A STRUGGLE TO RESTORE
THE CONSTITUTION AND PRESIDENTIAL TERM LIMITS
“The problem of Africa
in general and in Uganda in particular is not the people but leaders who want
to overstay in power.”
President Yoweri
Museveni, 1986
(He’s now in power for 26 years)
A country’s
constitution must be made to serve the country and its people and not
individuals who are here today and tomorrow they’re no more.
In his book, ‘Politics’,
Andrew Heywood noted that; “The enactment of a constitution marks a major
breach in political continuity, usually resulting from an upheaval such as a
war, revolution or National Independence. Constitutions are above all a means
of establishing a new political order following the rejection, collapse or
failure of an old order. In general, it can be said that political conflicts
assume a constitutional dimension only when those demanding change seek to
redraw, and not merely re-adjust the rules of the political game………….”
Thomas Hobbes
describes the principle human inclination as; “‘a perpetual and restless desire
for power after power that ceases only in death’. In this light, the roots of
social disorder can be seen to reside in the individual human being, a view
sometimes linked to the Christian doctrine of ‘original sin’. Order can therefore
be maintained only by strict laws, firm enforcement and harsh penalties. This
is the only means of preventing a descent into chaos and barbarity.”
Since independence Uganda has never experienced peaceful
transfer of power from one President to another. This country has since
experienced violent political change that has cost us in terms of life and
property and disruption of the economy. We have had more than three coup
d’état, a foreign invasion and occupation by neighboring Tanzania aided by a few
armed Ugandans, and several guerrilla movements including the one that brought
into power the current government of President Yoweri Museveni in January 1986,
which has been in power for 26 years and will be 30 years if this current five
year PURCHASED MANDATE happens to be
completed in 2016.
It is this violent history of political succession in Uganda
that made the people of Uganda through the ODOKI commission to make their views
known with regard to presidential term limits. The concern of the people was
reported by the Odoki commission as follows;-
“The people’s concern
is that every President should strictly observe his term of office as laid down
in the constitution…………….The people wish to participate in the system, which
will bring in a new President, send out the old one or extend the term of
office of the incumbent. The people would like to see peaceful transfer of
power at all times.”
Accordingly, Article 105(2) was
put in the 1995 constitution to limit the number of terms the President can
serve. It states;
“A person shall not be elected under this
constitution to hold office as President for more than two terms as prescribed by
this Article.”
However, before this article
could be tested it was violated by its own maker who upon seeing his bonus two
terms expiring decided to delete it. He had quickly forgotten and learnt
nothing from history due to his unquenchable thirsty for power and therefore
found reasons to justify his action. The reasons he gave to lift term limits
had been considered but rightly ignored during the constitutional making
process due to our history which cannot be erased. For that matter we shall not
dwell so much on the pros and cons of Presidential term limits in the case of
Uganda because its violent history cannot be deleted and the conditions and
circumstances have not changed. We shall only bother ourselves with three
issues;-
1) The
reason given by cabinet in its proposal that Article 105(2) of the 1995
constitution be repealed in order to remove the two five year term limit on the
holding of office by the President. The rationale given was that this would
allow the people to decide the number of times a person may serve as President
by their support or rejection at the polls in consonance with article 1 of the
constitution, which provides that all power belongs to the people who are to
determine by whom they are to be governed.
2) The
findings of the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) regarding those who were
in support of lifting the two 5 year term limit of the period during which the
President shall hold offices that was based on the personality and character of
the incumbent, President Yoweri Museveni. They wanted the President to stand
for another or more terms because he had exceptional leadership qualities, had
brought peace, stability, and development to Uganda; and that he had to be
given the opportunity to complete his development programmes, and is capable of
keeping the country together.
3) The
observation and veiled recommendations of the CRC which were given as follows;
On the
question of term limits, the response of the people was divided. Some people
wanted the term limits to be maintained while others wanted the term limits to
be lifted. Both those for and against term limits had provided persuasive
reasons. The responses, however, were not adequate for us to recommend either
for the retention or lifting of term limits. Mere recommendation of retention
or lifting of the term limits by this commission without subjecting the issue
to exhaustive and comprehensive debate would not be providing for a nationally
acceptable solution.
The
question of lifting the term limits was more than any issue considered by the
commission and generated intense debate. It became a considerable question with
key stakeholders in our society taking sides for retention or abolition of the
limits. The debate engaged religious leaders, politicians, members of civil
society, the Cabinet and the National Conference and even members of the
security forces and the country at large. It became a matter of significant
importance that could not simply be brushed aside. Already there were clear
indications of people who were campaigning for or against the term limits. The
controversy had gaining momentum. The stability of the country was not to be
taken lightly and a peaceful resolution of the issue that would satisfy all
parties had to be found. Regrettably this issue gained momentum at a time when
the commission had covered the wider part of the country.
