Rédaction Africa Links 24 with The Observer
Published on 2024-03-28 03:20:32
The opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) party has been in the spotlight recently after attempting to remove Mathias Mpuuga Nsamba from his position on the parliamentary commission over corruption allegations. Mpuuga was initially dropped as the leader of the opposition (LoP) in the 11th parliament and subsequently nominated to the commission by NUP. However, the party’s decision to recall him and replace him with Mityana municipality MP Francis Zaake was met with resistance from Speaker Anita Annet Among.
In a letter dated March 25, Speaker Among rejected NUP’s decision to recall Mpuuga, citing legal restrictions and procedural deficits outlined in the Administration of Parliament Act and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. Among emphasized that once elected as commissioners by parliament, individuals cease to serve individual party interests and instead serve the parliament as a whole. She pointed out that parties have limited authority to recall a commissioner once elected by parliament, as doing so would undermine the authority vested in the House.
NUP’s secretary-general, Lewis Davis Rubongoya, expressed disappointment with the speaker’s decision, alleging that Among chaired the parliamentary commission that allegedly allocated Shs 500 million to Mpuuga illegally and immorally. Rubongoya asserted that NUP’s communication to parliament was intended to communicate their disapproval of corruption and abuse of office. He made it clear that NUP does not want to be associated with any wrongdoing within the commission.
Mpuuga, on the other hand, maintained his position and affirmed that he has no intention of stepping down from the mandate given to him by NUP. He emphasized that he will not quit the party under any circumstances. The Democratic Party’s secretary general, Dr. Gerard Siranda Blacks, criticized the Administration of Parliament Act and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, stating that they are unfair to political parties and undermine the principles of multi-party dispensation in the country.
Dr. Blacks proposed expedited amendments to these laws to enable parties to exercise control over members who are nominated and withdraw them at will. This situation is not unique to NUP, as other political parties, such as the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), have faced similar challenges when trying to replace members in key positions within parliament.
In conclusion, the conflict between NUP and Speaker Among highlights the complexities of parliamentary procedures and the limits of party influence in the appointment and removal of commissioners. It raises questions about accountability, transparency, and the balance of power between political parties and the parliament as a whole. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for the functioning of parliament and the integrity of its decision-making processes.
Read Original article on The Observer
