“While seeking leave of the House, Namara argued that the current framework gives a single opposition party exclusive control over the office, even though the Leader of Opposition is expected to represent the collective interests of all opposition legislators. He said the proposed reforms are intended to make the selection process more democratic and inclusive.” Kabugho Elias in “Uganda: Parliament approves introduction of bill to reform election of Leader of Opposition, published in Pan African Visions.
If the “Leader of the Opposition (LOP) is the leader of the largest political party in the Parliament of Uganda that is not in government,” why is the 12th Parliament prioritizing a private members bill that disempowers the largest political party in Parliament?
Technically, moreover, the LOP is not “expected to represent the collective interest of all opposition legislators.” And if this falsehood be the premise of the private members bill, we have every reason to be concerned.
It is oxymoronic within a multi-party political system of governance to think the LOP has a duty to represent the interests of all opposition legislators. It is symptomatic of significant cognitive dissonance.
And we should all be concerned.
Sadly, my views articulated in “Burden of the Westminster System of Government” hold vindicated.
the Humanist view 
Let’s Chat…