The appointment and tenure of the Attorney General is going to be revised in the new amendments expected to be tabled on the floor of Parliament next week.
ChimpReports continues to exclusively run the series on the planned silent constitutional amendment bill to be moved by a private Member.
If the bill gets through, cialis 40mg http://chuckatuckhistory.com/wp-content/plugins/nextgen-gallery/products/photocrati_nextgen/modules/nextgen_basic_singlepic/package.module.nextgen_basic_singlepic.php Article 119 in Chapter 8 of the Constitution will be revised whereby the appointment of the Attorney General will be distinguished from the rest of the cabinet members.
The current form of Article 119 (1) is, this http://chopcult.com/wp-content/themes/twentythirteen/css/images/secure.php “There shall be an Attorney General who shall be a Cabinet Minister appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament.”
There is no specified tenure for Cabinet members since all the powers are with the President to appoint and revoke at his or her will as stipulated in article 116 (1).
“The office of a Minister shall become vacant—if the appointment of the holder of the office is revoked by the President.”
A different arrangement has been proposed for the appointment of the Attorney General who shall not be picked from among the Members of Parliament and he or she shall be in office for 7 years not the usual 5.
In the last term, there the executive and legislative arms of government clashed over duties and how the former Attorney General Peter Nyombi was handling his business.
The responsibility of the Attorney General is to provide legal advice and represent the government and government entities in courts of law.
In the 9th Parliament, the National Assembly and the Executive failed to agree on a number of issues and some of them ended up in court.
In the case of “rebel” MPs who were expelled from the National Resistance Movement party, the Executive wanted them to be thrown out of Parliament but the Speaker Rebecca Kadaga vehemently disagreed with the idea.
The case was taken to the High Court and the same Attorney General who opposed the MPs on the floor about the matter, was again the one who represented the House in court.
The Speaker expectedly casted doubt in the Attorney General’s representation and openly said there should be changes in the Constitution.
Ironically Parliament lost the case at the High Court and there was an appeal in the Supreme Court where the rebel MPs finally triumphed.
ChimpReports will bring you more on these constitutional amendments.