YOUR PLATFORM: Why UHRC Must Stay
Oct 14, 2003
Recently, the Cabinet proposed that the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), be abolished and its duties transferred to the Inspectorate of Government (IGG).
By Nathan Byamukama
Recently, the Cabinet proposed that the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), be abolished and its duties transferred to the Inspectorate of Government (IGG). Although this was just a proposal to the Constitutional Review Commission, it should never have even been suggested due to the following reasons:
It is anti-people: The UHRC was formed after consulting the people of Uganda. Both the Oder Commission that heard the the violations of human rights in Uganda from 1962-1985, and the Odoki Commission that complied the draft Constitution, carried out nation wide consultations.
Their reports recommended that an independent institution be established to protect and promote human rights in the country. To abolish it now would be to take us back to 1960s.
Since its establishment, the UHRC has served the poor who otherwise would not have obtained justice. The Commission requires no legal fees and is accessible. To do away with this institution would be to betray the poor who form the majority of this nation.
It is betrayal to the United Nations: The UN considers national human rights institutions one of the multi-strategies of ensuring that the objectives of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations are achieved. According to Article 1 of the UN Charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex language or religion.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was one of the strategies of achieving these objectives. The cold war however bogged down the struggle for human rights but did not stop it. While the idea of establishing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) was ongoing within the UN system throughout 1950s, 60s and 70s, it was in 1980s that a considerable number of NHRIs were established (mostly in Europe), with the help of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights. Consensus has since been established among all nations about the importance of human rights.
The UHRC is one of the most successful in Africa: Uganda was the first country to have an independent human rights commission. Kenya Tanzania and Rwanda have just established their own using Uganda’s success story as a model. Infact 25 countries in Africa have NHRIs. Uganda, South Africa and Ghana are mentioned as having the most effective human rights commissions in the whole of Africa. The reports of the Human Rights Watch on all African human rights commissions entitled Protectors or Pretenders? Government Human Rights Commissions in Africa 2001, observed: ‘The UHRC is one of the strongest on the African continent. It has a daunting mandate and limited resources, but has demonstrated courage and initiative in pursuing its activities and has made significant contributions towards a strong human rights culture in Uganda... Given its record to date, the UHRC is an institution that can serve as an example and a resource for other commissions in the region.’
Removing the UHRC from the scene would rob the region and the continent of an efficient human rights institution that even international bodies recognise as a model.
It is against the Constitution: The primary function of a Constitution is to limit governmental authority and regulate the political process in the state. The doctrine of separation of powers; the principle of checks and balances and the rule of law, all combine to regulate the power of the state in relations to its own organs and the citizens.
Constitutionalism becomes a reality when laws curb the arbitrariness and are observed by those who wield power, usually the executive. The present Constitution provides for a number of institutions including the UHRC and IGG to check state power.
The powers of the UHRC are under article 53 of the Constitution. It is these powers that the UHRC uses to offer redress to human rights that are violated.
To take away the powers (of the UHRC, IGG and the Parliament) is to leave in place a Constitution that will never enhance constitutionalism, democracy and human rights.
It is against the Movement ideals: The Movement as a system and a political organisation is an offshoot of the NRA/NRM. It strengthens the NRA/NRM policy of human rights to the level of law (as in the Constitution).
It is under the Movement system that institutions have been put in place to protect and promote human rights. The whole of Chapter Four of the Constitution, is about rights and freedoms. It would be retrogressive for Movement Government, which has gone so far in institutionalising human rights, to ‘abolish’ the very institutions put in place to its credit nationally and internationally.
It is anti-Government: Uganda is party to a number of human rights conventions that have been ratified during the tenure of the present Government. When the state ratifies these conventions it is bound by them. The makers of the 1995 Constitution were aware that the Government might not comply with the obligations of these conventions although it had signed them. The UHRC was therefore given the mandate of ‘monitoring Government’s compliance with international treaty and convention obligations on human rights.’
The UHRC has been performing this function. To abolish the UHRC at this level would negatively affect several programmes in a number of governmental and non-governmental institutions requiring a fresh start.
It is Incompatible with the (IGG): The question may be asked as to why the IGG cannot perform the duties of the UHRC. If the UHRC is integrated into the IGG’s office, human rights would be the biggest causality, to the detriment of the majority. This is because in most cases, the jurisdiction of the IGG is to ensure general fairness and legality in public administration. The jurisdiction of the UHRC however, is more specifically focused on human rights (i.e. civil, political, economic, social, cultural and collective rights), extending beyond government to include public life (e.g. private employers and discrimination) (see UHRC functions article 52 and IGG article 225).
In a number of common-law countries including Uganda, the ombudsman is seen as handling issues of ‘justice’ from the confines of administrative law and good administrative practice, rather than on the basis of international human rights laws.
It is not costly to keep the UHRC: The reason advanced by the Cabinet for the merger is to ‘cut costs.’ The Government has created a conducive environment where donor assistance has supplemented the Government’s efforts to enable the UHRC to function. The Government should not have been the first to complain when it still has the good will of donors.
Human rights is a moral and legal duty. If the Sempebwa Commission does not reject this proposal, there is still a chance at Parliamentary level to maintains the UHRC. This is not just to keep my job, but to protect the gains achieved by the UHRC in this country so far.
