Govt rejects proposal to have Leader of Opposition elected

Government has rejected a proposal to hold elections for the Leader of Opposition, arguing that such a move would be contrary to the legal framework and would interfere with party autonomy.

Instead, it has called for amendments to the Administration of Parliament Act to mandate the presence of either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance at Parliamentary Commission meetings when key decisions are made.

The state’s position was revealed in a written submission by Deputy Attorney General Jackson Kafuuzi to the Legal & Parliamentary Affairs Committee, which is reviewing the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024.

The bill, proposed by Mityana South MP Richard Lumu, seeks to introduce reforms, including allowing other opposition parties to elect the Leader of Opposition and creating a second slot for smaller opposition parties on the Parliamentary Commission.

Rejecting proposal

Kafuuzi made it clear that government considers the proposal to elect the Leader of Opposition from other opposition parties as a contradiction of the mandate given by the people.

He emphasized that the position of Leader of Opposition is determined by the internal procedures of the largest opposition party, a process that is more of a policy matter than a legal one.

“Allowing other opposition parties to elect the Leader of the Opposition would be a contradiction of the mandate given by the people for the Leader of the Opposition to be elected from another party. We observe that the selection of the Leader of Opposition is determined by the internal procedures of the opposition party which is more of a policy nature rather than a legal nature,” Kafuuzi noted.

Government also rejected the proposal to add a second opposition representative to the Parliamentary Commission, citing concerns that it would distort the principle of numerical strength, which is traditionally held by the largest party or the Government.

Kafuuzi also pointed out that the proposal would place an undue financial burden on the Consolidated Fund, violating Article 93(a) (ii) of the Constitution.

“In addition, the proposed amendment imposes a charge on the Consolidated Fund which is contrary to Article 93(a) (ii) of the Constitution,” Kafuuzi added.

Call for Parliamentary Reform

In contrast to the proposals, government has put forward a recommendation for amendments to the Administration of Parliament Act.

The proposal suggests that the quorum at Parliamentary Commission meetings should include the Leader of Government Business or the Ministry of Finance, especially when decisions involve financial matters or require parliamentary approval.

“When the (Parliamentary) Commission sits and makes decisions, it may make decisions that require parliamentary approval in addition to having financial implications. It is prudent for the quorum at any meeting of the Commission to be constituted with the membership of the executive, in particular the Leader of Government Business or the Ministry of Finance, in order not to offend article 93 of the Constitution,” Kafuuzi said.

The Deputy Attorney General also highlighted a comparative study on the selection of the Leader of Opposition in various jurisdictions, arguing that the proposed model was not in line with international practices.

The study, which included countries like Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Singapore, and the United States, found that most countries follow a system where the Leader of Opposition is chosen by the largest opposition party, not through a multi-party election as proposed by Lumu.

“Our comparative study included the following jurisdictions; Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Singapore, and the United States of America, where the provisions related to the definition and selection of the Leader of Opposition are similar to Part III of the Administration of Parliament Act, Cap. 272,” Kafuuzi noted.

This response underscores the importance of preserving the constitutional balance of power, while emphasizing the role of policy decisions in determining the structure of opposition leadership.

As the Legal and  Parliamentary Affairs Committee continues its review of the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024, it remains to be seen whether government’s proposals for reform will be accepted or if the opposition will push for further amendments.

The debate highlights the ongoing tensions between political autonomy and constitutional governance in Uganda’s legislative processes.