By Muhimbise George
The recent attempt by the Leadership of the Opposition in Parliament, spearheaded by Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi, to boycott the regional Parliamentary sittings in Northern Uganda has inadvertently highlighted critical inefficiencies in Ssenyonyi’s leadership. Despite his call for opposition MPs to abstain from the sessions—deeming them a waste of resources—over 30 opposition MPs attended the Gulu meeting, raising serious questions about the unity and strategic coherence of the opposition in Parliament.
The decision to boycott these sittings was, in essence, a strategic misstep. The choice to hold the first regional session in Gulu, within the greater Acholi sub-region, was significant. This area is represented by opposition MPs such as Gilbert Olanya and Beti Awol Ocan, who are deeply rooted in their constituencies. Expecting these MPs to boycott such a historic event in their own political backyard was unrealistic and potentially damaging to their careers. Furthermore, with Buganda’s turn for regional sittings around the corner, it would be equally absurd for MPs from this opposition stronghold to shun a session held in their home region, such as in Masaka City.
Ssenyonyi’s decision has placed opposition MPs in a difficult position, forcing them into a controversy that could have been easily avoided. Effective leadership involves making decisions that unify and strengthen the team, not ones that expose them to ridicule and division.
Moreover, the optics of a National Unity Platform (NUP) leader from Buganda boycotting a sitting in Gulu, where all NUP MPs hail from Buganda, could easily be interpreted as an attempt to sideline the North. This is especially sensitive given the historical political tensions between Buganda and other regions. The controversy surrounding the treatment of the late Jacob Oulanya, which sparked a fierce exchange between Chief Justice Owiny Dollo and the Buganda Kingdom, is still fresh in the collective memory. NUP leaders must recognize that they are not merely representing their party but also the broader political interests of Buganda and must tread carefully to avoid reigniting old tensions.
The boycott decision was made unilaterally by the Shadow Cabinet without consulting other opposition MPs, a move confirmed by the party whips of the Democratic Party (DP) and the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC). This lack of consultation has sown seeds of disobedience and division within the opposition ranks.
Hon. Richard Lumu’s recent request for leave to table a private member’s bill seeking to amend the Administration of Parliament Act to allow for the election of a Leader of Opposition is a direct consequence of this discontent. Such a bill, if pursued, could fracture the opposition further, weakening their collective strength in Parliament.
History offers a clear lesson: boycotts often lead to division and weakening of the boycotters. In 1994, the UPC’s decision to boycott the Constituent Assembly, aimed at delegitimizing President Museveni’s exercise, backfired. The party’s refusal to participate in the 1996 elections, compounded by Obote’s suspension of leaders like the late Cecilia Ogwal who defied the boycott, led to deep divisions within the UPC and a significant loss of membership—a blow from which the party has never fully recovered.
In conclusion, the failed boycott not only exposes the inefficiencies in Ssenyonyi’s leadership but also serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of poor strategy and unilateral decision-making. As the opposition navigates these challenges, it is imperative that leaders prioritize unity, consultation, and a clear-eyed assessment of the broader implications of their decisions. Only then can they hope to present a formidable challenge to the ruling party.
The author is a political analyst.
