MP fight report on their performance
May 05, 2009
A CONSULTATIVE meeting at Parliament between MPs and the African Leadership Institute turned rowdy yesterday as the legislators attempted to block the release of their performance assessment report.
By Mary Karugaba
and Milton Olupot
A CONSULTATIVE meeting at Parliament between MPs and the African Leadership Institute turned rowdy yesterday as the legislators attempted to block the release of their performance assessment report.
The row started when the Institute’s director, David Pulkol, informed the members that the second parliamentary performance scorecard would be released at the end of May. The first report, which angered MPs, was released in December 2007.
The announcement attracted boos and heckling from the MPs, who demanded that the report should not be published.
The MPs, who vehemently opposed the methodology used to assess them, said the report was not in good faith, calling it a tool to arm their political opponents.
It took opposition Chief Whip, Kassiano Wadri, who was representing the Speaker, to cool down the tempers. He implored the members to appreciate that, as public officials, they should be held accountable.
“Let us open ourselves to public surgery. We must be able to absorb all this positive criticism. The moment we close the doors to criticism, we shall be judged wrongly,†he said as unconvinced members stormed out jeering.
In the debate, several members questioned the mandate of the institute and the credibility of its director, a former boss of the External Security Organisation.
“We should agree that no report should be published for public consumption until a memorandum of association is signed between Parliament and the African Leadership Institute,†said Dr. Francis Epetait (FDC).
Many speakers questioned the objective of the report. “What is this research intended to achieve if it is not to arm our opponents?†asked Beatrice Rwakimari (NRM).
“If you want to help us, empower the voters. You don’t have the capacity, credibility and mandate to assess us.â€
MPs Joram Pajobo, Ashraf Olega and Olive Wonekha, all belonging to NRM, disrupted Pulkol as he tried to respond to the submissions from other MPs.
“This is not fair. Last time you gave me a zero. I want to know what formula you used to arrive at that. You are destroying us,†an angry Olega said.
Pulkol explained that there had been an earlier consultative meeting at Hotel Africana and their input had been considered in the new report.
MPs were opposed to the rating done at the district level, saying most people there were their political opponents who wanted to bring them down.
“The African Leadership Institute is not just Pulkol,†the former ESO boss defended himself.
“Even Pulkol as a person has a record that speaks for itself. We should approach this with an open mind. We are not doing this for Government or Parliament but for civil society.â€
He said the objective of the assessment was to deepen democratic governance and promote accountability by those in leadership positions.
“As a former spy boss, whom do you answer to?†asked Johnson Malinga (Independent). “I represent the people of Kapelebyong and not your institution,†he charged.
Loy Kiryapawo (NRM) and Christine Bako (FDC) said some MPs do not intervene regularly in parliamentary debates because they are bound by party regulations.
“Some of us speak in the caucus and come to the House when we have an agreed position. We are not allowed to contradict the party position,†Kiryapawo noted.
Others threw in that they preferred to speak in their constituencies because that is where they are more effective.
“The population prefers that we attend burials and wedding meetings rather than being in the House,†said Francis Kiyonga (Independent).
The 2006-2007 scorecard showed that Ugandan MPs on average attended only 25% of plenary sessions between May 2006 and May 2007.
and Milton Olupot
A CONSULTATIVE meeting at Parliament between MPs and the African Leadership Institute turned rowdy yesterday as the legislators attempted to block the release of their performance assessment report.
The row started when the Institute’s director, David Pulkol, informed the members that the second parliamentary performance scorecard would be released at the end of May. The first report, which angered MPs, was released in December 2007.
The announcement attracted boos and heckling from the MPs, who demanded that the report should not be published.
The MPs, who vehemently opposed the methodology used to assess them, said the report was not in good faith, calling it a tool to arm their political opponents.
It took opposition Chief Whip, Kassiano Wadri, who was representing the Speaker, to cool down the tempers. He implored the members to appreciate that, as public officials, they should be held accountable.
“Let us open ourselves to public surgery. We must be able to absorb all this positive criticism. The moment we close the doors to criticism, we shall be judged wrongly,†he said as unconvinced members stormed out jeering.
In the debate, several members questioned the mandate of the institute and the credibility of its director, a former boss of the External Security Organisation.
“We should agree that no report should be published for public consumption until a memorandum of association is signed between Parliament and the African Leadership Institute,†said Dr. Francis Epetait (FDC).
Many speakers questioned the objective of the report. “What is this research intended to achieve if it is not to arm our opponents?†asked Beatrice Rwakimari (NRM).
“If you want to help us, empower the voters. You don’t have the capacity, credibility and mandate to assess us.â€
MPs Joram Pajobo, Ashraf Olega and Olive Wonekha, all belonging to NRM, disrupted Pulkol as he tried to respond to the submissions from other MPs.
“This is not fair. Last time you gave me a zero. I want to know what formula you used to arrive at that. You are destroying us,†an angry Olega said.
Pulkol explained that there had been an earlier consultative meeting at Hotel Africana and their input had been considered in the new report.
MPs were opposed to the rating done at the district level, saying most people there were their political opponents who wanted to bring them down.
“The African Leadership Institute is not just Pulkol,†the former ESO boss defended himself.
“Even Pulkol as a person has a record that speaks for itself. We should approach this with an open mind. We are not doing this for Government or Parliament but for civil society.â€
He said the objective of the assessment was to deepen democratic governance and promote accountability by those in leadership positions.
“As a former spy boss, whom do you answer to?†asked Johnson Malinga (Independent). “I represent the people of Kapelebyong and not your institution,†he charged.
Loy Kiryapawo (NRM) and Christine Bako (FDC) said some MPs do not intervene regularly in parliamentary debates because they are bound by party regulations.
“Some of us speak in the caucus and come to the House when we have an agreed position. We are not allowed to contradict the party position,†Kiryapawo noted.
Others threw in that they preferred to speak in their constituencies because that is where they are more effective.
“The population prefers that we attend burials and wedding meetings rather than being in the House,†said Francis Kiyonga (Independent).
The 2006-2007 scorecard showed that Ugandan MPs on average attended only 25% of plenary sessions between May 2006 and May 2007.