Mityana County South MP Richard Lumu is under increasing pressure from constitutional lawyers and political figures over his proposed changes to the Administration of Parliament Act 2024. The bill, which seeks to alter the way the Leader of the Opposition is appointed, has sparked widespread opposition from across the political spectrum.
Constitutional experts and political parties, usually divided on key issues, have united in their criticism of the bill. Lawyers are warning that Lumu’s insistence on pushing forward could lead to both legislative defeat and serious political damage.
One of Uganda’s prominent constitutional lawyers, Eron Kiiza, strongly advised Lumu to reconsider his stance and apologize to the Ugandan public. “Withdraw your bill, apologize to Ugandans before you drown with it,” Kiiza warned, highlighting the risks Lumu faces if he does not pull back from his controversial proposal.
The bill has been rejected by major political parties, including the National Resistance Movement (NRM), Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), National Unity Platform (NUP), and the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). These parties view Lumu’s proposal as a threat to Uganda’s democratic processes, particularly the principle of multipartism. The rare display of unity from opposition and ruling factions underscores the severity of the situation for Lumu.
Constitutional lawyer George Musisi also commented on Lumu’s uphill battle. While the parliament’s legal committee has not yet issued its final verdict, Musisi indicated that Lumu’s chances of passing the bill are slim. “His chances of success in parliament are like a child trying to carry a heavy 20-litre jerrycan of water,” Musisi remarked, vividly illustrating the difficulties Lumu is likely to face.
There is growing suspicion about Lumu’s motivations for the bill. Both opposition and ruling party members are questioning why Lumu would back a proposal that has attracted so much criticism. “Whose interests is Lumu serving with this bill?” asked Kiiza, reflecting the concerns of many Ugandans who believe the bill might not serve the public interest.
As the opposition continues to mount, constitutional experts are urging Lumu to withdraw his proposal and avoid further damage to his political standing. “Lumu risks suffering severe embarrassment,” warned Kiiza, suggesting that the forthcoming legal committee report could deliver a harsh verdict on the bill. If Lumu continues to ignore these warnings, he could face isolation and a serious blow to his reputation in parliament.
Lumu’s political future now seems uncertain. Constitutional lawyers such as Kiiza and Musisi are united in their belief that the best course of action for Lumu is to admit his mistake and make amends. “Acknowledge your error and apologize to Ugandans,” urged Kiiza, calling for Lumu to bring the debate to an end before it does irreparable harm to his career.
This situation highlights how controversial legislation can unite political opponents, and it appears that Lumu’s effort to pass his bill may be a losing battle. Whether he will heed the advice of legal experts and political figures remains to be seen, but the message is clear: withdraw the bill, or risk political downfall.
