“Why Is Deputy Speaker Tayebwa Spared In The Parliamentary Exhibition Yet He Travels More Than Speaker Among, Spends Billions” Ssemujju Nganda

Kira Municipality’s Member of Parliament, Hon Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, has recently addressed the challenges he faces in holding the speaker of parliament, Annet Anita Among, accountable.

In an interview with the Observer, the three-term lawmaker, acknowledged the formidable power wielded by the speaker Anita Among, making it arduous for him to openly criticize her while still utilizing parliament as a platform for governmental oversight.Ssemujju’s concerns stem from the speaker’s authority to silence MPs during parliamentary sessions. He emphasized the speaker’s ability to restrict an MP’s speech, thus hindering their ability to effectively fulfill their duty of holding the government accountable.

The MP’s stance has drawn attention, particularly on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), where users have raised questions about his perceived reluctance to confront parliamentary issues.Over the past few weeks, discussions on social media have highlighted instances of misuse of public resources by parliamentary leaders, with Ssemujju himself coming under scrutiny.

The spotlight has been cast upon parliament by a coalition of voices including the digital public square, Agora Discourse, Makerere University don Dr. Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, and Agatha Atuhaire, a journalist and lawyer.Utilizing X, a micro-blogging service and social network, these activists have orchestrated a public campaign aimed at holding parliament accountable for what they perceive as wasteful expenditure of public funds.

Critics have pointed to the public disclosure of Ssemujju’s earnings as evidence suggesting that personal benefits may influence his actions or inactions regarding parliamentary affairs. However, Ssemujju refuted these claims, arguing that while some information presented was accurate, it lacked necessary context to fully understand his situation.

Ssemujju’s remarks underscore the complex dynamics within parliament, where MPs navigate a delicate balance between upholding accountability and navigating the constraints imposed by institutional power dynamics.As debates surrounding parliamentary transparency and accountability continue, Ssemujju’s experiences shed light on the multifaceted challenges inherent in effective governance oversight.

The lawmaker has also expressed concern regarding the perceived bias of the exhibitors.He noted that because the exhibitors are allegedly influenced by the state, they appear to single out specific individuals while disregarding others.Giving his perspective on the parliamentary exhibition, and what impact has it had thus far, Ssemujju says its singeling out specific people.

“My only criticism is that the shared information wasn’t adequately processed. If the exhibitors had access to the travel records of every MP and showcased them equally, singling out individuals like Ssemujju would be fair.” Ssemujju Nganda Said In The Interview.

“However, because the exhibitors are influenced by the state, they seem to target specific individuals while overlooking others. I haven’t seen the deputy speaker, who actually travels more than the speaker, being exhibited. Additionally, he also has a budget for donations; how does he access and utilize those funds?” Ssemujju Added.

Speaking About the fact that People could be upset with him because he remains silent while numerous misdeeds are being perpetrated by the speaker of parliament and perceiving him as someone who stands up against those who betray the public’s trust. Ssemujju revealed why he’s silent.

“I have never engaged in conflict with any of the speakers. Our disputes have always centered on specific issues; they were not personal attacks on the conduct of the speakers themselves. The incident involving Jacob Oulanyah, then serving as deputy speaker, occurred during discussions on the public order management law. Our disagreement and conduct during the consideration of this legislation led to Oulanyah’s decision to suspend me. Upon my return, as per parliamentary rules, the suspension should have lasted for three sittings.” He Said

“However, Oulanyah also demanded an apology, which, in my view and that of many MPs, was not in accordance with parliamentary procedures. My disagreement with Oulanyah stemmed from his attempt to en- force a rule that did not exist – he insisted that I apologize or refrain from attending parliament, a demand I rejected.” Ssemujju Wondered.

In the tumultuous corridors of Parliament, Hon Ssemujju Nganda’s silence amidst the cacophony of corruption exposés puzzled many. Yet, behind the veil of quietude lay a strategic mind navigating the intricate web of parliamentary politics.His silence, he explained, was not born of apathy but of a calculated approach to parliamentary proceedings. Each word withheld was a tactical move in the delicate dance of power and dissent.

The controversies with Speaker Kadaga in the 10th Parliament served as a backdrop to his strategic stance. While disputes arose, Nganda maintained a focus on parliamentary rules, recognizing that addressing the conduct of the speaker necessitated a substantive motion. Prioritizing verbal discourse over disruptive actions was a personal pledge, a departure from past theatrics.

Critics clamored for more outspokenness, unaware of the tactical considerations underpinning his every move.

“Similarly, Speaker Kadaga suspended me twice during debates on the Tojikwatako issue. Again, the dispute was not with Kadaga personally but with the legislation under consideration. The current concern lies with the conduct of the speaker. According to parliamentary rules, any discussion on the conduct of the speaker requires a substantive motion. It is this issue that is now at the forefront of our parliamentary debates. In our parliamentary rules, discussing the conduct of the speaker requires bringing forth a substantive motion, and the speaker cannot preside over the house while being the subject of discussion.” He Further Noted

Ssemujju Nganda Says Navigating the labyrinth of parliamentary procedures posed its own challenges. Challenging President Museveni while maintaining parliamentary decorum was a tightrope walk, where missteps could lead to expulsion and an abrupt end to his narrative. Nganda understood the unwritten rules of engagement within Parliament. Speaking only when authorized by the speaker was a constraint he grappled with, mindful of the consequences of veering off course.

“There are tactical considerations at play, and I may not always explain every decision made in parliament due to the technical nature of some issues. For instance, challenging President Museveni using parliamentary procedures and then criticizing parliament itself poses a dilemma.” He Said.

“Moreover, parliamentary rules dictate that one can only speak when authorized by the speaker. We have witnessed where Honorable Francis Zaake’s actions led him. If others expect me to follow suit, I could resort to disruptive behaviour and risk expulsion from parliament, which would abruptly end the narrative.” He Added.

For him, Parliament is a stage where respect for the speaker is paramount, regardless of who held the gavel. Like a seasoned football player, he knows that challenging the referee risked expulsion from the game he sought to influence.