____________________

The Supreme Court is today, February 28, 2024, set to hear a case in which Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake seeks to re-occupy the office of Parliament commissioner that he lost over a year ago.

After he was thrown out of office, Zaake petitioned the Constitutional Court to reinstate him.

In September 2023, the court quashed the then Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among, decision to remove Zaake from office as a commissioner of Parliament, on grounds that the House breached rules of procedure.

However, the Attorney General appealed against the order for his reinstatement as commissioner of Parliament.

Following the Constitutional Court ruling, Zaake’s lawyers from Lukwago and Company Advocates on October 2, 2023, wrote to the Clerk to Parliament, Adolf Mwesige Kasaija, demanding that Parliament restore Zaake in office, and all his entitlements including but not limited to official vehicle, a fuel card, and monthly payments.

Court ruling

In a 4:1 decision, the court ruled in favour of Zaake and ordered that the Government pay Zaake half of the costs.

The judges who agreed with Zaake were Irene Mulyagonja, John Oscar Kihika, Eva Luswata, and Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi. Justice Catherine Bamugemereire dissented.

“The Speaker breached the rules of natural justice when she acted as a judge in her case by continuing to preside over Parliament in sessions regarding Zaake,” Mulyagonja earlier ruled.

The judges ruled that Parliament breached its own rules of procedure by adopting a motion and resolution to remove Zaake from the office of parliamentary commissioner.

They faulted Members of Parliament for bypassing rules of procedure impeaching Zaake without quorum and amending the committee report and the order paper to include a resolution to suspend him.

The court heard that there was no quorum of two-thirds of the total number of MPs more than 240 members to impeach Zaake from office.

In their ruling, the justices noted that Anita acted as a judge in her cause when she continued chairing Parliament in a matter in which she had a personal interest.

“The resultant proceedings contravened or were inconsistent with Articles 2(1) and (2),8A,28,42 and (c) of the Constitution and were null and void,” the justices ruled.

They further ruled that Parliament’s disregard of rule 111(5) of the rules of procedure of Parliament during the debate of the motion to remove MP Zaake from the office of the commissioner of Parliament contravened articles 2(2),28(3) (b), (c) and (d),42,44(c) and 79(3) of the Constitution.

According to the judgement, the amendment of the recommendations in the report of the committee on Rules, Privilege, and Discipline, to include a recommendation that Zaake be removed from office had no legal basis, and it was passed in contravention of articles 42 and 44 (c) of the Constitution, and rule 110(5) of the rules of procedure of Parliament.

Dissenting ruling

In her dissenting judgement, Bamugemereire said Zaake did not adduce evidence to show that any of his rights were violated.

The majority ruling implies that Zaake is still a parliamentary commissioner and it is up to Parliament as advised by the court to follow the right procedure if it seeks to remove Zaake.