OPEN LETTER TO DEPUTY SPEAKER: WHY YOUR DECISIONS ON ROKO BAILOUT OUGHT TO BE REVIEWED AND RECONSIDERED UNDER RULE 87(2) or 222 (2).

By Oguzu Lee Denis, MP Maracha Constituency.

Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker, I hope this finds you doing well. I'm writing to you in relation to your stewardship of the House. Even as  jubilant as members have been with your work as once expressed by the Woman MP for Butambala who for lack of better word addressed you as "Mr. President" to a standing ovation of your fans, many now feel agrieved and betrayed by your actions and decisions on ROKO.

Buttressed by teachings of Martin Luther King that "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter," motivated by the words of Edmund Burke that "The only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for all good men to do nothing," cognizant of the provisions in our rules within which to review Speaker's decisions and reconsider matters already decided upon by the House, i write to bring to your attention what amounts to a blatant abuse of our Rules of Procedure and  consider is dangerous path for our country.

Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker, unlike what many think, the Rules of Procedure of Parliament is not just mere pieces of paper bundled together. It's a document that governs all the legislative processes of the House so that they can meet tenets of democracy and rule of law. The rules bind every member of the House including the presiding officers.

Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker, under your stewardship, the 21st July 2022 sitting will go down in the annals of history as a day the country witnessed another raid on rule of law. To many, the surprise is no longer how ROKO was selected out of many distressed companies for a bail out. It's how the purpoted authorization to acquire 150,000 preferential  shares of ROKO at a cost of Ugx 202.13 billion was processed by the House without following prescriptions of law to the latter and pursuit of minimum standards for such investment decision especially when the government is adamant on subsidizing ordinary citizens who face starvation and exorbitant cost of living. 

As a self confessed business man, I'm sure you knew more about ROKO than anyone else to make your decisions. Nonetheless, the audited financial statement, actual value and corporate governance of the firm leave a lot to be desired. Some sources indicate ROKO is liquid with dues from government and has running contracts amounting to over a trillion against which it can borrow or source funds from capital markets. We're also talking about the ROKO that earlier on got involved with Pinetti's non-starting Lubowa Hospital project, was faulted for  irregular receipt of Ugx. 15n from government in relation to contested Naguru Land and that still struggling to deliver new Parliamentary Chambers beyond agreed schedule in face of more than 20 law suits albeit undisputed history for quality works in the region. That's the ROKO in relation to who circumvention of some rules occured without suspension of the applicable rules as provided in rule 16 of our Rules of Procedure.

Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker, even when one of the arguments for a rushed bailout of ROKO was that Roko is an indigenous company and allowing it to collapse would have micro and macro economic ramifications for the country, we should have done it better.  I'm sure as a patriot, you also found the argument that ROKO will be a replacement for foreign construction firms and handling of her case as emergency appealing and soothing. However we needed critical appraisal and some safeguards before to a decision that's why, as is the rule, the request was referred to Committee on Finance for consideration and a feedback to House after evaluation of the request based on standard criteria for evaluating such investment decisions. 

That's what the presiding officer at  sitting of the House on 20th July 2022 tried to deliver. After presentation of the main and minority reports of Committee to the House, the Minister who moved the motion was accorded an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by members. Based on the strength of his arguments which left many substantive issues unanswered, the presiding Speaker, the Rt. Hon. Anita Among adjourned debate on the matter until further notice and directed the Minister in accordance with rule  52 (2)(3) to present a statement to the House satisfying all concerns raised  by members before a debate on the matter could resume and a vote taken when the House is properly constituted with a quorum for a vote.

However to the surprise of many, without the matter being an item on the order paper of the day,  at the 21st July 2022 sitting of the House you irregularly introduced the issue of Roko on the order paper towards the end of the sitting without sufficient notice to members and observance of statutory duration for notices contrary to rule 25 (2) (5) (7) and 27 (b), and allowed a vote on the matter without debate amidst contestation of quorum by some members contrary to rule 24 (3) and without the Minister presenting a written statement to the House for debate in accordance with rule 52 (1)(2)(3) yet rule 87 (1) enjoins you in observance of the rules of the House. Even after more than 40 members stood up in accordance with rule rule 101(b), you didnt order for remedies provided under rule 101(2) (3) let alone ensure reintroduction and resumption  of the matter complied with rule 66 of the rules of the House which provides for  debate.

Key to note in this process is that Article 159 (6) of the Constitution requires parliament to approve agreements of  financial engagements of such nature by government before they take effect. It was with such in mind that during the debate, the presided Rt. Hon. Anita Among on realising, the accompanying documents laid on table were not supplied to members as provided under rule 32 (1) of Rules of Procedure decided to adjourn the matter. At what point do you expect the House to approve terms of these agreements when they're already part of the purpoted transaction?

Rt. Hon. Deputy Speaker, in the face of such glaring disregard to the Rules of Procedure which is a dictate of the Constitution under article 94 of the Constitution, it's only prudent that you allow the House in accordance with Rule 87(2) to subject your decisions to review. In the alternative, you can allow the  House to through a substantive motion reconsider the decisions already arrived at under rule 222 (2) so that the means and the end are inseparable.

Where as the Speaker may alter the order of business or items on order paper already timely circulated, to amend the order paper to the extend of introducing new item on the order paper without sufficient notice as provided under rule 27 (b) is highly irregular unless it was a matter of national importance brought under rule 49 or moved without notice under rule 59. In the absence of those, it's only prudent that you please subject your actions to Rule 87(2) of Rules of Procedure so that there is sanity and assurance on no repeat.

Since this is a matter of public concern requiring public scrutiny and debate, I've decided to make the letter an open one hoping to enlist guidance on aspects that defer with my own interpretation and understanding of the rules. I thank you for your usual consideration. Awaiting your response!