Local election Observers have warned that the high handedness of Uganda Police and other security agencies against opposition politicians and the public could spark off election violence.

Yesterday police arrested more than 10 Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) officials including the presidential candidate Kizza Besigye, party chairman Wasswa Birigwa, party president Gen Mugisha Muntu, Acting chairperson Joyce Ssebugwawo, FDC women league leader Ingrid Turinawe among others together with other party flag bearers in different electoral positions.

Following the arrest of the FDC politicians, demonstrations erupted in different places around the city center including; Kiseka Market, Najanankumbi, Nateete, Wandegeya and Kawempe. Police and Military Police responded to the demonstrations by firing teargas and live ammunition to disperse the protestors. Media footage showed police brutality arrest people, directly spraying some with teargas.

Crispy Kaheru, the Executive Director Citizens' Coalition for Electoral Democracy Uganda (CCEDU) says during this critical time when the electoral emotions are high, police ought to restrain from being brutal and abusing the human rights of Ugandans as it may fuel electoral violence.

"I think they raise a lot more anxiety and potentially this is the time we should be seeing security agencies, police specifically taking more restrained measures in handling such situations not arrests. At this time you want to tamper the anxieties of people not to flare them. And for me the temptation is, such arrests could end up flaring up, could end up inciting the public which could act in irrational ways. We don’t want to see that", Kaheru said.

The African Police showing off its true colours on the African continent.

Police has been criticized locally and internationally for brutality and abuse of human rights in past by reports from Amnesty International, Uganda Human Rights Commission and other critical bodies.

Dr Martin Mwondha, the National Coordinator Citizens Election Observers Network-Uganda (CEON-U) says, the police despite its past record was expected to help achieve a free, fair and peaceful election which they have failed.

"Police intervention in blocking the movements of any citizen or any candidate is perceived as a big infringement on the rights of people. And that is what not we expect in an electoral process that is free and fair", Mwondha said.

However the deputy police spokesperson Polly Namaye says, they have practiced restraint from arresting people despite being pushed to the limits. Police has maintained that they have not arrested any politician during this election period but rather 'inconvenienced' the illegal activities of the politicians. Media reports and footage, however say otherwise.

"Those who are trying to announce themselves winners of the election at Najjanankumbi were inconvenienced and many of them were taken to their home aboard to ensure that they don’t continue with the press briefing that they were planning to do where they would announce themselves. But we also hope that they have learnt that you can not announce yourself an election winner when people are still voting.

And anyway there is only one instituion that is mandated to announce results - that is the Electoral Commission. When we see the assemblance of people burning tyres definitely we [would] arrest them but at  the moment, No, we have not arrested anybody who was involved in burning tyres and also those who are attempting to burn the [police] vehicle but we hope they don’t do it", Namaye said.

  The EC in Uganda is promising to declare a military coup in Uganda as the National General Elections get near:

Dr Badru Kiggundu

the EC.



Posted  Thursday, December 17   2015 

The Electoral Commission (EC) Chairman, Dr Badru Kiggundu has said he will, on request by the government, authorise the deployment of the military to counter presidential candidate Dr Kizza Besigye’s defiance campaign.

“If the military is called to come in, I will approve. Yes, the military is part of Uganda; they are your brothers…” Dr Kiggundu said on Thursday.

Shortly after nomination for his fourth presidential bid, Dr Besigye declared “a campaign of defiance and not compliance” that will enable citizens “take back their power” from a dictatorship.

On Monday, FDC Wasswa Birigwa at the party headquarters in Najjanakubi, a Kampala suburb said: “Our campaign is standing on four legs; defiance, liberation, restructuring of state institutions and social-economic transformation... In particular what we mean by defiance is we shall not accept to adhere to any directive that is unlawful or any law that deviates from the universal human rights,”

But Dr Kiggundu said yesterday at the Uganda Human Rights Commission public dialogue held in Kampala aimed at facilitating a peaceful and violence-free electoral process, that such messages are inciting violence and only preparing the masses for violence if Dr Besigye loses.

Dr Kiggundu further attacked Dr Besigye describing “him as bad example to his youthful followers” and urged his supporters to first ask him [Besigye] why they should be on the frontline yet his family is “enjoying burgers” in foreign countries.

“If I were a young person, I would ask [Dr Besigye] where your son is in this campaign. In most times, they are in New York, London and elsewhere enjoying cheese burgers…” Dr Kiggundu said.

Dr Besigye could not be reached for a comment as his known telephone was unavailable but Forum for Democratic Change spokesperson, Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, said in reaction to the comments: “Should [Dr] Kiggundu participate in rigging or allow the NRM to rig or announce a loser [as winner] our response is there with or without the military,” Mr Nganda, told the Daily Monitor by telephone yesterday.

Adding, “Did Museveni go with his family to the bush? For him to think that a revolution must happen when Anselm Besigye [Besigye’s son] is here… I do not understand why he [Dr Kiggundu] went to school,”

In an interview at the sidelines of the dialogue, Chief Political Commissar of the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) Col Felix Kulaigye, said the military will “support the Uganda Police Force when it is required” during the electoral process.

“Failure to protect and sustain peace in this country will be our [UPDF] failure and if people are announcing defiance, can we seat in our comfort barracks and watch?” Col Kulayigye asked.

Human rights lawyer, Nicolas Opiyo said by the EC boss calling in the intervention of the military, it is an indication that either the elections will not be free and fair or there will be violence thereafter.

“Mr Kiggundu seems to have no confidence in police and expects violence. He should instead make the election free and fair to avoid violence,” Mr Opiyo said, adding that attacks on candidates’ families are despicable.

Deputy attorney general, Mwesigwa Rukutana at the same event warned the media from inciting the public and urged all stakeholders to make the elections free, fair and peaceful.




Ekibiina kyobufuzi ekya Kabaka Yekka, UPC y’ Obote Ekiwera:

Obote yekyusiza abaamutuusa!



Mu mwaka 1965, Omubaka we kibiina kya KY Daudi Ocheng, yayisa ekiteeso kunsonga yokukusa zaabu we Congo namasanga g’enjovu, okubitunda munsi zebweru.

Dr Obote, nga Prime Minister, ne Minister Nekyon muganda wa Obote ne Onama Minister wa Defence bebatekebwa ko olunnwe nga bwebenyigira mulukwe luno.

Era Ocheng yaleeta ekiteeso ekirala, Colonel Amin okugira ng’awummuzibwako weeks bbiri nga Gavumenti bw’ebuuliriza.

Gwo omukago gwebyobufuzi wakati we kibiina kyo bufuzi ekya KY ne kibiina kyo bufuzi ekya UPC gwafiira ddala mu September 1964. Era 1965 gugenda okutuuka nga bangi ababaka ba UPC mu National Assembly (Parliament) bateesa kulaba nga bawera ekibiina kya Kabaka Yekka. Baakiyita kya bakyewaggula abatagoberera mateeka era abaagala okutabulatabula eddembe mu Uganda.

Abantu bangi baali bakwatiddwa era nga bali mu nkomyo na ddala e Luzira.

Obote yatekawo akakiiko kabulirize ku bya zaabu n’amasanga era abantu bangi ko baawa obujulirwa mu kakiiko ako, ebyama bingi ku kufuna n’okutunda zaabu n’amasanga ne bibikkulwa.

