Opposition MPs are trading in deliberate falsehoods

AGE LIMIT | OPPOSITION

By Stuart Oramire

Last week when I wrote about the crusaders of Kojikwatako campaign, who are deliberately sowing fear and anxiety in the public under the guise of "protecting" the sanctity of the Constitution, we had not yet witnessed the theatrics and comical stunts that were later to be displayed in the august house by a section of our opposition MPs.

The red bandanas around their foreheads signifying readiness for war were akin to the Hollywood fictional character of Sylvester Stallone in John Rambo movies. Such stunts may appeal to some members of public and even cause an occasional adjournment in Parliament proceedings but cannot stop business in Parliament.  

I recently came across a group of young men and women calling themselves ‘Kabasalemu' , loosely translated as  ‘Let our MPS decide' and they conferred to me that their overarching objective is to call their MPs, mainly in opposition, to order and also to counter the deliberate falsehoods of some of their MPS from the opposition. I will return to this group later.

Recently, most opposition leaders and other activists have repeatedly, albeit wrongly claimed, that amending the constitution goes against the spirit and preamble of the Constitution.

The Preamble of the 1995 Constitution is one of the special features of the 1995 Constitution and recollects the past history from which Uganda has evolved characterized by tyranny, oppression and instability and enjoins Ugandans to commit to building a better future through observance of the rule of law based on the principles of, among others, unity, peace, democracy and freedom. 

This Preamble also alludes to durability of the constitution.  However, the constitution can be amended and any amendment done through due process and supported by majority people or their elected leaders cannot amount to an abrogation of the constitution. 

This is the context of the preamble. Dr. Oloka Onyango, one of the most distinguished Constitutional scholars of our time taught me that "one of the basic principles of constitutional law is that a country should create a constitution able to move with the times without seeking to be destroyed by the times". A constitution or any other legal regime is a function of the politics of a country.

I strongly believe that a good constitutional system is where there is adherence to the rule of law. For so long as this notion of supremacy of the rule of law is respected by individuals and all authorities, then the sanctity of the constitution is upheld. 

An amendment that follows due process and supported by majority numbers, in my opinion, cannot be said to be an antithesis of the preamble of the constitution in its proper context.  For example, the first amendment of the constitution, the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2000, was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court in the case of Paul Kawanga Semogerere and others Vs Attorney General, Constitutional appeal No.1 of 2002 where it was held, among others that "Any law passed outside the procedure laid down by the constitution is no law at all".

So whereas a constitution must stand the test of time, it must be flexible and must adapt to the aspirations of the people. This can only b achieved through amendment. This is what is referred to as breathing life in the constitution from time to time. 

Some of the leaders, now in opposition ranks, strongly opposed to the proposed amendments were opposed to the inclusion of age limits when the constitution making process was ongoing, and in the same way Ugandans cannot hold them hostage to their yester views that have for some reasons changed, the same leaders must respect the current proponents of the proposed amendments.

Lastly our opposition leaders should understand that the framers of the constitution entrenched Articles 1 and 2 that provide for sovereignty of the people and supremacy of the constitution respectively. In my opinion, this is where real power lie.

These provisions also are some of the most important in the 1995 Constitution.  If majority people chose, through their representatives, to be governed in a certain way, their aspirations cannot be wished away as long as the tenets of democracy and constitutionalism are adhered to. 

Heckling, abusing other leaders and posturing in parliament cannot endear such leaders to the citizenry the same way gross violations of the rights of citizens alienates the people from their leaders.

The writer is a lawyer

stuartoramire@yahoo.com