{UAH} THE STENCH AT THE STATE HOUSE/PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE MEETING.

As Ugandans watched Wednesdays Parliamentary Committee hearing at State House, the one glaring elephant in the room was the conflict of interest of the person who was being heard by the committee. Clearly some people are not disturbed by the ethical dilemma that the meeting presented.

The fact is that the sitting sought the views of the one person who is directly benefitting from the constitutional amendment to remove the age limit of 75 years.That person is purportedly 73 years of age and therefore approaching the existing presidential age limit. He now wants it removed and is even arguing in that direction.

That is conflict of interest.

The Legal dictionary describes the situation saying: "Conflict of interest is present if there is a situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, could exploit the situation for personal benefit, typically pecuniary. In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. Such an individual has the responsibility to avoid situations where there is a clash between their professional obligations and their personal interests."

So as we watch developments around the Constitutional amendment bill, some things sound familiar to ages old feudal politics in general. Isn't it the famous 19th Century British writer Charles Dickens who once wrote: "As great men are urged on to the abuse of power by their flatterers and dependents, so old John was impelled to these exercises of authority by the applause and admiration of his Maypole cronies, who, in the intervals of their nightly pipes and pots, would shake their heads and say that Mr Willet was a good old father; that there was no mistake about him; that it would be well for the country if there were more like him, and many other original remarks of that nature."

I therefore wonder, if we say we have wisdom and vision, why didn't the person of interest recuse himself from the matter altogether because of the above mentioned conflict of interest. Why has he actually gone ahead and met the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs without feeling the stench in the situation? Obviously (and shamelessly) he then boldly expressed his support for the removal of the age limit, thereby pushing the matter towards his own benefit.

It is also worrying that for some unknown reason, the possible blatant violation of conflict of interest rules was not even addressed by the said Parliamentary Committee meeting that took place Wednesday afternoon at State House. Nor was it discussed by the media, the political analysts, or the legal experts.

So are we pretending that there is nothing wrong with that meeting?

If anyone is wondering why something wasn't right about it, the answer is simple: It's the conflict of interest aspect.

Being the primary beneficiary of the amendment in discussion, the minimum ethical standards is that he should have actually recused himself from being party to the exercise altogether. He should also have ensured from the very beginning that he does not personally benefit from whatever issue it is where he is in conflict of interest.

That is integrity. It is how countries prevent administrative thuggery and the related abuse of office. He should never have been in a situation where one is always found changing the rules to suit his/her personal political ambitions.

In fact in my opinion these are possible legal grounds on which a court injunction could be filed to stop the ongoing Parliamentray process on the removal of age limit until another case regarding the conflict of interest is filed, addressed, and a ruling pronounced on the matter.

The primary evidence to submit in the event of applying for a court injunction is the video of Wednesdays Parliamentary Committee meeting.

But it is possible that our political parties and concerned civil society organizations/NGO's see things differently and actually prefer to not study the possibility of taking any legal action against parliament enacting the bill that seeks to amend the Constitution.

But then why pretend that we are practising constitutionalism and doing everything to curb abuse of office and to uphold the rule of law?

Legal Dictionary definition of "Conflict of Interest": legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conflict+of+interest

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com