The writer is the head of department monitoring and treatise at UHRC
Recently, the Cabinet proposed that the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), be abolished and its duties transferred to the Inspectorate of Government (IGG). Although this was just a proposal to the Constitutional Review Commission, it should never have even been suggested due to the following reasons:
It is anti-people: The UHRC was formed after consulting the people of Uganda. Both the Oder Commission that heard the the violations of human rights in Uganda from 1962-1985, and the Odoki Commission that complied the draft Constitution, carried out nation wide consultations.
Their reports recommended that an independent institution be established to protect and promote human rights in the country. To abolish it now would be to take us back to 1960s.
Since its establishment, the UHRC has served the poor who otherwise would not have obtained justice. The Commission requires no legal fees and is accessible. To do away with this institution would be to betray the poor who form the majority of this nation.
It is betrayal to the United Nations: The UN considers national human rights institutions one of the multi-strategies of ensuring that the objectives of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations are achieved. According to Article 1 of the UN Charter, one of the purposes of the United Nations is to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex language or religion.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was one of the strategies of achieving these objectives. The cold war however bogged down the struggle for human rights but did not stop it. While the idea of establishing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) was ongoing within the UN system throughout 1950s, 60s and 70s, it was in 1980s that a considerable number of NHRIs were established (mostly in Europe), with the help of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights. Consensus has since been established among all nations about the importance of human rights.
The UHRC is one of the most successful in Africa: Uganda was the first country to have an independent human rights commission. Kenya Tanzania and Rwanda have just established their own using Uganda’s success story as a model. Infact 25 countries in Africa have NHRIs. Uganda, South Africa and Ghana are mentioned as having the most effective human rights commissions in the whole of Africa. The reports of the Human Rights Watch on all African human rights commissions entitled Protectors or Pretenders? Government Human Rights Commissions in Africa 2001, observed: ‘The UHRC is one of the strongest on the African continent. It has a daunting mandate and limited resources, but has demonstrated courage and initiative in pursuing its activities and has made significant contributions towards a strong human rights culture in Uganda... Given its record to date, the UHRC is an institution that can serve as an example and a resource for other commissions in the region.’
Removing the UHRC from the scene would rob the region and the continent of an efficient human rights institution that even international bodies recognise as a model.
It is against the Constitution: The primary function of a Constitution is to limit governmental authority and regulate the political process in the state. The doctrine of separation of powers; the principle of checks and balances and the rule of law, all combine to regulate the power of the state in relations to its own organs and the citizens.
Constitutionalism becomes a reality when laws curb the arbitrariness and are observed by those who wield power, usually the executive. The present Constitution provides for a number of institutions including the UHRC and IGG to check state power.
The powers of the UHRC are under article 53 of the Constitution. It is these powers that the UHRC uses to offer redress to human rights that are violated.
To take away the powers (of the UHRC, IGG and the Parliament) is to leave in place a Constitution that will never enhance constitutionalism, democracy and human rights.
It is against the Movement ideals: The Movement as a system and a political organisation is an offshoot of the NRA/NRM. It strengthens the NRA/NRM policy of human rights to the level of law (as in the Constitution).
It is under the Movement system that institutions have been put in place to protect and promote human rights. The whole of Chapter Four of the Constitution, is about rights and freedoms. It would be retrogressive for Movement Government, which has gone so far in institutionalising human rights, to ‘abolish’ the very institutions put in place to its credit nationally and internationally.
It is anti-Government: Uganda is party to a number of human rights conventions that have been ratified during the tenure of the present Government. When the state ratifies these conventions it is bound by them. The makers of the 1995 Constitution were aware that the Government might not comply with the obligations of these conventions although it had signed them. The UHRC was therefore given the mandate of ‘monitoring Government’s compliance with international treaty and convention obligations on human rights.’
The UHRC has been performing this function. To abolish the UHRC at this level would negatively affect several programmes in a number of governmental and non-governmental institutions requiring a fresh start.
It is Incompatible with the (IGG): The question may be asked as to why the IGG cannot perform the duties of the UHRC. If the UHRC is integrated into the IGG’s office, human rights would be the biggest causality, to the detriment of the majority. This is because in most cases, the jurisdiction of the IGG is to ensure general fairness and legality in public administration. The jurisdiction of the UHRC however, is more specifically focused on human rights (i.e. civil, political, economic, social, cultural and collective rights), extending beyond government to include public life (e.g. private employers and discrimination) (see UHRC functions article 52 and IGG article 225).
In a number of common-law countries including Uganda, the ombudsman is seen as handling issues of ‘justice’ from the confines of administrative law and good administrative practice, rather than on the basis of international human rights laws.
It is not costly to keep the UHRC: The reason advanced by the Cabinet for the merger is to ‘cut costs.’ The Government has created a conducive environment where donor assistance has supplemented the Government’s efforts to enable the UHRC to function. The Government should not have been the first to complain when it still has the good will of donors.
Human rights is a moral and legal duty. If the Sempebwa Commission does not reject this proposal, there is still a chance at Parliamentary level to maintains the UHRC. This is not just to keep my job, but to protect the gains achieved by the UHRC in this country so far.
The writer is the head of department monitoring and treatise at UHRC