Multi parties | Ugandans-At-Heart

Beti Kamya Doesn’t agree with the ruling made by Kadaga on NRM rebel MPs

As a student of the Constitution of Uganda (hereafter to be called The Constitution) and believer in organized (multiparty) as opposed to disorganised (individual merit) politics, I am provoked to respond to Prof Oloka Onyango’s opinion titled “NRM Wrong on Speaker” published in The New Vision of 8 May, 2013.

Quoting the Constitution extensively, Prof Onyango defends Speaker Kadaga’s ruling on the (no)relationship between MPs and political parties that sponsor them, once in Parliament. In my view, his powerful arguments sound like a skilled defense lawyer’s, than an academic analyzing the Constitution.

Article 1 of the Constitution says “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution”. Article 1(4) mandates the people to exercise their will on HOW they wish to be governed through referenda, hence, there is only one way in which the people can express their will on HOW they wish to be governed, i.e. through referenda.

Through the 2005 referendum, the people chose to be governed under the multiparty system, making multiparty democracy the apex principle of governance in Uganda, anything less being contemptuous of the people’s will.

In a multiparty system, people who subscribe to political parties are bound by the respective parties’ constitutions and rules, duly registered under appropriate laws. Those who do not wish to be regulated by parties do not join them, and seek election as independents. One cannot be sponsored by a party, then once in parliament, claim the benefits of independents, because you cannot eat your cake and have it.

It was in cognizant of this that Article 83(3) provides for recall of MPs by the electorate only during the Movement System where MPs get elected on individual merit, with accountability only to the electorate, so the electorate regulates them directly. It is in the same spirit that Article 83(g) requires an MP who “leaves the political party for which s(he) stood as a candidate to vacate the seat….” and seek fresh mandate because the electorate would have elected the MP knowing her / his political ideology, party manifesto and team-mates.

When the MP “leaves” her/his party, regardless of the exit method, the electorate are left with no clear knowledge of whom they are dealing with.

Article 83(g) is an entitlement of the electorate for the MP to redefine her/himself so that they know who they are dealing with. It is also a source of accountability to the electorate, who should not be taken for granted, because they know exactly whom they originally sent to Parliament. The much acclaimed “speaking for the people” by the rebel MPs is a fallacy because the people decided through the 2005 referendum that anybody wishing to speak for them must do so under the multiparty system, and under Article 255(3), “…. the results (of the referendum) shall be binding on all organs (including parliament) and agencies of the State, and on all persons (including the Speaker) and organizations in Uganda”.

Once the People speak (through referenda), their will must be reflected through laws, practices and policies that govern organs, organizations and individuals. The challenge at hand is to strengthen internal party democracy in order to derive inhouse consensus, instead of destroying multipartism when MPs fight their parties under the patronage of parliament.

I find it hard to concur with Prof Onyango (and Speaker Kadaga’s) insinuation that the Constitution of Uganda feigns ignorance of political parties’ interests in Parliament and the need to protect them or deems them irrelevant and inconsequential, in a multiparty dispensation.

Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

President

Uganda Federal Alliance

E mail: ufapresident@gmail.com

Tel: 0783 438 201

Comments (3)

NRM RESPONSE TO THE RULING OF THE RT. HON SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO RETAIN IN PARLIMANT THE FOUR (4) MPS WHO CEASED TO BE MEMBERS OF NRM

May 3, 13 4:09 PM

Following the Rt. Hon. Speaker’s Ruling made on 2nd May 2013, in response to the NRM Secretary General’s notification to her of the party’s decision taken on the four Members of Parliament as a result of their conduct, namely, Hon. Tinkasimire Barnabas, Hon Theodore Ssekikubo, Hon. Mohammed Nsereko and Hon Wilfred Niwagaba, Members of Parliament for Buyaga West, Lwemiyaga County, Ndorwa West and Kampala Central respectively; asking her to notify the Clerk to Parliament, that their positions had fallen vacant, and her subsequent refusal to honor the request, the NRM responds to her ruling as follows;

The NRM takes exception to the Rt. Hon. Speaker’s ruling to retain in Parliament the four MPs who ceased to be its members, and on whose ticket they were elected to Parliament.

1) The Rt. Hon Speaker’s decision was selective, convenient and ignored to read and apply the provisions of the Constitution holistically and fell short of taking cognizance of Article 1 (2) which empowers the people of Uganda to choose how they shall be governed.

2) The people of Uganda, during the 2005 Referendum adopted the Multi Party system of governance as the political framework under which Parliament operates.

3) Art. 78 of the Constitution supported by the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Administration of Parliament’s Act and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of Uganda, provide for the sitting arrangement in Parliament based on parties, independents and special interest groups. So the decision of the speaker to retain in Parliament the four MPs, creates another group in Parliament that is legally strange.

4) In taking her decision, the Rt. Hon. Speaker should have taken consideration of the entire constitutional provisions so as to give Article 83 (1) (g) of the Constitution its rightful meaning. Having failed to do so, she limited the operation and development of parties in the Multi Party system dispensation, which the people of Uganda adopted in 2005.

5) The affected MPs having ceased to be Members of NRM, ipso facto, and as such ceased to be Members of Parliament. This is so because, there are four sides of representation in Parliament; namely, Government (NRM), the opposition, independents and for UPDF.

6) By purporting to create special accommodation for the (4) four Members of Parliament, in front of the Speaker’s desk, she effectively recognizes the fact that they ceased to belong and represent NRM in Parliament which defeats her earlier interpretation of Article 83 (1)(g) of the Constitution.

7) We contend that, it was an error of judgment for the Speaker to have purported to create another category of representation in Parliament outside those provided for in the law and this will be vigorously challenged.

8) It is also worth noting that the Speaker is the 2nd National Vice Chairperson of the NRM, member of Central Executive Committee (CEC), and having attended and actively participated in the unanimous decision regarding the status of the four named MPs in the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of NRM, it would have been prudent to disqualify herself from presiding over the same subject matter in Parliament.

9) The Speaker’s decision notwithstanding, the NRM takes the firm position that the membership of the four MPs in its ranks ceased, and their continued stay in Parliament does not only offend the clear provisions of the Constitution but also undermines the will of the People who exercised their power to decide on how to be governed.

10)The ruling of the Speaker is not only an issue of NRM as a political organization but sets a serious and dangerous precedent that undermines the spirit of Pluralism. Consequently, the NRM disagrees with her ruling, and has taken a firm decision to refer the matter to the Courts of law for adjudication.

Hon. Ruhakana Rugunda
Chairman NRM Electoral Commission*********************

Comments (1)

M7′s speech at the opening of the NRM cacus retreat in Kyankwanzi

Jan 14, 13 9:09 AM

A FILTHY HOUSE IN PAKWACH

By 1986, when the NRM took power, Uganda’s economy was only US$ 0.246 billion in size, we were collecting only 5 billion shillings (1.4% of GDP) in taxes, the infrastructure had totally collapsed (roads, schools, health units electricity, etc.), infant mortality was 122 for every 1,000 children born alive and the average life expectancy was 43 years of age. What is the situation now? The size of the economy is now US$ 20 billion, we have done a total of 1,355 kms of new tarmac roads and repaired 1,621 kms of old tarmac roads since 1986, expanded electricity generation from 60 MW to 812 MW today, infant mortality is now 54 per 1,000 born alive children compared to 122 per 1,000 born alive in 1986, average life expectancy is now 50.4 years for both female and male compared to 43 years in 1986 and the percentage of people below the poverty line is now 24.5% compared to 56% in 1986. Therefore, the economy has expanded more than 81 times since 1986.

However, this expansion has not covered all the sectors uniformly. Apart from the Government constructed infrastructure elements of roads, power stations, schools, health units, etc., the economy, the portions driven by the private sector, has done well in the areas of: real estate (construction), services (transport such as boda bodas, buses, kamunyes, shopping malls, hair salons, petrol stations, hotels and restaurants, tour operators, etc), plantation agriculture as well as large scale farming and tourism (numbers of tourists have gone from 98,405 in 1986 to 1,151,356 today). These four sectors and services in general (real estates, services, modern agriculture and tourism) have created 872,260 jobs. You all can see that these jobs are not enough. The expansion of education and health services has also created an additional …………. Jobs. The problem with education and health, however, is that they do not create wealth (money-income) in the short run. Education and, to some extent, health create capacity which may create jobs in the medium and long term period if they are well focused and harnessed. Healthy people work better if they are motivated and properly oriented. Healthy people can, however, also waste their productive time in bars, playing pool or watching European football matches even during working hours. In that case, the people will be healthy but not productive. Similarly, you can get educated people, either in liberal studies or sciences, but who fail to get an entrepreneurial frame of mind. Nevertheless, generally speaking a healthy society which is also educated is better than an illiterate and sickly one. However, the whole society needs to be re-oriented away from laziness and parasitism to production and generating of profits in the respective enterprises.

As already pointed out above, the sectors of construction, services, tourism and plantation as well as large scale agriculture have been growing very fast. Construction at the rate of 8.9% per annum, services at the rate of 7.7% per anuum, tourism at the rate of 8.8% per annum as well as large scale agriculture and plantation agriculture at the rate of 1.8% per annum(not so fast).
Two crucial sectors have been growing also. These two sectors are: subsistence agriculture and manufacturing. Manufacturing has been growing at the rate of 7% per annum. Subsistence agriculture should not only grow but should be completely phased out, to be replaced by small scale or medium scale commercial farming. The growth of manufacturing will completely transform Uganda. I have repeatedly given you the example of milk in North Ankole (Kazo-Nyabushozi). There are now 200 milk coolers in this area, handling 2,500 litres of milk per cooler per day. These now employ 1,600 people working in the coolers and about 100 people working as Bagyemuzi ─ the people that carry milk on the bicycles from the farms to the cooling plants. These cooling plants are located at the sub-county level or at lower levels of trading centres. As I told you , there are 70 coolers in the Trading Centre of Rushere alone. Rushere trading centre is in Kenshunga sub-county. The following are the trading centres found in Kenshunga sub-county: Kiruhuura, Nyakasharara, Rushere, Nshweere, Rutoma, Kitagyi, Katongore, Mugore, Nyanga and Mirama. This is what I would like to see in the whole of Uganda. Each sub-county must be a mini-industrial centre with milk coolers, fruit processors, honey extractors, vegetable oil extractors, silk fabric processor, coffee hullers, coffee roasters, tea factories, etc. etc. All the administrative centres at the sub-county level, provided there is electricity, must be mini-industrial centres. All these will be agro-based industries.

