Alas, Wapa letter lost!

May 14, 2004

READING the President’s letter in The Monitor of Thursday, in which he said that the late James Wapakhabulo had written to him on 19 November 2003, a letter which the President never received in Wapakhabulo’s lifetime, I nearly wept.

READING the President’s letter in The Monitor of Thursday, in which he said that the late James Wapakhabulo had written to him on 19 November 2003, a letter which the President never received in Wapakhabulo’s lifetime, I nearly wept. Judge his letter as you might, James had wanted to use this opportunity to tell the President his own interpretation of the Constitution regarding any change in the present maximum two-term limit for presidents. Bear in mind that Wapakhabulo had long been a master draughtsman of laws and constitutions. By November he could not have been much in doubt that his time on earth was fast running out. No doubt chief amongst his remaining ambitions was that as soon as his Leader read the communication he would summon him and offer him the chance to explain the letter in detail face to face. For example, the President in his letter quotes Wapakhabulo as writing: “The results of such a referendum held under that proposed law to determine the question whether Article 105(2) should be repealed, even if favourable, has propaganda value only but nothing else.” The President is outraged. For as W. B. Yeats wrote in his poem, He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven: “But I being poor, have only my dreams;/ I have spread my dreams under your feet;/ Tread softly because you tread on my dreams”. One of Museveni’s longest held dreams is the Power of the People, as he passionately re-states in his letter. Surely it would have been the work of a minute at their meeting for Wapakhabulo to put his conclusion above more diplomatically, remembering, for example, that the word “propaganda” has not got entirely salubrious associations. Alas it was not to be, for the President never got the letter. Even the intrepid Kashillingi, one of his legal officers, did not get down to summarising it until the end of March 2004, by which time Wapakhabulo was dead, five months after the letter was written! I say “intrepid” because it would be akin to fighting a lion with a biro pen for Kashillingi to summarise Wapakhabulo. Was there merit in other points raised in James’ valedictory communication regarding the Constitution as he understood it? Let those trained to do so peruse our Constitution minutely and inform the People to whom Power belongs. In South Korea on Thursday it was the Judiciary who over-ruled parliament and reinstated the president whom parliament had kicked out. Finally it boils down to the Constitution of each country and what it states, although Constitutions (don’t we know it?) are capable of amendment.
* * *
If the President saw red at Wapakhabulo’s letter, he must, and with good reason, have gone close to apoplexy with the donors’ refusal to endorse the Uganda projected budget for 2004/5. It was (is?) due to be presented to parliament next month. What will Finance Minister Ssendaula do in the time to change the donors’ minds? They cited high spending on defence and public administration at the expense of the poverty eradication action plan (PEAP). They questioned the sh30b budget for the referendum on political systems next year and the continued financing of mass mobilisation despite the current move towards pluralism. World Bank and the IMF officials criticised the steep rise in government spending and called for efficiency and an end to corruption. Let’s address these matters in reverse order and see Ssendaula’s job between May and June. He must end corruption, no easy matter worldwide. But were he to use the organisation which succeeded Wembley (who shot armed gangsters off our streets a couple of years ago) and instruct them to shoot corrupt officials instead, he might yet do it. Efficiency might prove more intangible and therefore difficult to achieve by June. The referendum to decide whether to return to multipartyism is written into the Constitution - a clear case of People Power, whatever you might say of the two-term limit. It is a bit late in the day for the donors to bring this up now. But before the referendum decides on pluralism, mass mobilisation is therefore in order. What about the high spending on defence and public administration to the detriment of PEAP? A great many people have been retrenched (as we used to call it) from public administration, including the army. The process continues but not in a mad way which would bring about wholesale poverty, with attendant political upheavals. But in this connection theirs (the WB, IMF and donors) not to think the thing through, theirs but to bark orders and go. (Remember Tennyson’s The Charge of the Light Brigade?) As for defence spending, I consulted Frank, under 8 years, “Frank, those people who live where there is war, will they stop being poor?” It is true I didn’t throw the words Poverty Eradication Action Plan, or even PEAP, at him. His answer was brief: “Dad, of course they wont!” And he returned to his cartoons. While Kony still continues his terrible actions in this country, people will continue to live in poverty. It follows that defence spending to “neutralise” him is a very direct way to eradicate poverty. President Bush has just asked Capitol Hill for another US$25billion to fight in Iraq, thousands of miles from home, and having promised not to do so again this financial year. Such are the demands of war. Uganda needs Sh367billion in 2004/5 for defence spending for the whole of its territory. The donors are up in arms (pun intended). Uganda has 24 million citizens. Therefore a year’s security for each one of them comes to Sh15,300 (US$7.50). Donors!

www.oneman'sweek.com

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