Prime
Folly of debating presidential term, age limits in Parliament – Part II
In this part, we discuss the conflicts, scuffles and battles that have raged in Parliament, media and the country since the publication of Part I.
The war commenced before the motion for leave to table a Bill removing the presidential age limit from the Constitution began. Then Parliament assembled on September 22 and Deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanya called the House to order. MPs who were opposed to the motion shot up in protest and opposed. When Mr Oulanya attempted to keep order and correctly reminded members about the Rules of Procedure in Parliament, members ignored his please and persisted in speaking loudly against it and intermittently against the motion. It became clear to the Speaker that under the chaos, proceedings should not be continued. He wisely adjourned Parliament to September 25.
I expected the leaders of government to go back to the drawing board, plan and organise another strategy.
This is because on the first meeting, those opposed to the motion were determined to disregard the rules of Parliament and disobey the orders of the Speaker.
Unfortunately, the regrettable events of that September 25 and the following two days showed that the supporters of the motion and government had failed to anticipate what would happen and catered for it. They were caught unprepared and lost in the Constitution jungles of incompetence.
Consequently, when the House was called to order, opponents of the motion wearing the same red gear of defiance, continued their defiance. During the whole process of considering that motion, [Speaker Rebecca] Kadaga looked on with dignity and accepted the scene which she recognised as reflecting the will of the people but in a manner that was apparently against the rules of Parliament.
One of the ghastly mistakes the government made was to ignore the reasons why private members of Parliament are given leave to the Speaker of Parliament to move Bills. Invariably, such Bills are tolerated by the government because they are not controversial.
They deal with minor issues of substance and generally do not involve or affect the expenditure of public funds or heavy participation of the government.
A private member’s Bill is given very little time in which it proceeds in Parliament.
This is because it interferes with government programmes agreed upon by the whole House at the beginning of the session.
Uganda had expected that the minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs would have been responsible and in charge of the motion seeking leave to table the Bill for the following reasons. Months previously, that minister had been debating with all and sundry. The biggest question was whether it was desirable to remove the presidential age limit and he casually said it was possible.
This was very surprising because he was clearly contradicting President Museveni, his boss whose views expressing opposition to such a proposal had appeared on social and other media in 2016.
If the motion were to be accepted and the Bill presented, it would have contained very important provisions of constitutional significance and in conflict with the Constitution as amended and reflecting the collective will of the people and being a contract between them and their Cabinet. That is why it is important that the motion should have been introduced and handled by the government seriously and not casually by a private member of Parliament.
However, on that same Tuesday, the Speaker once again invited [Igara West MP Raphael] Magezi to present his motion.
Members opposed continued their method of loudly opposing and ignoring the Speaker’s orders. On a point of order, the Speaker asked members to be searched in person because the Opposition had alleged correctly that some NRM members had entered the chamber concealing guns. The Speaker did not immediately report what was found but adjourned the House for the following day. What happened in Parliament on that day, Wednesday September 28, shocked Ugandans and the whole world and will be a subject of discussion in part III of this story.
Prof Kanyeihamba is a retired Supreme Court judge.
[email protected]
