Log in
Updated minutes ago

Government sued over women MPs elections

Election of women members of Parliament by adult universal suffrage is unconstitutional, Dickwitington Kimeze and Sisimuka Uganda, a non-governmental organization, claim in an April 18 petition filed at the Constitutional court.

The petitioners want only women voting for women MPs and have attached the Electoral Commission and the attorney general as respondents. The petitioners say that section 8 (4) (II) of the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Local Governments Act in providing for the election of district women MPs and Local Government women councilors under universal adult suffrage are inconsistent with articles 78 (2), (3)& (4) and articles 180 (b), (c) and (d) of the Constitution. 

In their petition, Kimeze and Sisimuka Uganda, say that the constitution requires parliament to enact a law prescribing the procedure for the election of district women members of parliament and local government women councilors.

Instead of taking into consideration the intention of what they call the “gallant men and women who made the Constitution” the petitioners say parliament in an act of “legislative laziness” applied the universal adult suffrage and it “shouldn’t get away with it.” 

Speaker Rebecca Kadaga (2nd L) with some of the female MPs. Petitioners are seeking to have only women voting for Woman MPs

In the 1996 and 2001, electoral colleges were used to elect women MPs but in 2005 parliament amended section 8 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to introduce universal suffrage.   

Now, through Denis Nyombi and Company advocates, Kimeze and Sisimuka Uganda say the universal adult suffrage system has denied women the right to determine who leads them and it also creates different classes of affirmative action.

“That universal adult suffrage is inapplicable to the election of any of affirmative action leadership position, and affirmative action in this respect has degenerated to negative discrimination as opposed to positive discrimination and its application was in error,” the petition reads.

The petitioners who say they are ardent believers in democratic principles and gender balance, attack the universal adult suffrage as “a term overly broad and at times vague since it allows men to vote for women.” Universal adult suffrage, they contend, was meant for strictly elections for directly elected members of parliament and the president therefore couldn’t apply to district women MPs and local government woman representatives.  

“That at the heart of this petition is the legitimate question: Why do men vote for women district members of parliament and local governments’ women representatives?” the duo asks.   

According to the petitioners, they find it strange that while men vote for district women MPs, the same doesn’t apply to other leadership positions instituted under the auspices of affirmative action. 

They point out that: workers vote for workers MPs, youths vote for youth MPs, soldiers vote UPDF MPs and also people with special needs vote for their own MPs.

They argue that the Constitutional court should “determine and pronounce itself on whether district women members of parliament and local government’s women councilors are on affirmative action or it’s a quota system.”     

Among other things, they want the same court to find that the Electoral Commission’s continued holding of women MP and local government’s women councilor elections  under universal adult suffrage is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which “court must stop forthwith”.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Comments   

-1 #1 Francis Okello 2017-04-21 11:54
When women are elected to parliament, do they only represent women?

Do women not vote for male MPs? These fragmentalist ideologies are doing us no good and do not build Uganda.

I'd have encouraged integrative strategies to address the women-men divide constructively rather than running to court because you want a name and money.

Your wisdom could positively impact advocacy and realization of progressive gender-sensitive strategies that unite rather than orchestrate social crumbling.

So, when you sue, what does Uganda gain? We all need each other-women and men, and correcting the imbalance is necessary but not through approaches that put gender walls among people. I hope that the court takes opportunity to educate this team.
Quote | Report to administrator
0 #2 kikabi 2017-04-21 15:33
Okello,

This is about the law. Forget what people benefits. The law of the land must be respected. this is what the petitioners are saying.

True, no one elects the soldiers and disabled because it is affirmative action. YOU ASK if women dont vote Mps.

They do because those are directly elected. Women MPS rae on affirmative action, so men should not elect them.this should be a women affair according to the petitioners.

if they suscceed then another question will come, are they needed anyway? why spend so much money on the these useless MPS who dont even fight for the issues of women?

For example, hon. kadaga has been coming on this affiramtive action for over 20 yrs. when will she come of age and stand in her constituency and compete with men? it has not helped her for 20 yrs now. do u think she still need affirmative action?
Quote | Report to administrator
0 #3 Samson 2017-04-22 16:28
Uganda doesn't need Women MPs at all. Every part of Uganda falls under a demacated constituency already.

For instance, I am represented by an MP at constituency level, then, because I am attached to a district, I am represented by a woman MP. This double representation is unnecessary.

Women should stand in constituencies and compete against whoever. They have full rights as everyone else under the constitution.

This issue of women MPs was introduced maliciously to benefit certain people who falsely claim they have issues of women as a priority.
This is the reason we have a useless bloated parliament that we can't afford.
Quote | Report to administrator