A Section of Ugandan MPs Desperately Want 'Corrupt' Commissioners Sacked

KAMPALA, UGANDA — In a significant move within Uganda's political landscape, a group of Members of Parliament has initiated a motion to remove four members of the Parliamentary Commission, citing serious misconduct and a failure to uphold the standards expected of their positions. The targeted commissioners are Hon. Solomon Silwanyi, Hon. Esther Afoyochan, Hon. Mathias Mpuuga, and Hon. Prossy Mbabazi Akampurira.

The motion, moved under Section 5 of the Administration of Parliament Act, Cap 257, and Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, was prompted by allegations that the commissioners allocated themselves service awards and engaged in other activities deemed inappropriate for their roles.

A group of Members of Parliament has initiated a motion to remove four members of the Parliamentary Commission, citing misconduct. The concerned MPs argue that the commissioners' actions, including allocating themselves service awards, fall below the expected conduct of parliamentarians.

The motion specifies that on July 13, 2021, the four commissioners were approved by the House as Members of the Parliamentary Commission. They were appointed in accordance with the Administration of Parliament Act and the Rules of Procedure to serve a term of two and a half years.

The motion underscores that Section 5 of the Administration of Parliament Act and Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure empower Parliament to remove a commissioner for reasons including incompetence, misconduct, insanity, or inability to perform their duties effectively.

The concerned MPs allege that Hon. Akampurira Prossy, Hon. Silwanyi Solomon, Hon. Mathias Mpuuga, and Hon. Afoyochan Esther have engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of the Parliamentary Commission. Specifically, the MPs accuse the commissioners of allocating themselves service awards, an act seen as a misuse of their positions and a breach of the ethical standards expected of them.

The motion also references Rule 85 and the Code of Conduct in Appendix F of the Rules of Procedure, which direct members on their obligations to the House, constituents, and the public. It argues that the commissioners have not maintained the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament.

The motion has sparked considerable debate within Parliament. Local resident Faith Opuko expressed her frustration, stating, "The government has totally failed us today. Rescue efforts arrived too late, after five hours with no help."

Survivor Eugene Atonga described the chaotic scene as the building began to collapse. "As people were trying to salvage their steel, the building started collapsing. Those who heard shouts of the building going down quickly got out, but some who were on the upper floors feared jumping and the building caved in with them inside. I saw two people being crushed," Atonga recounted.

Rescue efforts were hampered by the extensive damage and the instability of the remaining structure. A Red Cross official on the scene confirmed that two people had been rescued, while another two remained trapped. However, a local police chief indicated that only one person had been brought out alive.

The outcome of this motion could have significant implications for the standards of conduct expected from Uganda’s parliamentary commissioners. If passed, it would set a precedent for holding high-ranking officials accountable for misconduct and reinforce the importance of ethical governance.

As the situation unfolds, further updates will be provided on the proceedings and decisions made by Parliament regarding the alleged misconduct of these commissioners. The motion reflects a growing demand for transparency and integrity within Uganda’s political institutions, signaling a potential shift towards more stringent oversight and accountability.