Parties to campaign for local council seats
Jun 15, 2004
Adolf Mwesigye is minister of state in the Vice President’s office and former chairman of the legal and parliamentary affairs committee. He outlined his views on tranistion to multiparty sytem to <b>Hamis Kaheru</b>
Adolf Mwesigye is minister of state in the Vice President’s office and former chairman of the legal and parliamentary affairs committee. He outlined his views on tranistion to multiparty sytem to Hamis Kaheru
QUESTION: Are we going to have LCs under multiparty system?
ANSWER: We should have LCs under multiparty politics because local councils are state institutions. It is like saying shall we have a judiciary or Parliament under multiparty system. These are state institutions which begin with the Presidency, then you come down to Parliament, Judiciary, the armed forces and local governments.
How will parties compete for local governments?
Like parliamentary seats parties would have to campaign for seats on local councils and there is no contradiction in this. The law would define how parties can compete for positions in local councils but the positions in local councils and the functions would have to remain as they are today.
Does it mean that parties would field, sponsor and campaign for candidates to LCs?
Absolutely.
Some people say LC elections should not be based on parties?
There are some colleagues who had borrowed the Ghanaian experience. In Ghana the multiparty system only operates in the executive and parliament. It does not extent to the local governments. That system has worked for them but in our Constitutional order when you open political space then you open it in entirety. You do not open it half way for the presidency and parliament and you leave the local councils out of the system. That can expose you to constitutional challenge. Local councils like all the political institutions of the state will have to be in the multiparty context and will have to be competed for.
Can’t the ruling party form local government structures?
The ruling party would find LCs in place. LCs as state organs should not change. For example we have the post of LC5 chairman. Let me use the example of LC5 for Kampala District (Mayor). That post is both in the Constitution and the law.
Can’t the district chairman of the ruling party become the LC5 chairman?
That is not correct. Even the system we are in now we have Movement chairmen. Movement chairmen at district level are not necessarily district (LC5) chairmen. You find someone is Movement chairman of the district but he is not LC chairman of the district. For example if the NRM won the seat for LC5 in Kampala. The LC5 of Kampala would be a Movement person. He would have been nominated by NRM organisation. But at the same time there would be an NRM conference in Kampala district. That conference is the one which would select one among themselves for the LC5 seat. The chairman of NRM of Kampala would be elected by the district conference. That conference can nominate anybody to contest for the LC5 seat on the NRM ticket.
Maintaining LCs looks like two systems will be running concurrently?
Legally speaking the LCs are really state institutions. Why you look at them that way now is because the Movement system is the ruling system. And at certain points like at the village level actually the Movement system was fused with local councils because the LC chairman in every village is also the Movement chairman of that village. Certainly in the new dispensation we are going in, the local councils as state institutions have to be distinct and separate from party structures because there will be many parties. So parties have to compete for positions in the local councils like any position or institution in state structure.
You said earlier that Parliament will amend the Constitution first and a referendum will follow. What if the people reject the constitutional amendment bill?
If the referendum rejects the constitutional amendment bill, the bill will be null and void to the extent of those articles which are entrenched. The bill will be null and void only in respect of those articles that are a subject of a referendum. Not all articles in the constitution have got to be referred to the people.
There are articles which are purely a mandate of parliament but for administrative convenience you can’t separate articles which are for referendum and articles which are for parliament. It should be one bill. Let it be sent to the people for their blessing. Even those articles which are for parliament, it would do no harm for the people to endorse them. In fact the people’s endorsement of those articles would strengthen their legitimacy. Even though Article 105(2) is a mandate of parliament to repeal, the people’s pronouncement would legitimise the parliamentary amendment further. But should the people reject the bill it would remain valid for those articles that are within the competence of Parliament to amend and the bill would be nullified in the respect of those articles which are subject of a referendum to amend.
Can you please give examples of amendments which the people can reject in the referendum but they still become law?
For instance, if we are to hold presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day that amendment would affect many articles in the constitution because Article 105(1) sets the term of the president and Article 81 tells us that when parliamentary elections must be held. To make these two elections coincide, certainly you would have to bring forward the life of the Parliament. We would have to amend certain articles. That does not require a referendum. But if you have to make presidential and parliamentary elections coincide, then you must not be rigid in Article 105(1) by saying that the term of a person elected as a president shall always be five years. Because assuming the incumbent resigns, what would happen? It means that the person elected as president following the resignation of the incumbent would have to have his five-year term.
If we are to follow that logic then it means that presidential and parliamentary elections can never coincide. To cure that possible mismatch, we would need to amend 105(1) to allow a person newly elected as president to complete the term of his successor. So Article 105(1) is entrenched. It has to go through Parliament, approved by two-thirds majority, and then be referred to the people after that. But Article 105(1) will be part of the entire bill. If parliament approved Article 105(1) but the masses rejected it in the referendum, it would not have been amended because the people’s decision in a referendum is final.