Providing
a national solution to this question was not to come with ease. We note that
the executive arm of Government through cabinet had taken a stand on the
matter. So had the political structures of the movement. Parliament, which
under the Constitution is to determine this question, was part of the National
Conference of the Movement. The fall back position was the Constitution which
provides that:
-
Art.1(1) All power belongs to the people who shall
exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution.
-
Art.1(3)
All power and authority of government and its organs derive from this
constitution, which in turn derives its authority from the people who consent
to be governed in accordance with this Constitution.
-
Art.1(4)
The people shall express their will and Consent on who shall govern them and
how they should be governed through free and fair elections of their
representatives or through referenda.
The
commission noted that it was aware that Parliament had powers under article 261
to determine this question. However, under article 1(4) of the Constitution,
the ultimate authority lies with the people to determine who and how they
should be governed. The referendum would give those for and against term limits
the platform to campaign widely among the people. It would determine the issue.
In view of the importance of this question and its implications for the
country, we recommend that government refers the question of lifting the term
limits under article 105(2) of the Constitution to the people to determine
through a referendum.
The
question therefore was whether the people would be able to make a decision in a
free and fair manner. The commission’s findings indicated……………………..that the
electoral process is not free from flaws. The people had pointed to
intimidation by the army, reports of violence against the voters leading to
Parliamentary probe into the matter, there had been several cases of electoral
malpractices brought before the courts, the stifling of party participation in
the electoral processes and use of the power of incumbency to influence the
outcome. The administrative and legal constraints under which the electoral
commission operates need to be addressed. Addressing the above concerns was an
essential precondition to a fair determination of this important question.
President Museveni’s tragic inclination for sin caused him to
use his mind to rationalize his action because a close study of the above
analysis by the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) on the proposal to lift
Presidential term limits leads us to make the following conclusions. That;-
-
The
Constitutional Review Commission had wisely but indirectly advised government
not to lift Presidential term limits because this was a matter of National
stability and too sensitive to be left to Parliament that was so fused with the
Executive and therefore lacked its independence.
-
It
was not possible for the people to decide on the matter by exercising their
sovereignty as guaranteed by Article 1 of the constitution through a referendum
since voting by adult suffrage had proved not to be free of manipulation, vote
buying and rigging, intimidation and many other negative things that would
render the referendum not free and fair. And the electoral commission lacked
the capacity to organize free and fair elections.
-
It
was clear that most people calling for the lifting of the presidential term
limits based their argument on the character, ability and the good performance
of the incumbent, President Yoweri Museveni. This argument is so weak since the
future of the country cannot be left in the hands of an individual who is here
today and tomorrow is no more. In fact, we have a strong belief that if the
incumbent who has led this country for so long than any other president has failed to build strong institutions to
hold this country together even when a weak or strong President is in-charge,
then that is good enough reason for him to honorably leave as soon as possible.
It might be his deliberate move to weaken Institutions as a way of holding this
country at ransom.
Sometimes,
arrogant and power hungry leaders especially those who have overstayed think
themselves as having the monopoly of wisdom to run the Nation. Even with the
existence of strong laws and institution, President George W. Bush was tempted
to think that without him as President of USA no other Commander-in-Chief could
manage to fight and win the war on terror. On this ground, he authored a
document that called for lifting of term limits on the US presidency. He has
since been proved wrong by the US institutions that have enabled his successor,
Barack Obama, seem to be doing a good job in his war against terror.
Former
US President Delano Franklin Roosevelt went against tradition and stood and won
more two term limits for the US presidency. He had led the US through the 1930s
economic depression and the Second World War but when he finally died in office
the country moved on.
So the
constitution must be left to be tested as originally made especially on an
important issue like a limit on Presidential terms. If we succeed in transferring power from one president to another
that would be revolutionary in itself
and it would complete the now non-existent National Resistance Movement (NRM)
Revolution.
-
The
public and other stakeholders had not been given chance to exhaustively debate
the issue of lifting Presidential term limits.
But as you will note in the commission’s writings, the
Executive had already taken a stand on the matter and was determined to lift
the presidential term limits. It was the infamous 5 million (five million
Uganda shillings) given to Members of Parliament that delivered “victory” in
favor of President Museveni in his battle to lift the terms.
