Ministerial nominees cannot be barred
Jun 16, 2011
THE action of the parliamentary appointments committee in blocking the nomination of six people for ministerial jobs was without basis either under the constitution or the ordinary law. The six nominees were blocked for reasons ranging from questionable educational qualifications to issues involving
THE action of the parliamentary appointments committee in blocking the nomination of six people for ministerial jobs was without basis either under the constitution or the ordinary law. The six nominees were blocked for reasons ranging from questionable educational qualifications to issues involving moral turpitude.
Under the constitution, the President with the approval of the Parliament appoints ministers from “members of parliament or persons qualified to be elected to parliament.†The import of this is that a nominee for ministerial office who is already a member of parliament does not need to have his qualification inquired into.
As for nominees who are not members of the august house the only duty of the appointments committee is to verify whether that person satisfied the qualifications as set by law, and not by the committee.
A person must satisfy three conditions to be a member of parliament namely; he must be a citizen of Uganda, be a registered voter and must have completed a minimum of Advanced Level of Education. Parliament has no role in deciding whether these conditions are met.
The first two conditions are determined by the Electoral Commission while the third is the responsibility of UNEB which is required to issue a person with a statutory certificate, notice of which has to be published in the gazette, confirming whether the person named has reached Advanced Level standard or its equivalent.
UNEB is also enjoined, after informing the minister responsible for education, to publish from time to time notice of the list of qualifications considered by it to be equivalent to Advanced Level of formal education.
Such certificate is conclusive for all purposes and only a person who has been denied one has recourse to the High Court by way of appeal.
In this way, the duty of the committee in regard to qualification is to verify in the case of a non-member of parliament that he has evidence of citizenship, that he is a registered voter and that he has a certificate issued by UNEB confirming the level of his education.
As for moral turpitude it was reported that one nominee was rejected because while working as chief magistrate in 2001 she appeared before the disciplinary committee of the Judicial Service Commission over charges of abuse of office and in the case of the other nominee, he was accused of having been convicted of a crime and imprisoned by a court in the US for money laundering offences over 15 years ago.
Unfortunately, none of these reasons can stand in the way of the nominees. A parliamentary committee cannot substitute its moral judgments for the reality of the law.
When vetting nominees, the committee should be guided by principles of the constitution. Article 38 of the constitution provides that “Every Uganda citizen has the right to participate in the affairs of government, individually or through representatives in accordance with the law.â€
Again it is provided under the chapter on National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy that all the people of Uganda shall have access to leadership positions at all levels, subject only to the constitution.
To complete the constitutional directives on the issue article 20 states that “The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in the constitution shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all agencies of government and by all persons.â€
Any deviation from these constitutional directives must be sanctioned by the constitution itself or by the ordinary law. Since being a minister is premised on being a member of parliament the only window open to the committee in matters of morality of nominees is to discover provisions within the constitution or laws which would bar a nominee from becoming a member of parliament.
The only relevant provision in the constitution which relates to nominees who were barred on account of morality is article 80 (2)(f) which provides that a person is disqualified as a member of parliament if that person “has, within the seven years immediately preceding the election, been convicted by a competent court of a crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude.â€
Appearing before a disciplinary committee even if convicted does not amount to conviction of a crime by a competent court.
Secondly, in the case of the nominee who was convicted in the US, the conviction took place well over seven years before the last election.
What images is that the constitution does not expect people to be punished for their wrongs for ever and that the door to leadership should not be lightly closed to anybody.
Even lack of English proficiency cannot bar one fro holding a ministerial office. Although English is stipulated as the official language the constitution provides that “....any other language may be used...for legislative or judicial purposes as parliament may by law prescribe.â€
Under the constitution, the President with the approval of the Parliament appoints ministers from “members of parliament or persons qualified to be elected to parliament.†The import of this is that a nominee for ministerial office who is already a member of parliament does not need to have his qualification inquired into.
As for nominees who are not members of the august house the only duty of the appointments committee is to verify whether that person satisfied the qualifications as set by law, and not by the committee.
A person must satisfy three conditions to be a member of parliament namely; he must be a citizen of Uganda, be a registered voter and must have completed a minimum of Advanced Level of Education. Parliament has no role in deciding whether these conditions are met.
The first two conditions are determined by the Electoral Commission while the third is the responsibility of UNEB which is required to issue a person with a statutory certificate, notice of which has to be published in the gazette, confirming whether the person named has reached Advanced Level standard or its equivalent.
UNEB is also enjoined, after informing the minister responsible for education, to publish from time to time notice of the list of qualifications considered by it to be equivalent to Advanced Level of formal education.
Such certificate is conclusive for all purposes and only a person who has been denied one has recourse to the High Court by way of appeal.
In this way, the duty of the committee in regard to qualification is to verify in the case of a non-member of parliament that he has evidence of citizenship, that he is a registered voter and that he has a certificate issued by UNEB confirming the level of his education.
As for moral turpitude it was reported that one nominee was rejected because while working as chief magistrate in 2001 she appeared before the disciplinary committee of the Judicial Service Commission over charges of abuse of office and in the case of the other nominee, he was accused of having been convicted of a crime and imprisoned by a court in the US for money laundering offences over 15 years ago.
Unfortunately, none of these reasons can stand in the way of the nominees. A parliamentary committee cannot substitute its moral judgments for the reality of the law.
When vetting nominees, the committee should be guided by principles of the constitution. Article 38 of the constitution provides that “Every Uganda citizen has the right to participate in the affairs of government, individually or through representatives in accordance with the law.â€
Again it is provided under the chapter on National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy that all the people of Uganda shall have access to leadership positions at all levels, subject only to the constitution.
To complete the constitutional directives on the issue article 20 states that “The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in the constitution shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all agencies of government and by all persons.â€
Any deviation from these constitutional directives must be sanctioned by the constitution itself or by the ordinary law. Since being a minister is premised on being a member of parliament the only window open to the committee in matters of morality of nominees is to discover provisions within the constitution or laws which would bar a nominee from becoming a member of parliament.
The only relevant provision in the constitution which relates to nominees who were barred on account of morality is article 80 (2)(f) which provides that a person is disqualified as a member of parliament if that person “has, within the seven years immediately preceding the election, been convicted by a competent court of a crime involving dishonesty or moral turpitude.â€
Appearing before a disciplinary committee even if convicted does not amount to conviction of a crime by a competent court.
Secondly, in the case of the nominee who was convicted in the US, the conviction took place well over seven years before the last election.
What images is that the constitution does not expect people to be punished for their wrongs for ever and that the door to leadership should not be lightly closed to anybody.
Even lack of English proficiency cannot bar one fro holding a ministerial office. Although English is stipulated as the official language the constitution provides that “....any other language may be used...for legislative or judicial purposes as parliament may by law prescribe.â€