I disagree with Wapa on third term limit
Apr 20, 2004
YOUR PLATFORM<br><br>During the next 18 months Ugandans shall be concerned with the practical political implications of the constitutional reforms we undertake to modernise the current Constitution. I therefore feel a great sense of uneasiness when I challenge Wapa’s views since he is no longer
YOUR PLATFORM
By Ssemakula Kiwanuka
During the next 18 months Ugandans shall be concerned with the practical political implications of the constitutional reforms we undertake to modernise the current Constitution. I therefore feel a great sense of uneasiness when I challenge Wapa’s views since he is no longer with us to exercise his right of reply.
But since someone chose to publish his letter post humously, we have no choice. I challenge his views because they are misleading and are politically unsustainable. For example I was disturbed by his argument that the courts would challenge the sovereignty of Ugandans to choose how they want to be governed and by whom?
It is disturbing because it can lead to a very contentious question of who governs Uganda? In one sense, Wapa’s views on term limits are further evidence of the turmoil inside the political opposition and among the Movement PAFOs.
The difference is that Wapa put a legal gloss on them.
The opponents of lifting Term Limits are scared of a referendum because their views are unpopular with the voters.
Hence the desperate attempts to invent all sorts of strategies which would ensure that the referendum is either not held or when it is held it would in Wapa’s words, “have nothing more than propaganda value.†Recent denunciations of the so-called peasants by some political heavy weights that they are incompetent to decide on political matters is not an accident. It is consistent with the anti-referendum strategies.
Another reason why I am opposed to Wapa’s arguments is because they represent a dangerous escalation of the legal and constitutional argument and can be interpreted as an incitement of the courts to reject a referendum and its results.
He wrote, “The courts will find it difficult to accept, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs’ line of approach for fear of its wider implications as far as the integrity and sanctity of the constitution is concerned.â€
This conclusion is very dangerous because it imputes that the judges will deny people their inalienable right, hereby forgetting the fact that the people are the sovereign source of all power and authority as recognised in article 1 of our Constitution.
One of the greatest political thinker Jean Jacques Roussean, The Social Contract emphasised that “the inalienable right of sovereignty is absolute and it rests with the citizens as a body politic for they alone are in possession of an inalienable will.â€
Even Thomas Hobbes, The Leviatahn despite his view of man as fundamentally untrustworthy, was emphatic in his defence of the inalienable right of people.
In view of the above, it was not an accident that article 1 of our Constitution declared that power belongs to the people.
I wish to make a general observation on referendums or plebiscites. They are the highest expression of democracy by the people and are common in all today’s democracies.
(The Greeks where the world democracy came from, would call all citizens in the city and take public decisions).
Referendums are generally issue specific and tend to be confined to very important and often contentious issues.
For example right now, the Irish are preparing to hold a referendum, on the question of granting citizenship to children born by immigrants who have lived in the country for at least three years.
When the French wanted to reduce the life of the presidency from seven to five years, (the 30th amendment of their constitution), the question was referred to the people through a referendum in 2000.
With all these examples, it does not come as a surprise that Ssempebwa’s Constitutional Review Commission recommended among other things, that article 105/2 [A person shall not be elected under this Constitution to hold office as President for more than two terms as prescribed by this office] be subjected to a referendum, not only because is it contentious but also because it is politically significant, representing an important constitutional and political change.
In evaluating Wapa’s views, we can conclude that they are important and will contribute to the constitutional debate. But they are not a sufficient guide for Ugandans to make a final determination.
Wapa expressed a personal opinion, which other legal and constitutional experts can disagree with. For example he told us that as regards Article 105/2 the Solicitor General recommended that Article 105/2 should be decided through a referendum.
My other cause for disagreement was Wapa’s disingenuous reference to the so-called integrity and sanctity of the Constitution.
I have heard PAFO and the political parties invoke the integrity and sanctity of the Constitution if Article 105/2 is amended.
And yet these same people vehemently advocate the amendment of a very important Article 269 [Regulation of political organisations] to open up for full multiparty activity.
Why should the amendment of Article 105/2 result in the violation of the integrity of the constitution but not 269?
For many Ugandans and more so for the majority of the peasants, article 269 is more fundamental and must therefore be submitted to the entire electorate for determination. So must article 105/2.
I am thus disagreeing with the allegation that an amendment of any article, be it 105/2 is a violation of the sanctity of the constitution.
As James Madson, one of the greatest founding fathers of the American Republic said, Constitutions should be reviewed and when necessary, amended, so that they keep in tune with succeeding generations.
