BIG INTERVIEW: MPs slated to sign censure motion were sent on trips - Ssekikubo

As we were midway, the Government Chief Whip Damson Obua issued a directive to all NRM members not to sign, and even the vice chairperson of the caucus reiterated the stance of NRM members.

In the midst of challenging efforts to secure 177 signatures, Lwemiyaga County MP Theodore Ssekikubo remains optimistic about recalling four commissioners over the Shs1.7 billion service award.

Recently, he accused Ahmed Kagoye, Parliament's Sergeant at Arms, of ordering the removal of his table and chairs used for collecting signatures.

In an interview, Ssekikubo revealed that some undecided MPs were sent to Nairobi to prevent them from signing the censure motion, leaving them with fewer than 15 signatures needed to proceed.

Excerpts;-

Aren't you concerned that your censure effort has reached a dead end?

Yes, but I think that conclusion is already harsh on the part of those who are soliciting signatures. I would like to put it in context: this is a motion that requires 177 members of Parliament with voting rights, which is a third of the members of Parliament. Look at the context.

How far have you gone in gathering the 177 signatures?

By the way, nobody thought we would get 177 signatures. We got 50, then 100, 130, 140. We are in the 160s, bearing in mind the circumstances under which we are soliciting these signatures. Most of those who have not signed have not done so, not because of a lack of merit in the motion, but because of their fear and allegiance to the Speaker.

As we were midway, the Government Chief Whip Damson Obua issued a directive to all NRM members not to sign, and even the vice chairperson of the caucus reiterated the stance of NRM members. Given such circumstances, can you applaud those who have given you their signatures, or can you say you have hit a dead end?

With NRM directives against signing, have you hit a dead end or made progress?

You can't say we have hit a dead end. It depends on the forces against us. We were affected by the directives that were issued. You know NRM has the majority, and by the time that directive was issued, we were above 90.

Considering the forces we are contending with, I have no doubt in my mind that we have made significant progress and are very satisfied. I can assure you that where we are now, we are not changing gears. We cannot fail to have such an important motion.

Does asking for vehicles and fuel from the Speaker and Clerk to follow MPs in recess put you in a weaker position?

Not exactly, because we started this motion when the House was on recess. MPs came in briefly for the state of the nation address, the budget speech, and the designation of committee chairpersons, but immediately after, members were sent home. We are not on a fishing expedition. We are in touch with colleagues, and they are the ones saying we can look for them if we need their signatures.

You mentioned colleagues driving back to Kampala to sign. If your cause for censuring the commissioners is solid, wouldn’t they be seeking you out instead?

Given the current storm in which Parliament is involved and engulfed, and the broader fight against graft led by the president, what reasonable Member of Parliament, if there were no other reasons, would fail to endorse this matter by giving their signature? As the country is fighting corruption, we also have a duty to contribute, starting with our own Parliament.

Why aren’t MPs supporting you if they believe in your cause?

Between you and me, these are human beings. They do believe in our fight, which is why we have 160 signatures. I want you to appreciate that we are not requesting signatures from the opposite side that is dormant. As we ask for signatures, the other side is also countering our request for signatures.

What do you mean by "the other side"?

You know this is the House we are in. One section of Parliament that has appended their signatures to the motion says we need to check ourselves. Those whom the motion seeks to check are also not sitting idle. Some members who were undecided are taken on trips like the one to Nairobi for 14 days to keep them away. This is another form of compromising members, which we must deal with.

If MPs are compromised, what is the fight about?

The fight is complex because it involves human beings. If it were to ensure someone housed Parliament, the rapid signing of the petition would be unprecedented. It is complex in the sense that those who have convinced the Speaker believe the movers of this motion would not stop at the commissioners. I am surprised that we have moved this far.

Many say you're fighting the wrong battle and that MPs approved this money without reading the fine print.

We are saying no, we didn’t pass that money under Service Awards. This is the most laughable argument I have ever heard. If they have evidence that we passed this money, that would be the best reason to append their signatures to the motion so that it can come to the floor of Parliament.

This would give them an opportunity to present their evidence to support their argument. My position, and that of my colleagues sponsoring this petition, is that we didn’t pass the money.

The Parliamentary Commission handles Parliament’s administration, including MPs' emoluments and car purchases. If the same commission approved the service awards, how is it different from other funds appropriated for MPs?

That is a lame argument. How do they determine? They don’t determine out of a vacuum. There are two aspects to that determination: either in accordance with the law or policy. It must be backed by the law, the constitution, and other laws. The Service Award is outside the law; it is really outside the law to begin talking about the Service Awards.

Why did you pass Ex Gratia laws for other leaders, like the president, vice president, prime minister, and former speakers, but not for the Leader of the Opposition?

It involved the amendment of the law. Ex Gratia is different. The law must be explicit; you must state so. You provide for what is stated, not implied. Laws are never implied; legislation is never implied. Where does it state that now we are providing for the Leader of the Opposition?

Your Rules of Procedure require 177 signatures to proceed. After a month of being stuck, isn't it time to reconsider?

This matter is critical. It is a work in progress.

Imagine you need fewer than 15 signatures. Will you drive across regions like West Nile, Lango, Ankole, and Busoga just to collect them? Is that realistic?

I would like to appeal to you to put that into context. Even if we miss by one signature, the motion would be rendered incompetent. In order for us to have the necessary signatures, looking for them, even if it is just one, is more critical than ever before. You have seen our desks and seats almost removed.

Did you cry because your desk was removed?

I can cry, but I am motivated to find out why it was removed. Those who cry never make it. Even if it means going to Karamoja to collect one significant signature, I would do so.

How can you convince Ugandans to support your fight against corruption when some MPs are jailed for embezzling funds?

That kind of argument is analogous to that of detractors. Where the country slides into despondency is when we have such a problem. It is about the significance; it has a significant value. If the country is to move forward, Parliament is the institution that appropriates.

If corruption starts within Parliament, look at it from that perspective. We cannot start anywhere else. The IGG can start anywhere, the Auditor General can start anywhere, but for us as MPs, the cleaning must start within our House.

Why aren't you targeting higher-profile figures? Are you genuinely combatting corruption, or engaging in political maneuvers?

Ssekikubo is not an institution; I am just one member. Talking to my colleagues in Parliament, we are saying enough is enough, let’s start with our own. Other specialised agencies are there. By doing this, we don’t intend to substitute ourselves for the law enforcement organs of the state. We are saying the battle begins where you are.

Are you fighting corruption or political wars?

Isn't fighting corruption in Parliament a responsibility for any MP? This issue transcends personal interests and party affiliations. My focus is on accountability for all MPs, regardless of their political party.

The core of my motion addresses members awarding themselves perks at the start of their service, which they decide independently. It's crucial to clarify that the Parliamentary Commission, not this motion, decides MPs' vehicle allowances, based on parliamentary policy and law.

Considering the challenges mentioned, what are the chances of this motion succeeding?

We remain optimistic. Parliament reflects society, and we believe reaching 255 signatures will be achievable.