We agree with the argument that the constitution is not a
static but rather a living document that must be read and interpreted and may
be amended in the context of the ever-changing world. But we are also strong
believers of the principle that every constitution must be made, read and
interpreted, and be amended with the intention of rejecting any form of
absolute authority. The constitution must reject any idea of personalizing
power. Therefore, as a way of rejecting absolute authority and personalization
of power especially in developing countries like Uganda, presidential term
limits must be respected. This also prevents arbitrary and violent rule often
associated with life presidency. And for that matter, we are calling for the
restoration of Presidential term limits in the 1995 Uganda Constitution.
Those for lifting term limits for the presidency argued that
they feared that the country may descend into political instability and
insecurity because there was no clear successor; they also argued that the
president needed more time to complete and sustain his development programmes.
These were weak arguments because; in the first place the constitution clearly
laid out the right procedures for succession, and secondly, a country can never
depend on the idea of one mortal individual who does not guarantee his/her
existence for the next day. That individual is not God and we as a Nation must
avoid facing God’s wrath for creating a god for ourselves. Thirdly, unlimited
presidential terms create political instability due to blocked ambition of
political competitors.
In a poor country like Uganda, it becomes hard to defeat the
incumbent in an election since he appoints the electoral commission, has access
to unlimited funds, and has the state media and coercive state machinery on his
side, and has also deeply entrenched himself by developing both party and
personal patronage network. So the opposition usually has no option but to
contest power by the use of the gun which in itself has brought a lot of
suffering to Uganda.
What is very clear is that the incumbent hides behind other
reasons to prolong his over stay in power yet his overstay is actually
motivated by selfish interests such as vanity and hunger for power, fear of
prosecution for corruption and human rights abuses, and lack of opportunity
after retirement. He is also probably pushed to prolong his rule due to the
anxiety of the neo-patrimonial network that fears prosecution and the loss of
connections and privileges after his departure.
In conclusion, to avoid a repeat of Uganda’s past violent
history in the struggle to change leaders; the president must initiate or
support the process of restoring presidential term limits and resign peacefully
when it is still honorable for him to do so. A clause for immunity to
prosecution for the person of the President for crimes committed during his/her
Presidency may be put in the 1995 constitution. But this compromise must only
apply when the president voluntarily resigns or steps down, impeached, or after
losing an election or after the completion of his/her two terms. This clause
must not apply where the president is forced out of office by force of the gun
or people power.
The following must
also be considered;
1)
The
Prime Minister of the Republic of Uganda Mr. John Patrick Amaama Mbabazi must
resign for his alleged role in the Temangalo corruption scandal, dirty oil
dealings, and CHOGM corruption scandals and the President must desist from
interfering with Parliamentary and other investigative organs. Mbabazi must
only be cleared by a competent court of law and not by the Inspector General of
Government (IGG) who is his former assistant and personal friend. Hajji Hassan
Basajjabalaba and others allegedly involved in institutional corruption must be
prosecuted and immediately refund public money. Government institutions must
not be used as a vehicle for political persecution.
When President Museveni resigns, a
transitional government must be put in place to run the Country for a non-renewable
term not exceeding 12 months (Twelve Months) which must then appoint a
competent judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and recommend the
prosecution of all those suspected to have committed crimes such as abuse of
human rights including murder and torture, and corruption, among others within
a period of six months. The head and cabinet members of the transitional
government must not contest for any political position after the expiration of
their term of office not until after five years.
The transitional government must amend
electoral laws including a law that puts a limit to campaign expenditure so as
to eliminate political corruption; and must also put in place an independent
electoral commission that will conduct all National general elections.
2)
All
persons convicted of political crimes including corruption must never hold any
public office including contesting for any political positions.
Fabricated charges made against political
activists and authors must be dropped, and all demonstrators and all political
prisoners must be released. Government must cease to deny Ugandans their right
to peaceful demonstration. And in this, attempts to enacting a law to deny bail
to demonstrators must stop immediately.
Otherwise, with the growing loss of confidence in the system
by the people, an increasing reliance on the repressive machinery of the state
by the president, together with his ever growing arrogance that is
characteristic of dictatorships, state brutality, corruption, insensitivity of
the state, a deteriorating economy and poor standards of living, a degrading
environment, high rates of youth unemployment, poverty and an ever increasing
population, among others; combined with an internal power struggle makes the
Museveni regime vulnerable to a civil war, coup d’état, and a nonviolent
revolution. We therefore re-iterate our demand for the restoration of presidential
term limit before this country descends into chaos. The corrupt must resign or
else be forced to resign. Otherwise our leaders might find themselves at The
Hague prison, the home of The International Criminal Court like former Ivory
Coast President Laurent Gbagbo, Milosevic, and Charles Taylor.
God bless Uganda! “For God and my country”
No comments:
Post a Comment