Know When To Keep Mum, Cabinet
Feb 19, 2003
THE Constitutional Review Commission has so far received potentially divisive views on two main issues.
The peasants of Kasese have as much right to express their views as those demanding federo
Chibita wa Duallo
THE Constitutional Review Commission has so far received potentially divisive views on two main issues. The first being the term limit a Uganda president should serve. The other being whether or not the country should have a federal system of government.
In regard to the first issue, a group of peasants from Kasese proposed that it is undemocratic to limit a president to two or for that matter, any number of terms in office.
They argue that people should be left to decide when they are fed up of a leader. If they still think he is doing a good job, the term limit should not prevent them from re-electing such a leader.
This view received wide coverage in the media. Those opposed to a limitless term went ballistic and called the peasants all sorts of names. If the peasants read or heard about this reaction, they must be confused.
Are they not supposed to express their views to the Constitutional Review Commission, whether or not other people agree with them?
More recently, the kingdom of Buganda mobilised its subjects to escort the Katikiro as he brought their proposals to the commission.
Once again, debate ensued as to whether or not the kingdom was right to have demanded for Federo or should have just kept mum.
The kingdom subjects on the other hand, wondered if they committed any crime by submitting their views to the commission.
The people who criticised the Kasese peasants and those who disagreed with Buganda kingdom’s demands for Federo, must also believe that they are entitled to their views.
Their main argument being, anything that appears in the media is topical and therefore open to debate. After all freedom of expression guarantees them that right.
The question that arises therefore, is whether or not views submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission should be open to media debate.
If the commission was a court of law, the doctrine of subjudice, which prohibits a matter before a court from being openly debated or discussed in the media, would come into play.
So far, the commission has not protested about the often acrimonious media exchange arising from views submitted to it. If silence means consent, then there should be no problem as far as Professor Sempebwa and his commission are concerned.
This is probably why the media has not been kept away from the commission’s proceedings. After all, the constitutional review process is supposed to be publicised as widely as possible.
There are certain people, however, who may not be at liberty to debate submissions to the commission openly.
My understanding is that the commission will present its report to the Cabinet before it is presented to Parliament for debate.
The members of Cabinet and Parliament are therefore not supposed to engage in premature debates about proposals contained in a report that is meant to be debated objectively at the appropriate time.
Debating the proposals will require open minds and fair consideration of all the views expressed by the people in the report.
How will this debate be possible when the honourable members going to debate these views have made up their minds already?
More importantly, what confidence will the people who have submitted their views have in them?
It is healthy for people to debate views submitted to the commission in line with the right to freedom of expression.
There are certain categories of people, however, whom it behoves to stay away from the debate until the appropriate time. Ends
Chibita wa Duallo
THE Constitutional Review Commission has so far received potentially divisive views on two main issues. The first being the term limit a Uganda president should serve. The other being whether or not the country should have a federal system of government.
In regard to the first issue, a group of peasants from Kasese proposed that it is undemocratic to limit a president to two or for that matter, any number of terms in office.
They argue that people should be left to decide when they are fed up of a leader. If they still think he is doing a good job, the term limit should not prevent them from re-electing such a leader.
This view received wide coverage in the media. Those opposed to a limitless term went ballistic and called the peasants all sorts of names. If the peasants read or heard about this reaction, they must be confused.
Are they not supposed to express their views to the Constitutional Review Commission, whether or not other people agree with them?
More recently, the kingdom of Buganda mobilised its subjects to escort the Katikiro as he brought their proposals to the commission.
Once again, debate ensued as to whether or not the kingdom was right to have demanded for Federo or should have just kept mum.
The kingdom subjects on the other hand, wondered if they committed any crime by submitting their views to the commission.
The people who criticised the Kasese peasants and those who disagreed with Buganda kingdom’s demands for Federo, must also believe that they are entitled to their views.
Their main argument being, anything that appears in the media is topical and therefore open to debate. After all freedom of expression guarantees them that right.
The question that arises therefore, is whether or not views submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission should be open to media debate.
If the commission was a court of law, the doctrine of subjudice, which prohibits a matter before a court from being openly debated or discussed in the media, would come into play.
So far, the commission has not protested about the often acrimonious media exchange arising from views submitted to it. If silence means consent, then there should be no problem as far as Professor Sempebwa and his commission are concerned.
This is probably why the media has not been kept away from the commission’s proceedings. After all, the constitutional review process is supposed to be publicised as widely as possible.
There are certain people, however, who may not be at liberty to debate submissions to the commission openly.
My understanding is that the commission will present its report to the Cabinet before it is presented to Parliament for debate.
The members of Cabinet and Parliament are therefore not supposed to engage in premature debates about proposals contained in a report that is meant to be debated objectively at the appropriate time.
Debating the proposals will require open minds and fair consideration of all the views expressed by the people in the report.
How will this debate be possible when the honourable members going to debate these views have made up their minds already?
More importantly, what confidence will the people who have submitted their views have in them?
It is healthy for people to debate views submitted to the commission in line with the right to freedom of expression.
There are certain categories of people, however, whom it behoves to stay away from the debate until the appropriate time. Ends