New Year’s Toast

By Joanna Fuchs

Here’s to the new year...
May it bring more joy and success
And less grief and regret.

To our dreams...
May we never stop believing in them
And taking the actions that will make them a reality.

To our friends, loved ones, associates (or colleagues)...
May we take the time to let them know
How much it means to us
To have them in our lives.

Let us encourage more and criticize less,
Give more and need less.
And whenever we can,
Let us create harmony and peace.

To new beginnings...
Let us start fresh, right now,
To make this the very best year ever.

A very Happy New Year to all of us!

The Passing of the Year

by Robert W. Service

My glass is filled, my pipe is lit,
My den is all a cosy glow;
And snug before the fire I sit,
And wait to feel the old year go.
I dedicate to solemn thought
Amid my too-unthinking days,
This sober moment, sadly fraught
With much of blame, with little praise.

Old Year! upon the Stage of Time
You stand to bow your last adieu;
A moment, and the prompter's chime
Will ring the curtain down on you.
Your mien is sad, your step is slow;
You falter as a Sage in pain;
Yet turn, Old Year, before you go,
And face your audience again.

That sphinx-like face, remote, austere,
Let us all read, whate'er the cost:
O Maiden! why that bitter tear?
Is it for dear one you have lost?
Is it for fond illusion gone?
For trusted lover proved untrue?
O sweet girl-face, so sad, so wan
What hath the Old Year meant to you?

And you, O neighbour on my right
So sleek, so prosperously clad!
What see you in that aged wight
That makes your smile so gay and glad?
What opportunity unmissed?
What golden gain, what pride of place?
What splendid hope? O Optimist!
What read you in that withered face?

And You, deep shrinking in the gloom,
What find you in that filmy gaze?
What menace of a tragic doom?
What dark, condemning yesterdays?
What urge to crime, what evil done?
What cold, confronting shape of fear?
O haggard, haunted, hidden One
What see you in the dying year?

And so from face to face I flit,
The countless eyes that stare and stare;
Some are with approbation lit,
And some are shadowed with despair.
Some show a smile and some a frown;
Some joy and hope, some pain and woe:
Enough! Oh, ring the curtain down!
Old weary year! it's time to go.

My pipe is out, my glass is dry;
My fire is almost ashes too;
But once again, before you go,
And I prepare to meet the New:
Old Year! a parting word that's true,
For we've been comrades, you and I --
I thank God for each day of you;
There! bless you now! Old Year, good-bye!

The Priest and the Prayer Mat

My friend has just shared this with me....


....Yesterday a Catholic Priest who ministers in one of the prisons in Uganda and works at my office took a man to visit his daughter in Luzira prison. The man had the girl outside wedlock, so she grew up with her mother's relatives, and never met her father. The girl had asked the Priest to help locate any of her relatives - just to let them know she is still alive.

The Priest went to Yumbe (Northern Uganda) and managed to find the girl's father and brought him to see his daughter. The girl did not recognise her father- they'd never lived together. They embraced, they cried, they had their first meal together in prison.


When the priest was leaving the prison, the warden told him that this was the first visitor the girl had had in 5 years. The warden then asked the priest why he had gone through all the trouble for 'those people' who the Priest 'did not even know' personally. The Prison warden was concerned because the man and his daughter were muslims.


'i know', replied the Priest ., 'this morning while at the monastery i gave him a mat so he could say his prayers'.



Query - Do we minister to only those we know?

Around The Corner

by Charles Hanson Towne

Around the corner I have a friend,
In this great city that has no end,
Yet the days go by and weeks rush on,
And before I know it, a year is gone.

And I never see my old friends face,
For life is a swift and terrible race,
He knows I like him just as well,
As in the days when I rang his bell.

And he rang mine but we were younger then,
And now we are busy, tired men.
Tired of playing a foolish game,
Tired of trying to make a name.

"Tomorrow" I say! "I will call on Jim
Just to show that I'm thinking of him",
But tomorrow comes and tomorrow goes,
And distance between us grows and grows.

Around the corner, yet miles away,
"Here's a telegram sir," "Jim died today."
And that's what we get and deserve in the end.
Around the corner, a vanished friend.

On Libya

by Prof. Jean-Paul Pougala

April 14, 2011
pambazuka.org

Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the country’s role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent.

It was Gaddafi's Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times - connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.

It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained - how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master's exploitation ask the master's help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western 'benefactors' with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million - and that's how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.

This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi's Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.

AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation - the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.

The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.

It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around a 150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common - they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.

Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, 'the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken'.

REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA

To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.


Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.

It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That's why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.

GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID

For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn't have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.

Mandela didn't mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an 'unwelcome' one - 'No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do'. He added - 'Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.'

Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That's why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela's 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela's enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?


WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA?

After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don't have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the 'yes' votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised 'the protection of peoples', which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?

It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.

It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote 'Yes' to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl's Germany.

A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method - all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.

We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.

Today's events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao's China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms - it refused to be a member if it didn't have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn't say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China's dignity to be respected.

What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d'Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.

When the African Union endorsed Ouattara's victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn't won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.

Africa's strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.

It's better to be an optimist who is sometimes wrong than a pessimist who is always right.

The Road Not Taken
Robert Frost



Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.

It Couldn't be Done
Edgar Guest

Somebody said that it couldn't be done,
But, he with a chuckle replied
That "maybe it couldn't" but he would be one
Who wouldn't say so till he'd tried.

So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn't be done, as he did it.

Somebody scoffed: "Oh, you'll never do that;
At least no one we know has done it";
But he took off his coat and he took off his hat,
And the first thing we knew he'd begun it.

With a lift of his chin and a bit of a grin,
Without any doubting or quiddit,
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn't be done, and he did it.

There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure;
There are thousands to point out to you, one by one,
The dangers that wait to assail you.

But just buckle right in with a bit of a grin,
Just take off your coat and go to it;
Just start to sing as you tackle the thing
That cannot be done, and you'll do it

'Give the man you'd like to be a look at the man you are' - Edgar Guest

On the demise of Gaddaffi...

The internet is awash with the brazen way in which Col. Muammar Ghaddaffi was captured and killed. Video clips of his victors celebrating over his dead body have made many a person wince while others have justified this in equal measure. The UN has called for an investigation into this killing although the demise of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in similar extra judicial or after botched judicial proceedings has not raised any significant response.

I have argued elsewhere that however controversial they might be, there are laws governing the treatment of prisoners of war. The development of international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict and the law in war- jus in bello- was meant to deal with the situations we saw online today(http://rt.com/news/mutassim-gaddafi-alive-dead-463/).

While some of us might choose trash these laws at our convenience on grounds that we were not fighting -in Libya- or that we did not lose relatives, we risk falling into the trap of selective application of the law (while at the same time criticising the alleged excesses of the dead Libyan Leader). If the people who killed Gaddaffi behaved just like him, then we have arguably just replaced one form of evil with another. Does that make us (read humanity) any better? The Geneva Conventions are the standards that humanity -however controversial that might sound- has chosen to be judged by. Lets not side-step them now. Excusing our actions or the actions of others because of what others have said was 'rage, emotion and vengeance' makes one wonder what form of humanity we espouse - if we espouse it at all anyway -

Therefore, those of us who talk about law - envisage laws that should be neutral in application. Laws that discriminate against perceived criminals are simply put , bad laws. Everyone - even those perceived to be guilty or evil, should be subjected to the criminal processes that various societies have deemed fit - in the current case, we should not excuse breach of the laws of war based on 'longevity in power' etc. Two wrongs do not make a right - inspite of the fact that Machiavelli's ''end justifies the means'' argument is plausible

To re-iterate, once people take up arms, they should be expected to abide by the laws of war - that is why the use of land mines, cluster bombs, nuclear weapons -which inter alia caused indisciriminate killing are prohibited - in the same way that mistreating of civilians and Prisoners of War are.

As succinctly put by Michelle Maiese,

''... when soldiers (and i contend that the victorious Libyan rebels fall in this category), attack non-combatants, pursue their enemy beyond what is reasonable, or violate other rules of fair conduct, they commit not acts of war, but acts of murder.International law suggests that every individual, regardless of rank or governmental status, is personally responsible for any war crime that he might commit.If a soldier obeys orders that he knows to be immoral, he must be held accountable. War crimes tribunals are meant to address such crimes. See http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm; and L.C. Green, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict. (Manchester, Canada: Manchester University Press, 1993), 17.

