WINTER OF DISCONTENT IN BURUNDI
The legitimacy of a government emanates from the impeccability of the electoral system that produced it. Thus transparency, impartiality, conspicuous freedom and fairness are main qualities of an ideal electoral umpire.
Burundi, a small East African country with the size of 27,830 square meters with a population of about 10.37 million people was relatively peaceful until Wednesday morning, the 13th of May, 2015 when a coup attempt stirred the hornet’s nest. President Pierre Nkurunziza was attending a meeting in Tanzania for the purpose of resolving the political impasse and protests against his third term bid. The General took advantage of this temporary absence from the seat of power to announce the take over of his government by the ‘masses’.
When General Godfroid Niyombare announced through a private radio station, Bonesha FM that President Pierre Nkurunziza’s mandate was over, the first thing that seems apparent in one’s thought is the fate of the private radio station that provided the platform for the announcement of the foiled coup. They must have run into the trouble of complicity of the crime of treasonable felony, except that there may be available the defense of ‘use of force’ by those who invaded the radio station.
However, prior to the coup President Nkurunziza had scaled through all the challenging hurdles: (a) Party’s nomination – The National Council for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) had sponsored Nkurunziza since 2005 when he was the sole presidential candidate that was latter selected by the parliament to be the president . So it did not take much time for the party to endorse his candidacy. (b) Constitutional interpretation: The 2005 Constitution provided for popular election of the president for not more than 2 five-year tenure.
The unresolved issue that led to the protests against the president’s bid to present himself for the third term was whether that would violate the constitution? On the face of it the constitution abhors that, allowing only for 2 five-year tenure which president Nkurunziza is about to complete in June 2015. However, in order to qualify as a legitimate candidate he argued that in 2005 when he became president under the constitution he was selected by the parliament. For him he was not ‘popularly elected’ as required by the constitution. And one wonders what can be more popular than being the only candidate selected by the people’s parliament?
He further argued that since he was not popularly elected as required by the constitution in his first term that ended in 2010, he commenced his ‘first’ term from 2010 when he was popularly elected till 2015. His second term would therefore begin after being popularly elected again in June, w2015. It was this contention that the Constitutional Court declared as the correct interpretation of the correct interpretation of the constitution. That would ordinarily put paid to the protest assuming that the people is governed under the rule of law. However, there were claims that the court made the declaration under duress. It was this claim that drove more protesters to the streets of Bujambura.
Like the Arab spring the prolonged protests and constitutional crisis divided the military with a few led by General Niyombareh going for mutiny on behalf of the protesting masses, while those in support of president’s continuation foiled the coup. As General Godfroid Niyombareh fled into hiding more heads are bound to roll.
Tenure elongation is not a new phenomenon especially in African continent; from Togo’s Nyasemgbe Eyadema, Uganda’s Museveni to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. The most recent one in Mali failed as the hand writing was quite bold on the wall. The tiny loopholes were often exploited to elongate current tenure just like Nkurunziza is doing even though protesters argue that with Arusha accord which Burundi is a signatory to, the total number of years a president should spend on seat could not exceed 10 years.
On the part of those who opted for a coup to oust him it must have been a huge miscalculation if one takes into account of the fact that the president is a product of the Brundian establishment. Apart from being home grown he rose through the rank and file of the civil service, having participated and suffered losses of relatives and materials during their civil war. Up and till the time the controversy over whether he had completed the constitutionally provided 2 terms arose he enjoyed the followership and support of majority of the people. Therefore planning to oust such an incumbent head of state by coup should have been considered with a pinch of salt.
Finally, choosing between the constitutional provision already endorsed by the Constitutional Court equivalent to Supreme Court and the Arusha accord forbidding more than 10 years stay on the seat of power, I want to say that the Arusha accord which is a regional treaty, probably not domesticated by Burundian parliament is inferior to the constitution which is the ultimate grundnorm. Be that as it may, it is becoming doubtful on daily basis if the June 2015 election result would be acceptable as transparent, free and fair.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
The legitimacy of a government emanates from the impeccability of the electoral system that produced it. Thus transparency, impartiality, conspicuous freedom and fairness are main qualities of an ideal electoral umpire.
