Ssenyonyi to Speaker: Respond or we sue you

In an interview with The Observer, Joel Ssenyonyi, the leader of opposition in parliament, emphasized his unwavering commitment to pursuing accountability, even from high-ranking officials such the Speaker of Parliament Annet Anita Among.

Ssenyonyi acknowledged that the battle against corruption and the misuse of public resources can be a solitary endeavor, but he expressed his determination to embark on this journey, nonetheless.

The spotlight has been cast upon Parliament by a coalition of voices including the digital public square, Agora Discourse, Makerere University lecturer 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. MUHAMMAD MUWONGE recorded the interview.

We saw you issuing ultimatums to the Speaker to respond to the corruption allegations raised in the ongoing parliamentary exhibition. What are your goals with this action?

Yes, we have presented demands to the Speaker, requesting her to provide explanations, and we are awaiting her response. Once she responds, we will review her explanations to determine if they are satisfactory. If they are unsatisfactory, we will then decide on the appropriate course of action.

Similarly, if she fails to respond, we will convene to discuss our next steps. We have several options available to us that we are considering.

What are those options?

There are numerous legal avenues available to us. We are committed to utilizing all possible means to ensure that the voices of the people of Uganda, who are demanding accountability, are heard and addressed effectively.

In the past, we have witnessed the opposition making specific demands. At times, these demands have not been met, and no further action has been taken. We have not specified exact actions; instead, we have requested responses. If responses are not forthcoming, we will reconvene to determine our course of action.

Our aim is to take action rather than making promises to do so. It is preferable to act without making promises than to promise action without follow-through.

With Mathias Mpuuga, you convicted him before giving him the opportunity to be heard. Yet with Among, you are indicating that you are writing to her. Why the double standard?

As the opposition in parliament, part of the response we are seeking includes accountability for the funds allocated to Mathias Mpuuga and other commissioners. However, with Mpuuga, we had to escalate the matter because we were addressing it both as a political family and as a party disciplining its member.

Nonetheless, this does not deter us from continuing to demand accountability. Some have questioned, “Since you’ve already taken a stand as a party, what more do you want?” However, it’s essential to recognize that the party’s stance and our actions in parliament represent two distinct situations.

Some may question, “What more do you want him to explain when you have already convicted him?”

Whatever explanations they have to offer, we are demanding accountability. In the case of Mpuuga, he apologized, and based on that, we advised him to take the honorable step of stepping down. However, concerning parliament, we are simply requesting that they be accountable to Ugandans, and we will assess whether their responses are satisfactory or not.

If you have already reached your desired conclusion before receiving the answers, what purpose do those answers serve?

Our stance was clear: before proceeding any further, we deemed the situation unacceptable. He also acknowledged this within the party, offered his apology, and admitted fault; hence, we disregarded his denials. Stepping down does not equate to closure of the matter. One can step down and still be subject to prosecution afterward.

Then why are you not posing the same question to the speaker as the issues are being resolved?

These are distinct entities; we have not had a discussion with the speaker, but we did sit down with Mpuuga as a party. We hold more responsibility for him than for the speaker. As for the speaker, collectively as the opposition, we are requesting accountability to the Ugandan people, and we will proceed accordingly based on the response.

If you choose to push for the speaker to step down or be censured, are you not concerned about the potential division it may create within your own party?

That is a challenge we are prepared to address as it arises. Even with the communication we issued, there may be individuals who are unhappy with our decision to speak out, for various reasons. Perhaps they harbour fears regarding the speaker or hold differing perspectives.

However, some of us maintain that our intention is not to antagonize her but, rather, to pose necessary questions that require answers. As the leader of the opposition, I cannot claim that everyone within our ranks is pleased with our outspokenness. Nevertheless, we recognize the importance of raising our voices.

Whatever actions we decide to take, we will approach them with careful consideration. At each juncture, we will convene, deliberate, and then proceed. Some may endorse our decisions, while others may not, and that is acceptable.

When you are committed to doing what is right, the number of supporters does not define the validity of your actions. We have begun by demanding accountability, and we will continue to press forward.

Isn’t that akin to self-immolation—proceeding with something that you know will only further divide you?

What will happen, that some members will depart from the party when we demand accountability from the speaker. Despite this, we will persist in our pursuit of accountability. It’s inevitable that not everyone within the opposition will support our decision to speak out.

However, you’ve witnessed individuals demanding accountability elsewhere. Do you believe they are pleased that we have raised our voice?

Nevertheless, we have spoken out. Therefore, whichever course of action we opt for, there may be dissenting voices at every step. That’s acceptable; we will proceed with those who stand with us. Even if I find myself standing alone, I am prepared to fulfill my duty to Ugandans, both as an individual and collectively.