KAMPALA, UGANDA — The Ugandan Parliament has recently adopted an amendment to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure, significantly restricting the manner in which Members of Parliament (MPs) can discuss the President during parliamentary debates.
This move, spearheaded by Chairperson Abdul Katuntu, aims to uphold the dignity of the parliamentary proceedings and ensure that the President, as the “fountain of honour,” is accorded the utmost respect.
The amended rule prohibits MPs from attributing improper motives to the President or utilizing the President’s name to sway the direction of a debate unless a formal and substantive motion is explicitly tabled.
This measure seeks to prevent the misuse of the President’s name in parliamentary discussions, thereby fostering a more focused and issue-oriented discourse.
The amendment has sparked controversy, with some arguing that it may stifle legitimate criticism of the executive branch and limit the ability of MPs to effectively represent their constituents.
However, proponents of the amendment maintain that it is necessary to maintain decorum and prevent the personalization of debates, which can often devolve into unproductive and disrespectful exchanges.
This development has significant implications for the dynamics of parliamentary debates in Uganda, potentially altering the nature of political discourse and the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
“The intent is to maintain the dignity of the office of the President and prevent any form of undue influence or disrespect in parliamentary discourse,” Katuntu said.
However, the amendment has sparked significant opposition. Felix Okot Ogong (Dokolo South), voiced his concern that such restrictions could hinder the free exchange of ideas.
“Some lakunle in the law is deliberate,” Ogong remarked, adding, “Let’s not make stiff regulations that gag members from debating.”
MP Ogong voiced concerns that such regulations could hinder MPs from fully participating in crucial discussions.
However, Speaker Anita Among defended the amendment, emphasizing that the President’s name should only be invoked during parliamentary proceedings when a formal motion is presented for debate.
“The President can’t be discussed until a motion is tabled on the floor,” Among stated, reinforcing that the rule would help maintain focus and order in parliamentary debates, ensuring that discussions do not veer off course.
Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Joel Ssenyonyi, however, strongly criticised the amendment, warning that it could prevent Parliament from seeking much-needed clarification on statements or policies declared by the President.
“If we are not allowed to discuss the President’s statements, how can we as MPs seek clarity on the policies or directives that affect our constituents?” Ssenyonyi questioned, emphasizing that requests for clarification could easily be misconstrued as attempts to influence debate.
Furthermore, Mr. Ssenyonyi argued that the Speaker already possesses the authority to restore order and address any violations of parliamentary rules, rendering the proposed changes superfluous.
“The Speaker already has the power to call a member to order if they overstep,” Ssenyonyi said.
“We must retain the right to quote the President or seek clarification on matters of national importance.”
The recommendation to amend Rule 72 stems from the ongoing review of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, as detailed in the Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline.
With the amendment now in effect, legislators face the delicate task of navigating a path between maintaining orderly debates and fulfilling their crucial role of holding the executive branch accountable.
