Wrong time for amendment
Jul 13, 2004
THE Cabinet’s decision to introduce a new Bill seeking to repeal and replace Article 90 of the Constitution, mid way the constitutional review process, raises questions.
THE Cabinet’s decision to introduce a new Bill seeking to repeal and replace Article 90 of the Constitution, mid way the constitutional review process, raises questions.
Why shouldn’t the amendment wait and be considered together with the rest of constitutional amendments? Is there a crisis that warrants it to be effected immediately?
This proposed amendment would undermine sanctity of the Constitution by creating the impression that it is just a piece of document that can always be altered to suit circumstances of the moment.
Critics would interpret the amendment as yet another attempt by the government to shift the goal posts or fix the constitutional review and transition process.
Even if it is well intentioned, the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2004 will be understood as part and parcel of the current ‘kisanja’ politics (third term).
Article 90 would ordinarily not be controversial. It creates and spells out the functions of the parliament’s committees. It has become controversial for two reasons. First it has been invoked many times by litigants in the constitutional petitions.
The Constitutional Court has held that Article 90 makes it mandatory that all Bills in Parliament are scrutinised by standing committees.
Parliament, with all its many brilliant lawyers, has not been referring Bills to standing committees, but instead to sessional committees. It is this mistake that has partly provided Paul Ssemogerere with ammunition to strike down some key important laws, including the Referendum (Political Systems) Act.
Article 90 has also become a matter of interest in political circles due to prevailing 'kisanja' politics.
At the start of this session, pro-Kisanja Movement MPs scrambled to join the legal affairs committee believing that it would scrutinise the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill and the Cabinet's White Paper on the Ssempebwa report.
Under the current provisions of Article 90, the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill would be scrutinised by the Rules, Privileges and Discipline committee chaired by Ben Wacha, a prominent figure in the anti-kisanja Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (PAFO).
The proposed amendment can only be understood, rightly or wrongly, as specifically intended to let the legal affairs committee to scrutinise the constitutional amendments Bill.
When amending Article 90, Parliament ought to tread carefully bearing in mind the amendment could be contested in the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court has nullified three of the key Acts passed by the previous 6th Parliament: The Constitutional (Amendment) Act 2000.
The court has also quashed parts of the Political Parties and Organisations Act passed by current 7th Parliament. The nullification of these Acts has dented credibility of Parliament.
Why shouldn’t the amendment wait and be considered together with the rest of constitutional amendments? Is there a crisis that warrants it to be effected immediately?
This proposed amendment would undermine sanctity of the Constitution by creating the impression that it is just a piece of document that can always be altered to suit circumstances of the moment.
Critics would interpret the amendment as yet another attempt by the government to shift the goal posts or fix the constitutional review and transition process.
Even if it is well intentioned, the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2004 will be understood as part and parcel of the current ‘kisanja’ politics (third term).
Article 90 would ordinarily not be controversial. It creates and spells out the functions of the parliament’s committees. It has become controversial for two reasons. First it has been invoked many times by litigants in the constitutional petitions.
The Constitutional Court has held that Article 90 makes it mandatory that all Bills in Parliament are scrutinised by standing committees.
Parliament, with all its many brilliant lawyers, has not been referring Bills to standing committees, but instead to sessional committees. It is this mistake that has partly provided Paul Ssemogerere with ammunition to strike down some key important laws, including the Referendum (Political Systems) Act.
Article 90 has also become a matter of interest in political circles due to prevailing 'kisanja' politics.
At the start of this session, pro-Kisanja Movement MPs scrambled to join the legal affairs committee believing that it would scrutinise the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill and the Cabinet's White Paper on the Ssempebwa report.
Under the current provisions of Article 90, the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill would be scrutinised by the Rules, Privileges and Discipline committee chaired by Ben Wacha, a prominent figure in the anti-kisanja Parliamentary Advocacy Forum (PAFO).
The proposed amendment can only be understood, rightly or wrongly, as specifically intended to let the legal affairs committee to scrutinise the constitutional amendments Bill.
When amending Article 90, Parliament ought to tread carefully bearing in mind the amendment could be contested in the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court has nullified three of the key Acts passed by the previous 6th Parliament: The Constitutional (Amendment) Act 2000.
The court has also quashed parts of the Political Parties and Organisations Act passed by current 7th Parliament. The nullification of these Acts has dented credibility of Parliament.