How Museveni has witch hunted Vincent Nuwagaba

November 20, 2009 at 3:45 pm (2009 -2011 elections, legal issues, torture in uganda)
Tags:

Dear Comrades in the struggle,
I send you sincere greetings. I wish to let you know though that since April 2008, I have undergone untold suffering simply because I have always used my tongue and sometimes my pen to add my voice to the voices of the voiceless.
My trouble began shortly after the TV Program on which I was hosted together with Hon Bakabulindi on 6th April 2008 where I said the government was seated on the time bomb because of graduate unemployment. The government functionaries felt particularly annoyed
with me because I argued strongly that our graduates are less than 0.5% of the population and that jobs are given on patronage to some people who forge transcripts from Nasser road.
Three of my articles were also published in a period of less than three weeks,one on corruption, another on women and another one on NSSF. That was in addition to various radio presentations where I consistently faulted the government. I was later arrested, illegally detained and tortured greatly tortured.

Professor John-Jean Barya of the Faculty of law came for me but surprisingly, his social status notwithstanding, he was blocked from seeing me. At a time when I was preparing to meet my creator after five days in the dungeon, being tortured and without a single meal, my friends Kabaasa Balaba Bruce and Thomas Tayebwa appeared. They were told that I have to be taken to Butabika mental hospital at all costs. The reason was because I had said I have to file a
complaint to the Uganda Human Rights Commission against my tomentors.

I was taken to Butabika on 15 April, sedated and after nine days I tactfully left on 24 April 2008. I began the process of suing the state. On 15 May, I was trailed and arrested at Jinja Road Police Station. Beacause I informed many people, a friend from state house told me he called the Jinja Road Divisional Police Commander (DPC), later the DPC told me, “Nuwagaba, you can go, when we need you we shall call you”. To date, I have never been called for the same case. I was also trailed by a police sergeant known as Kanyarutokye using a
girl I loved so much. I was also dumped twice in CPS and Kira Road Police Station.

On 23 May, I was hosted on a Radio West programme where I decried a dearth of social services to our people. On 28 when I came back to Kampala I had to report at CPS to make a formal complaint and I was dumped in the dungeon. On 29 May the Kampala RDC Alice Muwanguzi found me in the cells and I told him I will not accept being taken for a ride. She told me, ” Nuwagaba, let me go and order for your release”. Around two hours later I was called and dumped in a police patrol vehicle and dumped in Butabika Hospital. I spent there close to a month and once my were tormentors were convinced I had to die, I was discharged. Three days later, I almost died. I stopped on the verge of the cross.

I filed a suit, civil suit NO 92/2009 with the high court but it seems, it has been frustrated. I wrote three times to the president informing him of my ordeal and he allegedly ordered Justus Karuhanga one of his fomer legal aides to carry out investigations. Once they found out that I was neither insane nor a criminal, they lost interest in the case. I wrote to the president again and he sent me an email telling me I have personal vendetta against him. This email can be found on http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/57599. You can also view my reply on
http://allafrica.com/stories/200907100923.html.

I have also been thrown in jail many times on the course of my duty and later released without taking me to court. From May to August alone I don’t know the number of times I have illegally been arrested and tortured. But from 5 August to 7 August I was illegally detained at Jinja Road Police station. Later they pleaded with me to get anybody to stand surety for me so that I am released on police bond. When I reported on the day they had given me I told them  I wanted to be taken to court, the OC CID told me, “Never come back here”. The reason for my detention was because I was following up a case of a one Gaudence Tushabomwe whose money was stolen by a fake NGO called COWE (Concern for Orphans, Women and the Elderly) which she told me was
linked to the first family. I was socked to learn that when she went to CPS to complain about a threat to her life, she was dumped in the cells, detained for many days and then later taken to Bubika. I have written greatly on this
matter.

