The Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga has warned banks that they will be sued if they interfere with the MPs’ Shs.20 million COVID-19 cash.
While presiding over plenary today, the speaker warned, “I want to warn the banks that are interfering with the accounts of MPs. You will be sued.”
Kadaga first told the house that she held a meeting with the President and the Prime Minister on the money advanced to Parliament and they set guidelines for MPs on how to use the money.
“We agreed on how best the activities of Parliament can be incorporated in those being implemented by the gov’t structures. MPs will join & be incorporated in the district COVID19 taskforces as members,” Kadaga said.
She added, “The MPs will spend the funds advanced by the commission on the interventions meant to support the national response to COVID19 in districts.The needs of one district may not be the needs of another. Each district will determine how to use the funds.”
On accountability, Kadaga said, “Accountability of this money shall be made to the accounting officer of Parliament with the copy to the chief administrative officer of the district. MPs will adhere to the govt guidelines on COVID19 & shall not distribute food & organise meetings.”
There was a heated argument in parliament between the Speaker, Attorney General and MPs over the court order that stopped Parliament from issuing the Shs.20 million to each MP.
The Attorney General, Hon William Byaruhanga said that the Clerk to Parliament had presented evidence to him showing that the Shs10 billion was paid on 17 April and yet the court order was issued on 21st April 2020.
The Attorney General informed the House that any money spent after the 21 April 2020 amounts to contempt of court.
However, the speaker defered with him saying that the court order was issued after the money had already been sent and its decision cannot be binding on members who are not part of the suit.
“By interfering with the Shs10 billion, the judge is interfering with the whole supplementary of Shs304 billion. That means it is all under injunction. It was all in one bill,” Kadaga said.
Kadaga said:
I & most MPs have disagreed with the Attorney General’s view that none of the lawmakers can use the 20m/- on their bank accounts.
(1). From a legal perspective, none of the MPs were party to the suit.
(2). Touching of MPs bank accounts was not part of the prayers in court.
(3). The Supplementary Budget is not passed in isolation; it is a whole.
Going by logic, the judge is indirectly ordering whoever got part of the 302bn/- Supplementary Budget (President’s Office, Health Ministry, Judiciary, etc), not to expend any shilling from thereof.
(4). The judgement was not on MPs’ bank accounts.
(5). We’ve always complained about poor legal representation by the Attorney General.
(6). The cash was wired on 17th April while the suit was filed on 21st. I therefore beg to differ.
(7). Under our rules of procedure, any MP who loses a motion against a majority is obliged to stand up in the House & complain. But not to rush to court to overturn Parliament’s majority vote. The MPs who rushed to court, flouted our rules.
By Sandra Mukisa
Leave a Reply