The Republican Constitution was meant to sort out Buganda

To mark 50 years of Uganda’s independence, New Vision will, until October 9, 2012, be publishing highlights of events and profiling personalities that have shaped the history of this country.

Today, MOSES WALUBIRI takes us through the drafting of the 1967 Republican Constitution The 1966 ‘pigeon hole’ constitution had all the hallmarks of an expedient knee-jerk political maneuver on the part of Obote’s government, tailored to addressing the challenges posed by its confrontation with Mengo, in what came to be known as the 1966 Buganda crisis.

Therefore, its longevity was very much in doubt when it was hastily promulgated by the National Assembly during one of the most tumultuous episodes in Uganda’s post-independence history.

Both the preamble and Article 145 of the 1966 Constitution highlighted the stop-gap status of this constitution, pending the establishment of a constituent assembly by parliament to enact a new constitution. In early 1966, government released its proposals which were to be discussed and scrutinised, to form the basis for the 1967 republican Constitution.

However, Buganda was under a state of emergency which, according to Prof. George Kanyeihamba, in his book, Constitutional and Political History of Uganda, cast doubt on the ability of people in Buganda to discuss and critique government proposals in a free atmosphere

. However, according to Kanyeihamba, “nobody was arrested for expressing his or her fears or for vehemently criticising the proposals afterwards”.

And in his book, Uganda Since Independence; A Story of Unfulfilled Promises, Prof. Phares Mutibwa attests to the discussions that preceded the promulgation of the 1967 Republican Constitution, despite a state of emergency in Buganda.

“It was debated for three months prior to its adoption, including a month of discussions by a CA of MPs where the government accepted a substantial number of recommendations,” he notes in his book. Kanyeihamba seems to give the process a clean bill of health:

“Indeed, a study of the debates which followed the publication of government proposals, shows that many proposed amendments and most of the damning criticisms came from groups and individuals within the Buganda area,” he notes.

Therefore, what kind of constitution was this, given the palpably tense political climate in which it was borne? To Mutibwa, the 1967 Constitution was tailored to sorting out Buganda.

He explains: “The central issue addressed by the 1967 Constitution was to do away with quasi federal arrangement that had maintained the power of the kingdoms… Although not mentioned, the framers had Buganda in mind which had for long been a thorn in the fresh of the central government”.

Kayeihamba shares similar views: “There was one subject on which almost everybody was agreed. It was widely expected that the hereditary elements (kingdoms) in Uganda would be buried by the new Constitution.” So, what were the salient provisions of this constitution and how fundamentally different was it from the previous constitutions, especially the one of 1966?

The president became head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, as well as head of government. The roles of the three arms of government, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, were cleary defined. Although the opposition was getting weakened as evidenced by defection of Democratic Party (DP) MPs to the ruling Uganda People’s Congress (UPC), the framers of the constitution chose to retain a multiparty system.

Under Article 26, the presidential candidate nominated by the party, which emerged with the biggest number of elected members consisting of not less than 40% of all elected MPs became the president. And Article 40(4) provided for membership of the president and Attorney General in parliament.

In his book, A Complete Guide to Uganda’s Fourth Constitution, History, Politics, and the Law, David Mukholi summarizes the 1967 Constitution as “an emended version of the 1966 Constitution”.

The only fundamental difference, he notes, was the complete abolition of kingdoms, declaration of Uganda a republic, vesting of enormous powers in the presidency and high concentration of power at the centre.

The creation of a powerful presidency by the 1967 Constitution has, however, been a bone of contention, with some schools of thought blaming it for producing a string of presidents with an authoritarian streak.

However, NRM’s Deputy Spokesperson Ofwono Opondo, blames “political opportunism” rather than a powerful executive presidency for some of Uganda’s problems. “In the 1960s and in 1980, almost the entire DP legislators crossed to UPC. In both cases, it was rather a lack of principles on the part of DP legislators than coercion from Obote that caused this,”

Ofwono contends. UPC’s publist Joseph Bossa avers that civil passivity rather than the creation of a powerful executive president has led to abuse of power by subsequent presidents.

However, Soroti Municipality MP Mike Mukula says a powerful presidency would be tolerable in instances where term limits on the presidency are observed.

“In Uganda’s case, the presidency has a lot of powers. He appoints judges and in a country like Uganda where Parliament is controlled by the ruling party caucus, the President becomes the alpha and omega. The only counter veiling authority would be terms on the presidency,” Mukula explains.

Like any other constitution, the 1967 Constitution was a product of its time - a period marked by political turbulence, whose consequences still reverberate to day.