Kony can run but he can’t hide from justice
It’s two weeks now since the man hunt for the reclusive, indicted, international war criminal Joseph Kony was launched by a combined force of troops from Uganda, South Sudan and DR Congo.
And although the latest military offensive against the Lords Resistance Army, (LRA) bandits in their hideouts in Garamba, has come rather too late, and is yet to register any significant success -it’s still important in a sense that justice must be accorded to the millions of people in northern Uganda who have for the last 20 years suffered the brutality of Kony and his rag-tag army.
Kony has duped the international community and cost this country billions of tax payers’ money in the now infamous –two-year -Juba peace jokes! It was pretty obvious from the onset of the failed peace talks that Kony - aware of the heinous crimes he has committed against humanity- would never surrender without putting up a fight!
That’s why there is no option but for the government troops, supported by our regional allies, now conducting ‘Operation Lightning Thunder’ to capture Kony and his blood-stained commanders and have them answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
And our forces now have the capabilities to pull this one off - of course with the support of the Ugandan people.
Although, this column, doesn’t necessarily agree with what the government has done or has not done in the past, to end Kony’s ferocious killing of innocent civilians in Northern Uganda, justice must prevail whatever the circumstances. And when our forces make an effort to catch Kony and bring him to justice, then they should be supported by all law abiding citizens of this country.
For the record is clear, Kony and his group of butchers have murdered an estimated 30,000 people during the execution of their two-decade, unjustified rebellion in the northern part of the country.
An estimated 2 million people were displaced as a result of this war and the majority of them have until recently, been living in camps under squalid conditions.
The LRA’s horrendous attacks on innocent civilians did not spare children who were abducted and illegally conscripted in the LRA as child soldiers. They abducted women and girls whom they kept in captivity as sex slaves for so long .
At Kony’s command, the LRA gangsters used machetes and hoes to maim their victims; chopping lips and ears of the captives. They raided schools and forced students to fight and kill their own relatives. Many of the lucky surviving victims will never recover from the trauma visited upon them by the blood-soiled hands of Kony and those under his command. Because of their unprecedented cruelty, Kony’s LRA, deserves no sympathy in the civilised world.
And this is the reason why the ICC, a court set up by the global community under the Rome Statute has since issued warrants of arrest for Kony and his commanders- indicted on 33 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Kony can run in the forested Garamba border areas in DR Congo but he can not hide forever and he cannot escape the rule of law. The international criminal law is to the effect that no war criminal can escape justice.
Once a person has committed war crimes as spelt out in the Rome Statute, then that person cannot even benefit from the provisions of our amnesty law. War crimes and crimes against humanity are international in nature and suspects can be picked from anywhere in the world by any spirited individual or state to arraigned them at the ICC for trial.
The UPDF should use all its capabilities and bring all resources to bear in this new effort to find Kony and his commanders to have them answer for their criminal acts. The UPDF should earn the support of the people of Uganda and hope our brothers and sisters in northern Uganda have a peaceful festive season.
Happy New Year to all of you the ardent readers of this column.
Mr Sserwanga is an advocate
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
GUARD AGAINST TERROR WITHOUT ABUSING RIGHTS
Guard against terror without abusing rights
Recently Monitor Publications Ltd , in one of its editions , quoted top security officials talking grandly about the new tough measures instituted to secure the country against terrorist attacks.
As a country, its important that we secure our porous borders and waterways against terrorism. Ugandans must remain vigilant in the global fight against terrorists- whose extremist ideologies are hell-bent on causing maximum causalities and destruction of property in the civilised world.
But be that as it may, the new government anti - terrorism measures should not, at the same time , dull our pursuit as a people, the promotion and protection of the civil liberties enshrined in our national constitution.
While the state must be resolute in ensuring the safety of its citizens from terror acts , government should also take seriously the International Commission of Jurists, (ICJ) a body of human rights legal scholars- who are concerned that the new global counter terrorism legal regime has led to an increase in cases of human rights violations.
These extreme cases of human rights violations in the fight against terrorism which include interalia (among others), the holding of suspects in un-gazetted detention centers with out trial - coupled with torture - have been challenged in the US Supreme Court.
The court has since held among others, that the Guantanamo detainees (majority of whom are suspected terrorists arrested following the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States), have the right to go to federal court(s) to seek their release from indefinite detention.
Following that decision some ICJ scholars have argued and this column concurs ; that safe guarding persons from terrorist acts and the respect for human rights and humanitarian law, allow states a reasonably wide margin of flexibility to combat terrorism without contravening human rights and humanitarian legal obligations.
This is because in some countries the post 9/11 climate of insecurity has been exploited to justify long-standing human rights violations carried out in the name of national security.
Just like many countries around the world, following the events of 9/11, Uganda’s legislature enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2002 as a measure to counter the threat of terrorism in the country.