Such are the dictates of humanity - the humanity which - inter alia - requires the wronged to act better than the perceived culprit and makes us wince at the sight of fellow human beings dancing on the corpse of another - regardless of who the deceased might have been.

I humbly submit

....

On Libya and the Libyan Spring

Giving a prisoner all luxuries of life does not stop him from desiring his freedom. As long as such prisoner feels he needs to be free, its a useless venture. Reminds me of the kids whose parents lockup at home with all kinds of luxuries and they end up either escaping to dance halls at night or sleeping with the househelps. That is the stark reality of what happened in Libya. A Country that was praised of having one of the best standards of living in Africa but this was with limited freedoms for the people

Humanity is a complex 'thing' to deal with. When one thinks that they are doing good for all, let one be mindful of the fact that that there is no ''silver bullet'' solution to humanity's needs and desires. ''The circumstances of the world are so variable that an irrevocable purpose or opinion is almost synonymous with a foolish one''. ~William H. Seward


So,

Whereas i might not agree that the jubilations on the streets of Libya reflect the fact that people all Libyans were tired of Khaddaffi (having read Henrik Ibsen's 'An Enemy of the People' and recalling that from our own experience that Ugandans jubilate WHENEVER change of governement occurs -

NOT forgetting that fighting in Libya and among Libyans, went on for 8months),

AND

Whereas I do not entirely agree that the 'Libyan Spring' was generated solely by the West, and

Whereas I do criticise the West -to a certain degree- for supporting the rebels,and

Whereas the killing of Khaddafi was wrong, and

Whereas i acknowledge that Machievelian principles of end justified the means applies, and

Whereas i do not expect Libyans to ''get better'' in a flash, and

Whereas i think 'Libyan Spring' has -probably- sent the country four decades back (if not more),

I concede that it was time for Khaddaffi to leave.

''EVEN THE BEST DANCER HAS TO LEAVE AT ONE POINT'' African Proverb....not forgetting that the dance styles and moves keep changing too anyways

My two cents ...

ADIEU MY BROTHER

Fare thee well 'General'
That is the most recent title i bestowed on you
Fare thee well my Brother
In agony i cry

You were my teacher
Forever i will be grateful
You taught me the Lord's Prayer,
You taught me to confront the dark.
You taught me to hold my own.
You carried me high on your shoulders.

Like Rwabigumire, you were born a quiet diplomat.
My respect you earned
From when i was but a toddler.
Cool headed, fearless, gentle.
I never heard you raise your voice.
I never saw you brawl

Smiles, laughter and humor were your guests 'AlHajji'.
Yet your principled stances guarded you always.
Peace adorned your footstep
Bitter feuds evaded your light

You were our friend
You were MY friend
You remain our 'Grasshopper Rebel'.
Our Mediator
Our sensibility
Our Editor -in- Chief
You remain a true son of Toro
Handsome, cool and loyal

We will remember you
As the epitome of gentility in life as in death.
As you simply uttered 'O God O God'
and bade this life farewell.

We lay you to rest today
In the beautiful land of Toro
We will always love you.
Our brother
Our Leader
Our AlHajji

WE CLIMB...

The world throws certain things at us which can be really tough.

Our job is to toughen up as much as we can and also to be wise and avoid those boulders that come running down the hill at us ( we might sometimes fail to duck in time but that is still ok).


The most important thing is that we shall always rise up and climb this hill of life ( or is it a tree?).


More interestingly, sometimes we find broken branches disguised as strong ones and we step on them and fall...but we still get up, dust ourselves and climb again-


(June 14, 2011)

Sleeping Giant?

An old article entitled ''Sleeping Giant or Stealthy Nicodemus'' where at page 72, I try to investigate the role of the Commonwealth in promoting the Rule of Law and Good Governance in Uganda.

Prof Joe Oloka-Onyango: Uganda - What needs undoing

Written by Joe Oloka-Onyango

Wednesday, 04 May 2011 18:56

No democracy relies so much on the military

Makerere University law professor, Joe Oloka-Onyango, made a presentation at the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) post-election 2011 conference in Kampala on April 27, 2011.

President Museveni, who closed the conference, was very critical of Prof Oloka’s presentation, accusing him of poisoning the minds of “our children”.

Below, the Observer Newspaper reproduced a slightly edited version of the paper that got Museveni so worked up.

Today my first message to you is: Pray for Uganda!

But as you pray, I urge you not only to think of matters spiritual. Rather, I ask you to think of religion today as a means through which we can correct the many ailments that afflict us, and for you to go back to the manner in which the founders of the world’s great religions used their power: not as a means to guarantee that their flock grow in number, but as a mechanism for enlightenment and caution.

Today I want to urge you to face the main challenges of governance confronting the country and to step out from your mosques, churches and temples and confront the evils we are facing head on. In other words, as you pray, please keep one eye open!

I have been asked to examine the key governance challenges we face in Uganda today. I want to focus on what needs to be undone. In other words, what things do we need to rid ourselves of in order to improve the state of governance as we approach the swearing-in ceremony of a new/old government and move into the next five years of NRM rule? In order to answer that question, it is necessary for us to take a small step back in history.

When 42-year-old guerilla leader Yoweri Kaguta Museveni emerged from the five-year bush war to claim the presidency of Uganda in 1986, he was proclaimed as a great redeemer. Although there were many questions as to whether he had the credentials to lead such a decimated and demoralized population out of the doldrums, there can be little doubt that Uganda has done fairly well under his steerage.

It is not for me to sing the praises of the government, but even the most ardent critic must admit that Uganda is no longer “the Sick Man of Africa” that it used to be in the 1980s. Twenty five years later, Museveni remains at the helm of Ugandan politics, and on February 18, 2011, he received yet another endorsement in an election that extends his term in power until 2016.

He has already entered the record books as East Africa’s longest-serving leader, outstripping both the late Julius Kambarage Nyerere of Tanzania and Kenyan ex-President Daniel arap Moi. By the end of this 6th term, Museveni will be 72 years old, and at 30 years in power will join the ranks of Africa’s longest, among them, Paul Biya of Cameroon, Angolan president Eduardo dos Santos and the beleaguered Muammar el Gaddafi.

But it will also be the time to ask whether Museveni’s legacy will be that of the former Tanzanian president, who left office still loved and revered, or a figure of tragedy and hatred like Moi? Indeed, as North Africa witnesses the nine-pin like collapse of long-term dictatorships starting with Tunisia and spreading like wildfire, it is necessary to inquire how it is that Museveni won the February 18 election, and what lessons this has for political struggle and freedom in Uganda.

Drawing on Libya for comparison is particularly apt since Museveni has long been an ally of Muammar Abu Minyar al Gaddafi. You will recall that on one of many trips to Kampala, the eccentric leader of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya urged Museveni to stay in office for life, arguing that revolutionaries are not like company Managing Directors.

The former do not retire from office! It is a lesson Museveni took to heart, removing presidential term limits from the constitution in 2005, and setting himself well on the way to a de facto life presidency.

But before we look to the future, we need to return to the past, especially to understand the recent election. What explains Museveni’s February victory, especially given that while largely predicted, the margin by which he won (68% of the presidential vote and 75% for his National Resistance Movement in the parliamentary poll) stunned many!

We need to compare this margin with the three previous elections in 1996 (when he won with 75%), in 2001 (69%) and in 2006 (59%). According to the pundits who filled the radio airwaves before the poll, while still popular and dominant and thus likely to win, the downward trend would continue. Some even predicted that there would be a run-off because the 50.1% margin would not be scaled in the first round. The other issue of surprise was the relative calm and lack of violence that attended the election.

Most foreign observers, from the European Union to the US government, described the vote as generally peaceful, free of bloodshed and largely a “free and genuine” expression of the wishes of the Ugandan people. It was only the African Union (AU) that declined outright to describe the poll as “free and fair”.

The local media described it as the “most boring” poll in recent history, lacking as it did much of the drama, intrigue and confrontation that Ugandans had become accustomed to. It is thus not surprising that Museveni’s rap ditty, ’Give Me My Stick/You Want Another Rap?’ garnered more attention than the substantive issues at stake.

Not yet multi-party

To fully comprehend the outcome of Uganda’s recent poll, it is necessary to understand a number of basic facts. The first is that Uganda is yet to become a functioning multiparty democracy. For the first nineteen years of Museveni rule, we operated under a “no-party” or “movement” system of government, which was little better than a single-party state.

