The Movement system has remained intact!

Aug 08, 2005

<b>A learned friend and astute analyst</b><br><b>Abu Mayanja</b><br>It is possible that by the time this piece comes out, Parliament may have completed consideration of the Constitutional (Amendment) (No.3) Bill, 2005 and passed it into law.

A learned friend and astute analyst
Abu Mayanja
It is possible that by the time this piece comes out, Parliament may have completed consideration of the Constitutional (Amendment) (No.3) Bill, 2005 and passed it into law.

Judging by the fragments in the media reports about the progress of its passage, it is not clear whether the whole Bill as published on April 1, 2000 is what is being enacted, or whether any consideration has been taken of the recommendations of the legal and parliamentary committee chaired by Mr. Jacob Oulanya to the effect that only those aspects necessary for the transition should be enacted now and the rest deferred to the next Parliament.

But what is causing me deep anxiety and concern is the new clause 297 added as part of the transitional provisions that “until the first Parliamentary elections for the purpose of the multiparty political system are held, the organs under the movement political system shall remain in force and thereafter shall be subject to clause (3) of article 70 and article 73”.

In other words the ‘multiparty’ elections shall be conducted when all the organs of the movement are intact and in place and financed and maintained by the tax payer! It is a paradox that elections conducted in such circumstances shall be “for the purpose of the multiparty” system.

How can anyone say that elections held when movement organs are in place and in full swing shall be multiparty? For one thing all chairpersons of LC1 shall still be in place and shall be, according to the Movement Act, the chairpersons of the Movement, and yet these are the officials deployed by the Electoral Commission (EC) to oversee elections in the field and to organise civic education. The more I reflect on the matter the more convinced I become that the July 28 referendum was not for the purpose of determining whether we shall go multiparty or retain the movement political system but for the purpose articulated by president Museveni — purging the movement of what he called hypocrites and others who felt they were in it by conscription. The movement has otherwise remained intact and unscathed as a virtual one-party system.

Parliament will thereafter return to the Constitution (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, providing for regional tiers or what is being fraudulently peddled in some quarters as federo. One of the more curious provisions of this bill is that whereas it is the districts wishing to do so which may decide to cooperate and form regional assemblies and regional governments and although district chairpersons are non-voting ex-officio members of the regional assemblies so formed, the districts are not integral parts of the regional assemblies and governments. The result of this is that the districts do not communicate with the centre through the Regional Tier and the latter has no power to use the machinery of the districts for the purposes of implementing its newly acquired constitutional functions. You may well wonder why government is insisting on this anomaly which, amongst other disadvantages, will lead to duplication of staff in the field.

Secondly, and perhaps even more serious to some people, is the fact that apart from recognising them as titular heads of the regional assembly and of the regional government, the bill confers no functions on Uganda’s kings and traditional rulers or leaders.

As I have pointed out in this column and elsewhere before, the Kabakaship in Buganda and I dare say the Obukama in Bunyoro and Toro is a political institution par excellence and not a purely cultural one. It is therefore very strange to the Baganda that under the proposed regional government, the Kabaka should have no input in the selection of the Katikkiro or the appointment of the other ministers of the kingdom. Like the queen in England, the Kabaka should be the constitutional head of Buganda kept fully informed by his ministers on the conduct of his government. Thirdly, the constitution makes no financial provisions for the regional governments. Paragraph 11 of the Fifth Schedule provides as follows:

lWhere a regional government is established, the government shall work out a formula of granting unconditional grants to the regional government having regard to the Seventh Schedule to this Constitution.

lA formula shall be agreed upon by financial experts in regard to the grants to be sent to the regional government to run the devolved functions and responsibilities.

lThere shall also be a mechanism to resort to in case the central government deliberately fails to remit funds to the regional government.

In other words, the whole question of financing regional governments has been left pending as a real time bomb that does not seem to make for stability but rather for perpetual quarrels and bickering. And where an entity that goes by the name of 'government' has no secure or fairly well defined source of revenue you can be sure there will be neither stability nor progress.

Some of the functions and services of regional governments as proposed to be enacted in paragraph nine will be another source for further misunderstandings because they are not precisely defined or well described. For example, regional governments are poised to be responsible for secondary education and tertiary institutions except national universities and other national institutions. the exception is not well defined, just as it is in the regional referral hospitals other than national referral hospitals and national medical institutions.

Perhaps the government knows what educational institutions and medical institutions are excepted but the reader of the bill is left wondering just what the regional government may and may not do.

The provision assigning responsibility for forests in paragraph nine seems to be in conflict with the Sixth Schedule as amended which proposes this item to be exclusive for the central government.

The provisions relating to regional Land Boards are really cosmetic because they give the regional governments no competence in the control and management of land.

But the provisions that clothe the regional standing committee on cultural matters like the Kabaka to determine the choice, appointment and succession to clan and sub- clan leadership and many other issues are really obnoxious and subversive of the cultural norms of the Baganda and I dare say of some other nationalities and they should be jettisoned forthwith.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});