Parliament.
The planned debate on the proposed constitutional amendments flopped yesterday after Opposition lawmakers rejected “piecemeal approach” to reforms and called for wider consultations.
He said he needed time to establish what exactly subjudice means in a meticulous ruling that will guide the house for a longer time.
“The matter is under judicial consideration and the answer is straight forward, it is therefore, sub judice but I have not gone far to establish whether the Parliament debate on Article 83, will jeopardise the rights of the people (the four expelled MPs) in court,” Mr Oulanyah said.
Article 83 spells out the tenure of office of Members of Parliament.
Article 83 spells out the tenure of office of Members of Parliament.
Article 83(1) says a Member of Parliament shall vacate his or her seat in Parliament if that person leaves the political party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in Parliament as an independent member if, having been elected to Parliament as an independent candidate, that person joins a political party.
However, government wants this Article amended so that a member expelled by his or her political party can also lose his or her seat.
Even after staying debate on the proposed amendments to Article 83, Mr Oulanyah wanted the lawmakers to debate other related matters in the two committee reports, something Opposition MPs led by Nandala Mafabi (Budadiri West) rejected as putting the cart before the horse and demanded wider consultations on the Constitutional Amendments Bill, 2015.
However, government wants this Article amended so that a member expelled by his or her political party can also lose his or her seat.
Even after staying debate on the proposed amendments to Article 83, Mr Oulanyah wanted the lawmakers to debate other related matters in the two committee reports, something Opposition MPs led by Nandala Mafabi (Budadiri West) rejected as putting the cart before the horse and demanded wider consultations on the Constitutional Amendments Bill, 2015.
“We are not going to die, let us get everything and debate in a coordinated manner. There is no need to rush the amendments to the Constitution. We cannot debate in piecemeal. Make your ruling on subjudice rule and them we start the debate. We want to make Constitutional amendments which will stand the test of time whether we are here or not,” Mr Nandala said.
All in agreement
Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana agreed with Mr Nandala: “I am inclined to agree with Mr Nandala only to the extent that it will make better sense for Speaker to first make a ruling on subjudice rule so that members can debate wholesomely.”
Deputy Attorney General Mwesigwa Rukutana agreed with Mr Nandala: “I am inclined to agree with Mr Nandala only to the extent that it will make better sense for Speaker to first make a ruling on subjudice rule so that members can debate wholesomely.”
He added: “We think it’s more prudent to get the ruling so that the debate is thorough and conclusive instead of handling in piecemeal.”
Attempts by Mr Oulanyah to convince MPs to decide on whether they proceed with only the government proposals or they also consider the views of the stakeholders failed after the Opposition objected to the proposal and reminded him that he instructed the Legal Committee to consider all the views.
Mr Ibrahim Ssemuju (Kyadondo East) said: “If other issues are not going to be considered, the debate on the proposed Constitutional Amendments will be in futility.
Mr Ibrahim Ssemuju (Kyadondo East) said: “If other issues are not going to be considered, the debate on the proposed Constitutional Amendments will be in futility.
However, Mr Oulanyah insisted that the debate will inform the House decision on how to proceed on the two reports.
No more consultations
Mr Oulanyah also blocked calls for wider consultations after Mr Nandala demanded that MPs be given one to two weeks to consult their constituents on the proposed amendments.
Mr Oulanyah also blocked calls for wider consultations after Mr Nandala demanded that MPs be given one to two weeks to consult their constituents on the proposed amendments.
0 comments:
Post a Comment