This is in response to Gawaya Tegulle’s article titled “Beti Kamya’s ‘referendum’ on federalism is
misconceived” which was published in The Daily Monitor of 15 March, 2012. He argued
that federalism not being a political system as defined in Article 69 of the
Constitution of Uganda, the federal question cannot be settled under Article 74
of the Constitution, as proposed by UFA, because it provides for “Change of
Political Systems…” , yet federalism is not a political system. Other people, like
Buganda Govt Ministers Peter Mayiga and Apollo Makubuya have voiced similar
views to Tegulle’s. I could agree with them to a large extent but I could
also seek the Constitutional Court’s arbitration on the universal meaning of
“political system”, Article 69 of the constitution of Uganda notwithstanding.
My concern, though, is whether their nay arguments (and
spirit) carry the federal agitators’ wishes closer to their “hearts’ desire” or
just hold it stagnant, at the status quo.
“Where there is the Will, there is a Way” is an old adage, so
in the interest of moving the “federal question” forward, if Article 74
(recommended by UFA) cannot provide the channel for settling the forty-six year
old argument, surely, I expect the federal agitators to propose another channel,
not just dismiss a possible route! In
everyday life, it is common for one disinclined to undertake a task or journey, to
find excuses not to. They decry insecurity, bad roads, inadequate resources, ill-health,
wild animals… – anything to discourage forward movement. On the other hand, those
determined to move forward will adopt a positive attitude and propose
alternatives that encourage forward movement, in-spite of risks, known and
unknown.
Typically, the anti-referendum group are eloquent on why we
should not move under Article 74, but they do not offer opinion on how else we
might move, save cling to good old fashioned, twenty-six-year old negotiation-with-the-president,
which, incidentally, has no constitutional backing. Their adamant “CAN’T” is
loud and clear but not their alternative proposal to move federalism a step forward
from the forty-six-year-old position!
Determined to break the barrier of presidential whims and in
the spirit of minimizing negative and diversionary media engagements with fellow
federalists, UFA resolved to evoke Article 255, which is not confined to
“change of political system”.
We combed the
political map of Uganda, the Constitution, and found that under Article 255, calling
for a referendum on “any issue” is not only shorter, cheaper and friendlier than
under Article 74, but actually, several matters can be settled through multiple
referenda held on the same day!
Hurray!, we are now going to hit two birds with one stone, by
holding two referenda, on the same day, on: (i) Change of system to federalism
(ii) Re-instate a limit on the number of terms that the president of Uganda may
hold office.
Agitation for federalism and re-instatement of presidential
term limits have dominated the political stage in Uganda for a long time.
Besides, all political parties that participated in the 2011 General Elections,
except NRM, professed, in their manifestos, their intention to “introduce”
federalism and reinstate presidential term limits. It is for that matter that
UFA decided that the two issues are too important to wait for the next
election, due in 2016, and so resolved to re-table them before the people, through
a referendum, under Article 255.
There are many constitutional avenues available to settle
contentious issues, without necessarily awaiting the next election or resorting
to costly military engagement.
Beti Olive Kamya
President
Uganda Federal
Alliance
0783 438 201 / 0751
590 542
ufapresident@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment