Are we witnessing killing of the 1995 Constitution?

In August, I wrote an article in Daily Monitor titled, ‘With term limits, age limit would be irrelevant.’ Term limits act as a safety value for taming the insatiable appetite for power for African politicians in particular.

The other advantage is that by capping the period during which one has to be president, the occupant is put under pressure to deliver on his programmes and manifesto, given the time frame within which he has to either prove himself or be damned.
Open-ended presidencies not only create incompetence, but also tyranny and a sense of entitlement.

The occupant assumes the role of a ‘demi-god’ and a ‘mister know it all’. He is often surrounded by his kinsmen and sycophants and other yes men, who create a barrier between him and reality; any ‘pretender to the throne’ is cut to size or completely eliminated.

Many countries in the world have gravitated towards term limits. Even the United States introduced term limits in 1951, 175 years after the Declaration of Independence in1776 and 165 years since the coming into force of the United States Constitution in 1789.

This, as I have written here before, was because of the unprecedented four-term presidency of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who died in office in 1945 while serving his fourth term. Roosevelt had broken the unwritten two-term limit set by the first president, George Washington. Americans then realised that no matter how great an individual is, he or she should rule for a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms.

There are many mature democracies where there are no term limits for presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, etc, but voters in those countries know when to get them out in free and fair elections. Alternatively, their own parties step in by pulling the rug under their feet, as happened with Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair of the United Kingdom.

These countries have enlightened voters and constitutionally guaranteed free and fair elections. Africa on the other hand, has a majority of voters who know very little, if anything, about the purpose of an election, electoral commissions are partisan and where electoral outcomes are often predetermined before the polling day.

Comparing these established democracies with pseudo-democracies in most African countries is comparing the incomparable.
Turning to age limit, I do not believe a person of more than 75 years, though no ‘spring chicken’, cannot function in the job of president other things being fine with him.

However, who inserted Article 102(b) in the 1995 Constitution and for what purpose? Isn’t it the same people who introduced it who are now part of the group fighting tooth and nail to have it removed from the Constitution by hook or crook? The ‘grape vine’ tells us that Apollo Milton Obote was the intended victim of Article 102(b) to prevent him from standing for office again.

Now that he is gone, who at this moment is intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of its removal? Why is the removal of this article so crucial that it cannot await for the Constitutional Review Commission promised to us by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Maj Gen Kahinda Otafiire?

This was not one of the issues ordered by the Supreme Court in its judgement upholding the 2016 election of President Museveni following Amama Mbabazi’s petition, to be addressed by government in two years. It is wrong to tag the Bill to the Supreme Court ruling.

The 1995 Constitution is probably the most abused Constitution in the world. It has suffered countless amendments, starting with a rather ‘ harmless’ one of increase of the number of Cabinet ministers in 1996 and gained momentum until the “killer amendment’’ of 2005, abolishing term limits. This actually destroyed the spirit of the Constitution.

The Bill to remove age limits is the burial of the carcass and the proof one needed that contrary to what many of the framers of the Constitution believed ie that they were writing a Constitution for posterity. It is sad that some of the so-called founding fathers are part of the conspiracy to change the Constitution again, saying it is ‘’just a document’’ and that ‘’it was not cast in stone’’. This kind of thinking is totally irreconcilable with the letter and spirit of the Constitution as implied in the preamble to the 1995 Constitution. We are back to where we started and the consequences could be worse.

Mr Naggaga is an economist, administrator and retired ambassador.
[email protected].