The import of this law was the creation of the offences of terrorism, aiding and abetting terrorism, establishment of terrorist institutions, support, finance or execute acts of terrorism.
The Act also allows government security agents to intercept correspondences of and the surveillance of persons suspected to be planning or to be involved in acts of terrorism. The Act also specifically lists the terrorist organisations as, The Lords’ Resistance Army, The Lord’s Resistance Movement, Allied Democratic Forces, ADF and Al-queda.
Terrorism according to the Act has been assigned the meaning of an act committed by a person or organisation for purposes of influencing the government or intimidating the public or a section of the public and for a political, religious, social or economic aim, indiscriminately without due to regard to the safety of others or property intentionally or unlawfully cause death or serious bodily injury or extensive destruction likely to or actually resulting in major economic loss. When convicted one can suffer the death penalty.
But during the implementation of this law, there have been cases perceived by both the general public and international community especially those involving politicians as being an attempt by government to use the anti-terrorism law to harass or intimidate opposition politicians without having incriminating evidence against them.
Now that’s what is called political persecution and its not the right approach in fighting terrorism.
Let suspected terrorists be accorded their legal rights and once convicted by our courts then they should ultimately suffer the full force of the law.
We can protect ourselves against terrorism without necessarily infringing on the individual’s fundamental human rights. It’s possible to this balance right.
The writer is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
msserwanga.blogspot.com
Recently Monitor Publications Ltd , in one of its editions , quoted top security officials talking grandly about the new tough measures instituted to secure the country against terrorist attacks.
As a country, its important that we secure our porous borders and waterways against terrorism. Ugandans must remain vigilant in the global fight against terrorists- whose extremist ideologies are hell-bent on causing maximum causalities and destruction of property in the civilised world.
But be that as it may, the new government anti - terrorism measures should not, at the same time , dull our pursuit as a people, the promotion and protection of the civil liberties enshrined in our national constitution.
While the state must be resolute in ensuring the safety of its citizens from terror acts , government should also take seriously the International Commission of Jurists, (ICJ) a body of human rights legal scholars- who are concerned that the new global counter terrorism legal regime has led to an increase in cases of human rights violations.
These extreme cases of human rights violations in the fight against terrorism which include interalia (among others), the holding of suspects in un-gazetted detention centers with out trial - coupled with torture - have been challenged in the US Supreme Court.
The court has since held among others, that the Guantanamo detainees (majority of whom are suspected terrorists arrested following the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States), have the right to go to federal court(s) to seek their release from indefinite detention.
Following that decision some ICJ scholars have argued and this column concurs ; that safe guarding persons from terrorist acts and the respect for human rights and humanitarian law, allow states a reasonably wide margin of flexibility to combat terrorism without contravening human rights and humanitarian legal obligations.
This is because in some countries the post 9/11 climate of insecurity has been exploited to justify long-standing human rights violations carried out in the name of national security.
Just like many countries around the world, following the events of 9/11, Uganda’s legislature enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2002 as a measure to counter the threat of terrorism in the country.
The import of this law was the creation of the offences of terrorism, aiding and abetting terrorism, establishment of terrorist institutions, support, finance or execute acts of terrorism.
The Act also allows government security agents to intercept correspondences of and the surveillance of persons suspected to be planning or to be involved in acts of terrorism. The Act also specifically lists the terrorist organisations as, The Lords’ Resistance Army, The Lord’s Resistance Movement, Allied Democratic Forces, ADF and Al-queda.
Terrorism according to the Act has been assigned the meaning of an act committed by a person or organisation for purposes of influencing the government or intimidating the public or a section of the public and for a political, religious, social or economic aim, indiscriminately without due to regard to the safety of others or property intentionally or unlawfully cause death or serious bodily injury or extensive destruction likely to or actually resulting in major economic loss. When convicted one can suffer the death penalty.
But during the implementation of this law, there have been cases perceived by both the general public and international community especially those involving politicians as being an attempt by government to use the anti-terrorism law to harass or intimidate opposition politicians without having incriminating evidence against them.
Now that’s what is called political persecution and its not the right approach in fighting terrorism.
Let suspected terrorists be accorded their legal rights and once convicted by our courts then they should ultimately suffer the full force of the law.
We can protect ourselves against terrorism without necessarily infringing on the individual’s fundamental human rights. It’s possible to this balance right.
The writer is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
msserwanga.blogspot.com
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
MR> PRESIDENT, DON'T HUNT YOUR HONEST ALLY
Mr President, don’t hunt your honest ally
President Museveni has of late come hard on the media which he accuses of sabotaging investment by maligning investors. This is a worrying development, not that it’s a direct attack on the freedoms of speech and expression but that it comes at a time when our Parliament has been cowed by the executive.
