Lawmakers Raise Concerns Over Rush to Pass Lumu's LoP Bill

Jonathan Odur, the MP for Erute South, challenged the committee’s Chairperson, Stephen Baka, over the decision to fast-track the Lumu bill, particularly given the pending constitutional amendments concerning the rationalization of agencies.

PARLIAMENT | Tensions are brewing within Uganda’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee as lawmakers express concerns over the expedited processing of the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill 2024.

Proposed by Richard Lumu, the MP for Mityana South, the Bill seeks to establish elections for the Leader of the Opposition among Members of Parliament.

However, many committee members question why this bill is being prioritized while several other important bills languish without attention.

Jonathan Odur, the MP for Erute South, challenged the committee’s Chairperson, Stephen Baka, over the decision to fast-track the Lumu bill, particularly given the pending constitutional amendments concerning the rationalization of agencies.

Odur demanded clarity on why these significant issues are being sidelined.

In response, Baka defended the committee’s approach, stating that it is not mandatory for the committee to consult all members while establishing a schedule for witness summoning.

He argued that the committee’s annual work plan, which had already been approved, does not require additional discussions for every scheduling decision.

“We had a meeting for the work plan, and that plan covers the entire year. Once there is concurrence on the general principles of the work plan, the rest becomes the work of that plan,” Baka remarked.

“You can’t keep calling MPs to discuss minor issues.”

Odur, however, criticized this approach, highlighting the need for member input on the schedule of witnesses. He emphasized that, according to parliamentary tradition, an internal meeting should be convened to discuss such matters before finalizing a program.

“When you have matters before you, the Constitution takes precedence. Why would we be rushing?” Odur stated. “I was surprised that a full program was issued without considering the input of the members.”

MP John Teira from Bugabula North echoed Odur’s concerns, questioning the rationale behind fast-tracking the Lumu bill while more pressing constitutional amendments remain pending.

“This particular bill relates to the Leader of the Opposition, as provided for in Article 82(a) of the Constitution. Wouldn’t it be proper to deal with the constitutional amendment first?” Teira asked.

Adding to the debate, Ann Adeke, MP for Soroti DWR, raised concerns regarding the financial implications of the proposed amendments.

She pointed out that any additional changes to the bill require a fresh Certificate of Financial Implication, especially since the amendments could impose charges on the consolidated fund.

“These new amendments will have a charge on the consolidated fund. We must ensure we have the necessary financial certifications before proceeding,” Adeke warned.

Bosco Okiror also expressed frustration, referring to the process as “trial by ambush.” He accused Lumu of rushing through the bill without allowing adequate time for scrutiny and input from fellow lawmakers.

“You are ambushing us, stampeding us. Additional amendments should not be introduced at this stage without proper consideration,” Okiror asserted.

As lawmakers continue to deliberate, the future of the Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill 2024 hangs in the balance, with many advocating for a more measured approach that prioritizes thorough examination over hasty decision-making.

The committee’s actions in the coming weeks will be closely watched as Uganda’s legislative processes come under scrutiny.