The Law Development Centre (LDC) has rejected the Administration of Parliament Bill, 2024 that proposes the election of Leader of Opposition, arguing that there is no mischief the proposed law seeks to cure , instead if passed, it will weaken multi-party democracy in Uganda.
The Centre’s position was revealed by Paul Mukiibi, Head, Department of Law Reporting, Research and Law Reform at LDC, while appearing before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to present the institution’s views on the Bill that was recently moved by Richard Lumu (Mityana South).
Mukiibi explained, “We didn’t get clearly what the Mover wanted. Is it that when a political party with majority representation appoints Leader of Opposition, and the other political parties with minority haven’t participated, is that the problem? Or the problem is that because the minority aren’t represented on who becomes Leader of Opposition, so they feel discriminated? That is why I am saying, the Mover of the Bill hasn’t concretized the problem. So, his concern isn’t very clear and I think that is why some are drawing conclusions that the Bill might be in bad faith.”
He wondered if the same involvement can be demanded of the ruling party when choosing the Prime Minister, who is the Leader of Government Business.
“You already had a chance to go and compete with others to garner enough representation, so that one gives you a better standing. So when you go and get two members in the Party, the other Party gets 100 members, then you the two, want to be the Leader of opposition. This weakens political competition that is the core essence of multiparty dispensation. The mover is trying to complain that we are sidelined because we are few. But what about a Ruling Government, which is taking decisions without anybody complaining?” remarked Mukiibi.
However, it was Mukiibi’s proposal for Uganda to adopt the Kenyan model which provides for Leader of Opposition from Majority and Minority, which is the second party to us, to be tested in Uganda to ensure that the other smaller Opposition parties are consulted during the choosing of Leader of Opposition that garnered debate from MPs who wondered if the same can be demanded of the Ruling Party should also be compelled when choosing Prime Minister.
Jonathan Odur (Erute South) tasked Mukiibi to explain why he was attempting to force a leading Opposition Party like National Unity Platform (NUP) to consult other parties, some of which are already working with the people they are supposed to check like the current working relationship between Democratic Party and NRM as well as Uganda People’s Congress and NRM, wondering if demanding NUP to consult with the two parties would make democratic sense and support Uganda’s multiparty dispensation.
“If I already know that this Political Parties in opposition have already chosen to be on the other side, then I should have the discretion to choose whom I consult because if you condition me, and the other party is on the other side, you are tying my hands to work with people who are opposed to me. Just like we can’t tell the NRM that in choosing the Prime Minister, the President “May” consult with the Opposition, but you can’t say, the President “Shall” consult the Opposition,” said Odur.
The Erute South MP also questioned the entitlement to sharing the Opposition leadership cake by the other Opposition parties, yet the Opposition isn’t demanding for the same gesture from the Ruling Party.
“We in the Opposition have collectively lost power to NRM, in democracy, we aren’t supposed to complain, why hasn’t the President given us something here, we are being marginalized. Do we have that right? He chooses because, the winner takes it all. So if you are a small party and haven’t gathered the numbers, what makes you have that claim? What gives DP, Jeema with say one member to say, I must be taken care of, yet you had opportunity to compete and people rejected you and gave somebody else, now you are hating the other one, why do you have majority? You give me something,” remarked Odur.
The LDC conceded defeat on this point and promised to benchmark on two other jurisdictions and file a written submission, with Mukiibi admitting that although consultation is taking place in Uganda, it isn’t formalized under the law,
“Consultation is a good practice, however, we can’t confine the determination of the Leader of Opposition on the consultations. That shouldn’t be the benchmark. The Party with majority leadership should take the day. Otherwise, we may have a situation where the Leader of Opposition can’t perform his or her roles effectively. Because if we go into this system of casting votes, the sabotage, political influence can result into having the Leader of Opposition who isn’t Opposition in spirit,” explained Mukiibi.
The Legal Committee also held a lengthy debate with LDC on grounds that can be used to remove Leader of Opposition from office, with Mukiibi wondering how proof of whether somebody is being witch hunted or is incompetent, would be determined, and who would lead in determining such grounds.
“Is it the Party that brought him that determines that or is it all the Opposition and how do we reconcile with that in the view where Opposition Party members working with the ruling Government? They are actually ambiguous because they can’t be easily proved,” her said.
Stephen Baka (Bukooli North) however rejected the assertion that the ground of incompetence is ambiguous but rather said there is need to establish who will determine such grounds.
“Does incompetence exist? It does. Now, if incompetence exists, the question would be, who determines that incompetence? Because incompetence as a matter of fact exists. There are people who are clearly incompetent? But the question is, who determines, is it in the eyes of the entire Parliament or is it the Opposition MPs? Or is it the Party with the greatest strength?” said Baka.
Fox Odoi (West Budama North East) however said the incompetence of the Leader of Opposition as a ground for removal from office should be determined by the whole Parliament, because such a leader is a national leader, and not property of the Party that appointed him.
“The Leader of Opposition is a national leader, it is a constitutional office, the Leader of Opposition isn’t property of the Opposition. We fund as a nation, the Leader of Opposition, so, it is our mandate whether they are incompetent, all of us as a Parliament,” noted Odoi.
Wilfred Niwagaba (Ndorwa West) questioned Fox Odoi’s statement noting, “In the view of those functions, clearly in the Act, how do you determine incompetence and who actually would determine incompetence? Would you expect the members for example from NRM to determine that this Leader of Opposition isn’t keeping Government in check?”
Mukiibi replied to the group backing the ground of incompetence noting, “The law isn’t rich in that area to determine criteria of incompetence, misbehavior, what amounts to any of them and who is to determine that? So the law isn’t express on that, it just gives you grounds. In my view, as far as the roles are concerned, casting incompetence on them may be in vain, unless there are other functions which are akin to incompetence.”
According to the proposal in the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, the Leader of Opposition ceases to hold that office if removed by the Party that elected him, if he or she resigns from that office, if she or he leaves the Party that elected him or her, if he or she ceases to be a Member of Parliament under Article 83, if the Party that elected him ceases to have the position described (majority)-meaning in a case where we have a by-election, another Party gets more members and then, they lose that position.
Comments