I conclude that Wapa’s views though important are not a sufficient guide to the future.
The writer is the Minister for Luweero Triangle
By Ssemakula Kiwanuka
During the next 18 months Ugandans shall be concerned with the practical political implications of the constitutional reforms we undertake to modernise the current Constitution. I therefore feel a great sense of uneasiness when I challenge Wapa’s views since he is no longer with us to exercise his right of reply.
But since someone chose to publish his letter post humously, we have no choice. I challenge his views because they are misleading and are politically unsustainable. For example I was disturbed by his argument that the courts would challenge the sovereignty of Ugandans to choose how they want to be governed and by whom?
It is disturbing because it can lead to a very contentious question of who governs Uganda? In one sense, Wapa’s views on term limits are further evidence of the turmoil inside the political opposition and among the Movement PAFOs.
The difference is that Wapa put a legal gloss on them.
The opponents of lifting Term Limits are scared of a referendum because their views are unpopular with the voters.
Hence the desperate attempts to invent all sorts of strategies which would ensure that the referendum is either not held or when it is held it would in Wapa’s words, “have nothing more than propaganda value.†Recent denunciations of the so-called peasants by some political heavy weights that they are incompetent to decide on political matters is not an accident. It is consistent with the anti-referendum strategies.
Another reason why I am opposed to Wapa’s arguments is because they represent a dangerous escalation of the legal and constitutional argument and can be interpreted as an incitement of the courts to reject a referendum and its results.
He wrote, “The courts will find it difficult to accept, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs’ line of approach for fear of its wider implications as far as the integrity and sanctity of the constitution is concerned.â€
This conclusion is very dangerous because it imputes that the judges will deny people their inalienable right, hereby forgetting the fact that the people are the sovereign source of all power and authority as recognised in article 1 of our Constitution.
One of the greatest political thinker Jean Jacques Roussean, The Social Contract emphasised that “the inalienable right of sovereignty is absolute and it rests with the citizens as a body politic for they alone are in possession of an inalienable will.â€
Even Thomas Hobbes, The Leviatahn despite his view of man as fundamentally untrustworthy, was emphatic in his defence of the inalienable right of people.
In view of the above, it was not an accident that article 1 of our Constitution declared that power belongs to the people.
I wish to make a general observation on referendums or plebiscites. They are the highest expression of democracy by the people and are common in all today’s democracies.
(The Greeks where the world democracy came from, would call all citizens in the city and take public decisions).
Referendums are generally issue specific and tend to be confined to very important and often contentious issues.
For example right now, the Irish are preparing to hold a referendum, on the question of granting citizenship to children born by immigrants who have lived in the country for at least three years.
When the French wanted to reduce the life of the presidency from seven to five years, (the 30th amendment of their constitution), the question was referred to the people through a referendum in 2000.
With all these examples, it does not come as a surprise that Ssempebwa’s Constitutional Review Commission recommended among other things, that article 105/2 [A person shall not be elected under this Constitution to hold office as President for more than two terms as prescribed by this office] be subjected to a referendum, not only because is it contentious but also because it is politically significant, representing an important constitutional and political change.
In evaluating Wapa’s views, we can conclude that they are important and will contribute to the constitutional debate. But they are not a sufficient guide for Ugandans to make a final determination.
Wapa expressed a personal opinion, which other legal and constitutional experts can disagree with. For example he told us that as regards Article 105/2 the Solicitor General recommended that Article 105/2 should be decided through a referendum.
My other cause for disagreement was Wapa’s disingenuous reference to the so-called integrity and sanctity of the Constitution.
I have heard PAFO and the political parties invoke the integrity and sanctity of the Constitution if Article 105/2 is amended.
And yet these same people vehemently advocate the amendment of a very important Article 269 [Regulation of political organisations] to open up for full multiparty activity.
Why should the amendment of Article 105/2 result in the violation of the integrity of the constitution but not 269?
For many Ugandans and more so for the majority of the peasants, article 269 is more fundamental and must therefore be submitted to the entire electorate for determination. So must article 105/2.
I am thus disagreeing with the allegation that an amendment of any article, be it 105/2 is a violation of the sanctity of the constitution.
As James Madson, one of the greatest founding fathers of the American Republic said, Constitutions should be reviewed and when necessary, amended, so that they keep in tune with succeeding generations.
I conclude that Wapa’s views though important are not a sufficient guide to the future.
The writer is the Minister for Luweero Triangle