MPs cannot overturn a presidential decision on matters of policy

Oct 09, 2001

THE row between the Government and MPs over the divestiture of Uganda Commercial Bank Limited (UCBL) has deepened.

With John Kakande THE row between the Government and MPs over the divestiture of Uganda Commercial Bank Limited (UCBL) has deepened. Government and Parliament have failed to reach a consensus on the divestiture modalities of UCBL. Parliament, according to the September 28 resolutions, wants majority of UCBL’s shares to be sold to Ugandans through the stock exchange. Parliament is also disputing the legality of the UCBL sale carried out outside the Public Enterprises Reform and Divestiture (PERD) Statute. MPs are opposed to the Governor of Bank of Uganda (BOU), Tumusiime Mutebile’s involvement in the divestiture of UCBL. Government, on its part wants a ‘core investor’ to acquire controlling stake in the UCBL. Government argues that it was not viable to sell UCBL’s majority shares to Ugandans. It further argues that delaying the Bank’s divestiture would undermine investor confidence. Government insists that the BOU has every right and powers to “reorganise and restructure” the ownership of UCBL under the Financial Institutions Statute. Against this background on October 1, BOU contrary to the September 28 parliamentary resolution, proceeded to open the bids for the UCBL. Angry MPs drew up a censure petition against Gerald Ssendaula, Minister of Finance . This standoff between Government and MPs would have been avoided, if there were good PR on the part of Government. The President appeared to have run out of patience and adopted a hard-line stance on the matter. He should have had more informal meetings with MPs to put his case for the divestiture of UCBL. MPs understandably were infuriated when President chose to write to the Governor on September 30, advising him to proceed with opening of the bids. It appeared as though the parliamentary resolution was brushed off as an inconsequential matter. It should be noted that the atmosphere had earlier been polluted by alleged provocative remarks reportedly made by BOU Governor during a WBS interview to the effect that the divestiture of UCBL was a fait accompli. Nonetheless, the censure petition against Ssendaula is baseless and misconceived. It is not sensible. If Parliament were to proceed with it, it would tantamount to malice and blackmail. The censure petition is premised on wrong assumptions. There is a conceptual problem and confusion about the roles of Government and Parliament. The accusation is that a parliamentary resolution was defied when the bids were opened. But the Parliamentary resolution was not a directive or an enforceable law. The resolution was an advice or a recommendation, which the Government had to consider, but was under no obligation to take. In any case, it was not Ssendaula who ordered the bids opened. If even he had done so, it would not necessarily tantamount to abuse of office or misconduct. It is important to realise that Uganda has a ‘Presidential government’ but not a ‘Parliamentary government’. Under the parliamentary government, the Executive is responsible to Parliament. If we had a parliamentary government, it would have been difficult for the Government to proceed with opening of the UCBL bids. Such an action would have had grave consequences for the Government. Under a presidential government, the President is given a stronger role. In the US, the President regularly vetoes bills passed by Congress. That is, the bills he does not like. This is not contempt of Congress. Uganda’s Constitution also anticipated that there would be situations where the President and Parliament fail to agree on issues of governance. The President was not intended to be a figurehead. Parliament has powers to override a presidential veto, in matters of legislation. Unfortunately, as far as the divestiture of UCBL is concerned, MPs are not dealing with matters of legislation any more, but simply Government policy. MPs cannot overturn a presidential decision on policy matters. The only way MPs would have their way on UCBL, is if they put in place a private member’s Bill amending the existing PERD Statute and specifying modalities for divestiture of the Bank. Problem: Time is not on their side. ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});