Written By |
Richard Lumu (Mityana South, DP) tabled the bill
Search
By Our Reporter
PARLIAMENT - A proposed amendment to the Administration of Parliament Act, which seeks to have the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) elected from within the leading opposition party, has been tabled and referred to the legal committee amid complaints of double standards.
The bill, moved by Richard Lumu (Mityana South, DP) during the recent regional parliamentary session in Gulu, has faced widespread criticism from National Unity Platform (NUP) members, who view it as an attempt to undermine their party president, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, alias Bobi Wine.
Contents of the Bill
Lumu's bill aims to amend the Administration of Parliament Act, Cap.272, to:
The proposed changes would amend Section 8 of the principal Act to allow opposition parties to nominate at least three members from whom the LOP would be elected. Additionally, the LOP could be removed from office by a resolution of opposition MPs.
Lumu also seeks to amend Section 11 of the principal Act to require that shadow cabinet members be approved by opposition lawmakers, a departure from the current system where the strongest opposition party appoints shadow ministers.
MPs protest double standards
During the parliamentary session, Lee Dennis Oguzu (Maracha) criticized the institution for prioritizing Lumu’s bill over a similar one he had introduced. He argued that Lumu's bill failed to meet legal requirements.
Oguzu stated that "Rule 117(3) requires a signed memorandum outlining the policies and defects in the existing law," which was missing from Lumu’s bill. He also noted that he had submitted notice of his bill to amend the Administration of Parliament Act on August 29, 2024, but had yet to receive feedback.
Yorke Alioni Odria (Aringa South, NRM) supported Oguzu, expressing frustration that his own proposed amendment to the Administration of Parliament Act, submitted in October 2023, had also been ignored. He accused the Speaker’s office of selectively handling matters, questioning why Lumu’s bill, generated in Gulu, was fast-tracked.
Alioni also referenced a censure motion against four commissioners, which had been dismissed without being debated. He requested that the motion be added to the order paper for discussion.
Speaker's response
Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa distanced himself from allegations of foul play, explaining that Lumu's bill had followed proper procedures, including being gazetted and receiving a certificate of financial implication. He emphasized that other bills could be delayed for various reasons unrelated to his role.
Tayebwa added that his rulings could be challenged if MPs were unsatisfied but reiterated that certain legal requirements must be met before a bill is included in the order paper.
MPs’ reactions
Peter Okot (Tochi County, DP whip) clarified that Lumu’s bill was not backed by the Democratic Party but represented Lumu’s individual right as a member of parliament. He expressed concerns about the bill, suggesting that it undermined the efforts of the opposition to maintain control of the LOP.
Elijah Okupa (Kasilo County, Independent) recalled that in the past, opposition leaders were elected by party members, not appointed by party heads, citing Hon. Ogenga Latigo’s election as LOP by the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) members. He criticized the shift in recent years toward party presidents exerting control over the LOP and other key opposition positions.
Torch Media Africa
