By: Peter Qeko Jere
One of the mostly hot issues in Malawi politics today is the question of whether the current constitution allows a person to rule the country after finishing his or her two terms of office. This is also whether after his two terms someone can go on five or ten years holiday then come back to rule again.
There has been many views shared on this topic in Malawi’s political economy currently and tempers have risen for some because they want the former president to rule the country again. Others are sick and tired and don’t want someone to come back from holiday after five or ten year to rule the country because they believe that Malawi is not a kingdom, somebody’s estate, farm or goldmine.
After a critically analyzing what many have said on this issue, we are compelled to share our views on the matter and show to the world and the nation the heart and mind of the framers of this constitution.
To begin with, here is what the controversial section 83 (3) of the Republic’s constitution says:
Section 83 (3) states the following:
The President, the first Vice President and the second Vice President may serve in their respective capacities a maximum of two consecutive terms but when a person is elected or appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of President or Vice President, the period between that election or appointment and the next election of a President shall not be regarded as a term.
When the framers of the constitution were putting down this document, they were doing this soon after we moved into multiparty democracy and the one major concern was that noone should ever be allowed to rule Malawi more than two terms of office. That time this was the key issue because every Malawian knew that it is not good to have someone rule for longer time because become ruthless. So in their mind they put the two term limit so that noone should think of coming back to power after retirement. Infact they had no idea that there was to be a time like this that someone would want to rule again after finishing his term of office.
So they made sure to put the maximum of two consecutive terms of office and this to them was not a problem at all because the key issue here is the two terms of office and that under whatever circumstances, noone has to come back and rule the third time using whatever definition. The guiding spirit of this constitution is that whether on uses the word consecutive or not, noone has to come again and rule after two terms of office. This is the key to everything in this section. So the question is how many has terms did Muluzi have? So if he rule Malawi for two terms then automatically he can not rule again because whatever formula or method he uses to rule would be interpreted as the third term because it will be the same Muluzi and not the other different Muluzi. What the constitution demands is that different people should come and rule after every ten years.
So it is a fallacy to say that in Malawi someone can rule again after two terms even if he comes back from his five or term years holiday because the Malawi constitution’s spirit is clear that every man has the opportunity to rule Malawi the maximum of two terms of office and not more than that.
Now let me show you something:
Muluzi ruled Malawi for ten years and that was how far the constitutionally he could go. But toward the end, he tried to change it (the first indicator) which shows that this man was not satisfied with what was given to him. He again came the second time with an open term bid which also never materialized because Malawian said no to such a thing which was (the second indicator) to show that worse things were on the way coming. It was not sooner or later that as he was in his retirement, we heard that he was planning to come back even though the same constitution said no to the third them of whatever form or version (the third indicator). We then heard that he had put in place a bunch of lawyers to help him fight the constitution so that he should come back and rule again (fourth indicator). Now the fact that he organized a bunch of lawyers to help him tear the constitution means that Muluzi has no regards for this document because as the former President, he should be exemplary and show respect to this document. It seems he is in a big hurry and wants to become the president of the country something which is unconstitutional and he can not win this battle in any court of law in the world. The constitution is not about twisting the wording of it but its about the SPIRIT THAT FLOWS IN IT. The spirit in the Malawi constitution is that we don’t bring a retired or former president back to office in Malawi because we know how bad this can be. History taught Malawians a lesson that never again will we as a nation allow someone to rule us more than two terms of office. The meaning of what Muluzi is doing now is that he wants to rule Malawi for twenty years because he has already done the first ten and he wants the other ten making twenty, the very thing that we don’t like in Malawi. We argue that this is a different version of third term because this is the same Muluzi and the same person not a different one hence he will continue from where he stopped. Whatever argument people may use, this will remain the third term which is unconstitutional.
Some have argued that the word “consecutive” was deliberately place to allow the incumbent president to break for a certain period and bounce back. This is a fallacy and wishful thinking because if the framers of the constitution had this in mind they could have definitely stipulated the number of years one has to stay in retirement before he bounces back. They could have done this so that people should not take Malawi their personal estate or goldmine. Now the absence of such prescription means that the framers of this document had one key goal of making sure that no one rules Malawi as a personal estate, that you can go on holiday and come back to rule in whatever manner possible.
The framers of the constitution blocked the retired president to avoid madness of the highest order in the country because it is not good to have one family rule Malawi for twenty year because Malawi is not one mans property, farm or goldmine. Malawi belongs to 12 Million people and it’s a lie that Muluzi is the only man who can rule Malawi better. Malawi has many blessed men and women who fail to take charge because they are blocked in the process by selfish leaders who don’t want to go home and enjoy their retirement. Time has come that none shall rule Malawi more than two terms of office using whatever. Malawians will stop any version of third term coming their way because we don’t want to go back to Egypt.
One of the mostly hot issues in Malawi politics today is the question of whether the current constitution allows a person to rule the country after finishing his or her two terms of office. This is also whether after his two terms someone can go on five or ten years holiday then come back to rule again.
