Parliament has passed into law the National Coffee Amendment Bill 2024 with amendments, approving the abolishing of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), whose functions will now be taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Speaker of Parliament, Rt Hon Anita Among, announced that at the time this decision was taken, 305 MPs attended the plenary sitting physically.
An Act to amend the National Coffee Act 2021, Act 17 of 2021, aims to dissolve the Coffee Development Authority and transfer its functions to the Ministry.
The passing of the bill happened during a chaotic plenary sitting on Wednesday 6th November 2024 which saw members exchange punches while others led by the Leader of the Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, walked out of the house in protest.
Earlier, Ssenyonyi asked Speaker Among to consider recusing herself from handling the Coffee Bill, citing the remarks she made during the heated discussion of the National Coffee Amendment Bill last week, in which she asked to ensure that the Baganda don’t get the numbers that would see the Bill go for the second reading.
“What we saw on the national broadcaster and elsewhere, were remarks made by yourself showing that you seemed to have particular interest in the Coffee Bill. You were exchanging words with Government Chief Whip and you asked him if he had the numbers. That was to show that you had an interest in this matter. The matter of conflict of interest is a very critical one, as far as I am concerned, based on your conduct, I think you have an interest in that matter and you should have declared that interest and perhaps recused yourself and excused yourself from that matter,” said Ssenyonyi.
He added: “We did see you make remarks that seem to prejudice a particular tribe. As we have said, this isn’t a matter of Buganda, coffee is grown in different parts of the country. I was very disappointed to see my leader, my Speaker make those remarks, as if this was a battle against Buganda. Maybe, the government needs to clarify, in bringing this Bill, are you targeting Buganda and Baganda? I don’t know.”
There were attempts by Fox Odoi (West Budama North East) to block Ssenyonyi from raising concerns about the tribalism that has tainted the Coffee debate, by raising a point of order, which Speaker Among had granted, until Ssenyonyi reminded the duo of the Rules of Procedure that takes precedence over the point of order, because he had stood to raise a procedural issue.
“I want to believe he (Fox Odoi) has taken time to read the Rules, Procedure takes precedence over the point of Order. That was what I was raising before I was rudely interrupted by a fellow lawyer, who I expect to know the Rules and guide other MPs,” noted Ssenyonyi.
However, Speaker Among declined to respond to Ssenyonyi’s appeal at that very moment and instead, promised to give an appropriate response when the matter of Coffee is called on the Order Paper.
She later vowed not to apologize to the Baganda, until documentary evidence is tabled before Parliament proving that she made discriminatory remarks targeting Baganda.
“From the onset, I wish to state that I was quoted out of context. In any event, this House is a House of record, and being the custodian of the Rules of procedure and being the House of Record, if anybody feels that I mentioned what the Leader of Opposition mentioned, I want to urge that Member, to bring documentary evidence and lay it on the table and once it is true that I said what he said, then, I will be able to apologize to this country and the persons who were affected. But before that is done, because it isn’t true, I will not do it,” said Among.
She added: “We must note that Rule 94 on conflict of interest refers to a Member and not the Speaker or the Presiding Officer. By whatever name called, a Member is defined under Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure, as a Member of Parliament. A Speaker, on the other hand, is independently defined as the Speaker of Parliament and includes the Deputy Speaker. It is imperative to note that by command of Rule 77, the Speaker shall not be part of the debate, but may give guidance to the House, on the matter before the House. In the circumstance therefore, the cited Rule is therefore inapplicable. I am not conflicted in any way. He (Ssenyonyi) cited a wrong Rule, I don’t vote and I don’t debate.”