The Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon Rebecca A. Kadaga has declared, new COSASE Chair, Hon Mubarak Munyangwa’s attempts to start a fresh probe on Bank of Uganda’s irregular closure of 7 commercial banks as “out of order” and in multiple breach of several parliamentary rules of procedure.
Kadaga, in her 10th June 2019 letter to Munyagwa, told him to “refrain from further proceeding” with the probe until “otherwise directed by the House.”
It has been reported that Munyagwa is trying to assist Bank of Uganda officials to account for UGX478.8 billion, the central bank said it injected into Crane Bank between 20th October 2016 and 25th January 2017, but could not account fSor, when asked by Parliament to do so.
A 20th December 2018 audit by the Auditor General ordered by COSASE, then chaired by Munyagwa’s predecessor, Bugweri County, found that out of the UGX478.8 billion, an equivalent of UGX270 billion could not be traced to its final destination.
Analysts believe that to abet this anomaly, Munyagwa on Tuesday, 28th May 2019, hastily named a select sub-committee to probe what he says is “unfinished issues” in the BoU probe. The five-member committee is headed by his vice chairperson, Mr Ibrahim Kasozi of Makindye East Constituency and has since met with BOU officials led by the deputy Governor, Dr Louis Kasekende, and tasked them to respond to outstanding Auditor General’s queries, a move that some of the MPs have interpreted to mean, re-opening the probe that was concluded by then COSASE chairman and Bugweri County MP Abdu Katuntu.
Munyagwa’s moves also sparked off a public outcry and subsequently 2 members of the public petitioned the speaker on 29th and 31st May 2019 asking her to intervene.
Breach of parliamentary rules of procedure
In her letter titled: “RE-OPENING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE BANK OF UGANDA CLOSURE OF COMMERCIAL BANKS BY THE COMMITTEE ON COMMISSIONS, STATE AUTHORITIES AND STATE ENTERPRISES,” Kadaga told Munyagwa that constitutionally COSASE’s powers are drawn from the larger House and that its work is drawn from reports of the Auditor General in exercise of his/her constitutional mandate under Article 163 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
She also guided that the said AG reports have to be adopted by the house who then delegate any reviews of the reports to COSASE.
“Under rule 178 (4) the committee, upon receipt of the Auditor General’s report, is required to consider and examine the recommendations of the Auditor General and thereafter under rule 178 (5) to lay the report of the committee on the table for purposes of debate by the House under clause (5) of article 163 of the Constitution. Once the committee, as a delegate of the House, has tabled a report for debate, it has sufficiently discharged its burden and the report becomes property of the House,” Kadaga guided.
“Upon so doing if the report is adopted (like was the case in the matters of closure of commercial banks by bank of Uganda) it becomes a report of the Parliament of Uganda. The committee then stands discharged in respect of any authority of the House on the subject matter of the report,” Kadaga wrote,
She further told Munyagwa that: “It is evident that no other report has been authored by the Auditor General to Parliament in respect to closure of commercial banks in Uganda by Bank of Uganda to warrant an inquiry into the same by the committee. Similarly, no authority of the House has been granted to freshly investigate the closure of commercial banks.”
“Please be further advised that once the recommendations were adopted, it is incumbent upon the Government to respond by way of a Treasury Memorandum, which has not yet been done.”
“In light of the above findings, I am of the firm opinion that your action in trying to re-open a matter that has already been substantively considered and finalised by Parliament in the very recent past, in the absence of a fresh report of the Auditor General on the subject or authority of the House, whose the delegate the committee is, is not founded in the constitution or indeed in the rules of procedure of Parliament,” Kadaga ruled.
“I finally wish to draw your attention to Rule 219 of the Rules of Procedure which provides as follows:
“(It is out of order to attempt to reconsider any specific question on which the House has come to a conclusion during the current Session.” It is evident that you are in breach of Rule 219.
I also draw your attention to Rule 219(2) “Notwithstanding sub-rule 1 the House may reconsider any question upon which a decision has been taken by the House if the motion for revision is taken by a vote of half of all Members of Parliament participating in that decision,” Kadaga went on to school Munyagwa.
“I note that no motion was moved either by you as Chairperson or by any other Member to that effect. I therefore propose and guide that you should refrain from further proceeding in relation to this matter until otherwise directed by the House,” she ruled.