Why CA delegates wanted title ‘honourable’ scrapped

_________________

At one moment, the debate during the Constituent Assembly (CA) shifted to titles, with some delegates proposing the scrapping of the title ‘honourable’.

This debate was sparked when the chairperson of the committee on rules and procedures, Steven Kavuma (Kyadondo North), presented a motion recommending that the title ‘member’ should be adopted instead of ‘honourable’.

However, this suggestion immediately met resistance from a section of members, who argued that the title ‘honourable’ evokes respect and social status.

Supporters of the ‘Honourable’ title also added that representation of people in Parliament is a privileged assignment that demands both dignity and recognition.

On his part, Chebet Maikut, the Kween County delegate, argued that the word ‘member’ will distinguish MPs from other public officials, such as judges and ministers who are referred to as honourables.

However, Gen. David Tinyefuza, now known as Sejusa, the National Resistance Army (NRA) delegate, dismissed fears of confusion, pointing out that: “Judges are referred to as ‘honourable’ and nobody is confused.”

Ntungamo delegate, Augustine Ruzindana, added that the term ‘members’ or ‘distinguished members’ was not only awkward but also prone to being mocked by the press.

On the other hand, several prominent delegates, including Cabinet ministers serving in the Assembly, preferred to keep the title “distinguished member.” Prof. Apolo Nsibambi urged caution, warning that disputes over titles could portray the Assembly as self-seeking.

“My feeling is that we are sending the wrong signals to the public as people more concerned with prestige than the serious work of constitution making,” he said.

However, Adoko Nekyon (Maruzi County) trivialised the title issue altogether, remarking that labels added no value to the quality of debate in Parliament.

“Titles do not matter. After all, some distinguished members may even spend their time discussing locusts, guinea worms, and cattle seminars in Parliament.”

Igara East delegate, Amanya Mushega, also weighed in, siding with the “distinguished” camp, but lost the debate during the voting drama episode.

When CA chairperson James Wapakhabulo put the matter to a voice vote, the outcome was too close to call. He was then compelled to order a headcount, with delegates physically moving to opposite sides of the main hall to be tallied.

The final result was a victory for the “honourable” title, which garnered 126 votes against 100 votes for “distinguished member.” Seven delegates abstained, among them local government minister at the time, Jaberi Bidandi Ssali (Nakawa delegate).

Beyond the title controversy, the CA also made several critical procedural decisions.

For instance, they legislated that any delegate missing four consecutive sittings without the chairperson’s permission would face disciplinary action by being publicly named. A quorum for conducting business was fixed at over half of the delegates.

Delegates also agreed to sit for at least 32 hours per week, with the option of meeting on Saturdays and Sundays if necessary (down from the 40 hours proposed by Kavuma’s committee).

It was further resolved that the chairperson would be ceremonially preceded in and out of the hall by a marshal carrying the national flag, while another flag would remain displayed prominently in the chamber.

At the start of the first sitting of each week, delegates would rise to sing the first verse of the national anthem.

In his report, Kavuma also recommended the establishment of five standing committees, supported by specialised subject committees to handle technical issues.

These were: Executive, Legislature and National Council of State Committee, National Objectives, Finance, Inspectorate of Government and Leadership Code Committee. Constitutional Citizenship and Local Government Committee.

Public Service, Defence and Security, Land and Environment Committee and Republic, Representation of the People and Fundamental Rights Committee.

Kavuma stressed that in the interest of transparency, all proceedings would be open to the public though delegates retained the right to hold closed sessions when deemed necessary. This practice has been carried to the present-day Parliament sessions and sittings.