Now the biggest worry to me is as a result of my illegal arrest, torture and incarceration which started from Makerere University whence I was arrested and then dumped in Wandegeya Police cells for two days. Kale Kayihura himself ordered that I should not be released on police bond despite the fact that many high profile figures in government, academia, the UN experts, human rights groups and the corporate world went to plead for my release.

After two days I was taken to City Hall Court from where I was remanded to Luzira on trumped up charges of assault and threatening violence. The real cause of my ordeal though is as a result of a letter I wrote to the president which was reproduced in the media and can be accessed on
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4579.
A related article was published by the Independent News Magazine and
can be accessed on
www.independent.co.ug/index.php/column/guest-column?start=5.

I have since 3rd September been reporting to court for hearing of the two counts. What is surprising though is that all the state witnesses have always committing the crime of perjury for surely they just want me convicted even when I am innocent. On 9th November, the trial Magistrate told the state prosecutor that “state, your witness is a dramatist and not a witness”. I know even the blind would see that the prosecution I am undergoing is purely malicious.

Shockingly, on Thursday 19 November I was called by Criminal Investigation Detective from Wandegeya on a mango line of +256712935670. I was told that he has looked into my file and that I have a case to answer. He told me if I don’t see the Magistrate on 27 November I will be convicted and I told him I am ready to appeal to the higher court. He told me even if I am to do that I will still be in jail. I told him I don’t care because Mandela was jailed for 27 years and he came from jail to state house.

I am sure, I may be convicted to frustrate me from pursuing my civil suit against Attorney General and Dr Tom Onen, civil suit number 92/2009. But also I am pushing for the reversal of the new tuition fees structures using all relevant bodies and at the moment there is a petition with the social services committee chaired by Hon Rosemary Seninde. The government which is threatened by the tongue and the pen may choose to send me to Luzira but I would call upon you to follow up my case.

Of all the times they have arrested me, they have stolen my money and property and nothing is done to the culprits. I have reported every thing but nothing is done so I don’t know what to do. On the 17 August, the day I was arrested I was deprived of sh 1.4m part of which I wanted to pay for my tuition soon after picking my admission letter. Now the question I would want to know, does government want me to commit suicide? Does it want me to kill
somebody? What do these people want me to do? Unfortunately for them, I cannot commit suicide neither can I commit murder. I am very hardened. What shocks me is that they are no longer bothered about the name and shame. Now what do we do.

Finally, I feel I am not alright and I would thus need financial aid to undergo a thorough medical check up because the drugs they were using t kill me could have long term drastic implications on my life. Please help me whoever can.
I leave you with the two sayings one from Martin Luther Junior King and another from Pastor Niemoller of Germany. Dr Martin Luther King Jr said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” while Pastor Niemoller said, “At first they came for Jews, I didn’t speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for Communists, I didn’t speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for trade unionists, I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, I didn’t speak out
because I was a protestant. Finally when they came for there was nobody left to speak out for me”.

We need to learn from the above. Otherwise, who clearly knows how Generals Mayombo and Kazini died. Who would tell Brian Bukenya would die as a result of neglected roads. Prof Nsibambi said they need expensive, fuel guzzling Four Wheel Drive Land Cruisers because the roads are poor as if to say,those who cannot afford such strong vehicles should be condemned to death. Shockingly, even the strong vehicles in case of potholes, when one swerves from his lane in a bid to avoid head on collision, they swerve off from the road hence killing the occupants. So, next time, Prof Nsibambi’s relative, God forbid could be a victiom of road carnage.
Please come to my rescue.

