Opinion : Leader of the Opposition to be elected – Killing Of Democracy In Uganda

The recent motion by Hon. Richard Lumu (Mityana South) seeking leave to introduce a Private Member’s Bill aimed at amending the law to allow the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) to be elected by members of the opposition has sparked significant debate within and outside Parliament. This motion is indeed unique, but it also sets a troubling precedent for legislative processes in Uganda.

An Unprecedented Motion

First, this is the first time in the 11th Parliament that a member has appeared on the order paper without a draft Bill. Normally, when a member seeks to introduce a Bill, they provide a clear draft that outlines the specific amendments they propose. This draft serves as the basis for debate and allows fellow legislators to understand and scrutinize the intentions behind the proposed changes. The absence of such a draft in this case raises serious questions about the preparedness and seriousness of the motion.

A Break from Parliamentary Norms

Second, the predetermined order paper was amended to include this motion, another first in the current Parliament. The order paper is typically prepared in advance, reflecting the structured nature of parliamentary proceedings. By amending it to include this motion, Parliament has broken away from its usual practices, potentially opening the door to further disruptions and a lack of order in legislative affairs. Such a departure from established norms could undermine the integrity and predictability of parliamentary processes, setting a dangerous precedent.

A Vague Legislative Agenda

Third, and perhaps most concerning, is that the mover of the motion does not know which sections of the law he intends to amend. Hon. Lumu has been granted leave to introduce a Bill without specifying the exact legal provisions he seeks to change. This effectively gives him the freedom to embark on a legislative “fishing expedition,” where he can propose amendments without a clear and focused agenda.

This lack of specificity is alarming. Laws are the foundation of our governance, and any amendments should be approached with precision and clarity. Allowing a motion to proceed without this fundamental requirement diminishes the seriousness of the legislative process and could lead to poorly thought-out laws that do more harm than good. It also undermines the role of Parliament as a body that deliberates on well-defined issues, instead turning it into a forum for vague and potentially hasty decision-making.

The Importance of Legislative Clarity

The role of Parliament is to carefully scrutinize and debate proposed legislation to ensure that it serves the best interests of the nation. When motions are allowed to proceed without clear objectives or drafts, it weakens the legislative process and reduces the accountability of lawmakers. Parliament must remain a place where ideas are rigorously tested, and laws are crafted with precision and foresight.

In conclusion, while Hon. Lumu’s motion is indeed unique, it also sets a concerning precedent. It challenges the established norms of parliamentary procedure and risks undermining the clarity and purposefulness of legislative amendments. Moving forward, it is crucial that Parliament adheres to its established processes, ensuring that all motions and proposed Bills are accompanied by clear, well-thought-out drafts that reflect the seriousness of the legislative process. Only then can we ensure that the laws passed in Uganda are robust, effective, and in the best interests of all citizens.