In a true democracy, both Parliament and the media play the role of watchdog to check the excesses of the executive. The Judiciary on the other hand, plays the role of an arbitrator to resolve conflicts between the other three arms of the state namely the executive, legislature and the media while at the same time upholding the provisions of our constitution and the attendant laws.
Ugandan journalists have continued to be harassed and more than a dozen are now facing various charges ranging from criminal libel to sedition and promotion of sectarianism even when these bad laws are now a subject of a constitutional petition which was filed by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute.
And since the matter is yet to be disposed of by the Constitutional Court, it would be prudent for the executive to suspend such offences until the court makes its ruling on the their fate. This would also be the right criminal procedure whenever there are constitutional issues to be determined in substantive petitions lying before court.
Instead, the state conveniently prefers to ignore these rather obvious/basic procedures of the law in their relentless effort to stifle media freedoms and the citizens’ right to challenge bad governance. These machinations by the state to gag the media have far reaching consequences for the wider freedoms of the citizenry, the stability and development of our young democracy.
Democracy thrive best in an atmosphere of trust, openness and accountability. It’s a constitutional right for the citizens to access information held by government and its agents in order to hold our leaders/public servants accountable for their actions.
In civilised societies media offences have been decriminalised and those wronged pursue civil remedies. The media has an important role to play as a watchdog of the public by exposing the ills in government and effectively help to stem government’s abuse of power. For democracy to flourish therefore, there must be an independent, free and vibrant media and the individual’s rights of free speech, expression and access to information must be protected.
Governments must encourage and allow positive criticism and promote tolerance in the interest of public good. Whereas Uganda is said to have relative press freedom compared to other African countries, it should be noted that the said freedom does not arise out of instrumental guarantees, but out of the mere goodwill will of the regime in Kampala. This must change. All Ugandans including the President must appreciate that fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the state.
Uganda still has on its statute books some of the most obnoxious, obsolete laws which were largely designed to curtail free speech and media freedoms to allow the dictatorial regimes of the day to entrench themselves in power. Some of these laws have been applied by government whenever its interests of beating the media into line arise.
These bad laws which can be successfully challenged in any court with competent jurisdiction, including the East African Court of Justice, (EACJ) can be found in the Uganda’s Criminal Penal Code Act as amended, The Press and Journalists Act, The
Anti Terrorism Act and the Electronic Media Act 2000.
The President’s apparent determination “to deal” with the media is very disturbing to say the least. The heads of state and government from Eastern Africa must embrace and work with the media for the region’s greater development. Instead of bashing the independent media, Mr Museveni should listen to them more and get unbiased information that can help him and his government grow our democracy.
Mr Sserwanga writer is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
President Museveni has of late come hard on the media which he accuses of sabotaging investment by maligning investors. This is a worrying development, not that it’s a direct attack on the freedoms of speech and expression but that it comes at a time when our Parliament has been cowed by the executive.
In a true democracy, both Parliament and the media play the role of watchdog to check the excesses of the executive. The Judiciary on the other hand, plays the role of an arbitrator to resolve conflicts between the other three arms of the state namely the executive, legislature and the media while at the same time upholding the provisions of our constitution and the attendant laws.
Ugandan journalists have continued to be harassed and more than a dozen are now facing various charges ranging from criminal libel to sedition and promotion of sectarianism even when these bad laws are now a subject of a constitutional petition which was filed by Andrew Mwenda and the East African Media Institute.
And since the matter is yet to be disposed of by the Constitutional Court, it would be prudent for the executive to suspend such offences until the court makes its ruling on the their fate. This would also be the right criminal procedure whenever there are constitutional issues to be determined in substantive petitions lying before court.
Instead, the state conveniently prefers to ignore these rather obvious/basic procedures of the law in their relentless effort to stifle media freedoms and the citizens’ right to challenge bad governance. These machinations by the state to gag the media have far reaching consequences for the wider freedoms of the citizenry, the stability and development of our young democracy.
Democracy thrive best in an atmosphere of trust, openness and accountability. It’s a constitutional right for the citizens to access information held by government and its agents in order to hold our leaders/public servants accountable for their actions.
In civilised societies media offences have been decriminalised and those wronged pursue civil remedies. The media has an important role to play as a watchdog of the public by exposing the ills in government and effectively help to stem government’s abuse of power. For democracy to flourish therefore, there must be an independent, free and vibrant media and the individual’s rights of free speech, expression and access to information must be protected.
Governments must encourage and allow positive criticism and promote tolerance in the interest of public good. Whereas Uganda is said to have relative press freedom compared to other African countries, it should be noted that the said freedom does not arise out of instrumental guarantees, but out of the mere goodwill will of the regime in Kampala. This must change. All Ugandans including the President must appreciate that fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the state.
Uganda still has on its statute books some of the most obnoxious, obsolete laws which were largely designed to curtail free speech and media freedoms to allow the dictatorial regimes of the day to entrench themselves in power. Some of these laws have been applied by government whenever its interests of beating the media into line arise.
