Uganda’s Parliament has voted to ban Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) representatives from wearing combat uniforms in the House, a decision welcomed by both civilian legislators and their military counterparts. The move is part of amendments to the Rules of Procedure aimed at restoring dignity and decency in Parliament.
The 25-member Standing Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline concluded that combat attire, associated with the “battlefield”, is inappropriate for a legislative setting. The committee proposed that UPDF representatives wear Kaunda suits or ceremonial uniforms displaying their ranks, which are part of the UPDF’s official attire, gazetted in the Uganda Gazette Vol. CXII.
“The proposed dress code standards are not intended to dictate the personal choices of Members of Parliament but rather to preserve the dignity of Parliament as an esteemed institution and ensure that members maintain the stature befitting their title as Honourable Members,” the committee’s report stated.
Mr. Abdu Katuntu, chairperson of the Committee on Rules, Privileges, and Discipline, clarified that Rule 82 now bans combat uniforms while allowing ceremonial UPDF attire with clearly displayed ranks.
“This amendment does not suggest that the UPDF should not be in Parliament — that would be unconstitutional. It only ensures that UPDF officers dress appropriately, avoiding battlefield attire,” Mr Katuntu explained.
However, Butambala Woman MP Aisha Kabanda, in a minority report, called for a total ban on all military uniforms in Parliament. She argued that military attire hinders independent judgment, as it reflects the command-and-control doctrine associated with the military and may intimidate other MPs.
“Parliament is a forum for free thought and speech, yet military uniforms often have a psychological effect on the wearer and those around them,” Ms Kabanda argued.
She further noted that some MPs and citizens associate military uniforms with violence, referencing past instances of physical harm, forced disappearances, and military-led crackdowns. Additionally, she questioned government spending on military attire, suggesting those funds could better support underpaid military personnel.
Gen David Muhoozi, former Chief of Defence Forces and current State Minister for Internal Affairs defended the UPDF’s presence and identity in Parliament, asserting their constitutional representation.
“We are a constituent and must be identified as such in our uniform. While I agree that the camouflage uniform is for combat, we can approve the Number Two uniform for Parliament,” Gen Muhoozi stated.
Lt. Gen. James Mugira, a UPDF legislator, supported the committee’s decision, emphasizing the military’s discipline and respect for order.
“The institution we represent is disciplined, rule-based, and order-based. A uniform is a symbol of honour and identity. We welcome these proposals to maintain decency and prevent anarchy in the House,” Lt. Gen. Mugira said.
The debate on dress code also extended to civilian legislators, who voted to allow traditional Ugandan attire, including kanzus and gomesis, particularly on Fridays.
While many MPs supported embracing African wear, others expressed concern that loosening dress codes might lead to inappropriate attire under the guise of cultural expression.
Speaker Anita Among underscored that the overall goal of the dress code amendments was to restore professionalism and dignity in the House, ensuring MPs dress and behave in a manner befitting their title as Honourable Members.
The decision to ban combat uniforms and allow ceremonial military attire strikes a balance between respect for the UPDF’s identity and the need to maintain Parliament’s decorum. The inclusion of traditional Ugandan attire for civilian legislators also reflects Uganda’s cultural heritage while preserving professional standards.
With these amendments, Uganda’s Parliament aims to create a respectful, orderly environment, fostering constructive debate and dignified representation for all members.