Kampala. They say “Ignorance of the law is no defence”. This came to life on Wednesday when seasoned politician and Minister for Defense, Vincent Bamulangaki Ssempijja, referenced an outdated law during the parliamentary agricultural committee’s deliberations on crucial matters concerning the fisheries sector.
The embarrassed minister had been accompanied by Minister of Justice Norbert Mao and Francis Mwebesa, the Minister of Trade Industry and Cooperatives.
The situation arose when a critical Bbale county MP – Charles Tebandeke disclosed that the Ssempijja was basing his statements on the obsolete Fish Act Cap 197, which has now been nullified.
Tebandeke questioned the procedural appropriateness of the Minister’s reliance on the repealed law, stating, “When you look at the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act 2023, Section 123 outlines the repeal of the Fish Act Cap 197, and I don’t know whether it was procedurally right for the minister to present the repealed law before this committee.”
He also referenced Section 123 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act 2022, outlining the repeal of Cap 197 and Cap 199. Section one specifies the repeal of the Fish Act, and two, the Trout Protection Act is repealed.
Three statutory instruments made under any of the repealed acts, by sub-sections one and two; and which is in force immediately before the commencement of this act shall, unless a contrary intention appears, remain in force so far as it is not inconsistent with this act. Until it is revoked by regulations made under this act.”
Coming to his defence, Agriculture Committee Chairperson Janet Grace Akech Okori Moe (Abim district Woman MP, NRM) amusingly attributed the minister’s oversight to his demanding schedule.
“The country has not been so good. The Minister, being the minister of defence, has been running up and down, sometimes he is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Sometimes he has been running after those cattle rustlers, even following them up to Turkana. Perhaps, he is not aware that we have a new law,” Okori Moe argued.
“Honorable minister, we have a new law which was ascended to by the president, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Act 2022,” she added. However, the unwise Ssempija shifted the blame to the parliament’s technical staff, claiming they failed to adequately brief him on these changes.
“When I entered here, chair, the first thing I asked for was whether a new law has been assented to because I had not seen it. That was the first thing I asked the clerks. So, until you came and until you asked me whatever, I didn’t get that response. So, I am sorry about it,” he apologised.
However, this excuse left numerous lawmakers, including Suzan Mugabi (Buvuma district Woman MP, NUP), in stitches and disbelief.
“When I look at the constitution, Article 117, it talks about the responsibilities of ministers. The minister is accountable to the president to tell him by following up on what has happened in the cabinet. So, if the honourable minister is here and is not aware that the bill was assented to by his boss, then I think we are not proceeding well,” Mugabi wondered.
Despite pleas by Okori Moe to allow the Minister to present impromptu remarks due to time constraints, resistance prevailed.
“Some of us are too passionate towards this sector, and the minister is at the engine, so if a minister comes here and is just giving ‘obiter dictum,’ we came here not to receive one’s opinion contrary to the law. When you talk about time being cherished, I also value it,” Tebandeke noted.
The impasse led to Enock Nyongore (Nakaseke North, NRM) requesting, “Can I kindly request that we stand over his response and proceed with those who are charged with taxes and constitutional affairs? So that we can call the minister to give the responses later?”
Subsequently, Okori Moe directed Ssempijja to promptly address the discrepancies and make corrections.
“Thank you, honourable minister, for the positive gesture. So, I give you some minutes off to go, organise, and come back. For us in this country, we respect elders. Can I now allow the honourable minister of trade? So, honourable minister of defence and your team, you can take leave. You can sit somewhere within parliament and get re-organised,” she guided.
Implication of the minister’s ignorance
The defence minister not being aware of or properly understanding the law, especially if it pertains to the operations of the army and security agencies, can have significant implications and potentially lead to operational glitches. Here are some potential consequences;
According to political and defence analysts, ignorance of the law may lead to unintentional violations. If the defence minister is not aware of the current legal framework, there’s a risk that military operations, strategies, or decisions could run afoul of the law, both domestically and internationally.
The defence minister, being responsible for overseeing military activities, might unintentionally authorise actions that are inconsistent with current legal standards. This could include human rights violations, breaches of international law, or other actions that could have legal consequences.
Furthermore, a lack of awareness of the legal landscape may hinder effective decision-making. The defence minister needs to make informed choices that align with existing laws and international norms. Not being up-to-date with the law may result in flawed decisions.
Still, the incorrect interpretation or application of the law may compromise national security. It could lead to ineffective strategies, mismanagement of resources, or failure to address emerging threats adequately.
The defence minister’s lack of knowledge about the law may erode public trust and confidence. A perceived disregard for legal frameworks can lead to scepticism and criticism from both domestic and international communities.
It may even lead to operational inefficiencies since legal uncertainties may introduce delays and bureaucratic hurdles in military operations. Commanders and soldiers might be unsure about the legality of certain actions, leading to hesitation or confusion on the ground.
Within the military, a lack of clarity on legal matters may cause confusion among personnel. It could result in differing interpretations of orders, potentially leading to internal conflicts or disciplinary issues.
However, the public has called upon the minister to stay well-informed about the evolving legal landscape, regularly update their knowledge, and ensure that all military actions align with established legal norms and principles.
END
English 