Discuss the history of legislation activities in Uganda, give developments in legislative

activities; restorative legislation and its defense in Uganda’s constitution; precolonial and
post-colonial period

1|Page
The Historical Development of Legislative Activities in Uganda

Introduction to Legislative Action

Legislative action refers to the development, drafting, introduction, consideration, modification,

adoption, rejection, review, enactment, or defeat of any bill, resolution, amendment, report,
nomination, proposed administrative rule, or other matters by the legislature or either house, or
any committee, subcommittee, joint or select committee, or by a legislator or employee of the
legislature acting in an official capacity. It also includes the action of the governor in approving
or vetoing any bill or portion thereof, and the action of the governor or any agency in the
development of a proposal for introduction in the legislature.

Definition of Legislature

A legislature is a deliberative assembly with the legal authority to make laws for a political entity
such as a country, nation, or city. Legislatures are often contrasted with the executive and
judicial powers of government. Laws enacted by legislatures are typically known as primary
legislation. In addition, legislatures may observe and steer governing actions, with the authority
to amend the budget involved. The members of a legislature are called legislators. In a
democracy, legislators are most commonly popularly elected, although indirect election and
appointment by the executive are also used, particularly for bicameral legislatures featuring an
upper house.

Historical Context of Legislative Development

Among the earliest recognized legislatures was the Athenian Ecclesia. In the Middle Ages,
European monarchs hosted assemblies of the nobility, which later developed into predecessors of
modern legislatures. These were often named the Estates. The oldest surviving legislature is the
Icelandic Althing, founded in 930 CE.

Functions of Legislatures

2|Page
Democratic legislatures have six major functions: representation, deliberation, legislation,
authorizing expenditure, making governments, and oversight.

1. Representation:
Representation can be achieved in several ways:
o Formalistically: How the rules of the legislature ensure representation of
constituents.
o Symbolically: How constituents perceive their representatives.
o Descriptively: How well the composition of the legislature matches the
demographics of the wider society.
o Substantively: How well representatives actually respond to the needs of their
constituents.
o Collectively: How well representatives represent the interests of society as a
whole.
2. Deliberation:
One of the major functions of a legislature is to discuss and debate issues of major
importance to society. This activity can take place in two forms: in debating legislatures,
such as the Parliament of the United Kingdom, where lively debate frequently occurs,
and in committee-based legislatures like the United States Congress, where deliberation
takes place in closed committees.
3. Legislation:
While legislatures nominally have the sole power to create laws, the substantive extent of
this power depends on the political system. In Westminster-style legislatures, the
executive can essentially pass any laws it wants, as it usually has a majority of legislators
behind it. In contrast, committee-based legislatures in continental Europe and those in
presidential systems have more independence in drafting and amending bills.
4. Authorizing Expenditure:

The origins of the power of the purse, which legislatures typically have in passing or
denying government budgets, go back to the European assemblies of nobility that
monarchs had to consult before raising taxes. For this power to be effective, the

3|Page
 legislature must be able to amend the budget, have an effective committee system,
sufficient time for consideration, and access to relevant background information.

5. Oversight:
Legislatures hold the government accountable through questioning, interpellations, and
votes of confidence.

Function in Authoritarian Regimes

In contrast to democratic systems, legislatures under authoritarianism are used to ensure the
stability of the power structure by co-opting potential competing interests within the elites. This
is achieved by:

 Providing legitimacy
 Incorporating opponents into the system
 Providing some representation of outside interests
 Offering a way to recruit new members to the ruling clique
 Being a channel through which limited grievances and concessions can be passed

Internal Organization

Each chamber of the legislature consists of a number of legislators who use parliamentary
procedures to debate political issues and vote on proposed legislation. There must be a certain
number of legislators present to carry out these activities; this is called a quorum. Some
responsibilities, such as giving first consideration to newly proposed legislation, are usually
delegated to committees made up of a few members of the chamber(s). Members of a legislature
typically represent different political parties, and members from each party generally meet as a
caucus to organize their internal affairs.

