CONTACT US
CONTACT US
May 2026
Home 2026 May
WhatsApp Image 2026-05-30 at 17.39.45
Politics

Constitutional Challenges of Appointing Serving Soldiers who are non UPDF MPs to Cabinet.

By Dr. Sarah Bireete

The appointment of serving military officers to cabinet continues to raise constitutional questions under Articles 113 and 208 of the Constitution.

After the enactment of the 1995 Constitution, serving Soldiers were required to first resign from the army before taking up their positions in Cabinet. The test for this safeguard was the appointment of Gen. Jeje Odongo in 1996 as Minister of State for Defence. He had to first retire from UPDF.

Article 208 establishes the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) as a non-partisan, professional, disciplined and national institution subordinate to civilian authority. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the military serves all citizens equally and remains insulated from partisan political competition. In a constitutional democracy, the military is expected to defend the state and uphold the Constitution, not to participate in political contests or align itself with particular political interests.

Article 113, on the other hand, provided that the President can appoint ministers from amongst MPs and any other citizens qualified to be MP. It was argued that this provision qualifies UPDF MPs to be appointed to Cabinet; an argument that was advanced in 2013 after the controversial appointment of Gen. Aronda as a minister of Internal Affairs as a serving soldier.

Further constitutional questions arise when serving military officers who are not UPDF representatives in Parliament are appointed to Cabinet. Such appointments place active members of a constitutionally non-partisan institution into offices that require overt political engagement. The result is a potential conflict between the duty of political neutrality under Article 208 and the political responsibilities associated with ministerial office under Article 113 of the Constitution.

Continuous military participation in legislative affairs through designated military representatives in Parliament in a multiparty suspension presents a significant constitutional challenge. Appointing additional serving officers to Cabinet outside this framework is an expansion of the military political role beyond what the framers of the Constitution contemplated.

Such appointments blur the distinction between civilian and military authority. One of the cornerstones of constitutional governance is the principle of civilian control over the armed forces. When serving officers simultaneously occupy senior military positions and political executive offices, the separation between military command structures and civilian political leadership becomes less clear. The military is becoming increasingly intertwined with partisan governance.

Further more, the legitimacy of a professional army depends in part on the public perception that it serves the nation rather than a political party or government. When serving officers become the public face of controversial government decisions, criticism directed at government policy may increasingly be directed at the military institution itself.

Gen. Katumba Wamala joined cabinet in 2017 when he was an MP representing UPDF in Parliament, a post he retained in the 11th Parliament. The camel applies to Gen. Wilson Mbadi when he was appointed to cabinet in 2024. The two Generals are not UPDF MPs in the 12th Parliament. Their appointment to cabinet before retirement can’t benefit from the Gen. Aronda controversial shield of being MPs, as per Article 113 of the Constitution.

Parliament whose main function is to protect the constitution and promote constitutional governance has a duty to ensure that the two generals exit UPDF before they are approved as ministers in the next cabinet.

As Uganda continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, adherence to both Articles 113 and 208 remains essential to safeguarding civilian rule, constitutionalism and public confidence in armed forces.

Read More
ccgea May 30, 2026 0
bireete-sarah-ehorn
Politics

Power, the Common Good, and the Reckoning It Always Brings.

Public office is not a private estate. It is a trust, temporarily handed to individuals so they may serve the common good, uphold the rule of law, and safeguard the rights of all citizens. History teaches us, repeatedly and without mercy, that leaders who forget this truth often build systems of fear that eventually turn against them. Uganda’s recent experience offers a sobering lesson.

The tenure of Anita Among, now a former Speaker of Parliament, illustrates how the abuse or neglect of institutional responsibility corrodes not only democracy but also the personal security of those who preside over that decay.

As head of the legislature, the Speaker is the custodian of debate, oversight, and accountability. Yet Parliament under her leadership repeatedly failed to fully interrogate some of the most urgent national concerns. Most disturbing was the systematic blocking and stifling of parliamentary scrutiny into the issue of missing persons; Ugandans who disappeared amid arrests, abductions, or security operations. When Parliament is prevented from asking hard questions about the fate of citizens, it ceases to be the people’s shield and becomes an accomplice to silence.

At the same time, the normalization of military overreach into civilian governance continued largely unchecked. The increasing presence of armed forces in law enforcement, political processes, and civic life eroded the constitutional boundary between civilian authority and military power. Parliament, which should have asserted its oversight role, instead appeared subdued. This failure sent a dangerous message: that power could be exercised without accountability, and force could substitute law.

The judiciary did not escape this institutional weakening. Public confidence in the courts steadily declined as citizens watched politically sensitive cases delayed, mishandled, or seemingly influenced. When the legislature fails to defend judicial independence, justice becomes precarious. And when justice becomes selective, no one, no matter how powerful, is ultimately safe.

Today, the irony is unavoidable. The very environment of impunity, institutional compromise, and fear that was allowed to grow has come full circle. The political and legal troubles now facing Anita Among are unfolding within the same weakened system she helped build and shield. This is not merely personal misfortune; it is a structural reckoning. Power that is exercised without regard for law and rights does not protect its wielders, it traps them.

This moment should serve as a warning to all leaders. Public office must be used to strengthen institutions, not bend them. Leaders must protect human rights not out of charity, but out of enlightened self-interest. A country governed by law, transparency, and accountability is one where former officials can live safely beyond office, confident that rules, not vendettas or unchecked power, will govern their fate.

The lesson is clear: when leaders undermine Parliament, tolerate military overreach, and weaken judicial independence, they plant seeds of instability that do not discriminate. The structures you dismantle today are the same ones you will desperately need tomorrow.

True leadership lies in restraint, respect for law, and service to the common good. Anything less may offer short-term power, but it guarantees a long-term reckoning.

Read More
ccgea May 26, 2026 0
Sarah Bireete
Politics

When One Woman Is Used to Silence Many.

By Dr Sarah Bireete 

In recent debates on leadership and accountability, male chauvinists have increasingly weaponised the case of Anita Among to discredit women in leadership as a whole. Instead of interrogating individual conduct on its own merits, they present her example as “proof” that women are unfit to lead. This line of argument is not only dishonest; it is deeply patriarchal. Men accused or convicted of wrongdoing are rarely used to indict all men, yet when a woman falters, her gender is put on trial.

The principle of gender parity in parliamentary leadership and the cabinet is grounded in equality, justice, and representation. It recognises that women make up more than half of the population and therefore deserve fair and meaningful participation in decision-making spaces; committee leadership, speakership positions, and senior ministerial roles. Gender parity is not about tokenism or immunity from scrutiny; it is about equal opportunity, equal responsibility, and equal accountability.

Crucially, criminal or unethical conduct is individual, not biological. The law does not recognise guilt by gender. Accountability must attach to the person who commits an offence, not to women as a class. To argue otherwise is to abandon justice and embrace prejudice. If integrity is the standard, and it must be, then it should apply uniformly to men and women alike, without chauvinistic shortcuts that seek to roll back hard-won gains for women’s leadership.

Using one woman’s alleged failures to undermine gender equality is not accountability; it is backlash. True reform demands that we challenge wrongdoing while defending the principle that women belong in leadership, on merit, in parity, and without prejudice.

For God and My Country

Read More
ccgea May 24, 2026 0
WhatsApp Image 2026-05-01 at 12.19.33
Sovereignty Bill

The fight against the Sovereignty Bill has shown our sovereignty.

by Phillip Karugaba

Government finally awoke to the realization that the Protection of Sovereignty Bill did not say what they thought it said, that they had cast their net far too wide and caught far more than they had intended to.

It took the unprecedented appearance of the Governor of the Bank of Uganda, Michael Atingi-Ego, before the Parliamentary Committees, and his dire warning that Uganda was about to shoot itself in both feet, for the proverbial penny to drop. Add to this the President’s public disavowal of the Bill, redirecting the focus of his team to the much narrower area of what he termed “sovereignty of policy-decision making.”

Government has now proposed amendments to the Bill, completely reshaping its focus, scope, and application. Engagement in political activities with foreign money is now the central concern. Full credit to the government team and the barrels of midnight oil they burned.

With 18 out of the 30 clauses amended, five new definitions introduced, the key definitions of “foreigner” and “agent of a foreigner” completely revamped, and exemptions granted left, right and centre to almost anyone, this is not the same Bill anymore. From a net cast too wide to a net cast away! Indeed, many of those previously unnerved by the Bill may now sit back and eat their chicken with a sigh of relief. Even political parties and NGOs have an escape hatch as regulated entities. For all these massive changes, Government has not updated the memorandum of the Bill nor its much-criticized certificate of financial implications.

