Uganda’s Parliament faces growing public outrage after giving citizens just one day to submit opinions on the crucial UPDF Amendment Bill 2025. The controversial move, described by critics as a “sham consultation,” has sparked accusations that lawmakers are deliberately silencing public input on legislation that could reshape the country’s criminal justice system.

The uproar began when a parliamentary notice appeared in newspapers on May 13, setting a shockingly tight deadline of May 14 for submissions. This 24-hour window for public memoranda on such significant legislation has left legal experts, activists, and ordinary citizens questioning whether this was genuine consultation or simply checking a box. Many see it as a cynical attempt to claim public participation while ensuring most Ugandans couldn’t possibly respond meaningfully.

One scathing memorandum submitted during the brief window captured the national frustration. The author argued that Parliament’s actions potentially violate Article 38 of Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to participate in public affairs. “Under normal circumstances, such a failure should invalidate any law passed this way,” the submission stated. Yet the same document expressed little hope the courts would intervene, reflecting widespread skepticism about checks and balances in Uganda’s current political climate.

The memorandum’s language grew increasingly blunt, describing Parliament’s move as “truly unconscionable” for denying proper public input on legislation affecting fundamental justice matters. This sentiment is spreading rapidly among citizens who feel deliberately excluded from a process that should include them. Many now believe the rushed consultation was mere theater – what one critic called “window dressing” for a decision already made behind closed doors.

“What’s the point of calling for public views if you don’t give people time to study the bill and respond thoughtfully?” asked Kampala-based lawyer David Muwonge. “This isn’t consultation – it’s insult.” His frustration echoes across social media platforms where Ugandans are sharing the hashtag #24HoursIsNotEnough to protest what they see as an undemocratic process.

The controversy touches deeper concerns about governance transparency. Parliament’s approach to this bill follows a worrying pattern of hurried, opaque lawmaking on sensitive issues. Last year, similar criticism emerged when major tax legislation was pushed through with limited debate. Now, with security-related laws at stake, citizens are pushing back harder against what they view as systematic exclusion from decision-making.

Some legal analysts warn the rushed process could undermine the bill’s legitimacy. Constitutional law professor Dr. Sarah Bireete notes that while courts typically defer to parliamentary procedure, such glaring disregard for public participation might give judges pause. “When a process so clearly mocks constitutional principles, it becomes harder for courts to ignore,” she explains. “But whether they’ll act is another question entirely.”

The single-day submission window appears particularly glaring given the bill’s potential impacts. Proposed changes to UPDF laws could affect military-civilian relations, justice procedures, and human rights protections. Such complex matters normally warrant weeks of public hearings, expert testimony, and community consultations – not a frantic day-long scramble for input.

Despite the impossible timeline, some citizens and organizations still attempted to submit views. One memorandum writer acknowledged the likely futility but insisted on participating anyway: “Those who think it’s pointless may be right, but I choose to speak up regardless.” This painful dilemma – between civic duty and disillusionment – captures Uganda’s current democratic challenge.

Opposition leaders have seized on the controversy. “This isn’t how democracy works,” said National Unity Platform spokesperson Joel Ssenyonyi. “When you treat citizens as afterthoughts in lawmaking, you undermine the very foundation of representative government.” The criticism puts Parliament’s leadership in an awkward position as they balance legislative priorities with public perception.

As the bill moves forward, the damage to public trust may outlast the immediate controversy. Many Ugandans now question whether their institutions truly want citizen engagement or simply perform it as ritual. This growing cynicism threatens to deepen disengagement from civic processes, creating a vicious cycle of exclusion and distrust.

The UPDF bill debacle raises fundamental questions about Uganda’s lawmaking culture. Can a nation build durable justice systems when its people feel shut out from the process? How can Parliament rebuild trust after such visible disregard for meaningful participation? And what does this episode suggest about how future controversial legislation will be handled?

For now, the rushed 24-hour consultation stands as a case study in how not to engage the public on major reforms. As civil society groups consider legal challenges and the political opposition mobilizes criticism, one thing is clear: Uganda’s citizens are increasingly unwilling to accept governance by haste and exclusion. The public outcry may not stop this bill, but it signals growing resistance to undemocratic lawmaking – resistance that could shape future battles over Uganda’s legal and political direction.