By Kato Jamil
The Government has rejected a proposal to hold elections for the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), contending that the matter is one of policy, not law, and does not necessitate amendments to the Administration of Parliament Act.
Deputy Attorney General Jackson Kafuuzi, in his October 2024 submission to the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, argued that any such changes would undermine Ugandans’ constitutional right to elect their representatives.
Kafuuzi’s submission responded to the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, introduced by Mityana South MP Richard Lumu, which suggested reforms in the selection and removal of the Leader of the Opposition.
Kafuuzi argued that allowing multiple opposition parties to elect the Leader of the Opposition would contradict established protocols. “This is a policy matter rather than a legal one,” Kafuuzi stated, emphasizing that internal opposition procedures determine the current selection process.
Defending his position, Kafuuzi noted that a comparative study by the Attorney General’s Chambers found almost no precedent worldwide for electing the Leader of the Opposition in the proposed manner.
He maintained that the existing system aligns with Article 1 of the Constitution, which vests all power in the people, exercised through regular elections. “The largest opposition party assumes this role based on electoral support,” he added.
Kafuuzi further warned that permitting other opposition members to participate in the selection of the Leader of the Opposition would create financial burdens on the Consolidated Fund, contravening Article 93 of the Constitution.
The Government also rejected Lumu’s proposal to enable the Leader of the Opposition’s removal by resolution from opposition party members in Parliament, with Kafuuzi arguing that this would interfere with the autonomy of the largest opposition party, which holds this mandate by popular support.
“The Leader of the Opposition is appointed through an electoral process and should not be subject to removal by parliamentary resolution,” he explained.
Another suggestion to define grounds for removing the Leader of the Opposition based on incompetence or misconduct was deemed subjective by Kafuuzi, who argued it could lead to misinterpretation.
The Government also opposed a proposal requiring Shadow Cabinet and committee chairpersons appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to receive approval from opposition members, citing concerns over party independence.
The proposal to add a slot on the Parliamentary Commission for smaller opposition parties was similarly dismissed. Kafuuzi argued that adding another opposition member would skew the Commission’s representation, which is currently based on numerical strength.
Though rejecting Lumu’s proposals, Kafuuzi indicated that the Attorney General’s Chambers recommended some changes, such as requiring the Minister of Finance or Prime Minister to attend Parliamentary Commission meetings involving decisions with financial implications.
“It is prudent for the executive, particularly the Leader of Government Business or the Ministry of Finance, to be part of any quorum to avoid contravening Article 93 of the Constitution,” Kafuuzi concluded.
