Rt. Hon. Robinah Nabbanja Defends Proposed Cabinet Structure: “Same Number as Last Parliament”

Rt. Hon. Robinah Nabbanja Defends Proposed Cabinet Structure: “Same Number as Last Parliament”

Rt. Hon. Robinah Nabbanja, Kakumiro District Woman MP, has defended the government’s proposed Cabinet structure, insisting it does not expand the size of the executive compared to the previous Parliament. Addressing members, she said the list maintains the same number of Ministers and Ministers of State who have been performing duties, framing the proposal as a housekeeping exercise to clarify mandates rather than a bid to grow government.

Key claim: no numerical increase

Nabbanja emphasized continuity: “the number of Ministers and Ministers of State that have been carrying out duties is the same number we have brought. We have not changed.”

She presented the proposal as a like-for-like transfer into the new parliamentary term, countering concerns that rationalisation might be a cover for executive expansion.

Rationalisation as mandate clean-up

The Prime Minister linked the restructuring to removing duplication and ambiguity: “UNRA was doing the same work as the Ministry of Works.” She said while on the floor of parliament today

The thrust is to streamline overlapping functions, tighten reporting lines, and reduce bureaucratic friction that slows service delivery and blurs accountability.

Why duplication matters

Overlaps can dilute responsibility, inflate administrative costs, and produce conflicting directives. Rationalisation if well-designed and enforced can:

Clarify who does what, enabling faster decisions and fewer turf disputes.

Improve value-for-money by aligning budgets with clearly owned outputs.

Sharpen oversight, because Parliament and auditors can track performance against a single accountable vote holder.

What to watch in the Cabinet structure

Portfolios and pairing: Whether Ministers of State are mapped to precise domains with measurable deliverables, reducing grey areas between parent ministries and agencies.

Agency alignment: How semi-autonomous agencies with near-duplicate mandates are repositioned—merged, refocused, or brought under tighter ministerial supervision.

Legal hygiene: Timely statutory instruments and amendments to reconcile laws with the new structure, avoiding gaps that stall implementation.

Budget coherence: A Medium-Term Expenditure Framework that mirrors the restructured mandates, so money follows functions without double-funding.

Potential benefits and the test of delivery

If the headcount truly holds steady while roles are clarified, government could gain speed on projects, see fewer procurement detours, and improve completion rates in infrastructure and service-delivery programs.

The credibility test will be operational: fewer inter-agency memos to do the same task, faster approvals, cleaner audit trails, and visible gains in roads, health, education, and local government support.

Open questions for Parliament’s scrutiny

Mandate maps: Do ministry policy statements clearly delineate functions, KPIs, and timelines to prevent re-emerging overlaps?

Transition costs: Are there short-term costs for merging or reassigning functions, and are these offset by medium-term savings?

Performance reporting: Will the executive table a quarterly dashboard showing reduced duplication and improved turnaround times (e.g., project approvals, payments, and procurement cycles)?

Citizen interface: Does rationalisation simplify how citizens and businesses access services fewer windows, clearer requirements, quicker responses?

Bottom line
Nabbanja’s assurance that the Cabinet headcount is unchanged positions rationalisation as a clarity-and-efficiency reform rather than expansion. The parliament’s role now is to verify the numbers, stress-test the mandate maps, and insist on performance metrics that prove duplication has been eliminated not just renamed. If form follows function and budgets follow both, the public should see faster delivery and cleaner accountability without a larger executive.