The 11th Parliament of Uganda, under the leadership of Rt. Hon. Anita Among Magogo last year made history by holding its first rotational parliamentary sitting in Gulu commencing on 28th August 2024. While this move was celebrated by some as a step toward regional inclusivity and development, it also sparked significant debate about its necessity, cost, and impact. As an NRM cadre, I am compelled to objectively assess whether this initiative was a worthy venture, especially considering its social, political, and economic implications. The Gulu sitting rose critical questions about the allocation of public resources, the effectiveness of such initiatives, and the potential impact on the ruling party’s reputation.
Economic Implications: A Question of Priorities
The Gulu parliamentary sitting reportedly cost Ugx 5 billion, a staggering amount that drew criticism from opposition MPs, local leaders, and citizens. Critics argued that this money could have been better spent on addressing pressing needs in Northern Uganda, such as improving healthcare services, constructing roads, or providing scholastic materials for schools. Solomon Nokrach, a concerned citizen, aptly highlighted this concern, noting that the region continued to grapple with systemic challenges that require urgent attention.
Spending such a significant sum on a single parliamentary sitting, while symbolic, does little to address these deep-rooted issues. As a cadre, I worry that such expenditures could be perceived as wasteful, especially by taxpayers who expect their money to be used for tangible development.
Social Impact: Symbolism vs. Substance
Proponents of the Gulu sitting, including MPs Martin Mapinduzi Ojara, Betty Aol Ocan and others argued that it brought much-needed attention and economic activity to the region. While it was true that hosting Parliament in Gulu may have provided temporary benefits, such as increased business for local vendors and hotels, these gains were short-term and superficial. Real social transformation requires sustained investment in education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure among others—not a one-off event that drains public resources. Moreover, the sitting left many wondering whether the issues that were raised would translate into actionable solutions. If the problems of Northern Uganda persist, as they likely will, the sitting risks being seen as a mere publicity stunt rather than a genuine effort to address regional disparities.
Political Implications: A Double-Edged Sword
From a political perspective, the Gulu sitting presented both opportunities and risks for the NRM party. On one hand, it demonstrated the party’s commitment to inclusivity and regional development, which could bolster its image in Northern Uganda. On the other hand, the boycott by opposition MPs and the public outcry over the cost could tarnish the party’s reputation. Critics argued that the initiative was a political gimmick designed to create an illusion of progress while diverting attention from more pressing national issues. As for me, I am concerned that such perceptions could erode public trust in the party, especially if the rotational sittings fail to deliver tangible results.
Regional Disparities: A Flawed Argument
One of the justifications for rotational sittings was that they bring attention to marginalized regions. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, it impliedd that MPs could only effectively articulate issues affecting their regions when Parliament sits in their respective regions.
This undermines the very purpose of representation, as MPs are elected to advocate for their constituents at all times, not just during regional sittings. Second, it rose the question of whether the problems of Central Uganda have been solved simply because Parliament has sat there for decades. The persistent challenges in Kampala and surrounding areas prove that the location of parliamentary sittings is not a solution to regional disparities. What is needed is equitable resource allocation and effective representation, not symbolic gestures.
The Way Forward: Prudent Use of Public Resources
While the sitting may have been well-intentioned, it is clear that rotational parliamentary sittings are not the most effective way to address regional disparities. The resources spent on such initiatives could be better utilized to fund development projects that directly benefit the people.
I therefore urge Parliament to reconsider this approach and focus on more sustainable solutions. This includes increasing funding for regional development programs, strengthening oversight mechanisms to ensure effective implementation, formulating policies that curb corruption as the president has always done and fostering a culture of accountability among public officials.
Conclusion: A Worthy Venture?
The Gulu parliamentary sitting was undoubtedly a historic event, but its value remains questionable. While it brought temporary attention and economic activity to the region, I don’t think Northern Uganda’s underlying problems were addressed. The high cost of the sitting, coupled with the perception of wastefulness, risks damaging the August house’s reputation and eroding public trust.
As we move forward, it is imperative to prioritize prudent use of public resources and focus on initiatives that deliver lasting impact. Only then can we truly achieve inclusive development and uphold the principles of good governance that the NRM party stands for.
Phillip R. Ongadia- NRM Mobilizer
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at editorial@watchdoguganda.com
