12/03/2024
Misplaced intellectualism- Fight for a better system, not Speaker Among, Tayebwa and their subordinates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More often than not, the most educated, informed and enlightened of us display the greatest level of ignorance while attempting to champion equity and transparency on issues of legislation, governance, the Law and the entitlement of citizens. We have failed to choose the right battles and opt for populist approaches to very grave matters.
Let me go pedestrian for a moment. Here is an example.
The earning of any head of a family is their own to dispense as they see fit. However, the proceeds generated by the entire family are subject to judicious appropriation. If the responsibility of this appropriation is left to the Head of the Family, the rest of the family have no Locus on how this head appropriated these proceeds. If the appropriation of the same proceeds is put in the hands of the entire family, the beneficiaries of each family have very little control of the heads of each family that is part of the appropriation mechanism. It is the system that determines the functionalities.
If the head of a family pays their house's help with more money than they allocate to the welfare of the entire family from his own proceeds, he is morally incorrect but legally within their rights to make those choices. If the same head of the family allocates money to the house helps specifically ear-marked for family affairs and the house-helps divert those resources to other things, they are morally incorrect and legally in contempt thus liable to be reprimanded.
Please please take note. Do not forget that the Speakership and its subsequent other arms have had other office bearers. Take note. Just because no dust rose during their time does not mean some things were not happening. No wonder all of them never wanted to leave.
Now to reality and open honesty. If Speaker Annet Anitah Among, her deputy Thomas Tayebwa and their subordinates have diverted budgetary resources that were specifically allocated for service delivery, they can be held accountable by Law. If they appropriates budgetary allocations meant for their offices, causing their entities to collapse or fall into dysfunctionality, they can be held legally liable. But if they appropriate what is allocated to them in a manner deemed by public opinion as wasteful, ostentatious, erroneous, etc yet their entities continue to function, they can only be held morally incorrect.
Public debate on expenditure, exposure of personal bank details, name calling and shaming, invasion of privacy and scrutiny of personal lifestyles only plays to the moral sentiment of the taxpayer over resources already budgeted for and are already being appropriated or misappropriated. In fact, whereas such champions of public debate and sympathy will remain victories in the public eye, privately they may attract legal prosecution. As a journalist I have faced many such legal battles where I have been morally correct but legally erroneous in my approach to exposing graft. It takes intellectual maturity to fight such battles because in many cases even the ones on the wrong engineer their own exposition for other agendas.
To change the narrative, fight to change and improve the system that allocates budgets so that there is equity and responsible allocation in accordance with the needs of the taxpayers. If you allocate UGX 6 trillion every financial year to parliament and UGX 800 billion to education, what do you expect to happen? Richer and more privileged Members of Parliament and poorer schools. If you allocate UGX 10 trillion to security and UGX 400 million to democracy and governance, what do you expect? More security personnel presence, less civic education on the rights of the taxpayer.
The Honorables Among and Tayebwa plus their subordinate plus members of parliament are, in this state of affairs, acting within their will because they have budgets to allocate and appropriate. The former Leader of the Opposition Honorable Mathias Mpuuga was going to be in hot soup had he already received the UGX 500 million service award because by the current Law of the land, there is no legal provision for this.
Then what happened to the debate on Statehouse expenditure and budgetary allocations? Can you question how the statehouse appropriates what is allocated to it or how much supplementary they can request and in what frequency? When are you consulted when the government is borrowing internally or externally? When are you consulted on how much your constituency is to be given for whatever needs- roads, health, education, public administration, Law and Order, etc etc. Do you follow?
But it is easier to follow a CAO, a DHO, a Minister or even the head of state and his family usually because such information is given to cause emotional reaction but really no legal remedies are executed.
Clean the system, tame the system, then ask for accountability, monitor the process, follow the process and demand equity. For now, like it or not, until after 2026, there are two powers that can stop parliament and its occupants, employees from rightfully enjoying tax payers money; The Creator and the President Yoweri Museveni. If the creator decides to act both morally and legal, the creator will. As for H.E his actions will only be determined by best interest. Should his best interest be by you the citizens, he will act accordingly. If his best interest is Parliament, you know the answer.
Finally, the activities happening at Madam Among and Mr Tayebwa's constituencies, regions and those close to them are not new. Like I began, it is a system. When Obote was around, you know and read what happened, the first time he was kicked out, his region suffered, his kinsmen were killed by Amin. The same went on and on until now we have Yoweri Kaguta Museveni who has managed to keep things together by hook or crook. Before 1986, Eastern, Northern and Western Uganda had suffered in on and off poverty. After 1986 you know what has been happening. Now in the current system, you expect some regions to suffer when their children are in the dining room?
These are the same problems that brought people to NRM. Some political party leaders were and some are still, starving their members as they appropriated to themselves the fruits of their party flagships. It is evident now by the top leadership of many government institutions. We can see the former neighbours are now "in the kitchen" while others are seated in the "Living rooms holding the remotes" as the rest have no choice but to watch the programs chosen, this is if they are lucky. Some are in the store while others are on the perimetre wall trying to come back inside with difficulty.
