Parliament has officially banned the wearing of military camouflage by members of parliament (MPs) representing the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in the august house.
The change, which was enacted during a plenary sitting on Monday, follows an amendment to the parliamentary rules of procedure that governs the conduct and decorum of MPs while considering national business.
The amendment to Rule 82, which defines the dress code of MPs, specifically prohibits UPDF members from wearing combat uniforms while in Parliament.
According to the new guidelines, military representatives will only be allowed to wear ceremonial uniforms during official functions.
“This amendment is aimed at maintaining the integrity of our parliamentary space and ensuring that MPs adhere to a dress code that reflects the professionalism of our legislature,” explained the Speaker of Parliament during the sitting.
“We are not banning UPDF attire altogether. This rule simply restricts the wearing of camouflage or combat gear in Parliament.”
Chairperson to rules committee Katuntu Abdul, who supported the amendment, clarified, “We are not banning UPDF attire.
Far from it! We are just saying that combat uniforms should not be allowed in the House. Ceremonial UPDF uniforms with ranks, however, will still be permissible.”
The move was not without controversy. While the new dress code amendments passed without issue, a separate suggestion to ban all military uniforms entirely was dismissed.
Some MPs, including those from the opposition, had called for a complete ban on military attire, arguing that it could be intimidating and inappropriate in a legislative setting.
However, Woman MP Aisha Kabanda, who represents Butambala district and also wrote a minority report on the new dress code, dissented from the majority view.
“Many people do not understand the variance in military dress, and I believe that military MPs should attend Parliament in civilian wear,” she asserted.
“Just as lawyers do not wear their gowns in the House, I believe UPDF representatives should follow the same principle.”
The new amendments have also affected the general dress code of all MPs. In the updated rules, attire such as transparent dresses and Kaunda suits will no longer be allowed.
African attire, with the exception of the Gomasi and Kanzu, will also be restricted to wearing accessories like a court.
This change has ignited a debate among MPs about the place of African wear in Parliament.
MP and minister of state for sports Ogwang peter voiced his concerns about the restriction on African attire, noting, “Uganda is in Africa, and Parliament should uphold African wear. I personally wear it to represent the culture of this country.”
Yet, his colleague, MP David Kabanda, offered a counter-argument: “African wear is not clearly defined. What about black cloth or other forms of attire that some may call African? We need to draw clear lines to prevent any misuse of the rule.”
In addition to the dress code changes, Rule 72 has also been amended to regulate behavior within the house.
The rule now mandates that any concerns regarding the president’s actions must be tabled through a motion, making it disorderly for MPs to impute improper motives during discussions.
There have also been proposals to enforce sanctions, such as expulsion from parliamentary premises, for MPs who defy the Speaker’s ruling or disrupt the communication process.
The Speaker of Parliament, however, expressed concerns over a proposed restriction to her powers.
The proposal would grant automatic audience to MPs seeking clarification or information on the floor of Parliament, provided that other MPs have made similar requests three times.
The Speaker protested the suggestion, arguing that it would unnecessarily limit her authority to manage the proceedings.
As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether these amendments will foster a more professional environment in Parliament or whether they will stifle diversity and the representation of Uganda’s cultural heritage in the legislative process.
