Political Solution is Way Forward
Print This Page
Visit The Publisher's Site
The Monitor (Kampala)COLUMN
February 5, 2004
Posted to the web February 5, 2004 Henry Ochieng
Kampala
Was last Thursday's Supreme Court ruling a vindication of the allegation that the National Resistance Movement - lately Movement and soon to be National Resistance Movement Organisation - returned the rule of law to Uganda?Was it a victory worth celebrating for the opposition? And should it be good ground from which to pursue further litigation with the stated aim of having the post-2001 Yoweri Museveni administration declared illegal, illegitimate and hence a nullity that should no longer be tolerated.
Yes, in a sense it proves to some extent the suspicion that the rule of law might actually be thriving in some instances. But in acceding to this reality, one should be careful to note that the same government was in court defending a mischievous falsehood in the name of Constitutional (Amendment) Act No. 13, 2000. It says something about the administration's respect for the rule of law.And yes, it is a victory for the opposition but which should not be celebrated for the mere fact that it was achieved.
You need to appreciate it as a testimony to the fact that with proper planning, co-ordination and tenacity, efforts to expose political fraud can be fruitful.On the third count, a delicate balance has to be struck between the justifiable desire to continue embarrassing the Movement by lifting its skirts to show that underneath the veneer of civility is a very corrupt interior, and then consideration of the national interest.
Bugweri Member of Parliament, Abdu Katuntu (Uganda People's Congress) and the leader of the National Democrats Forum party, Karuhanga Chapaa, have variously spoken out about the need to respond to the potential crisis generated by the ruling Movement "politically."There is a basic reason why one would agree with that position, and that is national interest. It is at times like this that the true measure of the pretender to statesmanship can be ascertained. When you can be adjudged to be either a patriot or cheap opportunist.
There is no tenable argument against the holding that the law, which the Supreme Court annulled, was invalid both in fact and law, and that there are far-reaching consequences facing us now.But pushing to have Museveni's hold onto power declared a nullity may not be the best course of action - even when there is reasonable ground to seek this declaration.
Chapaa and Katuntu are right when they say that we do not need to push the country into a constitutional crisis. I take that further and point at the possibility of a political crisis.We are at a point of what should ideally be transition from the benevolent one-party dictatorship cloaked in an imaginary "all-inclusive broad-based system" under Museveni.
At the same time, the President appears to desire to cling on for another term, if possible. Responsible public opinion is ranged against this and there is evidence things could get a bit hairy. There are, thus, competing interests that are further complicated by the on-going review of the army.
Transition cannot be well served if, against the backdrop of the above delicate matters, you seek to evict a sitting president. A ship with a bad captain is much better off than a rudderless vessel in stormy waters. And this is even after considering the argument that we could set in motion the constitutional procedure that should follow once a sitting head of state is no longer in a position to play that role.The cost in time and real terms would be too high for the country.
True, Museveni's troops, possibly under pressure from himself, committed a grave blunder in 1999 and 2000 in the manner in which they dragged the law under which the referendum on political systems was held through that 13th amendment to the Constitution.
They conspired to subvert parliamentary procedure and for that reason should be held accountable. And to hide their failures, they made the irresponsible mistake of trying to place Parliament above judicial scrutiny by transplanting Section 15 of the National Assembly Act (rendered unconstitutional by a Supreme Court ruling in 2000) in the Constitution.
The substance of that amendment to Article 97(2) was that no House records could be used in court without the express permission of Parliament.As has been determined, this was inconsistent with Article 41 of the same Constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of access to information unless such access would be prejudicial to national security.
That the Supreme Court remained committed to democratic principles in its ruling is sufficient reprimand - at this point - of the characters who misled the National Assembly. Wise men will learn from this historical process. Less endowed individuals will no doubt seek to denigrate the justices. Ignore any such bleating.
However, the lesson that comes across with such clarity is that arrogance in the discharge of matters of state is a very dangerous thing. That arrogance is what today leaves the country in the unique situation where an 'idle person' can sue the Attorney General seeking the nullification of significant portions of a large number of statutes because they are inconsistent with the Constitution.These are key laws we are talking about. Hopefully, it will be a political solution chosen to resolve these pressing matters. In times of transition, there is nothing as beautiful as give and take, and like I said, that is the true mark of the statesman. The other is to learn the decency in not knocking your opponent when he is down.
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the state."
- Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels - Hitler's propaganda minister