Critical players still in the eye of the storm are the banks and payment system providers, including mobile money operators. These entities face the impossible task of discerning whether a customer who receives money from abroad is an agent of a foreigner, or whether their funds are exempt. The penalty for getting this wrong is a gob smacking one million dollars.

There still remain hot-button legal issues: Article 1 on sovereignty, Articles 28 and 42 on the right to be heard and to fair treatment, Article 29 on freedom of speech, Article 38 on the right to participate in one’s own governance and to influence the policies of government, and the dud certificate of financial implications, which was no certificate at all. There is also the big question of whether government should withdraw the amended Bill and resubmit it for further public comment. The litigators are relishing a grand showing at the Constitutional Court. This Bill, and the way Parliament has handled it, is a perfect storm to iron out many points on the legislative process and the people’s sovereignty.

Parliament will probably pass the Bill today Tuesday, 5 May 2026. The Committee proceedings at Munyonyo on Sunday were hot. We pray for calm and sober minds.

It is ironic that fighting this Bill, that purports to protect their sovereignty, has united Ugandans across political, regional, ethnic, religious, professional, and other divides, even awakening some from the silent “my children are still young” crowd. Ugandans have shown their sovereignty, hats off to all. Indeed, ALL power belongs to the people.

 

Read More
ccgea May 5, 2026 0
WhatsApp Image 2026-05-02 at 11.52.33
Sovereignty Bill

The Sovereignty Bill’s Achilles heel: an invalid certificate of financial implications.

By Dr. Sarah Bireete

The Attorney General has significantly amended the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, but no amount of redrafting can heal the Achilles heel of the Bill: the Certificate of Financial Implications that accompanied it into Parliament does not comply with the law. The Bill is therefore invalid.

What is a Certificate of Financial Implications, and why does it matter?

Before any Bill can be introduced in Parliament, the law requires it to be accompanied by a Certificate of Financial Implications, a document issued by the Minister of Finance that tells Parliament what the Bill will cost, what revenue it might generate, and how it will affect the economy. This requirement is in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and reinforced by the Guidelines for Financial Clearance issued by the Ministry of Finance.

The certificate is the essential mechanism by which Government shows to Parliament, and by extension, the country, that a Bill’s financial consequences have been considered and can be met. Without it, Parliament is legislating blind.

What must a valid certificate have?

The PFMA requires the certificate to do three things: show the estimates of revenue and expenditure over at least two years and show the impact of the Bill on the economy. The Guidelines then prescribe a rigorous analytical framework to make the economic impact assessment.

What is wrong with the certificate for the Sovereignty Bill?

The certificate issued for the Sovereignty Bill falls short of these requirements in every respect.

The certificate shows an added financial burden of Shs 29 billion but presents this as a single aggregate sum. There is no itemization, no underlying method, no time frame, and no distinction between capital and recurrent expenditure. This is precisely the kind of opaque lump-sum presentation that the Guidelines were designed to prevent.

The certificate falsely claims that the Bill “is not anticipated to directly generate revenue to Government” yet the Bill creates multiple revenue streams: registration and renewal fees, fines, forfeiture of funds, and penalties payable to the Consolidated Fund. In fact, the Bill has the highest fines in Uganda’s legislative history. The Uganda Law Society showed all of these revenue mechanisms and accused the certificate of presenting “only the expenditure side of the fiscal equation.”

Furthermore, the description of the Bill contained in the certificate did not match the actual contents of the Bill and included several concepts that do not appear anywhere in the Bill itself raising the question of whether the certificate was prepared with reference to the correct text at all.

Most critically, the certificate has no economic impact assessment whatsoever. Its treatment of the Bill’s impact on the economy is limited to a single paragraph asserting that the Bill will “strengthen Uganda’s policy autonomy and national security architecture.” This is not an economic impact assessment. It does not engage with any of the macroeconomic consequences that the Bank of Uganda later showed in devastating detail.

What did the Bank of Uganda say?

