize the payment and that Parliament approved the ex-gratia vote,” the Court ruled.
However, the Court has directed the Secretary to the Treasury to investigate and discipline the Clerk to Parliament, Adolf Mwesigwa, for his involvement in the contested service award.
Justice Singiza found that a concerned citizen, Mr Daniel Bwette's conflict of interest argument was unsustainable, given Section 42 AOPA, which allows the Commission to determine allowances with Parliamentary approval.
In his ruling on August 12, 2024, Justice Singiza proposed that the Attorney General urgently consider a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill.
This board would review and harmonize the emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders, potentially reducing the temptation to enhance emoluments under the guise of prize money. Such a board would report directly to the President.
Mr. Bwette had argued that the Parliamentary Commission’s decision to distribute Shs 1.7 billion among four individuals was illegal, oppressive, biased, irrational, and unfair.
He sought a declaration that the decision was "ultra vires and is null and void."
Court documents reveal that on May 6, 2022, the four commissioners Prossy Akampurira, Solomon Silwany, and Esther Afoyochan along with the Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among, were awarded Shs 400 million each, with Mpuuga receiving Shs 500 million.
Bwette argued that this service award was not part of Parliament’s payment structures.
The core issue was the Clerk to Parliament's role as the accounting officer responsible for the parliamentary service vote.
Justice Singiza emphasized the Clerk's duty to account for all funds appropriated under the parliamentary service vote.
"The Clerk to Parliament has a duty to give advice that is reasonably acceptable by other people in the same profession. Should the Clerk give advice that is fundamentally erroneous, he or she may be sued for negligence," Justice Singiza stated.
Justice Singiza criticized the Clerk for failing to detect and prevent the flawed process surrounding the service award payments.
The service awards were included under the title "Ex-Gratia Payment for Political Leaders" in the Parliamentary Commission's Recurrent and Development Budget.
However, Justice Singiza pointed out that retirement benefits, which are entitlements, should not have been classified as ex-gratia payments.
This misclassification raised serious questions about the transparency and legality of the process.
"Retirement benefits are entitlements and not ex-gratia. It is puzzling why the accounting officer placed them under ex-gratia payments," Justice Singiza observed.
He further criticised the Clerk for failing to scrutinize the payments and allowing the flawed process to proceed.
Justice Singiza also addressed the issue of irrationality, noting that a decision by a public body could be deemed irrational if it was so unreasonable that no sensible person would have made it based on the facts available at the time.
He questioned the rationale behind the payment, stating that "no room is created to grant an additional financial benefit hidden under the guise of prize money in the name of exercising discretion."
In his ruling, Justice Singiza compared Uganda's Consolidated Fund to a national granary, emphasizing the importance of protecting public funds.
"The Consolidated Fund is comparable to a national granary, one which is especially protected and whose sentry is none other than the President," he said.
He stressed that payments from this common pool must be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
Justice Singiza explored procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, noting that public officials must remain fair and just in their interactions with the public.
He examined whether the Commissioners had a pecuniary interest in awarding themselves the service payments and whether this constituted a conflict of interest.
"The oversight power of this Court in this matter remains focused on the procedure that the respondent followed in arriving at the decision on the service award, notwithstanding that the money used to pay for the impugned award was part of the national budget," he explained.
While the Court acknowledged that the Ex-Gratia payments were presented in the Appropriations Bill by the Executive and passed by Parliament, it did not delve into the specifics of the parliamentary procedure.
However, Justice Singiza emphasized procedural fairness and the need for public bodies to act with care when exercising discretionary powers.
Justice Singiza declined to grant the reliefs sought by the applicant, noting that the payments were part of the budget approved by Parliament.
He issued directives for disciplinary action against the Clerk to Parliament and called for the introduction of a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill.
"The Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury is directed to institute disciplinary proceedings against the Clerk to Parliament within 12 months from the date of this ruling," Justice Singiza ordered.
In a notable obiter dictum, Justice Singiza expressed concern about the trend of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves large sums of money.
He urged the Attorney General to consider introducing a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill to harmonize the emoluments and allowances of government and political leaders, which could help curb the temptation for leaders to enhance their emoluments under the guise of prize money.