Under that system, government and party institutions overlapped right from the lowest level (resistance or local councils) through to Parliament. Indeed, in many respects Museveni took a leaf from Gaddafi’s popular councils, creating these LCs as supposedly representative of grassroots democracy, but essentially a cover for single-party dominance.

Today, many of the no-party structures remain intact and operative. They function as the main conduits of political mobilisation and for the channeling of state resources, buttressed by a massive local bureaucracy of government agents and spies.

These include the Local Councils (especially 1 and 2), and although they may appear insignificant, they in fact play a crucial role in governance in the country. Indeed, that system remains intact, and only this week we were advised by the Electoral Commission that elections for the lower levels of local government would be postponed, yet again.

It is clear that not only is the postponement illegal, it also reflects a reluctance on the part of the ruling party to make the final necessary transition from the movement to a multi-party political system of governance.

Power of incumbency

We also need to recall that in most countries it is very difficult to remove incumbent governments through an electoral process. In the history of African electoral democracy, only a handful of ruling parties have lost a poll.

In Uganda, the fact of incumbency guaranteed President Museveni unfettered access to state coffers, such that the NRM reportedly spent $350 million in the campaign. Whether or not this is true, we have not yet received a proper accounting of how much the NRM [or indeed any other party] spent and from where they received this money; already, this means that we are being held hostage to the lack of transparency and the underhand nature of politics that we thought we had long left behind.

Indeed, the enduring image of the past several months has been that of the President handing out brown envelopes stashed with cash for various women, youth and other types of civic groupings. I don’t know if religious leaders were also beneficiaries of this largesse. If you were, then you must acknowledge that you have become part of the problem. For in those envelopes lies a key aspect of the problem: the phenomenon of institutionalized corruption that has become the hallmark of this regime.

Militarised context

The other reason for Museveni’s victory lies in the highly-militarised context within which politics and governance in Uganda is executed. We know that after five years of civil war (1981 to 1986), and twenty-plus years of insurgency in the north of the country, Uganda has virtually never been free from conflict. Unsurprisingly, the idea of peace and security occupy a very significant position within the national psyche.

For older Ugandans there is some fear of a reversion to earlier more chaotic times, while for the younger generation who have only experienced Museveni, the claim that he has restored peace has a particular resonance. Ironically, both groups also fear that if Museveni lost an election, he would never accept the result, and instead would either return to the bush or cause such great instability that it is not worth it to even think about an alternative candidate.

This explains what to many is the most surprising outcome of the election: Museveni’s victory in northern Uganda despite facing two sons-of-the-soil in ex-diplomat Olara Otunnu and the youthful Norbert Mao.

I believe that the looming presence of the military also explains why the turnout for the election at 59% was much lower than any of the previous three polls, where figures were closer to 70%. Many people simply stayed at home, partly out of apathy, but more on account of the fact that the streets of Kampala and other parts of the country were swamped with military personnel.

Any visitor to Uganda over the election period would not be wrong to question whether the country was not a military dictatorship. Moreover, and unfortunately, the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) is more akin to the army in Libya than that it is in Egypt.

UPDF is not well known for exercising restraint when dealing with civilian insurrection or politically-motivated opposition. Indeed, when the red berets and the green uniforms come out on the streets you know that there will be correspondingly higher casualties. That is why we should condemn the increased militarisation of the political context.

It is why we should demand that instead of spending on jets, tear gas and APCs, we need more [money] to be spent on roads, hospitals and our UPE schools.

No opposition parties

Museveni’s performance in the north reflects the other side to the story, and that is the fact that Museveni is only as good as the opposition he faces. The dismal performance of the opposition is attributable to a host of factors, not least of which is the fact that there are really no opposition parties in Uganda.

Rather, there are only opposition personalities epitomized by three-time presidential contender, Col. (rtd) Kizza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) who have constructed around themselves weak or non-existent party structures that only come to life in the run up to the election.

During the election Uganda’s opposition seemed to lack a firm ideological position, and while the death of ideology is an ailment affecting the ruling NRM too, its absence among the opposition has proven particularly harmful as there is a lack of a central organizing message around which the opposition can translate obvious disgust and support against Museveni into electoral victory.

Thus, at the start of the election season, the opposition wavered between a united front against Museveni or a boycott, citing the bias of the Electoral Commission and the unlevel playing field.

As we are all aware, neither option was adopted, and at the end of the day all major opposition parties decided to field candidates in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, while decrying the inequality in the contest.

It is important and ironic to note that the opposition may have found a more united voice after the election. This is in the Walk-to-Work (W2W) protests. The fact that the government has failed to find a suitable response to this opposition unity speaks volumes of the foundations on which the February 18 victory rest.

Most importantly, the W2W protests demonstrate that Ugandans can be mobilized around issues as opposed to the mobilization of fear (“we brought you peace”), the mobilization of money (brown envelopes), or the mobilization of elite benefits (the promise of new ministries and the creation of more unviable districts).

At the end of the day, while President Museveni’s victory is not much of a surprise, and in the short run ensures the continued charade of economic and political stability that has characterized the last two decades, I would like to suggest that it portends considerable apprehension for the future of the country.

Museveni character

While the President has dismissed comparisons with the fallen dictators of north Africa, there are indeed many parallels. First of all, the state in Uganda has assumed what can only be described as a ‘Musevenist’ character, such that an election such as the recent one can only be an exercise in endorsement of the incumbent, complete with his iconized symbolic hat.

This is because the leadership of the state was afflicted with the disease I have described as ‘stayism’ for which the antidote has never been an election. Secondly, the Ugandan state has also devolved to a situation in which there is little to distinguish between the personal and the political, and where it is increasingly being marked by the growth of what can only be described as family or personal rule.

Thirdly, we are in very real danger of beginning an era of dynastic politics. While President Museveni has only one son (in comparison to Gaddafi’s seven), Muhoozi Kainerugaba is clearly being groomed for greater things. Thus, he has taken charge of the Presidential Guard Brigade, the elite force designed to guarantee his father’s personal security, and he recently wrote a book about the bush war, to burnish his credentials as an intellectual-cum-soldier able to fit into his father’s rather large shoes.

This is clearly the same path that Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi pursued, only to find themselves thwarted by the movement of the people. While it may be true that revolutionaries don’t retire, if there is no other lesson of the recent northern African upheavals, it is that revolutionaries can be forced to resign. It is all simply a matter of time.

It is important for us to underscore a number of lessons [from North Africa] that cannot be ignored:

1. Regardless of the size of the military apparatus one constructs, even the most powerful of regimes can be brought down;

2. Resistance and reaction to poor governance can come from anywhere, even from those who are weakest or most marginalized; it is not necessarily the elite or opposition political forces who lead movements for change, and

3. The terrorism of hunger is much more dangerous than the terrorism of so-called terrorists.

Finally, given all that we have seen above, how do we go about undoing the political damage and rebuilding Uganda’s democracy?

1. We need to begin by undoing the tendency towards political monopoly, and to tackle the desire to absolutely dominate the political arena to the exclusion of any contending force, and particularly the burning desire to try to eliminate all forms of opposition to the existing system of governance. In this regard we need to undo unlimited presidential terms and end the phenomenon of longevity in office;

2. We need to force the ruling party to accept that opposition in a multiparty system is a fact of life; the sooner the NRM learns to live with it the better; it thus needs to adapt its methods of response from coercion and abuse, to dialogue and compromise.

We need to undo the detention-without-trial of political opponents like Besigye and Mao and of all the other political activists who have been detained as a result of the W2W strikes, and of earlier events such as the September 2009 (pro-Kabaka) uprising.

3. We need to undo the links between the state and the ruling (NRM) party, first by undertaking a full audit of where and how the NRM raised the resources to finance the last election and secondly through establishing a permanent Political Party Oversight Commission made up of civil society actors, academicians, peasants, religious leaders, and other individuals and groups from all walks of life, with the goal of ensuring that all political parties adhere to the constitution and work towards the expansion of democratic space, rather than its contraction.

4. We need to undo the legal manipulation and the misuse and abuse of law and of the constitution in order to achieve sectarian political objectives. In particular, we need to condemn and combat the constant shifting of the goalposts when the existing ones do not suit the achievement of a particular political objective. We also need to undo the infrastructure of intolerance and exclusion that is manifest in the following laws:

a. The Institution of Cultural and Traditional Leaders Bill;

b. The NGO Act, HIV/AIDS Act, The Equal Opportunities Commission Act, The Anti-Homosexuality Bill, etc.

