Is northern Uganda in a state of emergenvcy?
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN<br><br>TO declare or not declare the north of Uganda a “disaster area†is the question now engaging Ugandans in a bitter exchange of verbal artillery. But there are several supplementary questions attached to it. What qualifies to be “a disaster?†Who is legally
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN
By Paul Waibale Snr
TO declare or not declare the north of Uganda a “disaster area†is the question now engaging Ugandans in a bitter exchange of verbal artillery. But there are several supplementary questions attached to it. What qualifies to be “a disaster?†Who is legally authorised to declare any part of Uganda a disaster area?
Is the term “disaster†known to the Uganda Constitution? and several others. Let me in this column today volunteer a few possible answers to those tantalising questions.
In order to conclude whether northern Uganda should be declared a “disaster areaâ€, one has to consider what has been happening there in the 18 years of the Kony-inspired insurgency and not merely be hypnotised by the Barlonyo massacre in which about 200 lives perished.
It is common knowledge that on numerous occasions Kony and his LRA have, prior to the Barlonyo tragedy, committed grave atrocities.
They have set entire villages ablaze, staged constant raids in which they have cut off women’s breasts and amputed men’s legs and maimed and killed children. On one occasion they abducted all the students of a girl’s school who ended up as wives of Kony and other LRA commanders.
They have ambushed buses and other vehicles, killing the occupants and burning the vehicles to ashes.
Although all this has been repeated over and over again for nearly two decades, neither Parliament nor the donors have ever suggested that the north of Uganda be declared a disaster area. In fact the donors have all along, until just a couple of years ago, endeavoured to limit the amount Government was spending on enabling the UPDF to fight the insurgency in the north.
Given that state of affairs, the Barlonyo massacre, terrible as it is, cannot be a ground for declaring the north a disaster area. Nor can it be argued that the north must be labelled a disaster area merely because the insurgency has continued for 18 years.
One has to consider the fact that although the Government has for 18 years failed to entirely extinguish the flames of insurgency in the north, the rebels have in 18 years failed to put any part of Uganda under their control. They have no territory and have to depend on hit-and-run tactics in their terrorist campaigns.
But supposing there was justification for declaring the north a disaster area, (in my submission there is none), who would have the authority to do so?
It seems Members of Parliament thought they had the authority and that is why they passed a resolution to that effect.
I am not aware of any constitutional provision under which they passed that resolution.
Reform Agenda’s Betty Kamya contended
at a press conference that Parliament had power under Article 79 of the Constitution to make such a declaration. Knowing that very few Ugandans ever look at
the Constitution, she thought she was free to pull anybody’s leg. But she was gravely mistaken.
There are methods of making the public aware of important provisions of the Constitution. Article 79 (1) merely states as
follows: “Subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament shall have powers to make laws on any matter for
the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda.â€
I believe Betty Kamya is knowledgeable enough
to appreciate that
a resolution passed by Parliament, such as that passed in respect of declaring the north a disaster area, is not a law.
In any case, the Constitution vests Uganda’s executive authority in the President. Article 99 (1) states: “The executive authority of Uganda is vested in the President and shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution and the laws of Uganda.â€
If I may call a spade a spade, only the President has the constitutional authority to declare an emergency in Uganda or any part of the country.
The term “disaster†is alien to the Uganda Constitution. All the President is required is
to get the proclamation approved by Parliament within 14 days.
In my contention, if a proclamation were to be made, it would be one declaring a state of emergency and not disaster.
And the sequence of action is that the President makes the proclamation and Parliament approves. Certainly, not the other way round.
By Paul Waibale Snr
TO declare or not declare the north of Uganda a “disaster area†is the question now engaging Ugandans in a bitter exchange of verbal artillery. But there are several supplementary questions attached to it. What qualifies to be “a disaster?†Who is legally authorised to declare any part of Uganda a disaster area?
Is the term “disaster†known to the Uganda Constitution? and several others. Let me in this column today volunteer a few possible answers to those tantalising questions.
In order to conclude whether northern Uganda should be declared a “disaster areaâ€, one has to consider what has been happening there in the 18 years of the Kony-inspired insurgency and not merely be hypnotised by the Barlonyo massacre in which about 200 lives perished.
It is common knowledge that on numerous occasions Kony and his LRA have, prior to the Barlonyo tragedy, committed grave atrocities.
They have set entire villages ablaze, staged constant raids in which they have cut off women’s breasts and amputed men’s legs and maimed and killed children. On one occasion they abducted all the students of a girl’s school who ended up as wives of Kony and other LRA commanders.
They have ambushed buses and other vehicles, killing the occupants and burning the vehicles to ashes.
Although all this has been repeated over and over again for nearly two decades, neither Parliament nor the donors have ever suggested that the north of Uganda be declared a disaster area. In fact the donors have all along, until just a couple of years ago, endeavoured to limit the amount Government was spending on enabling the UPDF to fight the insurgency in the north.
Given that state of affairs, the Barlonyo massacre, terrible as it is, cannot be a ground for declaring the north a disaster area. Nor can it be argued that the north must be labelled a disaster area merely because the insurgency has continued for 18 years.
One has to consider the fact that although the Government has for 18 years failed to entirely extinguish the flames of insurgency in the north, the rebels have in 18 years failed to put any part of Uganda under their control. They have no territory and have to depend on hit-and-run tactics in their terrorist campaigns.
But supposing there was justification for declaring the north a disaster area, (in my submission there is none), who would have the authority to do so?
It seems Members of Parliament thought they had the authority and that is why they passed a resolution to that effect.
I am not aware of any constitutional provision under which they passed that resolution.
Reform Agenda’s Betty Kamya contended
at a press conference that Parliament had power under Article 79 of the Constitution to make such a declaration. Knowing that very few Ugandans ever look at
the Constitution, she thought she was free to pull anybody’s leg. But she was gravely mistaken.
There are methods of making the public aware of important provisions of the Constitution. Article 79 (1) merely states as
follows: “Subject to
the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament shall have powers to make laws on any matter for
the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda.â€
I believe Betty Kamya is knowledgeable enough
to appreciate that
a resolution passed by Parliament, such as that passed in respect of declaring the north a disaster area, is not a law.
In any case, the Constitution vests Uganda’s executive authority in the President. Article 99 (1) states: “The executive authority of Uganda is vested in the President and shall be exercised in accordance with this Constitution and the laws of Uganda.â€
If I may call a spade a spade, only the President has the constitutional authority to declare an emergency in Uganda or any part of the country.
The term “disaster†is alien to the Uganda Constitution. All the President is required is
to get the proclamation approved by Parliament within 14 days.
In my contention, if a proclamation were to be made, it would be one declaring a state of emergency and not disaster.
And the sequence of action is that the President makes the proclamation and Parliament approves. Certainly, not the other way round.