Amend law to recall ‘sleeping’ legislators

Ugandans are flocking to Parliament to give their views on the proposed amendments to the 1995 Constitution. Apparently, because Cabinet did not conduct comprehensive consultations on the proposed reforms, Opposition leaders said, the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of Parliament has now been turned into a constitutional review commission.
To this point, the Uganda Law Reform Commission, a statutory body mandated to study and review laws, admitted when they appeared before the Committee to present their views on the government Bill, that they did not seek people’s opinions on the draft reforms. They also made matters worse when they confessed that their role stopped at receiving views from the public and sending them to Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

Ministry of Justice, Electoral Commission, Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU); Family Life Network, East African Centre for Constitutional Development and all the major Opposition parties [except Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC)] have already presented their constitutional amendments to the committee. It’s not yet clear why UPC stayed away from the group.
To this point, the views so far expressed by the different stakeholders substantively alters the government draft which Opposition leaders said, symbolises “the arrogance” and “impunity” of the ruling party and the failure to table realistic reforms ahead of the 2016 polls.

Recalling MPs
There are several suggestions on table; including having an independent Electoral Commission. However, the proposed recall of MPs stands out. There is a Ugandan saying-- a monkey does not pass judgements over forest disputes as there will always be a conflict of interest. Since monkeys depend on forests as their habitat, they would certainly find it difficult if not discourteous to ask them to be objective in matters affecting their vital space.

For the record, the reference to a monkey in this article is not in any way envisioned to insult honourable lawmakers. It is rather intended to cast a sarcastic image of a “conflicted House” posturing on a matter of national significance. The MPs on House committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on Wednesday opposed the suggestion to delete Article 84(7) of the 1995 Constitution to allow voters to recall poor performing MPs.

This proposal is harmless. In fact, in the UK Parliament, realising that there was no way that local constituents could remove an MP found guilty of serious wrongdoing until there is a general election, a conservative government this year decided to introduce a new Bill titled: Recall of MPs Bill, 2015, to allow voters to kick out MPs on proven serious wrongdoing.
The Bill was passed by both Houses in March and it’s now law. When a matter of great importance and interest originates from the citizens, it is right and appropriate that leaders shelve their personal interests and reflect on the veracity of the proposals, or amendments, put forward.

For Uganda, when Family Life Network, a local NGO, moved that Article 84(7) be deleted in public interest, on principle; some MPs such as Abdu Katuntu agreed that they must be held to account when they have done something wrong. However, delivering on the practical detail of a recall mechanism, the committee reacted with consternation and some MPs questioned the intelligence of their voters. Some wondered whether voters know their mandate. In the committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed constitutional proposals, there is a wide range of views on how and whether it should be done.

Omissions
While it’s unlikely that the House will accept to amend the Constitution to empower voters to recall nonperforming MPs, members of the Legal Committee wriggled in trying to outfox the citizens’ demand for the amendment. Some argued that there was no need for a recall system as they did not see a gap in the disciplinary arrangements for MPs. That view is not shared by the voters who feel the grounds for recall of a Member of Parliament currently listed in Article 84(2) are inadequate and futile.

According to Family Life Network, the grounds omit a more important ground of a member failing or wilfully refusing to represent the norms, values and views or aspirations of the majority of the electorate.
Most importantly, Article 84(7) is against the spirit of representative democracy under which MPs are elected. This particular provision disenfranchises Ugandans of their right to recall nonperforming legislators under a multiparty political setting.

For instance, Article 84(1) sets out reasons for recall. A member may be recalled on the following grounds: physical or mental incapacity, rendering him or her incapable to perform the functions of an MP; misconduct or misbehaviour likely to bring hatred, ridicule, contempt or disrepute to the office or persistent deserting of the electorate without reasonable cause.
However, Article 87(7) says the right to recall an MP shall only exist while the movement political system is in operation. This defeats the hallmark of representative democracy and imposes unscrupulous restrictions on the voters.

Beyond politics
There is need to look beyond the politics of survival and empower voters to hold their representative accountable. This will improve the efficiency of Parliament and increase service delivery.
In the same week, Opposition leaders made some valuable recommendations, particularly on the need to have an independent Electoral Commission to ensure free and fair polls; Cabinet cut from 70 of 21 ministers; restore presidential term limits; remove the army from Parliament, introduce a running mate/ deputy president and a presidential candidate who scores five per cent automatically becomes a Member of Parliament.

Opposition leaders, however, noted that Ugandans were not consulted on the proposed amendments and that the legal committee had turned itself into a constitutional review commission.
Ultimately, it’s up to the House to reflect upon the gaps in the current provisions and consider whether they should be amended in public interest.