There has been many views shared on this topic in Malawi’s political economy currently and tempers have risen for some because they want the former president to rule the country again. Others are sick and tired and don’t want someone to come back from holiday after five or ten year to rule the country because they believe that Malawi is not a kingdom, somebody’s estate, farm or goldmine.
After a critically analyzing what many have said on this issue, we are compelled to share our views on the matter and show to the world and the nation the heart and mind of the framers of this constitution.
To begin with, here is what the controversial section 83 (3) of the Republic’s constitution says:
Section 83 (3) states the following:
The President, the first Vice President and the second Vice President may serve in their respective capacities a maximum of two consecutive terms but when a person is elected or appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of President or Vice President, the period between that election or appointment and the next election of a President shall not be regarded as a term.
When the framers of the constitution were putting down this document, they were doing this soon after we moved into multiparty democracy and the one major concern was that noone should ever be allowed to rule Malawi more than two terms of office. That time this was the key issue because every Malawian knew that it is not good to have someone rule for longer time because become ruthless. So in their mind they put the two term limit so that noone should think of coming back to power after retirement. Infact they had no idea that there was to be a time like this that someone would want to rule again after finishing his term of office.
So they made sure to put the maximum of two consecutive terms of office and this to them was not a problem at all because the key issue here is the two terms of office and that under whatever circumstances, noone has to come back and rule the third time using whatever definition. The guiding spirit of this constitution is that whether on uses the word consecutive or not, noone has to come again and rule after two terms of office. This is the key to everything in this section. So the question is how many has terms did Muluzi have? So if he rule Malawi for two terms then automatically he can not rule again because whatever formula or method he uses to rule would be interpreted as the third term because it will be the same Muluzi and not the other different Muluzi. What the constitution demands is that different people should come and rule after every ten years.
So it is a fallacy to say that in Malawi someone can rule again after two terms even if he comes back from his five or term years holiday because the Malawi constitution’s spirit is clear that every man has the opportunity to rule Malawi the maximum of two terms of office and not more than that.
Now let me show you something:
Muluzi ruled Malawi for ten years and that was how far the constitutionally he could go. But toward the end, he tried to change it (the first indicator) which shows that this man was not satisfied with what was given to him. He again came the second time with an open term bid which also never materialized because Malawian said no to such a thing which was (the second indicator) to show that worse things were on the way coming. It was not sooner or later that as he was in his retirement, we heard that he was planning to come back even though the same constitution said no to the third them of whatever form or version (the third indicator). We then heard that he had put in place a bunch of lawyers to help him fight the constitution so that he should come back and rule again (fourth indicator). Now the fact that he organized a bunch of lawyers to help him tear the constitution means that Muluzi has no regards for this document because as the former President, he should be exemplary and show respect to this document. It seems he is in a big hurry and wants to become the president of the country something which is unconstitutional and he can not win this battle in any court of law in the world. The constitution is not about twisting the wording of it but its about the SPIRIT THAT FLOWS IN IT. The spirit in the Malawi constitution is that we don’t bring a retired or former president back to office in Malawi because we know how bad this can be. History taught Malawians a lesson that never again will we as a nation allow someone to rule us more than two terms of office. The meaning of what Muluzi is doing now is that he wants to rule Malawi for twenty years because he has already done the first ten and he wants the other ten making twenty, the very thing that we don’t like in Malawi. We argue that this is a different version of third term because this is the same Muluzi and the same person not a different one hence he will continue from where he stopped. Whatever argument people may use, this will remain the third term which is unconstitutional.
Some have argued that the word “consecutive” was deliberately place to allow the incumbent president to break for a certain period and bounce back. This is a fallacy and wishful thinking because if the framers of the constitution had this in mind they could have definitely stipulated the number of years one has to stay in retirement before he bounces back. They could have done this so that people should not take Malawi their personal estate or goldmine. Now the absence of such prescription means that the framers of this document had one key goal of making sure that no one rules Malawi as a personal estate, that you can go on holiday and come back to rule in whatever manner possible.
The framers of the constitution blocked the retired president to avoid madness of the highest order in the country because it is not good to have one family rule Malawi for twenty year because Malawi is not one mans property, farm or goldmine. Malawi belongs to 12 Million people and it’s a lie that Muluzi is the only man who can rule Malawi better. Malawi has many blessed men and women who fail to take charge because they are blocked in the process by selfish leaders who don’t want to go home and enjoy their retirement. Time has come that none shall rule Malawi more than two terms of office using whatever. Malawians will stop any version of third term coming their way because we don’t want to go back to Egypt.
1 comment:
The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi is clear as Section 83 (3) states as follows:
"The President, the first Vice President and the second Vice President may serve in their respective capacities a maximum of two consecutive terms but when a person is elected or appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of President or Vice President, the period between that election or appointment and the next election of a President shall not be regarded as a term."
Perhaps Muluzi should ask himself the following questions:
- What is the maximum period is one legally allowed to serve Malawi in the capacity of Head of State?
- How many terms has he served Malawi in that capacity?
- How many terms are remaining for him to complete the maximum period?
There, I rest my case.
Post a Comment