Naye report y’akakiiko bwe yaggwa Obote teyagifulumya! Parliement ye, Cabinet ye nabawagizi bangi aba UPC nebamuggyamu obwesige.

Yali asigazza kwesiga b’amagye bokka. Okuyimiriza Col. Amin yakigaana nakuza Amin mukifo kya Brigadier Opoloto. Mukuteesa kwa Cabinet okwaddako Obote yagenda kukwatta ba Minister be batano nabasibira e Luzira Criminal Prison.


Attorney General Peter Nyombi has scoffed at the Uganda Law Society, after the body threatened to boycott today's ceremonies to open the law year.

In a letter on Wednesday, ULS President Ruth Sebatindira urged lawyers to boycott the function in protest at President Museveni's failure to appoint a chief justice and deputy chief justice. But a defiant Nyombi told us on Wednesday that the function would go ahead with or without lawyers.

"Those who want to come will come; those who want to stay away, let them stay away but we shall go ahead with the function," Nyombi said.

Justice Steven Kavuma, who is acting both as chief justice and deputy chief justice, will preside at the ceremony at the High court in Kampala. The new law year is an annual meeting at which the judiciary states what it achieved the previous year and its targets in the new year. In the letter, Sebatindira decried the lack of substantive leadership in the judiciary.

"[It is my belief that we have to adopt a different approach as to how we support the judiciary on this matter."

At meeting in April 2014, Museveni told ULS that the positions would be filled once the constitutional petition challenging the reappointment of Benjamin Odoki as chief justice upon retirement was determined. Four months after that petition was disposed of, the president is yet to act.

Asked about the lack of a substantive chief justice, Nyombi said: "There is already an acting chief justice [Kavuma] who can perform all the functions."

However, Sebatindira says that the judiciary is being run ìunder scandalousî circumstances.

"We can no longer walk with our heads high to assure the citizenry that all is well in the judiciary because, all is not well," she said.

Nicholas Opiyo, a former ULS secretary general, told The Observer that like last year, he would not attend the function to be presided over by Kavuma.

"I respect Justice Kavuma as a judge but I cannot call him the deputy chief justice or the chief justice because it is illegal as the Constitutional court ruled," he said.

Kavuma told The Observer he was too busy to comment on Sebatindira's letter.



 The British Judge Allen

P J Allen and his judiciary at the time demonstrate the high quality of the judiciary at the time.
Judge Allen and Judge Manyindo presided over  the trials of most of the Amin era criminals. A majority of these criminals hired the best lawyers available in Uganda at the time, which invariably was Ayigihugu. Some like Abdallah Nasur were convicted but a good number were acquitted because of lack of direct evidence. Others like Edward Mulindwa even managed to lie low for a while before escaping to foreign lands.

 I hope your mate WBK does not judge those of us who participated in prosecuting these Amin era criminals as failures, in the same manner that he has judged the ICC prosecutors. Prosecutors are supposed to present the facts before the courts that can convince a court that an accused is quilty. In this, it has to work very closely with the Investigatory authorities, namely the police and law enforcement. In the case of the Amin criminals, the police did not give us enough information from their investigations that would allow a conviction to be  upheld.
It was particulalrly disappointing in the case of Bob Astles in whose case, the judge found he was always around the major killings we charged him with, especially the murders of Archbishop Luwum and Minister's Erinayo Oryema and Oboth-Ofumbi, but we could not connect him directly to the killings. With advance in DNA science these days and coupled with Edward Mulindwa's recent confessions about complicity in the murders, I think a good prosecutor would today nail Edward Mulindwa without doubt. What WBK does not understand, from your debates which I have followed,  is that the ICC prosecutors can only be good as the investigations put before it. The Satatute of the ICC puts a duty on Satte Authorities to cooperate with the ICC in investigating cases referred to it. if a state refuses, objects or even thwarts the invesigations, the direct result is that the Presecutors will not have serficient evidence to obtain a conviction. So Mensouda and her team have so far failed in their prosecution of Jomo Kenyatta, but this is because of the failure of GoK to cooperate in investigations. It is not because Mensouda and her team are bad lawyers as WBK keeps asserting. In fact the evidnce that they had gathered against Jomo Kenyatta was so compelling that any prosecutor would make a decision to prosecute. But faced with alkmost all key or material witnesses withdrawing or disappeared or intimidated, Mensouda had no choice but to withdraw the case.

The first important hurdle, that is the establishment of the International Criminal Court, has now been successfully overcome. States party to the Rome Treaty now have to decide ways and means by which they can strengthen the ICC's Investigatory capacity and authority, especially in cases where a suspect or accused  holds or is close to power. The UN Security Council has to give the Prosecutor extra-ordinary powers to investigatewith or without the cooperation of the State concerned. Th UN must also strengthen its Witness protection programme. Lastly, the Security Council must reserve to itself power to punish leaders, like Jomo Kenyatta and Omar Bashir who refuse to cooperate with the ICC investigations. This may mean imposing travel bans, arrest warrants and other other economic sanctions against them so that they the continue to swagger around like Jomo Kenyatta whn in fact they should be locked up in prison as dangerous criminals. 
Written by 
George Okello
Reviews by experts and politicians of the country’s eight-year experiment with multiparty politics have found cracks. Loud voices advocating a return to the no-party Movement system, are beginning to emerge.

Some political players claim the wrangling within the ruling NRM in the aftermath of the sacking of former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi is not good for the growth of multiparty democracy.

“NRM belongs to people who are faceless; until you step on their toes,  that’s when you will get to know who are the real owners of that party,” opposition Chief Whip Cecilia Ogwal (Dokolo Woman) said in a recent interview.

NRM has been accused of using its Parliamentary caucus to gag its members and subsequently killing free debate and parliamentary independence.

Kyankwazi retreat

During its 2013 retreat at Kyankwanzi, NRM MPs adopted a set of rules of procedure, criticized by political commentators as intended to gag the NRM MPs. The development followed a sharp disagreement between Parliament and Museveni over the mysterious death of former Butaleja MP Cerinah Nebanda in 2012.

“There have been initiatives by the opposition to keep the government in check but they could not go far because the NRM caucus sees them [initiatives] as adversarial manoeuvres,” said Hippo Twebaze, a political and policy analyst.

“If you take the Nebanda case and the oil debate in the first one and half years of the [current] Parliament, you would see some sort of legislative independence, but it has since gone down,” Twebaze adds.

In its rules of procedure, the NRM caucus adopted a three-line whipping system, which gives a strict instruction to members to attend parliament and vote in a particular way. Any MP who acts in breach of the rules is liable to punitive action, including expulsion from the party.

Four MPs; Theodore Ssekikubo (Lwemiyaga), Wilfred Niwagaba (Ndorwa East), Muhammad Nsereko (Kampala Central) and Barnabas Tinkasiimire (Buyaga West) were the first offenders.

“Some political party leaders want to control the thinking and the speaking of their members; this is worse with the ruling party,” said Niwagaba in an interview.

Although the quartet still hold their parliamentary seats, their expulsion scared many of their outspoken colleagues on the government side into shutting up.

“It is wrong for one to imagine that under a multi-party system, one shouldn’t hold their independent views,” Ssekikubo said.

“I don’t think that multipartyism is synonymous with gagging; under whatever political system in place, as long as I am an MP and not a member of the executive, I should be at liberty to voice the concerns of my people,” Ssekikubo added.

Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga used the 25th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association seminar in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in May 2014, to vent her frustration at the ruling NRM government’s mode of operation. During the meeting, Kadaga claimed that debate in Parliament had been stifled because NRM MPs cannot freely speak without receiving instructions from the caucus.

Kadaga is NRM’s second national vice chairperson, and also a member of the ruling central executive committee, CEC, the second topmost decision- making organ of NRM. The caucus’ vice chairman David Bahati (Ndorwa West) said in an interview that despite the challenge of balancing NRM interests and individual interests of its members, the caucus encourages free speech.

“There is a lot of freedom for MPs to speak as long as what they say is in the interest of the country and in line with the party they represent,” Bahati said.

“They [MPs] can speak their mind constructively during the caucus meetings and rally their colleagues to support their positions which can eventually become the position of the party,” he added.


In a dissertation, Parliamentary Independence in Uganda and Kenya, 1962 – 2008, written for the State University of New York for his PhD in Political Science, John K. Johnson, notes that the absence of political parties in Uganda facilitated parliamentary independence during the sixth Parliament (1996 – 2001).

The independence was attributed to the absence of a government and opposition side in Parliament, which made it easier for MPs to support a position favourable to Parliament against the executive. According to Twebaze, the high degree of independence exhibited in the sixth Parliament was an eye-opener for President Museveni to start interfering with Parliament’s autonomy.

“The president’s interference shaped the performance of the next parliaments, some MPs were de-campaigned [in the 2001 elections] and in effect, the seventh Parliament did not confront the [executive],” said Twebaze.

“In its first year, the seventh Parliament tried but then conceded to the president on major issues like the removal of term limits from the Constitution,” Twebaze added.

With the restoration of multiparty politics in 2006 that saw the NRM winning more than a two-thirds majority both in the eighth and ninth Parliaments, Museveni’s influence over Parliament grew, resulting in a decline of its independence.

“The current government is president-driven, Parliament cannot act normally because Museveni is using the NRM caucus to entrench his interests, he has a lot of control over every activity of Parliament,” said Cecilia Ogwal.

Movement hangover

Joseph Balikuddembe Mutebi (Busiro South) relishes the days of the Movement system era when all MPs would freely contribute to debate in the House.

“Virtually, Parliament has lost its independence because caucusing has become the norm unlike the core function of Parliament elaborated in Article 79 of the Constitution,” Mutebi argued.

In their book, The Rise and Ebb of Uganda’s Parliament, Twebaze and Nelson Kasfir note that the absence of parties was an important factor in the success of Parliament. But the pace of legislative development “ebbed” once the country formally legalized multiparty politics and the boundaries between government and opposition were more firmly drawn.

An NRM MP who has been a lawmaker from the sixth Parliament, blames the loss of parliamentary independence on the MPs’ choice of patronage over their roles.

“It is forestalling the cardinal principle of Parliament, acting as a check and balance especially on the executive arm of government,” Niwagaba said.

“There is a tendency of those in leadership to fuse the executive with parliament and in a way whittle down the cardinal roles of MPs,” Niwagaba added.

But Stephen Tashobya, the chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee, said much as the country embraced multiparty democracy, some MPs are still nursing a Movement hangover.

“Some want to talk on their individual merit, what you think is what you say, things have changed and this was a choice of Ugandans [that we adopt multi-party democracy], you can’t eat your cake and have it,” Tashobya said.

One-party system

Tashobya relates the workings of the NRM to Britain’s Conservative party that he says whips its members in more or less the same way as NRM does.

“You can’t run away from the party, because we are elected on the basis of party positions and platform; so, when we come to Parliament, we are supposed to actualize, to implement what the government promised the people,” Tashobya argued.

To enforce discipline among their members, other political parties also have an option of expulsion. UPC took the lead at the opening of the political space in 2005 when it expelled seven MPs: Ogwal, Omara Atubo (Otuke), Dr Okullo Epak (Oyam South), Dr Alex Okot (Moroto), Charles Angiro Gutomoi (Erute North), Tom Odur Anang (Kwania) and B’Leo Ojok (Kioga) who were opposed to the leadership of new president, Miria Kalule Obote.

FDC in 2010 expelled two of its MPs; Beti Kamya (Lubaga North) and Alex Onzima (Maracha). Kamya was punished for forming a rival political party (Uganda Federal Alliance) while Onzima’s charge was hobnobbing with NRM. Ogwal, now an FDC MP, argues that despite the expulsions, her party MPs are free to speak their mind.

Article 8(d) of the DP constitution also lists expulsion as a punitive measure against its members but like other opposition parties, DP is not keen on doggedly controlling what its members speak. DP Legal Advisor Fred Mukasa Mbidde said DP is keener on shielding its members from the long arm of NRM influence.

“[NRM] has silenced all the other [parties]…,” Mbidde said.

“Multiparty democracy has not been given a chance to operate in Uganda, what exists is a single party; a dictablanda or democradura [dictatorship] but not a democracy,” Mbidde argued.

Beside party controls, Twebaze argued, Parliament’s performance is also undermined by the financial status of the MPs as well as the quality of people elected to Parliament.

“The quality and experience of the MPs needs to be considered. Look at where they jumped from to join Parliament, it makes it hard for them to build coalitions to oppose, modify or give an alternative to government proposals,” Twebaze says.



This article was produced with support from the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME)

UPC founder Milton Obote

The term movement legacy was first coined by professor emeritus, Goran Hyden in 2011, and by it I mean a pattern of political behavior that characterized anti-colonial nationalist movements in their struggles for independence.

Half a century since most countries gained independence, this form of behavior continues to shape ruling- and opposition party politics in Africa and Uganda, while frustrating the prospects for deepening democracy.


Nationalist movements in Uganda were spearheaded by three main sections: World War II veterans, a small not so well-educated elite class of clerical workers, and leaders of a nascent civil society.  These groups were united by a single but multi-faceted cause, namely to vanquish the colonial masters and take charge of the state apparatus.

Other than this mission, these groups remained committed to their particular identities. The issues were varied and subordinate to the cause. The anti-colonial movements adopted a simple but important strategy of popular mobilization for the cause. It was rare and in most cases illegal to campaign.

Most notably the movement against the British took place at the level of society because there were no representative bodies such as parliaments or legislative councils until much later in the struggle.  Membership to these movements was rather diffuse and fluid, but because there was a single movement, this was not detrimental to its dynamic and operation.

Typically anti-colonial movements reified the person of the leader, and were not built on competition. The latter was not necessary because of the consensus that was built around the anti-colonial struggle and the proclivity to lean toward personalities rather than structure and organization.  Finally, social movements seldom value or subject themselves to formal (legal) limits to resource claims.

Political parties (DP, UPC, etc) that emerged out of these movements and are yet to shed their movement skins or disavow movement political behavior.  First, a cursory look at post-independence Ugandan politics demonstrates how parties are driven by “a cause” rather than a systematic articulation of specific issues.

Among Uganda’s opposition parties today the cause is ‘remove Museveni’ or ‘reform the Electoral Commission’ or ‘de-couple the state from the NRM-O’. Rarely does a discourse on issues take precedence over the cause de jour.

This is partly a consequence of the absence of ideological orientation among the parties; and without ideology, it’s hard to project a coherent, well-reasoned set of issues that would drive a campaign and thus enable ascendancy into government.  But lack of ideology also raises another key issue inherited from the pre-colonial movements, namely the lack of specific party identity.

