Parliament of Uganda on February 13, 2025, amended Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure, officially adding the President to the list of state officers whose conduct and motives can only be challenged through a substantive motion.
The amendment, passed during a heated parliamentary session in Kampala, has sparked debate over its implications for government accountability and parliamentary oversight.
Rule 72 previously restricted MPs from questioning the conduct and motives of certain high-ranking state officials, such as the Speaker, Chief Justice, and Vice President, unless a substantive motion was filed.
By expanding this restriction to include the President, MPs are now prohibited from raising concerns about the President’s actions or decisions during ordinary parliamentary debates.
Instead, any challenge must be made through a formal motion, a process that requires advance notice, procedural approval, and lengthy deliberations.
Proponents of the amendment argue that it upholds respect for the highest office in the land, preventing unsubstantiated or politically motivated attacks against the President during parliamentary debates.
NRM legislators, who hold the majority, defended the move as a way to ensure order in parliamentary proceedings.
However, opposition MPs and civil society activists have decried the amendment as a direct assault on free speech and accountability.
Opposition argue that restricting open discussions on the President’s conduct weakens parliamentary oversight, stifles dissent, and undermines democracy.
Some opposition Members of Parliament walked out in protest, calling the amendment a dangerous precedent that shields the executive from necessary questioning.
Heated Debate in Parliament
The amendment was introduced during a highly charged plenary session, with MPs from both sides of the political divide engaging in intense exchanges.
Opposition legislators, led by Hon. Mathias Mpuuga and Hon. Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, raised concerns about the broader implications of limiting open debate on presidential actions.
Despite the resistance, the amendment sailed through with a majority vote from NRM MPs, reaffirming the ruling party’s dominance in shaping parliamentary rules.
The amendment has triggered public backlash, with legal scholars, political analysts, and activists questioning its impact on democratic governance.
Some have vowed to challenge the rule in constitutional court, arguing that it infringes on parliamentary independence and freedom of expression.