These bad laws which can be successfully challenged in any court with competent jurisdiction, including the East African Court of Justice, (EACJ) can be found in the Uganda’s Criminal Penal Code Act as amended, The Press and Journalists Act, The
Anti Terrorism Act and the Electronic Media Act 2000.
The President’s apparent determination “to deal” with the media is very disturbing to say the least. The heads of state and government from Eastern Africa must embrace and work with the media for the region’s greater development. Instead of bashing the independent media, Mr Museveni should listen to them more and get unbiased information that can help him and his government grow our democracy.
Mr Sserwanga writer is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
NEW LAND LAW IS RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC TRAGEDY
THE NEW LAND LAW IS RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC TRAGEDY
When Parliament recommended radical changes to our land law in 2007,exactly 10 years ago, I wrote this article in my Column The other Side of The Law, which was published by the Daily Monitor for five years . I'm glad to reproduce it given the on going debate about the government Land amendment Bill 2017 and the the Land Inquiry Commission headed by Lady Justice Catherine Bamugemereire.
This and many other articles on topical legal issues can also be found on my blog: msserwanga.blogspot.com.
The parliamentary joint committee appointed to handle the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007 has once again succumbed to pressure from the executive arm of government and recommended that the controversial changes to the land law be enacted in total disregard of public opinion.
Whatever the mischief the new amendments are intended to cure, the entire process of protecting the rights of ‘squatters’ has been flawed in a sense that no national consultations were carried out to rally Ugandans to support the new legislation. It’s ironical and illogical that the legislators could have the audacity to recommend that the amendments be passed into law and then national consultations be held later. Of what purpose will these ‘consultations’ serve when Parliament has already pronounced itself on the matter?
The machinations by the state to do as it pleases, without taking into consideration the opinions/views of the stakeholders, are a clear manifestation of leaders who are out of touch with the people they lead. In a recent survey commissioned by Monitor Publications Ltd (MPL) and carried out by a reputable research organisation, the Steadman Group, it transpired that six out of every 10 Ugandans are not satisfied with the government’s approach to solve the land problems in the country.
The polls showed that 66 per cent of Ugandans are disenchanted with President Museveni’s management of land issues. And this is besides the fact that knowledgeable and independent interest groups like the Uganda Land Alliance , Uganda Human Rights Commission and the Uganda Bankers Association are all opposed to the amendments and have since called for nation-wide consultations to be conducted before the law is amended.
It’s clear that the amendments will face serious legal challenges because they are basically creating competing rights of ownership of land– which is an important factor of production. With the peasants pitted against the landlords, land will unfortunately be rendered a non-saleable commodity.
The bankers have already, and rightly so, warned that the controversial land amendments being forced onto the people will close the market for mortgages and loans from which banks depend for most of their business. With a struggling economy and land prices going through the roof, people can only own a piece of land by acquiring mortgages through their bankers. But this cannot be possible when in the market, you don’t have a clear legally recognised owner of the land!
And this is not to argue that citizens should be evicted from their land illegally. The existing law has sufficient safeguards against illegal land evictions. The peasants, the majority of whom are squatters or settlers on vast chunks of land, already have their rights protected by the constitution.
The constitution provides for the protection of the land rights of the registered land owners (landlords) and those with equitable or secondary interests in land like the tenants by occupancy or bibanja holders , the bona fide occupants (people who have lived on any given piece of land unchallenged for more than 12 years before the coming into effect of the 1995 constitution) and lawful occupants (those who settled on land with the consent of the registered owner by virtue of the Busuulu and Nvujjo law of 1928). The provisions of the constitution are reinforced by the enabling law, the Land Act.
This column has stated in the past and repeats now that there is no serious lacuna (gap) in our land legal regime. The major problem is the poor implementation of the law and politicisation of the land conflicts across the country.
Securing lasting legal rights for the peasants/squatters can only be realised through purchase and subsequent transfer of title from the registered land owners to the buyers who in this case can be the peasants. The government should put in place a land fund to enable the peasants buy land and thus secure their land rights. Artificial legislation shall be successfully challenged in court and we shall be back to square one!
The writer is a journalist and advocate.
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
When Parliament recommended radical changes to our land law in 2007,exactly 10 years ago, I wrote this article in my Column The other Side of The Law, which was published by the Daily Monitor for five years . I'm glad to reproduce it given the on going debate about the government Land amendment Bill 2017 and the the Land Inquiry Commission headed by Lady Justice Catherine Bamugemereire.
This and many other articles on topical legal issues can also be found on my blog: msserwanga.blogspot.com.
The parliamentary joint committee appointed to handle the Land (Amendment) Bill 2007 has once again succumbed to pressure from the executive arm of government and recommended that the controversial changes to the land law be enacted in total disregard of public opinion.