VINCENT NUWAGABA

UAH FORUMIST

1 Comment

How to alleviate the current censorship state of the media

November 17, 2009 at 10:44 pm (2009 -2011 elections, Diaspora, MEDIA, legal issues)
Tags:

Fellow Ugandans,
One of our forumists wrote a question a few weeks ago as to what we could do to alleviate the current state of the media in country, and as I pondered about the question, I soon realized that the “Americans first amendment” has withstood many legal challenges since inception.
 I wanted to highlight a relatedness that exist between our “Bill of rights”article 29 of our constitution and the “American Bill of rights” in the hope of encouraging those among us who are lawyers to seek American jurisprudence to amicably resolve our current censorship dilemma, which seems unconstitutional as it was handed down.
 Measure for measure one finds inescapable reality in the duality that exists of both “spirit of intent”, and “worth of word” in print, between America’s “First Amendment” and our own bill of rights in Article 29 of our 2005-constitution both written below.
The two articles that bind us to a common destiny of protecting our freedoms as embodied in the letter of law can be used with the same duality of purpose to bring instructive court precedent to bare and provide relief to many journalist and media outlets that were gagged in the recent clamp down by the government.
 Our courts need to seek out help with existing “First Amendment” jurisprudence from those who have travelled this road for 218 years. To constitutionally restore and boldly make a stand up for our freedoms like no other court has in the history of our nation. We need to defend against attempts to restrain and censor our freedom of speech and press. There is a need to address all the other draconian restraints that were recently imposed upon us by the government of Yoweri Museveni, in clear violation of constitutionally mandated freedoms.
 Those 45 words first coined by James Madison, should be tabled with urgency, for us as during the December 17th 2009, meeting of tribes from the many regions of Uganda,which is slated to take place in Buganda. 
I would urge those who are meeting, to force as outcome ,a universally acceptable “open meeting law” for each tribal state. The open meeting law, if adopted, will foster a more business like culture, an atmosphere of the highest ethical standard even with our cultural institutions. We are saying that every meeting that is deemed to affect the public, should be open to media and communicated to the public, even if it is convened by two as a way of reducing corruption.
 
All Ugandans saw first hand, the importance of having one aspect of a free media as a watchdog over our affairs, when we received first class utube video, news and photos of the murder scene of an important General in the history of our nation, I hope those that are advocating for the throttling of the media have been given enough reason for pause.
 Americans’ first amendment to the U.S. constitution
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
 The freedoms that they sought to protect on that day December 15th 1791, fifteen years after the signing of their “declaration of independence”, included freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition;  these are the very freedoms we are trying to protect below in our own constitution article.  These words were embedded in the first ten amendments of the American constitution to make up the “American Bill of rights”.
 Here is our own article in our2005- constitution speaking of the same protection of rights of individuals, our own bill of rights.
 29. Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.
(1) Every person shall have the right to—
(a) Freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of
the press and other media;
 (c) Freedom to practice any religion and manifest such practice which shall include the right to belong to and participate in the practices of any religious body or organisation in a manner consistent with this Constitution;
(d) Freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and
(e) Freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations.
~Part of Ugandans’ Bill of rights in the 2005 constitution-~
 I find many congruences in wording and meaning in the two articles to allow our constitutional lawyers to proffer similar arguments in our courts and to bring legal challenge to those who are currently violating our constitutionally awarded freedoms.
 
There is no illusion that many press censorship advocates tend to use a broad sweeping brush while trying to punish a few in violations of state laws. The use of “strict scrutiny” standards should not be used by government to make sweeping changes while in pursuit of content-based restrictions.
 The danger arises when one man abuses such freedoms without applying due process as expected of all democratic societies, who practice a strict adherence to the rule of law as stipulated by their constitution.
 
We have to register our protests in the loudest manner possible to hold accountable our lawmakers and the judiciary alike and to show our displeasure with the add hock, intermittent convenient adherence and interpretation of our constitution by President Museveni.
He has used  a very narrow interpretation to clamp down on citizens, a practice that has damaged the credibility of our elected officials. It also directly affects the growth of our politics and culture, taking us back to an era which we all are not too fond of; where such curtailments brought on gross abuses of human rights, unreported and behind closed doors.
I might as well add that those 45 words, embody an eluded civility that we have died for and now trying to grope for, in darkness,  long after our independence. Like ones with impaired growth or gripped with Alzheimer’s, these simple words continue to dodge many emerging market nations, while their captive audiences look on as if those protective words, were inscribed in a magic mirror (“now you see it, now you don’t”), guarded only by a wand of their leaders, who are bent on torturing and abating their hope and optimism.
 
