Kampala- On the twelfth February this year the president of Uganda gave a speech, a long speech about the state of play in Uganda’s nascent oil sector and his view of the state of play in Uganda in general. His announcement that he had instructed the energy minister to conclude the agreements with Tullow Oil had the talking heads moving at flank speed.http://www.chimpreports.com/index.php/special-reports/3924-m7-full-speech-on-oil.html
Parliament, under some dubious interpretation of their powers had placed a moratorium on agreements in the oil sector pending the passing of new oil laws. To the best of my knowledge the agreements were not negotiated in a legal vacuum, the guiding framework was the Petroleum act of 1985 and 2000 when they are referring to oil laws what exactly would they be referring to?
Parliament having more than its fair share of lawyers, and a disproportionately high number of senior six and senior six equivalency members should have known that you cannot shift goal posts, we as a county cannot retrospectively apply the law. Put differently, we cannot negotiate these same agreements under a new legal framework without exposing ourselves to more litigation than we could possibly afford to pay for both in financial terms and reputation terms.
As an individual, I put no stock in the parliamentary resolution because I am convinced beyond any doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, the documentation that informed the decision to freeze the agreement with Tullow was questionable. No, make that forged.
For anyone who seriously thought this deal would not go forward there may be a few things they missed. First off, I would be hard pressed to believe that the person of the president would allow oil production to take off his stay in power. From the tone of this speech and other speeches one would be forgiven for believing this government created the oil and placed it in the Albertine graben. Never mind the fact that part of the legal framework used to negotiate these agreements predates their time in power.
So, there is the element of one upsmanship, a competition some would say needless between this government and those that came before it. Throw in the messianic mindset of most of those who bleed yellow and it was a safe bet that this deal was going ahead.
The other issue is the Bashir factor and the Gadaffi factor. Omar El Bashir can thank the Chinese for his longevity in power, as long as the Chinese were dependent on ‘his’ oil they were prepared to provide him with political cover. Gadaffi on the other hand had no significant godfather; he had forgotten that he was a bit player on the international scene. Having a few African countries and minor kings willing to drink your bathwater does not translate to juice on the international scene.
Love him or hate him, our president is a shrewd political operator, he can within reason count on the support of the Americans. The Europeans have been a problem but, Tullow is Anglo Irish so the Brits can be counted on to be less hostile and now he has two new best friends the Chinese (CNOOC) and the French (TOTAL). It cannot hurt to have four of the five permanent members of the Security Council looking at you through rose tinted lenses.
The wild card in all this is the fact that our president is a democrat. I am being serious he is a democrat. In the last elections the vast majority of Ugandans ceded their power to him for the duration of five years. His actions are in essence an expression of the will of the majority of Ugandans. His mindset can perhaps be best explained in the words of his fellow revolutionary and democrat Jacob Zuma who in a speech to the Judiciary in July 2011 said ‘The Executive, as elected officials, has the sole discretion to decide policies for Government. This means that once government has decided on the appropriate policies, the judiciary cannot, when striking down legislation or parts thereof on the basis of illegality, raise that as an opportunity to change the policies as determined by the Executive area of government.
He went on to say ‘The Executive must be allowed to conduct its administration and policy making work as freely as it possibly can. The powers conferred on the courts cannot be superior to the powers resulting from the political and consequently administrative mandate resulting from popular democratic elections. Political disputes resulting from the exercise of powers that have been constitutionally conferred on the ruling party through a popular vote must not be subverted, simply because those who disagree with the ruling party politically, and who cannot win the popular vote during elections, feel other arms of the State are avenues to help them co-govern the country. This interferes with the independence of the judiciary. Political battles must be fought on political platforms. http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/president-zumas-keynote-address-to-access-to-justice-conference/
Political battles must be fought on political platforms.