There are, however, other industries that are based or will be based on minerals, fisheries, timber, ICT, engineering (heavy and light), scientific discoveries, etc. The scientific discoveries are based on the human brains ─ the educated and empowered brains of our scientists. They have already started. The inventions by Dr. Muranga for the bananas, Doctors Tikodri and Musasazi for the Kiira electric vehicle, Dr. Kyamuhangire, the anti-malaria-larvae discoveries, etc. are part of the limitless gold mine based on our human brains ─ far richer than the oil which some people are spending on so much time. Oil is a good catalyst, a short and medium term enabler that will help us to build our infrastructure faster. The consumption capacity of our population and the brain power of our scientists are however, in the end, a far greater wealth than the minerals or the oil and gas. Those intoxicating our society with the stories of great wealth through oil are doing us a disservice. Up to now, we have confirmed 4 billion barrels in the ground. Assuming, over the whole project time, we shall pump out of the ground 2.5 billion barrels (because you cannot pump out all the oil), at the present price of US$ 100 per barrel, Uganda will get 250 billion dollars over the whole project time. Is this the money Uganda is going to depend on for all this time? How much is South Korea (a country half the size of Uganda) or Japan earning in exports per annum? South Korea is earning US$……. billions per annum. Japan is earning US$…. billions per annum. Neither of them has oil, gas, minerals or even serious agriculture. They both, mainly, depend on the brains of their scientists.

Manufacturing has grown at the rate of 7% per annum. It will, however, grow at a much faster rate since we have solved the problem of electricity, provided we also solve the problem of the price of electricity. The problem of high electricity prices must be addressed. On account of using private companies to build electricity generation plants as we did with Bujagaali working with Aga Khan the price of electricity ends up being high. While the private companies help us to build the power houses, they use money borrowed from banks with high interest rates. When these private companies integrate these bank interest rates and their own profits into the price of electricity, the price ends up being too high to be afforded by the manufacturer, especially. The Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA) are already complaining about these high electricity prices. One way to solve this problem is for the Government to pay off these private companies so that they stop over pricing electricity. This should be studied. The real solution is for the Government to take on the sole responsibility of building the electricity dams. That is where the money from oil would come in handy. Our manufacturers need cheap electricity to be competitive. The price of electricity to the manufacturers in China is now 7.98 American cents per unit, in the USA, it is 7.11 American cents per unit, in Germany it is 11.94 American cents per unit, in India it is 10.50 Cents per unit, in Tanzania 5 cents per unit and in Uganda it is now 11.60 Cents per unit.

The other obstacle to manufacturing has been political interference by elements of the political class. This has affected the Dairy Corporation, Lugazi Sugar Works, Amuru Sugar Works, etc. There was attempted political interference in the Palm Oil project in Kalangala but we resisted it. Kalangala is now thriving. The Caucus of NRM in Parliament must take a stand on this sabotage. Then there are delays caused by the timid political elements and the indifferent, if not compromised, civil servants. This is affecting Kilembe Mines. There are groups that appear to have the capacity to, finally, revamp and up-grade Kilembe Mines. Officials (political and administrative) have, however, been tossing them up and down for the last two years. They hide behind PPDA laws etc. First of all, PPDA laws were not for investment promotion ─ to attract investments. There were, indeed, for procurement ─ buying goods and services for Government use ─ furniture for Government offices, cars for Government ministries, etc. This is a simple process where the Government (the buyer) is comparing offers from the sellers. To confuse this with attracting people with technology, entrepreneurship and money to invest in our country is to make a very fundamental mistake. Yes, there may be different investors that may be interested in the same area of investment. Quickly compare the proposals and the capacities of the interested companies (technical, entrepreneurial and financial) and decide. All the investors would, surely, be very happy with a quick decision so that they do not have to waste money travelling to and from Uganda endlessly. If we solve the problem of political interference, high electricity prices and delays caused by disoriented political or administrative officials, the manufacturing sectors, based on agro-processing, minerals, forests, fisheries, engineering and the innovation of our scientists, the manufacturing sector will boom, at least for the internal market, the market of South Sudan, Eastern Congo, Western Kenya, North-Western Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.

When it comes to exports beyond the above regional circle, then we must work with Kenya and Tanzania to modernize and repair the railway lines to the Sea as well as building new ones. The cost of transporting a container by road from Mombasa to Kampala is US$ 4,500 while by rail from Mombasa to Kampala it would be US$3,100. This is with our inefficient railway system as it is at the moment. How will it be with a properly functioning railway system? What is, for instance, the cost of transporting by rail for the same container over the same distance in China, India or Brazil? The comparable figures for China, India and Brazil are ………, ……… and ….… respectively. However, even the antiquated railway of East Africa is cheaper than road transport as shown above.

In spite of the bottlenecks of electricity, political interference as well as delays by the political elements and officials, Uganda now has 416,864 companies that are formally in the services sector comprised of the areas of hospitality (tourism), consultancy, education, health, transport, ICT, beatification (salons), etc. These are employing 872,260 persons. On the manufacturing side (the formal), we have 32,410 companies, employing 153,495 persons.

To conclude this aspect, I request this meeting to resolve to work with me on the issue of the price of electricity (knowing that we shall not lag behind again on the issue of generation), political interference as well as delays by political decision makers and officials.

The other gap in the economic transformation is in the area of continuing to preserve subsistence agriculture ─ 68% of the homesteads according to the census of 2001 were in subsistence farming. Subsistence farming means just growing food for the stomach but not earning meaningful cash. I have already talked to you before on this issue. I have given you written documents. We had 18 days in Entebbe of zonal meetings last year. Just to recapitulate what we discussed then, each homestead of 4 acres should organize commercial agricultural production as follows:
1. 1 acre for coffee (Robusta or Arabica as appropriate);
2. 1 acre of fruits (oranges, mangoes, grapes or apples according to the zones);
3. 1 acre of bananas or other food crops such as rice, cassava, irish potatoes (emondi) or millet (my preferred food);
4. 1 acre of elephant grass (ebisagazi, ebibingo) for the zero grazing cattle;
5. Chicken layers for eggs, improved goats and/or pigs in the backyards of the homes;
6. Mushroom growing even in the peri-urban areas; and
7. Fish farming – especially in the areas of Busoga, Teso and Lango. Recently, I commissioned a fish hatchery in Anyara, Kaberamaido. The farmer there told me that he could get 100 million shillings from the few ponds he has there.

I cannot conclude this speech without talking briefly about infrastructure (roads, electricity, the railway, etc). In the last budget packaging, I insisted on concentrating on the electricity and the roads. With the present rains, you can see what I was talking about. Some of the areas are impassable. The Minister of Works will address you. Nevertheless, it is clear that those priorities were correct. Where they were implemented, the situation is excellent. Where they were not, people are suffering. Let us learn from those mistakes. In recent discussions with some Members of Parliament (MPs), questions were raised as to what criteria is used to pick roads for tarmacking. The main method is relying on the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). This measures the profitability of projects, including roads. Here below are the different roads in Uganda with their IRR: Nyakahita-Kazo-Kamwenge-Fort Portal 22%, Fort Portal-Bundibugyo-Lamia 18%; Kabale-Kisoro 18%; Soroti-Dokolo-Lira 15%; Kampala-Gayaza-Zirobwe 18%, Kigumba-Masindi-Hoima-Kabwoya 18.80%; Rukungiri-Kanungu-Ishasha 5.60%; Muyembe-Nakapiripirit/Moroto-Kotido 5.80%; Masindi Port-Lira-Kitgum 18.80%; Gulu-Atiak-Nimule 18.10%; Vurra-Arua-Koboko-Oraba 16.90%; Olwiyo-Gulu-Kitgum 19.6%; Kapchorwa-Suam 12.10%; Mbale-Bubulo-Lwakhakha 16.00%; Soroti-Katakwi-Moroto-Loktanyala 13.90%; Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi 23.43%; Mpigi-Maddu-Ssembabule 15.20%; Villa Maria Ssembabule 20.33%; Musita-Lumino-Busia-Wanseko 19.50%; Kabwoya-Muzizi Bridge 15.40%; Kayunga-Bbaale-Galiraya 29.50%; Buwaya-Kasanje-Mpigi-Kibibi-Mityana 26.30%; etc. etc.

With funding from International Funding Agencies or Development Partners, they never depart from this principle. The road must have an Internal Rate of Return of above 12% to qualify for international funding. It is us who, when we are able financially, or can engineer a financing solution, that depart from this principle. That is how we tarmacked Mityana-Fort Portal road, Ntungamo-Rukungiri road, Muyembe-Kapchorwa road, Kapeeka-Matugga road, Moroto-Nakapiripiriti road (on-going or about to start), Isingiro road, Ishaka-Kagamba road, etc. Here we used the need to connect the different corners of our country or for some historical reasons (Luwereo war or the 1979 war) in spite the IRR being low. Even when the IRR is very high, such as in the case of Kampala-Masaka (53%) or Kampala-Mityana (18.3%), the external agencies do not come in because they also do not have enough money. That is why the Uganda Government had to do these roads itself (Masaka-Kampala and Mityana-Kampala).

Nevertheless, we have now found solutions for the 19 roads plus Masindi Port-Lira-Kitgum and Nabumali-Butaleja-Namutumba roads in addition to what is already going on in that sector. We have given road equipment to all the districts. The challenge now is to maintain the 11,000 Kms of UNRA roads (tarmac and murram). The Minister argues that the 280 billion shillings we give him for road maintenance and repair is not enough. The other portion of his budget goes on new roads funded wholly by the Uganda Government or in partnership with Development Partners. We are going to discuss this issue in this meeting.

I thank you, congratulate you on finishing 2012 and wish you a happy and prosperous new year.

Comments (2)

2016 IS A TICKING TIME BOMB FOR ALL MOVEMENTISTS, UNLESS ……………….”

Aug 6, 12 8:52 PM

Friends

As we continue to follow the political nightmare of our country, there are some facts I need to raise tonight that are seriously on our door and we have every right to discuss them. Being in politics as Movementists have been, does not mean that you are stupid, thus there are major serious questions being asked in Kampala among the hierarchy of the Movement that are very disturbing that I need to raise tonight. And the question mainly is this, so we have been in power this long, we have enjoyed life this long, but what is the end of this game? There are many in the movement that wonder how this thing gets closed up. Now as they are asking each other this question, there are starting points many agree on for example, Yoweri Museveni has to go that is no longer a question it is only when and how, Muhoozi Kayinerugaba has to go, that also is no longer a question, Ssabassajja Mutebi goes half hour even before Museveni and Muhoozi leave, but after all those go then what? Do we really need some guy to show up in Entebbe State House and line all of us into a firing squad let alone handing all of us over to the international court? But age is on top of us, so that is something we need to consider and very widely for it closes the door on us by every single night that falls on Kampala. So the following officers have for a while been questioning where they are heading, Peco Kutesa, Kyaligonza, Elly Tumwiine, Tumukunde, Jorum Mugume, Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Kamwesigye, Otafiire, now Tinyefunza is quite but very aware of the unsure future, Salim Saleh also aware but talks only in the night now that he is the only link between the old timers and Museveni. A man like Mugisha Muntu later learned it the hard way that he had been turned on against many of his comrades and later dumped. Baganda Generals cannot comment loudly but count Kasirye Gwanga among those pushing for a very serious discussion of how to end this Movement game. The only bold Muganda was Lt. Col Sserwanga Lwanga but as you all know how he passed on when he could have been saved medically, Sserwanga was just simply written off. But you have civilians like Rwakakoko, Ruzindana, Tumwesigye, Kweronda Ruhemba, Elly Karuhanga and many others all inclusive see a pending disaster, but simply cannot utter a word for fear of the BOSS! But the very clear understanding within the Movement is that the Movement game has to end, and if it is to end it has to end before the 2016 election. But note also that all this is amidst their confusion by Amama Mbabazi that many from within would just love to castrate.

