In what can be interpreted as a move to tighten monitoring of wealth amassment among leaders, the Sectoral Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs last week tabled its report on the proposed amendment of the leadership code. Among other things, they approved the proposal to set up a leadership code tribunal and earmarking Shs3b for its operation.

The tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all breaches and offences under the leadership code.

The decision to establish a tribunal arose from a Supreme Court ruling in appeal No2 of 2007 where it held that the dismissal of Mr John K Lukyamuzi from Parliament on the recommendation of the IGG was in error because the IGG is not the appropriate tribunal envisaged in Article 81(1)e of the constitution.

Mr Lukyamuzi, then Rubaga South MP, was dismissed from Parliament on the grounds that he had failed to declare his wealth. The supreme court recommended that article 81(1)e of the constitution be operationalised by creating the appropriate tribunal and prevent the IGG from being the complainant, the investigator and the judge in its own case.

The five member tribunal, the report says, shall be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President on the advice of the Judicial Service Committee and with the approval of Parliament.

“A person is not qualified to be appointed chairperson unless he or she qualifies to be appointed judge of the High Court,” the report notes. The same qualifications, the committee proposes, should apply to the deputy chairperson.

The tribunal will be gender sensitive with a third of the members being women and members shall work for three years and will be eligible for reappointment for one further term. The report also approved most of the proposals in the Bill.

For instance, a leader, if the report is adopted, shall be compelled to, before the expiry of his or her term of office, declare his or her income, assets and liabilities, the names, income, assets and liabilities of his or her spouse, child or dependent under this code if his or her term of office expires six months after his or last declaration.

The committee also recommended that the above provision should be expanded to require a leader to declare assets and liabilities in which he or she has a joint interest with any other person irrespective of their relation.

The committee however rejected a proposal to criminalise a leader who knowingly or recklessly submits a declaration or gives an account of any matter which is false, misleading or insufficient.

The reason was that the current law is sufficient. However, the report proposes a stringent approach to the issue of gifts or benefits in kind to leader.

“Where a gift or donation is in form of money, it shall be deposited in the consolidated fund by the authorised person of the institution represented by the leader.

“But the leader may accept a personal gift or donation from a relative or personal friend to such extent and on such occasion as recognised by custom,” the proposed provision reads.

The report also goes further to define scenarios of conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest, the report reads, shall arise where a leader deals with a matter in which he or she has personal interest where he or she is in a position to influence the matter directly or indirectly in the course of his or her official duties.

“A leader who in the course of his or her official duties deals with a matter in which he or she or his or her immediate family has a direct or indirect interest or is in a position to influence the matter directly or indirectly and who knowingly, fails to disclose the nature of that interest and votes or participates in the proceedings of a public body, board, council, commission or committee, commits a breach of this code,” the report reads.

Reason: The decision to establish a tribunal arose from a Supreme Court ruling in appeal No2 of 2007 where it held that the dismissal of Mr John Ken Lukyamuzi (then Rubaga South MP) from Parliament on the recommendation of the IGG was in error because the IGG is not the appropriate tribunal envisaged in article 81(1)e of the constitution.

Appointment: The five member tribunal, the report says shall be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President on the advice of the judicial service committee and with the approval of Parliament.

Balance: The tribunal will be gender sensitive with a third of the members being women and members shall work for three years and will be eligible for reappointment for one further term.