NUP's Lack of Parliamentary Seats Hinders Bid to Remove Hon. Mpuuga from Commission

Hon. Mathias Mpuuga, the Commissioner of Parliament representing the opposition National Unity Platform (NUP), has been a subject of controversy lately. 

NUP, founded by Robert Kyagulanyi, aka Bobi Wine, has been very vocal in its efforts to remove him from the parliamentary commission. However, according to a recent statement released by NUP, the removal of Hon. Mpuuga cannot just be done by a resolution of the party's National Executive Committee (NEC).

According to the statement, the removal of a Commissioner is governed by the mandatory provisions of Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. 

It can only be achieved through a motion for a resolution for the removal of a Commissioner, which SHALL be initiated by a notice in writing to the Clerk, signed by not less than one third of all voting members of Parliament, indicating their intention for moving the motion for the removal.

It goes on to state that a Commissioner shall be removed upon the vote of at least half of all the voting members of Parliament. By close of business on the day the statement was released, the Clerk had not received any notice to that effect. 

The voting members of Parliament are 529, and thus one third of all voting Members of Parliament is 143. Removing Hon. Mpuuga as a Commissioner would require a vote of at least 265 members in favour of the removal.

Therefore, removing Hon. Mpuuga as a Commissioner is a non-starter, and the idea is deemed void ab nitio. It is worth noting that NUP has only 57 elected members of Parliament, representing just 11% of the entire membership of Parliament. 

NUP members cannot even raise the numbers needed to initiate the notice of censure against a Commissioner, indicating that the move to remove Hon. Mpuuga is not viable.

The statement issued by NUP raises several legal questions about the removal of a Commissioner of Parliament. 

Rule 110 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament sets out the procedure for the removal of a Commissioner, and it requires that there must be a specific written notice to that effect by at least one-third of the members of Parliament. This requires a lot more than just a party's resolution.

According to Section 8 of the Administration of Parliament Act, (APA), the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are ex-officio members of the Commission while eight other members, being Members of Parliament, are appointed by the House, on a tripartite basis. 

The tripartite means three representatives from the ruling party, three from opposition and two from independent members.

Any party or coalition of parties that do not have the majority of MPs in Parliament but hold at least 15% of the seats, form the Opposition, as provided for by Rule 9 (a) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. 

This means that NUP is part of the opposition, but it does not hold enough seats to make a significant impact on parliamentary decisions, including removing a Commissioner.

NUP's lack of representation in Parliament significantly limits its reach when it comes to making decisions about the institution's operations. 

Given that the current ruling party, NRM, holds the majority of parliamentary seats, it has more control over parliamentary affairs. As such, attempts by slimmer opposition parties like NUP to influence Parliament's decisions are often unsuccessful.

Therefore the recent move by NUP to remove Hon. Mathias Mpuuga from his position as a Commissioner of Parliament is not viable. 

The Procedure for removing a commissioner is strictly governed by parliamentary rules, and a unilateral decision by a political party cannot suffice. 

As it stands, Hon. Mpuuga's position remains secure until any proper procedure for his removal is followed.