Service award case: Parliament clerk withdraws application to avoid disciplinary action

The clerk to parliament has withdrawn an application in which he sought, among others, the recalling of the ruling in which disciplinary proceedings were recommended against him for negligence during the controversial ‘service award’ of Shs1.7b to four back-bench commissioners including former Leader of Opposition in Parliament Mathias Mpuuga.

Adolf Mwesige in his August 26 application argued that since he wasn’t a party to the original case from which the orders of the court arose, the same violated his right to natural justice of being condemned unheard.

Daniel Bwete was the first respondent while the parliamentary commission was the second.

However, Mwesige and the commission mutually consented to withdraw the matter ahead of the hearing of the application that sought interim stay on September 10- before trial judge Douglas Singiza, who made the said orders.

“By consent of the applicant and the 2nd respondent, the parties have instructed their respective legal counsel to withdrawal the application by mutual consent,” reads in part the consent withdrawal.

The consent withdrawal application under Order 25(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules was equally withdrawn against Bwete who had not yet filed any affidavit in reply or taken any step in the proceedings.

By press time, efforts to reach Secretary to the Treasury Ramathan Ggoobi -to determine if he would proceed with disciplining the clerk- were unsuccessful as his known phone number went unanswered.

But Mwesige and his lawyers, together with the lawyer from the legal department of the said commission, consented before the deputy registrar Simon Kintu Zirintusa on September 5.

On August 13, High Court judge Douglas Singiza ruled that the controversial ‘service award’ was legal, reasoning that the same was approved by parliament and formed part of the budget presented by the Executive.

“It ought to be presumed that the Clerk to Parliament is highly skilled in financial management and public administration and can give credible guidance to the respondent (Parliamentary Commission). The term ‘guidance’ denotes the supervision of an activity or duty for proper results,” ruled Justice Singiza.

 “Should the clerk to Parliament give advice that is fundamentally erroneous, he or she may be sued for negligence. In the motion before me, there is indeed evidence that the meeting, which resulted in the impugned decision, was attended by the Clerk to Parliament, the Deputy Clerk (Parliamentary Affairs), Ag. Director (General Counsel to Parliament), executive secretary, director finance, and Ag. Director (commissioner secretary/ minute secretary),” the judge added.

Subsequently, the judge directed Ggoobi to institute disciplinary action against the clerk within 12 months of his decision.

Mwesige, through his lawyers of Magna Advocates, had wanted the court to issue an interim order stopping the execution and implementation of the orders.

The interim order was intended to safeguard the clerk’s in the pending substantive application for stay of execution and the application for review of the findings and orders of HCMC No. 85 of 2024 to avert the looming possibility of rendering the application for stay and review, nugatory.