Now as all these discussions are going on, Museveni also has another card he is throwing on the pallet. You see the push of an end of The Movement game is also being discussed within his trust worthy’s, and he is being asked to find a solution or a way to end this thing before the 2016 election, and one of the cards he has thrown on the pallet is the reconciliation stance, thus the visiting of Mama Miria and Muzeeyi Byanyima. When you look carefully at Paul Kagame’s problem, it is mainly a failure to build a bridge between Hutus and Tutsis, a failure to settle an old history. Museveni believes that if he can bridge the old enemies he might find a solution for 2016. What Museveni fails to realize is that the situation in Uganda is actually very different from Rwanda, for example Maama Miria has moved on, but Byanyima is retired and sincerely useless. But Museveni also has a problem of Mbabazi who has decided to be a Museveni’s snag on Dr Kiiza Besigye, and Mbabazi has also an issue with Muhoozi Kayinerugaba being a successor, because Mbabazi within himself, very strongly believes that he should be the next Uganda’s president, and to him there is no debate on the obvious. Now Mbabazi has worked on being a president that is granted, but the problem with his plan is that he planted his men all over the place, and if your men are all over the place you simply cannot pull a government down. Which sends The Movement camp for some reason back into the Luwero days when they were all together, for trust me if Museveni leaves office, the individuals that will hunt down Mbabazi will hunt down Tinyefunza, will hunt down Mugisha Muntonyera, but will hunt down Dr Kiiza Besigye as will hunt down Ssabassajja Mutebi, so somehow finding a solution before 2016 election can collect all of the Luwero war characters together, for they have to save themselves before the coming election, better yet before Museveni gets recalled by his maker. At this point you need to pay particular attention to COO’s articles on Museveni’s reconciliation stances, for they are a hunt of a solution to this problem by the Museveni inner circles.

But among the problems these fellows have is who exactly can replace Museveni but guarantee our safety with our families and investments within Uganda? When you raise the name of Dr Kiiza Besigye, they all stand back and we still fail to understand why but we know that Besigye has a great deal of misunderstanding with some major Movement hierarchy. This misunderstanding appears to have started from Kasese when The Movement was still being defined in terms of policies. It had an interim administration headed by Haji Kigongo, now you see he had to be a planted Muganda and on a purpose, it was the time then when Ssabassajja Mutebi was also entered into the Movement fray to solidify The Movement and the Buganda Kingdom!! The situation reached a climax when Dr Kiiza Besigye wrote the infamous latter http://ugandansatheart.org/2012/08/06/besigyes-1999-document-that-landed-him-in-hot-soup/. By the way many top NRM officers attended meetings between 1992 and 1994 at a one senior official’s residence in Nakasero in which all had agreed to do “something” about the direction of The Movement. Very surprisingly a word leaked to Museveni and when he called one by one, they all denied those meetings, thus leaving Dr. Kiiza Besigye to suck it up alone. Apparently Tinyefunza is one guy that was more than willing to get rid of Museveni then! The leader of that over throw was not even Dr Kiiza Besigye, as it was believed by the Museveni insiders. Besigye just became an innocent accidental victim when everyone else denied everything. Dr Kiiza Besigye simply became a scape Goat.

Having stated that on Dr Kiiza Besigye, morals dictates that we must mention also that as he was being prepared to be court marshaled, Dr Kiiza Besigye’ s colleagues in Bombo hid the orders from State House because he was simply denied proper discharged from the army, a tactic Museveni uses to keep his soldiers on a leash. Besigye then mistakenly went on to announce himself as a presidential material to save himself from the Kangaroo protection. Now you need to realize that at this particular time, even Tinyefunza was his great supporter to a point of being his best man, a decision Tinyefunza did at a time to show total contempt to Museveni. Now this is just to show you how Dr Kiiza Besigye accidently jumped to prominence. As critical thinkers, we have a feeling that the place the Besigye’ s used for meetings was of Kigongo’ s house. I will add as well that Njuba and Suleiman Kiggundu were very involved for it was those two that mainly and publicly stuck to Dr Kiiza Besigye. I have also to note here that Baganda must read what Dr Kashambuzi is writing very closely, for he is setting up Buganda into the very same trouble of going against the Tutsi. Dr. Kashambuzi is telling Baganda what they want to hear only that he does not tell them that the Tutsis have power and money, and rallying against them at this material time can actually prove fatal. And I will leave that point at that glitch as much as I need to expand it. Which brings us to the death of Brigadier Mayombo, you see contrally to what many state, Mayombo may have been bumped by the Rwandese {And with time I will expand on that} . And note that I am using a term “may have been” It is alleged that against Tinyefuza and Otafire’s advice, Brigadier Mayombo who had been humiliated by the Rwandan army in The DRC war, simply got pissed up with Museveni and wanted to send the country into an open war to get even with Museveni. Now to understand where I am coming from, you need to remember that he was captured with Otafire and whipped as a kid, Mayombo never forgave them for that and he swore that even if it meant throwing Museveni out of power he will go after the Rwandese army. What is interesting is that the Rwandese apparently told Museveni why Mayombo was bumped off and it for some reason shocked him. It is important to note too that it is alleged too that Muhoozi was also directly involved into the bumping of Mayombo which pushed Museveni into saying that Muhoozi will lead Uganda only after he is in a casket. It is important too to recognize that Mayombo openly despised Muhoozi whenever he drunk a lot of his favorite –Ugandan Waragi saying that Muhoozi will lead Uganda only after he is also in a casket. It will be a miracle if the commission’s findings on his death will ever be realized.

But as this end of game still worry many in Kampala, there is an issue of the armed forces. Yes we may have one UPDF but in actual fact we have three armies in one. The Veterans “That includes the Katumba Wamalas” even then they include the famous Rukungiri Generals who are treated rather differently that the rest of the veterans. It is many of those, Rukungiri Generals, who now talk loudly in private about the scare future. It is these Generals that see a carnage in Uganda’s face. But let us also remember that these Generals are not only old, useless but typically scared of their life if the government collapses like today. Or may God forbid, God decides to instruct Museveni to meet his creator. Then we have the main body UPDF, the group that should have been The Mayombo’ s group. These are just regular soldiers officers and men who are as divided as the rest of the country. Among those came the Konyi boys whom got integrated, and are really the best fighters UPDF has now for they were trained and have fought wars. But this is not a coherent force and it is very divided as the country. They don’t have the capacity to choose what is best for them for many of their officers in command are tagged by their own escorts who have a direct line to state house. And much of it is not even a coherent force and many were dispersed to different units to be closely monitored. So you have with in that force a huge section that is hunting down its own tail that it will never catch. Then you have the most sophisticated army that solely belongs to Muhoozi, it is very different, separate training structure, separate command, separate salary class, extremely well and better armed. But I must point out here that this force is surprisingly very diverse in nature, it is the only force that was built from almost every tribe in Uganda. That within its self, makes it very hard to mingle or chose sides as many are in the age group 25 to 36, the officers are all graduates very polished and intelligent and yes well paid. Of course the tribal element and favoritism cannot be ruled out, but building this force to one belief that is anti Museveni, can develop to be very cumbersome.

Which brings me to the Buganda issue, confused as the Movement is above, Mengo and Buganda has a crisis in its self that does not make the issues any easier. There is a group of Baganda in Mengo that believe that Buganda and the Kingdom is as a human being to breathing, to those it was wrong for Ssabassajja to join the Movement altogether. They believe that a natural thing can never be instructed to be. They also feared that if the Kingdom is reinstated by a politician it so can be cut out again by a politician but they had an issue of making Luwero a battle ground. So these have taken this stand from early 80’s. But on reinstating the Kingdom, they hate the closeness Ssabassajja Mutebi has to the Movement, and they so rightly argue that how can you separate the Kingdom from a corrupt government when it gets cheques from it. But Ssabassajja himself has also come out as a man that takes very strange positions, for example, although the entire history of Buganda Kingdom is Anglican, they fail to understand how it became a tool of the Catholics thus Democratic Party. To that camp, the sooner Ssabassajja leaves the kingdom the better. In fact that camp also believes that at the rate Ssabassajja has opened up the Kingdom to Museveni, it is better saved by becoming shut down altogether. Ssabassajja has responded by making sure that he makes his future assured by investing in United Kingdom very extensively, again in preparation for the departure of Museveni or the Movement altogether.

Friends the situation in our country is at a pinnacle point for every one that camped into Luwero to create the Movement wants a solution to how the game ends, and all of them including Museveni, Besigye, Ssabassajja and the likes. It is not an easy situation, neither is the solution, but time is a factor to worry about as the door of The Movement is closing by either a government falling let alone Museveni getting recalled by his dear maker. To those as Matek Gook and OJ that have been following Uganda politics closely, stay awake for this situation is only getting better by the day if not minute. Now remember too that there is a huge pressure on Paul Kagame to leave office, if Kagame goes, this entire debate is going to change and very fast, for many of the decision makers on Uganda issues are directly or indirectly affected by what happens to Paul Kagame.

EDWARD MULINDWA
TORONTO

Comments (8)

Besigye’s 1999 document that landed him in hot soup

Aug 6, 12 7:28 AM

I have taken keen interest and participated in the political activities on the Ugandan scene since the late 1970s. This was during a period of intense jostling to topple and later succeed the Idi Amin regime. I am, therefore, fully aware of the euphoria, excitement and hope with which Ugandans received the Uganda National Liberation Front/Army (UNLF/A). Ugandans supported the UNLF’s stated approach of “politics of consensus” through the common front. It was hoped that the new approach to politics would be maintained and Uganda rebuilt from the ruins left by the Amin regime. Unfortunately, instead of nurturing the structures, and regulations which bound the front together, we witnessed a primitive power struggle that resulted in ripping the front apart to the chagrin of the population.

Some of us young people were immediately thrown into serious confusion. We had not belonged to any political party before, and we did not approve of the record and character of the existing parties – UPC and DP. Spontaneously, many people started talking of belonging to a Third Force. This force represented those persons who wished to make a fresh start at political organization, with unity and consensus politics as the center pin. With a few months left to the 1980 elections, the Third Force crystallized into a new political organization– the Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM). The population, to a large extent, expressed their appreciation of the ideas and opportunity presented by the young organization, but was pessimistic regarding its electoral success.

Pessimism was justified, because the new organization simply had no time and resources to organize effectively nationally; and UPC was already positioning itself very loudly and arrogantly to rig the elections and seemed to have what was essential for them to do so successfully. After the sham 1980 elections, when Paulo Muwanga, a leader of UPC (and chairman of the Military Commission) took over all powers of the Electoral Commission and declared his own election results, there was widespread despondency and tension. While the “minority” DP Members of Parliament took up the opposition benches in Parliament, the rank and file of the party rapidly united behind the new forces of resistance to struggle against the dictatorial rule. The Popular Resistance Army (PRA and later, NRA) led by Yoweri Museveni which started with about 30 fighters, was overwhelmed by people seeking to join its ranks. The NRM was born as a political organization in June 1981.