5. We need to undo the use of coercive (particularly militaristic) methods to achieve political objectives, of which we have seen numerous examples, culminating with the W2W shootings last week.

There is no other country in the world that lays claim to being a democracy which so extensively relies on the military. We are fed up of the notoriety of the Rapid Response Unit (RRU), the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) and of para-military shadow militias like the Black Mamba; the PGB and the many Generals who have invaded political life. We need to remove the UPDF from directly involving itself in politics as is normally the case in a functioning multiparty system.

6. We need to undo the hypocrisy that claims the high moral ground when we are mired in CORRUPTION, a corruption which has become institutionalized and ‘normal’, and which begins and ends in state house.

7. We need to stop ignoring the youth and treating them like they are the ‘leaders of tomorrow’ or else they will take up arms against us today.

8. We need to undo the monopoly of political power that is exercised only by political actors. All of us have to become politicians; hence while the President’s call for talks with the opposition is welcome, it cannot be a discussion only between the NRM and opposition parties; we also want to be heard and to make sure that no deals are made behind our backs.

Hence, there is a need for a national convention of all civil and social groupings to decide on the future course of the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to stop being complacent about our country. We will wake up and find it gone!

The author is professor of law at Makerere University and head of the Human Rights Peace Centre (HURIPEC).

The Price of Democracy

This is a response to my friend Dr. Joseph Okia’s facebook post on the ''Ideologue Group'' wall (which is reproduced below )

Dear Joseph, I have read your face book post on the riots in Uganda and wish to recommend you to my rather long piece in which I tried to address most of the concerns you raise. Please find it at http://danielruhweza.blogspot.com/2011/04/walking-to-work-peacefully.html For emphasis however, I will respond to some specific issues which I consider to be of utmost concern to me -

(1)Under the Police act the police is mandated to ensure exactly that, anyone wishing to carry on an assembly, protest, walk is therefore required to inform police, agree on the route the protest will take and where the final assembly point will be,simple!



Assuming that the section of the Police Act you refer to is Section 32. Let me quote it here verbatim –

''Power to regulate assemblies and processions.''
(1) Any officer in charge of police may issue orders for the purpose
of—(a)regulating the extent to which music, drumming or a public address system may be used on public roads or streets or at occasion of festivals or ceremonies;

(b)directing the conduct of assemblies and processions on public roads or streets or at places of public resort and the route by which and the times at which any procession may pass.

(2) If it comes to the knowledge of the inspector general that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any public road or street or at any place of public resort, and the inspector general has reasonable grounds for believing that the assembly or procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the inspector general may, by notice in writing to the person responsible for convening the assembly or forming the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession.

(3)The inspector general may delegate in writing to an officer in charge of police all or any of the powers conferred upon him or her by subsection (2) subject to such limitations, exceptions or qualifications as the inspector general may specify.

The aforementioned section as I understand it, is silent on walking to work (W2W). In any case, the status quo in Uganda today is that the police has banned demonstrations - which it is now asking asking to be informed about. and , This for me sound quite problematic. It is true that 'if anyone would genuinely want to protest against high fuel and food prices all they would have to do is set the date, discuss with police the where and when, agree and hold the protest!'' However, by banning demonstrations, the police acted unconstitutionally - in spite of the declarations of the Uganda Constitutional Court in the case of Mwanga Kivumbi Vs the AG . Therefore for police to turn around and require would-be demonstrators to inform it of a proposed demonstration is contradictory. This is the same contradiction our President makes. It is therefore not true that ''These politicians know exactly how it works, but they are deliberately drawing the police into a confrontation by refusing to play by the rules.''


It is no secret that opposition leaders –as expected in a free and democratic society- are supposed to try to make political mileage from any government slip-up (see the rather insensitive press releases by Minister Kabakumba Masiko ., ., and Kirunda Kiveijinja

The tenets of democracy are that the official opposition is both the government in waiting and also citizens of this country with rights to express themselves on any issue of public interest and concern. They therefore cannot be criticised for doing what is expected of any opposition nor should it be a surprise that they will front the cause of the disadvantaged. That should therefore not be seen as a '' deception'' and i do not think it is in anycase the ''root of the violence''. I would actually be very concerned if the opposition did not speak out against the government inaction as this is the rule of thumb in any democracy.(who in any case remain part of the electorate). Therefore, we cannot blame the opposition for striving to win political points while the reaction of the government has been largely insensitive.


However, I have mentioned in other spaces that the people who sympathise with the synonym ''Activists 4 Change'' are both politicians and non politicians. To the best of my knowledge, it is a loose group which – to the best of my knowledge is not even registered or mandated to represent specific political aspirations. It has sympathisers from all corners of Uganda and beyond – many of whom are mere commentators on Facebook and Twitter. It is not necessarily synonymous with the official opposition in parliament who have given the A4C some political mileage by participating in A4C discourses.

I do not agree that the A4C went on ‘’television, radio and announce(d)( that they ) will be holding a procession (i.e come and join me as I walk). I think some people have mixed up the two kinds of events. The facts, as I understand them (and I beg to be corrected) are that the organisers of the W2W announced that they will be walking to their diverse work places – they did not announce that it would be a procession. This is essence means that the kind of demonstrations envisaged by the Section 32 do not apply here. There will not be and has not been a common work place or assembly point that you mention. Remember, if it were a ''walk to a specific assembly point'', it would be classified as a demonstration – which the police has unconstitutionally declared illegal. Be that as it may, the organisers decided not to carry out a demonstration (which would need Police notification), (although I am informed that the police later retracted this and said that all they need is ‘’ to be informed only’’ ;( Interestingly the police said they had intelligence on the demonstration but still insisted on being informed about it – but that makes me divert from the point),rather they chose to call upon interested parties to walk from their various homes to their diverse work places - period!.The Police/security forces can thus not have their cake and eat it too.


In my view the W2W would have been unproblematic but for two reasons (1) some politicians were forbidden from walking ( see the arrest of Mao, Salaam Musumba, Anywar and Besigye but look out specifically for the discourse between the arresting officers and the suspects which justifies my earlier points). This led to the reaction from the public and the violent rebuttal from the state; (2) some politicians erroneously and without informing the police, started walking in large groups and therefore attracting the concern of the police (see arrest of Nambooze). This also led to a reaction from the public and the aforementioned reaction from the state. Interestingly other politicians like Ekanya and Odonga Otto walked without being stopped. I cannot however say much about the rest of the citizens who were walking to work and either got caught up in the fracas or not. Suffice to mention, they exist.

By singling out specific people, the police committed another unconstitutional act – discrimination – contrary to Article 21(2) which states -
a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin,
tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion
or disability.
(3) For the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.


In my opinion, stopping a person from walking because he or she is a politician of a specific inclination, is discriminatory. It is the same as preventing people from using or accessing facebook or twitter, blocking some people from accessing radio stations to express their views, preventing people from accessing certain resources, travelling, name it.

It will continue to be difficult for the government to ever justify that they could stop some Ugandans from walking and not others. This is because scores of Ugandans have been walking and will continue walking – be they politicians or not. Some even walked to church as part of their individual protest -which is recognised and not merely allowed by the law and the constitution.


''Walking to Work'', is and remains a personal commitment that one makes and there is no need for mobilization and legally there is no need to inform the police. It is the same way that one chooses to don clothing with specific words, refrain from the consumption of certain foodstuff or drink, tear up SIM cards, avoid to comment on Face book or Twitter, refrain from using buses (Montgomery Bus Boycott 1965), refrain from work (Rukungiri), or wears shades in 'protest' against excessive use of teargas name it - If it were not so, then all people who have been walking to work or elsewhere need to inform the police which is practically impossible. To confirm the above interpretation, the likes of DP President Nobert Mao, FDC President Kizza Besigye, and others, were arrested for disobeying ''lawful orders'', inciting violence and in some cases assaulting a police officer et al and not for walking to work per se. I wait to see what reasons the Attorney General will raise in defence of the above, and what the courts will say in the event that such matter is litigated upon. ( In an earlier piece I discuss the whole issue surrounding whether one may or may not respect a law or in this case a ‘lawful order’.)

(2) ''these politicians are being disingenuous and deceptive, deliberately seeking confrontation with our police in order to provoke them into acts of aggression.''


