Parliament has adopted an amendment to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure, limiting how members of parliament (MPs) can reference the president during debates.
The amendment, which was part of a broader review of parliamentary rules, now explicitly prohibits MPs from imputing improper motives to the president or using the president’s name to influence discussions.
The Rules, Privileges and Discipline Committee, chaired by Bugweri county MP Abdul Katuntu, introduced the amendment as part of a series of proposed changes, including modifications to Rules 70, 72 and 78. The committee recommended inserting a new sub-rule under Rule 72, stating:
“A Member of Parliament shall not impute improper motive to the President or use the President’s name to influence debate. It is out of order to reference the President, Speaker, MPs, Chief Justice, or any Judge of the Courts of Judicature in an amendment, question to an MP, or remarks in a motion dealing with any other subject.”
CLARIFYING THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
Katuntu defended the changes, emphasizing that the rule aims to maintain order and prevent MPs from misusing the president’s name in parliamentary discussions.
“References to the speaker, MPs, and justices of the Courts of Judicature are already restricted under our rules. What we have added is the president because the others were already covered,” Katuntu explained.
However, the leader of the opposition (LoP), Joel Ssenyonyi, raised concerns that restricting references to the president could limit important discussions and prevent MPs from seeking clarification on presidential directives.
“If I ask for clarity about a directive, one could say I am influencing debate, but that should not be seen as a bad thing. Ultimately, the speaker has the power to call a member to order. But if we formally include in our rules that we cannot even mention the president’s name in debate, then we are restricting discussion unnecessarily,” Ssenyonyi argued.
He further noted that since the president is represented in parliament by officials such as the vice president and prime minister, who are not always present, MPs should have the right to reference presidential statements for clarification.
“If we pass this amendment, I will not even be allowed to raise issues related to the president’s statements. If any MP makes an improper remark, they can be called to order. We should not impose unnecessary limitations,” he added.
Speaker Anita Among clarified that discussions about the president should only take place if a formal motion is tabled.
“The President cannot be debated unless a motion is tabled. This rule helps maintain focus and order in parliamentary discussions, ensuring that debates do not go off track,” she stated.
KEY AMENDMENTS REGULATE INTERRUPTIONS AND SPEAKING TIME
Parliament also adopted amendments to Rule 78(c)(2), which previously allowed ministers to reject points of information or clarification from MPs without limitation. The revised rule now limits ministers to rejecting such interruptions only three times before they must allow an MP to speak.
The deputy attorney general, Jackson Rwakafuuzi, warned that this amendment could be misused by MPs to silence ministers or disrupt debates through coordinated interruptions.
“This could be abused to deliberately frustrate ministers during debate,” Rwakafuuzi cautioned.
However, MP Aisha Kabanda defended the amendment, arguing that it strengthens parliamentary accountability.
“MPs deserve answers. This rule ensures accountability from the executive. Ministers should not just read prepared statements and refuse to respond to questions,” Kabanda stated.
Additionally, parliament amended Rule 70, reducing the speaking time for MPs. Under the new rule:
“A member shall not speak for more than five minutes on any matter before the House. The Speaker may, at the commencement or during proceedings, announce a time limit for contributions and direct any member exceeding this limit to take their seat.”
Katuntu explained that this amendment gives the presiding speaker greater authority to manage time efficiently and maintain structured debates.
These amendments mark a significant shift in parliament’s procedural framework, aimed at enhancing discipline, improving debate efficiency, and regulating references to key national figures. However, concerns remain among opposition leaders about the potential implications on free speech and legislative scrutiny.
Actually this house of people’s representatives after sowing the wind are reaping the whirlwind. The majority NRM Members of Parliament are now constantly engaged in obtaining back hand money in many of their legislative business and have reached a point where they must not at all question the conduct of the executive as their rich and extravagant African man controls the destiny of their parliament left, right and centre!
If there was a REAL parliament, Museveni would have been impeached a while ago!
Ugandans MUST give themselves chance by saying NO to the tribalistic system Rwandese Museveni put in place to ensure they are powerless, then UNITE under just ONE of them, to stop all this inhumanity, lies, abuse, pretence that they have a country!
Is there any reason Ugandans go on legalising, constitutionalising Museveni & the fake parliament that ensured his lifetime rule, ownership of Uganda?
How can soon 40 years of Museveni be democracy, especially as opposers, Dr Besigye… are being tortured, in prison & only Museveni has right to campaign?
Why is being slaves of migrant Museveni normal to Ugandans & they just ensure his lifetime rule with fake elections, knowing only his son will replace him?
[The majority NRM Members of Parliament are now constantly engaged in obtaining back hand money in many of their legislative business and have reached a point where they must not at all question the conduct of the executive as their rich and extravagant African man controls the destiny of their parliament left, right and centre!]
kabayekka, thanks.
As Ugandans won’t say NO to the inhuman divisive tribalistic system Rwandese Museveni put in place to ensure they are POWERLESS, he’s going no where! So why keep on protecting him with the fake useless parliament & useless mps who do NOTHING for Ugandans but are only there for themselves?