NUP MPs won’t return to House without answers, says Mpuuga 

MATHIAS MPUUGA, the Leader of Opposition in parliament, has said National Unity Platform (NUP) MPs will not return to parliament until they get satisfactory answers from the government on human rights violations issues they raised recently.

Over a month ago, the opposition in parliament raised six issues; seeking answers to the 18 NUP members who have been missing for over two years, a stop to the targeting and victimization of Muslims, a stop to the detention without trial of political dissenters, a stop to the violation of human rights of fishing communities, a shrinking civil space, mistreatment of politicians and media and the trial of civilians in military courts.

Last week, Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa adjourned the House for two weeks as he tries to mediate the impasse between the opposition and the government side. In an interview with Baker Batte Lule , Mpuuga said they are not going to break until such a time when they believe there is sufficient commitment from government to handle the issues raised.

It’s a month now since the stand-off between you and the leadership of parliament started; what’s the current status?

There is no stand-off between the opposition and the leadership of parliament. Leadership of parliament means the speaker, deputy speaker, leader of opposition and the government chief whip. So, there is no stand-off. What you would call a stand-off is between us and the issues we raised to the executive; not to the speaker.

The speakers are balanced presiding officers of the house. When the members of the house raise questions, the speaker amplifies that question and demand the executive to answer.

As long as that question is legitimate and has space in law and in the rules, then the speaker has no choice to demand the executive to make a response. In some cases when the matter has been around for some time, the demand of the speaker to the executive is to make a response faster to the comfort of those asking the questions.

But that stand-off is also spilling over to the presiding officers because it looks like they can’t also do their job…

The presiding officers don’t generate business. The business of that house is generated by the executive and the rules allow the opposition too to table business. The rules are clear that while presiding over the house, the speaker gives priority to the business of government.

Of course, the opposition too brings business to the house and our business now are the issues we raised and the presiding officers asked
the executive to respond to those issues.

Most of these issues you are raising now have been around and you have tried to address them without success in the past; how different is this time going to be that you expect the answers you want?

Whether there is a difference between the present and the past, it doesn’t arise. What is consistent is that the issues we are raising are legitimate from the past and the present.

Therefore, we are consistent and persistent about them. Therefore, we don’t demand different answers from those we demanded last year. Because they are very pertinent and legitimate; whether it is going to take a generation of time for a response to be provided, we want that response. Probably the only difference is that we are not going to back down until there is a response that is acceptable.

What is an acceptable response for you?

We shall judge it from the manner it is presented. It must, of course, include a commitment to justice, to accountability, to truthfulness; those are the parameters. Prime minister Robinah Nabbanja and Gen David Muhoozi, the state minister for Internal Affairs, have said they have provided answers they need to provide.

What do you make of that kind of response?

The problem is that power and knowledge are different things. When you have the power and choose to say what you say, it doesn’t equal to knowledge and when you say things that are not intelligible, we reject them and demand for serious answers and that’s how we construed the response of the prime minister. Her response wasn’t intelligible.

It looks like that’s how you hold the prime minister…

Our thinking is that in government there are other actors and they should be able to sit and see through the kind of response expected of a serious people.

Looking at how you respond to her in the House, one gets a feeling that you don’t take her serious. So, why do you think that she will give you serious answers?

You can’t judge me on whether I take her serious or not but it’s her business to speak seriously. So, when she speaks in jest over serious business, I reject her response but I again ask her to respond. In court, when a witness tries to dodge the questions or fools around, you insist that they answer the questions.

What is transpiring in your corner as we speak now?

I’m in control of my space and my duty is to keep the team together and to keep on making these demands. What happens on the other side is their business. They have a duty to offer leadership and to supply answers when asked. We are not asking these questions for ourselves.

We are asking these questions on behalf of the 18 missing persons, their families and individuals in detention without trial for more than three years. We are asking on behalf of the families of these persons in military court martial when they are civilians against the decision of the Constitutional court.

We are asking on behalf of the families of the Muslims community which is under persecution, whose clerics have been shot while on handcuffs and nobody is responding. We are asking on behalf of the fishing communities who have been haunted and hounded, whose members have been killed by men in uniform, and nobody is willing to listen to them. We ask these questions on behalf of the civil society, the media, who have been muzzled and we are demanding for a commitment on civic space.

These issues have been around for some time now; one would ask, is there anything that has triggered the current action?

The triggers are the same; the lack of concern, the desire to consider them as normal yet they are not. The other day you saw how they treated our party president. A few days ago, you heard how the police thought it is their business to allow us to open our party headquarters. We see a pattern of trying to usurp the provisions of the Constitution and we are saying no.

When we thought that at some stage the regime will back down and release political prisoners, that have been in detention without charge to no avail. The clear lack of commitment by the regime is the spark for us to say, we are going down the sewer if we don’t put our foot down on these issues.

There is a view that you should make parliament impossible to sit even for the NRM side until these issues are concluded. What do you make of that position?

It is their view, not mine. I’m here with the team and every day a matter arises, we sit and mull over the issues and decide the course of action. We have refused to be impulsive and decided to move with clarity so that nobody tries to circumvent the issues. Whether people are going to sit and elect to go without us, for whom are they legislating?

They are legislating for the same people who are sending us to make these demands. Whether they are going to go all the way and neglect our demands, it’s their business but they will remain legitimate.

What was the thinking to allow MPs to continue attending committee meetings?

Because committees are not in the control of the executive. We are making these demands to the executive. The committees are purely occupied by MPs and the questions are not theirs. Therefore, it will really be misinterpreted if we decided to stifle the committees.

We have seen NRM people calling you grandstanders; and that your boycotts mean nothing. How do you respond to that?

I think a big section of the NRM people are simply excited with power and not so many of them take off the time to understand the issues and I can comfortably say they have the right to ignorance.

My space is to amplify the voice of the voiceless and the ignorant will wait for their food, they are just food eaters but there are serious NRM people who are following these issues and are equally concerned; probably they lack the courage to speak out. But that category of the ignorant you will find everywhere and I’m not shocked.

bakerbatte@gmail.com