Reliving Amin’s life presidency, Article 102(b) and the land question

Silent Sunset is a depiction of family life under a brutal dictatorship. It is a biography of my late father Sirayo Yona Nyeko, who disappeared under the once upon a time declared life president Idi Amin.

Although it has been 40 years on, and the pain of losing him has eased with time, not a day goes by without his family thinking of him, and his memory. Now, once again, it appears that there is a real possibility of history repeating itself.
It seems to me that some of the NRM MPs, who are advocating for the lifting of the presidential age limit of 75 years, enshrined in the Constitution of Uganda by Article 102(b), may not have experienced nor paid the price of a life presidency. Unlike those who are against the removal together with the more than 300,000 Ugandans, who paid with their lives, and whose families, like ours, are still living with Amin’s legacy of life presidency. The purpose of this article is supposed to act as a deterrent to anyone taking advantage of incumbency, in order to entrench themselves in power. However, the wheels of fortune, they say, always comes full circle, and that the proponents of bad laws almost always become their first casualty.
In the last 30 years or so, the leadership of the NRM has sought control of the army and the police with threats and use of the gun in order to maintain power. This is a precedent the regime has set for itself, and ultimately, with the possibility of a life presidency, this state of affairs will continue, or worse, most likely to escalate, as the leadership grapples with opposition to its entrenchment of one man rule.
There was a time when the Movement system at its early stages, was credited with ushering in good governance through the individual merit system, where the best Ugandans competed for public office, and this resulted in efficiency in service delivery, and accelerated economic growth in the country. Subsequently, when the same system metamorphosed into a party called the National Resistance Movement, it slipped into survival mode, and, since then, it has strived to maintain power, at any cost.
Unlike our traditional neighbours, like Kenya and Tanzania, who are determined to impose checks and balances in their constitutions, Uganda is instead doing the opposite by removing the last checks that has at least guaranteed some semblance of peace for the last 30 years. To salvage their guilt, some NRM MPs have proposed returning the term limit as a trade off with the lifting of article 102(b), should they vote for it. However, as evident from their past record, each time the party has come up against an obstacle in its quest to maintain itself in power, they have always colluded to remove it, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, what is to stop them removing the term limit the second time around?
The proponents of the removal of the presidential age limit from the Constitution have also justified their quest, with the holding of periodic general elections. This in itself is a fallacy, because it is like justifying a rape by asking the victim’s permission after the event. The same proponents are now talking of extending both the parliamentary term and the presidential term to seven years instead of the five-year term on which they were elected, hoping to benefit from it. You do not make legislation for your own benefit, if anything, any new laws passed in this regard, will have to take effect in the 11th Parliament, and, with a new president who will take advantage of any amendment to article 102(b).
In respect of the report of the legal parliamentary committee, tasked with gathering views from various sections of the population, one would have expected that the purpose which necessitated the inclusion of Article 102(b) in the Constitution in 1985 should have taken centre stage in their consideration. But it is surprising that in their considered opinion, the spirit behind the article was not important to them, and therefore, was not at the heart of their deliberation. Otherwise, their reported conclusion in the newspapers would have reflected this. Instead, what they have done is to make their conclusion on the legal and cosmetic aspect of the article, yet the cure for this has already been provided for in the Constitution. Had they delved deeper and went behind Article 102(b), it is doubtful whether they would have come to the conclusion that they did. Therefore, in avoiding the spirit of Article 102(b), the committees report has not done any justice to the people of Uganda.
Now the big question is, what is it that the leadership of the NRM has not achieved in their 30 year presidency that they so badly need to do should the MPs vote for the removal of Article 102(b) this week. Some have said the leadership needs more time to see through the integration of East Africa or that somehow there will be instability in the country when he retires in 2021.
First, the East Africa Community is an institution that does not need individuals, but a collective group effort to achieve success. Second, there is no logic in the argument that should the leadership of the NRM be ineligible to stand in the 2021 general election, because he would be beyond the age of 75 barred by article 102b of the constitution, there would be instability in the country. There is simply no evidence of that at all!
However, the biggest surprise in this whole saga is that, so far, no one has linked the clamour to amend Article 102(b) in the Constitution with the shelved Article 26 of the Land Amendment Bill, which is on hold at the moment, waiting for an enabling environment, which the NRM MPs are about to provide should they unwittingly vote for the scrapping of Article 102(b) from the Constitution.
The question is, should Article 102(b) be amended thus enabling President Museveni to rule for life, what checks are there to stop him also seeing through the amendment of Article 26 on the land matter?
The Writer is an Author and Lawyer