 We must forge a petition of agreement, to break the curse of the magic mirror once and for all a consensus must be reached or a universal agreement, to remove all the barriers that have been prohibiting us from adopting and exercising these very rights, and we can include it in our “tribal engagement rules” charter.
 
For years many Supreme Court judges in America have taken a stub at interpreting it, and the first Amendment has  stood the test of time: Here is but a few excerpts of opinions handed down, from those high profile cases that put the first amendment to the test.
 
“if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.
 Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, “the First Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that prior restraints are incompatible with the notion of a free press. That hostility toward gag orders on the press stems from the news media’s critical role in ensuring that the public has sufficient information to monitor its government, as well as the centuries-old commitment to “uninhibited, robust and wide-open “debate”. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
On “strict scrutiny”
At footnote 10 of its opinion, the panel recognized that the purpose of applying strict scrutiny to regulations burdening speech is to protect a person’s right to “decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence, .. . Government action that stifles speech on account of its message . . contravenes this essential right.” Rangra v. Brown, 566 F.3d 515,520 n.10 (5th
 
I would like to acknowledge the death of an icon,a civil rights activist and journalist Jack Nelson, who died a couple of weeks ago. He was an avid supporter of the free press and he has created many agencies that we can get help from to promote the same levels of protections that our American friends enjoy.Also check out these sites for guidance.
 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd
 http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/index.php
Tendo Kaluma
Uganda in Boston

2 Comments

What does the constitution say about resignations

July 15, 2009 at 5:10 pm (2009 -2011 elections, legal issues)
Tags:

Dear all,

It appears Uganda, or rather UAH is so starved of heroes that when we see zeroes, we celebrate.  I dare say, when some of us allow our eloquence to only slightly exceed our impulsiveness in our style of debate on this forum, it will soon dawn on us thatMbale municiparity MP, W. Kajeke, is playing games whose potential blowback he may not have fully reflected on.

Our typical flippancy also comes out in the Monitor article which states that W. Kajeke resigned yesterday, and then soon afterwards indicates that he has given notice that he will resign.  Once notice of resignation issued, one quits parliament immediately.

This is what Articles 83 and 252 of the 1995 Constitution says about resignations:

83. Tenure of office of members of Parliament.

(1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his or her seat in Parliament—

(a) if he or she resigns his or her office in writing signed by him or her and addressed to the Speaker;

252. Resignations.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, any person who is appointed or elected to any office established by this Constitution may resign from that office by writing signed by that person addressed to the person or authority by whom he or she was appointed or elected.

(2) The resignation of a person from any office established by this Constitution shall take effect in accordance with the terms on which that person was appointed or, if there are no such terms, when the writing signifying the resignation is received by the person or authority to whom it is addressed or by any person authorised by that person or authority to receive it.

(3) For the purposes of clause (1) of this article, “office” includes the office of—

(a) the Vice President;

(b) the Speaker and Deputy Speaker;

(c) a Minister;

(d) the Attorney General;

(e) a member of Parliament;

(f) a member of any commission, authority, council or committee established by this Constitution; and

(g) a public officer.

If W. Kajeke is really worth his salt, he must walk the talk.  If E. Ssekandi is still worth the candle, he should show the light.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

3 Comments

What does the law say on land evictions in Uganda

May 24, 2009 at 3:15 pm (CULTURE, Land matters, conflicts, legal issues)
Tags:

Dear UAH,

As you are aware there are four complicated forms of landownership in Uganda unlike in developed nations which reduced to only two, namely, freehold, leasehold. In Uganda we have the former plus two , that is,  mailo and customary. Given the change of circumstances the latter, that is, mailo and customary are likely to be absorbed into the former, that is, freehold(mailo likely to take this form) and  leashold. There are number of pieces of legislations regulating land ownership Uganda. However, the most essential pieces are (a) Land Act 1998 (Ch 227), (b) Land Acquistion Act 1965(Ch 226) and (c) Registration of Titles Act 1924(Ch 230).