Affiliation to the parties is diffuse just as was the case with pre-colonial social movements. In Uganda’s early history, this characteristic was the underpinning to the frequent crossing of the floor of parliament by MPs.

Today, the phenomenon of so-called Independents in parliament is the closest to crossing the floor, given that the process of abandoning one’s party in midway through the terms is outside the law. Not unlike the opposition parties, the ruling NRM party seldom articulates issues in a systematic manner except in the run-up to elections, when roads or business parks are commissioned, banks rebranded, job centers set up, etc.

The cause for the movement party in this case has changed over time but lately it has become an entrenchment project; and the intensity of party loyalty and identity with the NRM is also subject to debate.


Second, parties, both incumbent and in the opposition, typically mobilize, rather than campaign. It’s, indeed, hard to campaign effectively if issues are not the main elements undergirding the methods of political operation.

Related to this point is that mobilization, by definition, circumscribes competition, which explains why it is a dying breed in Uganda.  In their mobilization schemes, Africa’s political organizations, most notably incumbent parties aim at co-opting and/or marginalizing political contestants while eschewing competition.

President Museveni often disparages opposition parties and chides voters who don’t elect NRM flag bearers as having made mistakes. For him, the weaker the opposition the better; or better still he wishes they didn’t exist at all. Clearly the president places very little value in opposition parties as building blocks of a healthy, vibrant and deepening democracy.

The result is the emergence of a dominant (even hegemonic) movement party system in Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Eritrea, Rwanda, etc.

Thirdly, Ugandan parties are extremely personalistic. Their organizations and structures are weak not unlike their social movement forebears. As a result, when Col Kizza Besigye stepped aside, the FDC suffered a heart attack with the left ventricle (or Mafabi wing) disconnecting from the right ventricle (or Mugisha Muntu/Alaso faction).

The Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) has not recovered from the demise of its founders especially Dr Milton Obote. It too is fragmented along several quite visible fault lines.  Can anyone think about/imagine the NRM without Yoweri Museveni? Or ZANU-PF without Mugabe or the Rwandan Patriotic Front without Kagame? What is particularly intriguing in making this observation is that leaders deliberately encourage these personality cult-like tendencies.

Fourthly, in their bid to fulfill the cause, social movements are not restrained by law especially as they lay claim to resources. This piece of the movement legacy is also undoubtedly clear in Uganda. Rule of law is not appreciated in principle but, rather, in instrumentalist terms, i.e. it’s respected only when it is convenient and expedient.

The implication of this is that rules and norms governing parties may be altered without reference to their significance; and constitutional engineering becomes common practice. Some laws may be passed without quorum while constitutions may be altered to, for example, remove presidential term limits. On the opposition side, we have recently seen DP president Mao appealing to the likes of Erias Lukwago and other factions to respect party structures and rules as they vie for leadership positions.

Finally, movements operate at the level of society as pointed out above. This characteristic is even more pronounced in Uganda and in Africa as a whole because culturally we operate at a very informal (rather than formal) level.

Unlike typical parties whose arena of operation is primarily parliament, movement focus and influence is mostly limited to the (civil) societal level. It is this variable that best explains the use of patronage as a mobilization tool.

Agents in society quickly take on the role of clients while those in power and with access to state resources become patrons. The resulting patron-clientelist networks inevitably breed corruption and erode the mechanisms of accountability and transparency.


To the extent that the ‘movement legacy’ is a historically determined, genetic flaw in the make-up of African parties, it stands to reason that for now it matters not which party takes power. Clearly there is a need for a mutation of sorts if party behavior is to change.

And change must begin with efforts towards institutionalization of political parties and of politics in general. In its present form, democracy on the continent precariously revolves around the holding of regular elections and clearly this is not enough. Competition must be encouraged, political spaces expanded and rule of law strengthened.

The emergence of issue-based politics, political transparency and accountability represent other milestones on the road toward a deeper democratic dispensation.

The author is a professor of Political Science at Roanoke College, Virginia, USA.

The new Chief Judge of the NRM Judiciary Mr Katureebe has asked for a list of corrupt judges that grace the Resistance Movement judiciary institution:

Chief Justice Bart Katureebe.

Chief Justice Bart Katureebe.

PHOTO BY Michael Kakumirizi


Posted  Saturday, May 2  2015
Following prevalent outcry over rampant corruption among judges and magistrates, the Chief Justice Bart Katureebe has launched an anti-corruption crackdown to restore public confidence in Judiciary.

Justice Katureebe has also written to retired Supreme Court judge George Kanyeihamba and senior lawyer Peter Mulira to forward to him names of corrupt judges and other judicial officers they have been referring to during public functions.

The campaign to crack down on corruption in the Judiciary was launched on Thursday, according to a press statement from the Judiciary public relations office. The statement quotes Justice Katureebe warning that no judicial official or support staff will be spared of investigations once they are implicated.

The Chief Justice wrote to Justice Kanyeihamba, Mr Peter Mulira and Presidential Press Secretary Tamale Mirundi, asking them to name the corrupt judicial officers they have been talking about.

“We need to move and tackle issues of alleged corruption in the Judiciary…furnish me with the evidence in your possession so that the necessary course of action is taken in accordance with the law and the constitution,” Justice Katureebe wrote to the three individuals.

“All responsible citizens of our country should not only speak out about the perceived malpractice in the Judiciary, but should come out and help in finding a solution to the problem. Let us work together to improve and strengthen the administration of justice in our country,” Justice Katureebe added.

The press statement signed by senior communications officer Solomon Muyita said the Judiciary has prepared a series of public engagements with civic leaders and the public to partly keep open lines of communication and to explain the functions of the Judiciary and the courts at the different levels.

The statement said a number of reforms will be made to clean up the Judiciary. The reforms include assigning a Supreme Court judge to head the Inspectorate of Courts, a section of Judiciary that inspects courts and deals with corruption issues, which is currently headed by a deputy registrar of the High Court.

The statement further said the Judiciary has started a process of setting up a customer care telephone numbers and feedback hotlines for the public to make general inquiries and also report errant court staff who demand bribes from the litigants.

Justice Katureebe said once a prima facie (credible) case has been established against a judicial officer, his/her name will be forwarded to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for disciplinary action and the evidence and decisions will be shared with the public.

He, however, cautioned the public not to equate wrong court decisions, which can be appealed, to corruption.

During a public function last week, the Principal Judge Yorokamu Bamwine, urged the Chief Justice to approach Justice Kanyeihamba and Mr Mulira to give him names of the judicial officers they had claiming are corrupt so that they can be dealt with accordingly.

Justice Bamwine explained that by naming the corrupt judicial officers, it will save the judicial staff from the collective sin of the “Adam and Eve” style.

“I hope I speak for a number of my colleagues on this point, Lord Chief Justice when I propose that you get better particulars from lawyers like Mulira and Prof Kanyeihamba and take appropriate action through the JSC and the President so that the sheep are separated from the goats in order to protect the integrity of those doing an excellent job. All judicial staff should not suffer collective sin like the descendants of Adam and Eve,” Justice Bamwine told the Chief Justice.

Addressing lawyers in Entebbe two weeks ago, Justice Kanyeihamba said he knew at least half a dozen of Ugandan judges who receive ‘enkoko’ (a reference for bribes) and castigated the Uganda Law Society for not taking action about them. However, he did not name the corrupt judges.