What about Article 105(2) on ‘third term’?
If Article 105(2) went through Parliament and it gets the support of two-thirds, which I think it will, it will be referred to the people in a referendum together with the entire Bill. If the people reject it, let’s assume that way, that Article will still have been amended.
Are we not likely to see disharmony where an LC 5 chairman chooses only people from his party when forming the district executive?
If we have chosen to go into multiparty those are the hazards we would have to learn to live with because if the law says the Chairman has the liberty to chose his cabinet he will have to chose people who are sympathetic to his party. However, the law can be made to curb that mismatch and enjoin the chairperson to appoint people from different political persuasions to avoid sectarianism. So there should be some proportional representation especially at local government level because that is where implementation of projects takes place. Winner takes all would mean some people being excluded from government services
Since most Ugandans still want the Movement system, what would happen if during the referendum they rejected change to multipartyism?
A decision of the people in a referendum under article 74 is a legal decision. It is both political but also legal. So if the people say we have refused to change to multipartyism, that decision is constitutionally effective. That means the status quo remains.
In your opinion which activity in the transition should take place when?
As minister of justice said recently, the white paper is expected to be out in two weeks time. It will be showing government position on the recommendations of the CRC. It will should go to parliament for debate as government works on the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which should be ready in a month’s time.
From today to the end of August parliament will be concentrating on the budget exercise. So the Bill should to be presented in Parliament may in September. Time could also be found by Parliament to discuss the white paper along side the budget. By end of December we should be through with the Bill, then go for referendum in January or February. If the people adopt the Bill then we start working on the laws that will facilitate the multiparty system and the forthcoming elections.
There were reports that the referenda on political systems and ‘third term’ will be held on the same day
It is possible to have many questions in one referendum but it is also possible to have many referenda on the same day and same occasion. You would have to have different ballot boxes for different referenda. For instance if we are to hold a referendum on lifting term limitations, that would be a separate referendum with one question. If we are to hold a referendum on change of political system, that would be one referendum with one question on whether the system should change or not.
Those referenda both on term limitations and on change of political system can take place on the same day on the same occasion. Actually it is possible to use all the sh30b which was budgeted for to have even three referendum on the same day on the same occasions with three different questions or more but each referendum would have to have a separate ballot box.
Would voters tick different ballot papers?
Yes. Each referendum would have a different ballot paper ticked separately and placed in a separate ballot box. That is what our current law says.
QUESTION: Are we going to have LCs under multiparty system?
ANSWER: We should have LCs under multiparty politics because local councils are state institutions. It is like saying shall we have a judiciary or Parliament under multiparty system. These are state institutions which begin with the Presidency, then you come down to Parliament, Judiciary, the armed forces and local governments.
How will parties compete for local governments?
Like parliamentary seats parties would have to campaign for seats on local councils and there is no contradiction in this. The law would define how parties can compete for positions in local councils but the positions in local councils and the functions would have to remain as they are today.
Does it mean that parties would field, sponsor and campaign for candidates to LCs?
Absolutely.
Some people say LC elections should not be based on parties?
There are some colleagues who had borrowed the Ghanaian experience. In Ghana the multiparty system only operates in the executive and parliament. It does not extent to the local governments. That system has worked for them but in our Constitutional order when you open political space then you open it in entirety. You do not open it half way for the presidency and parliament and you leave the local councils out of the system. That can expose you to constitutional challenge. Local councils like all the political institutions of the state will have to be in the multiparty context and will have to be competed for.
Can’t the ruling party form local government structures?
The ruling party would find LCs in place. LCs as state organs should not change. For example we have the post of LC5 chairman. Let me use the example of LC5 for Kampala District (Mayor). That post is both in the Constitution and the law.
Can’t the district chairman of the ruling party become the LC5 chairman?
That is not correct. Even the system we are in now we have Movement chairmen. Movement chairmen at district level are not necessarily district (LC5) chairmen. You find someone is Movement chairman of the district but he is not LC chairman of the district. For example if the NRM won the seat for LC5 in Kampala. The LC5 of Kampala would be a Movement person. He would have been nominated by NRM organisation. But at the same time there would be an NRM conference in Kampala district. That conference is the one which would select one among themselves for the LC5 seat. The chairman of NRM of Kampala would be elected by the district conference. That conference can nominate anybody to contest for the LC5 seat on the NRM ticket.
Maintaining LCs looks like two systems will be running concurrently?