It was created by a protocol that effected the merger of Uganda Freedom Fighters UFF (led by the late Prof Y.K. Lule and Museveni’s PRA). The armed wing of the organization became the National Resistance Army (NRA). The NRM political program was initially based on seven points which were later increased to become the well-known Ten-Point Program. The basic consideration in drawing up the program was that it should form the basis of a broad national political and social force. A national coalition was considered to be of critical importance in establishing peace, security, and optimally moving the country forward. The political program was, therefore, referred to as a minimum program around which different political forces in Uganda could unite for rehabilitation and recovery of the country.

To achieve unity, it was envisaged that the minimum program would be implemented by a broad-based government. After the bush war, discussions were undertaken with the various political forces to establish a broad-based government that would reflect a national consensus. The NRM set up a committee led by Eriya Kategeya (then chairman of the NRM Political and Diplomatic committee) for the purpose of engaging the various groups in these discussions. This exercise was, however, never taken to its logical conclusion. It would appear that once the leaders of the political parties were given “good” posts in the NRM government, their enthusiasm for the discussions waned, and the process eventually fizzled out. In spite of the lack of a proper modus operandi, the initial NRM government (executive branch) was impressively broad-based. Consensus politics conducted through elections based on individual merit and formation of broad-based government became the hallmark of the NRM.

Broad base undermined

However, the popular concept of the broad-based government, which had also received support of most political groups, was progressively undermined. It ought to be remembered that due to the support and cooperation of other political groups, no legal restrictions were imposed –on political parties until August 11, 1992 when the NRC made a resolution on political party activities in the interim period. In my opinion, there were three factors responsible for undermining and later destroying the NRM cardinal principle of broad-based, especially in appointment to the Executive: The NRM had set itself to serve for a period of four years as an interim government, then return power to the people. However, it was not very clear how this would happen at the end of the four years.

Some politicians in NRM government who came from other political parties set out to use their advantaged positions to, on the one hand, undermine the NRM and on the other, strengthen themselves in preparation for the post-NRM political period. Consequently, they fell out with the NRM leadership, and a number of them were arrested and charged with treason. Historical NRM politicians who thought that they were not “appropriately” placed in government, blamed this on the large number of the “non-NRM” people in high up places, and set out to campaign against the situation. They created a distinction between government leaders as “NRM”, and “broad-based”. If you were referred to as “broad-based”, it was another way of saying that you were undeserving of your post, or that you were possibly an enemy agent (“5th Columnist”).

After some years of NRM rule, some in the leadership began to feel that there was sufficient grassroots support for the NRM, such that one could “off-load” the “broad–based” elements in government at no political cost. These factors were at the center of an unprincipled power-struggle which was mostly covert and hence could not be resolved democratically. It continued to play itself out outside the formal Movement organs, with the results of weakening and eventually losing the concept of consensus politics and broad-based. By the time of the Constituent Assembly elections were held in 1994, the NRM’s all encompassing, and broad-based concept remained only in name. For instance, while the CA electoral law clearly stated that candidates would stand on “individual merit”, the NRM Secretariat set up special commercial committees at districts whose task was to recommend “NRM candidates” for support. Not only did the logistical and administrative machinery of NRM move against the candidates supporting or suspected to be favoring early return to multi-party politics, it even moved against liberal candidates advocating for the initial NRM broad–based concept.

That is why many people were surprised and confused when some senior NRM leaders declared that “we have won!” after the CA results were announced. Who had won? It was clear that there were two systems; one described in the law, and another being practiced. Moreover, the conduct of the CA, again exhibited the contradictions between the principles of NRM (and the law), and the practice. I was quite alarmed when I read a document titled ‘Minutes Of A Meeting Between H.E The President with CA Group Held On 25.8.94 At Kisozi.’ The copy had been availed to me by my colleague Lt Col Serwanga Lwanga (RIP) who attended the meeting. Present at the meeting were recorded as: H.E. the President (Chair), Eriya Kategaya, Bidandi Ssali, Steven Chebrot, Agard Didi, George Kanyeihamba. Miria Matembe, Mathias Ngobi, Mr. Sebalu, Lt Noble Mayombo, Jotham Tumwesigye, Aziz Kasujja, Beatrice Lagada, Faith Mwonda and Margaret Zziwa. The introduction of the meeting reads in part as follows: The National Political Commissar introduced this committee as a Constituent Assembly Movement Group which wants to agree on a common position.

The arbitrary hand-picked group went ahead to take positions on major areas of the draft constitution, which we members of CA, (considered as “NRM supporters”), were supposed to support in the CA. It is interesting to note that among the 16 hand-picked members of the group, only six were directly elected to represent constituencies in the CA. The others were presidential nominees and representatives of special interest groups. One member was not even a CA delegate. We strongly resisted this approach, and after intense pushing and shoving, this group was replaced by the “Movement caucus” under the chairmanship of the National Political Commissar, Kategaya.

Changing movement

The Movement caucus acted very much like an organ of a ruling party. All ministers (except Paul Ssemogerere who later resigned from government) were members. The hand-picked group, and the Movement caucus after it, both undermined the principles of the Movement and the law. The Constituent Assembly was negatively influenced by executive appointments. In the middle of the CA proceedings, a cabinet reshuffle saw Speciosa Kazibwe elevated to the vice presidency, Kintu Musoke to premier and several other delegates appointed to ministerial posts. Many others were appointed to be directors of parastatal companies. It is my opinion that after these actions, some CA delegates took positions believed to attract the favorable attention of the executive. Most CA delegates also intended to participate in the elections that would immediately follow the CA.

This had two negative effects:

Being aware of the previous role of the NRM Secretariat in elections, some CA delegates would be compromised to act in such a way as to win the support of the secretariat in the forthcoming elections. Some CA delegates saw themselves as the first beneficiaries of the government structure and arrangements that were being constitutionalized. So, they took positions which would Favour them, and not the common good. As a result, the CA progressively became polarized, and its objectivity was diminished, especially when dealing with political systems. For example, at the commencement of the CA, every delegate made an opening statement highlighting major views on the draft constitution. Analysis of these statements shows that few delegates supported the immediate introduction of multiparty system while the majority supported the continuation of the “Movement system” for a transitional period of varying length.

The positions expressed were very much in line with the views gathered by the Constitutional Commission. The commission noted in its report (paragraph 0.46) that a consensus on the issue could not be attained. This was demonstrated by the statistical analysis of views gathered from RC 1 to RC V, plus individual and group memoranda. It will be seen that nationally, at RC 1, “Movement” supporters were 63.2% and this percentage decreased progressively as they went to higher RCs until RCV (District Councils) where Movement supporters were only 38.9% and multiparty supporters were 52.8%. Among the individual memoranda, 43.9% supported a multiparty system, while 42.1% supported Movement. Among the group memoranda, 45.1% supported multiparty, while 41.4% supported Movement. It is important to note that these views were gathered at a time when there was no impending election, and therefore, no campaigning.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Commission proposed the following, as the only limitation on political party activities (in Article 98 of Draft Constitution): “For the period when the Movement is in existence, political parties shall not endorse, sponsor, offer platform to or in any way campaign for or against any candidate for public office.” The CA under the influences outlined earlier ended up with restrictions contained in the highly contentious article 269 of the Constitution. The character of the Movement gradually changed, and the process of change was not determined democratically. Instead, it was continuously manipulated. Established Movement organs were continuously undetermined, and others completely ignored. For example, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of NRM was the organ supposed to be coordinating change in the NRM, yet NEC had not met for more than three years prior to the promulgation of the 1995 constitution – in spite of a requirement for it to meet at last once every three months. Instead, covert and arbitrarily constituted groups came in, like district election committees, special CA groups, Movement political High Command, Movement caucus, Maj Kakooza Mutale’s group, etc. The Movement created by the CA and completed by Parliament (through the Movement Act 1997) was different from the one of 1986-1995.

The Movement Act 1997 created a political organization with structures outside the governmental structure. For the first time, the Movement was a political organization distinct from government, the only remaining link being that it was funded by the government. Unfortunately, instead of describing the Movement as a political organization, the CA chose to call it a political system – distinct from “Multiparty Political System”, and other systems that may be thought of later. This was, in my opinion, a grave error. We even ignored advice given to us through a letter by President Yoweri Museveni (chairman NRM and Commander in Chief NRA) to the CA-NRM caucus delegates, dated June 21, 1995. In the letter, the chairman says, “the NRM is not a state but a political organization that tries to welcome all Ugandans. It therefore cannot coerce all Ugandans to be loyal to it. Loyalty to NRM is voluntary.”

The reality of the Movement today is that it is a political organization in much the same way as any political party is. Having no membership cards does not make it less so. In fact, in the letter referred to above, President Museveni further explains: “then some people may ask the question. If NRM could be already to compete for political office with opposing political forces in future, why not do it now? Do not support doing it now because it is not in the best [interest] of governance and fortunately now the people still agree with us. It is only when the majority of the people change that we have to adjust our position. It would be something imposed on us by circumstances.” So the NRM/Movement system is a convenient and, for the time, popular means to political power.

Manipulation

The characteristics which made the NRM government popular, such as the broad- based strategy, principle of individual merit, and the 10-Point Program have been seriously eroded. This is evidenced by the bitter antagonism and animosity which exists between Movement supporters in many parts of the country, e.g. Kabale, Ntungamo, Kasese and Iganga. After more than 13 years of NRM rule, armed rebellion rages on in northern Uganda, and has also become entrenched in the western part of the country. All in all, when I reflect on the Movement philosophy and governance, I can conclude that the Movement has been manipulated by those seeking to gain or retain political power, in the same way that political parties in Uganda were manipulated. Evidently, the results of this manipulation are also the same, to wit: Factionalism, loss of faith in the system, corruption, insecurity and abuse of human rights, economic distortions and eventually decline. So, whether it’s political parties or Movement, the real problem is dishonest, opportunistic and undemocratic leadership operating in a weak institutional framework and a weak civil society which cannot control them.

I have shown that over the years the “Movement System” has been defined in the law in a certain way, but the leaders have chosen to act in a difficult way. This is dishonest and opportunistic leadership. I have also shown how changes have been made to the Movement agenda, and other important decisions have been made outside the Movement structures. This too is undemocratic leadership. In my opinion, the way forward in developing a stable political situation is to do the following: Urgently revisit the legal framework with a view to making an equitable law and regulation for all political organizations. The Movement should be treated as a political organization. Implementing this would need amendments to the Constitution, including amendment of articles 69 and 74. This requires the approval of the people through a referendum and the forthcoming referendum could be used for this purpose. In any case, laws are a reflection of the political will, so if there is political will to correct a situation, finding a way is easy.

The primary guarantor of democracy, human rights and the rule of law must be the civil society. Its capacity should, therefore, be quickly developed. Focus on a program that could quickly raise the standards of living of our people to a decent level. This is an essential antecedent for our society to build a viable democracy. Of course, the approach to raising the standards of living is highly debatable. I have personal views that I hope to share with the public at another time. I pray to the almighty God to guide us so that we do not tumble again.

