Uganda has for some time watched its public institutions struggle under the weight of bureaucracy, political interference and misplaced priorities. Parliament, in particular, has previously faced serious questions about its image, independence and ability to effectively perform its constitutional role. That is why the first 100 days of Speaker Jacob Oboth-Oboth are worth reflecting on.
Last week marked 100 days since Oboth-Oboth assumed the leadership of Parliament, and one would say his tenure has started on a good note. The effort to empower parliamentary committees is worth noting. Committees are the engine of Parliament, responsible for scrutinising government programmes, examining public expenditure, investigating failures and holding public officials to account.
The Speaker has allowed committees greater control over their operations and budgets while committing to facilitate their work. He has also reduced his office’s discretionary budget from more than Shs24 billion to about Shs3.9 billion, redirecting resources towards parliamentary committees.
There has also been greater space for MPs across the political divide to debate and process committee reports. Parliament should not be an institution where everyone is expected to think alike. Its strength lies in allowing different views to be debated openly.
The restoration of media access is another positive move. Daily Monitor and NTV have been allowed back into Parliament, reopening an important channel between the institution and the public. Parliament represents citizens, and citizens must be able to see and understand what happens inside it.
Institutional processes within Parliament have also shown signs of greater openness, including the advertisement of parliamentary jobs. At the same time, committees have increasingly gone to the ground to inspect projects and investigate government programmes, demonstrating a Parliament that is prepared to follow public resources beyond paperwork.
These are encouraging beginnings. But 100 days do not make a legacy. They only establish a direction.
The first major test of that direction could be the proposed Bill by Denis Namara seeking to provide for the election of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament by members of the Opposition. How the Speaker handles this matter will be closely watched and could shape the image of Parliament going forward.
The challenge is delicate. Parliament must be independent enough to scrutinise government without being perceived as anti-government. The line between an independent Parliament and an anti-government Parliament is very thin, and how the Speaker manages that line will be critical to his legacy.
The bigger test, however, may come from Uganda’s political future. The country is approaching a period in which questions of political transition could become increasingly important. Whatever form such a transition takes, Parliament will inevitably have a role to play.
How Parliament conducts itself during such a period could determine whether it emerges as a stronger constitutional institution, whether it becomes vulnerable to being weakened or overridden, or whether it becomes the shock absorber that helps the country manage competing interests and maintain equilibrium.
That is why the Speaker’s first 100 days should neither be dismissed nor over-celebrated. The start has been good. Committees have been strengthened, resources redirected towards oversight, media access improved, institutional processes opened and parliamentary scrutiny taken closer to the people.
But the harder questions are still ahead. Can this momentum be maintained? Can he protect Parliament’s independence without turning it into an anti-government institution? And can he lead Parliament responsibly through whatever political transition Uganda may face? One hundred days cannot answer these questions. But they can give Ugandans hope and a reason to watch closely what comes next.