Eric Sabiti, the Electoral Commission lawyer who challenged parliament’s powers to debate and investigate the Shs 6 billion bonus paid to top government officials, has withdrawn his petition.
Sabiti petitioned the Constitutional court, seeking an interim order to bar parliament from debating the payment to 42 government officials involved in a tax arbitration case between Uganda and Heritage Oil. Subsequently, the deputy chief justice Steven Kavuma issued an interim order banning parliament or any other person from debating or investigating the bonus payments.
Sabiti’s lawyer, Alex Chandia, who on Wednesday apologised to the speaker of parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, over the court order, confirms that the constitutional petition, Number 4 of 2017 was withdrawn from court today. Kadaga called the order “stupid.”
“It is not in the interest of anybody, I met him and advised him. I met him and we talked and indeed he has noticed that the government has been brought to its knees. There is need to allow government to continue operating. He has withdrawn the petition. Once the petition is withdrawn, it means the interim order has elapsed,” said Chandia.
URN has learnt that a meeting was convened this morning at the attorney general’s chambers, in which Chandia and Sabiti met with officials from the office to discuss Kadaga’s directive to deputy attorney general, Mwesigwa Rukutana to vacate the order which was served to parliament on Tuesday during plenary session.
By withdrawing the order from court, it means that parliament can now resume its sittings, after Kadaga ordered that parliament would not hold committee and plenary sittings until the matter was resolved.
URN has also learnt from sources that management of the Electoral Commission held a meeting on Wednesday in regard to Saiiti’s court order, given his position as legal officer at the institution.
The shadow attorney general and Ndorwa East MP, Wilfred Niwagaba says the court order was premature and only sought to suppress parliament’s independence as one of the arms of government.
“The Judiciary ordinarily can only intervene when parliament has acted contrary to the Constitution or contrary to the normal procedure or contrary to a particular Act of parliament. But coming in to say that parliament don’t act – to stop parliament from performing its functions was a clear suppression of the independence of parliament and also an abuse of the doctrine of checks and balances.”