Speaker banned me from speaking – Zaake

Last week, the Constitutional court ruled that the resolution to remove FRANCIS ZAAKE, the MP for Mityana Municipality, from his role as a commissioner of parliament was null and void due to the lack of the required quorum for its passage.

Zaake had been censured for allegedly using inappropriate language against Speaker Anita Among, following comments she made that seemed to cast doubt on his claims of being a victim of torture.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Zaake took the matter to court to seek its nullification. In an interview with Muhammad Kakembo, the two-time parliamentarian expressed his frustration, stating that since his censure, both Speaker Anita Among and Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa have prevented him from speaking in parliament. Zaake argues that such an action is unacceptable, particularly as he is a representative of the people.

What was your reaction to the Constitutional court’s ruling that declared your censure as a member of the Parliamentary Commission to be unlawful?

I was pleased to see that the rule of law, which I vigorously defend, was upheld. However, it was disconcerting that the very institution responsible for creating laws—parliament—failed to abide by them. This exposes a concerning paradox: we don’t follow the laws we ourselves have crafted.

Furthermore, parliament disregarded the basic principle of natural justice, which dictates that an individual should have the opportunity to be heard before being convicted. Although I was present via Zoom, I was not given a chance to speak. In this situation, the presiding officer acted as the complainant, judge, and executioner, which is unacceptable. Additionally, they did not have the necessary quorum to censure me.

I believe it’s high time parliament adheres to both the laws of this country and its own rules of procedure. We have heard the attorney general is appealing against the ruling. I don’t want to comment based on rumors; so, I’ll wait to see what action the Attorney General actually takes.

However, let me say this: it’s rare for the government to appeal decisions made by that court. As such, I believe they should implement this decision. It would be quite embarrassing—and unfortunate—if parliament, the body responsible for making laws, were to disregard a court ruling.

Fortunately, parliament has already indicated that they respect the court’s decision. This statement alone gives me confidence that the ruling will be implemented.

Part of respecting the law can mean appealing the decision…

In my view, respecting the law could indeed mean appealing the decision, as long as the process is lawful. I didn’t pursue legal action for my own benefit; rather, my aim was to ensure that constitutional norms are respected in this country.

I also wanted to make it clear that victims of torture should never be trivialized or mocked. When such incidents occur, the perpetrators should face serious consequences to deter similar actions in the future. Unfortunately, it’s often the taxpayer who bears the financial burden of these legal proceedings.

Parliament should issue a public apology for failing to adhere to the law. After all, its role is to check the executive and ensure they’re following the law. When the institution meant to enforce the law is the one breaking it, it leaves one wondering where Ugandans can turn for justice.

Why does parliament lose in court?

The Constitutional court has repeatedly found parliament lacking in its adherence to the law. I believe the primary reason for this is that MPs often let their passions override the established rules of procedure. If the Constitutional court held the same authority as the Supreme court, Robert Kyagulanyi might very well be our confirmed president today.

Unfortunately, many rulings from the Constitutional court are often ignored by the Executive. For instance, the court has invalidated several clauses in the Public Order Management Act, which the police claimed gave them the authority to sanction public gatherings. Additionally, the court has ruled multiple times that trying civilians in military courts is illegal.

Yet, these decisions have been largely disregarded. Let’s hope that Parliament does not follow the Executive’s lead in this regard.

We’ve heard members of the NRM accuse you of double standards. They claim that when you win in court, you praise the judicial system, but when you lose, you argue that the courts have been compromised. What’s your response?

The Constitutional court has often ruled correctly, and I’ve won nearly all the cases I’ve pursued in court. For example, I won a case that had accused me of fleeing from Arua, and it was officially recorded that I had been tortured. I also won a torture case against the state and was awarded a compensation of Shs 75 million, although the amount has not been paid yet.

While there are some judicious judges, the majority of our citizens do not experience justice through the court system. Given what most people go through, it’s easy to conclude that justice is lacking in Uganda. If there were true justice in this country, we wouldn’t still have political prisoners.

What stands out for you in all this saga?

The embarrassment I’ve had to endure is phenomenal. I’ve been humiliated in front of my family and constituents. Imagine going to work only to find the locks to your office changed. They even came to my home, broke in, deployed numerous soldiers, and towed away my parliamentary car.

Moreover, they’ve withheld my emoluments and, worst of all, they prevented me from speaking in parliament, despite my role as a representative of the people.

You mean you no longer speak in parliament?

Of course, they don’t let me speak, regardless of how many times I stand up or raise my hand, and this applies to both presiding officers.

There was an occasion when I came fully prepared, armed with my constitution and rules of procedure. I cited all the laws that granted me the right to speak, but I was dismissed. I wanted to discuss the crucial issue of torture, being a victim myself. Eventually, I had to assert my right to speak by forcefully raising points of procedure, which led them to suspend the House.

They referred me to the disciplinary committee, but it has yet to convene. The whole experience is deeply disheartening.

Have you tried to reach out to the presiding officers (speakers)?

How do I signal that I want to speak? The guidelines for interaction are clearly outlined in our rules of procedure. Even if we have differing viewpoints, once we are in an institution like parliament, we must cooperate in accordance with the law rather than through backdoor negotiations.

I entered parliament as a representative of the Ugandan people at large, and specifically the residents of Mityana municipality. I am not supposed to engage in any clandestine dealings with anyone. As a commissioner, I served as the chairperson of the audit committee. I now wonder who is auditing parliament.

Is that why we’re seeing the purchase of numerous cars and the construction of mansions? Who is scrutinizing these expenditures to ensure that public funds are not being misused?

Is it true you were leaking information privy to you as a commissioner…

If they have evidence that I’ve leaked information, they should proceed against me legally, as I understand that leaking confidential information is a crime.

The committee I chaired is an internal audit committee; the committee open to public scrutiny is Cosase. When I heard my colleague, Joel Ssenyonyi, announce that he planned to audit parliament, I was thrilled. However, I’m fairly certain that obstacles were placed in his path to prevent him from carrying out that audit. Otherwise, it would be revealing to know how individuals are able to afford expensive cars and construct lavish homes.

Now that you have won, isn’t it time to start on a clean slate by reaching out to the speaker?

We are obligated to work together, regardless of any personal animosity, for the benefit of the people we represent. Personal egos should not come before public duty. Even if I disagree with the speaker, if I have an issue to present, I should be able to do so without fear. Serving as a commissioner allows me to hold parliament accountable, as it too is not above the law.

I must note that many MPs did not want me to be part of the Commission. However, the power to appoint lies with my party, which refused to participate in the illegality and mob justice directed at me. What I seek is a structured relationship, not one built on backdoor dealings. Informal interactions should be reserved for genuine friendships. Personal issues should not inhibit my ability to serve my constituents.

Even though I’m aware that many MPs may not like me, I can’t afford to reciprocate those feelings, as it would hinder my ability to do my job. Some MPs claim to like me, but I’m skeptical. Regardless, we are bound by duty to work together.

mmkakembo@gmail.com