Relation to Other Branches of Government

Legislatures vary widely in the amount of political power they wield compared to other political
entities such as judiciaries, militaries, and executives. Political scientists M. Steven Fish and
Matthew Kroenig constructed a Parliamentary powers index to quantify the different degrees of

4|Page
power among national legislatures. The German Bundestag, the Italian Parliament, and the
Mongolian State Great Khural were identified as the most powerful, while Myanmar's House of
Representatives and Somalia's Transitional Federal Assembly (now replaced by the Federal
Parliament of Somalia) were identified as the least powerful.

Some political systems follow the principle of legislative supremacy, which holds that the
legislature is the supreme branch of government and cannot be bound by other institutions, such
as the judicial branch or a written constitution. Such a system renders the legislature more
powerful. In parliamentary and semi-presidential systems, the executive is responsible to the
legislature, which may remove it with a vote of no confidence. Conversely, under the separation
of powers doctrine, the legislature in a presidential system is considered an independent and
coequal branch of government alongside the judiciary and executive. Nevertheless, many
presidential systems allow for the impeachment of the executive for criminal or unconstitutional
behavior. Legislatures may sometimes delegate their legislative power to administrative or
executive agencies.

Legislative Development in Uganda

When Uganda came under British control, the governance was initially managed mainly by order
of the commissioner. In 1921, the legislative council was formed to make laws and regulations
for the administration of Uganda, marking Uganda's first legislature. In 1962, the legislature was
renamed the National Assembly. The legislature recognized by the 1962 independence
constitution was called Parliament, comprising the Head of State and the National Assembly. It
was the National Assembly that debated proposed laws; with the assent of the president, a
proposed law would become a passed National Assembly law.

Since independence in 1962, Uganda has had different legislative bodies. After Idi Amin's coup
d'état in 1971, he dissolved the parliament and ruled by decree, resulting in no parliament from
1971 to 1979. Following the liberation war in 1979, the legislature under the UNLA legislative
powers was held by the National Consultative Council (NCC). In 1980, people elected their
representatives to parliament under a multiparty system, but in 1985, the government was
overthrown, leading to the establishment of a military council under Tito Okello.

5|Page
Between 1986 and 1996, under Legal Notice No.1 of 1986, the National Resistance Council
(NRC) was vested with the supreme authority of the government, particularly the legislative
powers. In 1996, parliamentary elections were held, and a fully representative legislature was
installed with its full legislative powers.

Structure of the Ugandan Parliament

The Parliament of Uganda is the country's legislative body and is unicameral. The most
significant function of the Ugandan Parliament is to pass laws that provide good governance in
the country. Government ministers are bound to answer to the people's representatives on the
floor of the house. Through various parliamentary committees, Parliament scrutinizes
government programs, particularly as outlined in the State of the Nation address. Fiscal issues,
such as taxation and loans, require the sanction of Parliament after appropriate debate.
Parliament must also confirm some presidential nominations and may force a minister to resign
through a motion of censure.

The 11th Parliament (2021–2026) has a total of 557 seats, including 353 representatives elected
using first-past-the-post voting in single-winner constituencies. Using the same method, 146
seats reserved for women are filled, with one seat per district. Additionally, 30 seats are
indirectly filled via special electoral colleges: 10 by the army, 5 by youths, 5 by elders, 5 by
unions, and 5 by people with disabilities, along with 28 ex-officio members. In each of these
groups, at least one woman must be elected (at least two for the army group).

In 2016, the Parliament was composed of 288 constituency representatives, 121 district women
representatives, ten Uganda People's Defence Force representatives, five representatives of
youth, five representatives of persons with disabilities, five representatives of workers, and
seventeen ex-officio members. The Ugandan Parliament was established in 1962, shortly after
the country's independence.

Parliamentary History

1. First Parliament (1962–1963):

6|Page
 This body was known as the National Assembly. It had 92 members and was presided
over by Sir John Bowes Griffin, a British lawyer and former Ugandan Chief Justice.