KIZZA BESIGYE

Comments (1)

DP wins Bukoto South: Hon Nambooze beats YKM but both NRM and DP need to do some soul searching

Jul 14, 12 11:25 AM

Folks:

The winner may be Hon Nsubuga, but the real story is how Hon Nambooze beat YKM in Bukoto South. The president went there -big mistake-and DP deployed Hon Nambooze to counter YKM’s presence. YKM must be really pissed that once again Hon Nambooze bested his efforts.

So why did the two party leaders, President Yoweri Museveni and Mr Mao put too much on Bukoto South? I think both errored in raising stakes in a single constituency.

The other loser is Mr. Ahmed Kateregga who tainted his credentials. Why did he get so involved? Was it on orders from the NewVision/Bukedde top management? Notice too that the Daily Monitor is being too cautious that they have not said anything about DP’s victory in Bukoto South. Their main story is still about violence. To their credit New Vision has a short story that DP beats NRM in Bukoto South. Has Monitor become so risk averse in the aftermath of the ‘voluntary ‘retirement of Mr. Ssepuuya?

Credit should also go to Engineer Badru Kiggundu and the IGP who were on the ground. I just wish the DP youth had punched Haji Abdul Nadduli a little bit more.

The trouble is political parties all of them do not learn. They will make the same mistake in Butambala. And let me offer YKM some advice through courtesy of Ms. Pamela Ankunda, GOP, please stay away from these bye-elections. NRM’s majority is secure. The president is better off meeting Mr. Andrew Mwenda to do their things than going on the a campaign trail. Please listen to frank and honest counsel from the likes of Ministers Eria Kategaya and Sam Kutesa who have no hidden motive and are secure in their thoughts. Do not give a damn about bye elections or even EALA. Stay above the fray and let ‘your’ children tussle out.

If you think about it why did NRM invest so much in Bukoto South? So what if NRM has lost several bye elections? Has the loss threatened its majority? I think some insecure NRM ministers and party officials are making mistakes and sending in YKM to try and save their stupidity. For instance whose idea was it it to front Nsambu? Why did NRM import someone from another area? Kwani are there no credible candidates born in Bukoto South.

For the record, I do not like the nonsense of winning on technicalities that Haji Mbambaali had no papers, but he is popular in bukoto south period. It is wrong for NRM to win on technicalities and it is wrong for DP, FDC , UPC and other parties too. Win on popularity by competing with the strongest period.

I guess the lesson for NRM is to use its majority to do away with the law that bars strong candidates on academic grounds.

Mr. Ofwono Opondo is right to blast NRM. The lesson for NRM, DP and other parties is that winning elections tarts with having the right candidate in place. That is why I keep on asking whether opposition parties have someone in charge of identifying and recruiting candidates?

Let me ask this who was DP’s second or third choice in Bukoto South? Why is this important? Because things happen. I am still waiting to get raw data from Bukoto South as to why the election was a little bit closer for comfort than we thought.

I know that all parties have organizing secretaries who are supposed to be identifying candidates but they need a strong team to identify and vet candidates.

Those of you who have mingled with the MP elect for Bukoto South Hon Nsubuga- big congratulations to him for surviving the NRM onslaught-what type of person is he? Is he people’s person? Is he a team player? Is he true believer in truth and justice? Why did he face hurdles in a DP stronghold?

Why did it take the final push by other DP MPs especially Hon Nambooze, Hon Kawuma, Hon Kasibante, and Hon Deogratius Kiyingi to secure victory for DP? I mean why did Hon Nsubuga almost gift Nsambu the chance to snatch seat? Yaa, some will say that what matters is winning. Nope.

I have known Hon Nsubuga for a long time although I have never met him in person. For many years he worked at the Ugandan Airlines offices in Nairobi and all of us DP members knew that he was the blue eyed boy of Mr. Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere, but for some reason we never met him. To be fair, his offices were in Uganda House on Kenyatta Avenue which was a no go zone for many of us.

OK, let DP folks take a critical look away from the general eye son UAH, if they so choose, but ask these questions they must.
Please spare me any hate mail, OK. We need to ask some tough questions. Could we also know whether Mr. Mukasa Mbidde DP’s EALA rep was on the campaign trail in Bukoto South or not?

Bottom line, both NRM and DP need to do some soul searching. And so are all other parties.

W.B.KYIJOMANYI

Comments (8)

”I have never been NRM, I am not NRM and I will not be NRM”- Mao

Jul 13, 12 6:04 PM

Some advise I take. Some I disregard. Is that abnormal? I am glad that the resurgent DP is a subject of great interest. I think unfounded speculation is not healthy. Even if some of you oppose me politically or even dislike me personally, character assassination and slander is not only bad politics but bad manners.

I have never been NRM, I am not NRM and I will not be NRM. Please know who the real Norbert Mao is then you will find that the output of the fertile imaginations on this UAH forum are merely undermining constructive engagement.

The crisscrossing among party faithfuls did not start today and will continue. Each party has a long list of crossers. But speaking for myself, I ask that you excuse me from the speculative list. Some of us are in our parties out of conviction not convenience. We are like the “Anthills of the Savannah”. We have withstood fires, rain, storms, hurricanes name it. From the first days of NRM we pointed out that the NRM carries the seed of totalitarianism. Those of us from the North were dismissed as suffering from “nostalgia” about the “lost glory”! We were right then and we are right now.

You cannot launch a missile from a canoe. The backfire can sink your vessel. If we are serious we have to build a solid base from which we can launch our missile for democratic change.

So rather than speculating and pushing endless innuendos why not put forward straight questions? I believe in straight talk and I pledge straight answers. Some of you may not agree with or even like what I say but then there it is. I take a stand and leave people to sort themselves out. If I am persuaded to adopt another view I am not afraid to eat humble pie.

Opposition in Uganda and EALA drama

Do you know that even when there was a resolution by opposition parties to boycott the EALA polls the very next day FDC Secretary General Alice Alaso wrote to the Clerk of Parliament seeking more time to organize primaries to sort out FDC EALA candidates? In the same letter she also asked for nomination forms for FDC candidates! Is that the conduct of a party committed to a boycott? The attacks on me and DP are unwarranted and malicious. Such hypocrisy cannot build a true partnership.

When I shared the information with UPC parliamentarians they also decided that the so called boycott had lost meaning and nominated a candidate. Meanwhile FDC was saying they would get an injunction to stop the nomination. Infact John Kazzora told me in parliament that Abdu Katuntu was in Arusha to file papers. As I descended the stairs of Parliament I met Abdu Katuntu entering parliament!

DP has only one candidate for EALA. Only the Secretary General can sign nomination forms or someone authorized in his absence. DPs Deputy Secretary General Vincent Mayanja was out of order to purport to sign Kenneth Kakande’s nomination papers. That will be the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

And then on my “attacks” on Besigye and Lukwago. My speech in Kasese was not about EALA. My concern was simple. Do DP members believe in establishing a government led by DP or do they have another objective? I have legitimate concerns that I have even discussed with Kizza Besigye.

But anyhow why isn’t Besigye called to order on UAH when he attacks me? Is it OK to malign Mao on UAH but when he complains about the conduct of FDC/Ssuubi then he is called all sorts of names? Why should I keep quiet when lies are peddled about me? For instance I still see some of you suggesting that my wife works in State House! That is cheap falsehood. Naomi has never worked in State House and does not work there. What is the intention of spreading such falsehoods? If she was working there I would not deny it. Such smear campaigns should stop if we want to find a way to work together!

My ultimate goal is that Uganda should have democracy and equitable development. Whenever I reflect on my presidential ambition I ask myself one question: What is it that I cannot do for my country unless I am President? So for those who vow that I will never (and they repeat never) become president I say if your life’s goal is to keep someone down, then you have to stay down with him! History is replete with the achievement of impossible dreams. I may yet have the last laugh. If it is God’s will that I lead Uganda nobody (I repeat nobody) can stop me!

I think what we are going through are necessary birth pangs. There is need for a rebirth of the opposition.

What about DP? Next month we shall convene the National Council of the party. MPs, Parliamentary Candidates, District Party Chairpersons and the NEC sit in that body. I intend to call for a confidence vote. You all know the import of a confidence vote.

I have also told the DP Parliamentary Whip Hon. Ssebuliba Mutumba, that if a majority of DP MPs pass a resolution that they have no confidence in me then it would mean that it is time for the party to get a new leader. I am not at all in doubt about how to go about things including managing a crisis if there be one. My record in Makerere, the Legal Aid Project, Parliament, Amani Forum, the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank, Gulu District Local Government etc can bear witness to my commitment to leadership with integrity. I hold no fear of the political wilderness. I have been there before. Some people danced on my political grave but I came back. I can face the wilderness again and I am sure that like Moses, I will come back to tell the Pharaoh to let my people go!

Hon. Odonga Otto speaking for the FDC conceded that perhaps “it was God’s plan that FDC boycotted the elections.” He congratulated the newly elected members of EALA and wished them the best.

Hon. Odonga’s speech salvaged the image of the FDC whose floor leader Hon. Nandala Mafabi had earlier angrily sacked DP and UPC MPs from the Shadow Cabinet and Oversight Committees. Speaking on the floor of the house Hon. Nandala prefaced his announcement with the following chilling words “Now let me show you that I have power…”

Commenting on Hon. Nandala Mafabi’s action which was rather rash, Hon. Kahinda Otafiire (also known for his colorful language) said that “one should never fart in anger, lest other stuff also accompany the gas as it exits the bowels soiling one’s garments!”

I also think flogging the boycott thing is becoming a charade. The facts are there for all to see. One can tell a boycott when one sees it. Our friends from Najjanankumbi cannot be called boycotters! Maybe Jeema can with a straight face say they boycotted the process. Even Kony is a better boycotter of Uganda’s political processes!

And concerning the court case filed by Hon. Katuntu, I would appreciate the case file number. I think legal minds (and we have a few in DP) can offer advice. However what I know is that one who is not an aggrieved participant in an election process cannot challenge the outcome through a petition in court. That is what court told Ngoma Ngome when he tried to challenge Mbarara Municipality results yet he did not contest elections. I don’t know about EA Court but courts tend to be persuaded by other courts.

So where do we go from here? If we want to work together we should find a formula that works. Mutual pretense is a dangerous form of cooperation! We cannot pick up the many fallen pieces from the IPC and EALA fall outs but let us at least pick up the lessons.

I used to do some amateur boxing in Namilyango. When your back hits the canvas in the last round and you are staring at the ceiling lights or the sky for that matter then you need to engage in some serious strategic thinking. There will always be another day, another fight. Another tournament. As Sun Tzu said “strategy without tactics is the longest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”. I have hit the canvas many times and I know what I am talking about.

As for the circus of our DP colleague claiming to be the party candidate I can only compare it to a situation where a player is not fielded by the coach but insists on dashing into the field to play and with the sole focus of tackling his fellow team mates!

We can be called all sorts of names but we kicked that EALA door open and that is what allowed other players, besides NRM and FDC to participate. We persuaded the court to throw out the rules. We had a goal to send DP to EALA and we have achieved that goal. It may look small but it is something especially coming from a “spineless party” and “weak leader” like Norbert Mao!

