Amendment of constitution is not an international taboo

Multitudes of Rwandans across the country have intensified calls for the amendment of the Constitution to remove the presidential term limits set out in Article 101 of the Constitution to give them a chance to re-elect President Paul Kagame into office beyond 2017. The clause provides two term limits, each seven years. For the purpose of this piece, the fundamental question upon which the basis of the discussion is whether the amendment of the constitution comports with international bill of human rights Rwanda acceded to. Articles 101 and 193 must be read together, but paragraph 3 of the latter, more specifically spells out that “….if the constitutional amendment concerns the term of the President of the Republic or the system of democratic government based on political pluralism, or the constitutional regime established by this Constitution, especially the republican form of the government or national sovereignty, the amendment must be passed by referendum, after adoption by each Chamber of Parliament. No amendment to this Article shall be permitted.” The last phrase of the foregoing paragraph simply provides a mere principle (or technical legal language if you like) which generally prohibits the amendment, but, as a matter of rule, the exception usually proves the rule that is demonstrated in this wording “however, if the constitutional amendment concerns the term of the President of the Republic or the system of democratic government based on political pluralism, or the constitutional regime established by this Constitution, especially the republican form of the government or national sovereignty, the amendment must be passed by referendum, after adoption by each Chamber of Parliament”. That paragraph enunciates the process of the amendment which has to be made through a referendum if the proposed amendment concerns either the president’s incumbency or type of government or national sovereignty. The holistic nature of the said article does not bar the amendment, as its last paragraph may be mistakenly construed; it rather mentions subject matters upon which amendment is lawful and the process in which it can be enforced. Questions now emerge: Does the amendment of the Constitution with respect to the removal of presidential term limits conform to the existing international human rights conentions? Should the will of Rwandans be respected in determining their own leadership? It is universally recognised that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government/leadership as set forth in Article 21 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is similarly buttressed by International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which recognises peoples’ right to determine their ‘political status’. Indeed, the people’s right to decide their own governance is well established in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Rwandan Constitution, which stipulates that: ‘all the power derives from the people’. Paragraph 3 of the same clause provides that ‘national sovereignty belongs to Rwandans who shall exercise it directly by way of referendum or through their representatives’. Both under national law and international law, people’s inherent right to choose their own governance is unequivocally envisaged. If today, Rwandans from all walks of life make an appeal for the amendment of their constitution to remove the presidential term limits, that is their will, and must be respected unquestionably. Moreover, Rwandans have freedom of expression, which is one of the basic freedoms, as enshrined in the Constitution and International Bill of Human Rights to choose the kind of leadership in which their interest can be represented. Personally, I tend to liken amendment of laws, including Constitution, to going to a marketplace and buy a garment that fits you in the present time, but as you grow bigger you need to buy another one that matches your size, and vice versa. Likewise, Constitution is not an untouchable statue, it can be amended if people so wish depending on certain interest they want to cater for and evolution of the society. In light of the highlighted constitutional provisions and relevant international law, amendment of constitution is not an international taboo. Too often, where the will of the people is against any push for amendment the situation may result into political chaos. Examples; what happened in Burkina Faso a couple of months ago, the current political crisis in Burundi, these typical episodes reflect lack of people’s support to their governments and must be respected too. People have inherent right to determine their political destiny, and, in my view, this is what democracy is all about. However, to many of us democracy is a term that just gets thrown about in our lives, with the strained understanding that it constitutes individual freedom and the power to a voice. Democracy must be understood as the freedom to do as people choose in their best interest. The respect for people’s demand for constitutional amendment is in perfect consonance with democratic rule. Indeed, true democracy can only be achieved by putting the national will at the forefront. The author is a lecturer and an expert in international law

Opinions

Amendment of constitution is not an international taboo