KAMPALA: In a landmark August 12, 2024 ruling, Justice Dr. Douglas Karekona Singiza addressed the controversial issue of service awards totaling Shs 1.7 billion given to former parliamentary leaders. The case, brought by Bwette Daniel against the Parliamentary Commission, challenged the legality of these payments, which were labeled as “Ex-gratia for Political Leaders.”
Justice Singiza delivered a pointed critique of the Clerk to Parliament, who had classified the service awards under ex-gratia payments. He remarked, “It is puzzling why the accounting officer placed them (service awards) under ex-gratia payments. And if this item was for retirement benefits, then why are the beneficiaries of gratuitous awards mixed up in this item? It was a dereliction of duty for the Clerk to Parliament to have failed or neglected to detect such an obviously flawed process.”
While the verdict ultimately favored the respondents (parliamentary commission), Justice Singiza underscored that the process leading to the awards was flawed. He emphasized that even if an accounting officer does not directly participate in a decision-making process, they still hold the legal authority to refuse procedurally improper payments. He noted, “In this case, the Clerk both participated in the decision and proceeded to make payment.”
The judge’s 23-page ruling declined to grant the reliefs sought by the applicant, including a declaration that the service awards were illegal and an order to quash the Parliamentary Commission’s decision dated May 6, 2022. Instead, Justice Singiza issued several key directives:
- The Court declared that the decision to award Shs 500,000,000 to the Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Hon. Matthias Mpuga, and Shs 400,000,000 each to three other Commissioners was approved by Parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the executive.
- The Clerk to Parliament was found personally responsible for the flawed process under specific sections of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
- The Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury was directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Clerk to Parliament within 12 months from the ruling’s date.
- Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
In his ruling, Justice Singiza also raised broader concerns about the practice of government agencies and politicians awarding themselves financial benefits under the guise of prize money. He suggested that the Attorney General consider proposing a Salary and Emoluments Review Board Bill to review and harmonize emoluments and allowances for government and political leaders. This, he argued, would help prevent the misuse of discretionary power and the depletion of the nation’s coffers.
The judge highlighted that the service award did not fall within the standard categories of emoluments, such as pensions or allowances, governed by clear legal frameworks. He concluded that the payment in question, approved under the Appropriations Act as “Ex-gratia for Political Leaders,” was not aligned with the intended purpose of ex-gratia payments, which are typically made as a favor rather than a right.
Justice Singiza’s ruling serves as a cautionary tale for public bodies, reminding them of their obligation to act with the utmost care and integrity, especially when exercising discretionary powers in financial matters. The case underscores the importance of adherence to proper procedures and the need for transparency in government decision-making.
