Uganda Considers Constitutional Amendment to Extend Presidential and Parliamentary Terms to Seven Years

At a closed-door retreat for newly elected lawmakers at the National Leadership Institute in Kyankwanzi in early April 2026, Speaker of Parliament Anita Among made a direct appeal: the incoming 12th Parliament should move to extend the term of office for all political leaders from five to seven years [1]. Among cited Article 77 of the Constitution, which grants Parliament the mandate to prescribe its own tenure, and argued that Uganda should align with regional neighbors that maintain longer political terms [1].

The proposal is not new. It is the third attempt in under a decade to extend terms beyond the five-year cycle enshrined in Uganda's 1995 Constitution — and it arrives at a moment when the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) holds an overwhelming parliamentary majority, the opposition has been sharply diminished at the polls, and international observers have raised serious concerns about democratic erosion [2][3].

A Constitution Amended to Suit the Incumbent

Uganda's 1995 Constitution was written after decades of authoritarian rule and civil conflict. It included two structural safeguards against the concentration of presidential power: a two-term limit and a requirement that presidential candidates be under 75 years of age [4].

Both have since been removed.

In 2005, Parliament voted to abolish the two-term presidential limit, allowing President Yoweri Museveni — who had been in power since 1986 — to run indefinitely [4][5]. The amendment was widely criticized and, according to Afrobarometer polling, opposed by a majority of Ugandans [6].

In December 2017, Parliament passed a further amendment removing the presidential age cap of 75 years, clearing the way for the then-73-year-old Museveni to stand again [4]. That same bill also attempted to extend parliamentary and local government terms from five to seven years and nominally reinstated the two-term presidential limit [4][7].

But the 2017 amendments had a mixed fate in court. In July 2018, Uganda's Constitutional Court upheld the removal of the age cap while invalidating the extension of parliamentary terms. The court found that the term extension had been enacted in violation of parliamentary procedures — it had not been formally published as a bill, interrogated by a parliamentary committee, or reported on by the committee of the whole house [7][8]. The court also noted that the retroactive effect of extending sitting members' terms violated the sovereignty of voters who had elected those members for a five-year mandate [7].

A second attempt surfaced in 2021, when the Parliamentary Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, in its report on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill sponsored by MP Wilfred Niwagaba, included a recommendation to extend terms to seven years. It was blocked after accusations that the provision had been "smuggled into a committee report" [1][9].

The Legislative Pathway — and Who Benefits

The current proposal faces a specific constitutional obstacle. Amending Uganda's presidential term length requires not only a two-thirds parliamentary vote but also approval in a national referendum, because this provision was re-entrenched when term limits were nominally reinstated in 2017 [4][7]. Parliamentary terms, however, fall under Article 77, which Among argues grants Parliament authority over its own tenure [1].

This distinction matters. If the proposal is framed as a parliamentary-only amendment — extending the terms of MPs, local councilors, and other elected officials but not the president — it could theoretically bypass a referendum. However, proponents have signaled interest in a comprehensive extension covering all political offices, including the presidency, which would trigger the referendum requirement [1].

The 12th Parliament, expected to be sworn in between May 13 and 15, 2026, is 529 members strong [10]. The NRM has consolidated its dominance: the National Unity Platform holds roughly 43 seats (down from 57), the Forum for Democratic Change has nine (down from 32), the Democratic Party five (down from nine), and the Uganda Peoples Congress just three (down from nine) [10]. The ruling party's supermajority would likely make a two-thirds vote achievable.

The conflict of interest is self-evident. Every sitting MP who votes to extend terms would directly benefit by adding two years to their own mandate without facing voters. Political analyst Robert Kigongo described the move as "selfish, unpatriotic and a major setback to the rule of law, the 1995 Constitution and democracy" [1]. The ChimpReports analysis noted that Among "understands that few lawmakers would decline the opportunity to extend their own terms" [9].

The Fiscal Argument: Do Elections Cost Too Much?

Proponents of longer terms have argued that Uganda's election cycle is too expensive and too frequent, diverting resources from development. The numbers offer some support for the scale of election spending, if not the conclusion drawn from it.

Uganda's Electoral Commission estimated the 2026 general elections would cost UGX 838 billion (approximately $220 million), though broader estimates in the Electoral Commission's strategic plan put the figure at UGX 1.387 trillion — nearly double the UGX 698.66 billion spent on the 2020/21 elections [11][12]. The commission itself flagged a UGX 623.9 billion funding gap threatening the conduct of the elections [11].

Campaign spending adds further costs. Using 2021 estimates as a benchmark, total campaign expenditure of approximately UGX 4 trillion amounted to roughly 8.6% of the national budget, creating inflationary pressure as large expenditures inject liquidity into the economy [13].

However, independent analysts have questioned whether the fiscal argument justifies a constitutional amendment. In a national budget projected at UGX 72.4 trillion for 2025/26, election costs — even at the higher estimates — represent less than 2% of annual government expenditure [13]. Spreading elections over seven-year rather than five-year cycles would save money per year but would not eliminate the fundamental costs of voter registration, logistics, and security that scale with population growth regardless of timing.

Development Continuity: The Government's Case

The Museveni government has long argued that political stability and continuity are prerequisites for long-term development planning. Priority allocations under the current administration target power generation, road networks, railways, irrigation, schools, and health infrastructure [14]. The flagship Standard Gauge Railway project and extensive road construction programs are cited as examples of initiatives that require multi-year planning horizons [14].

But the record of delivery complicates this argument. Multiple road projects — including the Jinja-Mbulamuti-Bukungu, Nabumali-Butaleja-Namutumba, and Iganga-Bulopa-Kamuli routes — have appeared in government pledges and budget frameworks for over a decade without construction beginning or with work stalling indefinitely [15]. A 2025 analysis in the Tandfonline academic journal found that Uganda's infrastructure projects, while "well-intentioned," have "largely materialized as 'empty' promises" [15].

