Raid on Parliament again raises questions about Uganda’s democracy

A few days before, President Museveni during a meeting with members of the parliamentary caucus of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), at his private ranch in Kisozi, had promised that there would be a “showdown” with those opposed to the coffee law.

There had, however, been little expectation that the country would be treated to scenes similar to those that had been played out 2,598 days before.

When the drama unfolded though, the script was much more improved. Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake and Kilak North MP Anthony Akol were some of the few remnants in an otherwise much-changed cast.

The scenes and audio-visual effects were much more improved. Security on the premises was, for example, tightened so much that the security detail of the Speaker, Ms Anita Among, was subjected to thorough checks.

A section of journalists accredited to cover Parliament were denied access to the premises; a huge number of journalists who were allowed access were locked up in the basement of the building; the chambers of Parliament were plunged into darkness to allow for an invasion by a shadowy group, which culminated in the arrest of some Opposition legislators.

Which way Among?

It is difficult to see how the Speaker will deal with the fallout from Wednesday’s events.

Her predecessor, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, sought to steer herself clear of the 2017 invasion of Parliament by penning a letter to President Museveni in which she sought to find out who had carried out the invasion that left MPs Betty Nambooze and Zaake nursing spine and head injuries respectively.

“I have had the opportunity to view camera footage of what transpired and noticed people in black suits and white shirts who are not part of the Parliamentary police or the staff of the sergeant at arms beating members. Additionally, the footage shows people walking in single file from the office of the president to parliament precincts,” Ms Kadaga wrote in the October 23, 2017, letter.

She added, “I am, therefore, seeking an explanation as to the identity, mission and purpose of the unsolicited forces. I am also seeking an explanation about why they assaulted the MPs.”

That served to shield her from accusations of complicity in the invasion. It also helped to continue projecting her as a defender of legislators and the institution of Parliament. That smokescreen was, however, brought down during an interview she gave to STV Uganda where she told her host, Mr Bashir Kazibwe that Mr Museveni would not have been a candidate in the January 2021 polls if she had not played the role that she did.

“He would not have been on the ballot paper. By now he would have been packing up his bags,” she said in the interview that was partially conducted in Luganda.

It is, however, going to be a different ball game for Ms Among. Soon after the House concluded the debate on Wednesday, Kazo County MP Dan Kimosho moved a motion in which he hailed the Speaker for having steered well the debates on the coffee Bill and rationalisation of the Uganda National Roads Authority (Unra).

That, however, did not help in terms of her credentials. It did not say whether she was not complicit in the attack or that she was a defender of Parliament.

Legitimacy issues

That might, however, not be the biggest challenge arising out of the dramatic passing of the National Coffee Amendment Bill, 2024. Its legality and legitimacy have become central to the discussions around it.

Constitutional lawyer Dan Wandera Ogalo says the circumstances under which any law is passed are always strong ingredients in determining its legality and legitimacy. This matter, according to Mr Ogalo, came up prominently in both the constitutional and supreme courts during proceedings on the age limit law.

In April 2019, the seven-member panel of Supreme Court judges in a 4-3 verdict quashed the consolidated presidential age limit appeal with then Chief Justice Bart Katureebe and Justices Jotham Tumwesigye, Apio Aweri and Stella Arach Amoko quashing the same, while justices Paul Mugamba, Eldard Mwanguhya and Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza allowed it.

Whereas both courts did not overturn the Parliament’s December 20, 2017, decision to amend Article 102(b) of the 1995 Constitution to remove the lower age limit of 35 and upper age limit of 75 years for those who aspire to hold the office of president, some of the judges of the Supreme Court pointed to the principle of legal purity. Among those who invoked the same was Justice Tibatemwa.

“One such principle is the principle of legal purity which is to the effect that in enacting and/or amending a country’s constitution the actors must ensure that resultant Act is delivered in a medium of legal purity - sound constitution-making should never be sacrificed at the altar of expediency,” she ruled.

She added, “Another principle is that Parliament as a law-making body should set standards for compliance with constitutional provisions and with its own rules. The result of the said principles is that failure to obey the procedural rules of Parliament while enacting a law renders the whole enacting process a nullity. That an Act of Parliament so enacted is by such reason unconstitutional.”

Mr Ogalo says, “You cannot pass a law in a state of violence and claim that the outcome is okay.” Where does that leave the National Coffee Amendment Bill, 2024?

Democracy

However, even as questions about the legality and legitimacy of the coffee law linger, the invasion of Parliament has once again served to raise serious questions about the democratic credentials of the ruling NRM.

