Legal hurdles await PLU in attempt to censure Joel Ssenyonyi: How Lumu’s bill would have helped

A section of Members of Parliament affiliated to the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) are currently buzzing with prospects of an unprecedented removal from office of the current Leader of Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi.

Gen Kainerugaba, the PLU Chairman who has tasked the legislators  to push for a new Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, following a public spat with the Nakawa West MP.

“I want a new leader of the opposition in Parliament. And I will get him. He will be endorsed by me,” he posted on X.

He later said he had instructed PLU to study how to remove Ssenyonyi from the position “as soon as possible”.

Kasambya County MP David Kabanda responded to the push and promised to deliver within two weeks.

“Count it done Sir. Two weeks are enough!” Kabanda said.

Yet while PLU may have many allies in Parliament, removing Ssenyonyi as Leader of the Opposition is not as simple as moving a motion on the floor of the House.

The current law gives that power to the opposition party with the largest number of MPs in Parliament. 

At the moment, that party is the National Unity Platform (NUP), which appointed Ssenyonyi to the office.

As such, Gen Kainerugaba’s call for PLU to study how to remove Ssenyonyi from the office faces a legal problem from the start.

PLU may lobby MPs. It may mobilise its supporters. It may mount political pressure. But under the current law, Parliament cannot censure the Leader of the Opposition in the same way it can remove the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, a minister or some parliamentary commissioners.

The Leader of the Opposition is not elected by the whole House. The office is created for the party in opposition to government with the biggest number of MPs.

Under the Administration of Parliament (Amendment) Act, 2006, that party elects the Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker only makes a formal announcement after the party has made its choice.

This makes the office different from the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and parliamentary commissioners, who are elected by Parliament.

How the Leader of the Opposition can leave office

The law sets out the grounds on which a Leader of the Opposition may cease to hold office.

The first is removal by the party that elected him or her. In Ssenyonyi’s case, that would mean NUP would have to withdraw him.

The second is resignation. Ssenyonyi can leave the office by writing to the right authority.

The third is leaving the party that elected him. If he ceased to be a member of NUP, he would lose the legal basis for holding the office.

The fourth is losing his seat as MP. If he ceased to be a Member of Parliament, he could not remain Leader of the Opposition.

The fifth is where the party that elected him loses its status as the largest opposition party in Parliament.

None of these grounds gives PLU, the ruling NRM side, or the whole House a direct power to remove him through a censure motion.

Parliament has rules for censuring ministers and removing other office bearers. But those rules do not create a censure route against the Leader of the Opposition.

A minister serves in the Executive. Parliament can censure a minister under the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure.

The Speaker and Deputy Speaker are elected by MPs. Parliament can remove them through a formal process.

Some parliamentary commissioners can also be removed by Parliament on grounds such as incompetence, misconduct or inability to perform their duties.

The Leader of the Opposition sits in Parliament, but the office belongs to the largest opposition party. The wider House does not choose the holder. It therefore cannot simply vote him out unless the law changes.

The process for removing the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is much clearer.

A motion for removal must start with seven days’ notice to the Clerk of Parliament. The notice must be signed by at least one-third of all MPs.

The Clerk must forward the notice to the Speaker or Deputy Speaker within 24 hours.

The motion must then be tabled in Parliament and listed for debate within 14 days.

The Speaker or Deputy Speaker facing removal has a right to appear in person. He or she can also be represented by a lawyer or another person of choice.

The affected officer cannot preside over the proceedings.

For the removal to succeed, at least two-thirds of all voting MPs must support the motion.

Mityana South MP Richard Lumu tried to change the law through the Administration of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

The Bill sought to alter the way the Leader of the Opposition is chosen.

Instead of leaving the decision to the largest opposition party, Lumu wanted all opposition MPs to take part in choosing the Leader of the Opposition.

The Bill also sought to create new grounds for removing the Leader of the Opposition. It proposed a wider role for opposition MPs in holding the office holder accountable.

That would have weakened the exclusive power of the largest opposition party.

For PLU, such a law would have opened a political door. It would not have allowed PLU or NRM MPs to vote out Ssenyonyi directly. But it would have allowed all opposition MPs to decide his fate.

In that case, PLU’s task would have shifted from looking for a non-existent House censure process to lobbying opposition MPs who are unhappy with NUP’s control of the office.

Still , even if Lumu’s bill had passed, the power to remove the Leader of the Opposition would still have rested with opposition MPs, not the entire Parliament.

That means PLU would have needed support from MPs outside NUP, and possibly some NUP rebels, to build a case against Ssenyonyi.

This would have been a political mobilisation exercise within the opposition bench.

Lumu’s Bill faced stiff resistance from opposition leaders, especially NUP, which saw it as an attempt to weaken the largest opposition party in Parliament.

Some government-side actors also showed discomfort with the proposal.

Critics argued that the Bill interfered with party autonomy. They said political parties should choose their own parliamentary leaders without outside interference.

The Bill was withdrawn in March 2026 before it became law.

Its withdrawal left the old law intact. That means the Leader of the Opposition remains a direct choice of the largest opposition party.

PLU can still mount political pressure against Ssenyonyi.

It can use allied MPs to raise the matter in Parliament. It can attack his leadership in public. It can attempt to build pressure within opposition ranks.

But unless NUP removes him, Ssenyonyi resigns, leaves NUP, loses his seat, or NUP ceases to be the largest opposition party, he remains protected by the current legal framework.

This makes Gen Kainerugaba’s push more political than legal for now.

For PLU to get a formal route, Parliament would first have to amend the law. That would take the country back to the same debate Lumu’s Bill sparked: whether the Leader of the Opposition should answer only to the largest opposition party or to the wider opposition bench.