UPC should go to Parliament, court

By Ofwono OpondoTHE foiled UPC political rally and others in stock by multiparty agitators may be games of both strategy and of chance. But one clear message proved to the UPC is that the rule of law exists, the state is efficient and will not give in. The UPC must be unhappy that they only managed to expose one innocent life to danger!Having been defeated in various military contests under the guise of UPDA, LRA, FOBA, NALU and ADF, the renewed round of confrontation by UPC is a rear-guard political action by the Milton Obote faction.Coming from the brutality of UPC under Obote only 16 years ago, Ugandans neither owe UPC any apology nor expect compliments from then fallen UPC leadership.Their renewed vigour to stumble over each other to snatch a lead are five-fold in the vain hope that they will pin down the Movement in cock-fights and deviate from implementing development programmes in the next five years.Their main objective is to gain local and international publicity as a persecuted group with a legitimate cause and the government as unpopular and dictatorial.Secondly, they would like to cause long-running fracases to scare way local and foreign investments by portraying Uganda as unsafe. By this strategy they hope to generate internal discontent as people lose business.The defiance, it is hoped will provoke extreme brutality from the state and attract widespread condemnation. In fact agitation and crisis are the only method UPC has mastered either while in or out of government. Its leadership neither believes nor practices civilised dialogue.Unfortunately the Democratic Party led by Dr Paul Ssemogerere has always failed to notice the bad signs and simply mimics the UPC.It seems this burst by UPC, supported by perennial election losers Semogerere and Kibirige Mayanja, is towards a game of chance.Available facts prove that UPC is neither multiparty in ideology nor in practice having banned the DP and KY in 1969. It is UPC which declared a state of emergency (1966-71) without any law yet there was no war at the time. Having not learnt any lesson, the UPC leadership repeated the same brutality when it returned in 1980.The above impunity was by the same present UPC leadership who have no slightest remorse about the whole thing. It is surprising that DP leaders have long forgotten that their MP Ssebugwawo and the wife of Gerald Ssendaula were killed in cold blood.Too that MPs-elect Abu Mayanja and Paulo Wangola were never allowed to take their seats, while MP Prof Yoweri Kyesimira became a political prisoner under UPC. Attempts to compare our constititution to that of apartheid system in South Africa supported by western democracies for over 60 years is far-fetched. Apartheid was not only exclusive and non-elected but was also racist, brutal and dehumanising to the indigenous Africans whose prime property (land) was robbed. In contrast, the Ugandan 1995 constitution and other laws were generated from the population and debated and promulgated by directly elected bodies such as the Constituent Assembly (CA) and Parliament through universal adult suffrage.All political tendencies including the multipartyism participated in these elections, although they are in the minority. Now the DP has just boasted of “winning” Kampala! Cecilia Ogwal too has said that she was not at the foiled Rwanyarare political rally because “I was in Lira to ensure that Movementists don’t win elections there”!This is the reason the multipartysts fear the referendum and are seeking to “cut” deals with the Movement leadership.Some multiparty advocates in the CA were Prof Dan Nabudere, Aggrey Awori, Ssemogerere, Mrs Ogwal, Omara Atubo, Damiano Lubega, Ssebaana Kizito, Winnie Byanyima, Kizza Besigye and Zachary Olum.The Constitution unambiguously provides for methods by which it can be challenged or amended. These include Parliament, courts of law, and elections or referenda.The critics often use narrow and selective quotes of articles 29 and 269 of the Constitution for argument’s sake. But the famous article 29 ought to be read alongside articles 1, 21 (5), 43, 44, 70, and 73.In relation to rights, 21(5) states “nothing shall be taken to be inconsistent with this article which is allowed to be done under any provision of the Constitution.”Article 44 enumerates the rights that cannot be derogated to include freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Also freedom from slavery or servitude, and the right to a fair hearing and to an order of the habeas corpus.An advice to UPC and Ken-Lukyamuzi is to seek declaration from the Constitutional Court whether the often-quoted articles relating to freedoms and rights are at variance.Let them seek court ruling whether in foiling their political rally the police acted contrary to the law. Whatever the ruling, Uganda would be on a better and steady path to democracy, development and the rule of law.