The doctrine of collective responsibility
5th October 2004
SIR— The article “Government hiding behind collective responsibilityâ€
SIR— The article “Government hiding behind collective responsibility†in some sections of the press last Friday insinuates that the White Paper proposal for Parliament to depose errant cultural leaders is not a genuine Cabinet decision but a trick to divert public attention from the main issue — the removal of presidential term limits.
The fallacies and falsehoods in that article should be corrected, especially on the doctrine of collective responsibility.
But first, even the claim that 10
ministers have disowned the said proposal is itself speculative. The newspaper which talked about the 10 has itself named only two — Ssemakula Kiwanuka and Tim Lwanga. Ssemakula has dismissed the claim as a lie while Lwanga has since apologised to Cabinet for the mistake he made. No other minister has been named and none has pronounced himself or herself as opposed to the proposal. Who then is not bound by the Cabinet’s decision?
Even if the dissenting 10 were not mere conjecture, they would be out of order. Cabinet decisions bind all ministers irrespective of whether one was absent or in disagreement. No room is therefore left for the hypothetical 10, even if they existed, to disown a Cabinet decision.
Similar situations have arisen in Uganda and in other jurisdictions where cabinets follow the Westminster convention. In Britain, for instance, Lord George Brown had to resign because his conscience was in conflict with a Cabinet decision. In Kenya, Oginga Odinga resigned because he did not want to be bound by a decision taken in his absence and which decision he did not agree with.
Here in Uganda, the then President Milton Obote dismissed the Minister of Justice, Cuthbert Obwangor, in the 1960s for contradicting Cabinet decisions outside the Cabinet.
Even today it is possible for a number of ministers to be absent as the Cabinet makes key decisions. For instance, under article 111(1) of the Constitution, the Cabinet comprises the President, the Vice-President and senior ministers. In the spirit of this article, ministers of state would not be members of the Cabinet and may not attend its meetings but are definitely bound by its decisions.
Even if the practice was, and it probably is, that even ministers of state attend Cabinet, the absence of only 10 out of about 60 would not deter the rest from taking binding decisions. It is therefore possible for 10 ministers to miss an important Cabinet meeting. Even if the rules of quorum are applied strictly, in the absence of only 10 out of about 60, the Cabinet would still take binding decisions.
Calls for the resignation of ministers who disown Cabinet decisions, if any, are therefore not mere intimidation. The three cases already cited are instructive in our situation. Whether one is absent or present, consenting or dissenting, he or she is bound or else he or she quits on his or her own, otherwise he or she faces the sack if the appointing authority deems it fit.
By asserting that the proposal to depose kings is diversionary, the writer implies that the President wants another term by hook or crook. But why would a person seeking another term by hook or crook table a proposal which is so politically costly? It must have been made as a matter of managerial principle and not diversion.
Finally, Ssemakula is blamed for serving the Government instead of his Kabaka. Well, this is Uganda in whose government Ssemakula is a minister and of which Buganda is part. The legitimate interests of the whole no doubt prevail over those of the part. Ssemakula has stated that he only supports a Buganda which is for a united and stable Uganda.
Julius Nkeramihigo
Kampala
The fallacies and falsehoods in that article should be corrected, especially on the doctrine of collective responsibility.
But first, even the claim that 10
ministers have disowned the said proposal is itself speculative. The newspaper which talked about the 10 has itself named only two — Ssemakula Kiwanuka and Tim Lwanga. Ssemakula has dismissed the claim as a lie while Lwanga has since apologised to Cabinet for the mistake he made. No other minister has been named and none has pronounced himself or herself as opposed to the proposal. Who then is not bound by the Cabinet’s decision?
Even if the dissenting 10 were not mere conjecture, they would be out of order. Cabinet decisions bind all ministers irrespective of whether one was absent or in disagreement. No room is therefore left for the hypothetical 10, even if they existed, to disown a Cabinet decision.
Similar situations have arisen in Uganda and in other jurisdictions where cabinets follow the Westminster convention. In Britain, for instance, Lord George Brown had to resign because his conscience was in conflict with a Cabinet decision. In Kenya, Oginga Odinga resigned because he did not want to be bound by a decision taken in his absence and which decision he did not agree with.
Here in Uganda, the then President Milton Obote dismissed the Minister of Justice, Cuthbert Obwangor, in the 1960s for contradicting Cabinet decisions outside the Cabinet.
Even today it is possible for a number of ministers to be absent as the Cabinet makes key decisions. For instance, under article 111(1) of the Constitution, the Cabinet comprises the President, the Vice-President and senior ministers. In the spirit of this article, ministers of state would not be members of the Cabinet and may not attend its meetings but are definitely bound by its decisions.
Even if the practice was, and it probably is, that even ministers of state attend Cabinet, the absence of only 10 out of about 60 would not deter the rest from taking binding decisions. It is therefore possible for 10 ministers to miss an important Cabinet meeting. Even if the rules of quorum are applied strictly, in the absence of only 10 out of about 60, the Cabinet would still take binding decisions.
Calls for the resignation of ministers who disown Cabinet decisions, if any, are therefore not mere intimidation. The three cases already cited are instructive in our situation. Whether one is absent or present, consenting or dissenting, he or she is bound or else he or she quits on his or her own, otherwise he or she faces the sack if the appointing authority deems it fit.
By asserting that the proposal to depose kings is diversionary, the writer implies that the President wants another term by hook or crook. But why would a person seeking another term by hook or crook table a proposal which is so politically costly? It must have been made as a matter of managerial principle and not diversion.
Finally, Ssemakula is blamed for serving the Government instead of his Kabaka. Well, this is Uganda in whose government Ssemakula is a minister and of which Buganda is part. The legitimate interests of the whole no doubt prevail over those of the part. Ssemakula has stated that he only supports a Buganda which is for a united and stable Uganda.
Julius Nkeramihigo
Kampala