Aronda Nyakairima acted constitutionally
Jul 07, 2010
THERE have been media reports with some people arguing that President Museveni needs to sack Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, just like his American counterpart, Barack Obama, sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan.
THERE have been media reports with some people arguing that President Museveni needs to sack Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, just like his American counterpart, Barack Obama, sacked Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the overall commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan.
These arguements by some political analysts are erroneous because the situations and facts relating to the two respective actions of Gen. McChrystal and Nyakairima differ.
The writer is the presidents’ deputy principal private secretary
Gen. McChrystal deliberately abused and also publically criticised his Commander-in-Chief and other senior civilian authorities who oversee the war in Afghanistan.
He compared them to serial incompetents, in a leading American magazine, The Rolling Stones. Gen. McChrystal was quoted as having been unimpressed by Obama’s military policies and that he did not know whom US vice-president Joe Biden was. Rather comically he referred to Joe Biden as “Bite Me?â€.
McChrystal’s actions blatantly disregarded the standing orders of the US military and risked undermining the Obama administration’s authority over its military. At a time when America is involved in a volatile war on terror in Afghanistan and beyond, the remarks were in bad taste. In light of this, Obama’s actions were justified.
On the other hand, Gen. Nyakairima, shortly after Hero’s Day, warned the opposition against resolving political differences by violence. However, the warning was timely and acceptable within the constitutional confines of Uganda.
For among other things, Gen.Aronda, who incidentally was a member of our Constituent Assembly that crafted our primary law, had cautioned that any political activist or organisation harbouring intentions to violently and extra-constitutionally implement their political agendas, to desist from doing so.
Nyakairima said the UPDF would exercise its constitutional mandate of safeguarding law and order when called upon by the appropriate political authorities.
Uganda’s Constitution requires the UPDF “… to preserve and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Uganda.â€
The UPDF, therefore, must preserve and defend people from internal, external and other forms of threats. These can be both state and non-state. And in the latter category we include familiar non state threats as Kony’s Lords Resistance Army, the People’s Redemption Army and Al-Qaeda.
The Constitution also requires the UPDF to cooperate with the civilian authority in emergency situations. Such emergency situations include riots and criminal insurrections, as for instance the September’s 2009 hooligans’ riots.
Crucially, Nyakairima advised aggrieved politicians and others to always use the courts of law, as is the case under the rule of law.
Although our Constitution guarantees all fundamental human rights, through its elaborate Bill of Rights, including the freedom of expression, the latter has never been absolute.
Unfortunately, within the Ugandan setting, some opposition leaders and activists act as if this country has no legitimate political and constitutional order in place.
Consequently, they routinely opt to organise extra legal demonstrations in Kampala’s Central Business District and busy market places without the required consultations and authorisation. This can, and has never been the case in any polity. Be it in theocracies as the Vatican or Iran or any of the Western liberal democracies.
In any organised society, including democracies like Uganda, demonstrations are regulated by established law. And as a gen eral principal such demonstrations can not be held in a manner that infringes upon the rights of other citizens, and stakeholders. Against this background, Gen. Nyakairima’s comments strengthened constitutionalism and the rule of law in Uganda.
That is, unlike those of his American counterpart, Gen. McChrystal, as explained above. And this clearly explains why President Museveni, as Commander-in-Chief, and a stickler to the rule of law, did not reprimand Gen. Nyakairima.
These arguements by some political analysts are erroneous because the situations and facts relating to the two respective actions of Gen. McChrystal and Nyakairima differ.
The writer is the presidents’ deputy principal private secretary
Gen. McChrystal deliberately abused and also publically criticised his Commander-in-Chief and other senior civilian authorities who oversee the war in Afghanistan.
He compared them to serial incompetents, in a leading American magazine, The Rolling Stones. Gen. McChrystal was quoted as having been unimpressed by Obama’s military policies and that he did not know whom US vice-president Joe Biden was. Rather comically he referred to Joe Biden as “Bite Me?â€.
McChrystal’s actions blatantly disregarded the standing orders of the US military and risked undermining the Obama administration’s authority over its military. At a time when America is involved in a volatile war on terror in Afghanistan and beyond, the remarks were in bad taste. In light of this, Obama’s actions were justified.
On the other hand, Gen. Nyakairima, shortly after Hero’s Day, warned the opposition against resolving political differences by violence. However, the warning was timely and acceptable within the constitutional confines of Uganda.
For among other things, Gen.Aronda, who incidentally was a member of our Constituent Assembly that crafted our primary law, had cautioned that any political activist or organisation harbouring intentions to violently and extra-constitutionally implement their political agendas, to desist from doing so.
Nyakairima said the UPDF would exercise its constitutional mandate of safeguarding law and order when called upon by the appropriate political authorities.
Uganda’s Constitution requires the UPDF “… to preserve and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Uganda.â€
The UPDF, therefore, must preserve and defend people from internal, external and other forms of threats. These can be both state and non-state. And in the latter category we include familiar non state threats as Kony’s Lords Resistance Army, the People’s Redemption Army and Al-Qaeda.
The Constitution also requires the UPDF to cooperate with the civilian authority in emergency situations. Such emergency situations include riots and criminal insurrections, as for instance the September’s 2009 hooligans’ riots.
Crucially, Nyakairima advised aggrieved politicians and others to always use the courts of law, as is the case under the rule of law.
Although our Constitution guarantees all fundamental human rights, through its elaborate Bill of Rights, including the freedom of expression, the latter has never been absolute.
Unfortunately, within the Ugandan setting, some opposition leaders and activists act as if this country has no legitimate political and constitutional order in place.
Consequently, they routinely opt to organise extra legal demonstrations in Kampala’s Central Business District and busy market places without the required consultations and authorisation. This can, and has never been the case in any polity. Be it in theocracies as the Vatican or Iran or any of the Western liberal democracies.
In any organised society, including democracies like Uganda, demonstrations are regulated by established law. And as a gen eral principal such demonstrations can not be held in a manner that infringes upon the rights of other citizens, and stakeholders. Against this background, Gen. Nyakairima’s comments strengthened constitutionalism and the rule of law in Uganda.
That is, unlike those of his American counterpart, Gen. McChrystal, as explained above. And this clearly explains why President Museveni, as Commander-in-Chief, and a stickler to the rule of law, did not reprimand Gen. Nyakairima.