Parliament’s decision on Thursday to approve an increase in the number of Cabinet and State ministers could not have come at a worse time.
Shortly after being approved for another term as Prime Minister, Ms Robinah Nabbanja tabled a motion seeking Parliament’s approval to increase the number of Cabinet ministers from the constitutional limit of 21 to 30 and State ministers from 21 to 51.
The House, dominated by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), overwhelmingly backed the proposal, effectively legalising President Museveni’s newly announced 83-member Cabinet.
The government defended the expansion on grounds that Uganda’s population has grown from 20 million in 1995 to 45.9 million today and that the increase in districts from 39 to 146 has created new governance demands requiring additional ministerial oversight.
Ms Nabbanja also argued that flagship government programmes such as the Parish Development Model (PDM), Emyooga, and climate resilience initiatives require specialised ministerial supervision to ensure effective implementation and equitable service delivery.
While those arguments may appear reasonable on the surface, they fail to address the harsh economic realities confronting ordinary Ugandans today.
The country is still recovering from the economic shocks triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. Many households continue to struggle with unemployment, especially among the youth, rising costs of living, and persistent poverty levels.
Businesses are collapsing, public debt remains high, and social services such as healthcare and education continue to face underfunding.
At such a time, expanding the size of Cabinet sends the wrong message to taxpayers already burdened by economic hardship.
Article 113(2) of the Constitution deliberately limits the President to appointing 21 Cabinet ministers and 21 State ministers.
The framers of the Constitution clearly understood the dangers of bloated governments and excessive political appointments.
They sought to create a lean and efficient Executive structure capable of serving citizens without placing unnecessary pressure on public resources. Although Article 114(3) permits Parliament to approve variations, that provision was never intended to become the norm.
Unfortunately, successive Parliaments have routinely approved increases without seriously questioning whether such expansions are necessary or beneficial to the public.
The argument that more districts automatically require more ministers is also weak. Effective governance is not necessarily measured by the number of ministers appointed, but by the efficiency, accountability, and performance of government institutions.
Indeed, the same government recently championed the rationalisation of agencies as a cost-cutting measure aimed at reducing wasteful expenditure.
It is, therefore, contradictory for the government to defend rationalisation on one hand while expanding the size of the Cabinet on the other.