Have you noticed that the Constitution has become a National Resistance Movement (NRM) constitution at best and its policy paper at worst!
Whichever article disagrees with the whims of some NRM leaders or what their manifesto says, then the caucus sits and resolves to amend the document (article).
In 2005, the NRM reasoned that a vulnerable country like Uganda with ‘fragile democracy’ should not lose a resourceful leader in President Museveni just because the Constitution says so. So, two-term limits were removed amidst allegations of bribery.
One of the promoters of this point was former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi. During the 2016 televised presidential debate, Mbabazi was asked whether there was one thing he regretted not having done while in power.
He said he regretted having failed to fight dictatorship when he had a chance. Whatever that meant! But I can hazard an interpretation to that. Perhaps one of the things that has entrenched dictatorship is the ease with which the Constitution has been played with in the interest of one person.
Igara West MP Raphael Magyezi and other MPs in support of amending article 102(b) say that the removal of presidential age limits will give Museveni time to deliver Uganda to the middle-income status.
But the Constitution is not supposed to work for the whims of leaders. Leaders must work in accordance with the Constitution. It can be safely said that now the Uganda Constitution has been turned into a wobbly law, which must be amended whenever the NRM has a change of mind or whenever their interests are restrained by the provisions therein.
In 2014, the NRM changed their constitution and gave unfettered powers to President Museveni, their party chairman, to appoint and disappoint top party leaders. Formerly, these were elective positions.
I would not be surprised if, after amending article 102(b) in favour of NRM wishes, article 113 and 142(1) are amended too. Article 113 (1) requires the president to nominate persons qualified to be elected as MPs to cabinet, with the approval of parliament.
There is a parliamentary appointments committee, which vets ministerial nominees and other public officials such as judges. However, this committee has never had the verve to do its work right.
In the present cabinet, there are persons who clearly never qualified to be ministers but were approved by this committee, most of whose members belong to NRM.
So, I wouldn’t be surprised if a proposal was tabled to get rid of parliamentary approvals altogether. Article 142 (1), which requires the president to appoint judicial officers such as the chief justice, deputy chief justice, principal judges, justices and judges on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and with approval of parliament, may also be dispensed with.
Remember that when former Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki retired, the president wanted him to serve for two more years until the Constitutional court in the Gerald Karuhanga v Attorney General case ruled otherwise.
The president has always argued that Uganda needs to harness its rare human resource. This time, the proponents may argue that they need to do this in order to equip court with cadre judges who many not make judgments that frustrate the NRM manifesto! This is as ridiculous as it can get!
The vigour with which the Constitution is diluted and its sanctity frowned upon reminds me of a story told by a prominent legal mind.
He once told me that when you invite people for a party and serve them all tribes of alcohol, there are times when the instinct of care for the aftereffects of the party arises. And usually, as a good host, there are times when you see that your guests need to be advised to reduce on the consumption of alcohol and, instead, take some water to curb dehydration and resultant hangovers.
But if you try to stop them instantly, no one would agree with you, and you might even be insulted for being a stingy host.
It appears some NRM politicians feasting on the national cake and sponsoring all these manners of constitutional amendments are like those guests who drink and can’t brook any advice of restraint on their intake. They don’t care about the possible discomfort of a hangover when the party is done.
The pro-amendment MPs have chosen to enjoy the moment and care less about the future. Strangely, these MPs that claim to care a lot about the power of the people in the democratic governance of this country have been very protective of their turf.
For instance, article 84(1) and (7) became inoperative the moment Uganda adopted multiparty democracy. This article gave a right to the electorate to recall their representatives before the expiry of their term of office on such grounds as misconduct, ridicule, deserting the electorate without reasonable cause, among others.
But article 84(7) provides that the right to recall a member of parliament shall only exist while the Movement political system is in operation. There are no prizes for guessing why this article has not been amended to return the power to the people to recall the MPs.
The author is the business development director at The Observer Media Limited.