Roll-call voting a tricky situation for army MPs
May 01, 2005
I HAVE been keenly observing what is taking place in Parliament because the future of this country will depend on what is happening today.
Eriya Kategaya
I HAVE been keenly observing what is taking place in Parliament because the future of this country will depend on what is happening today.
I am glad the Government has come to realise that the Omnibus Bill was a recipe for protracted litigation in courts which litigation would have made the Government fail to meet the constitutional time-table for the transition.
There is a point regarding the Rule of debate and mainly voting in Parliament which has attracted my attention but has not been noticed by many people.
Maybe, this is why we have not seen any correspondence on the issue. When the voting by secret ballot was removed, Parliament substituted it with what I call roll-call.
This means when Parliament is voting on a Bill which has the effect of amending the Constitution, the Speaker will call out the name of an MP and the MP will stand up. He will be asked whether or not he supports the proposed amendment and the Speaker will pronounce his answer openly in the House and it will be recorded against the name of the MP.
Now this is where I am expressing my concern: how will the UPDF representatives vote, if they have to, in the above situation? Let us take the example of Hon. Maj. Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, the Army Commander. The Speaker calls upon him to indicate his position on the Kisanja amendment.
Aronda stands up and the Speaker asks him, “Do you support the amendment or not?†Aronda says he supports the amendment or he does not support it.
And therein lies the problem because whichever stand Aronda takes, one will not know whether his answer is a personal stand or the stand of the UPDF. The country expects the UPDF to protect all Ugandans as per Article 208 (2) of the 1995 Constitution, that is “shall be non-partisanâ€.
In other words, UPDF should protect all those who support and those who don’t support Kisanja.
However, looking at the above scenario, would the UPDF be a neutral or a partisan army? What are the political fall-outs as a result of the above?
I am informed this issue was raised during the debate about changing Rules on voting and the answer given was that UPDF representatives were like any other MPs and therefore could vote like other MPs.
This is not correct because UPDF representatives are a special group. If what I hear is true, then it goes against what has been the practice in Parliament even as far back as the Constituent Assembly days.
Those who were around will recall the problems Lt Gen. David Tinyefunza and the late Lt Col. Serwanga-Lwanga encountered from the chairman of the High Command and Commander-in-Chief. The two honourable members were told that as representatives of the UPDF, they were not allowed to express their personal views publicly on controversial matters in the Constituent Assembly.
This is understandable because if personal views were allowed to be expressed openly, this would mean other officers and men of the UPDF who hold contrary views would be entitled to express them openly, hence creating division within the army. I recollect Tinyefuza and Serwanga-Lwanga were told they were not to engage in controversial matters.
The army representatives were in the Constituent Assembly as listening posts.
Kisanja is the most controversial political debate in the country in the exercise of amending the Constitution.
Is the chairman of the High Command and Commander-in-Chief going to allow UPDF representatives in Parliament to vote openly and have their names and the side they support recorded for all to see and hear?
Suppose some UPDF representatives vote differently or wrongly, in other words, support different positions, will some be called undisciplined or rebellious and be punished? Suppose they all vote together on one side, is the country to be alerted that UPDF has taken sides and, therefore, ceased to be non-partisan as enjoined by Article 208(2).
If this happens then, I can see the Movement repeating what the UPC did in the 1980 elections and thereafter in Parliament when the then army was presumed to support UPC in Parliament.
I am raising this important matter because I believe UPDF must remain respected and loved, at least by majority Ugandans, if not all, whether some believe in Kisanja or otherwise.
The UPDF should remain an army for Uganda as opposed to an army for NRM-O.
I request Hon. Amama Mbabazi, the Minister of Defence, to condescend and throw some light on this issue of roll-call voting in Parliament and how the army representatives are supposed to behave without negating the constitutional obligation as per Article 208(2).
The writer is former Deputy Prime Minister and minister of Foreign Affairs
I HAVE been keenly observing what is taking place in Parliament because the future of this country will depend on what is happening today.
I am glad the Government has come to realise that the Omnibus Bill was a recipe for protracted litigation in courts which litigation would have made the Government fail to meet the constitutional time-table for the transition.
There is a point regarding the Rule of debate and mainly voting in Parliament which has attracted my attention but has not been noticed by many people.
Maybe, this is why we have not seen any correspondence on the issue. When the voting by secret ballot was removed, Parliament substituted it with what I call roll-call.
This means when Parliament is voting on a Bill which has the effect of amending the Constitution, the Speaker will call out the name of an MP and the MP will stand up. He will be asked whether or not he supports the proposed amendment and the Speaker will pronounce his answer openly in the House and it will be recorded against the name of the MP.
Now this is where I am expressing my concern: how will the UPDF representatives vote, if they have to, in the above situation? Let us take the example of Hon. Maj. Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, the Army Commander. The Speaker calls upon him to indicate his position on the Kisanja amendment.
Aronda stands up and the Speaker asks him, “Do you support the amendment or not?†Aronda says he supports the amendment or he does not support it.
And therein lies the problem because whichever stand Aronda takes, one will not know whether his answer is a personal stand or the stand of the UPDF. The country expects the UPDF to protect all Ugandans as per Article 208 (2) of the 1995 Constitution, that is “shall be non-partisanâ€.
In other words, UPDF should protect all those who support and those who don’t support Kisanja.
However, looking at the above scenario, would the UPDF be a neutral or a partisan army? What are the political fall-outs as a result of the above?
I am informed this issue was raised during the debate about changing Rules on voting and the answer given was that UPDF representatives were like any other MPs and therefore could vote like other MPs.
This is not correct because UPDF representatives are a special group. If what I hear is true, then it goes against what has been the practice in Parliament even as far back as the Constituent Assembly days.
Those who were around will recall the problems Lt Gen. David Tinyefunza and the late Lt Col. Serwanga-Lwanga encountered from the chairman of the High Command and Commander-in-Chief. The two honourable members were told that as representatives of the UPDF, they were not allowed to express their personal views publicly on controversial matters in the Constituent Assembly.
This is understandable because if personal views were allowed to be expressed openly, this would mean other officers and men of the UPDF who hold contrary views would be entitled to express them openly, hence creating division within the army. I recollect Tinyefuza and Serwanga-Lwanga were told they were not to engage in controversial matters.
The army representatives were in the Constituent Assembly as listening posts.
Kisanja is the most controversial political debate in the country in the exercise of amending the Constitution.
Is the chairman of the High Command and Commander-in-Chief going to allow UPDF representatives in Parliament to vote openly and have their names and the side they support recorded for all to see and hear?
Suppose some UPDF representatives vote differently or wrongly, in other words, support different positions, will some be called undisciplined or rebellious and be punished? Suppose they all vote together on one side, is the country to be alerted that UPDF has taken sides and, therefore, ceased to be non-partisan as enjoined by Article 208(2).
If this happens then, I can see the Movement repeating what the UPC did in the 1980 elections and thereafter in Parliament when the then army was presumed to support UPC in Parliament.
I am raising this important matter because I believe UPDF must remain respected and loved, at least by majority Ugandans, if not all, whether some believe in Kisanja or otherwise.
The UPDF should remain an army for Uganda as opposed to an army for NRM-O.
I request Hon. Amama Mbabazi, the Minister of Defence, to condescend and throw some light on this issue of roll-call voting in Parliament and how the army representatives are supposed to behave without negating the constitutional obligation as per Article 208(2).
The writer is former Deputy Prime Minister and minister of Foreign Affairs