MPs block Nambooze bid to summon CDF Muhoozi over UPDF Bill

KAMPALA - Members of two parliamentary committees scrutinising the UPDF (Amendment) Bill have rejected a motion by Mukono Municipality MP Betty Nambooze Bakireke.

She was seeking to summon Chief of Defence Forces and First Son, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, to present his views as the chief enforcer of the proposed law.

The incident unfolded on Friday, May 16, 2025, shortly after officials from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had made their submissions and exited the committee room.

At first, colleagues led by West Budama North East Fox Odoi Oywelowo (NRM) and Bugweri County Abdu Katuntu (Indep) attempted to dissuade her, saying that the directive has since been overtaken by events.

These argued that at the time, the UPDF Bill was under the purview of the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee, then chaired by Nyabushozi County MP Wilson Kajwengye (NRM).

However, the current scrutiny involves a joint committee, including the legal and parliamentary affairs committee, chaired by Bukooli North MP Stephen Bakka Mugabi, which makes the matter new altogether.

“The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill 2025, gazetted on May 2 2025, has never been a subject of discussion in the defence and internal affairs committee. I don’t know what she is talking about. She may perhaps need to restate her case and present facts that are tenable. Her concern is on a wrong premise,” Odoi argued.

“This committee is certainly different. By the way, we are joint, but under our new rules, we are now a committee. This committee is subject to Rule 209, which we didn’t make in vain,” Katuntu stated. 

The provision states, ‘that subject to instructions by the House, deliberations of every committee shall be confined to the matters referred to the committee by the House.

Chipping in, legal and parliamentary affairs committee chairperson Stephen Bakka Mugabi acknowledged that he was not privy to the old Bill (UPDF Amendment Bill 2024).

Adding that even if it is true that the CDF had previously been summoned by the defence committee, his presence in the joint committee is unnecessary. Since his political supervisor, who is Oboth, had already appeared before the committee.

“What we need is the mover of the Bill. Once I have the minister of defence alone, I would proceed with the bill,” said Mugabi.

Riding on this guidance, Nambooze took to the microphone to move a motion to invite the CDF, Gen. Muhoozi, to weigh in on the draft law.

Jitters

Riding on this guidance, Nambooze took to the microphone to move a motion to invite the CDF, Gen. Muhoozi, to weigh in on the draft law.

But her proposal was met with murmurs, prompting her to ask why members become so jittery whenever the First Son is mentioned.

“Why are you so sensitive to just the mention of the word CDF? Everyone here seems to be so troubled,” Nambooze wondered.

Motion rejected

To defuse the rising tension, Mugabi instructed her to swiftly move her motion for consideration.

“I wish to move that among the people to interface with during this process, should include the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, to enrich the business we are handling here. Because as the overall commander, this bill directly affects his office, and it will be important if we interface with him,” Nambooze moved.
His participation, she said, would enrich the ongoing debate. 

“It would be important to give him an opportunity to be heard. So that we don’t get to hear him talking to the nation through social media,” Nambooze stated.

Even then, murmurs persisted, notably from Fox Odoi and Labwor County MP Jim Bricky Norman Ochero (NRM).

“General MK is subordinate to one Jacob Oboth Oboth, who is his political supervisor…. In the command structure of the army, the Commander in Chief is the highest person…..If we wanted anybody in the command structure, we should be looking for the Commander-in-Chief after the minister. I therefore find that General MK is neither relevant, nor will he add any value over and above what the minister presented,” Oboth argued.

“When this bill was referred to the committee, I saw an advert summoning interested persons to come to the committee and give their views. I did not see a particular page which was summoning Muhoozi as a person, such that we assume that he has refused to appear before the committee for us to force him to appear,” Ochero pointed out.

Thereafter, the matter was put to a vote, which ended with the nays taking the day, albeit with complaints that the chairperson had misheard the outcome.