Journalist, educator, and political analyst Peter Kibazo has said the debate surrounding the Administration of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 2024—recently withdrawn by Mityana South Member of Parliament Richard Lumu—was largely influenced by political rivalries rather than the content of the bill itself.
Speaking at the NBS Media Roundtable on Friday, Kibazo argued that many legislators evaluated the bill based on who introduced it and the political context surrounding opposition leadership, rather than its actual merits.
“Everyone looked at the bill for who was bringing it and why. They never looked at the merits of the bill,” Kibazo said.
He pointed to ongoing tensions within opposition parties, noting that Lumu had disagreements with the leadership of the National Unity Platform (NUP), while other figures like Anita Among and Mpuuga were also involved in leadership disputes. “Anita Among played Don King and the bill was on the table,” he added.
Kibazo placed the proposal in a broader historical context, noting that similar discussions have arisen whenever changes in opposition leadership occur.
“There was a time that a bill was brought to Parliament when Winnie Kizza was exiting. We are looking at Lumu but this bill started with Ssegona when Winnie Kizza was leaving,” he said.
The Administration of Parliament (Amendment) Bill had sought to alter how the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) is selected.
Under the proposed change, all opposition MPs would directly elect their preferred leader, replacing the current system where the largest opposition party designates the LoP. Critics have said the current arrangement effectively imposes a leader on opposition legislators without their direct consent.
Following its withdrawal on Thursday, Lumu explained that legislators from multiple opposition parties—including NUP, Democratic Party (DP), Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), and Uganda People’s Congress (UPC)—had reservations about the bill.
He also warned that the proposed changes could be exploited to serve interests outside the opposition, including potential interference from the ruling party.
Several opposition MPs had previously described the amendment as being drafted in bad faith, cautioning that it could weaken opposition coordination and diminish the ability of MPs to hold the government accountable.
Despite its sudden withdrawal, the bill has reignited discussion about the selection of the Leader of the Opposition and whether reforms are needed to make the position more representative of all opposition members in Parliament.
Kibazo’s analysis underscores the persistent influence of internal party politics in shaping legislative debates on leadership reforms.
