Can local leaders successfully censure each other?
May 23, 2007
Councillors in the country have, in recent weeks, threatened to carry out votes of no confidence or censures against fellow local leaders, especially chairmen and their executives.
By Joshua Kato
Councillors in the country have, in recent weeks, threatened to carry out votes of no confidence or censures against fellow local leaders, especially chairmen and their executives.
In most cases, however, these moves have failed because the petitioners are poorly organised and lack proper grounds to carry out the censures.
Censure rules
According to Article 15, sub-section 1 of the Local Government Act, the chairperson may be removed from office by the council by a resolution supported by two thirds of all members of the council.
As soon as a speaker receives a resolution of council to remove the chairperson on any of the above grounds, the speaker shall, within twenty four hours after receipt of the notice, make a copy to the chairperson and the availed Chief Justice.
“The Chief Justice shall, within seven days after receipt of the notice, constitute a tribunal comprising three justices of the High Court, to investigate the allegations contained in the notice and to report its findings to the council, stating whether or not there is a prima facie case for the removal of the chairperson,†the Act reads.
The chairperson is entitled to appear at the proceedings of the tribunal and to be represented by a lawyer, or by a person of his or her choice.
A close scrutiny at the rules governing censure of local leaders shows that the steps and procedures were instituted to ensure that no leader is censured over petty or personally generated grounds. This is why a censure has to be assessed by four different committees.
Good grounds, poorly planned censures
In the case of Kampala, according to a private members’ motion, presented by councillor Edward Muwanga and seen by The New Vision, a section of councillors wanted to censure the mayor because he allegedly passed several policies that did not go through the council.
Among these included, the launching of Pioneer Easy Bus Project; contracting the maintenance of the Constitutional Square to Balton company; the gazzeting of Natete Taxi Park; and granting land to a hotel developer at Centenary Park.
The petition further cites pronouncements made by Sebaggala concerning Nakasero and St. Balikudembe markets, and KCC Sports Club, without involving the councils. Under the Local Government Act, this may amount to incompetence, which is enough to censure the mayor.
However, the move did not go beyond the speaker, Shifrah Lukwago. She brushed it aside, arguing that it had been passed on false grounds, since all the issues mentioned were being addressed elsewhere.
“It is not as easy as some councillors are saying it is,†says Nasser Sebaggala.
Besides, the censure banded various people together in one document.
In Kawempe, councillors moved to censure the vice-chairman, Emmanuel Sserunjogi and the entire executive of the division over what they termed as gross abuse of office. Among the executive members for censure included the secretary for education and health, Stephen Sserumaga, the secretary for production and marketing, Charles Sserubiri, the secretary for community development gender and welfare, Sophie Ayamba. The petition was signed by 23 members of the council.
“They have caused strife with almost everyone, not only in the council, but also outside it,†the petition says.
The petition did not, however, explain in detail how the actions of the targeted executive members caused strive.
Instead, they were loosely accused of passing policies and resolutions that have not been deliberated by the council. The petition argued that this is against Section 26(b) of the Local Government Act, amounting to incompetence and ground enough for censure. However, it should also be proved beyond reasonable doubt. None of those petitioned, attended the proceedings. However, the speaker, Brian Nsubuga, asked the petitioners to remain calm.
“The petition is putting all the four executive members together as if they committed the offences as a group,†Takuba said.
Before the petition, Takuba sought advice from the Ministry of Local Government over the petition.
A letter written by Patrick Mutabwire, on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, requested that the petition be put on hold because it was inadequate. The councillors nevertheless went ahead and held a special council were the petition was unsuccessfully heard.
In Kayunga, councillors accused the chairman Thomas Mulondo, of bringing the district to a stand still because of his endless wrangling with the Chief Administrative Officer, Mukasa Maira. This, they argued, amounts to gross misconduct and abuse of office. But, it will be difficult to quantify the kind of misconduct. Mulondo claimed he is only working for the good of the district. Besides, the councillors are divided.
The case in Wakiso sub-county is more open. Henry Male Gwayambadde, the LC3 chairman is accused of taking a sh350,000 bribe. According to a petition handed to the sub-county speaker and signed by 17 councillors, Gwayambadde is also accused of failing to account for 265 ironsheets. The councillors want the chairman to resign or they will censure him.
As long as they can prove that the chairman received the bribe and failed to distribute the iron sheets, then this is also good ground for censuring him.
In Pader, it took the intervention of MP Ogenga Latigo, to convince councillors that a petition to censure the vice-chairperson, Rose Akello, was inadequate. They dropped the censure.
All this is a case of “Let whoever has never done it throw the first stone.â€
One of the reasons why these censures may fail, is that a large percentage of the petitioners are also involved in acts that can amount to corruption.
For example, some councillors reportedly receive bribes from contractors in order to support them during the tendering process.
“I know some (councillors) in Kampala who went to several of the leading contractors in the city and asked for money. Don’t be surprised to see them leading a censure against their chairman,†a KCC councillor said. All that the chairman will do is to stage a counter censure for the councillors.
