Kira Municipality Member of Parliament, Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, has declared his refusal to participate in the censure motion against four Parliamentary Commissioners, branding the effort as misguided and uninformed. Ssemujju insists that the Shs1.7 billion service awards
The center of the controversy, were legitimately passed by Parliament, highlighting a broader ignorance among his colleagues about parliamentary procedures and budget details.
"The MPs are actually censuring themselves because the money was approved by them. Most of them don’t even know the details in the parliamentary budget for the next financial year," Ssemujju remarked, his frustration palpable.
His comments come amidst a growing campaign, led by Lwemiyaga County MP Theodore Ssekikubo, to collect signatures in support of the censure motion. The motion targets Mathias Mpuuga, the former Leader of the Opposition, and three National Resistance Movement (NRM) Commissioners: Solomon Silwany (Bukooli Central), Esther Afoyochan (Zombo Woman), and Prossy Mbabazi (Rubanda Woman).
.jpg)
According to reports, Mpuuga received Shs500 million, while the other commissioners received Shs400 million each. The contentious allocation and approval of these funds took place in a meeting chaired by Speaker Anita Among. The censure motion has so far garnered over 100 signatures out of the approximately 177 required to pass.Ssemujju has voiced strong opposition to this motion, emphasizing the collective responsibility of Parliament in passing the budget that included the disputed service awards.
"This is why I keep quarrelling with MPs who don’t want to read," Ssemujju stated, underscoring his belief that many of his colleagues are unaware of the specifics contained within the parliamentary budget."
The majority of the MPs signing the censure motion are ignorant about this matter. The service awards money was passed in Parliament," he added
Framing the situation as a misunderstanding of the legislative process rather than an issue of individual misconduct by the commissioners.
The division within Parliament highlights a significant rift over accountability and governance. While the initiators of the censure motion argue that the allocations represent a misuse of public funds, Ssemujju contends that the funds were legally sanctioned by the very body now seeking to censure its members.
As the motion gathers momentum, the debate over the legitimacy of the service awards continues to underscore broader issues within parliamentary practices. The controversy not only puts a spotlight on individual MPs but also raises questions about the transparency and accountability of parliamentary budget allocations.Ssemujju's remarks have undoubtedly added fuel to an already heated debate, with the potential to influence the opinions of undecided MPs.
Whether the censure motion will achieve the necessary support remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the issue has sparked a critical examination of parliamentary oversight and the responsibilities of its members.