2. Second Parliament (1963–1971):

During this period, Prime Minister Milton Obote abrogated the constitution and declared
himself President of Uganda in 1966. This parliament witnessed the abolition of Uganda's
traditional kingdoms and the declaration of Uganda as a republic. The speaker during this
parliament was Narendra M. Patel, a Ugandan of Indian descent. This parliament ended
when Idi Amin overthrew Milton Obote's government in January 1971.

3. Third Parliament (1979–1980):

Following the overthrow of Idi Amin in April 1979, a new legislative body known as the
Uganda Legislative Council was established. Initially, it had 30 members, which later
increased to 120. This was the Third Parliament, chaired by Edward Rugumayo, and it
continued to function until the general elections of December 1980.

4. Fourth Parliament (1980–1985):

This period marked the return of Milton Obote and the Uganda People's Congress (UPC)
following the disputed national elections of 1980. The speaker of the Fourth Parliament
was Francis Butagira, a Harvard-trained lawyer. This parliament ended when General
Basilio Olara Okello overthrew Obote and the UPC government in 1985.

5. Fifth Parliament (1986–1996):

Known as the National Resistance Council (NRC), the Fifth Parliament was established
following the end of the Ugandan 1981-1985 guerrilla war. It started with 38 historical
members of the National Resistance Movement and National Resistance Army and was
gradually expanded to include representatives from around the country. The speaker
during this parliament was Yoweri Museveni, who also concurrently served as the
President of Uganda.

7|Page
 6. Sixth Parliament (1996–2001):

The Sixth Parliament was constituted during one-party rule (NRM). James Wapakhabulo
served as speaker from 1996 until 1998. From 1998 until 2001, Francis Ayume, a
member of Parliament from Koboko District, served as speaker.

7. Seventh Parliament (2001–2006):

The Seventh Parliament was presided over by Edward Ssekandi. The most controversial
legislation passed during this period was the amendment of the constitution to remove
presidential term limits.

8. Eighth Parliament (2006–2011):

This was a continuation of the Seventh Parliament, with Edward Ssekandi as speaker and
Rebecca Kadaga as deputy speaker.

9. Ninth Parliament (2011–2016):

The Ninth Parliament was presided over by Rebecca Kadaga as speaker and Jacob
Oulanyah as deputy speaker.

10. Tenth Parliament (2016–2021):

In the Tenth Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga and Jacob Oulanyah remained in their posts as
speaker and deputy speaker, respectively.

11. 2017 Parliament Fight:

On September 27, 2017, a fight ensued during a legislative session of the Ugandan
Parliament over the legislation to remove the presidential age limit of 75 from the
Ugandan constitution. Following accusations from the parliamentary speaker against
certain lawmakers in the chamber of disorderly conduct, a full-fledged fight broke out,
involving thrown chairs and microphone stands used as clubs, leading to the removal of
some members by plainclothes security officers.

8|Page
 12. Eleventh Parliament (2021–present):

On March 25, 2022, Thomas Tayebwa was voted as the new Deputy Speaker of the
Parliament of Uganda.

Restorative Legislation

Restorative legislation refers to laws that incorporate restorative justice principles, focusing on
repairing the harm caused by wrongdoing rather than solely on punishment. This approach aims
to transform the justice system by emphasizing healing over retribution. It involves empowering
victims, offenders, and community members to actively participate in resolving conflict and
addressing the needs of everyone affected. These laws provide frameworks for processes like
victim-offender mediation and community circles, aiming for accountability, reconciliation, and
the prevention of future harm.

Key Principles of Restorative Justice in Legislation

Harm-Focused Approach:

Instead of focusing on punishment, restorative legislation emphasizes addressing the harm

inflicted on victims and the community. This principle recognizes that crime disrupts
relationships and community safety, and seeks to restore those relationships by prioritizing the
needs of victims and the community over mere punitive measures.

Victim Empowerment:

Restorative legislation gives victims an active role in the justice process, allowing them to
express their feelings, ask questions, and seek answers from the offender. This empowerment
fosters a sense of agency for victims, enabling them to contribute to the resolution of their own
cases and promoting healing through engagement.

