Uganda's constitution undermines multiparty system

By Moses Nuwagaba

The recent decision by the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon Rebecca Kadaga, to retain the four MPs who were expelled from the ruling NRM party may have been legally correct but it has been an eye opener to the some of the Constitutional ambiguities and distortions that our law makers in the 7th Parliament, either by commission or omission, did tolerate.

I am particularly perturbed that the very Constitution that established a multiparty dispensation in Uganda can be the same document that punches holes in the same system!

Perusing through the Constitutional amendment made, in 2005, to Article 84 reveals that the power to recall MPs can only be exercised by the electorate, if the country is run under a movement type of system.

This is in total contravention with Article 1 of the same Constitution, which says all power belongs to the people. Surprisingly, the same Constitution provides no mechanism, whatsoever, as to how dissatisfied electorate can recall their Member of Parliament under a multiparty system of governance. In its current form, the law erroneously portends that under a movement system, all political parties will cease to exist and people will throw away their party memberships cards.

Whereas it is true that anyone contesting on a political party ticket may be voted by people of different political sheds plus those who belong to no party, the same applies to individual merit candidates under a movement system of governance. This is a fact expected to be known by people at the level of legislators.

What then forced MPs in the 7th Parliament to believe otherwise? They knew the two systems (movement and multiparty) were bound to compete in the 2005 and subsequent referenda as catered for in the law.

They went ahead to tie a noose around the neck of one of the systems yet common sense was enough to remind them that for any two systems to compete favorably, each of them must be allowed to live and remain vibrant. The lacuna they smuggled into the law is reminiscent of a political class seeking to preserve itself in public offices at all costs by creating a convenient cover for themselves within the law.

Another interesting mismatch resides in Article 83 (g) where it says an MP shall vacate his or her seat in Parliament, “if that person leaves the political party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in Parliament as an independent member”. This clause is obviously ambiguous.

It has been interpreted by commentators and lawyers, including Kadaga herself, to mean that leaving must be voluntary. I find it intriguing, for example, for anyone to argue that a woman who is officially divorced by her husband remains a member of a Mothers’ Union committee in her church for as long as she is not yet married to another man.

Then in the same breath, the same Speaker of Parliament says she is creating another sitting space for the expelled MPs in Parliament other than the NRM side. Isn’t this proof enough that indeed she acknowledges that the MPs did actually leave the NRM no matter how they did it?

Finally, I want to emphasise that our legal experts and law makers in the country should not just trap themselves into the debate as to whether expelled MPs should leave Parliament or not. A more important task at hand is to set our Constitution free of all ambiguities so as to help our democracy to grow and flourish.

The writer is a social, political commentator. nuwagabamoses@gmail.com