1st March 2025
The former Leader of Opposition in Parliament and now Parliamentary Commissioner Mathias Mpuuga, has rejected the call from his Party Leadership to resign as a Commissioner accusing him of alleged corruption when he participated in an alleged meeting in which he and other Commissioners reportedly awarded themselves with some ‘service awards’.
According to NUP leaders, this was some form of corruption and thus Mpuuga has no moral authority to stay in that office. But was this an act of corruption or was it just a moral issue which is subjective?
Article 85 of the Constitution says that “Members of Parliament shall be paid such emoluments and such gratuity and shall be provided with such facilities as may be determined by Parliament.”
This means that nobody else except Parliament can determine the emoluments or benefits of Members of Parliament or their leaders. This was meant to ensure the independence of Parliament from other arms of government.
Clause 2 (1) of the Administration of Parliament Act says “there shall be a Commission called the Parliamentary Commission”. This is a body responsible for the Management of Parliament.
Clause 6 (G) of the Administration of Parliament Act states that, “the functions of the Commission shall include; to make recommendations to Parliament on or, with the approval of Parliament, determine the allowances payable and privileges available to the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and members of Parliament”
In a similar note clause 6 (H) says that the functions of the Commission shall include “to do such other things as may be necessary for the well-being of the members and staff of Parliament”
That implies that it’s only the Commission on behalf of Parliament that can determine the emoluments or benefits including the now famous “service awards”. So it was not illegal for the Commission where Mpuuga was a member to seat & determine such a benefit. It should be noted that the other leaders including the Vice President, Speaker, Prime Minister get special benefits after their term of office. Why would a Leader of Opposition also not benefit?
Even if Mathias Mpuuga was not supporting the decision of the Commission, clause 7 of (1) says “Every decision of the Commission shall, as far as possible, be by consensus” and where it fails, clause 7 (1) says there can be some voting.
Take note that Mpuuga was the only Opposition MP on the Commission and so his vote would not change anything even if he was to oppose the proposal. The purported minutes that are being shared on social media (if they are genuine) do not show what Mpuuga said during the said meeting.
So given that the Commission acted within the law (if it’s true that such awards were given), Mpuuga cannot be held liable for a collective decision that was taken by the Commission.
Asking him to resign because a Commission where he was a member passed the decision is like having asked Bobi Wine to resign from Parliament when the age limit was removed!
It’s like asking all opposition MPs to resign because Parliament has passed an view that the opposition leadership doesn’t like!
NUP leadership indeed acted out of malice and ignorance. Their call for Mpuuga’s resignation should be dusbinned.
The author is a policy analyst.
