The office of the Speaker must also be understood within this constitutional framework. Article 82 provides for the election of the Speaker, whose duty is to preside over proceedings and ensure order. The office is intended to serve the House, not to dominate it.
Whose House Is It Anyway? Reasserting the People’s Authority in Uganda’s Parliament
By Byayesu Agrippa Musinguzi
On April 21, 2026, during a press conference at the Democratic Party headquarters on Balintuma Road, Hon. Norbert Mao made a statement that warrants deeper reflection: “The House belongs to the people.”
In a political climate increasingly marked by allegations of corruption, patronage, and the centralisation of power within Parliament, this remark speaks directly to the constitutional foundation of Uganda’s democracy. It is not merely a political opinion—it is a constitutional reminder.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda is unequivocal. Article 1 states that all power belongs to the people and must be exercised through regular, free, and fair elections. Parliament, therefore, is not an autonomous power centre; it is a delegated institution whose authority flows from the electorate.
Rising Condom Prices Threaten Global HIV/AIDS Prevention Efforts Amid Middle East Tensions
This principle defines the role of Members of Parliament. Under Articles 77 and 78, MPs are elected to represent constituencies and special interest groups. Their mandate is to legislate, represent citizens, and hold the Executive accountable. In essence, they are agents of the people—not subordinates within internal parliamentary hierarchies.
Any system that distorts this relationship—whether through inducements, coercion, or undue influence—undermines the very idea of representation. It replaces accountability with allegiance and risks reducing Parliament to an instrument of control rather than a forum of the people.
The office of the Speaker must also be understood within this constitutional framework. Article 82 provides for the election of the Speaker, whose duty is to preside over proceedings and ensure order. The office is intended to serve the House, not to dominate it.
Injury Chaos at Nakivubo as Faulty Ambulance Delays Player’s Emergency Evacuation
Comparative democracies offer useful insight. In the United Kingdom, the Speaker of the House of Commons adopts strict political neutrality upon election, relinquishing party affiliation. In the United States, the Speaker of the House is openly partisan but operates within a system of strong institutional checks that limit unilateral control.
Uganda’s constitutional design leans toward neutrality. Where the Speaker is perceived to influence parliamentary decisions through inducements or centralised authority, the office risks straying from its intended role.
It is within this context that Mao’s statement gains significance.
Hon. Norbert Mao is a seasoned figure in Uganda’s political and legal landscape. A lawyer by profession and current Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, he has spent decades in public service. He previously served as Member of Parliament for Gulu Municipality and later as Chairman of Gulu District during a turbulent period in Northern Uganda’s history.
At the height of the conflict involving the Lord’s Resistance Army, Mao was involved in peacebuilding efforts, including engagement in processes linked to Joseph Kony. His career reflects a consistent commitment to dialogue, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
His political philosophy emphasises institutional strength over individual power. He has long argued that Uganda’s future depends on resilient institutions anchored in the will of the people.
Seen in this light, his declaration that “the House belongs to the people” is not rhetorical flourish. It is a statement of principle—and, arguably, a critique of current practice.
It also frames any prospective interest in the Speakership as more than a political contest. It becomes an argument for restoring Parliament to its constitutional role.
The implications are clear. Parliament derives its legitimacy from the people. MPs owe their primary loyalty to their constituents. And the Speaker exists to facilitate legislative business—not to command it.
These are not abstract ideals; they are constitutional imperatives.
Uganda’s democratic health depends on how faithfully these principles are upheld. If Parliament becomes a marketplace for inducements or a platform for centralised authority, it risks losing its identity as the people’s House.
That is the central concern—not merely who occupies the office of Speaker, but whether the institution itself remains accountable to the sovereignty from which it derives its power.
Mao’s words, therefore, should not be dismissed or reduced to partisan rhetoric. They deserve scrutiny.
Because ultimately, the question is not about personalities. It is about principle.
And the principle is clear: the House belongs to the people.
IGG Cracks Down on Absenteeism at Mukono Land Office After Surprise Inspection
