Had parliament not repealed the Budget Act of 2001 in 2014, a law designed to regulate the executive's excesses in the budgeting process, the ongoing contest over resource allocation between the executive and the legislature would not have arisen, the originators of the law have said.

The Budget Act originated from a private member's bill proposed by former Buzaya MP, Isaac Musumba. It aimed to empower parliament, giving it an active role in the budgeting process, and preventing MPs from merely rubber-stamping the budgets presented by the ministry of Finance.

Since its enactment, the law played a vital role in ensuring transparency and resource allocation while enabling parliament to propose alternative economic policies based on thorough analysis conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Office.

So good was the law that it even became a benchmark for parliamentary oversight, earning praise across Africa and Commonwealth nations, including recognition from the World Bank. Many African countries followed Uganda’s example, establishing budget offices within their parliaments to enhance their role in scrutinizing and guiding the budgeting process.

Despite these achievements, the Ugandan government pushed for the repeal of the Budget Act, arguing that elements of the law should instead be integrated into the Public Finance Act which was eventually passed in 2014. The ministry of Finance asserted the need to consolidate laws governing budget planning and financial management under one umbrella.

Under pressure from the executive, MPs reluctantly agreed to repeal the law, effectively discarding one of their most powerful tools to check the government’s power - particularly its ability to engage in unnecessary borrowing and supplementary expenditures.

Concerns over this drastic move were raised during the 7th Annual African Network of Parliamentary Budget Offices (AN-PBO) Conference held at the Speke Resort in Munyonyo, Uganda.

The conference drew participants from countries including Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Malawi, and Ghana. Many attendees expressed alarm at Uganda's decision to repeal a law that had provided legal backing to Parliament's Budget Office, emphasizing that it undermined the country's previous strides toward greater budget transparency.

Isaac Musumba, the architect of the Budget Act, was a key speaker at the conference. Reflecting on the law’s inception, Musumba revealed that the executive, led by President Museveni, had resisted the bill from the outset.

“When I proposed the Budget Act, I was trying to create a framework that would regulate the government’s control over the budget,” Musumba explained. He recounted how, despite being granted leave to introduce the bill, it took three years of persistent effort before the law was enacted.

"The second point of the Bill was that time must be given to members of parliament to make timely input in the budget process. They must have the opportunity to examine what the government is proposing. We put timelines for that in the proposed Budget Bill of 1999," said Musumba.

A cornerstone of the Budget Act was the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Office, designed to assist MPs in making informed decisions on budgetary matters. The law also stipulated that the government could not exceed 3 per cent of the total approved budget for any financial year without prior parliamentary approval. This empowered sessional committees of Parliament to scrutinize and contribute to the budget before its approval.

Musumba lamented that after he and other proponents of the Act, such as Beatrice Kiraso, left parliament, the ministry of Finance moved swiftly to repeal the law.

“The people in Finance were in a hurry to repeal it. Those who knew the law’s significance were no longer in Parliament,” he remarked.

He also highlighted the political nature of budget allocation, noting that either the government or parliament could use the budget as leverage to undermine the other’s agenda.

“The budget can be an instrument used by either side parliament or government to bring down the other,” Musumba added.

This dynamic was recently on display when President Museveni declared that MPs had no authority to “shuffle the budget.” He even refused to sign the Appropriation Bill 2024 on June 22, accusing MPs of engaging in “budget corruption” through reallocation.

Even though MPs had relinquished some of their power by repealing the Budget Act, many continued to operate as if the law were still in place. However, the absence of the Budget Act has left the advice provided by parliament’s Budget Office without legal force.

Moses Byekabye, technical advisor for Economic Affairs at the ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development, believes that the repeal was rushed. As the first director of Parliament’s Budget Office (2000-2002), Byekabye witnessed firsthand how the Budget Act strengthened Parliament’s mandate to scrutinize the national budget.

“The repeal weakened parliament’s role as an implementer of the Budget Act, and that makes a big difference,” said Byekabye.

He noted that the resource allocation process is inherently political, with each side vying for control. According to Byekabye, without the capacity to focus on strategic priorities, parliament cannot be effective. The Budget Office, he argued, helped restore balance in the tug-of-war over budgetary control, ensuring Parliament could fulfill its oversight role.

In summary, the repeal of Uganda's Budget Act represents a troubling regression in budgetary oversight. While the government may have succeeded in consolidating financial regulations, it has also stripped Parliament of a critical tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in the allocation of national resources. By URN / The Observer