Whatever the mischief the new amendments are intended to cure, the entire process of protecting the rights of ‘squatters’ has been flawed in a sense that no national consultations were carried out to rally Ugandans to support the new legislation. It’s ironical and illogical that the legislators could have the audacity to recommend that the amendments be passed into law and then national consultations be held later. Of what purpose will these ‘consultations’ serve when Parliament has already pronounced itself on the matter?
The machinations by the state to do as it pleases, without taking into consideration the opinions/views of the stakeholders, are a clear manifestation of leaders who are out of touch with the people they lead. In a recent survey commissioned by Monitor Publications Ltd (MPL) and carried out by a reputable research organisation, the Steadman Group, it transpired that six out of every 10 Ugandans are not satisfied with the government’s approach to solve the land problems in the country.
The polls showed that 66 per cent of Ugandans are disenchanted with President Museveni’s management of land issues. And this is besides the fact that knowledgeable and independent interest groups like the Uganda Land Alliance , Uganda Human Rights Commission and the Uganda Bankers Association are all opposed to the amendments and have since called for nation-wide consultations to be conducted before the law is amended.
It’s clear that the amendments will face serious legal challenges because they are basically creating competing rights of ownership of land– which is an important factor of production. With the peasants pitted against the landlords, land will unfortunately be rendered a non-saleable commodity.
The bankers have already, and rightly so, warned that the controversial land amendments being forced onto the people will close the market for mortgages and loans from which banks depend for most of their business. With a struggling economy and land prices going through the roof, people can only own a piece of land by acquiring mortgages through their bankers. But this cannot be possible when in the market, you don’t have a clear legally recognised owner of the land!
And this is not to argue that citizens should be evicted from their land illegally. The existing law has sufficient safeguards against illegal land evictions. The peasants, the majority of whom are squatters or settlers on vast chunks of land, already have their rights protected by the constitution.
The constitution provides for the protection of the land rights of the registered land owners (landlords) and those with equitable or secondary interests in land like the tenants by occupancy or bibanja holders , the bona fide occupants (people who have lived on any given piece of land unchallenged for more than 12 years before the coming into effect of the 1995 constitution) and lawful occupants (those who settled on land with the consent of the registered owner by virtue of the Busuulu and Nvujjo law of 1928). The provisions of the constitution are reinforced by the enabling law, the Land Act.
This column has stated in the past and repeats now that there is no serious lacuna (gap) in our land legal regime. The major problem is the poor implementation of the law and politicisation of the land conflicts across the country.
Securing lasting legal rights for the peasants/squatters can only be realised through purchase and subsequent transfer of title from the registered land owners to the buyers who in this case can be the peasants. The government should put in place a land fund to enable the peasants buy land and thus secure their land rights. Artificial legislation shall be successfully challenged in court and we shall be back to square one!
The writer is a journalist and advocate.
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
AFRICAN LEADERS MUST LEARN TO ACCEPT DEFEAT
African leaders must learn to accept defeat
There is a raging debate about how Africa and Uganda in particular will benefit from a new US administration headed by not only the first African-American but also a man with roots in the East African region, President-elect Barack Oboma.
This perspective is particularly important now, given the fact that the record low ratings of out- going US President George Bush, is a clear manifestation that unilateralism can’t work in the 21st Century. Rather, it’s the combined effort of the world community through globalisation that will bring peace and prosperity to the human race.
That’s why the antidote to this new reality is not about militarism and financial handouts in terms of aid from the generally democratic developed world to the largely undemocratic and less developed countries, but the attainment of good governance, rule of law and respect for human rights. Uganda can only partner with the new US government if we can guarantee good governance.
Already, President-elect Obama, has been quoted as saying that the problems facing Africa are more about leadership than financial.
It’s more about the willingness of African leaders respecting the opinions and decisions of the people they lead. Ultimately, this means that leaders, especially in Africa, have no option but to test their abilities to lead by holding regular, and free and fair elections and allowing voters their civil liberty and other constitutional freedoms like the right to associate and express their political ideas without fear of being haunted by the state.
This again requires that political campaigns and elections should be free of violence, especially the kind that is state-inspired and designed to intimidate voters. And once the people make their decisions using the ballot, their votes should count and not be stolen by the incumbents, who are not in the habit of giving up power peacefully .
The peaceful transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of a true democracy. Irrespective of all the bruising he suffered at the hands of a gifted orator Barack Obama, President Bush has promised to ensure that the transition to a new administration is smooth.
Never mind that Mr Obama spent all that time deriding Bush for “failed policies,” or mocking him for hiding in an “undisclosed location” because he was too unpopular to show up with his party’s own candidate Mr John McCain. African leaders must also learn to be gracious when beaten at the polls.