Uganda's GDP growth has been relatively steady, reaching 6.1% in 2024, but this has not translated into transformative poverty reduction after four decades of the same administration [16].

Source: World Bank Open Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2024CSV

No peer-reviewed evidence establishes a causal link between longer presidential or parliamentary terms and better development outcomes. The Africa Center for Strategic Studies found that nearly 40% of countries where leaders have evaded term limits are in active conflict [17]. The RAND Corporation concluded in a 2018 analysis that term limits in Africa "are working" as mechanisms for peaceful transfers of power, improved governance, and democratic consolidation [17].

The African Comparison

Among's argument that Uganda should "align with regional neighbors" with longer terms is selective. Of Africa's 54 countries, 37 set presidential terms at five years [18]. A small number have moved to six or seven years — and the company is not reassuring.

Source: International IDEA / Constitute Project

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Guinea extended to seven years in 2001 under President Lansana Conté, who ruled until his death in 2008; the country has since experienced two military coups. The Democratic Republic of Congo moved to seven years in 2002 and has struggled with ongoing conflict and governance failures. Rwanda adopted seven-year terms in 2003 under President Paul Kagame, who has been in power since 2000. The Central African Republic extended to seven years via a 2023 referendum that also removed term limits, allowing President Faustin-Archange Touadéra to remain indefinitely. Gabon had seven-year terms under the Bongo dynasty until a 2023 military coup. Chad extended to six years in 2018 [18].

Benin presents a cautionary parallel: President Patrice Talon initially promised a single six-year term but instead extended both presidential and National Assembly terms to seven years [18].

By contrast, countries frequently cited as African democratic successes — Ghana (four-year terms), South Africa (five-year terms with a two-term limit), and Botswana (five-year terms) — have maintained shorter cycles with regular peaceful transfers of power [17][18].

International Response

The proposal arrives against the backdrop of sharp international criticism of Uganda's January 2026 elections. The European Parliament adopted a resolution by 514 votes to 3 (with 56 abstentions) condemning "widespread intimidation, detention of opposition figures, fraud, violence, and a nationwide internet blackout" during the elections [3]. The resolution called on EU member states to "review cooperation with and assistance for Uganda," implement targeted sanctions, and prioritize support for civil society and human rights defenders [3].

The African Union and regional election monitors noted that Election Day was "relatively calm" compared to 2021 but flagged reports of intimidation, arrests, and abductions that "eroded public trust" [2].

A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analysis characterized Uganda's political system as "competitive authoritarianism" and documented the kidnapping of former presidential candidate Kizza Besigye in Kenya, the abduction of activist Sam Mugumya, and the growing political role of General Muhoozi Kainerugaba — Museveni's son and military chief — who has publicly threatened opposition leaders [2].

The United States has notably disengaged. USAID closed its Uganda office, ending election monitoring support, and the Trump administration adopted a policy of avoiding comment on "the fairness or integrity" of foreign elections [2].

Neither the EU nor the African Union has issued a specific formal response to the seven-year term proposal, which emerged only in April 2026. But given the EU Parliament's existing resolution and its call for "comprehensive electoral and institutional reforms, including ensuring the independence of the electoral commission and the judiciary" [3], any amendment further insulating incumbents from electoral accountability would likely intensify diplomatic pressure.

Legal Avenues for Challenge

Uganda's Constitutional Court has already struck down one attempt to extend parliamentary terms, in 2018 [7][8]. That ruling established two principles: first, that procedural shortcuts in constitutional amendments are grounds for nullification; second, that extending the terms of sitting officials retroactively violates the sovereignty of voters who elected them for a defined mandate [7].

The court also discussed the "basic structure doctrine" — the principle that certain foundational elements of a constitutional order cannot be amended at will without undermining the entire system [8]. While the justices agreed this doctrine applies to Uganda's constitution, they stopped short of ruling that term length is part of the basic structure, leaving the question open for future litigation [8].

Constitutional law scholars have argued that any extension of terms mid-cycle — applying to officials already elected under a five-year mandate — violates an implicit contract between elected officials and voters [7][9]. The precedent from 2018 suggests the courts would scrutinize both the procedure and the retroactive application of any new amendment.

However, judicial independence in Uganda faces its own pressures. The CSIS analysis noted concerns about "ensuring the independence of the judiciary" as part of broader democratic erosion [2][3]. Whether the courts would rule against the government on this issue for a third time, given the political environment, remains an open question.

What Comes Next

The Kyankwanzi retreat was scheduled to conclude on April 15, and it remains unclear whether the seven-year proposal will be included in the final resolutions [1]. The incoming Parliament must first be sworn in, committees constituted, and a formal bill introduced before any amendment process can begin.

If Among and the NRM leadership move forward, they face a choice: pursue a narrower amendment covering only parliamentary terms (avoiding a referendum but leaving the presidential term unchanged) or a comprehensive amendment extending all political terms to seven years (requiring a national vote).

Afrobarometer data shows that 70% of Ugandans support constitutional limits on presidential terms [6]. A referendum on extending terms could prove politically risky — or it could be rendered moot if the government opts for the narrower parliamentary-only route, sidestepping the public vote entirely.

For a country that has held elections under a five-year cycle since 1996, and whose constitution was explicitly designed to prevent the concentration of power that characterized its post-independence history, the stakes extend beyond an extra two years on the calendar. The question is whether Uganda's institutions — its courts, its opposition, and its civil society — retain the capacity to enforce the constitutional bargain that voters were promised three decades ago.