Folly of debating presidential term, age limits in Parliament – Part III
In this final part, we examine the dire consequences of the age limit debate crisis.
As observed in part II, the removal of age limit motion should have been introduced and handled in Parliament by a government minister. That failure had never been fully explained but rumours and speculations about the reasons for it have been widespread nationally and internationally. They include the speculation that many ministers and the majority of NRM MPs do not support the idea of removing presidential age limit and that many, including millions of Ugandans, wish to restore presidential term limits.
In fact, many who are opposed to the removal of presidential term limits and now vigorously oppose the removal of age limits on sound and good grounds not merely for biological aging, are increasing. First, no one can determine the strength or weakness of a person’s capacity by reference only to biological age or accidental nature.
President Museveni has been continuously active and engaged both physically and mentally in high level decisions of governance. He has personally worked every day and for years making decisions, sometimes of life and death consequences and hardly ever having a day’s rest.
Recently, a European TV showed a discussion between senior citizens aged between 96 and 106 years, who are still driving motorcars on highways. The interviewer asked one motor driver, aged 102. “Madam, surely your senses are now slow, how would you handle the situation if on the highway, a school child were suddenly to run across in front of you?” As quickly and sharply as the lady driver could muster, she retorted, “There better be no one crossing the road when I am driving”. Perhaps a Ugandan Octagorian president might heed those remarks and act on them as a precedent.
Sadly, however, the debates that occurred at the end of last month indicate quiet convincingly the phenomenon of not only a leader but a party that has been at the helm of national affairs for more than 30 years without a break, dying to continue in power.
Following the physical battles between government security forces and MPs opposed to the motion, the NBS television requested representatives of both sides to appear and explain to the nation why they behaved the way they did.
The Opposition representative was fully alert, competent and highly impressive expressing his side. The NRM representative acted and behaved as if she was a fish out of water. She lied that the Supreme Court had ordered the government and Parliament to remove age limits. The host of the programme pointed out to her that the court had only identified Article 104. As if the NRM spokesperson had awakened from slumberland, she blurted out that it was the NRM caucus which had added on Article 102(b).
Later, another interview showed Adolf Mwesigye [Defence minister] philosophising that the provision of age limit was discriminatory and that was why it had to be removed. But when questioned whether the same provision did not discriminate against those under 35, school children and lunatics, the minister fumbled for an answer in vain.
The dilemma facing the NRM leadership and its supporters in terminal expiry is how to temporarily sustain itself by the contrasting sober views of the minister of Security, Gen Henry Tumukunde, who indicated without saying so, that he is not for the removal of age limits. He remarked that those for and against it are pursuing a phantom because the real substance, which the country should have defended and not allowed to be removed from the Constitution, was presidential term limits.
Prof Kanyeihamba is a retired Supreme Court judge.
[email protected]