Obama’s opponent Mr McCain is one good example. He was the first to send out a congratulatory message and even told his supporters that whatever the politicians differences, they should put their country first and rally behind their new president- elect.
Last week, Mr Bush and his wife had the courtesy to invite the incoming chief executive Obama and his wife Ms Michelle Obama for pep talk at the seat of power, the White House. Mind you, these are politicians of two different brands from two different political parties.
Unfortunately for Uganda, it’s 46 years of independence and the country is still counting to a day when we shall witness a peaceful transfer of power from one president to another. But this is not to say that we can’t do it. The framers of our Constitution provided for the blue print for a legal and peaceful presidential transfer of power.
The question then is; do we have the courage as citizens to respect and uphold the provisions of our constitution that calls for democratic elections? Can we stand firm and say bye to election fraud? Do we have the ability to mobilise, vote and ensure that it counts? Yes. We Can.
Mr Sserwanga is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
There is a raging debate about how Africa and Uganda in particular will benefit from a new US administration headed by not only the first African-American but also a man with roots in the East African region, President-elect Barack Oboma.
This perspective is particularly important now, given the fact that the record low ratings of out- going US President George Bush, is a clear manifestation that unilateralism can’t work in the 21st Century. Rather, it’s the combined effort of the world community through globalisation that will bring peace and prosperity to the human race.
That’s why the antidote to this new reality is not about militarism and financial handouts in terms of aid from the generally democratic developed world to the largely undemocratic and less developed countries, but the attainment of good governance, rule of law and respect for human rights. Uganda can only partner with the new US government if we can guarantee good governance.
Already, President-elect Obama, has been quoted as saying that the problems facing Africa are more about leadership than financial.
It’s more about the willingness of African leaders respecting the opinions and decisions of the people they lead. Ultimately, this means that leaders, especially in Africa, have no option but to test their abilities to lead by holding regular, and free and fair elections and allowing voters their civil liberty and other constitutional freedoms like the right to associate and express their political ideas without fear of being haunted by the state.
This again requires that political campaigns and elections should be free of violence, especially the kind that is state-inspired and designed to intimidate voters. And once the people make their decisions using the ballot, their votes should count and not be stolen by the incumbents, who are not in the habit of giving up power peacefully .
The peaceful transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of a true democracy. Irrespective of all the bruising he suffered at the hands of a gifted orator Barack Obama, President Bush has promised to ensure that the transition to a new administration is smooth.
Never mind that Mr Obama spent all that time deriding Bush for “failed policies,” or mocking him for hiding in an “undisclosed location” because he was too unpopular to show up with his party’s own candidate Mr John McCain. African leaders must also learn to be gracious when beaten at the polls.
Obama’s opponent Mr McCain is one good example. He was the first to send out a congratulatory message and even told his supporters that whatever the politicians differences, they should put their country first and rally behind their new president- elect.
Last week, Mr Bush and his wife had the courtesy to invite the incoming chief executive Obama and his wife Ms Michelle Obama for pep talk at the seat of power, the White House. Mind you, these are politicians of two different brands from two different political parties.
Unfortunately for Uganda, it’s 46 years of independence and the country is still counting to a day when we shall witness a peaceful transfer of power from one president to another. But this is not to say that we can’t do it. The framers of our Constitution provided for the blue print for a legal and peaceful presidential transfer of power.
The question then is; do we have the courage as citizens to respect and uphold the provisions of our constitution that calls for democratic elections? Can we stand firm and say bye to election fraud? Do we have the ability to mobilise, vote and ensure that it counts? Yes. We Can.
Mr Sserwanga is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
NSSF INQUIRY: PARLIAMENT HAS CAPITULATED
NSSF inquiry; Parliament has capitulated
The independence of our national parliament has come under trial once again after the Speaker, Mr Edward Ssekandi, made a rather ridiculous ruling about whether members of parliament have powers to investigate errant cabinet ministers.
Ssekandi’s decision has also left the country wondering whether the taxpayer whose money was misappropriated in the NSSF-Temangalo land scandal should continue to foot the bill for the endless commissions of inquiry which are not only very expensive but also whose recommendations never get to see the light of day.
It’s also common practice for governments to employ the commissions of inquiry to buy time and divert public attention and subtly suppress dissenting views. Instead of using the commissions to restore public confidence about the way the country is governed , the inquiries like in the case of the National Social Security Fund land saga serve the purpose of humiliating the victims- in this case the workers- whose hard-earned savings the NSSF managers are mandated to manage.
But before we address the legal issues and Mr Ssekandi’s interpretation of the law to suit the powers that be, let us pose some questions here. If indeed, Ssekandi, as the Speaker, (and he has a legal mind too) knew that Parliament had no business investigating ministers for contraventions of the law like political influence peddling, conflict of interest and general abuse of office, why did he allow the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises to go ahead with their investigations?
