Oloka Onyango wrong on NRM

By Henry Mayega

I have seen Oloka Onyango’s, “NRM Wrong on Speaker”, published in the New Vision of May 8, 2013 in which he argued thus;

Ndugu Rugunda’s response to the Speaker’s ruling on the so called rebel MPs was, “unfortunate and legally flawed”.  He went further to accuse the NRM’s Electoral Commission of having a “lop-sided reading of the Constitution” and making “attempts to elevate the interests of the party above those of the nation”.

First, although I am not a legal mind, I know that the Constitution of 1995 provided for enacting an enabling law to operationalise political party activity.  In essence, the Political Parties and Organizations Act was borne as a result.  It regulates how political parties are formed and run in Uganda.

Oloka Onyango’s argument that the NRM “is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution” is consequently rendered incoherent because an enabling law was put in place and the NRM has followed it to the letter.  In any case if the Constitution was to mention everything including all political parties, its volume would be transported on trucks that carry ballistic missiles.  That is why people who frame constitutions leave room for enacting enabling laws to operationalise constitutional articles. This truism does not require a rocket engineer to realise.  The NRM is a law abiding organisation, the very reason why it has gone to the Constitutional court seeking for an interpretation whether an indisciplined and expelled MP, as a consequence, can retain his/her position.  The NRM, therefore, is not elevating its interests above those of the nation and is not having a lopsided reading of the Constitution.

Secondly, the Constitution is not operationalised in a vacuum and, therefore, Oloka Onyango’s quoting articles 1 and 2 “which in part talk about power belonging to the people” and the Constitution being the “supreme law” without referring to other articles of the constitution is in my view, meting out an injustice not only to the NRM but also to other party memberships who yearn for order, discipline and pluralism.  I imagine that Oloka Onyago’s view point on this subject would shift rapidly or he would have chosen to be silent had it been the opposition trying to discipline its members and consequently throw them out of Parliament.

Yes the Constitution says nothing about many things including the sitting arrangement in the House.  The Supreme Law, it is true, is silent on many things, but other existing laws continue to be applied.  Consider a scenario of a religious cleric who elopes with someone’s wife and as a consequence he is defrocked.  The Constitution is silent about elopement yet those who engage in it on conviction in courts of law may be jailed, or pay a fine or suffer both.  The reason here is very simple; over time enabling laws have been put in place to address the ever changing environment in which we live.  This does not mean that Ugandans have to amend the supreme law because it is silent on certain things.  By imposing malcontents on the NRM and, therefore, the people of Uganda through allowing the expelled MPs to sit in the “middle compartment”, the ruling party of which the Rt. Hon. Speaker, Rebecca Kadaga is part, is being compelled unfairly to cede four positions/constituencies in Parliament.

Fourth, the learned friend should not selectively look at particular articles.  The country has got a number of laws that talk about the categories of MPs we have in Parliament.  They include; the Constitution, Local Government Act, Parliamentary Elections Act, Election Commission Act and the Political Parties and Organisations Act.

The said MPs include; Party MPs, Youth MPs, Women MPs, Army MPs and People with Disabilities.  Oloka Onyango may wish to know whether the expelled MPs belong to any of these categories because before he comments about the sitting arrangement alluded to by Ruhakana Rugunda, we need to clearly look at the categories of MPs as defined by this cobweb of pieces of legislation.  The comfortable seat for an MP as provided for in the rules of procedure is a consequence and not a cause.  In other words, the parliamentary seat is there because the laws have defined and caused election of these categories of MPs.

Oloka Onyango cleverly tries to divorce other laws from the Constitution yet he knows very well that all other pieces of legislation we have are borne out of the supreme law.  You, for instance, cannot isolate the Political Parties and Organisations Act.

Finally, he opines that Uganda should (be a copycat) and adopt the Kenyan system which provides that the Speaker resigns his/her parliamentary seat on being elected to that position to insulate themselves from bias and partiality.  Well and good.  Kenya has that system, but have their political problems gone away?  When the Speaker resigns, does his/her political affiliation run out of their hearts?  Parliament itself has a mechanism of disciplining its members. For example, when an MP misses 15 house sittings without good reason, they are expelled.  Who is this opposing discipline?

Henry Mayega is  a Special Mobiliser, NRM