Supreme Court Ruling Stirs Political Anxiety

Feb 04, 2004

On January 29, the Supreme Court nullified the Constitution Amendment Act of 2000. The judgement was in favour of the Democratic Party. <b>Asuman Bisiika and Joshua Kato</b> talked to different people and below are the different views.<br>

Doctor Paul Ssemogerere, President Democratic Party (DP), Zachary Olum, Nwoya county MP and Rainer Kafiire, Kibuku county MP, challenged the constitutionality of the Constitution Amendment Act in the Supreme Court.
This judgement may have far reaching political implications. Elias Lukwago of Lukwago, Alaka and Company Advocates says that the nullification of the Act by the Supreme court has in effect helped to quash fears of manipulating Parliament to amend the Constitution to have a Third Term for President Museveni. “The political implication for this historical judgement is that it will make it absolutely impossible for government to manipulate Parliament in order to amend the Constitution for the Third Term Project. I can tell you the hands of the government are tied on the issue of using constitutional means to have the Third Term,” said Lukwago.
The judgement of the Supreme Court represents a challenge to any new prospects of amending the constitution and the way Parliament passes bills in future. MPs have to vote by secret ballot as opposed to MPs shouting ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ to vote on an issue. Professor Jean Barya, a Makerere University Law don, says that another important aspect of the judgement is that the proceedings of Parliament can now be used in court without seeking permission from Parliament.
Asked whether the nullification of the Constitution Amendment Act of 2000 has any specific political implications for the country, Barya, the leader of the opposition delegation to the government talks says the judgement has strengthened their case of calling for a national dialogue with the government.
“I think the government will have to realise that they are in the middle of a constitutional and political crisis. And the only way out is to drop the strategy of legal pedantry and seek consensus with the opposition political groups,” said the soft-spoken don.
“The Constitution Amendment Act of 2000 gave legal effect (retrospectively though) to the Referendum (political systems) Act of 2000 under which the referendum on political systems was held (and the movement as a political system chosen). The nullification of the Constitution Amendment Act by extension also nullifies the Referendum Act of 2000. This definitely has political implications on the movement political system and leaves the Movement Act open to challenge. By extension the legality of the movement government may also be questioned. This is a political and constitutional crisis,” Barya says.
But Hon. Abdul Katuntu, MP for Bugweri County, calls for caution. Katuntu says the legal situation the Supreme Court judgement has created can only be resolved politically. “We do not have to push the country into a constitutional crisis,” said Katuntu who said he was speaking as a politician not a lawyer.
As a first reaction to the Supreme Court judgement, Rebecca Kadaga, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament on January 31 met Ben Wacha, the chairman of the rules, privileges and discipline committee and Dora Byamukama, the chairperson of the legal and parliamentary affairs committee. Fred Ruhindi who sits on the two committees also attended the meeting in which the MPs are said to have brainstormed with the deputy speaker on the impact of the judgement on Parliamentary business and the way forward.
However, a government official who requested to remain anonymous says the judgement is a vindication for the rule of law ushered in by the NRM in 1986.
“Ssemogerere could not have secured such a ruling in his favour during the past regimes. In fact Ssemogerere and company should be celebrating the return of the rule of law,” said the official.
“The Government has been trying to run away from parliament in order to get the vote for the third Term through the referendum, but now the court has made it clear that the process of constitutional amendment is not as easy as it is being said,” says Peter Walubiri, UPC Lawyer.
Mike Chibita, a lawyer, says, “The clear implication of the court decision is that the Constitution Amendment Act 1999 was annulled. However, this does not affect the 2000 referendum because laws do not work retrogressively.
They work specifically. If the judges had mentioned the referendum act was nullified, then that is a different matter. Unless you want to go and tell people to unvote which is impossible. The other implications can only be brought forward.”
Paul Ssemogerere, DP president general says, “This is yet another precedent set by the Democratic Party. We are going to continue fighting Constitutional abuse through the use of the law. Our next target is using the courts to stop the amendment for the Third Term,” he says.
Onapito Ekomoloit, presidential assistant on media, “I don’t think that the court has said that the referendum should not have taken place. It is only the enabling law that is affected. It is ridiculous for somebody to say that the government of the day is illegal because people openly went and voted in the referendum and in 2001, they came out en masse and voted for president Yoweri Museveni,” he says.
Elly Karuhanga, a lawyer says, “The court ruling has got far reaching and fundamental implications on the rules of procedure of parliament. It has left the gates open for a flood of legal challenges against acts passed in parliament,” he says.
Paul Kiragga, political analyst, “The court win should raise the morale of all those preparing to fight the lifting of term limits in parliament. The fact that the court has stopped the use of ayes and nays in the house and suggested that voting should either be through a secret ballot or lobby should be of great worry to the pro-Third Term group,” he says.
Latif Ssebagala, MP Kawempe North says, “The court win is a warning to government that they should tread carefully. They should be careful in all the amendments they are preparing to make, because every time they loose a court case, the money paid to the petitioners belongs to the tax payers of Uganda.”
Edward Ssekabanja, RDC Makindye, “ This is a lesson to Movement lawyers to improve on their capacity in courts of law. It is also wrong for members of parliament to abscond in parliament at critical moments of passing important acts, resulting in a lack of quorum,” he says.
Muwanga Lutaaya, national speaker UYM, “The court decision shows several things, first, the judiciary is free to make whatever decision they want, thanks to the environment provided by the government.
The second is the hypocrisy on the side of DP. It is well known that DP refused to assent to the 1995 constitution, but at the moment, it is the same constitution they are claiming to defend. Why should they defend something that they did not assent to? He asks.
Edward Ssenfuma, teacher and student Kyambogo University says, “Winning such court cases only appeals to us the elite, who understand these things. However, to the man at the grass roots who wields the vote, this is meaningless. The opposition should not consider this a major victory, since it is not going to win them votes.”
Joseph Balikudembe, DP lawyer says, “The court decision is an indication that all pillars of the current government are under scrutiny.
It is also an indication that all acts passed in parliament using the same manner are in balance. This is a fight for the Constitution of Uganda and for its integrity.”
Ofwono Opondo, “This is not the first time that DP has won a court case. With experience, they have to know that they just won a case and this does not mean that the win has taken them into power.”
Frank Tumwebaze, presidential assistant on research says, “The DP court win justifies the rule of law ushered in by the Movement government. However, the Judiciary should not appear partisan in some of these cases. For example, the PPOA was well defended in court, but government ended up losing it. I am not saying that they are wrong, but the precedence they have set in several court cases involving government is real scaring.”
Ends

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