Inside the clash over army representation in Parliament

__________________

During the Constituent Assembly (CA) debates (1993-1995) that produced the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, the issue of whether the army should be represented in Parliament was one of the most heated and controversial topics.

The CA was faced with two questions: should the army have seats in Parliament at all, and if so, should it be a permanent arrangement or a temporary measure that could be reviewed? The first constitutional review was meant to happen after 10 years, and then every five years thereafter.

Delegates sympathetic to the National Resistance Army (NRA) strongly defended army representation. They argued that the army had played a decisive role in stabilising Uganda after years of turmoil and, therefore, deserved a constitutional voice.

To them, including the army would help guarantee stability by preventing future military coups, since soldiers would have a legal channel for participation in decision-making.

They also described the NRA as a “people’s army” drawn from all regions of Uganda. Its presence in Parliament, they argued, was a reflection of national character rather than domination by a single group. Army representatives were to be treated as part of the “special interest groups”, alongside women, youth, workers and persons with disabilities.

Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu, one of the senior NRA officers in the CA, argued that the army’s role in politics should not be judged by numbers or tribal balance but by its professionalism and orientation.

He admitted that the army had its “own weaknesses” but stressed that it had the internal capacity to recognise mistakes, correct them and strengthen itself, where need be.

He cautioned against reducing the debate to ethnic representation, noting that recruitment already came from all regions. What mattered most, Muntu said, was whether the army was “pro-people or anti-people.” To him, the critical task was to build a professional army run without political sentiments, rather than a mathematically representative but repressive force.

Some civilian delegates, however, saw army representation as dangerous. CA delegates Cecilia Ogwal and Miria Matembe were among the opponents of the idea. They warned that allowing soldiers to sit in Parliament blurred the line between civilian authority and military power, undermining democracy. To them, real civilian supremacy required that the army remain firmly outside legislative politics.

Others, such as Sam Njuba, Ben Wacha and Dick Nyai, argued that embedding the army in Parliament risked militarising politics. They pointed out that Uganda was only emerging from decades of instability caused by the misuse of armed force. Instead of opening a new democratic chapter, army representation threatened to entrench the ruling movement and intimidate civilian voices.

Even those willing to accept the idea insisted it should be temporary. They believed that the army could be recognised for its historical role in the short term, but should eventually withdraw from the Legislature once the country had stabilised.

THE COMPROMISE

Faced with these opposing views, the CA reached a compromise. Article 78(1)(c) of the 1995 Constitution provided for army representation in Parliament as part of the special interest groups. Ten seats were initially reserved for serving army officers, chosen by the Army Council chaired by the commander-in-chief.

This was presented as part of the “broad-based government” model promoted by President Yoweri Museveni.

Army representation, which was in place during President Milton Obote’s regime, has remained one of the most contested legacies of the 1995 Constitution.

Supporters see it as recognition of the UPDF’s central role in Uganda’s peace and security.

Critics, however, argue that it entrenches military influence in politics and undermines the principle of civilian supremacy.

CONSTITUTIONAL RULE

When the NRA overran Kampala under the leadership of Museveni, the journey to transit to constitutional rule started almost immediately with the issuance of Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986.

The legal notice established the legal framework for the National Resistance Movement government, vesting legislative powers in the National Resistance Council and outlining the code of conduct for the NRA.

The CA, which comprised representatives elected by the people under the chairmanship of James Wapakhabulo on September 22, 1995, promulgated the Constitution, effectively replacing the one of 1967.

In the run-up to October 7, New Vision will publish highlight stories that showcase the country’s progress under the Constitution.

VISION GROUP MAGAZINE

To commemorate the 30th anniversary of Uganda’s Constitution promulgation, Vision Group will on October 7 publish a comprehensive magazine that highlights the milestones covered under the Constitution.