A fresh political storm is brewing inside Parliament following a move by Members of Parliament aligned to the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) to introduce a controversial amendment to the Administration of Parliament Act.
The proposal, which seeks to significantly alter how the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) is chosen and removed, has drawn sharp criticism from analysts and veteran politicians who warn it could undermine the autonomy of the opposition in Uganda’s multi-party system.
According to sources within Parliament, three legislators belonging to the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) but affiliated with PLU, an organisation closely associated with Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, have submitted notice to the Clerk to Parliament seeking leave to introduce the Administration of Parliament (Amendment) Bill 2026. Among the key proponents are MPs Dennis Namara and Linos Ngopek.
The proposed amendments reportedly introduce provisions that would allow independent MPs and opposition legislators to directly elect the Leader of the Opposition, while also creating grounds for impeachment of the sitting LoP.
The move has triggered concern among political observers, who argue it could fundamentally alter the independence of the opposition bench.
While the sponsors argue that involving independent MPs broadens democratic participation, critics point out that a significant number of independents in the current Parliament are believed to have signed memoranda of understanding with the ruling NRM, raising questions about the political neutrality of the proposed voting bloc.
The initiative echoes a similar attempt in the 11th Parliament, commonly referred to as the “Lumu Bill,” which failed to progress and was eventually withdrawn.
However, analysts note that the current political environment in the 12th Parliament is markedly different, with shifting alliances and strong influence from PLU-aligned figures within the legislature.
Former Katikamu South MP Richard Lumu, who previously advanced reforms related to opposition oversight, has distanced himself from the new proposal, warning that it risks weakening the institutional strength of the opposition.
“My bill was better for the opposition. It was for all of us,” Lumu said. “The new push is taking away all the power of the opposition. If you fail to see very far, this is what would come.”
He added that the current direction of the proposal could have long-term consequences for parliamentary accountability.
“The current move is a move to strangle the opposition to death,” Lumu said. “The strangler is too strong, but the opposition… the knee is in the neck of the opposition. Working together is what will save them.”
Lumu further warned that the proposed changes appear designed to erode institutional independence within Parliament.
“It is in a spirit to break the backbone of the authority and autonomy of the opposition. They are intended to curtail it. If there is an election [under these conditions], that would cause a problem. They are backed by the powers. The change could be disastrous,” he added.
Political researchers and legal experts, including Professor Barigayomwe, argue that the push reflects broader political tensions within Uganda’s evolving parliamentary landscape.
They also caution that the numerical strength of the ruling party and its affiliates could determine the bill’s fate.
Professor Barigayomwe noted that the opposition’s constitutional role is to ensure government accountability, a function he said could be weakened if the amendments pass in their current form.
“The LoP is supposed to act like an auditor of government, and that is what the Constituent Assembly envisaged,” he said, warning that prevailing political dynamics could limit resistance to the proposal.
He also raised concerns about political influence within Parliament, suggesting that incentives and alignments could shape outcomes.
Observers say the debate now places Parliament at the centre of a broader question about the resilience of Uganda’s multiparty system, as competing political interests test the boundaries of institutional independence and democratic practice.