On Thursday, Prof Kanyeihamba said he was “very ready” to name the corrupt judges he had been referring to if the Chief Justice contacted him.

The Judiciary has been ranked one of the most corrupt government institutions in various corruption surveillance surveys.




EC warns against personal attacks

Electoral Commission chairman Badru Kiggundu (L) speaks at the National Consultative Forum in Arua District.




Posted  Monday, May 25  2015 

Arua. The chairperson of the Electoral Commission (EC) has warned all those seeking office in the 2016 general elections to desist from the politics of character assassination.

Mr Badru Kiggundu asked the politicians to pursue issue-based campaigns that promote democracy.

“I have always said we are still young in democracy because there is still character assassination versus issue- based campaigns. Talk about issues. What has character got to do with campaigns? God created people in different ways. Let us chase issues not personalities,” Mr Kiggundu said.

He was speaking at the National Consultative Forum meeting held in Arua Town on Thursday. Mr Kiggundu said the concept of multiparty politics is not yet well understood and appreciated by citizens as well as leaders. He, however, painted a rosy picture for the future.

“There is no country that has had perfect elections but we aim to get there someday. As human beings, we make some mistakes. Even countries such as the United States of America that have practiced democracy for long still make mistakes during elections,” he said.

West Nile sub-region has in the past elections seen candidates contesting for political office at various levels use strategies such as nick-naming, mudslinging and composing songs with messages that cast their opponents in bad taste.

However, Mr Kiggundu appealed to politicians to be tolerant of one another irrespective of tribe, religion and political affiliation during campaigns.

The former presidential candidate, Dr Abed Bwanika, said there was a need for national dialogue involving all political parties as a way of championing the growth of democracy.

Mr Titia Kamure, the UPC national vice chairperson, said there is a need for electoral reforms ahead of the next general election in 2016.


Since independence, Uganda has had few elections. These include; the Legislative Council of 1958, the referendum of 1961, and general elections in 1980, 1996, 2006 and 2011.





This gentleman

(Politician) running Political Movement Democratic Elections in the young country of Uganda is indeed God sent! 

In Uganda, Banks have denied being behind mobile money increased taxation:

July 5, 2018

Written by URN

Banks have disassociated themselves from the hugely unpopular mobile money tax that has caused so much outrage among Ugandans. 
Government, starting July 1 slapped a one percent tax on all mobile money transactions including on deposits, withdrawals, sending and receiving. At several discussion forums, it has been suggested that the banks are behind the new tax so as to force Ugandans back into banking halls that they'd left in favour of the cheaper and more convenient mobile money stalls. 
However, Uganda Bankers Association (UBA) chief executive officer, Wilbrod Owor says they, too, have heard about that accusation, but are surprised because the banks have made their position against the new mobile money tax way before it even came into effect last Sunday at the start of the 2018/19 financial year. 
Uganda Customers  processing their accounts inside a bank
 Owor said as banks, they are for financial inclusion and the new mobile money tax risks eroding the great strides that Uganda made towards financial inclusion. He said banks are together with the telecom companies in supporting financial inclusion. 
He added that banks cannot be against mobile money, as the technology has in fact and in effect, brought more people into the banking and transactions fold. According to ministry of Finance, mobile money transactions hadve reached Shs 62 trillion - nearly 50 per cent of Uganda's growth domestic product (GDP).
"First of all, the banks and the telecoms are partners in the financial sector. The telecoms provide us [banks] with very important infrastructure to enable us deliver the banking services. We ride on telecom infrastructure - so we’re partners on that front.
The second one and most important is the subject of financial inclusion - the various forms of services and payment channels that the telecoms have assisted in bringing forward across countries including ours like mobile money is very well. We support it, we like it. Remember all mobile money transactions are [carried out] in account called the float account." he said. 
"I want to be very categorical that we are together in supporting financial inclusion. And therefore taxes that risk constraining and making services mobile money or banking or otherwise constrain financial inclusion. We risk reversing the gains we’re making as a country in bringing more people into the formal financial system. We’ve made these views very clear." added Owor.
Owor said although the banks' views against the taxes have not been made public before, they have had several engagements with the state authorities and advised against such taxes that risk crippling the economy. 
"The Uganda Bankers Association is privileged to sit with governor [Bank of Uganda], has audience with the [Finance] minister [and] sometimes we do not have to shout out everything in the media because we believe we can dialogue and make a point across on the impact of certain things in the economy. So we’re together on this matter that taxes risk reversing the gain we’ve made in financial inclusion because we have reached more people with these technologies." he said. 
After introduction of mobile money taxes, many Ugandans expressed displeasure, vowing to return to banks. And many mobile money agents are already crying out, reporting reduction in customer numbers. Asked whether banks will benefit from the taxes by getting more customers, Owor said banks and telecom companies are partners in the financial sector.
He argued that both banks and telecommunication companies are behind collection of taxes which will develop the country.
"I have heard that question that perhaps banks are behind it. We’re not, we’re behind collection of taxes to develop the country which am sure each one of you is, including the telecoms and each one of you. We want the country to develop but we are not in any way associated with pointing here and where saying tax this in favour of this. We speak together with the telecoms on this." he added. 

Stanbic bank Uganda, CEO Patrick Mweheire said Ugandans should sympathise with government which is trying to increase tax collection in a largely informal economy.
Anyone placed in the position of Finance minister, Mweheire argued, can easily slap more taxes on mobile money because there are more than 20 million Ugandans with mobile phones compared to about 6 million Ugandans with bank accounts.
Mweheire said large tax payers have been overtaxed and government is now looking for way to bring more people under the tax pyramid.
Mweheire and Owor made the remarks while responding to questions from journalists during a presser announcing this year's bankers' conference.
Themed "fiscal sector stability: managing risks in a growing and fast changing environment," the conference will take place on July 17 at Serena hotel.


One calls it a double edged sword. It cuts both ways. This long term Government has been busy sorting out foreign aid  left, right and centre and the banks have been keeping quiet about it. Now that it is the National Tax revenue lining up to be squandered well then what is all the screaming about?






The Bank of Uganda officials are cooking books to upgrade the country's national economy:


Dr Louis Kasekende and DR Kisamba-Mugerwa


Dr Louis Kasekende and DR Kisamba-Mugerwa

By Yasin Mugerwa

Kampala. The deputy governor of Bank of Uganda, Mr Louis Kasekende and the National Planning Authority (NPA) chairman, Dr Wilberforce Kisamba-Mugerwa, have traded contradicting verdicts on the status of the economy and the progress on the quest for a middle-income country by 2020. Dr Kasekende, who has been accused by some MPs and independent analysts of “telling lies” about the economy and “vending unrealistic figures” delivered an upbeat economic forecast, putting Uganda’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the last six months of 2017 at 6.9 per cent.

Mr Emmanuel Tumusiime-Mutebile, the Bank of Uganda Governor, complicated matters yesterday when he issued a monitory policy statement for April 2018. The statement gave a different GDP growth rate.

For instance, Mr Mutebile put the economic growth at 6.3 per cent in 2017 compared to 3 per cent in 2016. He cites a “robust economic growth in Financial Year 2017/18.”


