Parliament Restricts Debate on President
Under the newly adopted rule, it will be deemed out of order for any member to impute improper motives to the President or use the President’s name to influence debate unless a formal, substantive motion is tabled.
Parliament has adopted a controversial amendment to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure, restricting the way members of Parliament (MPs) can discuss the President during debates.
The amendment, proposed by Chairperson Abdul Katuntu, seeks to preserve the decorum of parliamentary proceedings and ensure that the President, as the "fountain of honour," is treated with the utmost respect.
Under the newly adopted rule, it will be deemed out of order for any member to impute improper motives to the President or use the President’s name to influence debate unless a formal, substantive motion is tabled.
This move aims to curb any potential misuse of the President’s name in parliamentary discussions, maintaining a focus on issues without personalising debates.
Katuntu said, “The intent is to maintain the dignity of the office of the President and prevent any form of undue influence or disrespect in parliamentary discourse.”
However, the amendment has sparked significant opposition. Felix Okot Ogong (Dokolo South), voiced his concern that such restrictions could hinder the free exchange of ideas.
"Some lakunle in the law is deliberate," Ogong remarked, adding, "Let’s not make stiff regulations that gag members from debating.”
MP Ogong further argued that such regulations could prevent MPs from fully engaging in important discussions.
Speaker Anita Among defended the amendment, explaining that the President’s name should only be discussed in Parliament if a formal motion is brought forward.
"The President can’t be discussed until a motion is tabled on the floor," Among stated, reinforcing that the rule would help maintain focus and order in parliamentary debates, ensuring that discussions do not veer off course.
Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi, however, strongly criticised the amendment, warning that it could prevent Parliament from seeking much-needed clarification on statements or policies declared by the President.
"If we are not allowed to discuss the President’s statements, how can we as MPs seek clarity on the policies or directives that affect our constituents?" Ssenyonyi questioned, emphasizing that requests for clarification could easily be misconstrued as attempts to influence debate.
Mr Ssenyonyi also pointed out that the Speaker already possesses the authority to call members to order if they stray from the rules, making the proposed changes unnecessary.
"The Speaker already has the power to call a member to order if they overstep," Ssenyonyi said.
"We must retain the right to quote the President or seek clarification on matters of national importance."
The recommendation to amend Rule 72 comes as part of the ongoing review of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, as outlined in the Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline.
With the amendment now adopted, lawmakers face the challenge of balancing the need for orderly debates with the fundamental responsibility to hold the executive to account.