Let us look at the facts. Person A is refused from walking to work even though it is his constitutional right to do so. He is told that he must access his work place in a way that the police wants. Person A thinks this is unfair and refuses to do so. He is confronted by the police, brutally arrested and in the process suffers bodily injury. Person A’s presumed sympathisers ( more like concerned onlookers to me since we cannot prove their specific political allegiances) get concerned and tell off the police who in return use tear gas, batons and bullets to disperse the crowds. The crowd then runs amok and riotous compelling the police to indiscriminately – once again – shot, l beat and use teargas on anyone in the vicinity. Regardless of whether they are school pupils, babies, patients, mothers, name it. In the same vein, person A is now taken to court and charged with disobeying lawful orders and inciting violence!!


This is obviously just one version of the story constructed from watching you tube and reading twitter as well as the various Ugandan newspapers.


I acknowledge other versions do exist which blame the shooting of innocent people on actions of people like Person A above. It is however trite law, that when establishing liability, there should be a causal link between one’s actions and the resultant reaction. For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained.


The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred before, or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.

I wait to see how this will play out in court- or the Human Rights Commission - if it ever does.

Let me stress however that whether or not the police has been provoked, the fact that it possesses the weapons of coercion means that it has to take extra care in how it uses them. Shooting live bullets at stone welding protesters or clobbering a person on vital and sensitive parts of the body like the head, backbone and neck-) is not reasonable force.


More over we should not forget that this is not the first time it is happening in Uganda ( remember the case of Ramathan Magara when he shot FDC supporters in Mengo, , (see also Nicholas Cage in the movie Con Air).

We should stop excusing wrongs committed by the armed forces on the grounds of provocation. The rationale behind the use of reasonable force is in line with the ideology of civility as expected in any democracy.


The view that the police should respond aggressively 'once provoked' as you state, means that they are an unprofessional, uncivilised, indisciplined institution which will commit acts of aggression, contrary to international humanitarian and criminal law. I choose to believe better or at least hope so although I see this being played out all too often.


I have watched the President of Uganda justify the use of excessive force based on the fact that non obedience to lawful orders is the cause. He even suggests that Besigye had pepper spray which he administered to the police and thus caused them to react in a similar way. I find that so hard to believe. I see no indication in the videos shown that Besigye had pepper spray. Instead I see pictures of hammers and pistol butts being used to break his windows. It is no wonder that Deputy Internal Affairs Minister Kasaijja disagrees with this kind of action.


I shudder to think what happens when we are not looking. It is simply unjustifiable, inexcusable and we should all resoundingly admit this and condemn it in the strongest terms possible.


That is why the President admits that the 'young people' (security offices) made mistakes. If we do not see a change in the way these security offices behave, it should not be a surprise that there is a comparison with past leaders and the way their security forces behaved. Remember the quotation by George Orwell - “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” – ‘Animal Farm’. –


The President asks why Besigye did not allow to be arrested easily or did not allow to follow 'lawful orders'. I know that there are some people who are of a similar opinion, while others say it is the option one can choose in civil disobedience when that person feels that they are unjustifiably treated. The rationale behind civil disobedience is clear. It has been well elaborated in Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham jail.


Some leaders like UPC President Olara Otunnu, FDC Vice President Salaam Musumba, Lord Mayor-elect Erias Lukwago and CP President Ken Lukyamuzi opted to be driven away while others like Anywar, Oguttu, Besigye, and Mafabi etc refused. Indeed such person who refuses to be arrested expects the police to use reasonable force in conducting his/her eventual arrest. Interestingly, they were accused of disobeying the lawful order (not to walk) and for causing unlawful assembly (when people surrounding the police to watch the fracas).

For me that is very problematic – why accuse someone of causing an illegal assembly yet the police knows that blocking a human being from their ordinary course of business will ignite a reaction from others? Why then blame the person whose rights are blocked for causing the reaction by others? Why go a step further and even kill or maim those who do not agree with the reaction of the police or who are minding their own business? Shooting babies, pregnant women, gassing children and hospital patients, bludgeoning others and walloping young men is inexcusable, using pepper spray directly into someone’s eyes and ears is barbaric and totally inhumane and degrading treatment contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution !! Shooting live bullets at unarmed civilians -even without authority- is totally criminal. I do not think there is anything which can justify the 1965 USA Civil rights style or the 1976 style apartheid reaction by our police/security forces. We must unequivocal condemn these actions!

(3)Further several of the leaders of these protests are major players in the oil industry themselves, they have been major beneficiaries of the high fuel prices and know that riots and disruptions will only drive fuel prices (and therefore their profits) higher. If they really cared about fuel prices why are their petrol stations charging even higher prices than their competitors (compare Total Nsambya and Shell Kabalagala). It is only Nandala Mafabi who has started distributing some paraffin at his petrol station, and even then only if you have the required party membership card, the others should follow if they would like us to believe that they are sincere. Charity begins at home!


The above statement raises some of the following thoughts -

(i) All the leaders of the Activists for Change (A4C) group are major players in the oil industry – a fact I find very hard to believe;

(ii) Even if that were true, that the only way in which one can show displeasure is to run out of business in an economic meltdown by charging lower prices?

(iii) The said leaders of A4C are actually making profits inspite of the fact that they are paying taxes on each and litre they sell and in spite of the fact that the cost of living is very high?

(iv) That when they call upon government to intervene in the reduction of fuel prices, they actually do not want government to do so but are more interested in riots which will disrupt the country – a consequence of which is that there will be difficulty in accessing petroleum products – but somehow these leaders of AFC will continue to access fuel and make more profits?

(v) That the determinant for profit making is only the price a petroleum station charges per litre?

(vi) That the desire of the leaders of A4C is not for government to intervene in reducing prices, but to actually do nothing?

I will not attempt to specifically answer the allegation made against Nandala Mafabi because I am not conversant with those specific facts. Evidence of this will be appreciated.


In my humble opinion, I can only reiterate what I said in the aforementioned blog articles that the whole country is suffering from these challenges.


To assume that it is the fault of the opposition alone that we are having these riots and that we should blame the global crisis for what is going on while government sits back and does absolutely nothing but to ruthlessly clobber Ugandans who seek to bring these matters to the table is unfortunate. The prices on almost every commodity in Uganda have risen.


The Kenyan government has done something. I am yet to hear of riots in Rwanda. Can something be done? Yes the government can do something – even if it is a mere symbolic gesture. However, defending government brutality and accusing opposition is and will not be the answer.


Even insinuating that some opposition politicians are not feeling the pinch of the high cost of living but only seek to profit politically and financially is very hard form me to believe. Neither do such ad hominem arguments help in alleviating the status quo -at least that is the way I see it.


I think our government can do better. If the government genuinely wants to guide those who want to demonstrate, it should first of all remove the ban on demonstrations. In the absence of which, it will not be able to justify why it is discriminating against certain people by blocking their freedom of movement in addition to infringing on their freedom of expression.


Secondly, the government should use reasonable force when dealing with those who choose the option of civil disobedience. Our government should not forget the ten-point programme raison d'être for taking over power. It is mandated to treat all people equally and the police is supposed to serve both the opposition as well as those in leadership. The government should also find means of abetting the current socio-economic hardships that the people are facing – that, is the social contract which the government has with its people

….......................

Joseph Okia writes-

The rising fuel costs and food prices are hurting all of us, but I think some of these politicians are really deceiving us that they are fighting for the common man. I think that deception is at the root the violence, we are not just having people "walking innocently" being attached by police, as they would like us to believe. People are deliberately seeking a confrontation to make a point, namely see we are being brutalised (Obama, (or should I say Sarkozy)can you hear us). For the last three decades thousands if not millions of Ugandans have been walking to work unhindered, even if you decided to walk to work on, nobody will stop you, as I speak hundreds of Ugandans are walking to their places of work today. Now to go on television, radio and announce you will be holding a procession (i.e come and join me as I walk) is an entirely different matter. The rights for peaceful assembly and demonstration are enshrined in our constitution, it is the right of every Ugandan. Exercise of those rights however must be done in such a manner that it does not infringe on the rights of others specifically their safety of life and property and their right to carry on their own activities. Under the Police act the police is mandated to ensure exactly that, anyone wishing to carry on an assembly, protest, walk is therefore required to inform police, agree on the route the protest will take and where the final assembly point will be, simple! If anyone would genuinely want to protest against high fuel and food prices all they would have to do is set the date, discuss with police the where and when, agree and hold the protest! These politicians know exactly how it works, but they are deliberately drawing the police into a confrontation by refusing to play by the rules. A good example was the Mabira Forest riots in 2007. Betty Anywar who was leading these protest, informed police, agreed on a route and was given the go ahead plus police protection to carry out the protest, half way through the protest she changed the route and tried to enter the downtown Kampala area knowing very well that that was likely to lead to a confrontation with the police which it did, never mind the rowdy mob that then proceeded to kill indians and loot people's shops. Like I said, these politicians are being disingenuous and deceptive, deliberately seeking confrontation with our police in order to provoke them into acts of aggression. Further several of the leaders of these protests are major players in the oil industry themselves, they have been major beneficiaries of the high fuel prices and know that riots and disruptions will only drive fuel prices (and therefore their profits) higher. If they really cared about fuel prices why are their petrol stations charging even higher prices than their competitors (compare Total Nsambya and Shell Kabalagala). It is only Nandala Mafabi who has started distributing some paraffin at his petrol station, and even then only if you have the required party membership card, the others should follow if they would like us to believe that they are sincere. Charity begins at home!