Burundi, a small East African country with the size of 27,830 square meters with a population of about 10.37 million people was relatively peaceful until Wednesday morning, the 13th of May, 2015 when a coup attempt stirred the hornet’s nest. President Pierre Nkurunziza was attending a meeting in Tanzania for the purpose of resolving the political impasse and protests against his third term bid. The General took advantage of this temporary absence from the seat of power to announce the take over of his government by the ‘masses’.
When General Godfroid Niyombare announced through a private radio station, Bonesha FM that President Pierre Nkurunziza’s mandate was over, the first thing that seems apparent in one’s thought is the fate of the private radio station that provided the platform for the announcement of the foiled coup. They must have run into the trouble of complicity of the crime of treasonable felony, except that there may be available the defense of ‘use of force’ by those who invaded the radio station.
However, prior to the coup President Nkurunziza had scaled through all the challenging hurdles: (a) Party’s nomination – The National Council for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) had sponsored Nkurunziza since 2005 when he was the sole presidential candidate that was latter selected by the parliament to be the president . So it did not take much time for the party to endorse his candidacy. (b) Constitutional interpretation: The 2005 Constitution provided for popular election of the president for not more than 2 five-year tenure.
The unresolved issue that led to the protests against the president’s bid to present himself for the third term was whether that would violate the constitution? On the face of it the constitution abhors that, allowing only for 2 five-year tenure which president Nkurunziza is about to complete in June 2015. However, in order to qualify as a legitimate candidate he argued that in 2005 when he became president under the constitution he was selected by the parliament. For him he was not ‘popularly elected’ as required by the constitution. And one wonders what can be more popular than being the only candidate selected by the people’s parliament?
He further argued that since he was not popularly elected as required by the constitution in his first term that ended in 2010, he commenced his ‘first’ term from 2010 when he was popularly elected till 2015. His second term would therefore begin after being popularly elected again in June, w2015. It was this contention that the Constitutional Court declared as the correct interpretation of the correct interpretation of the constitution. That would ordinarily put paid to the protest assuming that the people is governed under the rule of law. However, there were claims that the court made the declaration under duress. It was this claim that drove more protesters to the streets of Bujambura.
Like the Arab spring the prolonged protests and constitutional crisis divided the military with a few led by General Niyombareh going for mutiny on behalf of the protesting masses, while those in support of president’s continuation foiled the coup. As General Godfroid Niyombareh fled into hiding more heads are bound to roll.
Tenure elongation is not a new phenomenon especially in African continent; from Togo’s Nyasemgbe Eyadema, Uganda’s Museveni to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. The most recent one in Mali failed as the hand writing was quite bold on the wall. The tiny loopholes were often exploited to elongate current tenure just like Nkurunziza is doing even though protesters argue that with Arusha accord which Burundi is a signatory to, the total number of years a president should spend on seat could not exceed 10 years.
On the part of those who opted for a coup to oust him it must have been a huge miscalculation if one takes into account of the fact that the president is a product of the Brundian establishment. Apart from being home grown he rose through the rank and file of the civil service, having participated and suffered losses of relatives and materials during their civil war. Up and till the time the controversy over whether he had completed the constitutionally provided 2 terms arose he enjoyed the followership and support of majority of the people. Therefore planning to oust such an incumbent head of state by coup should have been considered with a pinch of salt.
Finally, choosing between the constitutional provision already endorsed by the Constitutional Court equivalent to Supreme Court and the Arusha accord forbidding more than 10 years stay on the seat of power, I want to say that the Arusha accord which is a regional treaty, probably not domesticated by Burundian parliament is inferior to the constitution which is the ultimate grundnorm. Be that as it may, it is becoming doubtful on daily basis if the June 2015 election result would be acceptable as transparent, free and fair.
Iyke Ozemena
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
No comments:
Post a Comment