However, in a March 27 letter to Finance Minister Matia Kasaija and other government officials, Dr Kisamba indicated gloom on the economy and diminished the hope of Uganda achieving the lower middle-income status as had been envisioned under the National Development Plan II. Dr Kisamba indicated that his verdict was based on account of an unstable or weakening economy which has registered ‘unacceptable’ growth in the last three financial years.


His position on the economy is disputed by Dr Kasekende’s April 6, statement where he insisted that “Uganda’s economic growth has rebounded strongly”.

Some MPs described the discrepancy as “uncoordinated movements in government.”

“What reason does Kasekende have to be optimistic about the health of the economy when the bulk of our people live a dog life, live in distress on account of poverty?” Opposition Shadow Attorney General, Wilfred Niwagaba asked.

“I don’t know where Kasekende got the 6.9 per cent growth when the figures we have puts GDP growth at 4 per cent…Those figures are not accurate. In any case, what is the relevancy of Kasekende’s growth figures when our people cannot feel it in their pockets? May be because the Deputy Governor is well off and therefore unable to see or feel the stupidity of our economy and the suffering of our people,” Mr Niwagaba further added.

Mr Edward Baliddawa Kafuufu, an economist and former legislator, reiterated Mr Niwagaba’s reservations about Dr Kasekende’s finding on the economy saying: “How can one say that the economy is doing well when the figures show something different? If the projected growth of 15 per cent has dropped to 4.0 per cent, if insufficient government collections are forcing government to even borrow to pay salaries; the export earnings are falling and the national debt is rising yet national productivity levels are declining; how can one say the economy is healthy and doing well?”


Mr Baliddawa and other economists advised Bank of Uganda and Ministry of Finance to stop painting false rosy pictures of GDP growth and instead focus on the challenges that are impeding or weakening the economy.

He said there is urgent need to refocus government expenditures particularly away from unproductive activities or programmes which merely consumptive and relocate resources to generate production.


However, Makerere Business School Board chairman Venansius Baryamureeba, dispelled claims that Mr Kasekende lied about the economy’s status.

“Economy may be doing well but not at the rate that can enable Uganda achieve middle income status. Uganda’s current rate of population growth is higher than GDP growth and this is what Kisamba is saying. Kasekende is saying economy is doing well, which does not necessarily mean we shall reach the middle-income in 2020,” Prof Baryamureeba reasoned.

However, Mukono Municipality MP Betty Nambooze and Mr Eddie Kwizera, an expert in strategic management, insisted Dr Kasekende lied about the economy.

False hope

They speculated that Kasekende and his boss cooked the rosy GDP figures to give the poverty-stricken suffering Ugandans false hope of a good livelihood. Mr Kwizera reminded Dr Kasekende and BoU Governor that last year, the country failed to achieve the projected 7 per cent GDP growth and witnessed a paltry 4 per cent.

Although Dr Kasekende said growth was spread across the economy, with agriculture, industry and services all recording buoyant growth figures in the second half of 2017, Dr Kisamba says in his letter to Finance Minister Kasaija last month that the projected growth of 5.5 per cent against the envisaged 15 per cent confirms “it’s very unlikely” for Uganda to achieve the lower middle- income status.

“The low economic growth performance for the last three years of NDPII implementation, implies that the country may not be able to achieve the lower middle income status by 2020,” Mr Kisamba wrote Kasaija and Parliament Speaker, Ms Rebecca Kadaga on March 27.

Dr Kasekende, however, admitted that the economy suffered a downturn in 2016, recording slow growth, but insists “those problems are clearly now behind us”.

Mr Mathias Mpuuga, the Masaka Municipality MP, challenged Dr Kasekende to tell Ugandans “how much of FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) came into the country in the last two years and how many jobs were created in key economic sectors.

Domestic debt

“You can never talk of a growing economy with a growing domestic debt, unpaid domestic arrears and collapsing banks,” Mr Mpuuga said, dismissing Kasekende’s claims.

Mr Julius Kapwepwe, the director of Uganda Debt Network, says the fiscal journey from 2016/17 to 2020/21 suggests an average annual growth of 4.5 per cent far below 7 per cent between 2009/10 and 2014/15.

Mr Kapwepwe said: “The untamed huge government borrowing appetite and escalating debt financing levels will undermine the gains and curtail private sector growth while eating away our meagre domestic revenue, add to low exports and reduced speed in public sector investments.”








Uganda as a landless country is determined to acquire land rights from its Provinces. That is why it has put up a land probe commission to sort out this problem: 

February 21, 2018


The Commission of Inquiry into land matters headed by Justice Catherine Bamugemereire, has denied media reports that in its interim report to President Museveni, it proposed the abolition of mailo land titles.

In a statement released today, the commission said that this was a misunderstanding of some of its interim recommendations by some media houses. Yesterday, Daily Monitor reported that one of the 19 recommendations in an interim report that the commission gave to the president on 15th February 2018 is to abolish mailo land titles.

Justice Catherine Bamugemereire hands over the commission's report to President Museveni

This move if put into effect could put government at loggerheads with the Buganda kingdom establishment at Mengo, which owns most of the land in question. The said recommendation has already caused outbursts from kingdom officials and loyalists who vowed to out rightly reject it.


Some stated that maybe the sole purpose of the commission was to “take away Buganda land” and not to solve land matters in the country, allegations the commission denies.

“The commission has not recommended the abolition of ownership rights currently represented by mailo land tenure,” the commission statement reads in part.

“What the commission recommended is that efforts to be made to fuse these parallel freehold type systems into a single tenure to introduce clarity and cohesion.”

Mailo land is a form of freehold predominant in Buganda, with some peculiar historical characteristics that came into effect when the kingdom of Buganda signed an agreement with the British-administered Uganda Protectorate in 1900. Other types of land tenure systems in Uganda include freehold, customary and lease hold.

In order to achieve the said fusion of the land systems, the commission said, it would be necessary to address the contradictions caused by occupancy rights that frequently affect Mailo tenure system.

Throughout its countrywide travels, the commission has found numerous complaints of ownership rights on mailo land between sitting tenants and purported owners some of whom had fake titles to show for it. Others were wrangles between members of the Buganda royal family with each side claiming ownership of certain pieces of land.

“These contradictions include separation of rights of ownership from occupancy that has led to difficulties in the smooth operation of the mailo tenure system,” the commission said.

It also recommended the restructuring and strengthening of the land fund through democratic provisions enforced by the government over a period of time, which may include appropriate compensation to either the landlords or tenants.

“Please note that all recommendations in the interim report are not final and are subject to further discussion, pending the publication of the final report,” the statement says.

“The commission continues to consider and debate its interim recommendations and to this end, it welcomes public discourse based on full information, engagements and submission of views and opinions as to how these recommendations may be refined or improved.”

President Museveni meeting the land probe commissioners 

Outline of 19 land probe commission interim recommendations

1) The multiple land administration, management and conservation agencies be merged into two super bodies.

2) District land boards and Area Land committees be dissolved and their mandate passed on to the proposed Land Authority.

3) Legal and policy reforms undertaken to facilitate the restructuring of the land sector’s institutional arrangements, enhance accountability, and address historic land distortions.

4) Reduction of current land tenures from four to perhaps three; freehold, customary free hold and leasehold. All government land to be held under freehold by the state.

5) Implement a nationwide survey and titling of all land, including customary land, with government support through the land fund.

6) The ULC [Uganda Land Commission] be abolished and its functions under the new authority be limited to holding public land only.