THE SECOND COMING

By William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round
at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

NOT FOR TOMORROW

A forwarded email i received

A friend  of mine opened his wife's underwear drawer and picked up a silk paper wrapped package:

 'This, - he said - isn't any ordinary package.'

He unwrapped the box and stared at both the silk paper and the box.

 'She got this the first time we went to New York , 8 or 9 years ago. She has never put it on , was saving it for a special occasion.

Well, I guess this is it.

He got near the bed and placed the gift box next to the other clothing he was taking to the funeral house, his wife had just died.

He turned to me and said:

'Never save something for a special occasion.

Every day in your life is a special occasion'.

I still think those words changed my life.

Now I read more and clean less.

 If it's worth seeing, listening or doing, I want to see, listen or do it now....
I sit on the porch without worrying about anything.

  I spend more time with 
  my family, and less at work.

  I understood that life should be a source of experience to be lived up to, not survived through.

  I no longer keep anything.

  I use crystal glasses every day...

  I'll wear new clothes to go to the supermarket, if I feel like it.

  I don't save my special perfume for special occasions, I use it whenever I want to.

  T he words 'Someday....' and ' One Day...' are fading away from my dictionary..;
 

I don't know what my friend's wife would have done if she knew she wouldn't be there the next morning, this nobody can tell..

  I think she might have called her relatives and closest friends.

  She might call old friends to make peace over past quarrels.

  I'd like to think she  would go out for Chinese, her favourite  food.

  It's these small things  that I would regret not doing, if I knew my time had come..

Each day, each hour,  each minute, is special.

  Live for today, for tomorrow is promised to no-one..

''WALKING TO WORK'' PEACEFULLY

Introduction -

I am one of those who would normally keep quiet in times of turmoil and conflict. Like many Christians I know, I will normally seek for a 'comfortable hideout' where I can watch events roll on from the safety of my burrow. However, this kind of Christianity is not what I believe the Lord has called me to. As events this year have continued to be more and more challenging in Uganda and the world, I believe the Lord expects Christians and especially the 'professional' Christians to stand out from the crowd and be relevant. The time for crossed arms across the chest and head shaking in disbelief as events roll by should, in my humble opinion come to an end. The more we keep quiet is the more we Christians continue to be criticised for being irrelevant. In any case I am reminded that ''– if you want to avoid criticism, say nothing be nothing do nothing – Elbert Hubbard (and yet even then you will be criticised – emphasis mine).“ Clearly, -'' a time comes when silence is betrayal" as stated by the executive committee of the 'Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam ( http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html ). Therefore, like the hot tong which the Seraphim in the Bible placed on Prophet Isaiah's mouth (Isaiah 6:6), or the vision of Jeremiah calling him to discard youthful fear and speak, ( Jeremiah 1:7) I add my voice now to those who, like me are concerned about the state of affairs in Uganda and the world.


In discussing below, I must start by declaring that that I am on the side of human rights and good governance - and as a christian and a lawyer, I am cogniscant of the various conflicts that are in my mind as i write this. As a researcher, I am also aware of the various 'truths' that can be found in this discourse. I am also aware that mine is just but one view- which i wish to share - and i welcome any contrary opinions hereafter -



The Issue -

It is upon this back ground that I wish to respectfully respond to our First Lady and our mother / sister in Christ, Hon. Mrs. Janet Kataha Museveni who was kind enough to challenge us Ugandans – and rightly so – by her opinion piece in the New Vision Newspaper. (http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/459/752193 ). (reproduced below) I wish to respond to a few of the comments she highlights which I think are pertinent.

A: 'Walk-to-work' (W2W) demonstration and the 'Opposition' nomenclature

The First Lady notes that the W2W is merely an attempt by the opposition to stay in the media. Whereas it might be true that the opposition seek to remain relevant by riding on any opportunity they can use as would be expected in any free and democratic society, it is unwise, not only to lump the opposition as one homogeneous group and even include all those Ugandans who support the walk to work. There are people like Betty T. Kamya who have stayed clear of and discouraged Ugandans from being a part of the W2W.

There are voices from the public and even within the ruling NRM party who concur that there is need for government intervention in the current financial hardships which the country is facing. http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1146624/-/c2oq3fz/-/index.html. These Ugandans would still hold this view, even if the First Lady has taken an essentialist approach to the opposition as only or mainly Dr. Besigye and the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). Some of these Ugandans have been walking to work, to church, to the mosque and to the market for various reasons and not necessarily to score political sympathies. Some might not even know that the brand W2W even exists today.

Others feel like identifying with this cause even though they might not make their actions publicly known or visible - and this is a right all the groups above should enjoy as provided for under Art.29(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995). That is why, the Dutch envoy Jeroen Verheul, has urged the Government to allow the opposition to express their views through demonstrations, and has criticised the manner in which the Police crackdown has been disproportionate in terms of the risks associated with the W2W''. http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/752354. He therefore has called on the government to 'relax on the opposition and allow legitimate demonstrations, freedom of speech and assembly to happen in Uganda.”

More crucially however, H.E The President stated that Dr. Besigye has no ulterior motives/plans and that he has discounted any intelligence reports which have insinuated this actually calling them rubbish. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI6-wVQbN7M&feature=player_embedded). It would therefore be fair to assume that apart from refusing to get police permission for walking (which in my view is not a 'demonstration' properly so - called). It can therefore be argued that Besigye as an individual only seeks to exercise his right to walk and to walk to work as guaranteed by Article 29(2) of the Constitution -other considerations not withstanding.

Therefore the subsequent Government message that the said W2W is intended to '' psychologically prepare the masses, especially the youth, for armed insurrection”, or that it is meant to '"provoke confrontation with the Police in order to portray the Government as brutal in its actions" and this could cause “disaffection and hatred and if not checked, can lead to negative political, social and economic consequences.” leaves alot to be explained. Why would the government go on to show its brutality if it is not brutal? Why would the government assume that disaffection does not already exist by itself due to the current economic hardships? Why would an economically or socially hard- up person seek to even make his condition worse? These reasons are unfortunately not convincing at all. One need not be in the 'opposition' in order to feel the pinch of the economic harships. Wole Soyinka said, "I don't care about the colour of the foot pressing my neck.--I just want to remove it."

' As stated earlier, even if Dr. Besigye or other opposition leaders like Nobert Mao, Cecilia Ogwal, Anne Mugisha,Olara Otunnu et al were absent from Uganda at this particular time or chose not to walk to work, there would still be politicians and citizens who will walk to work. So whereas we might castigate ''the opposition'' for being part of the Ugandans that are currently walking, the fact still remains that many more Ugandans are doing so( and have been doing so peacefully, without being provocative or provoking others – as envisaged in Article 43 of the Constitution.) Therefore there is no need to bribe people -some of whom have been walking even before the said fuel prices surged even further(as insinuated by the Government statement) to walk to work - how absurd would that be? Besides, how can the said ''organisers'' ever be able to know how many people are walking to work because they are demonstrating and those who are walking to work because they 'just want to do so' or 'always walk to work'? Insisting on knowing the 'size of the entourage' when there is none envisaged does not help. http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/752334

Let us not forget that this is not the first time Ugandans have walked. The mayhem after the Kenyans elections caught our Government flat-footed as the current situation. I recall many Ugandans walking to and from work because there was hardly any fuel. Ugandans even walked in bigger groups that we see today. They did not have to be mobilised to do so. They did not have to notify the police either. Therefore the assertions by the government statement are difficult to accept - indeed being able to show the nexus between walking and overthrowing the government ( beyond reasonable doubt as required by the law) will be such a herculian task for any state attorney- which probably explains the kind of charges that are currently being preferred against the 'disobedient'.

