By Spy Uganda

Kampala: The Law Development Centre (LDC) has opposed the Administration of Parliament Bill, 2024, which proposes the election of the Leader of Opposition in Uganda’s Parliament. The Centre argues that the Bill lacks a clear purpose and, if enacted, could undermine the country’s multiparty democratic framework.

This stance was presented by Paul Mukiibi, the Head of the Department of Law Reporting, Research, and Law Reform at LDC, during a session with the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on 8th October, 2024. The Committee was reviewing the Bill, recently tabled by Richard Lumu, the MP for Mityana South.

Mukiibi questioned the rationale behind the Bill, noting that the problem it seeks to address is unclear. He remarked, “We didn’t clearly understand the Mover’s intention. Is the issue that the opposition parties with minority representation feel excluded when the majority party appoints the Leader of Opposition? If that’s the concern, the Mover hasn’t clearly articulated it, which leads some to suspect that the Bill might be driven by ulterior motives.”

Mukiibi further queried whether a similar requirement for broader consultation should be imposed on the ruling party when appointing key government figures, such as the Prime Minister, who serves as the Leader of Government Business.

“Political competition is at the heart of the multiparty system. If smaller parties with minimal representation are demanding to lead the opposition, this weakens political competition,” he argued. “The Bill seems to imply that smaller opposition parties feel side-lined because they have fewer members, but is that any different from the ruling government appointing leaders without consulting the opposition?”

Mukiibi proposed that Uganda could explore adopting a model similar to Kenya’s, where both majority and minority parties are involved in selecting the Leader of Opposition. However, MPs raised concerns about the practicality of this approach in Uganda, particularly in light of existing political alliances between opposition parties like the Democratic Party and the Uganda People’s Congress with the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM).

Jonathan Odur, the MP for Erute South, challenged Mukiibi’s suggestion, asking whether it made sense for the largest opposition party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), to consult parties that already align with the ruling NRM.

“If some opposition parties have aligned themselves with the government, why should NUP be compelled to consult them? You can’t demand that the President consult the opposition when appointing the Prime Minister, so why impose such a condition on the opposition?” Odur asked.

He also criticized the notion of other opposition parties feeling entitled to leadership positions despite their weak representation in Parliament. “If you didn’t win enough seats, why should you claim a right to leadership in the opposition?” he remarked.

Responding to the debate, Mukiibi acknowledged that while political consultation is important, it should not be the sole criterion for selecting the Leader of Opposition. He warned that formalizing a consultative process could lead to manipulation, potentially resulting in an opposition leader who does not genuinely represent opposition interests.

The Committee also engaged in a heated discussion over the criteria for removing the Leader of Opposition from office, particularly regarding incompetence. Mukiibi questioned how incompetence would be defined and who would be responsible for making such a determination.

Stephen Baka, MP for Bukooli North, disagreed with Mukiibi, insisting that incompetence is a legitimate ground for removal, but stressed the need to establish a clear authority to make that determination. Fox Odoi, MP for West Budama North East, argued that since the Leader of Opposition is a national figure funded by taxpayers, the entire Parliament should have a say in their removal, not just the opposition party that appointed them.

However, Wilfred Niwagaba, MP for Ndorwa West, countered Odoi’s position, questioning whether MPs from the ruling NRM could objectively assess the performance of the Leader of Opposition in holding the government accountable.

Mukiibi concluded by admitting that Uganda’s laws are not sufficiently explicit on how to assess incompetence or misconduct in the opposition’s leadership. He urged the Committee to carefully consider these ambiguities before pushing the Bill forward.

The Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, proposes that the Leader of Opposition could lose office if removed by their party, if they resign, leave the party, cease to be an MP, or if their party loses its majority position in the opposition during by-elections.