But if this is indeed the reason why Swaso's contract isn't being renewed, is it a message for the future Ombudsman: toe the line or you're gone? And in that case, should this office, which is supposed to act independently, be secured by tenure rather than be subjected to the whim of contracts?
Well, Swaso told us the post is technically supposed to be a 6 year tenure. Here's how he explained it.
Gilbert Swaso, Ombudsman
"What I can say to you is that it's a quasi-judicial position which needs some alignment. The office of the ombudsman is governed by the Venice principle and also the Paris principle. The framers of the law, the ombudsman act, they know why they did what they did it. But what I can say is that they're not, the act at this time is not aligned in terms of the tenure with Paris principles nor Venice principles because it talks about the tenure of an Ombudsman being no less than 6 years so our laws are certainly not aligned with Venice principles or Paris principles and interestingly, we are moving to establish and integrate the national human rights institute into the office of the ombudsman and it has to be Paris principle complaint so there is an opportunity to aligned the law so I hope that will be part and parcel of the legal review that shall take place during the process of establishing and reintegrating the NHRI."
The Ombudsman act states, quote, "any person appointed as Ombudsman shall hold office for a period of three years and shall, at the expiration of such period, be eligible for reappointment." End quote. As we have noted, this Ombudsman is not expected to be reappointed.
