No More 'Mr Museveni' tirades for MP Semujju

By Dedan Kimathi

KAMPALA - In 2026, Kira Municipality Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda will have been in Parliament for 15 years. Throughout this time, President Yoweri Museveni and the First Family have been at the receiving end of his relentless tirades.

Rarely does his submission end without mention of First Son Muhoozi Kainerugaba, First Lady Janet Museveni, or the President whom he pointedly refers to as “Mr Museveni”.

While critics have argued that his rhetoric is laced with disrespect, his supporters, on the other hand, have defended it as an exercise of free speech.

During review of the Rules of Procedure on February 13, 2025, Parliament decided that ‘enough was enough’. While presenting a report by the rules, privileges and discipline committee, Abdu Katuntu (Bugweri county, Indep) slammed brakes on this rhetoric.

“To preserve the decorum of Parliamentary debates and uphold respect for the President as the fountain of honour, the Rules should stipulate that it is out of order for a member to impute improper motives to the President or use the President’s name to influence debate,” MPs recommended.

Apparently, Rule 72(2) of the Rules of Procedure prohibits members from making references to the conduct of the Speaker, Members of Parliament, the Chief Justice and Judges of the Courts of Judicature, except through a substantive motion.

Any reference to the conduct of these persons in amendments, questions, or remarks during debates on unrelated Motions is deemed out of order.

However, the committee noted that the rule excludes the President, who is the Head of the Executive arm of Government and fountain of honour.

While some members argued that extending such protection to the President would infringe upon their fundamental right to free speech and expression, as guaranteed under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, and their Parliamentary privileges under the Parliament (Powers and Immunities) Act, the Committee observed that such rights and privileges are not absolute.

Adding these rights ought to be exercised in a manner that is not prejudicial to the rights and freedoms of others as stated in Article 43 of the Constitution.

Leader of Opposition (LOP) Joel Ssenyonyi attempted to push back against the provision. Arguing that it would stifle debate and undermine their role as the voice of the voiceless.

“The President is represented here by the Executive beginning with the Vice-President who is rarely here, and the Prime Minister who is the leader of Government business. I think it is okay to say the head of state said ‘this’ or maybe a policy directive, can you clarify,” the Nakawa West MP interjected.

However, his objection came too late to sway the decision. In response, Abdu Katuntu clarified that while direct references may be restricted, MPs can still seek clarification through existing procedural channels.

“What is being barred here is conduct. Two, there is a provision that actually the conduct can be raised but only on a substantive motion. So, it is not that we are barring completely discussion of conduct of these officers,” he said.

Even then, Maurice Kibalya (Bugabula South, NRM) contended that Rule 72 (2) as creates room for legal ambiguity, but Speaker Among asked him to explore courts when such a scenario arises.

“In a situation where we have to present a substantive motion against the conduct of any other person including the Speaker and the Speaker doesn’t honour the motion, where do I run to?” Kibalya posed.

Election of commissioners

Another elephant in the room that lawmakers have finally put to rest is the election of parliamentary commissioners.

The contentious matter formed the bedrock of Richard Lumu’s (Mityana Municipality, DP) controversial Administration of Parliament Amendment Bill, 2024.

In which, he sought to have two additional slots created for the Opposition. Also, he wanted Opposition commissioners be elected by all Opposition MPs and provisions for their censure explicitly embedded in the law.

Section 2(4) of the Administration of Parliament Act stipulates that the nomination of candidates for election to the Parliamentary Commission, specifically the four MPs mentioned in subsection (2), shall be made by both the Government and Opposition sides. This provision is further mirrored in Rule 11(4) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.

"A member of the Commission shall hold office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is elected but shall not vacate the office until a member is nominated or elected in their place, as the case may be, immediately after a general election."

Despite this, both flanks of the house had made it a norm to designate their preferred choices. Their names would then be presented to the house and approved without an election.

This was further compounded by an NRM resolution passed at Kyankwanzi years ago, which cemented this shift.

Debate, however, resurfaced last year, especially after rumours spread that the four backbench commissioners: Esther Afoyochan (Zombo District Woman MP, NRM), Solomon Silwany (Bukooli Central, NRM), Prossy Mbabazi Akampurira (Rubanda Woman MP, NRM), and Mathias Mpuuga (Nyendo-Mukungwe, NUP), had colluded to award themselves a shillings 1.7 billion honoraria as ‘service awards’ in May 2023.

Enraged, York Alioni Odria (Aringa South, NRM) and Theodore Ssekikubo (Lwemiyaga County, NRM), initiated a censure motion against these officials, who in their view had been superimposed on them by their mother party.

Although the move was quashed by the courts and blocked from debate in the House, murmurs of discontent persisted.

Point of departure

However, in the latest changes, Opposition and ruling party shall be mandated to nominate their candidates, regardless of their number, who shall then be subjected to an election by their respective members.

Victors shall be declared on the basis of the highest number of votes cast in their favour.

The Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip shall present to the House a list of nominated members for election. Each nominee must be seconded by at least two members.

The election of the four members shall be conducted by secret ballot. After voting, the Speaker shall, in full view of the House, direct the Clerk to empty the ballot box and commence the counting process. Once the counting is complete, the Speaker shall announce the election results to the House.

This marks a departure from what the Rules, Privileges, and Discipline Committee had initially recommended that the ruling party nominate six members and the official Opposition nominate three for election. Out of which, four commissioners shall be obtained.

Internal democracy

Issuing a word of caution, Muhammad Muwanga Kivumbi, the PAC (Central) chairperson and NUP vice-president for Buganda, warned that while the amendment is framed as a move to promote democracy, it could, in reality, undermine internal party democracy.

“In this house, there is also politics. Realistically, we have seen it happen where if we nominate three commissioners this side and the others nominate their own. The other side will decide on a member this side. That means that you will have a commission literally made up of Government and its allies in the Opposition,” Muwanga pointed out.

“In this same parliament, you had 280 applications for people to be commissioners. Are we going to have 280 people here and we elect from them?” Kibalya wondered.

Debating time

Another key adjustment is the time allocated to each member during debates, now capped at five minutes. Currently, Rule 70(11) states:

"The Speaker may, on the commencement of proceedings or on any motion, announce the time limit for each member contributing to the debate and may direct a member to take their seat once they have spoken for the allotted period."

The committee's proposal stems from concerns that the existing practice, where the Speaker often grants only two to three minutes per speaker, has proven inadequate for well-researched and substantive contributions. As a result, members are frequently cut off before completing their arguments, leading to a disjointed Hansard record.

However, the adjustments maintain the Speaker’s discretionary powers, as has been the practice.

Under the amendment, the presiding officers shall still retain the authority to adjust, increase or reduce a member’s time frame depending on the importance of the subject matter and the number of members wishing to contribute.