Offender Accountability:

9|Page
Offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, understand the impact of their
behavior, and make amends. This principle highlights the importance of offenders recognizing
their wrongdoing, which is crucial for genuine remorse and personal transformation, ultimately
paving the way for rehabilitation rather than mere punishment.

Community Involvement:

Restorative legislation often includes community members in the process to help heal
relationships and promote a collective sense of responsibility. Community involvement not only
supports the victim and offender but also reinforces social bonds, encouraging collective
problem-solving and shared accountability for crime prevention.

Focus on Future Prevention:

By addressing root causes and fostering empathy, restorative processes aim to prevent future
offending and strengthen community bonds. This proactive approach emphasizes the importance
of understanding underlying issues that contribute to criminal behavior, such as socioeconomic
factors, mental health, and substance abuse, thereby creating a more supportive environment for
at-risk individuals.

How It Works in Practice

Restorative legislation provides the legal basis for structured processes such as:

Victim-Offender Mediation:

A facilitated meeting where a victim and offender discuss the crime and agree on how to repair
the harm. This process fosters direct communication, allowing both parties to share their
perspectives and feelings, which can lead to meaningful resolutions and personal growth.

Community and Family Group Conferencing:

Meetings involving the victim, offender, and their support networks to discuss the harm and
decide on a resolution. This inclusive approach ensures that various community voices are heard,

10 | P a g e
promoting a comprehensive understanding of the situation and facilitating collaborative
solutions.

Peace and Sentencing Circles:

Structured gatherings involving the community to address conflict, share experiences, and come
to a shared understanding and agreement. These circles aim to enhance community cohesion and
create a supportive environment that encourages accountability and healing.

Examples and Goals

Legislators and justice administrators can use restorative legislation to reform traditional justice
systems, shifting from punitive actions to methods that promote healing and accountability. For
instance, countries like New Zealand and Canada have successfully implemented restorative
justice initiatives within their legal frameworks.

The goal is to create a more compassionate and just system that prioritizes reconciliation,
healing, and reintegration into the community. By focusing on restorative outcomes, the justice
system can better serve individuals and society, fostering a culture of understanding and
collaboration that benefits everyone involved.

Restorative Legislation and Its Defense in Uganda’s Constitution

Restorative legislation refers to laws that embody principles of restorative justice, focusing on
repairing harm rather than merely punishing offenders. In Uganda, these principles are deeply
rooted in both pre-colonial and post-colonial contexts. The 1995 Constitution of Uganda
implicitly supports restorative approaches, particularly in its provisions for the right and duty to
defend the Constitution and restore it after its subversion. This legal framework emphasizes the
importance of citizen participation in governance and conflict resolution, thereby aligning with
restorative justice principles that prioritize communal healing and accountability.

Pre-Colonial Period

Community-Based Justice:

11 | P a g e
In pre-colonial Uganda, justice was primarily community-oriented, with elders and clan leaders
serving as mediators in disputes. These leaders were not only authoritative figures but also
custodians of cultural values and traditions. Their role was crucial in ensuring that resolutions
were not only fair but also culturally relevant and accepted by all parties involved. This
community-centric approach fostered trust, cooperation, and social cohesion, as decisions were
made collectively rather than imposed from above.

Focus on Reconciliation:

The central aim of traditional justice systems was to restore harmony rather than impose punitive
measures. This reconciliation-focused approach recognized that conflicts could disrupt social
order and relationships within the community. By prioritizing the restoration of relationships,
these systems emphasized the idea that community well-being was intertwined with individual
accountability, leading to a more cohesive society.

Compensation and Apology:

In traditional practices, offenders were expected to acknowledge their wrongdoing and express
remorse. Compensation, often in the form of livestock or other valuable goods, was a critical part
of the process. This compensation was not just a transactional exchange; it symbolized a
commitment to make amends and restore dignity to the victim. Additionally, the expectation of
forgiveness from the victim’s family reinforced community ties, encouraging healing and
fostering a sense of shared responsibility.