And these investigations were conducted within the precincts of Parliament in full public view and lasted nine weeks. That’s besides the numerous caucus and cabinet meetings called by the President to save the embattled Security Minister Amama Mbabazi and Finance Minister Ezra Suruma, costing millions of taxpayers’ money.
The nation needs to be reminded that although the primary role of Parliament is to make laws, that alone does not extinguish its inherent powers under the constitution to rein in members of the Executive when they abuse state power. Parliament is mandated by the constitution to defend the constitution and promote the democratic governance of Uganda.
It’s also a cardinal principle of law that the constitution is supreme and therefore takes precedent over any other enabling law like the Leadership Code. The constitution provides that if any law or any custom is inconsistent with any provision of the constitution, the constitution prevails and that other law or custom shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be null and void.
Mr Ssekandi, with due respect, made a gross mistake when he relied on an erroneous interpretation of the law to suggest and rule that a committee of Parliament does not have powers to investigate errant public servants like ministers and make recommendations including sanctions against such wrongdoers.
This is because article 90 of the constitution is very clear; it mandates Parliament to appoint committees with powers of the High Court. This in effect means that these committees have unlimited jurisdictions like the High Court to inquire into any matter, make decisions and even pass a sentence/sanctions.
It’s disappointing and a very sad development for the country that the Speaker and Parliament are ready and have surrendered their supervisory authority and constitutional independence to the Executive arm of government. Parliament has betrayed the people of Uganda by succumbing to the manipulations and coercion of the Executive and not serve to protect national interests. But there comes a time, like in the just concluded elections in one of the world’s leading democracies- the US, when the voters or the citizens reclaim their constitutional supremacy and say; it’s enough!
Mr Sserwanga is an advocate and journalist
msserwanga@gmail.com
The independence of our national parliament has come under trial once again after the Speaker, Mr Edward Ssekandi, made a rather ridiculous ruling about whether members of parliament have powers to investigate errant cabinet ministers.
Ssekandi’s decision has also left the country wondering whether the taxpayer whose money was misappropriated in the NSSF-Temangalo land scandal should continue to foot the bill for the endless commissions of inquiry which are not only very expensive but also whose recommendations never get to see the light of day.
It’s also common practice for governments to employ the commissions of inquiry to buy time and divert public attention and subtly suppress dissenting views. Instead of using the commissions to restore public confidence about the way the country is governed , the inquiries like in the case of the National Social Security Fund land saga serve the purpose of humiliating the victims- in this case the workers- whose hard-earned savings the NSSF managers are mandated to manage.
But before we address the legal issues and Mr Ssekandi’s interpretation of the law to suit the powers that be, let us pose some questions here. If indeed, Ssekandi, as the Speaker, (and he has a legal mind too) knew that Parliament had no business investigating ministers for contraventions of the law like political influence peddling, conflict of interest and general abuse of office, why did he allow the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises to go ahead with their investigations?
And these investigations were conducted within the precincts of Parliament in full public view and lasted nine weeks. That’s besides the numerous caucus and cabinet meetings called by the President to save the embattled Security Minister Amama Mbabazi and Finance Minister Ezra Suruma, costing millions of taxpayers’ money.
The nation needs to be reminded that although the primary role of Parliament is to make laws, that alone does not extinguish its inherent powers under the constitution to rein in members of the Executive when they abuse state power. Parliament is mandated by the constitution to defend the constitution and promote the democratic governance of Uganda.
It’s also a cardinal principle of law that the constitution is supreme and therefore takes precedent over any other enabling law like the Leadership Code. The constitution provides that if any law or any custom is inconsistent with any provision of the constitution, the constitution prevails and that other law or custom shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be null and void.
Mr Ssekandi, with due respect, made a gross mistake when he relied on an erroneous interpretation of the law to suggest and rule that a committee of Parliament does not have powers to investigate errant public servants like ministers and make recommendations including sanctions against such wrongdoers.
This is because article 90 of the constitution is very clear; it mandates Parliament to appoint committees with powers of the High Court. This in effect means that these committees have unlimited jurisdictions like the High Court to inquire into any matter, make decisions and even pass a sentence/sanctions.
It’s disappointing and a very sad development for the country that the Speaker and Parliament are ready and have surrendered their supervisory authority and constitutional independence to the Executive arm of government. Parliament has betrayed the people of Uganda by succumbing to the manipulations and coercion of the Executive and not serve to protect national interests. But there comes a time, like in the just concluded elections in one of the world’s leading democracies- the US, when the voters or the citizens reclaim their constitutional supremacy and say; it’s enough!
Mr Sserwanga is an advocate and journalist
msserwanga@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
WE SHOULD END INJUSTICES AGAINST WOMEN
We should end injustices against women
Daily Monitor last week ran a depressing story about a 19-year-old girl Ms Fatuma Nansamba, who was refused to write her A’ level examinations at Kibibi Secondary School in Mpigi District merely because she gave birth during school term.