The Bank of Uganda’s technical assessment warned that the Bill was an economic disaster a voluntary shock that could destabilize the balance of payments and lead to a massive depreciation of the shilling. The Bank warned of the risk of FATF grey-listing, loss of correspondent banking relationships, and the criminalization of critical economic research through the Bill’s “economic sabotage” offense, asking pointedly whether the Bank’s own publications on inflation or currency depreciation could be prosecuted. The Bank warned that the Bill risked “reversing three decades of successful financial development.”

None of these concerns, not one, appears in the certificate. The Guidelines require stakeholder consultation, economic impact modelling, risk assessment, and distributional analysis. Had any of these steps been taken, the Bank of Uganda’s concerns would have been identified, quantified, and disclosed to Parliament before the Bill went ahead. They were not.

What is the legal consequence?

A document that does not satisfy any of the substantive requirements of the PFMA is not a “certificate of financial implications” within the meaning of the statute. It is a non-certificate, a document that bears the label but lacks the substance. A Bill that proceeds in such circumstances contravenes a mandatory statutory requirement and an essential step in the legislative process.

There is a counterargument. In Fox Odoi-Oywelowo v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court held that the economic impact requirement “does not go to the root of the certificate” and that non-compliance with it would not vitiate the constitutionality of the resultant Act. The Court characterized the certificate’s function as being primarily concerned with budgetary compliance. The Court also relied on a deeming provision in the statute, which provides that a certificate is deemed issued after 60 days even if none has been produced, to reason that if total absence of a certificate does not vitiate a Bill, partial non-compliance cannot either.

In Male Mabirizi v Attorney General, while the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments on the importance of the certificate, it resolved the problem by striking out only those amendments that were not supported by a valid certificate.

These arguments are distinguishable. The Bill in issue in Fox Odoi concerned homosexuality, and Bill in Male Mabirizi concerned age limits for the presidency. In Fox Odoi, the certificate deficiency was limited to the omission of an economic impact assessment for a law whose fiscal consequences were genuinely minimal. The Sovereignty Bill is a different kettle of fish altogether precisely because of its potential economic impact. Its certificate also fails on nearly every statutory requirement: wrong concept of the Bill, no itemized costing, no revenue identification, factually incorrect revenue assessment, no economic impact analysis, no stakeholder consultation, and no risk assessment. A certificate deficient in every respect cannot be equated with one that merely omits a single subsidiary element.

Moreover, the deeming provision addresses the mischief of executive inaction, preventing the Minister from vetoing a Bill by simply refusing to issue a certificate. It does not authorize the Minister to issue a certificate devoid of content and thereby circumvent the statutory requirements that Parliament itself enacted.

What should happen now?

The Bill is scheduled for plenary debate. But the certificate accompanying it has still not been reissued, corrected, or supplemented. In typical fashion for public officers, Minister Lugoloobi, has ignored his constitutional duty of accountability to the people and left the Uganda Law Society letter still unanswered.

Parliament is being asked to legislate on a Bill with macroeconomic consequences unknown, unquantified even after the stark warnings of the central bank.

Even the amendments now proposed by the Attorney General must be subjected to a fresh review of financial implications. Amendments that alter the regulatory architecture inevitably change the fiscal equation, and Parliament cannot carefully consider those amendments without knowing their cost.
Parliament should halt further consideration of this Bill until a certificate is issued that complies with the PFMA and the Guidelines, one that itemizes costs, quantifies revenue, assesses economic impact, consults the Bank of Uganda and other stakeholders, and discloses the risks that Parliament needs to understand before it votes.

The legal archers stand ready and aplenty with their bows primed, should this Achilles of a Bill attempt to enter the law books. Must history repeat itself?

Dr. Sarah Bireete is the Executive Director of Center for Constitutional Governance.

Read More
ccgea May 2, 2026 0
WhatsApp Image 2026-05-01 at 12.19.33
Sovereignty Bill

Why the Sovereignty Bill must be withdrawn.

By Phillip Karugaba

There is an unwritten rule, supported by parliamentary precedent, that where substantial amendments are made to a Bill, that Bill must be withdrawn, redrafted, re-gazetted and reintroduced to Parliament at first reading.

The rationale for this rule is that the Bill is no longer that which was presented to the public, and the public have not had an opportunity to comment on the amendments.

