Richard Lumu’s Motion: A Deceptive Gambit Or Genuine Reform?

Richard Lumu’s motion to amend the administration of Parliament by proposing that the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) be elected by all opposition parties in Parliament has sparked controversy and suspicion. The motion, which also suggests that the Leader of Government Business and the Chief Whip be elected by the ruling party’s president, has raised questions about its underlying motives and implications for Uganda’s multiparty democracy.

The Questionable Timing and Motives

Lumu’s motion has been met with skepticism, particularly from those who view it as a politically motivated attack on the current LoP, who has been a vocal critic of the Speaker’s leadership. The LoP has consistently called on the Speaker to curb wasteful spending and ensure transparency in Parliament’s activities, challenging the Speaker’s alleged close ties with the executive. Following the UK and the US governments slumping of sanctions to the Speaker and all other graft allegations labeled against the Speaker, the LoP stepped up calls to the Speaker  to account for all these misdeeds albeit the President’s stand to prop and exonerate the Speaker completely overlooking the deserved reprimand that should have been served to the Speaker under normal circumstances. While tabling the motion, the Speaker exhibited apparent degree of bias disallowing MP Ojara’s submission to the effect that what Lumu was presenting was mere disgruntlement of the opposition rather than a matter of national and northern Uganda concern. MP Ssekikubo’s submission to shoot down Lumu’s motion giving reasons that it wasn’t the appropriate time for it, the Speaker in the same way ruled that Ssekikubo should raise such issues in Kampala. This has led to speculations that Lumu’s motion is less about democratic reform and more about silencing dissent within Parliament.

Yes this is Uganda! Queen Elizabeth National Park the most visited National Park in Uganda located in Kasese. The park boasts of the highest biodiversity rates of any game park in Africa. The park is also home to the largest herbivore mammals in the world the African Elephant, it’s estimated there are 2500 of them in the Park  #VisitUganda #ExploreUganda
#Tulambule +256 702 239 337 Email: cmkmediasolutions@gmail.com

The timing of Lumu’s motion further fuels these suspicions. Prior to the Gulu Parliamentary preliminary session, reports emerged of clandestine meetings between the Speaker and Lumu, allegedly aimed at bypassing the Parliamentary Business Committee—a move that would undermine the standard procedure for tabling such motions. This has led to widespread concern that the motion was being advanced in bad faith, with the potential to weaken the opposition’s ability to hold the government accountable.

Advertising

Multiparty Democracy and the Principle of Opposition

Uganda’s political system, a hybrid of parliamentary and presidential elements, is built on the principle that the majority party forms the government, while the main opposition party forms a shadow government. This shadow government is meant to provide an alternative set of policies and act as a check on the ruling party. However, Lumu’s motion, if passed, would fundamentally alter this structure by involving all opposition parties in the election of the LoP.

Such a change could dilute the effectiveness of the opposition by creating a fragmented leadership, where parties with divergent policies must find common ground to elect a leader. This would likely weaken the opposition’s ability to present a coherent alternative to the government. In contrast, a single opposition party forming the shadow government ensures that there is a unified stance against the ruling party’s policies.

Moreover, in Uganda’s current political landscape, where the Leader of Government Business in Parliament is appointed by the President, it follows that the LoP should also be appointed by the leader of the main opposition party. If the LoP were to be elected by all opposition MPs, it would set a precedent that could lead to the Leader of Government Business being similarly elected by MPs of the ruling party—a shift that could undermine the executive’s control over Parliament.

The Irony of Ssegona’s Past Motion

Dr. Kizza Besigye’s observation highlights the irony in Lumu’s motion. In the previous Parliament, Honorable Ssegona, now a member of the National Unity Platform (NUP), had moved a similar motion, expressing dissatisfaction with the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) appointing the LoP. However, now that NUP is the main opposition party, Ssegona appears to have embraced the very system he once opposed. This shift underscores the fluidity of political stances in Uganda’s Parliament, where positions often change depending on which party holds power.

The Larger Picture: Uganda’s Democratic Deficit

Lumu’s motion, and the controversy surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger issue in Uganda— the absence of true democracy and a functional multiparty system. In an ideal democracy, opposition parties would be united in their efforts to challenge the ruling party and advocate for reforms that benefit the nation as a whole. Unfortunately, many opposition MPs in Uganda today appear more concerned with securing personal benefits from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) than with fighting for democratic principles.

This reality is a stark reminder of the challenges facing Uganda’s political system. Rather than being preoccupied with internal power struggles, opposition MPs should focus on strengthening democratic institutions and resisting the influence of the NRM and Museveni’s administration. Only then can Uganda hope to achieve the kind of vibrant multiparty democracy that allows for genuine political competition and accountability.

Conclusion

Richard Lumu’s motion, while framed as a democratic reform, appears to be a strategic move aimed at weakening the current Leader of the Opposition and consolidating power within Parliament. The motion’s questionable motives, coupled with the potential consequences for Uganda’s multiparty system, suggest that it is less about enhancing democracy and more about entrenching the status quo. In a political environment where true democracy is already in short supply, this is a worrying development that should be carefully scrutinized by all who care about the future of Uganda’s governance.