Additional reporting Florence Nakayi and Chris Kiwawulo
Councillors in the country have, in recent weeks, threatened to carry out votes of no confidence or censures against fellow local leaders, especially chairmen and their executives.
In most cases, however, these moves have failed because the petitioners are poorly organised and lack proper grounds to carry out the censures.
Censure rules
According to Article 15, sub-section 1 of the Local Government Act, the chairperson may be removed from office by the council by a resolution supported by two thirds of all members of the council.
As soon as a speaker receives a resolution of council to remove the chairperson on any of the above grounds, the speaker shall, within twenty four hours after receipt of the notice, make a copy to the chairperson and the availed Chief Justice.
“The Chief Justice shall, within seven days after receipt of the notice, constitute a tribunal comprising three justices of the High Court, to investigate the allegations contained in the notice and to report its findings to the council, stating whether or not there is a prima facie case for the removal of the chairperson,†the Act reads.
The chairperson is entitled to appear at the proceedings of the tribunal and to be represented by a lawyer, or by a person of his or her choice.
A close scrutiny at the rules governing censure of local leaders shows that the steps and procedures were instituted to ensure that no leader is censured over petty or personally generated grounds. This is why a censure has to be assessed by four different committees.
Good grounds, poorly planned censures
In the case of Kampala, according to a private members’ motion, presented by councillor Edward Muwanga and seen by The New Vision, a section of councillors wanted to censure the mayor because he allegedly passed several policies that did not go through the council.
Among these included, the launching of Pioneer Easy Bus Project; contracting the maintenance of the Constitutional Square to Balton company; the gazzeting of Natete Taxi Park; and granting land to a hotel developer at Centenary Park.
The petition further cites pronouncements made by Sebaggala concerning Nakasero and St. Balikudembe markets, and KCC Sports Club, without involving the councils. Under the Local Government Act, this may amount to incompetence, which is enough to censure the mayor.
However, the move did not go beyond the speaker, Shifrah Lukwago. She brushed it aside, arguing that it had been passed on false grounds, since all the issues mentioned were being addressed elsewhere.
“It is not as easy as some councillors are saying it is,†says Nasser Sebaggala.
Besides, the censure banded various people together in one document.
In Kawempe, councillors moved to censure the vice-chairman, Emmanuel Sserunjogi and the entire executive of the division over what they termed as gross abuse of office. Among the executive members for censure included the secretary for education and health, Stephen Sserumaga, the secretary for production and marketing, Charles Sserubiri, the secretary for community development gender and welfare, Sophie Ayamba. The petition was signed by 23 members of the council.
“They have caused strife with almost everyone, not only in the council, but also outside it,†the petition says.
The petition did not, however, explain in detail how the actions of the targeted executive members caused strive.
Instead, they were loosely accused of passing policies and resolutions that have not been deliberated by the council. The petition argued that this is against Section 26(b) of the Local Government Act, amounting to incompetence and ground enough for censure. However, it should also be proved beyond reasonable doubt. None of those petitioned, attended the proceedings. However, the speaker, Brian Nsubuga, asked the petitioners to remain calm.
“The petition is putting all the four executive members together as if they committed the offences as a group,†Takuba said.
Before the petition, Takuba sought advice from the Ministry of Local Government over the petition.
A letter written by Patrick Mutabwire, on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, requested that the petition be put on hold because it was inadequate. The councillors nevertheless went ahead and held a special council were the petition was unsuccessfully heard.
In Kayunga, councillors accused the chairman Thomas Mulondo, of bringing the district to a stand still because of his endless wrangling with the Chief Administrative Officer, Mukasa Maira. This, they argued, amounts to gross misconduct and abuse of office. But, it will be difficult to quantify the kind of misconduct. Mulondo claimed he is only working for the good of the district. Besides, the councillors are divided.
The case in Wakiso sub-county is more open. Henry Male Gwayambadde, the LC3 chairman is accused of taking a sh350,000 bribe. According to a petition handed to the sub-county speaker and signed by 17 councillors, Gwayambadde is also accused of failing to account for 265 ironsheets. The councillors want the chairman to resign or they will censure him.
As long as they can prove that the chairman received the bribe and failed to distribute the iron sheets, then this is also good ground for censuring him.
In Pader, it took the intervention of MP Ogenga Latigo, to convince councillors that a petition to censure the vice-chairperson, Rose Akello, was inadequate. They dropped the censure.
All this is a case of “Let whoever has never done it throw the first stone.â€
One of the reasons why these censures may fail, is that a large percentage of the petitioners are also involved in acts that can amount to corruption.
For example, some councillors reportedly receive bribes from contractors in order to support them during the tendering process.
“I know some (councillors) in Kampala who went to several of the leading contractors in the city and asked for money. Don’t be surprised to see them leading a censure against their chairman,†a KCC councillor said. All that the chairman will do is to stage a counter censure for the councillors.
Additional reporting Florence Nakayi and Chris Kiwawulo