Such withdrawal was done by the Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka on the Public Service Pension Fund Bill, on May 23, 2023 before the Deputy Speaker Hon. Tayebwa, and for the Sexual Offenses Bill on 19 February 2019, before the Deputy Speaker Hon. Jacob Oulanyah (RIP).

In neighboring Kenya, the Finance Bill 2023 was nullified by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that 18 substantial amendments were introduced on the floor of Parliament, bypassing the legislative process for public participation.

Applied to the facts of the Sovereignty Bill, the proposed amendments recast the whole foundation of the law. The key definitions and the application clause of the Bill that are the heart and engine of the Bill, have been fundamentally recast. The definitions of “foreigner” and “agent of a foreigner” Clause 2(2) of the Bill, which set the scope and application of the law have been fundamentally changed to focus on engagement in political activities rather than the principal-agent relationship in the original Bill. 5 new definitions of “foreign policy”, “government policy” “political activities”, “interests of a foreigner”, “interests of Uganda” have been introduced. Clause 2(2) on application of the Bill has been amended to introduce (4) and (5) creating massive exemptions of categories of monies that are exempted from the Bill.

The change in scope and application of the bill is also amplified by the letter of His Excellency, the President on the Bill in which he disassociated himself from the current Bill and directed the Chief Whip Hamson Obua and the Chairpersons of the relevant Parliamentary Committees “to make the Bill concentrate on the sovereignty of policy-decision-making and not to meander in the areas of the freedom of private enterprise transfers private money transfers of church donations”.

The Bill with amendments is therefore a new proposition, fundamentally different from its original. In exercise of their sovereignty under Article 1 of the Constitution, and in particular the right to participate in their governance under Article 38, Ugandans have a right to public participation on the amended Bill. The Bill must therefore be withdrawn and reintroduced in full compliance of all legislative process.

The certificate of financial implications that never was

The law requires that a Bill, be supported by a certificate of financial implications, stating the cost of implementation of the Bill, and the economic impact that the Bill will have in application. The certificate that accompanied the of Sovereignty Bill was signed by Minister Amos Lugoloobi. It achieved neither of the above and was no certificate in law. The certificate wrongly states that the Bill will not generate revenue, yet the Bill provides for application and renewal fees, for certificates of registration of foreigners and prescribes the highest penalties in Uganda’s entire legislative history, as high as USD 1 million. The certificate also fell short on assessment of the economic impact of the Bill.

As was ably demonstrated by Mr. Michael Atingi-Ego, Governor Bank of Uganda, the Bill is an “economic disaster”, a “voluntary shock” with potential to upset Uganda’s balance of payments position, eroding our foreign reserves and risking a massive depreciation of the Uganda Shilling. This would jeopardize the very sovereignty the Bill purports to preserve.”

The case for a new certificate and full consideration of the economic impact of the Bill by government is made doubly so by the amendments to the Bill. Hopefully the new certificate will be issued in full consultation with the Bank Of Uganda and other agencies such as the Financial Intelligence Authority and the Insurance Regulatory Authority.

Constitutional conflict issues

The constitutionality of the Bill even as amended remains deeply contentious. Starting with Article 1, the Bill inverts the whole concept of sovereignty of the people, taking way fundamental rights of the people and making them subject to the permissions of a single appointed official, the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs.

The offense of economic sabotage in Clause 13, also offends Article 29(1)(a) on freedom of speech and of expression, and flies wholly in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Charles Onyango Obbo v AG that nullified the offense false news and the decision of the Constitutional Court in Alternative Digitalk v AG which establishes a new standard for freedom of speech anchored in Uganda’s international treaty obligations. It is absolutely incredible that the Bill seeks to reintroduce offences similar to those already nullified by our highest courts.

The Clause 7 restrictions from engaging in influencing government policy offend Article 38 on the right to participate in the affairs of government and to influence the policies of government.

Regulatory fragmentation and already existent laws

In several respects, the Bill, seeks to reenact provisions, already existent in other laws, such as the Political Parties and Organizations Act and the Non-governmental Organizations Act. The result is a regulatory mishmash and a compliance nightmare. The same circumstances are governed by different laws, with different reporting requirements and different criminal sanctions that can only leave the citizen subject to the law, bewildered.

Bill is still not on the Parliament website

It remains a deep source of puzzlement and anguish that with all the public interest in this Bill, it is still not available on the website of Parliament.

Read More
ccgea May 1, 2026 0