Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Mar 29, 2009 2:27:06 PM PDT Author: Brooke Do you consider that MPs are sufficiently active in your country or legislature in performing the duties associated with parliamentary oversight? Brooke Prater WBI Parliamentary Strengthening Program parliamentarystrengthening@gmail.com

Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Mar 30, 2009 12:55:39 AM PDT Author: Asad The MPs in the Legislature of my country are activiely engaged in their foremost function of parliamentary oversight.They do their best to pin point the lacunas and suggest ways and means to improve the functioning of the government organization.Social, political and economic issues are raised in the Parliament and discussed thoroughly.In my humble opinion the Mps have so far proved their metal to ensure effective parliamentary oversight ans scrutinity function.

Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Mar 30, 2009 1:23:29 AM PDT Author: Tina In the Parliament of Uganda, the oversight function is mainly done by accountability committees; who are chaired and deputized by a member of the opposition. These include the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Local Government Accounts Committee (LGAC), the Committee on Government Assurance (CGA) and the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE). Even though these committees are chaired by the opposition the Government represents the majority of the committee members; this is because membership in committees is determined by the numerical strengths of parties in parliament and the Government is the majority party. The performance of these accountability committees, especially those of the Public Accounts Committee and the Local Government Accounts Committee is considered as being ‘very good and very sufficiently active. And the members / committees do this through; pre-legislative scrutiny of bills referred to the Parliamentary committees by Parliament; scrutinising of the various objects of expenditure and the sums to be spent on each project; assure transparency and accountability in the application of public funds and monitor the implementation of Government programmes and projects.

MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Mar 30, 2009 6:30:20 AM PDT Author: Moderator In considering answers to this question, participants may like to keep the following in mind. We must not lose sight of the fact that government as well as opposition MPs have responsibilities in this regard. What follows is mainly worded in terms of opposition MPs but you should consider their applicability to the government benches too. The parliamentary question is one of the most effective ways for an MP, usually of the opposition but not necessarily so, to raise an issue falling within the umbrella of oversight, especially as the wording can relate to policy as much as to some particular action (or lack of action). It is also an attractive option for most parliamentarians as the media are invariably present at question time and so publicity is assured if an item is handled in a way that excites attention. The downside is that the questioner must have done the necessary research and word the question well: the risk is being shot down by an answer that, in content or even in cleverness of presentation, is more effective than the question. Issues can also be raised during debates on the work of some particular department or when a bill or motion relating to such a department comes up for discussion. Parliamentary committees, and we do not confine ourselves here to those committees which are traditionally associated with oversight as a prime responsibility, give plenty of chances for MPs to perform their duties of oversight. Government as well as opposition MPs can use their positions as committee members to do so, the former perhaps more easily than in the full parliament. Of course committees such as the Public Accounts Committee do not in their meetings traditionally raise matters of policy but only of efficiency and effectiveness (compare parliamentary question time mentioned above). Other possibilities include no confidence motions, moving cuts during the budget debate and so on.

Are legislators in Uganda sufficiently active in parliamentary oversight? Date: Mar 30, 2009 8:57:40 AM PDT Author: Tumu First, according to Uganda's constitution, MPs are representatives of the constituents, they are law- makers and scrutinizers and overseers of the executive branch of government. In all these responsibilities, they are supposed to ensure that 'power belongs and remains with the people', i.e. the welfare of the people is promoted, the service providers provide quality and timely services, and those who fail to deliver are sanctioned, and also to ensure that the government departments in charge of the promotion of the welfare of the people have resources and enabling legal and implementation frameworks. The question is: Have Ugandan Mps lived up to the expectations? MPS numerous tools for carrying out oversight. These include questions to Ministers, committee field inspection visits, scrutiny of policy statements, scrutiny of the workplans upon which budgetray resources are appropriated, moving motions of displeasure with the performance of certain ministries and departments, reducing the budgets of poor-performing departments. They have the power to censure a non-performer or one who has abused the powers of his/her office. They have the powers to shame through the media the non-performer. Ugandan MPs have been more active at some point and abit passive at another. The 6th Parliament (1996-2001) was the most active one in matters of oversight in the history of parliamentary democracy. They legislators were able to censure ministers and cause others to resign their portifolio for abuse of office and poor performance. They were able to introduce vital legislations through private member initiatives like the administration of parliament Act and the Budget Act which pieces of legislations enhaced the oversight of parliament and its committees. Unfortunately, the subsequent parliaments lost the guts. The censured ministers were re-admitted, and the vibrancy of parliament kind of fizzled out. Authors like Nelson Kasfir and Hippo Twebaze in their publication on 'the rise and ebb of Uganda's Parliament' attribute this change of heart to patronage which the president used undercut parliaments capacity to counterveil the executive. Questions for oral answers have not also been enthusiastically used. For example, since 2006 July to March 2009, only 100 questions have been asked and only about 50 have been answered. Nonetheless, accountability committees have been active in carrying out hearings although Parliament has not yet debated the recommendations. In a nutshell, one can assert that Ugandan MPs have not been sufficiently active in parliamentary oversight. It can only be inferred that this state of affairs is due to the dominant ruling party which has more MPs in the House. Unfortunately, while the parliamentary oversight is ebbing, Parliament of Uganda has some of the best and well trained staff who ought to be helping the MPs in their oversight responsibilities. But the political will on the part of the legislators seems to be low to utilize the professional support of parliamentary service.

Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Mar 31, 2009 1:29:30 AM PDT Author: CHINAKA Originally Posted by Brooke: Do you consider that MPs are sufficiently active in your country or legislature in performing the duties associated with parliamentary oversight? Members of Parliament in my country are peforming their duties associated with parliamentary oversight creditably well. In the course of this responsibility, through the various standing and ad hoc committees, discoveries of misapplication of appropriated funds and at times constitutional violations have been discovered and addressed. Section 88(2)of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria states "The powers confered on the National Assembly under the provisions of this section are exercisable only for the purpose of enabling it to - (a) Make laws with respect to any matter within its legislative competence and correct any defects in existing laws; and (b)Expose corruption, inefficiency or waste in the excution or administration of laws within its legislative competence and in the disbursement or administration of funds approriated by it. The above section of the constitution has embolden the MPs in the discharge of their oversight responsibilities. Despite their respective achievements, there is still need for finetuning the process and proceedure for oversight responsibilities. In as much as I consider the MPS active in the performance of their oversight responsibilities, I believe there is still need for capacity building by developed democracies for both the MPs and Committee Clerks on this vital role.

Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Apr 1, 2009 5:57:07 PM PDT Author: FGB Members of Parliament in Malawi are doing a commendable job in their oversight function. The oversight function is mostly done in Committees. Parliamentary Committees summon Senior Public Officers and Ministers when necessary to get updates and any clarifications on activities and projects being implemented by their respective ministries or departments. Parliamentary Committees also carry out field visits to several sites across the country to monitor the implementation of various development projects getting funding from treasury. The Public Accounts Committee is also carrying out its work well to ensure that the executive is accountable and transparent on its expenditures.

RWANDA - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Apr 1, 2009 11:59:03 PM PDT Author: augu In Rwanda, the MPs try to be active in oversight activities but are not assisted enough to be very active. In Rwanda, MPs don't have assistants and every standing committee has one staff only, the research unit which can help MPs to get more information is not yet established. This lack of assistance have a big impact on parliamentary oversight activities and more the questions asked are not deeply documented to see if the responses provided by the Member of Government are correct. The main question which are esked are related to the current situation in the Country , if there is a problem some where and if MPs saw a situation in their field visit which need a clarification. In Rwanda, parliamentary activities have reached to the motion of censure against some member of the Executive, when was find that they have responsibilities in mismanagement of some public fund.

Week 4 - MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Apr 2, 2009 3:35:47 AM PDT Author: DOCTOR M.Ps in my contry-cameroon like most parliamentarians of other countries which are strugling to grasp the main tenets of democracies and the oversight functions of parliament are making efforts to assert themselves and actually play their role squarely especially that of oversight despite resistance from some quarters like the executive who will like to see partliament dwarfed. However,alot needs to be done by the MPs of my country because we have not really seen them take governement into task and really ensure proper follow up of lapses in government policies which require redress.Thats why the is bad governance and corruption.

MPs and Parliamentary Oversight Date: Apr 2, 2009 11:52:53 AM PDT Author: Moderator Thank you for the many contributions made by colleagues. It is clearly a problem for parliamentarians to find time and energy to do the work of oversight thoroughly – as one of you put it, they are active at one point and passive at another. There are also political pressures that have been pointed out. It is indeed a pity that many members keep off oversight committees because of the time involved and the relative lack of publicity compared with that given to proceedings in the plenary sessions of parliament. Our colleagues from Cameroon, Malawi and Rwanda have listed such matters as the resistance of the officials of the executive to the work of oversight committees, the censuring of officials as a result of the work of these committees and the practice of field visits undertaken by committees. In regard to the last it is worthwhile making the point that the possibility of field visits demonstrates another aspect of the flexibility of approach that committees have – they can meet anywhere (with the requisite leave of the house if standing orders so require).