June 27, 2005
Justification
In the Constituency Assembly, Article 105(2) on presidential term limits was debated and unanimously passed. It was not controversial.
Drawing from Uganda’s history, most delegates supporting presidential terms argued that if a person was elected president and turned out to be dictatorial or incompetent but resorted to manipulating elections process in order to be re-elected he or she would do so at the end of the first term but would be disqualified by the Constitution at the end of his second term.
The CA delegates were well aware that an incumbent president can organize regular elections and manipulate them to be re-elected, every time those elections were conducted.
It must be noted that during the Museveni ‘s 20 regime a High Court ruling in 2001 and a subsequent Parliamentary inquiry into election violence in the country confirmed and revealed more details of various manipulations of presidential elections in 1996 and 2001 engineered mainly by candidate Yoweri Museveni camp.
Museveni started it all
The genesis of amending article 105(2) to provide for unlimited terms for the president originated from the president himself when he spoke in favour of the idea during the meeting of NEC of the Movement at
1

Kyankwanzi in March 2003 and later also at their National Delegates
Conference which met in Kampala.
It was at the both meetings that the plot of lifting term limits to enable President Museveni to stand again was vigorously marketed to the delegates.
Delegates from districts were reportedly persuaded and bribed at night on by the clique which has now been baptized as ‘the Mafia’ and made to present memoranda to the effect that their districts supported lifting term limits.
It was after the fraudulent support for lifting term limits by the
National Conference that cabinet submitted a memorandum to the
Constitutional Review Commission recommending the lifting of term limits for the President. It was shocking that cabinet decided to submit a memorandum to a Commission which they had set up and which would in turn report to them.
But most astonishing of all is now the claim that ‘the people’ demanded the lifting of the presidential term limits! Which people apart from some NRM officials and their countrywide network of the corrupt demanded the lifting of term limits?
It must be recalled that earlier in 2001 government had set up the
Sempebwa Constitutional Review Commission and article 105(2) had not been included among the Terms of Reference of the Commission, because the issue of term limits had been considered as a settled matter and there was no need to review it by the Constitutional Review Commission.
That is why the CRC never inquired into the amendment of Article 105(2) during the countrywide inquiries they conducted for the reason that
2

that article was not included in the terms of reference and that hardly any witness had raised the matter to the CRC. The CRC therefore had no position on lifting term limits until Museveni reportedly dictated to cabinet to submit its (read his) memorandum to the Commission.
The issue became contentious from the word go starting in the
Commission itself soon after the cabinet submitted its memorandum. The
CRC Chairman and one other Commissioner decide to disassociate themselves from the views of the rest of the members who supported the lifting of terms and issued individual minority reports. Most of the other Commissioners were cadres of the Movement and staunch supporters of the President.
The issue of lifting presidential terms which has now becomes highly contentious, divisive, explosive and partisan countrywide was initiated and marketed to the public by President Museveni and his government.
The President is so desperate to hang on to power that he had even to go to the despicable extent of bribing MPs in order to support him on the contentious amendment.
Most of the MPs who were bribed to lift the term limits have stayed away from the debate in House on the issue. What can they say for it?
They seem to be decided on only one thing, to wait for the voting day then go and pay back what they owe Museveni.
3

Country split
The soon to be repealed Article 105(2) has already deeply split the country and NRM ideologically between the pro-democracy and prodictatorship camps. There are hard feelings and irreconcilable positions in both camps that could only be smoothened if Museveni announced that he would not stand again and benefit from the amended article as person. He is the only Ugandan who can not stand for presidency again unless Article 105(2) is amended.
That is why for two years he has been engaged in many manipulations of the constitution, the law and parliamentary rules in order to clear the way for his Life Presidency ambition.
Out of desperation for votes the President has also abused his powers and created enumerable districts and regional tiers whose administrative costs will definitely deplete the national budget.
But the worst is yet to come and for which Museveni with his mafia clique will be held responsible soon or later.
Given the highly polarized and charged nature of the situation the country is likely to see increased politically motivated violence.
Bloody path
Museveni’s long journey to become President but which he hid behind the slogan of ‘ridding Uganda of bad leaders’ has been bloody costing the lives of millions of innocent people both Ugandans and even citizens of neighbouring countries through unconstitutional military campaigns.
4

If he succeeds in his life presidency project, he will protect his achievement through a fully fledged repressive and undemocratic rule perhaps worse than that of Idi Amin.
It is most unfortunate that because of greed and desire for selfpreservation in power, Museveni and his mafia gang have also chosen to deny Ugandans the first opportunity ever in their post-independence history to witness an orderly and peaceful succession from one government to other.
In so doing, they are pushing Ugandans to once again consider option of the undemocratic method of changing of government that has characterized the country’s politics in the past.
In view of this situation, we as FDC would wish to state our position as follows:
1.
We call upon Parliament not to make the mistake to amend article 105(2) just to enable Museveni to run again as a presidential candidate.
2. We also call upon MPs representing UPDF to respect the command of the Constitution, Article 208 and disqualify them from voting on
Article 105(2) since it is now so controversial and highly partisan.
3.
Article 105(2) was never contentious in the CA and has never been tested and there is no serious reason given by the supporters of lifting term limits other than to enable president
Museveni run again.
4.
The people of Uganda never expressed their views on this
Article during the CRC because the issue of term limits was a
5

settled matter and government in their wisdom did not find it necessary to include it in the Terms of Reference of the
Constitutional Review Commission.
5.
If Article 105(2) were to be amended to enable president
Museveni to run again, most Ugandans and the world will never believe the independence of The Parliament of Uganda especially in light of the fact that more than 2/3 of members were openly bribed with Shs.5m/- each to approve the lifting of term limits in the interest one person.
6.
For the stability Uganda, it is necessary to have regular
Presidential elections and term limits because it is difficult to guarantee free and fair elections in the country’s setting as indeed it has been witnessed in all past elections in
Uganda.
7.
Other countries in Africa like Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia,
Malawi, Namibia Mozambique, Ghana, South Africa, Botswana and others have seen it fit to enhance their stability and good governance by imposing term limits to safeguard against the temptation by leaders to overstay in power.
8.
Term limits is a big guarantee against an incumbent president rigging and manipulating elections.
9.
The country is polarized with many Ugandans objecting to amending Article 105(2). If Parliament goes ahead and removes term limits this may cause serious unrest, political strife and may lead to turmoil both through the transition period and there after as reported by the Committee of Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs on the Government White Paper page 27.
6

10.
If Museveni insists on hanging on to power, then Uganda is likely to experience bad governance and more insecurity. Kony war may also intensify. This will cause serious investors to keep away or flee. Many donors might also review their relationship with Uganda and reduce on aid which could lead to total collapse of the country’s highly dependent economy.
11.
Uganda is likely to go back to days before 1986 and all the gains by NRM will be lost.
12.
Term limits assist leaders to be mindful of the dangers of corruption and abuse of office during their tenure as they could be called upon to account for their actions once they are out of power.
We would therefore like to appeal to President Museveni to respect himself, the people who elected him and the Constitution under which he was voted President in 2001 when he promised the country and the world at large to hand over power peacefully and in an orderly manner at the end of his second and last term. Otherwise his insistence to stand again will expose him as a consummate liar and the biggest political fraudster this country has ever known.
7