High Court suspends expulsion of Kitutu Chache South MP Anthony Kibagendi from Parliament

The High Court has suspended a decision by National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula to bar Kitutu Chache South MP Anthony Kibagendi from Parliament. Justice Bahati Mwamuye on Thursday, March 19th, 2026 directed that Kibagendi be allowed back to the House to continue performing his duties, pending the hearing and determination of the case he has filed. The judge stayed the Speaker’s decision of February 17, 2026, while dismissing a preliminary objection by lawyers representing the Speaker, who had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with parliamentary procedures. They had contended that, under the doctrine of separation of powers, the High Court should not intervene in the internal affairs of Parliament. However, Justice Mwamuye ruled that the matter raised constitutional issues, noting that the rights of the applicant were in question and that his constituents could be left without representation. “Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the applicant is hereby allowed to access Parliament and continue discharging his duties as a Member of Parliament,” the judge ruled. The court also restrained the Speaker and the National Assembly from initiating disciplinary action against the MP on matters related to the ongoing case. Kibagendi had moved to court through his lawyer, Ombui Ratemo, after he was suspended from Parliament and barred from accessing the House, including committee sittings. The suspension was announced by the Speaker following remarks made by the legislator during a television interview, which the Speaker described as inappropriate. During the interview, Kibagendi raised concerns about the state of Parliament’s independence, questioning whether its leadership was adequately safeguarding the institution’s autonomy. In his ruling at the time, the Speaker directed that the MP be excluded from House proceedings and committee sittings pending an apology. In court filings, however, Kibagendi argues that the decision violated constitutional provisions and applicable legal procedures. His lawyer submitted that the Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Act does not apply to statements made outside Parliament, and further argued that his client’s rights to fair administrative action, access to justice and a fair hearing were not observed. The case will be heard and determined at a later date.