The rush to create new cities has been marred with the appetite to create constituencies for many and not necessarily for the reasons of economic development among others. I have not seen any strategic development plan of any of the new Cities but rather been bamboozled with Candidate Posters of all manner and colour intending to take up political seats in the new cities. Among these is the “City Woman MP.”
I am wondering what law created the vacancy of “City Woman MP.” Article 78 of the Constitution establishes the composition of the Parliament and specifically 78 (1) (b) establishes One Woman Representative for each District. Therefore, this means that the Constitution refers to a District and not a City for a representative of the Women in a district.
Secondly, a City is curved out of a District that already has a Representative of the woman (wrongfully and commonly referred to as “Woman MP”) and there is no need of a Second representative of the Women for the same group of people, it is far from logic.
Thirdly, even if the intention of this creation may be for good intentions, what would be the Terms of reference of a “City Woman MP” that a Representative of the Women at the District will not cover? This shows that the rush is not intended to benefit the Women as they already have a Representative at the District level as envisaged by Article 78 (1) (b) of the Constitution and in as much as affirmative action is concerned, they are already covered.
Therefore; we need to tread carefully as this “Juicy Political vacancy ” has no backing in Law and we may end up wasting resources and sweat in filling a non-existent vacancy. The vacancy is only good for a mental satisfaction but not tenable in law and practice of Representative Democracy as it only creates “Double Representation” a conundrum our Constitution has safely guarded against.
The author is the Coordinator: African Governance Architecture-Uganda
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
