The recent events in Uganda's Parliament surrounding the UPDF Amendment Bill 2025 have thrown the country's political divisions into stark relief, reigniting public discourse on parliamentary conduct, party funding, and political dialogue.
The bill, which is expected to be assented to by the President within days, has sparked strong reactions from both ruling party MPs and members of the Opposition.
Alex Brandon Mwesigwa criticized the habitual walkouts by Opposition MPs during plenary sessions, calling them disrespectful to Ugandans.
“The Opposition MPs who walked out of the Plenary session ought to apologise to Ugandans,” he said, noting that their absence deprived them of a vital opportunity to influence the content of the UPDF Amendment Bill.
He acknowledged that several adjustments had been made to the bill—implying that participation, not protest, was a more productive path.
Yet, Muwanga Kivumbi countered this sentiment by questioning the effectiveness of remaining in the chamber.
“For those who remained in the session, like Hon. Jonathan Odur and Okot Bitek, and made their submissions—did it change anything?” he asked, casting doubt on the legislative impact of participation under current parliamentary dynamics.
Moses Bigirwa, a vocal political commentator, weighed in on the broader state of Uganda’s political culture, accusing political leaders of "political indiscipline" and claiming that many actors, including supporters, lack a fundamental understanding of politics.
He also highlighted the futility and uphill nature of the Opposition’s declared intent to take legal action against the bill’s passing.
Further stoking debate, Gorreth Namugga predicted swift executive action: “The UPDF Amendment Bill 2025 will be assented to by the President in under three days,” she said, reflecting the fast-paced nature of legislative processes often criticized for sidelining broader consensus.
Another controversial thread was the discussion on political party funding and participation in IPOD (Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue).
Muhammad Nsereko supported the Political Parties and Organisations Amendment Bill, advocating for strict conditions on access to taxpayer funding.
“If you want to take taxpayers' funds, you must participate in the dialogue,” he said, bluntly declaring, “I am against the funding of political parties by taxpayers' money.”
He challenged parties to walk the talk, saying, “I am waiting for one political party to say that they will not take part in IPOD and do not want funding from the government. That will be heroic.”
Echoing this sentiment,Muwanga Kivumbi noted that his party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), garnered popular support without government financial backing—proof, he argues, that public trust can be won without state resources.
As the nation awaits the President’s assent to the controversial bill, these statements offer a sobering look into the ideological, strategic, and structural battles shaping Uganda's political landscape.
From walkouts and legislative reforms to questions of ethics and financing, the conversation has only just begun.