Legally speaking the LCs are really state institutions. Why you look at them that way now is because the Movement system is the ruling system. And at certain points like at the village level actually the Movement system was fused with local councils because the LC chairman in every village is also the Movement chairman of that village. Certainly in the new dispensation we are going in, the local councils as state institutions have to be distinct and separate from party structures because there will be many parties. So parties have to compete for positions in the local councils like any position or institution in state structure.
You said earlier that Parliament will amend the Constitution first and a referendum will follow. What if the people reject the constitutional amendment bill?
If the referendum rejects the constitutional amendment bill, the bill will be null and void to the extent of those articles which are entrenched. The bill will be null and void only in respect of those articles that are a subject of a referendum. Not all articles in the constitution have got to be referred to the people.
There are articles which are purely a mandate of parliament but for administrative convenience you can’t separate articles which are for referendum and articles which are for parliament. It should be one bill. Let it be sent to the people for their blessing. Even those articles which are for parliament, it would do no harm for the people to endorse them. In fact the people’s endorsement of those articles would strengthen their legitimacy. Even though Article 105(2) is a mandate of parliament to repeal, the people’s pronouncement would legitimise the parliamentary amendment further. But should the people reject the bill it would remain valid for those articles that are within the competence of Parliament to amend and the bill would be nullified in the respect of those articles which are subject of a referendum to amend.
Can you please give examples of amendments which the people can reject in the referendum but they still become law?
For instance, if we are to hold presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day that amendment would affect many articles in the constitution because Article 105(1) sets the term of the president and Article 81 tells us that when parliamentary elections must be held. To make these two elections coincide, certainly you would have to bring forward the life of the Parliament. We would have to amend certain articles. That does not require a referendum. But if you have to make presidential and parliamentary elections coincide, then you must not be rigid in Article 105(1) by saying that the term of a person elected as a president shall always be five years. Because assuming the incumbent resigns, what would happen? It means that the person elected as president following the resignation of the incumbent would have to have his five-year term.
If we are to follow that logic then it means that presidential and parliamentary elections can never coincide. To cure that possible mismatch, we would need to amend 105(1) to allow a person newly elected as president to complete the term of his successor. So Article 105(1) is entrenched. It has to go through Parliament, approved by two-thirds majority, and then be referred to the people after that. But Article 105(1) will be part of the entire bill. If parliament approved Article 105(1) but the masses rejected it in the referendum, it would not have been amended because the people’s decision in a referendum is final.
What about Article 105(2) on ‘third term’?
If Article 105(2) went through Parliament and it gets the support of two-thirds, which I think it will, it will be referred to the people in a referendum together with the entire Bill. If the people reject it, let’s assume that way, that Article will still have been amended.
Are we not likely to see disharmony where an LC 5 chairman chooses only people from his party when forming the district executive?
If we have chosen to go into multiparty those are the hazards we would have to learn to live with because if the law says the Chairman has the liberty to chose his cabinet he will have to chose people who are sympathetic to his party. However, the law can be made to curb that mismatch and enjoin the chairperson to appoint people from different political persuasions to avoid sectarianism. So there should be some proportional representation especially at local government level because that is where implementation of projects takes place. Winner takes all would mean some people being excluded from government services
Since most Ugandans still want the Movement system, what would happen if during the referendum they rejected change to multipartyism?
A decision of the people in a referendum under article 74 is a legal decision. It is both political but also legal. So if the people say we have refused to change to multipartyism, that decision is constitutionally effective. That means the status quo remains.
In your opinion which activity in the transition should take place when?
As minister of justice said recently, the white paper is expected to be out in two weeks time. It will be showing government position on the recommendations of the CRC. It will should go to parliament for debate as government works on the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which should be ready in a month’s time.
From today to the end of August parliament will be concentrating on the budget exercise. So the Bill should to be presented in Parliament may in September. Time could also be found by Parliament to discuss the white paper along side the budget. By end of December we should be through with the Bill, then go for referendum in January or February. If the people adopt the Bill then we start working on the laws that will facilitate the multiparty system and the forthcoming elections.
There were reports that the referenda on political systems and ‘third term’ will be held on the same day
It is possible to have many questions in one referendum but it is also possible to have many referenda on the same day and same occasion. You would have to have different ballot boxes for different referenda. For instance if we are to hold a referendum on lifting term limitations, that would be a separate referendum with one question. If we are to hold a referendum on change of political system, that would be one referendum with one question on whether the system should change or not.
Those referenda both on term limitations and on change of political system can take place on the same day on the same occasion. Actually it is possible to use all the sh30b which was budgeted for to have even three referendum on the same day on the same occasions with three different questions or more but each referendum would have to have a separate ballot box.
Would voters tick different ballot papers?
Yes. Each referendum would have a different ballot paper ticked separately and placed in a separate ballot box. That is what our current law says.