Age limit debate: The unnecessary tension is evidence of absence a political culture

Last week Ugandans watched with incredulity and sadness the rowdy scenes in Parliament, which forced the Speaker to adjourn the debate on the motion to lift presidential age limit from the Constitution.
Supporters of the amendment have advanced two main reasons in aid of their cause, namely that Article 102(b) is discriminatory against people who have attained the age of 75; and secondly, that in the case of Amama Mbabazi vs the Attorney General & Another, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to propose amendments to the Constitution within two years, which he has failed to do and which the proposers of the Bill are now doing.

The first argument is open-ended because traditional leaders who are barred from participating in politics are also going to argue, rather successfully, that the limitation is discriminatory as being in conflict with Article 21 of the Constitution.
Similarly judges and civil servants who are forced to retire upon reaching a certain age will argue that the laws which require them to retire are discriminatory against them. The list is endless.
Secondly, although the Supreme Court made certain directives to the Attorney General, removal of the presidential age limit was not one of them.
In the end, the arguments advanced in support of the motion are faulty and were advanced with unnecessary emotions, which have contributed to the political tension in the country.
The only valid argument for amendment of the Constitution as proposed is that Article 259 does allow it.

This article provides that “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may amend by way or addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution……”
The proposal to remove presidential age limit amount to a repeal of a provision of the Constitution and is, therefore, allowable.

This being the case, those opposed to the amendment should have fought it on procedural, technical or substantive grounds such as that Article 259 has not been implemented by a law enacted by Parliament.
A constitutional provision can only be implemented through an Act of Parliament and until that Act is passed, the provision as a guide and standard for conduct of public affairs. That is why Article 264 of the Constitution provides:
“Subject to the provisions of this article, the operation of the existing law after the coming into force of this constitution shall not be affected by the coming into force of this constitution but the existing law shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with this constitution.”
Apart from the absence of a law, what is going on is evidence of the absence of a political culture to govern our public affairs. Political culture refers to widely held ideas about who should govern, for what ends and by what means. The term indicates what are our values and beliefs or the shared ideas about what is good and desirable.
Agreement over values does not mean that there will not be contradictions.

The American constitution declares that “All men are created equal.” This is an American value, but for years, the American society has been characterised by segregation and discrimination. However, this does not render the value worthless. It gives activists something to fight for.
Lastly, political culture demands a willingness to settle constitutional conflicts through consensus.

At the American constitutional convention in 1887, southern delegates wanted slaves to be counted for representation purposes, which would give them more representatives in Congress, but the northern states with fewer slaves resisted. The conflict was resolved through consensus in what was known as the Connecticut Plan.
Mr Mulira is a lawyer.
[email protected]