As regards the issue of recent so called ‘ Mengo evictions’, it first and foremost depends on how the deprived parties obtained  that land; were they granted  (a)leasehold?  Or b) freehold(?). If any of those, did they bother to register their titles?  Or Is it so that the land in question  was obtained fraudulently? If you are granted either  a  freehold or leasehold, you can’t just be evicted abrutly without an advance notice. The notice can be served to you provided you breach the covenant(e.g failure to pay rent)   between you and your landlord (previous land lord if bought freehold). However though served a notice to vacate, the landlord must seek a court order to lawfully evict you.  Most land disputes are handled by land tibunals, but if  unsuccessful at the tribual level,then the high court, a court which also deals with emergency situations which may require the deprived party to seek an injunction.  So I don’t know well whether the Mengo victims were lawfull freeholders or leaseholders and what exactly transpired.  Did they, for instance, acquire the land fraudulently or just breached the covenant with their landlord(the Kabaka)?

The following section is a good authority on eviction of tenants:

PART XII—ACTIONS AND OTHER REMEDIES   S.176  Registration of Titles Act 1924(Ch 230)

176. Registered proprietor protected against ejectment except in certain
cases.
No action of ejectment or other action for the recovery of any land shall lie or be sustained against the person registered as proprietor under this Act, except in any of the following cases—
the case of a mortgagee as against a mortgagor in default;
the case of a lessor as against a lessee in default;
the case of a person deprived of any land by fraud as against the person registered as proprietor of that land through fraud or as vb against a person deriving otherwise than as a transferee bona fide for value from or through a person so registered through fraud;
the case of a person deprived of or claiming any land included in any certificate of title of other land by misdescription of the other land or of its boundaries as against the registered proprietor of that other land not being a transferee of the land bona fide for value;
the case of a registered proprietor claiming under a certificate of title prior in date of registration under this Act in any case in which two or more certificates of title may be registered under this Act in respect of the same land,
and in any case other than as aforesaid the production of the registered certificate of title or lease shall be held in every court to be an absolute bar and estoppel to any such action against the person named in that document as the grantee, owner, proprietor or lessee of the land described in it, any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding

The best thing to do at the moment is perhaps to enact a new piece of legislation which require compulsory registration of titles(perhap computerised?), just to curb the increase of fraud involved in acquiring land titles in Uganda and regulation of relationships) between the landlord(s) and tenant(s).  England and Wales have very formidable pieces of  legislation, that is, Land Registration Act 2002 and Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, which address those problems decently.

2 Comments

Uganda Parliament has no guts,teeth and spine

April 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm (legal issues, parliament)
Tags:

1/7 The Uganda parliament is made to appear useless because there is simply no socio-political basis for it in countries like ours. This takes me to my tired metaphor: when out of impatience with the slow metamorphosis of the caterpillar you glue wings on it, the fact is that, the caterpillar will not fly. Instead it will chew those wings mistaking them for the leaves that it feeds on. Sadly, West Minster parliamentarism is one of those wings that have been glued on the caterpillar inappropriately named ‘Uganda’.  Those wings must be chewed.  They are historically superflous, unless the country undergoes a root, stem and branch transformation from the current mediaevalism. What do I mean?

2/7 Let us trace the practical and historical origins of parliaments where they first came into existence, using the example of England. In that country monarchs originally survived on revenue from traditional sources: royal lands, taxes on clergy, proceeds of justice and feudal aids (prerogative taxes). Time came when the monarchs could no longer rely on those sources of revenue particularly to finance warfare in foreign lands.

