Ssemujju: Why was Tayebwa spared? 

Kira Municipality’s Member of Parliament, IBRAHIM SSEMUJJU NGANDA, recently addressed the challenges he faces in holding the speaker of parliament, Annet Anita Among, accountable.

In an interview with Muhammad Kakembo, the three-term lawmaker, acknowledged the formidable power wielded by the speaker Anita Among, making it arduous for him to openly criticize her while still utilizing parliament as a platform for governmental oversight.

Ssemujju’s concerns stem from the speaker’s authority to silence MPs during parliamentary sessions. He emphasized the speaker’s ability to restrict an MP’s speech, thus hindering their ability to effectively fulfill their duty of holding the government accountable.

The MP’s stance has drawn attention, particularly on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), where users have raised questions about his perceived reluctance to confront parliamentary issues.

Over the past few weeks, discussions on social media have highlighted instances of misuse of public resources by parliamentary leaders, with Ssemujju himself coming under scrutiny. The spotlight has been cast upon parliament by a coalition of voices including the digital  public square, Agora Discourse, Makerere University don Dr. Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, and Agatha Atuhaire, a journalist and lawyer.

Utilizing X, a micro-blogging service and social network, these activists have orchestrated a public campaign aimed at holding parliament accountable for what they perceive as wasteful expenditure of public funds. Critics have pointed to the public disclosure of Ssemujju’s earnings as evidence suggesting that personal benefits may influence his actions or inactions regarding parliamentary affairs.

However, Ssemujju refuted these claims, arguing that while some information presented was accurate, it lacked necessary context to fully understand his situation. Ssemujju’s remarks underscore the complex dynamics within parliament, where MPs navigate a delicate balance between upholding accountability and navigating the constraints imposed by institutional power dynamics.

As debates surrounding parliamentary transparency and accountability continue, Ssemujju’s experiences shed light on the multifaceted challenges inherent in effective governance oversight. The lawmaker has also expressed concern regarding the perceived bias of the exhibitors.

He noted that because the exhibitors are allegedly influenced by the state, they appear to single out specific individuals while disregarding others.

“I haven’t seen the deputy speaker, who actually travels more than the speaker, being exhibited,” he remarked.

Excerpts.

People are upset with you because you remain silent while numerous misdeeds are being perpetrated by the speaker of parliament. They perceive you as someone who stands up against those who betray the public’s trust. Why are you staying silent?

I have never engaged in conflict with any of the speakers. Our disputes have always centered on specific issues; they were not personal attacks on the conduct of the speakers themselves.

The incident involving Jacob Oulanyah, then serving as deputy speaker, occurred during discussions on the public order management law. Our disagreement and conduct during the consideration of this legislation led to Oulanyah’s decision to suspend me. Upon my return, as per parliamentary rules, the suspension should have lasted for three sittings.

However, Oulanyah also demanded an apology, which, in my view and that of many MPs, was not in accordance with parliamentary procedures. My disagreement with Oulanyah stemmed from his attempt to en- force a rule that did not exist – he insisted that I apologize or refrain from attending parliament, a demand I rejected.

Similarly, Speaker Kadaga suspended me twice during debates on the Tojikwatako issue. Again, the dispute was not with Kadaga personally but with the legislation under consideration. The current concern lies with the conduct of the speaker. According to parliamentary rules, any discussion on the conduct of the speaker requires a substantive motion.

It is this issue that is now at the forefront of our parliamentary debates. In our parliamentary rules, discussing the conduct of the speaker requires bringing forth a substantive motion, and the speaker cannot preside over the house while being the subject of discussion.

However, I made a personal decision upon entering parliament to prioritize verbal discourse over disruptive actions, such as jumping on tables, as I had done in the past. There seems to be a contradiction among those demanding that I speak out more. On one hand, they commend my abilities as an MP, but on the other hand, they criticize me for not addressing certain issues.

There are tactical considerations at play, and I may not always explain every decision made in parliament due to the technical nature of some issues. For instance, challenging President Museveni using parliamentary procedures and then criticizing parliament itself poses a dilemma.

Moreover, parliamentary rules dictate that one can only speak when authorized by the speaker. We have witnessed where Honorable Francis Zaake’s actions led him. If others expect me to follow suit, I could resort to disruptive behaviour and risk expulsion from parliament, which would abruptly end the narrative.

If I intend to continue utilizing parliament as a platform, I must maintain respect for the speaker and engage tactfully, regardless of whether it’s Anita Among, Thomas Tayebwa, or any other presiding officer. This situation is akin to a football match – if you wish to keep playing, you refrain from challenging the referee, as doing so could result in being red-carded, thereby ending the game.

Even when the same abuses for which you hold Museveni accountable are being perpetuated by individuals in parliament, would you still refrain from speaking out simply because you wish to maintain it as a platform?

