{UAH} Why U.S. Ambassador Malac Wrong on Uganda Supreme Court decision
|
2:00 PM |
No comments |
U.S. Abolished Slavery By Rejecting its Supreme Court; Uganda Must Do Same
After Uganda's Supreme Court whose judges are appointed by dictator Yoweri Museveni on March 31 threw out a petition calling for the sham February elections to be annulled the U.S. embassy in Kampala issued a statement that, while noting that it awaits the full ruling, in part read:
"We encourage all Ugandans to respect the court's decision, and express their views in a peaceful manner..."
The statement also added:
"We hope the government will now address the grievances voiced by its own people in the wake of these elections and take the necessary steps to enact reforms that will guarantee political inclusivity, transparency, accountability and free and fair elections. Uganda's future prosperity and democratic progress will depend on such actions.."
No, Uganda's present is at hand.
There is also contradiction and hypocrisy in the statement which, as of today, is not on the State Department's, or embassy's website but on its Facebook page for mostly Ugandan consumption. While acknowledging there was no "transparency, accountability and free and fair elections" the U.S. is saying the court's ruling be "respected"?
In the past the U.S. has not hesitated to take a strong position and action when Uganda's institutions conducted themselves in a henious and egregious manner.
When Parliament passed the anti-LGBT bill calling for death by hanging President Obama denounced it as "odious" and when dictator Museveni called Gay people "disgusting" and signed the law in 2014 the U.S. imposed some sanctions.
So on this occasion, when Ugandans are engaged in an epic struggle against a brutal tyrant why would the U.S side with dictatorship or even imply tacit endorsement of the election theft and violent repression?
Unless the position represents only the views of ambassador Deborah Malac?
The U.S. embassy statement is flawed in many other respects.
The ruling of the court itself was effectively a nullity. The petitioner Amama Mbabazi was denied proper presentation and due process; the very evidence he was to present to prove his case was stolen by the state.
Beyond the farcical Supreme Court proceedings the statement by the U.S. embassy asks Ugandans to "respect" a decision by a court whose members are all appointed by an interested party, Gen. Museveni, to decide on whether he had stolen an election or not; an election "awarded" to the interested party by an Electoral Commission (EC) whose members and Chairman Badru Kiggundu were also all appointed by the interested party.
How does this make sense to any sane person?
In any event Dr. Kizza Besigye, who could be the actual president-elect, ironically because he was under house arrest, did not petition the court and is not bound by its pre-determined decision.
One could try to make the argument that even in the United States in 2000 Democratic candidate Al Gore had to accept the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court halting the Florida vote recount and awarding the election to George W. Bush.
The comparisons between the American and Ugandan cases are utterly false. To begin with, even though U.S. presidents also appoint judges to the Supreme Court, they are thoroughly veted and subjected to rigorous confirmation hearing by Congress -- not a Parliament loaded by legislators allied to the president.
Also importantly, the 2000 United States election did not involve an incumbent president who abused state resources to finance his candidacy as the Commonwealth and EU found that Museveni had done; moreover, neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore had appointed any of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Additionally, Bush and Gore did not appoint a partisan "electoral commision" that stamped its approval on an election even after it was rejected by domestic and international observers as not free, fair or credible as was the case with Gen. Museveni.
What's more, neither Bush nor Gore deployed militias to harass, beat, kidnap and even kill the opponent's supporters; or have the opponent himself arrested before, during, and after the vote as Uganda's security forces did under the command of Kale Kayihura.
Even the U.S. State Department concluded the election was not free or fair.
There are additional even stronger considerations.
The U.S. Supreme Court throughout its history has made egregious rulings that Americans were not obliged to respect and which, thankfully, they did not. It was because Americans rejected odious Supreme Court decisions that the many of the laws that had legalized slavery, racism and segregation came tumbling down.
Let's examine one decision, deep from U.S. history that was rejected and a contemporary one Americans are working to undo.
In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Scott, who had been an enslaved African but moved with his "master" who later died to states where there was no slavery was, nonetheless, not entitled to sue for his permanent freedom.
According to the Supreme Court, a Black man in the United States was not only private property but also an "alien" non-citizen with no rights.
Therefore, the court, in denying Scott, also observed, the Black man "had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
The shameful ruling was not respected by many Americans, including White abolitionists.
It inspired Abraham Lincoln's famous 1858 speech in which he said "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free..."
The ruling and its implications -- legalizing slavery in all states-- was a factor in the civil war between the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North.
After defeat of the South, later the 14th Amendment to the Constitution's Section 1 affirmed all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..."
The Supreme Court ruling of March 31 is Uganda's version of Dred Scott; that Uganda's citizens --the majority of whom voted for Dr. Besigye -- "have no rights" which dictator Museveni is bound to respect.
(Gen. Museveni may in fact view Ugandan citizens as his slaves -- in an interview published in The Atlantic Monthly Magazine, September 1994, Vol. 274, Issue 3, page 22, he said: "I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave.")
Surely an American ambassador or the U.S. cannot find this acceptable?
Another Supreme Court ruling which is not respected by most Americans, including President Obama is referred to as "Citizens United."
It's a 2010 decision that removed limits on financial contributions to political campaigns. Most Americans, including Obama condemned the ruling and are working to undo it because people don't want only the rich to determine who gets elected in U.S. political elections.
These are just two of the many instances throughout U.S. history when Americans did not respect or abide by the decision of its Supreme Court; and because of it the United States is a far better and greater country today.
Surely ambassador Malac does not suggest that Ugandans are less deserving and are therefore not entitled to reject an egregious decision; just as President Obama and millions of Americans reject Citizens United?
The U.S. can't be selective by supporting the struggle for LGBT rights in Uganda, while standing on the sidelines or even seeming to condone Museveni's tyranny.
Ugandans have the right to reject and undo egregious Supreme Court decisions.
They have the right to accomplish this goal by any and all legitimate means necessary -- just as the U.S. did.
--
New York, N.Y., 10274
(646) 261-7566
--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment