Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni inspecting the guard of honour on
budget speech day June 8, 2017. He will have ruled for 35 years by 2021.
The current law bars him from running again. PHOTO | MORGAN MBABAZI |
NMG
As Ugandans await the formal presentation of the Constitution
(Amendment) Bill, 2017 in parliament, the looming scrapping of the
presidential age limit is shaping up as the ultimate test of Uganda’s
commitment to constitutionalism.
At the core of the Bill, gazetted on June 8, is the controversial amendment of Article 102(b), which disqualifies any Ugandan below 35 years and above 75 years from contesting the presidency.
At the core of the Bill, gazetted on June 8, is the controversial amendment of Article 102(b), which disqualifies any Ugandan below 35 years and above 75 years from contesting the presidency.
Although an attempt to
scrap the age limit has always been expected, the first real step
towards it has elicited a heated public debate.
The ruling NRM party which is driving the agenda, appears better organised than those against it.
According
to sources familiar with the ruling party’s plans, a three-pronged
approach has been mooted, involving mobilising as many resolutions from
disparate groups in districts; a rigorous media campaign to shape public
opinion in favour of scrapping the age limits; and intense lobbying of
legislators.
“They [resolutions] are part of a scheme
by the regime to sanitise the process through the Constitutional Review
Commission (CRC), which will go around the country to get the views of
the people where you will see a lot of these district resolutions being
presented everywhere it goes,” intimated one such source.
The Commission is expected to be announced soon after 18 names are submitted to President Yoweri Museveni from which he is to pick the eventual 12 members, according to Ruth Nankabirwa, the government chief whip.
The Commission is expected to be announced soon after 18 names are submitted to President Yoweri Museveni from which he is to pick the eventual 12 members, according to Ruth Nankabirwa, the government chief whip.
Heated debate
Those
in favour of the lifting of age limits have as their core argument that
the law unfairly locks outs Ugandans who may still be able to lead
effectively despite their age. They term the law a violation of rights
of the voters who prefer “tried and tested” leadership.
Indications
of the NRM’s strategy were first revealed in August 2016. The NRM
chapter in Kyankwanzi District presented President Museveni a resolution
in which MPs promised to present the removal of age limits in
Parliament.
Part of its argument is that, “Article
102(b)… has detrimental effects to the sustainability of the country’s
development progress as it poses prohibitive effects to those Ugandans
and leaders who may still have the ability and potential to provide
leadership.”
This effort was shortly after followed by
a “resolution” of NRM district chairpersons from across the country who
at a dinner to celebrate their victory at Hotel Africana in Kampala
asked the president to prepare to stand again after his current term
expires in 2021.
The
chairpersons in giving their endorsement asked Museveni and their MPs
to immediately start exploring ways to have the constitution amended.
The
counter argument is that the age limit is the last safeguard against a
lifetime presidency by President Museveni, who has been in power since
1986.
The age cap bars him from standing again in 2021 when he will be 76 years old.
Proponents
of this view argue that removal of age limit erases any chance of a
peaceful and democratic transition of power in Uganda. And that a change
in law will create real possibilities of a reversion to tyranny,
oppression and exploitation that the Constitution aimed to cure in the
first place.
“If age limits are removed from our
Constitution — as they will eventually be — there is no way in which we
can look forward to a deepening of democracy in Uganda because it
implies that the semi-accountable presidency we now have will be
replaced with an imperial presidency with no possibility of peaceful
change,” according to Prof Joe Oloka-Onyango, a leading law scholar in
Uganda.
According
to Arthur Larok, who is actively involved in organising against the
removal of the age limit, the use of all avenues is necessary.
“This
is a monumental challenge. So we need to use several fronts to tackle
it. We believe the process cannot be controlled centrally because
different people are certainly going to be compelled to do different
things according to their convictions and abilities,” Mr Larok
explained.
No comments :
Post a Comment