MPs to blame over Winnie

The Other Side of the Coin -- with Paul Waibale SeniorMEMBERS of Parliament may have put the ball in the net and scored a goal when they obstinately turned down a proposal by Justice Minister Janet Mukwaya to set up a judicial commission to probe alleged election malpractices. They may have enjoyed the ecstasy of the wild cheers from the galleries as they voted to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee instead. The Select Committee was commissioned to venture into the tricky realm of recoinoicence where the majority of its members have neither the necessary technical Know-how nor the essential dosage of spontaneous impartiality.Whichever way one might look at the situation, there was never any cause for jubilation. The Honourable MPs, as they should have by now discovered, merely scored an “own goal” which unfortunately counts against one’s own side. Inevitably, the horrible nature of this unsavoury episode has already protruded its ugly head through the false screen of theoretical democratic norms.Not surprisingly, even before the Select Committee snatches a moment for an overview of the task before it, the MPs are already at each other’s throats. At the centre of the fracas is the famous (or is it infamous?) political agitator, Engineer Winnie Byanyima (should I add, Besigye?) whose inclusion on the Select Committee has thrown the legislators’ fold into disarray. Speaker Edward Ssekandi, in his wisdom, included the venomous tongued Winnie on the Select Committee and thereby extinguished her competence to testify before the Committee. Scores of MPs were not amused by that development. In fact, as I write there is a hunt for signatures on a protest note to be presented to the Speaker.MPs against Winnie’s inclusion on the Select Committee argue, quite correctly in my view, that since Winnie has been a constant and consistent grumbler about election malpractices, both real and imaginary, it is imperative that she should be available as a star witness. The further contend that Winnie being one of the top complainants she cannot at the same time be a member of the committee that is investigating the very malpractices which she has herself alleged to have taken place. If I may add my own analysis, she would then be acting as a judge in her own case, which is of course contrary to the internationally acknowledged norms of natural justice.Certainly, these are impressive arguments that must be accorded the reverence they deserve. But it is prudent to observe that Winnie’s rejoinder cannot be treated with contempt. There is a lot persuasive logic in her submission that the rest of the Select Committee members are not any more impartial than herself since they all had a side to support in the course of the election campaigns. This buttresses my own view that the select committee is not the appropriate instrument for probing a situation in which all members of parliament are interested parties. In my submission, there is no way we can be sure that Winnie will accept, without a pinch of salt, evidence contradicting allegations that her husband’s abortive attempt to ascend to State House was hampered by state inspired maneuvers. Nor can we expect pre-movement members of the select committee swallow wild claims of military interference in the polls with the comfort of a couple enjoying the first day of their honeymoon.The MPs have only themselves for having rejected the idea of a judicial commission which would not have raised the catch-22 situation that is now obtaining. But now that they are in the thick of it they should stop grumbling and let the Select Committee try to make the best of a pretty tricky businessIt is my contention that Winnie has the opportunity to opt either to remain on the committee and forfeit her right to testify or resign from the committee and come out full blast as a star witness. But if she chooses to remain a member of the Select Committee she must abide by all the rules governing it, which restrict members, inter alia, from discussing matters presented to the Committee in the press. Consequently, Winnie’s vow that she will retract in the press any false evidence given to the Committee against her is both legally and morally untenable. She has to appreciate that there is no opportunity for her, or for anybody else, to run with the hare and at the same time hunt with the hound.I do not know what rules of evidence the Select Committee will follow. Never the less, I am aware that there will be hundreds of people who will seek to use the Select Committee as a platform for vicious mud-slinging campaigns. There will also be “soldiers of fortune” whose target will be character assassination of individuals in high laces, using popular hearsay evidence as the assault weapon. Unless measures are taken to counter these and other adverse factors, the Select Committee’s probe will be a mere farce.