__________

OPINION

By Hon. Asuman Kiyingi

Lately, Uganda’s Parliament has been in the limelight for reasons that are not very comforting. Questions are being raised about alleged lack of transparency and accountability in procurements, recruitments and the use of public funds in violation of national laws.

There can be no doubt that Parliament is the citadel of accountability in any democracy. Article 79 of Uganda’s Constitution reaffirms this fact. Parliament represents the voice of the people through their elected representatives.

It holds the executive branch of government accountable by scrutinising its actions, passing laws and overseeing government activities.

It provides a forum for debate and engagement on all critical national issues in the name of the people that are the fountain of public authority, and it helps to ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few and that decisions are made in public interest.

In view of these critical constitutional roles, public expectations of Parliament are legitimately high and Parliament should never be found wanting when the public requires answers or explanations on matters deemed important.

Our legislators need not, therefore, get agitated when basic questions are raised regarding the propriety of some decisions and actions by the Parliament leadership, staff and or individual members of Parliament.

As a pivotal lever in our accountability system, any allegations about breach of the Leadership Code or violation of any other laws in the institution of Parliament ought to be investigated without delay and put to rest so that the innocent are vindicated and the culpable sanctioned in accordance with the law.

It is important to maintain the integrity of not only Parliament as an institution but the whole accountability and anti-corruption framework in the country.

If the law makers break the laws they enact, the citizens have only bad examples to look to. If legislators violate the Leadership Code and are not brought to book why should others be sanctioned when they breach the same?

Laxity in this regard also affects the work of other key accountability institutions like the Inspector General of Government and the Auditor General that report to Parliament. Simply put, the legislators must be exemplary and walk the accountability and transparency talk. In the language of the Bible:

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be salty again. It is no longer good for anything else, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot” (Matthew 5:13).

Perhaps the story from ancient Rome is useful here. The incident involved Pompeia the wife of Julius Caesar, the Emperor of Rome. In the year 62 BC, during an annual religious festival exclusive for women, a scandal occurred in Caesar’s house.

One Claudius Pulcher, a prominent Roman politician, disguised himself as a woman and infiltrated the event allegedly with the intention of seducing Pompeia.

Though there was no concrete evidence that Pompeia was involved in any wrongdoing, Caesar divorced her shortly after the incident making the often-quoted famous statement: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

Caesar’s decision was based on the principle that even the appearance of impropriety could tarnish his reputation and political standing so he chose to divorce his wife to uphold the integrity of his household and his own public image.

Comparatively as a pivotal governance institution, Parliament should be above reproach and in the event of any suspicion, it should be fast to embrace due process to rid itself of any impression of wrongdoing through established accountable and transparent procedures.

Uganda’s laws do not allow the punishment of any innocent person. There is a presumption of innocence until credible evidence to establish guilt is adduced to the satisfaction of an independent impartial court or tribunal. In the case under consideration, the allegations against the legislators may be true or false. No legislator should be punished without due process just to appease some unjustified public anger as in Caesar’s case.

The public’s demand as captured in the media is for an explanation from the leadership of Parliament, for acts and omissions that suggest unethical behavior and misconduct. In the absence of that explanation, an independent credible and transparent investigation is expected to establish all the relevant facts and appropriate action taken.

To its credit, Parliament enacted the Leadership Code Act, the Public Finance and Management Act, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Act, the Anti-Corruption Act and other similar laws. The country is better off if all of us comply with these laws. The reported IGG’s investigation of the allegations on Parliament is most welcome and should be supported. The desired outcome of the investigation should be the assurance to all Ugandans that there is no impunity in this country and that no one is above the law. Regardless of one’s status or standing if found on the wrong side of the law, one should be sanctioned. And if vindicated you move on with your life. Klitgaard and his colleagues in their publication Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention pages 78-79, have made the following observations on fighting corruption and restoring the credibility of accountability and anti-corruption institutions:

“When corruption has become systematic, we must attack the pernicious perception that impunity exists. Without doing so our efforts to fight corruption and improve governance will not be taken seriously.

The public has grown cynical about corruption. Citizens and bureaucrats have heard all the words before. They have even seen a few minor prosecutions. But a culture of corruption may remain, especially the feeling of high-level impunity.

To break through this culture of corruption, experience indicates that frying big fish is essential. Big, corrupt actors must be named so that a cynical citizenry believes that an anti-corruption drive is more than words. It is also important that a campaign against corruption is not confused with a political campaign, or campaign against the opposition.

Importantly, therefore, one of the first big fish should preferably come from the political party in power. In the case of Hong Kong, credibility for the new Independent Commission Against Corruption came when the ex-police chief of Hong Kong was extradited from retirement in England and punished in Hong Kong. The ICAC also nailed the ex-number two and scores of other high-ranking police officials.

To a sceptical public and a hardened civil service, frying these big fish sent a credible signal. As a former ICAC commissioner wrote: “An important point we had to bear in mind (and still have to) is the status of people we prosecute.

The public tends to measure effectiveness with status! Will they all be small, unimportant people or will there be amongst them a proportionate number of high-status people? Nothing will kill public confidence quicker than the belief that the anti-corruption is directed only at those below a certain level in society”.

The writer is the deputy chairperson of the Leadership Code Tribunal