Insulting Norbert Mao and DP will not provide any glue for opposition unity

Mbale Delegates Conference

I will post to you Justice Lawrence Gidudu’s judgement which dealt with the question of DP leadership. Truth is no one has ever challenged the MBALE delegates conference in court successfully. The ruling being peddled was against the election of Matia Nsubuga as Secretary General. Believe me if ever there was a ruling declaring that we were in office illegally I would have resigned long ago.

Forgive me for quoting Otafiire but I am sure he is not the author of the saying. All I wanted to do was illustrate a point. According to Grace Ibingira, Dr. Obote was fond of quoting Milton’s Paradise Lost where Lucifer harangues his followers thus: “to rule is worth ambition, for it is better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven”. I am sure this does not mean Dr. Obote approved of Lucifer’s character.

As for our policies, we published a manifesto. It states our programmes relating to key national issues. Please find a soft copy at http://www.norbertmao.org. It was also on our DP website but some people hacked into the site and disabled the page.

Concerning the question of locus standi in election petitions, I was leaning on a decided case that is still authoritative in Uganda. As for what applies outside our Ugandan jurisdiction I defer to your opinion on account of your professional seniority and exposure and so I stand corrected. If the matter comes before the East African court then we shall know what the position is.

I don’t believe that I am beyond criticism but I ask for fairness. Unfair criticism does not help anyone.

Let me hope that deliberate lies about me will reduce…

Best wishes,

Norbert Mao
DP PRESIDENT AND UAH FORUMIST

Comments (13)

LESSONS LEARNT FROM BUKOTO SOUTH BY-ELECTIONS.

Jul 13, 12 7:46 AM

Norbert Mao kneeling for the Kabaka as per Buganda culture

Dear Members,

Greetings,

What has comeout of Bukoto South by-election is a clear message to every Muganda/ or other Ugandan politicians in Buganda that you cant abuse/belittle/undermine His Majesty the Kabaka and you survive politically or win the next elections. Commrade John Christom Alintuma Nsambu has lost to Matia Nsubuga Birekeraawo. As i had indicated on this forum at the start of the campaigns picking Nsambu who was accused of abusing the Kabaka was a big mistake, because his opponents used it as a political tool to undermine him, even in the last years elections in Bukoto East this issue come up prominently. Its true Bukoto South has been an NRM Constituency since the days of Mzee Gerald Ssendaula, Dr. Herbert Lwanga, Hajj Mbabali, DP only took it once and then lost it, but this time around the bad choice contributed to this loss

As the saying goes that history repeats itself and experience is the best teacher, some Baganda politicians who did the same thing before never managed to survive politically or win the next election. Namely.

1- Benedicto Kabimu Mugumba Kiwanuka, leader of the Democratic Party when he was a Chief Prime Minister of Uganda, staying in State house Entebbe, its allegged that he said “Muteesa jjangu nkumalire ebizibu byo” meaning that Muteesa (King) you come and i solve you problems, this was used to decampaign him in Buganda to the extend that DP never won any seat in Buganda in 1962 elections all the 24 seats went to KY, the issue of being a catholic/DP not withstanding Ben Kiwanuka was supposed to led Uganda to independence but his stlye of boosting and undermining King Muteesa/ kingdom costed him politically.

2- Mzee Bwesweri Lusse Mulondo Kiwanuka Musisi, CA Delegete Mityana South, Ssabalangira/ Chairman CA Buganda cocaus in 1995, he opposed the Federo motion during the debate and his contribution on the floor of CA debate in Conference Center made federo motion to be defeated, this move was interpreted that Mulondo and Ssabalangira for that matter “yatunze Obuganda” meaning that he sold the kingdom, since then up to day people in Mityana which is my home area, refer to him as somebody who betrayed the kingdom or sold the kingdom, this issue has affected him politically and all the members of his family up today.

3- Deo Kayiwa Nsereko former LV Chairman Luweero was accused for having pocketed while addressing His Majesty the Kabaka during a function in Luweero, actually those that were at the scene testifly that he was pulling out handkerchief but that was made an issue and he never won the next election and up to now he has not attempted to contest any elective office in Luweero.

4- Now John Christom Alintuma Nsambu has lost elections twice, last year in Bukoto East and now this one yesterday in Bukoto South, the main alleged accusation has been that he belittled/abused/undermoned the His Majesty the Kabaka and the Kingdom.

Now my humble advice to fellow Baganda/Ugandans especially those in NRM that i myself support and love our party because of the good things it has done for the people of Uganda for the last 26 years, failures/mistake notwithstanding BUT i will not accept/support/work with anyperson whoses utterances/words/actions/gestures abuses/belittles/undermines/threatens His Majesty King Ronald Muwenda Kimera Mutebi , the son of Muteesa or any other King/Traditional chiefs in Uganda being Omukama of Bunyoro and Tooro, Kyabazinga of Busoga, Traditional Chiefs of Teso, Japadhola, Lago, Acholi, Alur, Kasese and other places. Its because of these Kingdoms/Chiefsdoms that come together in 1960s to form a country called Uganda so let us accord them the respect and honour which they deserve.

Once again to Comrade Nsambu, as an ex-seminarian from our Mubende Scared Heart Seminary and a catholic for that matter, you know very well what we call repentence and forgiveness of sins, kindly go to Mengo meet Owekitiibwa Katikiiro Eng. J.B Walusimbi, make arrangments and formally apologise to the Kabaka and the Kingdom for the sake of your political future and that of our party NRM. In fact if i was you, i would have used the forthcoming 19th Coronation Anniversary which is due this month in Ssentema in Busiro to apologize and close the chapter and then we move on, because 2016 is around the corner

what i can say on the view of Ndugu Ofwono Opondo, it was a mistake to pick Nsambu for Bukoto South, having lost Bukoto East in the first place, more to that Hajj Muyanja Mbabali’s views were ignored, remember he had defeated Nsubuga in last years elections
nad he has invested alot in Bukoto South.

Having worked in greater Masaka i know very well that in Bukoto South you ignore Hajj Mbabali and Hajj Kiyimba (LC 111 Chairperson Nsangi) at your own peril, these are sons of the soil, strong NRM supporters who have invested a lot in their home area, these two prominent people opposed Nsambu’s candidature from the word go, so the loss in Bukoto South should be blamed on our NRM Leaders from Kyadondo and Lwengo District.

Now the Court of Appeal will soon pronounce itself on the election petition for Butambala County, if it so happens that the Lord Justices confirms the ruling of His Lordship trial Judge of the High Court, don’t make the same mistake which you have made in Bukoto South, we need to select a potential and strong candidate who can be at the strength like my OB Muhammed Muwanga Kivumbi, i don’t mind if during the NRM preliminaries my good friend Hajj Faisal Ssali Kikulukunyu is replaced by another winning candidate because it be a great humiliation for the party if that seat again is captured by DP/Opposition.

Thanks and best regards,

Simeo Nsubuga (ex-cop)

Comments (6)

James Akena gives his views on contraversial EALA Elections

Jun 8, 12 5:43 PM

I had sought to remain out of this debate but now feel it is time to put some things into their proper perspective.

The overall guidelines which were used in accepting candidates to contest for EALA were not determined by the UPC Parliamentary Committee but by the UPC Headquarters. This, in fact caused me a lot of discomfort as I had initiated a process which, in my own opinion was far more accommodating. All who contested or even sought to contest will attest that I did not sign the nomination forms of any of the UPC Candidates who were seeking the 20 signatures from MPs required by the Rules. Having known that there were more than 9 UPC members interested in EALA and the Rules provided that I could only nominate/sign 9 forms I opted to go for a strategy that would allow all who so wished to have an opportunity to offer themselves as candidates. I have therefore retained in my possession a form which has 15 signatures (the remaining 5 were to be the remaining UPC MPs who hadn’t as yet signed) but has no candidate name as it would have been appropriate to fill in the name after primaries were conducted and a UPC candidate chosen. It would also ensure that the UPC candidate would have the signatures/backing of all UPC MPs on their nomination form.

Prior to the close of the gazetted nomination days I had a couple of meetings with Nandala Mafabi (LOP) on the course of action the Opposition was due to take. I had earlier been requested by the UPC Whip to sign an Affidavit for UPC MPs which was due to be taken to the East African Court of Justice. At the meeting the LOP reaffirmed the boycott of the process but at the same time showed me a letter by the FDC SG, Alice Alaso which sought to request more time to conduct ‘primaries’ for FDC. Later that day I was approached by several FDC members to sign their forms as they were interested in contesting for the EALA seats where I assured them that I would not sign as I wished to see an open, transparent and acceptable process within my own Party and taking into consideration the opposition position of a boycott and that I was requested to sign an affidavit on behalf of UPC to that effect, whereby my signing any nomination may appear contradictory to the affidavit. It was at this point that together with Hon. Benson Obua-Ogwal that we appended our signatures on a blank form as a fallback or safeguard position having earlier been part of the spirited efforts to derail a private agreement our ‘opposition’ colleagues had struck with the NRM on the allocation of EALA slots.

I’m truly surprised and amused that our ‘opposition-ness’ is now being questioned yet at the first opposition meeting after the first round of serious disagreements on EALA within the opposition taking place in Parliament, I put it straight to LOP and FDC that I/we felt really betrayed about the deal they had with reached with NRM which would send 2 FDC to EALA yet looking at the Treaty we could at best send 5 opposition members to EALA and at worst send 3! At that stage it appeared possible to be able to get consensus on 3 opposition members to EALA. The disagreements on the floor of Parliament centered on the same issue of representation and we had to vehemently deny that the position by FDC that the opposition accepted 2 slots was the agreed position of all opposition Parties! I at one point was able to disrupt a discussion taking place in the parliamentary lobby where 2 FDC frontbenchers were assuring the Leader of Government Business and NRM Secretary General that all opposition Parties will be taking part in a joint ‘opposition’ primary. The short of it is that there were several discussion going on in and amongst Parties and I opted to carry out discussion with DP and even the Independent ‘caucus’ since at this point both FDC and NRM were arguing against Independents being in EALA. I can honestly state that the delay in endorsing the 6 or 7 NRM & 2 FDC to EALA was brought about really by UPC and DP MPs on the floor of Parliament to argue for their representation. For those in doubt please examine the excerpt of the Hansard of 15 March 2012:

MR ODOI-OYWELOWO: Mr Chairman, Appendix B: “Rules of Procedure for the election of Members of the East African Legislative Assembly.”

(i) Insert the following –

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Honourable Chairman, is it your statement that you have consulted with everybody in this House and that is the agreed position; so that I know what to do immediately.

MR ODOI-OYWELOWO: Yes, I have.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now we will listen carefully to what he is going to read.

MR ODOI-OYWELOWO: We have consulted both the Opposition and the Government and we have agreed to the position I am going to read:

The consultation the Committee Chairman held with the Government and the Opposition brought about the following redraft:

We propose to insert a new rule to read as follows:
“(1) The ruling party shall nominate at least six candidates from among its Members.

