At the height of General Idi Amin’s rule in Uganda, former Tanzania’s foreign minister, John Malecela, made a prophetic statement on his Ugandan counterpart, Mr Wanume Kibedi.
He told the bespectacled and afro-haired Ugandan minister who also happened to have been General Amin’s brother-in-law not to seek forceful repatriation of Ugandan refugees from Tanzania “because tomorrow you may also become a refugee”!
Mr Malecela who will go down in history as one of the most refined diplomats this country has ever produced, cautioned Mr Kibedi during his meeting with the Ugandan minister in the lake side city of Mwanza.
The Ugandan foreign minister-cum-lawyer had pressed his Tanzanian counterpart for forceful repatriation to Uganda of Ugandan refugees who had fled to Tanzania following the 1971 military coup against President Milton Obote.
A few months later, Mr Kibedi fled to Zambia where he sought political asylum after an attempt on his life by his former boss, General Amin.
After differing with General Amin, a problem that is said to have been triggered by sour relations between the General and Mr Kibedi’s sister, the Ugandan dictator ordered the arrest of Mr Kibedi.
Mr Kibedi was arrested, as directed, put behind a boot of a Mercedes Benz and driven to the State House.
Fortunately for Mr Kibedi, the car bearing him was halted so suddenly, before General Amin (who was standing in front of the State House with a couple of members of Libyan delegation), hence causing the boot bonnet to open.
And to the amazement of the Libyans and the embarrassment of General Amin, Mr Kibedi issued out of the boot, dusted himself, greeted the General (who was thoroughly embarrassed by the incident) and his Libyan guests.
Mr Kibedi did not wait for his boss. He disappeared into oblivion.
To date it is not known whether the Libyans asked their host and very close friend why his foreign minister had elected to drive to the state house in the boot of the car!
However, being close to a regime which was not very much different from their own, for birds of the same feathers fly together, they must have known what their host had intended to do with his foreign minister.
But for those who were around when the incident happened say the two parties had exchanged glances as Mr Kibedi issued out of the boot!
Mr Kibedi was never seen in Uganda until he surfaced, this time as a refugee, in Zambia a few days later!
Had the Mercedes Benz boot not opened on that fateful day, Mr Kibedi could have ended up in the same way a number of prominent Ugandan leaders, businessmen and clergies (that include Bishop Luwum) had ended, at the hands of the General’s hands!
The Wanume Kibedi incident could be compared to what has befallen the former NCCR-Mageuzi Kigoma South Member of Parliament, Mr David Kafulila (dismissal from the party) in the sense that, that could befall any member of parliament regardless of the party one comes from!
Judging by what many influential men and women have commented over the incident, especially in the print media, they are not happy with what the opposition party has done.
And this is much as they agree with the opposition party over the dire need to deal with indiscipline among its rank.
Yet those influential voices need to do more than express disapproval over the NCCR-Mageuzi leadership’s decision, not against the opposition party, but rather by tackling the laws (of course, through the House) that make it possible for the Kafulilas and the Shibudas (John) to lose their party memberships, hence parliamentary seats!
We all remember how Shibuda was forced out of the party he loved, forcing him to join Chadema which helped him retain his parliamentary seat.
As Tanzanians debate the Kafulila incident, it is important that they asked themselves, and in particular, those representing them in the parliament whether the law that makes it mandatory for anyone vying for elective political post to be a member of a political party was still valid today.
It is indisputable that during the one party state (and in the course of nation building), the law was quite valid, but the question is, is it still valid today in the present setting of multiparty politics?
The foregoing question is more important for members of parliament whose voting pattern in the house is such that it can make or unmake any law.
Such members of parliament have to ask themselves whether they are immune, individually, to what befell Mr Kafulila last week.
For such members of parliament to continue to believe in ‘their collective strength in the House’ is to pursue the road pursued by Mr Wanume Kibedi in our Ugandan story!
In fact, nothing makes the Kafulila incident more relevant to the present crop of members of parliament today than the present Constitution project.
The Kafulila story raises the need to view the Constitution project not with narrow lenses, but rather with what photographers describe as wider lens or the bird’s view.
The present crop of members of parliament ought to help in guiding the writing of the new Constitution not to fit a person or group of persons, but rather the present and the posterity.
And that can only be realized if they refrain from entertaining self-interests through, among others, dirty scheming.
It is important for MPs, especially from the ruling party, to bear in mind that unless they ensure that the next Constitution is worked out for the interest of the nation rather than individuals, tomorrow they may not be in the driving seat and that could easily deter their effort to bounce back!
And talking about Constitution making, there is also a need to look into the role (in the next constitution) of the first employer of the MP, the people who elect a member of parliament.
In the case of the Kafulila incident, the opposition party has withdrawn his party membership, a move that would rob him of his parliamentary seat.
Much as the present laws give the party the right to do what it has done, what about the people who elected him?
Don’t they have any voice on whether or not a member of parliament they had elected should go because he has simply differed with his party?
In case of Mr Kafulila, he goes down as one of youthful members of parliament who fought extremely hard, on the floor o the house, for the poor in this country.
What about members of parliament who have performed decimally?
Does his party have any role of dealing with such wayward member of parliament for failing to represent his/her people to the letter?
If such mechanism does not exist, is it not time such a mechanism in the form of recall was put in place?
Party laws apart, there is also the question of costs likely to be involved in the event of organizing a by-election that is in case the Kigoma South parliamentary seat is declared vacant.
For instance, the Registrar of Political Parties, Mr John Tendwa, has already indicated that a by-election for the Kigoma South seat would cost the nation 19bn/-!
Does the NCCR-Mageuzi leadership want the nation, through its action, to go through that financial hole after the unplanned Igunga by-election?
By Attilio Tagalile
No comments:
Post a Comment