Kadaga’s Controversial Legacy: How The Age Limit And Covid-19 Emergency Bills Shook Uganda’s Political Landscape

Rebecca Alitwala Kadaga remains one of the most consequential and controversial figures in Uganda’s parliamentary history. From her rise as Kamuli District Woman MP in 1989 to becoming Uganda’s first female Speaker of Parliament in May 2011, Kadaga built a political career that placed her at the heart of some of the country’s biggest constitutional and political confrontations.

A trained lawyer who studied at Makerere University and the University of Zimbabwe, Kadaga presided over Parliament for a decade, leaving office in May 2021 after losing the speakership contest to Jacob Oulanyah. She subsequently became First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for East African Community Affairs, maintaining her influence within the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM).

However, two major episodes during her speakership continue to raise difficult questions about her political legacy: the 2017 removal of presidential age limits and the 2020 debate over declaring a COVID-19 state of emergency.

The first controversy remains particularly difficult to separate from President Yoweri Museveni’s long stay in power.

When Uganda adopted its 1995 Constitution, presidential candidates were required to be between 35 and 75 years old. Although Parliament removed presidential term limits in 2005, the age ceiling remained a constitutional obstacle to Museveni’s eligibility for the 2021 elections.

That changed in December 2017 when Parliament passed the Constitutional Amendment Bill championed by Igara West MP Raphael Magyezi. Kadaga presided over the historic and chaotic proceedings, during which opposition legislators protested, some MPs were physically confronted, and security personnel entered Parliament.

The December 20 vote produced 317 votes in favour, 97 against and two abstentions. The amendment removed the presidential age ceiling, effectively clearing the way for Museveni, then 73, to seek another term.

Critics considered the legislation a constitutional manoeuvre designed to protect presidential continuity rather than strengthen democratic accountability. Supporters defended it as eliminating age-based discrimination. Kadaga later acknowledged the significance of her role, saying Museveni would not have appeared on the 2021 ballot without her involvement in facilitating the process.

The consequences were enormous: a constitutional restriction that could have blocked Museveni’s candidacy was removed.

The second controversy emerged in 2020 when COVID-19 threatened Uganda’s public health and economic stability.

As the government introduced lockdowns, curfews and movement restrictions, Kadaga and then-Chief Justice Bart Katureebe reportedly advised Museveni to consider declaring a formal state of emergency under Article 110 of the Constitution.

Kadaga subsequently told Parliament that a Cabinet minister had convinced Museveni against the proposal. Attorney General William Byaruhanga argued that existing public-health laws provided sufficient authority to manage the crisis.

Consequently, Uganda never declared the formal constitutional emergency. Instead, the government relied on presidential directives and public-health regulations.

Some political observers questioned whether emergency powers could have created opportunities for extraordinary political arrangements, including extending constitutional terms. However, no such extension resulted from the COVID-19 response.

Ultimately, Kadaga’s record presents an uncomfortable political contradiction. The 2017 amendment removed a concrete constitutional barrier to Museveni’s continued presidency, while the 2020 emergency proposal never materialised.

For a Speaker who occupied one of Uganda’s most powerful constitutional offices, these episodes remain central to assessing her legacy. Was she simply managing parliamentary procedure, defending institutional authority or facilitating political decisions that strengthened an already powerful presidency?

Uganda’s political history provides the evidence. The debate over what it means for democracy, accountability and the country’s future remains far from settled.