(2) The Opposition shall nominate at least two candidates from among…” Mr Chairman, the phrase “at least” is dropped.

“(1) The ruling party shall nominate six candidates from among its Members.

(2) The Opposition shall nominate two candidates from among its Members.

(3) A person independent of a political party or organisation shall be elected as a Member of the East African Legislative Assembly.

(4) All nominations shall as much as it is feasible reflect and take into consideration the youth, gender and Persons With Disability.”

The ensuing debate brought out clearly that their was no unanimity between the opposition considering the both UPC and DP were not consulted and the position ‘agreed’ with Government was reached by FDC purportedly on behalf of the whole opposition. The original draft had it that the Ruling Party will nominate at least 8 members from which 6 will be voted and the Opposition to nominate at least 5 members (representing the 5 opposition Parties) where 2 will be voted. Despite strong opposition a FDC frontbencher unashamedly went on the Hansard stating the following:

MR EKANYA: Whereas hon. Amongi is seeking clarification, I think that the formulation by hon. Fox Odoi talks about the Opposition and Government. The Opposition under the current arrangement have a caucus, which is an informal arrangement and not necessary to put in the rules. I think the Leader of the Opposition could call a caucus of all the parties in the Opposition and they have their internal nomination and present the two to the House.

The import of the above statement should not be lost considering the the Deputy Speaker had put it to Hon. Fox Odoi: “is it your statement that you have consulted with everybody in this House and that is the agreed position” and clearly some of the Opposition had not been consulted, and the “internal nomination” by the “caucus” would certainly have presented 2 FDC members where the only voting in the House would really be for the Independent Member to EALA. Despite this betrayal and deception, UPC and DP MPs handled themselves with decorum and avoided issuing disparaging statements which sought to undermine their erstwhile opposition colleagues. Soon afterwards FDC now swung from willingly accepting 2 FDC seats on behalf of the opposition to becoming champions of ALL Parties to be represented in EALA with the exception of Hon. Abdu Katuntu who throughout maintained that the Treaty required the various political parties to be represented. Personally I have a hard time believing that this remembrance by my FDC colleagues that others also existed in the Opposition was wholly principled on representation but rather to capture headlines and embarrass Government.

At the time of the opposition walk-out, the disputes were on rule 13 of Appendix B which stated:

Election of members of the Assembly.

The members to be elected to the Assembly shall include the following-
(a)    six members from the party in government whose composition shall reflect gender, the youth and persons with disability;
(b)    two members from the opposition parties whose composition shall reflect gender, youth and persons with disability; and
(c)    one member from candidates independent of any political party or organisation.

The other area of contention was on schedule 4 of Appendix B which provided the for in which the ‘segregated’ ballot paper would take in order to operationalise rule 13 of Appendix B above.

Throughout the debates I argued against propotionalism as the Hansard will attest but all along the cases which had been brought to the EACJ were being quoted that at times the lawyers in the House seemed to make matters more complicated than they were. That said, there were cases which kept cropping up. Among them were Prof. Anyang Nyong’o vs AG and Jacob Oulanyah vs AG. In the Anyang Nyong’o case, (used by NRM) the formula in determining the slots to EALA was done by taking the number of seats held by a particular Party, dividing it by the total seats in the House and multiplying by 9. Under this formula FDC were at about 0.8 and rounding brought them to 1 seat entitlement. Independents came to 1.03 but raised the issue of how Independents can be determined outside the House and other issues. On this matter, I had to point out that whereas Uganda only has 6 Parties in Parliament, Kenya has 23 Parties and therefore it was not feasible to have all represented in the Assembly.

The Jacob Oulanyah case was being quoted mainly by the Independents because Jacob Oulanyah attempted to stand as an Independent candidate in 2006 and the court found that Appendix B “omitted to provide for ‘consideration of other shades of opinion in the House when electing Members to the East African Legislative Assembly representing Uganda.’ Furthermore the Judgement went on to state “……. this omission is contrary to Article 50(1) of the Treaty which provides that the elected members of the EALA representing a Partner State shall be elected by the National Assembly of the Partner State…….”

Without getting into the political rhetoric surrounding the Mbidde case, it is important that we dispassionately examine the key issues of the ‘momentous’ ruling of 10th May 2012 which ordered that:-

1. The Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, the EALA are restrained and prohibited from conducting and carrying out any elections of members to the EALA, assembling, convening, recognising, administering Oath of Office or otherwise howsoever presiding over or participating in the election of the Representatives of Uganda and recognising of any names of nominees as duly nominated and elected to the EALA until the Rules 11(1) and Appendix B r 3, 10 and 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Uganda, 2006 are amended by the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda to conform to the provisions of Article 50 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.

It is important to note that in the Oulanyah Case the Constitutional Court on 30th May 2008 declared , inter alia that:

“2.    Rule 11(1) Appendix B rule 3, 10 and 11 of the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure of Parliament are inconsistent with Article 21(1), 2 of the Constitution.
3.    Rule 11(1) Appendix B rule 11(1) of the Parliamentary Rule of Procedure is inconsistent with Article 74(4)(5) of the Constitution and is null and void.
4.    Rule 11(1) Appendix B rule 3, 10 and 11 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of Uganda is inconsistent with Article 89(1) and 94(1) of the Constitution and is therefore null and void.
5.    The Parliament of Uganda as the Electoral College did not carry out any election of members of the East African Legislative Assembly as required by Article 50 of the Treaty and Article 89 of the Constitution….”

It should be clear to any seriously minded individual, let alone a law student that Mbidde had effectively secured an Injunction on the process under the 2006 Rules of Procedure. It is also important to note that the Attorney General had applied for a stay of execution of the Court Order (Oulanyah Case) which was granted on 23rd June 2008. The AG also appealed case on 12th May 2009 and the appeal has never been heard to date.

The basis of the Mbidde case was that the EALA elections were to be based on the 2006 Rules of Procedure which were: -

“….inconsistent with and contravene Articles 29(1)(e) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, to the extent that they limit the freedom and right of the Democratic Party and its members including the second applicant (Mukasa Mbidde) in vying for elections to the East African Legislative Assembly.”

“…..inconsistent with and contravene Articles 21(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, to the extent that they discriminate against the opposition political parties including the second applicant (Mukasa Mbidde) in vying for elections to the East African Legislative Assembly.”

“……inconsistent with and contravene Article 89(1) and 94(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda to the extent that the said Rules of Parliament do not allow the Members of the Parliament of Uganda to elect the members of EALA.”

“…… under Rule 2(2) the interpretation section thereof do not define in its true sense of the word as they provide for approval and not election.”

“….. an infringement of Article 50 of the Treaty for Establishment of the East African Community.”

Order was also sought “to ensure that the Parliament of Uganda amends its laws in order to make them conform to Article 50 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community.”

From the above Mukasa Mbidde’s contention was with the 2006 Rules of Procedure of Parliament and that his specific concerns are as highlighted above. The question would therefore have to be whether the amended Rules of Procedure address the matters which Mukasa Mbidde had brought to the attention of the EACJ and sought its intervention? As I stated earlier, FDC were originally not averse to the 6 NRM, 2 FDC and 1 Independent to represent Uganda in EALA. When they later embraced party representation it resulted in the position which I reproduce below leading to the walkout:-

POSITION OF THE OPPOSITION IN PARLIAMENT ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON THE EALA ELECTIONS

Rt. Hon. Speaker and Hon. Members, the Opposition had a Meeting today Tuesday 15th May 2012; in respect of the Rules governing the EALA elections and observed that:

(i) Parliament consists of 6 Political Parties and Independents.

(ii) From the above observation it is clear that it is feasible for each Political Party to be represented in EALA.

Therefore, our position as the Opposition is:-

(a) that Political Parties represented in Parliament should each have a slot, i.e FDC, UPC, DP, JEEMA, CP and NRM. The Rationale is Party Platform and Art. 50 of the Treaty.

(b) What is now in contention is the three (3) remaining slots, which we propose to be shared as follows:

(i) One slot should go to Independent.

(ii) the remaining two slots be shared by the Ruling Party and the Official Opposition.

The Parties carrying out elections as above should take into consideration gender and other special interest groups.

Nathan Nandala-Mafabi, MP
LEADER OF OPPOSITION

For those who may not be familiar with the Treaty Article 50(1) which provides that:-

“The National Assembly of each Partner State shall elect, not from among its members, nine members of the Assembly, who shall represent as much as is feasible, the various political parties in the National Assembly, shades of opinion, gender and other special interest groups in that Partner State, in accordance with such procedure as the National Assembly of each Partner State may determine.”

For the record the ‘offending’ Rule 11 (2006) states:

11. Election of Members of the East African Legislative Assembly
(1) Members of the East African Legislative Assembly representing Uganda shall be
elected in accordance with the rules set out in Appendix B, and such
representation shall reflect the proportional Party Membership based on the
numerical strength of the Parties in the House and take into consideration gender
and other shades of opinion.
(2) Members of the Assembly shall report to Parliament on the activities of the
Assembly in accordance with the rules set out in Appendix C.

The position as it now stands in the amended Rules of Procedure can be got from the Hansard, which states the following:

Rule 11
MR ODOI-OYWELOWO: Mr Chairman, the sub-title is: “Election of Members to the East African Legislative Assembly”. We propose that we delete rule 11 and insert the following:

“(1) The nine Members of the East African Legislative Assembly representing Uganda shall be elected by Parliament not from among Members of Parliament, representing, as much as it is feasible, the various political parties represented in the House, shades of opinion, gender and special interest groups in Uganda;

(2) The election of the Members to the East African Legislative Assembly shall be held in accordance with the rules set out in Appendix B to these rules;

(3) Members of the Assembly shall report to Parliament on the activities of the Assembly in accordance with Appendix C”.

From a layman’s point of view, I do not think the new Rule contravenes the Treaty in anyway or contradicts the wording or spirit of the Treaty. Furthermore the aspect in question, that is whether or not, where feasible, ALL Parties represented in Parliament should be elected to EALA has been transferred by Appendix B to “the political parties and other members of Parliament” dependent on the results of their “consultations and consensus” and where this fails, by a vote of Parliament. My own personal view was that it was possible to reach a consensus for 5 NRM, 1 FDC, 1 DP, 1 UPC and 1 Independent to represent Uganda in EALA or else a 4 NRM, 2 FDC, 1 DP, 1 UPC and 1 Independent. Either of these two formulae would address the matter politically though could not forestall the current return to the EACJ based on interpreting Article 50 of the Treaty. At the time of the opposition walk-out there was a lot of talk that the Mbidde Judgement in the EACJ could prevent the elections taking place until the position presented by Nandala Mafabi was achieved or something close to it but where ALL political Parties represented in Parliament would have EALA members. It was really after discussing with Norbert Mao following Mukasa Mbidde’s nomination that any thoughts of actions hinged on this case fell through since the Court had effectively addressed all that Mukasa Mbidde had brought to it. The strong argument from Norbert Mao was that since the Rules no longer directly infringed on the right to participate, the remaining hurdles lay in the process of elections and only through participation will the flaws become apparent. The only real argument against the Rules as they now stand could possibly the lack of specificity rather than any directly offensive Rule or clause.