B: The Price of fuel and other commodities


The First Lady also argues that it is not the government that determines the prices of commodities, but rather the market forces of demand and supply'. http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/459/752193 She further notes the effect of drought and the global fuel prices on the market. However, this, in my view, does not absolve the government of its primary responsibility to us. The government was admittedly, insensitive and didn't gauge the mood of its citizens as the financial downturn continues to press hard on us.

This was not helped any bit by the rash statements of the Information Minister Kabakumba Masiko. It is reported that H.E. ''(T)he President reportedly took issue with the response given by Information Minister Kabakumba Masiko that the inflation was due to the forces of demand and supply and therefore it was beyond government control. It’s alleged that he described Kabakumba’s response as arrogant and insensitive to the population.'' http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/-/689844/1145674/-/peph5a/-/index.html .

These statements were not made any better by the news stories of the government taking '$740 million (about Shs1.7 trillion) worth of taxpayers’ money from Bank of Uganda to buy fighter jets and other military hardware from an unknown country 'http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1133504/-/c3ddrhz/-/index.html or the proposal to spend 4 billion shillings for the May 2011 swearing- in ceremony. http://allafrica.com/stories/201104130065.html, expenditures which are viewed as unwise and exorbitant in light of the current financial situation.

If the above is true, then it is possible that the government can make an intervention. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well. Rather, we should take the bull by the horns as governments all over the world -and even neighbouring Kenya- are doing by intervening in these dire circumstances.

As Yasin Mugerwa advises, ''without the government intervention, we don’t know how long this agonizing double-digit inflation is going to last.''As ''an interim measure, he argues, 'the government must deal with this inflation – before prices get out of control.'' http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1146494/-/c2orh5z/-/index.html .

Although the President says that the taxes on commodities like fuel are very small, some have argued that they are the comparatively the highest in the whole East African region yet countries intervening -even if slightly- on behalf of their citizens around the region and the world are very many. I submit that it is possible for government to do something – anything to alleviate the situation.


C: Government action or inaction?


Although the First lady ''agrees to a certain extent'' that ''the Government should be functioning better than it is'', she does not elucidate on this extent nor does she give reasons as to why this is so. She stops at wondering whether it is the '' calibre of our leaders on both sides of the political divide (sic) is many times a stumbling block rather than a stepping stone?'' This is left unaddressed which in my view should be the crux of her argument -

There are wide ranging reasons here;- lack of sensitivity to the people's plight as alluded to earlier by the President, inter and intra- party conflict, lack of political will, political interference, inter and intra- governmental conflicts, laxity of parliament, laxity in fighting corruption, bad governance, lack of accountability, non- adherence to procurement rules, poor ethical and moral standards, and others. http://www.huripec.mak.ac.ug/working_paper_20.pdf. Clearly, unless these matters are addressed steadfastly, the government will continuously be criticised for its laxity and this will always be a fertile ground for the opposition as would be expected in any democratically elected system.

Be that as it may, I do agree with the First Lady when she states that ''not everything depends on one being in the Government.'' This is certainly true and indeed fellow Ugandans, we do need to pull up our socks with regard to our own responsibilities to the nation especially when it comes to individual accountability in our jobs and family lives. We can discuss this more in another article. However, when the First Lady, asks what ''those who have made it their occupation to merely point fingers,'' are ''doing for the country'', I beg to submit that 'pointing figures as of itself is a great contribution' to the development of the country in the same way that police monitors and maintains law and order or the way the preacherman asks his congregation to repent of their sins.

Thus, classifying a criticism as negative and looking for tangible or other ''contributions'' as positive is ad hominem and misses the point. For example, when a doctor diagnoses a disease in a patient, such patient does not ask whether the doctor is taking care of him or herself too - No - It would be expected that the patient will take the medication in order to get better. Neither does a student set an exam for their teacher and grade it merely because the teacher has done the same.

This is where roles and responsibilities come into play. Obviously, this does not mean that there haven't been examples of ''practical and tangible examples'' of those who have been given the opportunity to serve their country – and done a good job. However that is beyond the scope of my submissions today. Besides, it is one thing to cite these examples, and another thing to grade their success or failure rate – which ends up as a subjective test depending on which side of the fence you depend on (not forgetting those like the cat in Animal farm who will sit on the fence itself).

In any case the Bible in I Corinthians 12:12 states that 'Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.'

It is therefore unwise to assume that those in government are working for their country, while those in opposition are not. In this spirit therefore, I say thank you to all those Ugandans, whether they are in government or not, who have served their country in various ways- be they as mothers, teachers, parents, nurses, soldiers, policemen, traffic warders, farmers, name it. Whereas by their very role, the opposition is a 'government-in-waiting- in any democratic state, that is an essentialist view of opposition.

There are those within the opposition who also oppose each other (I know am sounding academic here) and there are also those within the government who are also opposing certain actions of the government(A good example is Hon. Theodore Sekikuubo and Hon. Henry Banyenzaki). Like I stated earlier, there are those in other sectors of life who oppose certain things in and out of government – be it the family, education, health, religion etc. – they are all part of the society that envisages forces that tag against each other. Without these forces, we cannot have a discourse of society per se.

D: Way Forward for our Nation

The First Lady then 'echoes the words of ' John F. Kennedy, the former President of the United States, specifically for the opposition. However, taking her cue, when JFK said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?” he also said ''ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html.

In the same acceptance Speech, JFK said '' (T)o those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—...not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'' This is in my view self explanatory when put into the context of Uganda today. The call is not only on opposition, it is a call to government and the entire citizenry.

JFK did not stop at that, he further stated that '' civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.'' In our present case, this is is a direct call to the powers that be – I see nothing wrong with the police for example, escorting Dr. Besigye as he walks to his work place instead of refusing him outright.

Neither do I see anything wrong with Besigye participating in any negotiations regarding his safety and the safety of others. However, to merely blanket Besigye's right to walk-to-work as a precursor 'violence and chaos' and regime change while allowing other citizens to walk-to-work, is out rightly unfair and cannot be justified. In my opinion, it is such a far cry from reality. As a lawyer, I still fail to see how walking of itself contributes to 'violence' while I can recount numerous times where refusing one to exercise one's rights has indeed had the reverse effect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13112592.

It is like the Titanic avoiding the ice-berg only to ram hard into the main glacier or ice-shelf. As a Christian, I am reminded of the words of Jesus Christ when he was accosted for having people sing his praise during his entry into Jerusalem and his response was, "I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:39). I am aware that in quoting the Lord Jesus, one would easily ask whether I equate some leaders of the opposition to Jesus, which is obviously not my intention- rather, I seek to draw attention to the fact that when something is being said because it is true, no amount of pressure shall stop such truth from being uttered.

The First Lady concludes her missive by calling upon fellow Ugandans to '' recognise that we have come to a critical time in our nations history'' where '' (N)ow more than ever, we have the opportunity to determine our destiny.'' A good point which I agree with fully. Let us not go back to the days when rights and life were a dream. Let us not go back to the days when the barrel of the gun was the means of communication in all circumstances. Let us not go back to the days when dissent was answered by blood and iron. I do agree with the First Lady.

That is why I also wish to remind my readers that when President JFK called Americans to action in similar fashion, the country as Martin Luther King stated was 'taking the black young men who had been crippled by (their) society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in South-East Asia( Vietnam) which they had not in south-west Georgia and East Harlem (in USA).'' Thus black Americans were '' repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill(ed) and die(d) together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. (they watched)them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit (USA). (This is why Rev. Luther) could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.''( http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html ).

We can make comparisons today – where demonstrations are banned, taxes are unbearable and yet freedom to express discontent is refused. http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1145442/-/c2pgwsz/-/index.html. Thus leaving the individual between a rock and a hard place


In the same breathe, Martin Luther King Jr further noted …

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. In the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.


Similarly, even as our country moves towards the promised land, (a concept which I believe in as much as Boxer, the horse in the Orwellian Animal Farm believed in the concept of the sugar candy mountain but died miserably at the expense of those who benefited from his sweat), so too it is in the current situation: As Ugandans move towards the promised land, let us have due consideration for the input and rewards of all people.

Therefore, as the President starts yet another term of office, we should be gracious enough to admit like JFK that the government's plans ''will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But, he continues, ''let us begin." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html ). JFK further advises that '' Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free." (a)nd if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved. ‘(http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html ).


