Parliament in Uganda has approved a stringent new measure aimed at ensuring attendance at committee meetings, with penalties for those who fail to comply.
Under this regulation, committee members are required to be present at meetings unless they have received official leave.
Those who do not adhere to this rule risk being removed from the committee and facing a three-month ban on reappointment.
Committees are vital in parliamentary operations, as they conduct thorough reviews, investigations, and discussions on specific topics.
The new proposal stipulates that any member who misses ten meetings without an approved leave will be reported to the appropriate Whip, who will then issue a warning. Should the absences continue, the matter will then be escalated to the Speaker, who may forward it to the Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline.
This proposal is part of a broader set of amendments introduced by the Committee on Rules, Discipline, and Privileges, led by Abdu Katuntu, aimed at revising the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.
Dress code
Parliament has prohibited representatives of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) from donning camouflage military uniforms, as well as certain traditional African garments, during plenary and committee sessions.
The committee highlighted that it is unsuitable for MPs associated with the military to appear in combat attire at Parliamentary meetings, as such clothing evokes images of a battlefield.
With this new adoption, these MPs can only wear their official attire to the House.
This change comes after a thorough review of the parliamentary dress code, particularly under Rule 82(a)(v) and (b)(vi), which had previously permitted military uniforms within the House.
The revised regulations are designed to uphold the dignity and decorum of Parliament.
Additionally, the updated dress code allows for traditional formal attire, including the kanzu and coat for male members, the Hijab for women, and the gomesi for women.
The updated regulations have led to a shift away from certain traditional African garments, such as Madiba shirts, Kaunda suits, and other casual African attire.
During a session on February 13, 2025, Speaker Anita Among announced that the House had adopted a proposal prohibiting members from wearing informal African clothing in the chamber and during committee meetings.
The decision to eliminate combat uniforms from Parliament was met with approval from UPDF representatives, including the Minister of State for Internal Affairs Gen. David Muhoozi, who also previously served as Chief of Defence Forces.
Lt Gen. James Mugira, also seconded the measure, underscoring the need for order and discipline. “We are pleased to see order and decorum in the House,” he said.
Additionally, the revised dress code incorporates cravats and flaps as part of the formal attire for members, enhancing the overall uniformity and distinguished look within Parliament. Katuntu pointed out that some members have previously entered the chamber dressed inappropriately, comparing it to a marketplace.
“This is not too much to ask, colleagues. For those who are professionals, everyone knows that lawyers and medics dress in a certain way to distinguish themselves,” he noted.
Another suggestion to bar a censured minister from attending Parliament until the President makes a ruling was turned down, as it would violate the Constitution, which grants the President exclusive authority to dismiss a minister.
Additionally, the House reached a consensus that members who endorse a censure motion have the option to retract their signatures if they reconsider their stance.
David Kabanda (NRM, Kasambya County, Mubende) proposed including the censure of the Leader of the Opposition in the discussions, but this was not taken into account since the proposal had not undergone committee review.
Katuntu, the MP for Bugweri County, highlighted the absence of any provisions for censuring the Vice-President or the Prime Minister.
In another notable development, Parliament revised Rule 72(2) of the Rules of Procedure, imposing new limitations on how MPs can address the President’s conduct.
According to the updated rule, any concerns regarding the President must now be presented through a substantive motion, rather than during general debates, amendments, or inquiries.
Previously, such restrictions applied only to discussions about the Speaker, fellow MPs, the Chief Justice, and Judges.
MPs also dismissed a proposal to have the Human Rights Committee led by an Opposition MP. Asha Kabanda (NUP, Butambala District Woman Representative) had submitted a minority report on this issue, emphasizing that human rights are a crucial aspect of accountability.
Mariam Naigaga, the Woman Representative for Namutumba, voiced her endorsement for the proposal to allow the opposition to lead the committee responsible for checks and balances. However, Deputy Attorney General Jackson Kafuuzi countered that the move would signify a lack of confidence in the current leadership of the Human Rights Committee.