Truth and Healing:

Truth-telling was a vital component of the restorative model. The process allowed victims to
voice their pain and experiences, while offenders gained insight into the impact of their actions.
This emphasis on dialogue and understanding facilitated communal healing, as the community
collectively engaged in the process of reconciling and moving forward.

Post-Colonial Period

Colonial Legacy:

12 | P a g e
The colonial administration imposed a predominantly retributive justice system that served
colonial interests, marginalizing traditional practices. This shift disrupted the community's role in
justice, replacing culturally relevant practices with foreign legal frameworks that often failed to
resonate with local customs. As a result, the disconnect between the legal system and societal
values grew, leading to a loss of trust in formal justice institutions.

Constitutional Shifts:

Post-independence Uganda experienced significant constitutional changes, often characterized

by political instability and struggles over power dynamics. These shifts included attempts to
centralize authority within the state or to decentralize it to traditional kingdoms. This complex
legal landscape often sidelined the influence of customary practices, leading to a legal
environment that prioritized state-controlled justice over community-oriented approaches.

1995 Constitution:

The 1995 Constitution established a framework that recognizes the right and duty of citizens to
defend the Constitution and restore it if it is overthrown or abrogated. This commitment to
democratic principles underscores the importance of active citizen participation in governance
and accountability, aligning with restorative justice ideals that emphasize community
involvement and reconciliation.

Citizen Involvement:

The provision allowing citizens to resist or restore the Constitution implicitly supports restorative
action. Individuals engaged in these efforts are absolved of any offenses committed in the
process, thereby encouraging civic engagement. This legal framework fosters an environment
where citizens feel empowered to contribute to justice and governance, reinforcing community
ties and promoting restorative practices.

Cultural and Monarchical Restoration:

The 1995 Constitution also facilitated the restoration of traditional monarchies, focusing on
cultural roles rather than executive powers. This revival of cultural institutions brings back

13 | P a g e
traditional restorative elements into the socio-legal landscape, allowing for a coexistence of
modern legal frameworks with indigenous practices. These institutions often prioritize
reconciliation and community cohesion, providing a platform for addressing local grievances.

Continuing Tension:

The post-colonial era has presented a complex interplay between retributive and restorative
approaches to justice. Restorative justice is increasingly viewed as a means to manage conflict
and address the legacies of past violence, particularly in regions like northern Uganda, where
historical grievances remain unresolved. This tension reflects ongoing debates about the most
effective paths to achieve justice and healing in a society navigating the legacies of both colonial
and post-colonial rule.

Conclusion

In summary, Uganda's journey through pre-colonial and post-colonial periods illustrates the
evolution of restorative justice principles. While traditional community-based practices were
overshadowed by colonial retributive systems, the 1995 Constitution offers a renewed
commitment to restorative approaches, emphasizing citizen engagement, cultural restoration, and
communal healing. This legal framework not only honors Uganda's rich cultural heritage but also
seeks to build a more equitable and compassionate justice system, paving the way for a more
harmonious society.

14 | P a g e
REFERENCES

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. Retrieved from

https://statehouse.go.ug/the-constitution/

2. Busingye, D. (2020). Witch-Killings and the Law in Uganda. Journal of Law and
Religion, 35(2), 270-296. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2020.25

3. Kakooza, A. C. K. (n.d.). Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation in Uganda: A focus on

the practical aspects. UCUDIR. Retrieved from
https://ucudir.ucu.ac.ug/bitstreams/8328fb49-13fd-4c77-90b5-6b51d9b80041/download

4. Lomo, C. P. (2012). A truth commission for Uganda? Opportunities and challenges. SA

Crime Quarterly, 42, 27-42. Retrieved from https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?
script=sci_arttext&pid=S1996-20962012000200006

5. Tadria, H. M. (2020). Reconciling customary law and cultural practices with human
rights in Uganda. Obiter, 41(2), 237-260. Retrieved from
https://scielo.org.za/pdf/obiter/v41n2/03.pdf

15 | P a g e