Due to the mob nature of social media and public opinion, substantive issues often go undiscussed. In the upcoming financial year, the government has budgeted Shs 162 billion for donations. Museveni’s office and residence have allocations of Shs 137 billion for donations.

The speaker of parliament has Shs 2.8 billion allocated for donations, while the deputy speaker has Shs 1.8 billion. Even the chief justice and other high-ranking offices have designated funds for donations.

While much emphasis is placed on how the money is withdrawn, the underlying purpose remains unchanged. Whether withdrawn through staff or alternative channels, the essence remains: the recipient effectively has discretion over the funds. This is not akin to a salary.

Therefore, the fundamental issue lies in the provision of donation funds within the budget, rather than the specific beneficiaries. As long as budgetary allocations for discretionary spending persist, individuals will continue to utilize the funds according to their preferences. Merely targeting specific figures, such as the speaker, without addressing the systemic issue of discretionary budgeting, fails to resolve the root problem.

Have you ever witnessed Museveni personally going to the bank to withdraw money for his donations, considering he donates at almost every gathering?

Is the crux of the issue the individuals through whom the funds are withdrawn or the inclusion of donation budgets in the first place? I’ve extensively addressed this matter in my response to the budget in my role as a shadow minister for finance. My suggestion is that we eliminate donation allocations altogether as a nation.

However, it seems that many have fixated on Anita Among for various reasons, and while understandable, I don’t fault them. Yet, their focus appears aimed at mobilizing everyone to participate in a campaign against Among, the success of which I’m uncertain will significantly impact Uganda’s administration.

The funds that President Museveni utilizes extravagantly are also allocated and approved by parliament, yet you still take issue with that expenditure. Why do you criticize how Museveni utilizes the funds but not Anita Among?

All the challenges in Uganda stem from Museveni. When members of parliament in Kenya sought to increase their retirement package, President Uhuru Kenyatta refused to assent to the law. Perhaps it’s necessary to remind the public that budget matters are legal affairs.

Each year, we approve a budget presented in the form of a bill. The reason I focus on Museveni is that without addressing him, the remuneration for MPs could decrease. However, as long as Museveni collaborates with MPs and the speaker, funds for such purposes will remain available.

That’s why my attention is on Museveni. While I may not wish to engage in a conflict with the speaker to preserve my platform in parliament, if there are those who believe she should be confronted, I must decide whether to remain in parliament or resort to alternative avenues, such as talk shows.

I must exercise my intellect; engaging in a confrontation with the speaker risks either being silenced or expelled from parliament, thus losing that platform. Currently, there’s no platform that Museveni prevents me from utilizing, whereas the speaker has the authority to limit my participation in parliamentary debates.

Isn’t that stance problematic? It seems you would tolerate any form of abuse as long as your platform for expression remains intact. Is there not a boundary for you?

The issue starts with appropriation. When addressing an institution of which I’m also a member, I may not provide as specific details as some may desire. Instead, I encourage them to review my responses to the budget. My proposals are clear: refrain from allocating funds for donations.

I took a similar approach regarding the provision of vehicles to MPs. You may recall at the beginning of this parliamentary term; we were each given Shs 200 million to purchase a car. However, since I am working alongside my colleagues, I advocated for a policy shift rather than direct opposition to parliament.

My suggestion was to transition to a zero-fleet policy where no vehicles are provided to MPs. Directly advocating against funds for MPs could pose challenges. In fact, at one point, the Honorable Muhammad Nsereko mobilized MPs against my proposal.

Therefore, I must employ strategic tactics. While I may not have the opportunity to individually explain every decision, I make them in the public interest. Had my proposal on vehicles been successful, the debate over whether MPs should receive vehicles would not exist today. It’s essential for people to understand that my approach to parliament differs from my approach to other institutions.

So, how do we hold the speaker accountable if the MPs who should do so are not taking action due to various considerations?

COSASE is supposed to receive a report from the Auditor General to address accountability issues in parliament. During my tenure as the chair of COSASE, I engaged with parliamentary affairs and raised audit queries. However, I am uncertain about the actions taken by others since then.

It’s crucial for everyone to grasp that as long as I’m an MP utilizing the parliamentary platform, there are inherent limitations to holding parliament accountable because I am part of it. Speaking about it too aggressively could result in suspension, thereby depriving me of the platform to address other matters.

I don’t believe this exhibition will end in vain. Even though the speaker and others may remain silent, there will likely be introspection. Despite having written about the travels I’ve undertaken, even those that are legitimate, I am considering distancing myself from them. Regardless of their legitimacy, I’m hesitant about constantly having to justify my travel activities.

Once something is brought up, whether legitimate or not, it naturally prompts reflection. Currently, I’m contemplating the allowances for committees. While these allowances may be fixed, if they are now a source of public discontent, as an individual, I must reflect on whether they are truly worth it.

People may feign indifference, but once the public begins to question your actions, unless you reside in a utopian realm, you are compelled to contemplate them.

Do you believe the public is holding you to a higher standard compared to other MPs?