7) A futuristic land bank be developed to relieve government of heavy financial burdens and delays associated with land acquisition for public works.

8) The land fund be purposively capitalised and restructured to work effectively under the Land Authority

9) The office of the chief government valuer be restructured, and streamlined, and merged under the Land Authority.

10) Strong and punitive accountability and anti-corruption mechanisms in the land sector should be urgently put in place and implemented, in line with a zero tolerance to corruption policy.

11) All land fraud investigations should be broadened to include the participation of the Financial Intelligence Authority, the Inspectorate of Government, and other key criminal justice agencies.

12) All illegally allocated and acquired government and ‘public land’ be recovered through cancellation of illegally acquired land titles and holding all those found culpable to account.

13) Government to urgently halt the illegal encroachment on protected forests and wetlands, and restore these to the status of 1990.

14) A consolidated and validated national database be urgently developed, that includes the NFA map data, the Wetlands Atlas, and government institutional land.

15) Strengthen pre-land transaction identification processes by mandatory use of national identification for citizens, and relevant documentation for foreigners.

16) The re-establishment of district land tribunals as full time dispute resolution mechanisms with an expanded membership, and chaired by a Grade One Magistrate.

17) Mediation function provided under the Land Act be re-structured to provide for the option of disputing parties to each appoint an additional mediator.

18) The 2012 Draft Legal Aid policy be expeditiously considered and passed by cabinet.

19) Interests of cultural institutions, religious bodies, and women must be represented in the composition of district based land administration and dispute resolution fora, and also within wildlife conservation and benefits sharing processes.







In Uganda, the different political parties, in order for them to survive, are compromised with the long time governing NRM system of African governance:


A supporter of Uganda’s president waits for his

A supporter of Uganda’s president waits for his arrival during a rally of the ruling National Resistance Movement party at Kololo Airstrip in Kampala. PHOTO | FILE

Fredrick Golooba-Mutebi



18 September, 2017




The 21st century found Ugandans engrossed in a debate about the system of government that would best suit the country.

Underlying the question was the issue of how to ensure political stability, unity, security and prosperity for the long term.

Would it be the “movement” type of government that President Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Movement had introduced almost a decade and a half earlier that brought potential political adversaries together to pursue collectively agreed goals?

Would it be multi-party competition that would allow different groups with different aspirations to “fight” for power in order to put their own ideas into practice? And would that be under a unitary, or federal arrangement?

Thanks partly to external support for the partists and pressure on the government to “open up,” the acrimonious debate and related processes ended in victory for the former.

Unitarism also came out on top thanks to simple prejudice against federalism, ignorance about what it was, and a reluctance to even think of it as a viable option. Museveni, opposed to party politics for intellectual and ideological reasons, was not happy.

Indeed, he made no secret of having given up the fight for “movement politics” because of “intolerable pressure” from donors. For these reasons, the partists would soon find out that theirs was a victory only in a very limited sense.

A decade and half down the road, it is now clear that the arguments deployed in favour of multi-party competition were merely theoretical. Hardly anyone paid attention to the kind of context political parties would need to thrive, and how it would be created, and by whom.

And therein lay the opportunity for Museveni. In the end he created a context in which parties would remain stunted and struggle to compete with his own outfit, which he would not allow to grow into a full-fledged political party either.

For all intents and purposes, although it was registered as a party, the NRM simply became a special purpose vehicle through which Museveni pursues his ambitions and objectives as and when necessary, and then puts on sedatives when not needed.

It comes in handy when he must be nominated as a presidential candidate, when votes must be mobilised, and when parliament must be filled up with his supporters. That’s pretty much it. The rest of the time NRM even struggles to pay rent and the salaries of its employees.

That political parties play limited roles in determining what direction Uganda takes at any one moment can be seen right now as two key debates rage on about very important matters, both of which will culminate in the country’s constitution being amended — objectives he sees as important for the country.

One matter concerns how ostensibly the government can ensure that whenever it has important projects to implement, whose implementation requires acquisition of land, it should not be held up by “unreasonable” landowners demanding to be paid amounts of money that are way beyond its actual value.

He wants the government to be able to take over the said land and for it to pay prices determined by its own valuers, even if the owners disagree, in which case they can go to court.

Meanwhile the government can go ahead and implement its projects with speed, a claim some are laughing at, given even where there are no complications with landowners, some projects have been known to move at the speed of a tortoise.

There is little appetite for these proposals across the country, and the government and Museveni himself have aroused much suspicion as to their real motives, with some claiming they are meant to facilitate land grabbing whose real motive could be to enrich some people at the expense of others.

Museveni’s response to criticism and attacks, some orchestrated by opposition politicians, has been not to involve the NRM and its activists in countering them, but to go on the offensive himself.

At the time of writing, he was out in the countryside, fielding questions on radio talk shows, talking to groups and individuals directly, and in at least one instance, handing out free land titles to formerly landless people.

In all this, the party is conspicuous by the obvious absence of its officials and leaders. Save for isolated appearances by their MPs, organised action by political parties is nowhere to be seen.

The other matter concerns whether the constitution should be amended yet again, this time to remove the age limit to make it possible for Museveni to run for president and likely stay on after his current term expires in 2021, by which time he would otherwise be ineligible in the absence of a constitutional amendment.

Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: fgmutebi@yahoo.com

The long serving poplar President of Uganda is begging the mandate for more land for his corrupt government to put up his dodgy projects:


President Museveni (left) flanked by State minister for Housing, Dr Chris Baryomunsi (right), among other government officials appear at a radio talk show on Voice of Kigezi in Kabale District on Monday. PPU PHOTO.

By the Monitor newspaper

Kabale- President Museveni has embarked on a countrywide tour to push for the setting up of a land tribunal and change of the current land laws and also defuse what he called toxic misinformation by his political opponents.

Mr Museveni, who kicked off his nationwide radio campaigns with a talkshow on Voice of Kigezi in Kabale Town on Monday, said amending Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution is not intended to steal people’s land but to hasten government projects that have been stalling as a result of court cases arising from compensation disputes. 

“What has brought me here is to remove toxins from the masses because some people have been misusing radios to tell lies. I want to begin with the lies on land acquisition for the construction of power and roads,” President Museveni said.

His argument

Speaking in Runyakore-Rukiga, Mr Museveni added: “Whereas government requires land on which public works such as railways, roads and electricity can be constructed, the land owners, including myself, refuse to give way, which is wrong. In the making of the 1995 Constitution, NRM changed the past laws where land belonged to government and gave it to the people. A clause was put in place stating that in case government wants land for public works, it should get it after compensating the land owner. And that is what it is. The current situation is paralysing [government projects] as some stubborn people contest the assessment for compensation done and then go to court and the case takes about five years; then the planned road projects stall.”

The proposal to amend Article 26 to allow government take over private land before compensation has met opposition from some members of the civil society, church leaders, MPs, ordinary people and opposition politicians. The critics argue that if land is acquired before compensation, the owner may not get proportionate payment from the government.

But Mr Museveni said there are many cases where government projects have stalled because of such disputes.

He cited the case of installing hydro-power exportation lines to Rwanda through Ntungamo District that delayed because of compensation issues. Mr Museveni singled out one Mr Kahirwa of Ntungamo District, who rejected payment of Shs18 million per acre that the government was offering him, but instead demanded Shs200 million.

