MPs flogging a dead horse

With John Kakande MEMBERS of Parliament (MPs) have come under fire over their pay increase. In a country where the majority including public servants live from hand to mouth, the uproar about the MPs pay rise is understandable. It is not only MPs who got a pay rise, ministers also benefited just like the backbench MPs. Article 85 of the 1995 Constitution, granted powers to Parliament to determine the emoluments of the MPs. This was not by mistake. It states: “A Member of Parliament shall be paid such emoluments and such gratuity and shall be provided with such facilities as may be determined by Parliament.” The sixth Parliament invoked these powers to determine the emoluments of members. The seventh parliament has done the same thing. There have been suggestions that an independent body should be established to determine the MPs pay. True, MPs could at times award themselves hefty pay. But the Constitution sought to strengthen the MPs’ autonomy and independence from the Executive. There was fear that the Executive, if given powers to determine emoluments of MPs, would use it to compromise them. The Constitution, however, does not grant MPs absolute powers to determine their salaries and allowances. Article 93 of the Constitution prohibits Parliament from debating any motion or Bill not introduced by Government (minister), which seeks to impose a tax or a charge on the Consolidated Fund. MPs cannot unilaterally table a motion awarding themselves pay increments. All they can do is to exert pressure (as they did) on the Executive to table the motion. This explains why the motion for the resolution to increase MPs salaries and allowances was moved by Isaac Musumba, the Minister of State for Finance, on behalf of Government. The Executive still has the final say on the MPs’ emoluments in spite of the provisions of Article 85. The latest MPs’ pay rise obviously had the approval of Cabinet. Cabinet would not have tabled a pay rise motion if it was against it. But when MPs amended the motion to set November 1, 2001 instead of January 2002, as the effective date for the pay rise, Musumba had powers to withdraw his motion. He never did so. Why? Revision of MPs’ emoluments was also in the interest of the ministers. The ministers’ pay is pegged on the MPs’ salaries and allowances. Ministers hold their position at the discretion of the President. A parliamentary seat is the fallback position for ministers. It is in the interest of ministers to ensure MPs get hefty pay. Members of the defunct NRC used to get only a small salary (about sh80,000) and hefty allowances. Government introduced policy of consolidating salaries and allowances of public servants. Budgeting for the allowances of MPs was also a nightmare. The MPs were holding unnecessarily too many meetings. During the last term of the sixth Parliament, it was decided to pay MPs a consolidated salary of sh1.1m and to scrap sitting allowance for House, Plenary and committee meetings. Subsistence and mileage allowances were retained. After abolition of the sitting allowance, MPs started dodging committee meetings. They quietly re-introduced the sitting allowance while still retaining the consolidated salary at the same time. The seventh Parliament has not only maintained this fraud, but has introduced a constituency mobilisation allowance of sh150,000 per month. I think MPs should not be concurrently paid sitting allowances and consolidated salary. Either they get sitting allowance or a consolidated salary but not both. The revision of the salaries and allowances of MPs will lead to salary revisions for other political leaders. The salaries and allowances of directors at the Movement Secretariat will also have to be adjusted upwards since Movement directors enjoy more or less the same status like ministers. Probably the presidential advisors will also have their salaries revised for the same reasons. The local government councillors and chairpersons soon to be elected will likewise increase their allowances. At the end of it all, it is the taxpayer to feel the heat. In some countries, Members of Parliament receive an annual and automatic salary increment, which is pegged to the rate of inflation and the performance of the national economy. It is not proper for political leaders, let alone MPs, to award themselves hefty increment when the national economy is not performing well. It is well known that Uganda’s economy has lately been on a slow down trend. ends