Some members of the public do hold me to a higher standard than others, but their debates often lack access to all the pertinent information. For instance, they accuse me of being in Dubai and Algeria simultaneously, when in reality, I was in Dubai in January and Algeria in February.

However, I was only paid in May, as payments are made when funds become available. The information circulating publicly portrays me as a dishonest individual attending multiple meetings concurrently and earning income from such actions. Understandably, this portrayal can evoke anger among the public.

This is why I do not hold social media to the same standards as traditional media, as they often lack rigorous fact-checking procedures. Even in instances where deductions are clearly labelled as funds for activities not undertaken, they are still tallied as income earned.

I am also criticized for accepting sitting allowances allocated to every MP, as well as for using funds designated for fieldwork. Parliamentary matters are complex, especially considering the substantial compensation MPs receive. Any additional benefits, whether legitimate or not, tend to provoke public outrage.

Unfortunately, some of these allowances leave me with limited options. I can either cease participating in the activities of the committees I serve on or, as a whip, refuse payment. Additionally, certain trips are mandatory, such as those related to international organizations of which we are members.

However, I am personally reflecting on these matters, and I am actively proposing solutions. One suggestion is to eliminate non-essential travel and only undertake trips that are truly necessary.

The accusation is that these perks are utilized to patronize you, as not all MPs travel to the extent that some of you do. When they patronize me, what have I failed to do that I was expected to do until this point, when people are saying I’m not speaking about the speaker?

Why are they happy with me if I’m being patronized? MPs have accused me of speaking more than them. The public is pleased that I speak more than other MPs, but they are unhappy with the extent of my travels compared to other MPs.

During my chairmanship of a committee, my focus for travel was on MPs attending committee meetings. Those who attended more meetings naturally travelled more frequently. If every MP were travelling, the budget would skyrocket to Shs 400 billion. Therefore, the limited allocation can easily be misused; even MPs who are rarely seen in parliament may frequently embark on trips.

The most effective approach is to treat travel as a budget item not only for parliament but for all other sectors as well. However, as long as it remains, abuse is inevitable.

How does it feel to find yourself on one side while the public is on the opposite side?

This isn’t the first time such a situation has arisen. During the Covid-19 pandemic when we were given Shs 20 million, I found myself on one side while the public was on the other.

At the time, I believed that after spending more than Shs 80 million on feeding people, receiving Shs 20 million from the government to continue this effort wasn’t inappropriate. However, the public perceived it differently. Many people, including Rhoda Kalema, whom I regard as a mother figure, called me and urged me to return the money. If Museveni hadn’t pressured me to return the money, I wouldn’t have done so.

However, this current issue has been politicized by the state. The loudest voices criticizing me are government functionaries like Ofwono Opondo. It’s important to question who is leaking this information and what their motives might be. This information is within the purview of the ministry of Finance, the Bank of Uganda, and ultimately Museveni.

The turmoil it has caused within the NUP and in parliament itself is evident. Therefore, people need to critically evaluate information as it surfaces. Even in cases where I was paid for trips undertaken much earlier, the narrative persists that I am somehow involved in wrongdoing.

I recently came across a post suggesting that opposition MPs and NRM MPs operate within the same realm. While we are all MPs, it’s clear that we have differing perspectives and priorities, despite being members of parliament.

What is your perspective on the parliamentary exhibition, and what impact has it had thus far?

My only criticism is that the shared information wasn’t adequately processed. If the exhibitors had access to the travel records of every MP and showcased them equally, singling out individuals like Ssemujju would be fair.

However, because the exhibitors are influenced by the state, they seem to target specific individuals while overlooking others. I haven’t seen the deputy speaker, who actually travels more than the speaker, being exhibited. Additionally, he also has a budget for donations; how does he access and utilize those funds?

In my view, once you seek to lead people, they have every right to question each decision you make. However, I believe the exhibitors should have presented comprehensive information, and I don’t think it was too much to ask for clarification.

They’ve even compelled me to take actions I wouldn’t normally take, such as sharing stamps from my passport, to demonstrate that the allegations against me are false.

Nevertheless, on a personal level, I’m now contemplating the allowances I receive, especially for trips, as I could potentially forego them. I don’t want to find myself having to defend against similar accusations in another exhibition.

You are one of the few individuals who have responded to these allegations; what prompted you to respond?

I cannot speak for others, but I felt I was being judged based on incomplete information. I wanted to ensure fair judgment when all relevant details were available, which is why I decided to provide clarification. Additionally, I aimed to provide context, particularly regarding accusations questioning how I could be paid to go to Mecca; I felt it was important to explain how things transpired.

Moreover, I believe I owe the public a duty because the office I hold is not my family’s office. Even if faced with accusations in the future, I will address them. I acknowledge that I am human and capable of making errors. In such instances, I am willing to apologize and acknowledge my mistakes, seeking to rectify them.

mmkakembo@gmail.com