Who should own UCB?

By Paul Waibale Senior IT IS not common in Uganda for the Executive and the Legislature to be engaged in a head-on collision over an important transaction. But it seems the controversy over the sale of Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) is destined for that eventuality and chances are that an ugly scene is eminent. To the host of Ugandans viewing what has developed into a circus from the stands, the question which is springing up the controversy is: To sell or not to sell UCB? At least that is what is readily understood from the viral artillery unleashed by those MPs who are proclaiming the gospel of censure against finance minister Gerald Ssendaula. But that is not the real question at issue. Both Parliament and the Cabinet agree that UCB should be sold. What they have not agreed about is who they should sell it to and how. Given that state of affairs, why should MPs opt to use arm-twisting tactics in a matter that can be easily resolved through bilateral dialogue between the Executive on one hand and dissenting MPs on the other? Admittedly, it is unfortunate that the resolution of Parliament restraining Bank of Uganda from opening the bids for the sale of UCB was ignored. But that, by any standard of logical analysis, cannot constitute a ground on which any reasonable tribunal can condemn Sendaula into the jaws of censure. There are several arguments to support my contention, but I will advance only a couple or so First, it is common knowledge the directive to open the bids emanated from President Museveni and was directed to the Governor of the Bank of Uganda who implemented it. Is it not unfair for the MPs to direct their wrath for their resolution being ignored against the minister of finance merely because he seems to be the easiest nut to crack? Of course, it can be argued, and indeed some MPs have so argued, that the minister had the authority to restrain the Governor of Bank of Uganda from opening the bids and thereby defying the parliamentary resolution. But that argument is defused by a provision of the Constitution which states that ministers shall individually be accountable to the President (not to Parliament) for the administration of their ministries and collectively responsible for any decision made by the Cabinet. In this particular case, apart from the directive originating from the President, there was also a decision for which the entire cabinet is collectively responsible. Consequently, any move to isolate Ssendaula for censure violates internationally acknowledged rules of natural justice. In the first place, Ssendaula has not commited any of the specified acts that give MPs the right to censure him. According to the Constitution, MPs can censure a minister if he is guilty of abuse of office, misconduct or misbehaviour, mismanagement, incompetence or is physically or mentally incapable of performing his duties. Surely, nobody in his right frame of mind can argue that by complying with a cabinet decision or by honouring a directive by the President Ssendaula committed any abuse of office, misconduct or misbehaviour, mismanagement, or displayed any degree of incompetence. Certainly, the MPs who only three months ago approved Ssendaula’s appointment as a minister cannot turn around now and say that he has suddenly become physically or mentally incapable of performing his duties. My advise to the MPs who are contemplating to censure Ssendaula is that they have no right to censure him merely to appease their sentiments or recover some of the prestige the opening of the bids might have cost them. It is also prudent for the MPs to revisit the constitutional provision for censuring a minister. Upon a vote of censure being passed, the President is required to “take appropriate action”. The relevant section of the Constitution does not say what “appropriate action” means, and does not indicate even by inference that the minister censured must be relieved of his duties. This means that the President is left with the latitude to decide what appropriate action to take, which may be a transfer to another ministry, a severe reprimand, et cetra. In my submission, the role of MPs in this intricate situation should be to mount a search for an equitable sale of UCB, and not merely strive to rock the boat. It becomes ridiculous when MPs refuse to consider the budget for an institution and an honorary MP has the audacity to say: “Let them go to the treasury and get the money. There is no need for approval.” I shudder to imagine what would happen if the same committee or any other relevant committee for that matter, refused to consider the budget for MPs salaries and allowances to highlight its anger over the opening of UCB bids! I understand some MPs are threatening to spearhead a media publicity campaign to educate the public vis-avis their side of the story. That is a more sensible option than simply storming out of Parliament. But the MPs do not need to engage media experts for that purpose as it is being suggested. I, for one, credit MPs with sufficient intelligence to handle such a simple exercise.