Scrap term limits, says committee
Jun 23, 2005
THE debate on whether to lift presidential term limits or not has raged on since March 2003. The final vote is expected to be taken next week. <b>Felix Osike </b>summarised the views of the legal and parliamentary committee and some MPs
Of all the proposals in the Bill just like it was in the White Paper, by far, the proposal to replace Article 105(2) to provide for indefinite eligibility for the president is the most controversial. It has been the most widely debated issue in this transition process.
However, the debate has been concentrated on procedural matters and the centrality of the incumbent president rather than the merits and demerits of the term limits.
In December when the committee presented its report on the Government White Paper, the committee had come to the conclusion that the two broad perceptions for and against lifting presidential term limits; are irreconcilable and can only be resolved through a vote in parliament.
On one hand those who have taken the anti-third term perspective argue, “President Museveni is an obstacle to the democratisation process in Uganda.†And that he has lost direction on institution building, teamwork and open methods of work.
They further argue that the existence of preconditions for free and fair elections in developing African democracies is highly doubtful. It, therefore, cannot be an acceptable method of ensuring changes in the presidency.
Otherwise, they conclude, African leaders have stayed on and have used the status of incumbency to orchestrate popularity and manipulate the electoral system.
There are also moderates in the anti-third term perspective who argue that President Museveni has made tremendous contributions to the rebuilding of Uganda and he should retire honourably and join the ranks of the late Julius Nyerere, H.E. Masire former president of Botswana and J.J.Rawlings, former president of Ghana.
In any case, they argue, he requested for votes while saying this would be his last term. Many people believed him and voted him on this basis. He should respect his manifesto, the Constitution and those who voted him to give him an honourable departure.
On the other hand, the pro-third term associate President Museveni with relative peace, stability and development which most areas of Uganda have enjoyed. Therefore, to retain this important and scarce resource, the term limit on the office of the president should be lifted to allow him an opportunity to avail himself for deployment on more assignments, particularly the long-term vision of the movement.
They argue that term limits are a setback to the basic right to choose the right leader and for how long. Where the preconditions for the free exercise of the right exist, term limits serve no purpose.
They further argue that the political and economic growth of the so-called Asian Tigers is a clear example of a long but visionary leadership, which Museveni has.
The committee had the occasion to examine all the possibilities when it considered the withdrawn (Omnibus) Bill and in its opinion the two broad perceptions are still irreconcilable and must be decided by vote.
Hon. Kityo Mutebi’s proposal to introduce a provision that the two term limit starts running afresh upon the country adopting another political system was rejected.
Hon. Joseph Mugambe presented a case for changing of the presidential term from five to seven years as is the case in Rwanda. The committee rejected this as unjustifiable.
The committee found that the proposal by Hon. James Kakooza, making a strong case for an extension of the current government, to be greatly undesirable, premature, pre-emptive and unnecessary at this time.
The committee itself took a decision by vote. There were three issues framed for the decision of the members.
Whether to retain Article 105(2) as it is in the Constitution
Whether to delete article 105(2)
Whether to adopt Mutebi’s proposal
By a majority vote, the committee decided that Article 105(2) should be amended to provide for indefinite eligibility for persons to vie and be elected to the office of president.
The committee had yet another opportunity to examine the issue of indefinite eligibility for the presidency when it considered this Bill. The proposal in the Bill is no longer for the deletion of Clause (2a) to the effect that the new clause (2) of this article should be subject to a review after 20 years. This generated a lot of debate and a vote was taken to resolve the matter.
By a majority of nine votes against, one vote for and two abstentions, the proposal was not accepted by the committee.
On the proposed amendment of the Bill, the committee also decided by a majority vote to 11 votes for and one against the amendment.
By the majority decision, therefore, the committee decided that Article 105(2) be amended.
However, the debate has been concentrated on procedural matters and the centrality of the incumbent president rather than the merits and demerits of the term limits.
In December when the committee presented its report on the Government White Paper, the committee had come to the conclusion that the two broad perceptions for and against lifting presidential term limits; are irreconcilable and can only be resolved through a vote in parliament.
On one hand those who have taken the anti-third term perspective argue, “President Museveni is an obstacle to the democratisation process in Uganda.†And that he has lost direction on institution building, teamwork and open methods of work.
They further argue that the existence of preconditions for free and fair elections in developing African democracies is highly doubtful. It, therefore, cannot be an acceptable method of ensuring changes in the presidency.
Otherwise, they conclude, African leaders have stayed on and have used the status of incumbency to orchestrate popularity and manipulate the electoral system.
There are also moderates in the anti-third term perspective who argue that President Museveni has made tremendous contributions to the rebuilding of Uganda and he should retire honourably and join the ranks of the late Julius Nyerere, H.E. Masire former president of Botswana and J.J.Rawlings, former president of Ghana.
In any case, they argue, he requested for votes while saying this would be his last term. Many people believed him and voted him on this basis. He should respect his manifesto, the Constitution and those who voted him to give him an honourable departure.
On the other hand, the pro-third term associate President Museveni with relative peace, stability and development which most areas of Uganda have enjoyed. Therefore, to retain this important and scarce resource, the term limit on the office of the president should be lifted to allow him an opportunity to avail himself for deployment on more assignments, particularly the long-term vision of the movement.
They argue that term limits are a setback to the basic right to choose the right leader and for how long. Where the preconditions for the free exercise of the right exist, term limits serve no purpose.
They further argue that the political and economic growth of the so-called Asian Tigers is a clear example of a long but visionary leadership, which Museveni has.
The committee had the occasion to examine all the possibilities when it considered the withdrawn (Omnibus) Bill and in its opinion the two broad perceptions are still irreconcilable and must be decided by vote.
Hon. Kityo Mutebi’s proposal to introduce a provision that the two term limit starts running afresh upon the country adopting another political system was rejected.
Hon. Joseph Mugambe presented a case for changing of the presidential term from five to seven years as is the case in Rwanda. The committee rejected this as unjustifiable.
The committee found that the proposal by Hon. James Kakooza, making a strong case for an extension of the current government, to be greatly undesirable, premature, pre-emptive and unnecessary at this time.
The committee itself took a decision by vote. There were three issues framed for the decision of the members.
Whether to retain Article 105(2) as it is in the Constitution
Whether to delete article 105(2)
By a majority vote, the committee decided that Article 105(2) should be amended to provide for indefinite eligibility for persons to vie and be elected to the office of president.
The committee had yet another opportunity to examine the issue of indefinite eligibility for the presidency when it considered this Bill. The proposal in the Bill is no longer for the deletion of Clause (2a) to the effect that the new clause (2) of this article should be subject to a review after 20 years. This generated a lot of debate and a vote was taken to resolve the matter.
By a majority of nine votes against, one vote for and two abstentions, the proposal was not accepted by the committee.
On the proposed amendment of the Bill, the committee also decided by a majority vote to 11 votes for and one against the amendment.
By the majority decision, therefore, the committee decided that Article 105(2) be amended.