And what a tragedy! For starters, at the age of 19, Ms Nansamba is considered under the provisions of our constitution to be an adult – meaning that she can legally consent to have sex, marry and even give birth. There is nothing illegal there.
However, what is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, is the school authority’s decision to deny Ms Nansamba her constitutional right to pursue education. Her case is also part of a wider problem - the wide spread inequitable gender relations in this country that largely and unconstitutionally confine women and the girl-child to a second class citizen status.
The concept of gender refers to the distinctive qualities of women and men that are culturally, socially and economically determined. And because of the patriarchal nature of our society, where women have for long been treated as subservient members of the family, the gender imbalance and the inequalities that come with it, is something that can easily pass for being normal.
This perhaps, explain why a boy(s) responsible for the pregnancy of a young girl(s) can be allowed to sit for their exams while the girl(s) who suffer labour for nine months are not accorded the same opportunity.
And all this happening at a time when it’s common knowledge that women’s rights are protected by our constitution in the Bill of Rights (Chapter four) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted 60 years.
In fact, The Universal Declaration in Article 1 provides that: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
But the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human rights and several other international and regional legal instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of discrimination against Women have not helped much to ensure the full enjoyment of equal rights by women in this country.
Women are still considered to be labourers in the home and yet they can’t lay any claim to property in your typical rural family home. The biting poverty cannot help matters either because when parents have to make the tough decisions on which child to send to school – such decisions are always in favour of the male gender. The abilities of the girl-child are never considered.
Even those (girls) who make it to school against all odds like Ms Nansamba are still discriminated against.
So, why do women continue to be discriminated against? The discrimination against women can be traced to politics, economics, social relations and even the law, which predominantly remain the preserve of men.
And as long as these old prejudices remain entrenched in our minds, women emancipation shall remain a big joke and to a great extent, a myth! But one thing is clear though - the injustices that are continually meted out against women and the girl-child must be brought to an end.
Women should not be treated as second class citizens or worse still as men’s property. Women who are our mothers should be treated with dignity and allowed the full attainment of their constitutional rights which include but are not limited to, the right to good health care and education. Women should at all times enjoy the same, equal opportunities as men.
Mr Sserwanga is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
Msserwanga.blogspot.com
Daily Monitor last week ran a depressing story about a 19-year-old girl Ms Fatuma Nansamba, who was refused to write her A’ level examinations at Kibibi Secondary School in Mpigi District merely because she gave birth during school term.
And what a tragedy! For starters, at the age of 19, Ms Nansamba is considered under the provisions of our constitution to be an adult – meaning that she can legally consent to have sex, marry and even give birth. There is nothing illegal there.
However, what is unconstitutional and therefore illegal, is the school authority’s decision to deny Ms Nansamba her constitutional right to pursue education. Her case is also part of a wider problem - the wide spread inequitable gender relations in this country that largely and unconstitutionally confine women and the girl-child to a second class citizen status.
The concept of gender refers to the distinctive qualities of women and men that are culturally, socially and economically determined. And because of the patriarchal nature of our society, where women have for long been treated as subservient members of the family, the gender imbalance and the inequalities that come with it, is something that can easily pass for being normal.
This perhaps, explain why a boy(s) responsible for the pregnancy of a young girl(s) can be allowed to sit for their exams while the girl(s) who suffer labour for nine months are not accorded the same opportunity.
And all this happening at a time when it’s common knowledge that women’s rights are protected by our constitution in the Bill of Rights (Chapter four) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted 60 years.
In fact, The Universal Declaration in Article 1 provides that: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
But the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human rights and several other international and regional legal instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of discrimination against Women have not helped much to ensure the full enjoyment of equal rights by women in this country.
Women are still considered to be labourers in the home and yet they can’t lay any claim to property in your typical rural family home. The biting poverty cannot help matters either because when parents have to make the tough decisions on which child to send to school – such decisions are always in favour of the male gender. The abilities of the girl-child are never considered.
Even those (girls) who make it to school against all odds like Ms Nansamba are still discriminated against.
So, why do women continue to be discriminated against? The discrimination against women can be traced to politics, economics, social relations and even the law, which predominantly remain the preserve of men.
And as long as these old prejudices remain entrenched in our minds, women emancipation shall remain a big joke and to a great extent, a myth! But one thing is clear though - the injustices that are continually meted out against women and the girl-child must be brought to an end.
Women should not be treated as second class citizens or worse still as men’s property. Women who are our mothers should be treated with dignity and allowed the full attainment of their constitutional rights which include but are not limited to, the right to good health care and education. Women should at all times enjoy the same, equal opportunities as men.
Mr Sserwanga is a journalist and advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
Msserwanga.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
