Nowhere at all did Wapakhabulo oppose third term!
Apr 23, 2004
SIR— It is a shame that the editors at<i> the New Vision</i> accepted to publish the nonsense by Prof Semakula Kiwanuka
SIR— It is a shame that the editors at the New Vision accepted to publish the nonsense by Prof Semakula Kiwanuka. His article is off topic. What is he disagreeing with the late James Wapakhabulo for, in the first place? Nowhere did Wapakhabulo write that the Constitution cannot be amended. So what is the history professor’s beef?
The issue has been misunderstood by both critics of Wapakhabulo like Prof Semakula and some in the media who have rushed to claim that Wapakhabulo was opposed to term limits. Well, both have not read carefully. Or should we assume they are incompetent of a literal interpretation of the late minister's letter? Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, does Wapakhabulo oppose the third term. Let us get that clear.
So where exactly does Prof Semakula get the impression that the late Wapakhabulo was not in favour of amending the Constitution? What Wapakhabulo put forward was a warning, if one can call it that, that the proper procedure should be followed, not whether the Constitution should be amended. It is therefore an issue of process or means and not ends.
If I read the late Wapakhabulo’s letter clearly, he was advising the President to follow the proper procedure, that is, to take his views to Parliament because under the current Constitution, it is the only body with the power, and not the peasants, to amend the Constitution, to grant his burning ambition to eliminate the two-term limit or not.
Semakula wants readers to believe that the 1995 Constitution provided for a referendum on this and other issues. Where does it say so other than quoting the preamble that “power belongs
to the people�
Semakula should pinpoint
the exact section of the Constitution that entrusts the task at hand to the general voting public, the peasants.
The truth is that under the current Constitution, the power to amend Article 105 (2) does not lie with the peasants or the general voting public, but rather with their elected representatives — the MPs. I am not sure whether as an ex-officio, Prof Kiwanuka can vote on constitutional amendments or not. Therefore, instead of misleading the public, he should direct his efforts to convincing his fellow members of the House who have been entrusted with the onerous task of dealing with Article 105 (2).
Simply said, Ugandans in their wisdom opted for a representative democracy and not direct democracy in the form of referenda.
W. B. Kyijomanyi
Kampala
The issue has been misunderstood by both critics of Wapakhabulo like Prof Semakula and some in the media who have rushed to claim that Wapakhabulo was opposed to term limits. Well, both have not read carefully. Or should we assume they are incompetent of a literal interpretation of the late minister's letter? Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, does Wapakhabulo oppose the third term. Let us get that clear.
So where exactly does Prof Semakula get the impression that the late Wapakhabulo was not in favour of amending the Constitution? What Wapakhabulo put forward was a warning, if one can call it that, that the proper procedure should be followed, not whether the Constitution should be amended. It is therefore an issue of process or means and not ends.
If I read the late Wapakhabulo’s letter clearly, he was advising the President to follow the proper procedure, that is, to take his views to Parliament because under the current Constitution, it is the only body with the power, and not the peasants, to amend the Constitution, to grant his burning ambition to eliminate the two-term limit or not.
Semakula wants readers to believe that the 1995 Constitution provided for a referendum on this and other issues. Where does it say so other than quoting the preamble that “power belongs
to the people�
Semakula should pinpoint
the exact section of the Constitution that entrusts the task at hand to the general voting public, the peasants.
The truth is that under the current Constitution, the power to amend Article 105 (2) does not lie with the peasants or the general voting public, but rather with their elected representatives — the MPs. I am not sure whether as an ex-officio, Prof Kiwanuka can vote on constitutional amendments or not. Therefore, instead of misleading the public, he should direct his efforts to convincing his fellow members of the House who have been entrusted with the onerous task of dealing with Article 105 (2).
Simply said, Ugandans in their wisdom opted for a representative democracy and not direct democracy in the form of referenda.
W. B. Kyijomanyi
Kampala