He said an electricity power project in Lira District also stalled for about three years because some people were asking for too much money as compensation. 

“People have been going on radios and televisions telling lies that Museveni wants to steal your land. Now look at this beautiful road from Mbarara to Ntungamo; do I have any shares? Or have you heard that I am making money out of the Kabale-Kisoro Road?” Mr Museveni asked.

Mr Museveni also criticised media houses for giving a platform to people who “spread negative propaganda about government programmes and projects”. He asked government agencies to deal with such people.

Other issues

The President also underscored the need for industrialisation, including construction of an iron ore factory in Muko Sub-county in Rubanda District, and irrigation for better agricultural harvests and tarmacking of roads. 

“Because we want to solve the problem of paralysing planned government projects, we brought a proposal for the Land Amendment Bill where a tribunal shall be put in place to resolve any grievances locally without going to courts of law,” Mr Museveni said.

“Those saying that the existing law on land is enough are wrong because we have encountered several problems whereby some people demand too much money as compensation that ends up stalling planned government projects. The Land Amendment Bill should be accepted because the draft has been improved by having a tribunal in place to locally handle disputed cases on the land price instead of going to court for arbitration that has disadvantaged the poor African people that do not have money but have got lots of ancestral lands,” he added.





In this former British colonial country of Uganda, this President has inherited a legend of a landless government. When most of the indigenous citizens that own ancestral  lands understand that central government is full of corruption, they are reluctant to give out their lands for the so called government projects. And many more want to give out land in exchange for more land. As a very rich African landlord himself, he does not seem to get his human compassion right!







 President M7 has no farm in Kisozi. Kisozi is a government or state owned property bought from Mr. Kiwanuka using state funds to start up a project for the ministry of defense.

This extensive ranch will be claimed back as soon as power

changes hands.

Records have it that the late Major Mwebaze as a veteran

doctor was in charge of this project from it's conception. To the day M7 started nursing ideas to own it.


History of a Uganda President:

"If dead men could be back to confirm their stories! Here is one by a man who was once a representative of Uganda to the Middle East, Member and Acting Chairman of the Central Scholarship Committee in the Ministry of Education, Member of the once powerful National Association for the Advancement of Muslims (NAAM) in the 1960s; Deputy Chief Kadhi of Uganda to Sheikh Obeid Kamulegeya in the early 1980s; and Member of the Presidential Policy Commission of UPC in the early Millennium. This man is called the late Annas Kinyiri.
One day he received a note from President Apollo Milton Obote when he was acting as Chairman of the Central Scholarship Committee. The one with the note was a student eager to join Makerere University. Those days one had to submit 10 copies of one's Graduated tax tickets to be considered for admission to Makerere. In the note the President was asking the Committee to create an avenue for Yoweri Museveni to join Makerere without producing Graduated tax tickets because he could not produce them adding, "I want him to join Makerere because he is one of my UPC youth wingers who qualifies but he cannot meet the requirement of 10 graduated tax tickets". Graduated tax tickets were used to prove one's citizenship and belonging or locality.
As expected Annas Kinyiri surmoned members of his committee to consider the President's request. When the committee met it overwhelmingly rejected the request saying regulations must be strictly observed.
And that was what Annas Kinyiri put in the sealed letter, which Yoweri Museveni took to the President. When the Preident read it he wrote another one making another plea to Kinyiri, which Yoweri Museveni again dcelivered to him. After reading the note Annas Kinyiri again convened the committee to resolve the matter. The committee softened and decided that the student produces 5 Graduated tax tickets. That was what Kinyiri communicated to the President in a sealed letter. The Pesident realised he could not get what he wanted because of the strict regulation of producing Gradated Tax tickets. He had to think of plan B quickly. And there it was.
According to Annas Kinyiri the President wrote a letter to his counterpart in Tanzania, Julius Kambarage Nyerere, who was Chancellor of the University of Dar-es-Salaam, asking him to influence the university authorities to admit 5 of his young men for various degree courses. One of the young men was Museveni. Another was Muntuyera. The five were admitted, thanks to Nyerere's intervention.
In 1987, Annas Kinyiri was summoned, together with other Basoga elders that included a former Katikiiro of Busoga, WW Mwangu, to a meeting at Belleview Hotel. It was arranged by Kirunda Kivejinja. It was to introduce the new President, Yoweri Museveni, to influential Basoga elders. According to Annas Kinyiri, the President arrived with a gun on his shoulders. Kinyiri openly expressed his disgust that a son of a Mukopi was President and added, "When a country is ruled by bakopi then that country has no future". According to Kinyiri, even Mwangu expressed the same sentiments. When President Museveni told Kinyiri that he was appointing him to be Uganda's representative again in the Middle East, he declined. When the meeting was dissolved, the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, ordered the immediate arrest of Kinyiri and Mwangu. They were whisked off to Gaddafi Army Barracks. Later they were moved to Luzira, where Kagata Namiti and Paulo Muwanga were also incarcerated.
According to Kinyiri he was in Luzira until 1989 without trial. When he was released, he learn't that it was because of the intervention of the International Committee of the Red Cross. It had been contacted by the Uganda Christian Prisoners Aid Foundation led by a one Macharios Ayub. the Red Cross sent a delegation to Uganda. Government allowed it to access Kinyiri. It later asked Government to release Kinyiri. He was, but then he was immediately arrested and whisked off to Kirinya Prison in Jinja on accusation of being a member of Force Obote Back (FOBA). He was to be in Kirinya Prison until 1999 when the President sanctioned his release.
When he came out of Prison he was bitter because he never knew of the existence of FOBA and believed it was the creation of Government to incarcerate him.
Curiously, in his own words, Kinyiri was more bitter with Obote than with Museveni because he believed it was because he declined to respond to the note Obote sent to him to endorse Museveni's admission to Makerere without his father's Graduated tax tickets that he had been incarcerated.
When Obote heard that Kinyiri was out of Prison, he sent the former Chairman of UPC, who later converted to NRM, the late Badru Wegulo, to Jinja to bring the Sheikh to Kampala so that they could talk to one another on phone. Obote was in exile in Lusaka, Zambia.
When he was sure he was talking to Obote, Kinyiri told him that he was the cause of his suffering because he had sent Museveni to him when he knew he (Kinyiri) could never bend the regulations. Obote apologised and in 2000 appointed Kinyiri to membership of the Presidential Policy Commission of the UPC.
Kinyiri passed on about 5 or 6 years ago with his principles, ethics and morality and with forgiveness, but not before telling me this story.
The elderly are depositories of knowledge and information. I learn't that early in my life. I would never let old people hoad knowldge that would enhance my own in case they passed it on to me. So Kinyiri was one of the valuable resources that I would never let go without benefiting from. in terms of knowledge. He knew a lot about the Middle East. He had been involved in seeing that our children get educated. He was a politician. He had been a religious leader. He had been a teacher too. And he was a successful family man. Besides, he was an honest man who loved the truth. May his Soul Rest in Peace.
I have also become of age. I am sure those who have associated with me, and have been curious and inquisitive enough, have gained a lot of knowledge from me.
I appeal to all the elderly of Uganda to pass on knowledge that can help us know ourselves and country better. Knowledge is power. Where there is no knowledge people will suffer from ignorance, and ignorance is the worst disease of humanity. It knows no bounds.
For God and My Country."