The new Bill puts transition at risk
Apr 18, 2005
THE Government’s decision to withdraw the omnibus Constitutional (Amendment) Bill and instead table two distinct Bills to effect the proposed constitutional amendments was understandable.
JOHN KAKANDE
THE Government’s decision to withdraw the omnibus Constitutional (Amendment) Bill and instead table two distinct Bills to effect the proposed constitutional amendments was understandable.
It was prudent on the part of the Government not to ignore the criticisms against the omnibus Bill.
Following the withdrawal of the omnibus Bill, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Dr Khiddu Makubuya tabled two Bills (No.2 and No.3) containing the proposed constitutional amendments.
One of the Bills (No.2) deals with amendments that relate to the local governments and, therefore, require ratification by the district councils. The second Bill (No.3) deals with amendments to articles of the Constitution that are not entrenched, that is, they only require the support of two-thirds of the MPs. One of the amendments in the second Bill seeks to abolish the presidential two-term limit, otherwise referred to as the third term.
It is important to note that in process of dropping the omnibus Bill, the Government made certain changes that have significant political implications.
The most significant change is the Government’s decision not to drop an amendment on Article 74 of the Constitution. Under the omnibus Bill, the Government has sought to amend Article 74 by inserting a new section stating, among other things, that “for purpose of enabling those who wish to organise as political organisations and political parties to do so, presidential, parliamentary, local government and any other public elections, after coming into force of this clause, shall be held under the multi-organisations or multiparty form of democracy.â€
Under the omnibus Bill, the Government sought to avoid need for holding a specific referendum on changing the political system. This had one big advantage. It made the change from Movement to Multiparty politics a fait accompli. Now that the amendment to Article 74 has been dropped, there are two ways the transition from Movement to Multiparty politics can be effected.
One option is to hold a referendum for the population to approve the change of the political system. This referendum must, however, be requested either by Parliament, district councils or one-tenth of registered voters from each of the two-thirds of all the constituencies. Alternatively, the political system can be changed by a resolution supported by two-thirds of all MPs and district councils.
The Government has settled for the seemingly less cumbersome option — a parliamentary resolution requesting for a referendum on the change of the political system. This option is provided for under Section (a) of Article 74(1), which states that “a referendum shall be held for the purpose of changing the political system — (a) if requested by a resolution supported by more than half of all members of Parliament…†And Article 74(3) adds that “the resolutions or petitions for purposes of changing the political system shall be taken only in the fourth year of any Parliament.†The fourth year of the current Parliament expires in two months time, at the beginning of July 2005. This means Parliament must adopt the resolution not later than July 2, 2005.
Although a referendum is planned for June, it would appear to me that, under the provisions of Article 74(3), it is not mandatory to hold the referendum before expiry of the fourth year of Parliament.
By opting to hold a referendum specifically on change of the political system, the Government has taken a serious political risk. The Government’s assumption is that the majority of people will vote in favour of changing from the Movement to the Multiparty politics.
The reality, however, is there is a possibility of the majority voting against return to multiparty. In the event of a ‘NO’ vote, the country would be plunged into a serious political crisis completely quashing the much anticipated transition. It is important, therefore, that steps are taken in good time to avoid such an eventuality. Therefore, both the Government and the opposition need to carry out a massive campaign to explain to the population why it is important that the country reverts to multiparty politics.
The political opposition may be tempted again to oppose the referendum on change of political system.
This will be unwise and counter-productive. What is needed is the opposition to work with the Government to ensure that the political system is changed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
jkakande@newvision.co.ug
THE Government’s decision to withdraw the omnibus Constitutional (Amendment) Bill and instead table two distinct Bills to effect the proposed constitutional amendments was understandable.
It was prudent on the part of the Government not to ignore the criticisms against the omnibus Bill.
Following the withdrawal of the omnibus Bill, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Dr Khiddu Makubuya tabled two Bills (No.2 and No.3) containing the proposed constitutional amendments.
One of the Bills (No.2) deals with amendments that relate to the local governments and, therefore, require ratification by the district councils. The second Bill (No.3) deals with amendments to articles of the Constitution that are not entrenched, that is, they only require the support of two-thirds of the MPs. One of the amendments in the second Bill seeks to abolish the presidential two-term limit, otherwise referred to as the third term.
It is important to note that in process of dropping the omnibus Bill, the Government made certain changes that have significant political implications.
The most significant change is the Government’s decision not to drop an amendment on Article 74 of the Constitution. Under the omnibus Bill, the Government has sought to amend Article 74 by inserting a new section stating, among other things, that “for purpose of enabling those who wish to organise as political organisations and political parties to do so, presidential, parliamentary, local government and any other public elections, after coming into force of this clause, shall be held under the multi-organisations or multiparty form of democracy.â€
Under the omnibus Bill, the Government sought to avoid need for holding a specific referendum on changing the political system. This had one big advantage. It made the change from Movement to Multiparty politics a fait accompli. Now that the amendment to Article 74 has been dropped, there are two ways the transition from Movement to Multiparty politics can be effected.
One option is to hold a referendum for the population to approve the change of the political system. This referendum must, however, be requested either by Parliament, district councils or one-tenth of registered voters from each of the two-thirds of all the constituencies. Alternatively, the political system can be changed by a resolution supported by two-thirds of all MPs and district councils.
The Government has settled for the seemingly less cumbersome option — a parliamentary resolution requesting for a referendum on the change of the political system. This option is provided for under Section (a) of Article 74(1), which states that “a referendum shall be held for the purpose of changing the political system — (a) if requested by a resolution supported by more than half of all members of Parliament…†And Article 74(3) adds that “the resolutions or petitions for purposes of changing the political system shall be taken only in the fourth year of any Parliament.†The fourth year of the current Parliament expires in two months time, at the beginning of July 2005. This means Parliament must adopt the resolution not later than July 2, 2005.
Although a referendum is planned for June, it would appear to me that, under the provisions of Article 74(3), it is not mandatory to hold the referendum before expiry of the fourth year of Parliament.
By opting to hold a referendum specifically on change of the political system, the Government has taken a serious political risk. The Government’s assumption is that the majority of people will vote in favour of changing from the Movement to the Multiparty politics.
The reality, however, is there is a possibility of the majority voting against return to multiparty. In the event of a ‘NO’ vote, the country would be plunged into a serious political crisis completely quashing the much anticipated transition. It is important, therefore, that steps are taken in good time to avoid such an eventuality. Therefore, both the Government and the opposition need to carry out a massive campaign to explain to the population why it is important that the country reverts to multiparty politics.
The political opposition may be tempted again to oppose the referendum on change of political system.
This will be unwise and counter-productive. What is needed is the opposition to work with the Government to ensure that the political system is changed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
jkakande@newvision.co.ug