Why opposition MPs want ministerial vetting hearings made public

____________________

A section of opposition politicians wants the vetting of ministers to be made public.

Led by John Baptist Nambeshe (Manjiya County, NUP), who in the 11th Parliament was a member of the Appointments Committee charged with the task, the MPs argue that the move would enhance transparency and accountability to the taxpayer.

Speaking to New Vision on June 1, 2026, Nambeshe hinged his argument on established practices in two original East African Community (EAC) countries, which, like Uganda, belong to the Commonwealth.

He noted that in those countries, citizens are allowed to submit memoranda supporting or objecting to nominees’ suitability, and proceedings are also covered by the media.

“We seem to be the odd man out. Their appointments committees are not as closed as ours. Ours are closed to the media while in Kenya and Tanzania, theirs are open to the public because if you have issues, for instance and evidence to adduce against a given nominee, you would easily access the committee and raise those issues of grave concern with the relevant membership of the committee,” he explained.

Relatedly, he also called for the debating of Appointments Committee reports on the floor, which is currently barred by Rule 176 of the Rules of Procedure. The rule provides that while the chairperson of the committee, who is the Speaker, can report to the House regarding any appointment made, respective reports are not subject to debate.

After this, the Speaker, in this case Jacob Oboth Oboth, communicates to the President in writing within three working days after the committee has taken a decision on any person nominated for appointment.

However, according to Nambeshe, allowing Members of Parliament (MPs) to exchange views on nominees’ suitability on the floor would add an extra layer of transparency to a process that is currently conducted behind closed doors in Uganda.

“By the way, even if a report was briefly made, it is not supposed to be debated by the House. That also ought to be changed; it is not like in other countries. Because I remember one time in Kenya, one of the ministerial appointments happened to be some questionable person, and the member in the House raised the matter, which was exhaustively debated. That is the way to go,” he said.

Otherwise, as things stand, Bbaale County MP Charles Tebandeke (NUP) argued that the process remains shrouded in mystery.

“I think what is required to effect this is to amend the Administration of Parliament Act and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. So that the way it is constituted, it shouldn’t only be a constituency of the Leader of Opposition, Leader of Government Business and a few members. Because the smaller the number of people on the committee, the more it opens up chances for corruption. It is very easy to corrupt a smaller group of people than a bigger House,” Tebandeke stated on Monday.

He added that the haste with which committee members dispose of business is another concern that needs to be addressed. In his view, the committee should take time to research and adduce evidence where contentious matters arise, including allegations such as those levelled at internal affairs state minister-designate Dr Lawrence Muganga, trade minister-designate Sanjay Tanna and foreign affairs state minister-designate Calvin Echodu, arising from alleged dual citizenship.

This, he noted, is contrary to section 19D and the Fifth Schedule of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act 2009.

Unfortunately, Tebandeke said the committee often operates in a knee-jerk manner, which has reduced its standing in the eyes of the public to that of a rubber stamp.

“The committee always works in a rush. It cannot hold onto a matter as it investigates,” he pointed out.

UPC speaks out

Equally, speaking to New Vision on Monday, Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) secretary general Fred Ebil backed his opposition colleagues, emphasising that he had also issued firm instructions to party members on the committee not to approve any nominee of questionable repute.

“There is nothing to hide, because these people serve the people of Uganda; it is important that they should make it public and open and as transparent as possible. So that the people of Uganda know the kind of leaders they are going to have,” Ebil said.

“We don’t want a raw deal as Ugandans. A good deal is by getting leaders who are not corrupt. That’s what I expect, and I have already briefed, especially the party person who is on the appointment committee, to ensure that they talk about credibility in terms of somebody’s background. If a nominee has a corruption record, we shall oppose that one. Two, the leaders must think about the people. You are not going there for yourself but for the people of Uganda,” he added.