President Museveni has been under the microscope for a while now. Fourteen years ago, Freedom House, a Washington DC-based independent watchdog that supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights around the world through conducting research, named President Museveni as an “obstacle to the continued growth and expansion of democracy”.

The 2010 Freedom House Report, ‘Countries at the Crossroads’ said Mr Museveni only works within the limits of formal institutions when his political interests are not at stake.

“Despite much political and economic progress over the last two decades, the increasingly personal and patronage-based rule of President Yoweri Museveni remains the most significant obstacle to the expansion of democracy and rule,” the report said, which was an annual assessment of the performances in 70 countries that were at the time deemed to be at critical points of determining the political future.

At the time of the report, an outcome of comparative analyses and quantitative ratings in the areas of government accountability, civil liberties, rule of law, and anti-corruption and transparency, all of which help international policymakers identify progress and also highlight areas suitable for democratic efforts and reform assistance was released, Uganda was in advanced stages of the 2010/2011 electoral cycle.

However, if Freedom House mentioned the word “democracy” in the same line as the names Uganda and Museveni, there are those who think that this should not be happening. Uganda, they say, only pretends to be a democracy.

“The problem we have in Uganda is that we have a lot of pretence. We pretend to be a democracy with checks and balances yet essentially this is a quasi-military regime. That is why you can switch off lights and beat up parliamentarians. Why do you do that if you believe in checks and balances?” Mr Ogalo wonders.

Mr Emmanuel Dombo, the communications director at the NRM Secretariat, disagrees with the conclusion that Uganda is a quasi-military regime.

“Our democracy is still very young. It requires to be nurtured and at the same time decisions must be made,” Mr Dombo argues.

Mr Ogalo says holding regular elections should not be considered a measure of democracy, especially if those elections will be neither free nor fair. He thinks that the country needs to re-examine the idea of elections.

“I think this pretence of going through elections - that you are holding elections and that people are going to debate is something that we should re-examine,” Mr Ogalo argues.

Disregard for institutions

Questions about Uganda’s practices of democracy have inevitably led to scrutiny about the extent to which the government appreciates the doctrine of separation of powers and respect for other arms of government.

Mr Ogalo argues that the Executive has no respect for other arms of government.

“The President can genuinely have a problem with the law. You do not call the NRM caucus. No. You let it play according to provisions of the Constitution. The problem we have is that the President wants to run this country like he has the final say. He does not recognise checks and balances,” Mr Ogalo says.

However, Mr Dombo sees things a little differently.

“There are three arms of government, but one arm, the Executive, is stronger. It has powers of the purse, it collects the money, issues Executive orders and superintends. It guarantees that the others operate by creating a conducive environment. So those arms of government are reliant on one another for effective governance. It is not that they must work independently otherwise they will be arms of different governments,” Mr Dombo argues.

Others do not think so. Only recently, the United States accused Uganda of disrespecting judicial independence and impartiality. The government, according to the ‘2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uganda’, often interfered with judicial processes.

The document reported that on many occasions, “security agencies defied court orders to release detainees or arraign persons they detained without charge”, and that security operatives had in several instances intimidated judicial officers into denying bail to political detainees, charges which Mr Ereemye Jumire James Mawanda, the spokesperson of the Judiciary, has previously denied.

“The Judiciary is and shall continue to perform her mandate independently. While we have seen some interference, the Chief Justice has come out clearly to condemn these interferences and he has affirmed that the Judiciary will continue to relate positively with the other arms and ensure justice for all without interference,” Mr Ereemye told Sunday Monitor in a previous interview.

Disrespect for Parliament

Parliament, Mr Ogalo says, has also heavily suffered immense disrespect under the NRM. This, he says, can be seen from the number of times and ways in which Mr Museveni orders and directs the institution around.

“You think that power belongs to the people through their representatives. Therefore, you do not expect anybody to mess up with these representatives, but you saw the NRM MPs being called to the President’s home in Kisozi to discuss this (coffee law) issue. The Constitution foresaw differences between the President and Parliament. That is why it provides that when Parliament passes a law, the President can send it back. If it insists and he too insists, a certain percentage of parliamentarians can overrule him and the Bill comes into law,” Mr Ogalo says.

That parliamentary provision will, however, not be let to run its course because the NRM will simply not allow systems and institutions to work as they should, a conclusion, which Mr Dombo disagrees with.

“The President is an old man who has been in Uganda for some time now. He knows how the petty minds of some politicians tell lies in order to score political goals. In a place where time is of the essence and where time is money, there are certain things you need to nip in the bud before they become cancerous,” Mr Dombo says.

Was Wednesday's debate one of those potentially cancerous things that had to be nipped in the bud?