By Frank Kamuntu
Uganda’s political climate has intensified as the debate over the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, ignites deep divisions among the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) and opposition parties.
The bill, proposed by Mityana South MP Richard Lumu, seeks to change the process of selecting the Leader of Opposition (LoP) by allowing opposition MPs to elect the LoP, rather than having the party with the second-largest representation in Parliament makes the appointment.
NRM’s Opposition
The NRM firmly rejects the proposal, arguing that it threatens the integrity of Uganda’s multi-party system. Speaking before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on October 15, 2024, Enoch Barata, NRM’s Director of Legal Affairs, stressed that allowing MPs from various opposition parties to elect the LoP would diminish the autonomy of the main opposition party.
He stated, “Subjecting the LoP to an election would strip the party with the second-largest parliamentary presence of its right to choose its leader.”
NRM Secretary General, Richard Todwong, supported Barata’s stance, asserting that the bill could destabilize the opposition’s role in Parliament, creating unnecessary confusion. “We need an opposition organized enough to challenge our governance. Allowing multiple opposition parties to elect the LoP will weaken accountability,” Todwong argued.
Opposition Divides
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) also expressed concerns, though from a different angle. While PPP condemned personal attacks on Lumu, Sadam Gayira, National Chairperson of PPP, highlighted the bill’s potential to create discord among opposition parties.
Gayira argued, “In a multi-party system, parties must be free to associate or disassociate as they choose. Forcing cooperation under one leader through an election will create discord.”
Similarly, lawmakers from the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) dismissed the bill, warning of its potential to cause chaos in Parliament. FDC Party Whip Yusuf Nsibambi criticized Lumu for failing to consult with opposition MPs before drafting the bill.
He remarked, “Having different parties with conflicting manifestos elect the LoP will lead to confusion. Lumu’s proposal misinterprets the law, as the Constitution does not recognize a unified ‘Opposition,’ but rather parties in opposition.”
NUP’s Fierce Criticism
The National Unity Platform (NUP) responded even more aggressively, labeling the bill as a tool for undermining their Leader of Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi. NUP Secretary General, Lewis Rubongoya, accused the current leadership of Parliament of orchestrating hostility against Ssenyonyi by sidelining him from key parliamentary processes.
“This bill is part of an effort to marginalize the current LoP. Why now, when the current leadership has repeatedly ignored Ssenyonyi?” Rubongoya asked. Rubongoya went further, questioning the motives behind the fast-tracking of Lumu’s bill, suggesting it was driven by sinister intentions.
“This bill is intended to tame the Leader of Opposition and weaken that office,” he said, adding that NUP believed the bill had little legitimacy, as it had been rejected by all major opposition parties, including FDC, UPC, and ANT.
NUP also raised concerns about the potential for MPs to be compromised by bribery, warning that allowing the election of the LoP could open the door to corruption. This claim prompted a sharp response from Bugabula North MP John Teira, who warned that such allegations could damage the integrity of Parliament.
“This is a serious allegation. It compromises the integrity of the House and the MPs in the Opposition, whom we have always respected,” Teira stated.
Legal & Constitutional Debate
The debate surrounding Lumu’s bill extends into legal and constitutional interpretations. MPs, including Bosco Okiror (Usuk County) and Wilfred Niwagaba (Ndorwa West), argued that the Constitution grants Parliament the discretion to determine the mode of appointment for the LoP, contrasting it with the appointment of the Prime Minister, which is expressly stated in Article 108(a) of the Constitution.
Okiror explained, “The Constitution establishes the LoP but leaves it to Parliament to decide how the appointment should be made. There’s no discrimination as claimed by NUP.”
Furthermore, Niwagaba raised concerns about NUP’s omission of critical provisions in Lumu’s bill, such as the proposal to include new Commissioners from other political parties, which would impact the representation of the UPDF and Independents in Parliament.
Uncertain Future
As opposition parties remain divided on Lumu’s proposal, the future of the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, remains uncertain. Both NRM and key opposition figures argue that the current system should remain unchanged, highlighting the deep rifts within Uganda’s political landscape. Whether Lumu’s bill will pass or be shelved amid the contentious debate remains to be seen.
Have An Advert Or Article You Want Us To Publish? WhatsApp: +256760530830.