E: Conclusion


Therefore, addressing the current economic situation is very advisable and I would like to agree with some of the measures suggested by Yassin Mugerwa http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1146494/-/c2orh5z/-/index.html where he calls upon the Central Bank to take a more nuanced role and control prices to a manageable level, the easy use of money in the national treasury without parliamentary approval should be stopped http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1133504/-/c3ddrhz/-/index.html , illegal spending of tax payers money should be stopped, refurbish the fuel reserves, subsidise motorists and set exchange rates for importers (the import duty for rice stands at 75 per cent in Uganda, 35 per cent in Kenya and Tanzania (Zanzibar) at only 25 per cent.) http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1146494/-/c2orh5z/-/index.html

These are just but a few suggestions on what can be done. Indeed, we cannot just blame the situation on global events and wait for the oil from Bunyoro or the long term plan suggested by the government.http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/752334

So, as the ''Boxers'' of this day toil to make a living, it is the duty of our government to help alleviate this burden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm)

As for the rights of our fellow citizens, let the universal concepts of human rights as we know them today, apply across the board. http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/-/689844/1145664/-/peph4e/-/index.html. In the enjoyment of various rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICCPR and the Constitution of Uganda, let all people be allowed to co-exist and enjoy their freedoms – be it of movement, speech or otherwise. Let it not be said of Ugandans, that some cannot walk to work merely because they are politicians. Let it not be said of our nation that 'some are more equal than others' or that some are more innocent than others (Art.21 of the Constitution of Uganda- All people are equal before and under the law).

The Bible teaches in Galatians 3: 28 ' You are all sons of God … there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus … and heirs according to the promise'' (NIV). The US State Department also reminds us that 'freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are fundamental human rights and a critical component of modern, functioning democracies. We call on the Ugandan government to respect the opposition's right to express its viewpoints and citizens’ rights to demonstrate peacefully and without fear of intimidation.'' http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/04/160528.htm . This is because human rights are inherent and not granted by the state (Art. 20 of the Constitution of Uganda, 1995).

As the legal minds of our nation sit to consider the way forward, I hope they will ask these broad questions - why should the Police ban peaceful demonstrations? Is a demonstration to buildings, fields or trees a demonstration as envisaged by the Constitution? Can permission or notification to 'demonstrate' be allowed by the police well knowing that the demonstrations have been banned? Why insist that 'walking' is a 'demonstration' knowing full well that 'demonstrations' have specific characteristics to which walking does not fall? Can something surely be ''illegal because the organisers did not inform the Police about it or because the police is banned it?''?

Those questions do need answers – May the Good Lord help us answer them in truth and in fairness

God Bless you All
D.R.Ruhweza
Attorney and Lecturer-at- Law, Makerere University , Member, Uganda Christian Lawyers' Fraternity (UCLF)- These views do not necessarily represent those of the UCLF or its members-
….............................................

We shall not be derailed
Publication date: Friday, 15th April, 2011
By Janet K. Museveni

I find it hard to believe that one of our Presidential candidates in our recently concluded elections blames the high fuel costs on the Government as though Uganda is isolated from the global economic conditions.

It is even more perturbing that this same candidate during the elections was pinning the blame on the Government for the low commodity prices. I am sure this individual is well aware that it is not the Government that determines the prices of commodities, but rather the market forces of demand and supply.

Now that prices have gone up, Mr. Besigye sees this as a window of opportunity to draw attention once again to himself.

In Mr. Besigye’s interview of April 13, he states that his walk-to-work demonstration was harmless and was not in any way the political position of his party, Forum for Democratic Change.

It is amazing that the Monitor newspaper of April 11 was privy to the information that Mr. Besigye was planning to demonstrate and published the story, even before the event occurred. As Mr. Besigye left his home in his walk-to-work demonstration, lo and behold, there was the press waiting for him with cameras rolling. Mr. Besigye should not insult the Ugandan people by thinking that we fall for his poorly disguised ploys.

Many in the opposition criticise the way the Government operates, saying that it should be functioning better than it is. To a certain extent, I agree with this opinion, we can do much better. The question is, why aren’t we?

Could it be that the calibre of our leaders on both sides of the political divide is many times a stumbling block rather than a stepping stone?

For those who have made it their occupation to merely point fingers, I would like to ask: what are you doing for your country? One does not have to be in government to make a positive contribution to their country. From a passive observation, it seems to me that Mr. Besigye and his colleagues are very strong on the negative — criticising President Museveni and his government, and painfully low on the positive, actually providing a practical and tangible example for other people to follow. Surely, not everything depends on one being in the Government.

John F. Kennedy, the former President of the United States, once said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?” I would like to echo those words to the opposition. That apart from demonstrating, walking out of Parliament and spewing negativity on our radio airwaves, what good have you done for the Ugandan people?

The Movement Government, not withstanding its flaws and weaknesses, has a good track record. We can all testify to how far we have come as a nation over the years. We as Ugandans should cherish our stability and know that it is one of the keys to our progress. The tragedy in Africa is that once a nation has developed to a certain stage, there are some elements of the population who rise up to completely destroy and bring to naught all of the progress they have made up until that time. Everything is erased and they have to begin again from scratch. I submit to the Ugandan people that Mr. Besigye and his colleagues are of that spirit. Since they are not happy, because they failed to secure the people’s mandate in a general election, they would rather cause chaos and bring city life to a screeching halt. The alternative for them is their greatest fear, that Ugandans would realise that they are irrelevant and have nothing constructive to offer.

I appeal to Ugandans to recognise this walk-to-work demonstration for what it is — another pathetic attempt to remain in the media — which the opposition interprets as being relevant to the politics of this country.

Our elder statesman, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, once said: “Africa must run while the rest of the world walks.” This is so that we can catch up with the other countries that have enjoyed stability for centuries and thus managed to develop. We have just concluded a lengthy campaign and election process. Three months were gazetted for political candidates to make their case before the people. At the end of that time, the Ugandan people spoke through their vote. If you are a candidate and felt you lost because of any election irregularities, there are suitable avenues to address that. Mr. Besigye already forfeited that opportunity.

There are countries in the world that give a limited time for elections and campaigning. For example, Singapore, assigns only nine days during an election year, for campaigning and one day for voting. After those few days, it is back to work for the people and the transition for the government they have elected. Uganda, being a bigger country allotted more time to this process, but I feel that it is time for people to put politics aside and get back to work. Lord knows we have enough to do, so please let’s not waste any more time.

Regarding the high cost of commodities in the country, we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be ignorant of the situation. Uganda has not had sufficient rainfall for well over 7months. This has drastically affected the supply of food. As the supply went down, the price of food increased; the price of matooke has increased to sh15,000 from around sh8,000 last year. A kilogram of beans has increased to around sh4,000 from a mere sh1,500 last year. The price of a goat has risen from sh70,000 to sh100,000.

These are prices at the farm gate and so by the time the produce reaches the city it must be even higher. Although this is a negative situation for the consumers, farmers are making a profit.

The price of oil has gone up to the current $135 per barrel from about $70.

Thankfully, the rains are here now, and we pray that our harvest in August will be better. Some areas in the North eastern region have still not received sufficient rainfall and so the concern is greater than in other areas of Uganda. The government is working to introduce irrigation schemes especially in areas susceptible to long dry spells.

All through the campaigns the President made it clear to Ugandans that NAADS is a big priority for government, precisely because it deals with making households self sufficient and helps them even turn farming into a profitable business. The Government has invested heavily in NAADS to provide better quality of seeds and livestock to farmers with the goal to improving their productivity.

The Movement Government is moving forward with a plan that is consistent with the resources we have at hand.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the Ugandan people to recognise that we have come to a critical time in our nations history. Now more than ever, we have the opportunity to determine our destiny. In the book of Exodus in the Bible, we see the story of the Children of Israel being freed from bondage and going to the Promised land. Within their ranks there were certain individuals, that constantly kept trying to convince the Israelites that they should go back to Egypt. This led to many delays and unnecessary pain, finally God dealt with those characters and the Israelites continued to possess the Promised Land.

I feel there are many parallels to our experience as Ugandans. We have come out of the deep darkness of war and bondage. We are on our way to the Promised Land. It has not been an easy journey but by God’s grace we are making progress. Let us not listen to the voices that try to lead us back into violence and chaos, instead let us continue with faith to possess our own promised land.

God bless you all.

JANET K. MUSEVENI
The writer is the MP of
Ruhama County
http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/459/752193