With 529 lawmakers and growing pressure on public finances, observers argue that Uganda needs a leaner and more effective legislature
Uganda’s Parliament is once again at the centre of a debate that goes beyond politics: how many lawmakers does a country of about 50 million people actually need?
The question has gained renewed attention as the country enters a new parliamentary term with 529 Members of Parliament, according to Parliament and the African Union election observation mission. The current House includes directly elected constituency MPs, district women representatives and members representing special interest groups.
For critics, the size raises questions about efficiency, cost and whether expanding representation has necessarily translated into better accountability and service delivery.
The debate is not new. In October 2025, MPs themselves confronted the issue when Parliament considered the future composition of the House. Some lawmakers called for a Constitutional Review Commission to examine the growing size of Parliament and the structure of special-interest representation. The motion ultimately retained the existing categories of representation. The concern has also been raised outside Parliament.
In January 2026, residents in Mbarara told presidential candidate Gen. Gregory Mugisha Muntu that Uganda had too many legislators and ministers and asked him to reduce their numbers if elected. Muntu had made trimming the size of Parliament part of his political reform agenda.
The argument is partly financial. Uganda is operating under increasing fiscal pressure. Parliament passed an Shs84.3 trillion national budget for the 2026/27 financial year, while the Finance Ministry has projected domestic revenue of Shs40.1 trillion and announced plans to reduce external budget support and domestic borrowing.
Against that background, critics argue that the state should scrutinise the cost of maintaining a large political establishment and direct more resources towards health, education, infrastructure and productive sectors.
The Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) made a similar argument in its policy research on the financial and governance costs of Uganda’s legislature. Although published in 2009, the study concluded that a large number of MPs contributes to the cost of public administration and recommended reducing the number of legislators while improving their facilitation and effectiveness.
ACODE argued that Parliament’s core constitutional responsibilities—representation, legislation and oversight—do not necessarily require a large number of lawmakers. It proposed population-based constituency demarcation and recommended 200,000 people per MP as a benchmark.
The growth of Parliament is evident when viewed historically. Parliament’s own 2025–2030 Strategic Plan records that the 11th Parliament had 556 members, comprising 353 constituency representatives, 146 district or city women representatives and representatives of special-interest groups and ex-officio members.
Yet there is another side to the argument. Uganda’s Constitution deliberately provides for different categories of representation. Article 78 provides for directly elected constituency representatives, one woman representative for every district and representatives of the army, youth, workers, persons with disabilities and other groups determined by Parliament.
Reducing Parliament, therefore, would not simply mean cutting numbers. It would require difficult constitutional and political choices over who should represent citizens and how affirmative representation should be protected.
The central question is consequently not whether Uganda needs representation, but whether it needs representation on its current scale.
With taxpayers facing competing demands and Parliament itself acknowledging the need to strengthen its representative role, the case for a leaner legislature is likely to remain part of Uganda’s governance debate.
For observers, the objective should not merely be a smaller Parliament, but a Parliament that costs less, represents citizens fairly and exercises stronger oversight over public resources.