3/7 For example, King Edward I found himself in a fix ahead of the war to conquer Wales. Traditional sources could not finance that war, so he resorted to raising money from wealth producers: merchants, financiers, shippers, grain growers, stock keepers, and other propertied classes. This was tax on trade and movables. The trouble with that tax was that, it could be avoided. If a wealthy person was not happy with the monarch, he could relocate his stock from Sussex in the south and hide it in Sheffield in the midlands. Grain stocks could be hidden similarly and financiers and merchants could move their capital from London to Amsterdam and invest there.

4/7 Therefore taxation of moveable property required the monarchs to bargain, to discuss, to confer and negotiate with the wealthy property owners to get consent on how much they could tax them and the use to which their money was to be put, and agreement on what the wealthy classes would gain materially from the monarchs’ foreign adventures. The other option for the monarch was to starve. The process of negotiation, talking, bargain, (kulamuza as they say in Luganda) is also called PARLEY or in French, ‘parler’.

5/7 Because it was difficult for the King to negotiate with individual wealth owners, the latter nominated from amongst themselves the toughest negotiators to form the body of their representatives. The place where the representatives of the King and representatives of the wealth producers met to parley then became the ‘parlement’ in France. In broken French, also called English that is what they call parliament: the place for negotiation (between property owners and governors).

6/7 In those countries, there is a fiscal contract between the political elite and the population. The population pays taxes, and they take the political elite to task on the use of the tax. In the England of 1865, 52% of the MPs were merchants, industrialists and men of finance. They went to parliament to ensure that their money was not misused and to ask the Monarch, “nfunamu ki”: what do we gain from your projects? They were not desperados looking for a bribe of U Shs 5 million. The monarch had not helped to campaign for them to be in the parley place. They were representing their own interests. The historical mission of our ‘parliamentarians’ is just to share the spoils. Their game is survival: do not annoy the monarch, apologise when you can, be a rubber stamp because you must.

7/7 In countries like Uganda, when the monarch becomes desperate for revenue, donors throw money at him. If there were no donations, our monarchs would negotiate with the wealth producers, if any, or starve. For Uganda, 53% of the budget is from non-domestic sources. Burkina Faso, 103.9%: the donors give them everything plus some bonus. If I am a president of Burkina Fasso, what parley do I need with my population? Therefore, how relevant in parliament to me? Why will I not tell them to apologise if they annoy me? But in England, the wealthy appointed their own IGG, and the King accepted hands down, because the wealthy bankrolled the Monarch. Who pays the piper calls the tune. The question is, who pays the Uganda piper?

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Leave a Comment

Investigate harassment of Muslims in Uganda further

April 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm (RELIGION, legal issues, military, torture in uganda)
Tags:

Human Rights

Omar Kalinge-Nnyago

Investigate harassment of Muslims in Uganda further

The recently released Human Rights Watch report on the torture and murder of Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) suspects entitled “Open Secret: Illegal Detention and Torture by the Joint Anti-terrorism Task Force, JATT, in Uganda” was a chilling reminder that all was not well in Uganda, especially if you are a Muslim. The anti-terror unit we are told, was formed specially to crackdown on ADF a rebel group based in Congo. This is a very dangerous approach to national security, where a section of society is specially targeted.

The vicious cycle of torture goes like this. To be seen to be working, the unit must arrest some Muslim suspects. They torture them to extract confessions. Some die in the process. Others escape death with serious injuries. Others lose limbs, other body parts and left to rot after their unceremonious release. Because they were innocent in the first place, even those who are forced to confess to escape torture cannot be charged in a court of law as there would be no evidence to sustain a prosecution. To be able leave jail, suspects are coaxed into applying for amnesty. This is in effect an admission to guilt. This becomes good statistics for JATT. The Americans and British who fund the unit pour more funds into the operation. Arresting Muslims is therefore big business. Uganda’s position as a partner in the war on terror is enhanced for every confession obtained. Consequently, the regime in Kampala extends its lease of life, despite its unprecedented corruption record, habitual electoral mal-practices and the alarming levels of nepotism in government.

