Former government spokesperson and newly sworn-in Member of Parliament representing older persons, Ofwono Opondo, has defended his decision to take the oath of office without holding a Bible, maintaining that his action was in line with the Constitution.
Speaking during an interview on NBS Television, Opondo said he chose to take a solemn affirmation, a legally recognised alternative to swearing by a religious text.
His remarks follow public discussion sparked by his swearing-in, where he neither held a Bible nor referenced God.
“In the Constitution, you either swear by the holy book or make an affirmation. I did the solemn affirmation and you don't need to mention God or have a holy book,” Opondo said.
His approach drew attention because many public officials in Uganda traditionally take oaths using the Bible or Quran, often invoking God during the ceremony.
Opondo’s decision, however, reflects a lesser-used constitutional option that does not involve religion.
The Constitution provides for two forms of taking office: a religious oath or a secular affirmation. Legal practitioners note that both options carry equal weight under the law, meaning Opondo’s choice was valid despite departing from common practice.
Reactions to the move have been mixed. Some have supported the decision as a matter of personal belief and constitutional freedom, while others have questioned its symbolism in a country where religion remains influential in public life.
Opondo’s remarks appear aimed at addressing concerns over the legality of his swearing-in, insisting that no law was breached.
The incident has since sparked wider discussion on the place of religion in official state functions and whether traditional practices should continue to dominate public ceremonies.
While the debate continues, the legal position remains clear that public officials are permitted to choose between swearing by a holy book and making a solemn affirmation when assuming office.