There were certain aspects of Appendix B of the Rules of Procedure which remain unchanged and include the procedure of nomination and how a nomination is withdrawn. On this point I need to state that Olara Otunnu’s letter was two days late and did not take into account the procedure of withdrawal. I personally feel that it would have been far better to summon a joint meeting of the Cabinet, the Parliamentary Committee and the UPC Electoral Commission before writing a total ineffectual letter and following it up with a even more ineffectual letter written by an Acting Secretary General. If advise could have been received this would not have happened.

Let me end with the a couple of quote from the Hansard without much debate taken which have been taking place on the floor of Parliament. At one point the LOP had to resort to reading from the Law “… maybe it will help us to understand. It says: “The Leader of “the Opposition means the Member of Parliament who is the leader in Parliament of the party in opposition to government and having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament.” I may not be taking your view but I have found myself in the position by law. ” In my layman understanding this actually means “… the leader in Parliament of [FDC]” and carries with it some perks because of “having the greatest numerical strength in Parliament”.

In answer, I stated the following:

MR JAMES AKENA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The clarification I am seeking from you, the Leader of the Opposition, is this: Do you, in all honesty, feel you can speak on behalf of all of us who may have come here on a different political platform? We have our own political party and standards.

What I have seen in other parliaments – in the British Parliament – we have the government side, the Leader of the Opposition and other parties responding to issues because not in all instances is our position, as the Opposition, unanimous. Uganda Peoples Congress may have a different view on maybe education and health compared to FDC. We recognise the role of the Leader of the Opposition but we must also be recognised as a separate political entity in this House. We must be able to speak and have our own voice heard on issues that concern us. Thank you.

Hon.James Akena

UPC

Comments (2)

M7 will stand in 2016 elections- Katerega

May 27, 12 11:51 AM

Sovereignty is vested in the people. So long as they vote for Museveni, he will remain until he clocks 75. So he will not be eligible in 2021. As for Rebeca Kadaga, Janet Museveni, Gilbert Bkenya ,Amama Mbabazi and others, their popularity depends on Museveni’s popularity. If he sacks or cause the fall of any of them, that may mark end of their political career.

Secondly, it is not wise, to create an empire within an empire inside NRM camp. Some people want to become “Jesus”, threw way truth and life, where nobody will reach God without passing through them. But for us Muslims, we communicate directly with God without an intermediary. l think NRM should stick to the Islamic line, in order to avoid an empire within an empire. It reminds us prior to 1966 crisis of a state within a state.

Imperial presidency stopped in Uganda on Sunday October 8th 1995 when a new constitution was promulgated. In fact, the former Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi warned of a catastrophe of a parliamentary dictatorship in which we are. So don’t dream so much for becoming President overnight. But if the opposition is well organized it can share parliament with the ruling party next time. It can do the same with Local Government Councils, then the rest will be history.

If the opposition is less that one third now, but collaborates with the independents and the disgruntled movementists, and cause government to sneeze, how would it if it had at least a third of the parliament and local government councils? If opposition had a half of parliament and local government councils, even Besigye would have benefited from his dream of power sharing with Museveni, he should not die before realizing.

In a republican setting, there is no succession politics. They talk about the late Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere;s anointing his own successor in Tanzania in 1985. That was during a one party dictatorship which was almost a monarchy. But under a multi party democracy one cannot anoint his or her successor to the people. Uganda is a republic and it will remain a republic and the good thing with 1995 constitution, the President is directly elected not through an Electoral College, like that of United States.

How many people the President anointed during the Movement system and were rejected? They were many in Kampala and Mbarara, but the people voted otherwise. There popular participation in NRM and people should stand for offices and if they win, then they will be supported by the party. It will be wrong for the President to repeat past mistakes of showing interest in some candidates at the expense of others when they are all Movementists. We should however restore presidential term limits because Museveni was excpetional in respect of his credentials as a founding father of post independence Uganda.

From what l read in Sunday Monotor, two weeks ago (l did not watch the NTV interview), there is no doubt that President Museveni will seek another term in 2016. In the actual fact he was assuring us that after 2021, he will not seek another term since he will be above 75 and the constitution does not allow. He also said that probably there is something scientific that after 75 years of age , one should retire. Whether Speaker Rebecca Alitwala Kadaga stands as an independent, inside NRM camp and probably outside it, President Museveni is “Nyini kakomo.” Once he takes it, you just weather away politically. We saw the late Dr. Samson Kisekka. When he doubled as Vice President and Defence Minister, he gave Mmengo officials permission to hold rallies and advocate for federalism. But his IGP Cossy Odomel had declined to do so. The former NRM Second Vice Chairperson and External Coordinator, was sacked on an official trip in South Africa and that marked his political end.

Honorary Brig. Eriya Kategaya, was a defacto No. 2 in NRM , and doubled as First Deputy Premier and National Political Commissar. When he crossed to Reform Agenda, and returned, he will never be the same. You now see a man in parliament who is just after his salary, vehicle and fuel. But his contribution to the liberation struggle may be almost compared to that of Mzee Museveni since the Mwesigwas and Rwaheru died in battle.

Former Vice President Specioza Naigaga Wandira Kazibwe. She was the most powerful woman in Uganda as VP and Gender Minister and later Agriculture Minister. Kategaya and company wanted her to double as Vice Chairperson of NRM so that Al Haji Moses Kigongo is kicked out. She is no more politically.

Remember Mzee Kintu Musoke. He was a political heavyweight in Buganda and Uganda before NRM came in. Remember Paulo Muwanga’s SAPOBA Group. He lost the post of Prime Minister. Where is he? Senior Presidential Advisor, just like Mzee Kisekka. Kintu Musoke is lucky that as a founder President of UJA, he still has some role to do with media.

Then my professor, Gilbert Baalibaseka Bukenya. He is now an ordinary MP since he miscalculated by not holding his position as Buganda NRM Chairperson which was taken by Haji Abdu Nadduli. So whether it is Vice President, my fellow Munnabuddu Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi, or Speaker Rebecca ALitwala Kadaga, or even Prime Minister John Patrick Amama Mbabazi, or any other person, the moment Museveni sacks any of them or causes his or her removal, that will mark his or her political end.

But there are those he demoted and sacked and became a problem. The most outstanding are Col Dr. Kizza Besigye, Eng. Winnie Byanyima and Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu. But he has been competing with them and has been defeating them.

So any person who wants to succeed Museveni whether now, 2016 or 2021, must remain loyal to the man. Museveni is not an angel. l am personally perturbed by his narrow catchment area in terms of political and other appointments. This is due to his inner circle which may be narrow minded. But even then, he remains the most popular and the most powerful person in Uganda inside and outside NRM camp and therefore “Nyini kakomo.”

l know our leaders don’t want advice that is contrary to what they want to hear, they don’t want criticism be positive and constructive or negative, but l have told them my mind, moreover l shall remain nothing but a journalist.

My friend Capt. Mike Mukula( we worked with him and with Nusura Tiperu during 2001) elections mobilizing in and around Kampala including Wakiso, and we did the same during kisanja in 2004-2005) under UJA) is a popular man inside and outside NRM. I remember his fans demonstrated in his defense over arrest for a corruption scandal. This was because he used to share with them. But Mukula is not near in line of succession. The research results
showed as Museveni, Kadaga, Janet Bukenya, Mbabazi etc… inside NRM and Mukula is aware of that. President Museveni is not only “nyini kakomo” but also the owner of “tadooba” (l know Prof. Bukenya, leads an anti-tadooba campaign). He is the one who lights and unlights it. So all those presidential ambitious men and women are like “tadooba” and the President is its owner.

Al Haji Abdu Nadduli is the Chairperson NRM Buganda Regional Chairperson, in his capacity as Vice Chaiperson NRM in charge of Central Region. Secretary is Kalule Seongo, for CM, RDC and MP. Treasurer is Rosemary Namayanja, now Minister of State in charge of Luwero Triangle. Mobiliser is Mamerito Mugerwa, Chairperson of Kira Twon Council. Research is Mutebi Kityo, former MP Mawokota South Youth is Sebina Ssekitooleko, NRM Publicity Secretary, Luwero District. There is also Haji Sulaiman Walusimbi, Poverty Alleviation Programme’s PRO, State House.

We have sub regional chaipersons; East Buganda is Ediriisa Mayanja Njuki, former Idi Amin’s Press Secretary . West Buganda is Ndawula Kaweesi, former MP South Buganda is Vincent Kityamuweesi Musubire, Deputy PPS to Vice President. South West Buganda is Ahmed Kateregga Musaazi (in acting capacity). North Buganda is Sempala Kigozi and
Central Buganda is Haji Muhammad Kabanda, former Defrnce Secretary greater RC V Mpigi. There are members of those sub regional teams including all NRM District chairpersons in Buganda apart from Kampala which is a special area.

During Obote ll days, there were a lot of patriotic songs on Radio Uganda ( l commend Obote ll regime for that even Amn’s which excelled in propaganda, did not fare well in that area). One of them ( and l know all of them) went as:’’ l love Uganda; My county Uganda; The Pearl of Africa; Shall rise and shine again. That was the first stanza. The second stanza was calling upon people to come and build Uganda. You people, am calling you upon to come and build Uganda.’’

AHMED KATEREGA
NEWVISION AND UAH FORUMIST IN KAMPALA

Comments (5)

‹ Older posts

Ugandans-At-Heart

Categories

Category Multi parties

Beti Kamya Doesn’t agree with the ruling made by Kadaga on NRM rebel MPs

NRM RESPONSE TO THE RULING OF THE RT. HON SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO RETAIN IN PARLIMANT THE FOUR (4) MPS WHO CEASED TO BE MEMBERS OF NRM

M7′s speech at the opening of the NRM cacus retreat in Kyankwanzi

2016 IS A TICKING TIME BOMB FOR ALL MOVEMENTISTS, UNLESS ……………….”

Besigye’s 1999 document that landed him in hot soup

DP wins Bukoto South: Hon Nambooze beats YKM but both NRM and DP need to do some soul searching

”I have never been NRM, I am not NRM and I will not be NRM”- Mao

LESSONS LEARNT FROM BUKOTO SOUTH BY-ELECTIONS.

James Akena gives his views on contraversial EALA Elections

M7 will stand in 2016 elections- Katerega

Email Subscription

Categories

Blogroll

Business sector

Facebook

Forum

Newspapers

Priority Links

Radio stations

Sports

TV news

Pages

Meta

UMBS

Archives

UAH facebook

UAH archives

UAH Calendar

Search UAH

Join UMBS too

Tags

Recent Posts

UGANDANS AT HEART

UAH on Twitter

Follow “Ugandans-At-Heart”

Categories

Category Multi parties

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Email Subscription

Categories

Blogroll

Business sector

Facebook

Forum

Newspapers

Priority Links

Radio stations

Sports

TV news

Pages

Meta

UMBS

Archives

UAH archives

UAH Calendar

Search UAH

Join UMBS too

Tags

Recent Posts

UGANDANS AT HEART

Follow “Ugandans-At-Heart”