Army representation is not constitutional

Jun 17, 2005

<b>Oloka Onyango</b><br><br>The recent saga of Brigadier Henry Tumukunde’s arrest raises several questions regarding the general role of the Army in politics. but more specifically is the issue of Army membership to Parliament.

Oloka Onyango

The recent saga of Brigadier Henry Tumukunde’s arrest raises several questions regarding the general role of the Army in politics. but more specifically is the issue of Army membership to Parliament.

What clearly emerges is that the problem is not one of speaking out.

Rather, the problem is the content of what is said. This means the standard applied is a subjective, rather than an objective one and it unfairly prejudices the individual Army MP.

It also clearly demonstrates that the arrangement of having serving soldiers in parliament is so riddled with contradictions as to not be feasible.

For example, how can Tumukunde be brought to account for “unauthorised” statements made in public, when hundreds of serving officers from Lt. Col. Proscovia Nalweyiso to Capt. Henry Mastiko (not to mention Major Roland Kakooza Mutale) roam the radio stations and write in newspapers without sanction?

What are the issues on which Army officers are not supposed to comment? Is there a list, and has it been made available to all Army MPs? Why, unless there is a problem with the concept of a serving officer being in Parliament at all, must those who intend to stand for a ‘civilian’ seat in the House first resign from the Army?

Finally, at which point does an Army MP cease to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of that office and become liable to Army discipline?

Whichever way these questions are answered, they simply demonstrate one thing: army membership of the legislature is (and has always been) a bad idea.

But the situation is obviously set to become worse. If under a movement arrangement, where there are ostensibly no partisan interests things are so confused, how much worse will it be when we return to a situation of multiparty politics?

If we do indeed move away from the movement system, it is manifestly clear that Army representation in Parliament should end. There are several reasons why. In the first instance, the election for President of the country has been divorced from the election of MPs. The President is directly elected. Under a multiparty system, such election may or may not be connected to the political party to which he or she is affiliated.

In other words, the election of a President may or may not be linked to the political party of which he or she is a member. This differs from the situation in 1980 when the party with the highest number of votes in Parliament automatically produced the President.

Put another way, you could have an election in which the President comes from Party ‘X’ while the majority of MPs come from Party ‘Y’. The President would thus head a minority government. In such a situation, who would the Army representatives vote with: the minority President, or the majority of parliamentarians? Take for example, the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution, which stipulate that the President may, with the approval of Parliament, declare a state of war. An Army MP (who must take orders from the President as commander-in-chief would be seen to be contravening the wishes of the commander to vote against a war even if the majority (and his or her conscience were against it. Moreover, now that there is an open voting system in Parliament the vote of the Army MP would be known to everybody including the commander-in-chief who would automatically question the loyalty of such an officer and could take punitive action against him or her. But more importantly, the inclusion of Army representation contravenes Article 208(2), which stipulates that the UPDF shall be “non-partisan… patriotic and subordinate to the civilian authority.”

In the example given, whichever way an Army MP were to vote (in favour of the President or with the majority opposition in Parliament), this would be partisan.

However, to be ‘patriotic’ may necessitate voting against their commander-in-chief (who also happens to be the President).

But being subject to Army discipline (which is itself a confused concept) such a vote could attract negative sanctions from the Army and other civilian authorities such as the Minister of Defence.

For all the above reasons and many more, Parliament must put an end to the idea of Army representation.

The writer is a Law professor
at Makerere University

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