These allegations must be fully investigated by an independent commission. This is not the first time that Muslims in Uganda have been targeted. Hundreds were massacred in Western Uganda and many more in West Nile in the aftermath of the fall of Idi Amin. No human rights organisation in Uganda has cared to investigate these massacres. A commission of inquiry headed by John Nagenda after the fall of Amin to investigate human rights abuses since the sixties did not find it appropriate to handle the Western Uganda and West Nile Muslim Massacres. To date, the victims of the ugly incidents which included murder, confiscation of property and displacement are still crying out for help. Something ought to be done by Uganda Human Rights Commission, other human rights organizations and the government.

Unless practical steps to address the situation are taken, the perceptions of marginalisation and harassment of Muslims in Uganda will persist. Unfortunately, the Army, through its spokesperson, and the executive, through the security minister have only invested in a disastrous public relations exercise that assumes that the population is not intelligent enough to understand that what they are doing is “smart denial of documented fact”. They must instead confront the facts, compensate torture victims, families of the those who died in the hands of JATT and thoroughly investigate the culprits who have succeeded in turning JATT in Kololo into another Naguru based Public Safety Unit or the Nakasero Headquarters of the State Research Bureau of the Idi Amin era.

The recent harassment of Muslims comes at a time when public display of religiosity has assumed alarming proportions. When the first lady wanted to stand for parliament, she evoked God. When she became a Minister of State, she evoked God. When the IGG was desperately trying to save her job, she evoked Jesus and even sang a long praise song at a press conference. The secular foundations of the country have been shaken to the core. Religion in Uganda is no longer personal. It is official business.


The danger here is that Muslims, facing constant harassment will also find it appropriate to force their belief into the public arena, get radicalized, mobilise their people using religion, basing on the undeniable evidence of torture. This would encourage more young Muslims to join rebel activity. In fact, by their own opportunistic actions, government security agencies are helping ADF and perhaps other rebel groups to recruit more easily. It is what happened when Obote II security forces miscalculated and thought they would harass suspected young men to intimidate them from rebellion. They instead found the shortest route to join Museveni’s NRA. The rest is now history.

omarkalinge@gmail.com

0752.656.352

omar d. kalinge-nnyago

UAH forumist
e-Learning Specialist
demtac consulting-codlearn
922, Old Kira Road, Bukoto
P.O. Box 1635
KAMPALA
Cell: 0752 656 352

3 Comments

Illegal detention in Uganda

April 25, 2009 at 3:08 pm (legal issues, military)
Tags:

Human Rights

Omar Kalinge-Nnyago

Illegal detention, killings and torture of suspects in Uganda

Last Wednesday April 8, 2009, Human Rights Watch, the international human rights watchdog released a damning report on the torture of suspects by Uganda’s security agencies. The report entitled : “Public Secret: Illegal Detention and Torture by the Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force in Uganda”. The task force, JATT in short, is a joint unit, formed in 1999, that draws its personnel from the armed forces (the Uganda People’s Defense Force, UPDF), the police, and the internal and external intelligence organizations.

The intelligence branch of the armed forces, the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence, CMI, has operational command. JATT has no codified mandate, though the head of CMI told Human Rights Watch that JATT was established to deal with the threat posed by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a Ugandan rebel group based in the DRC. But individuals allegedly linked to other groups, such as Al-Qaeda, have also suffered at the hands of JATT. Former detainees told Human Rights Watch of non-Ugandans held in Kololo for long periods of time, although it is unclear why most of those suspects were detained. Almost all those illegally detained were Muslims. All were suspects. Some were killed. Few were charged in a court of law. A few are languishing in jail, without trial. The lucky were released without charge, while others were forced to apply for amnesty, a confession that the suspect is guilty of terrorism charges whereas not, to escape torture.

Although the report recommends to the Unites States and the United Kingdom, two of Uganda’s major sponsors of Uganda’s counter terrorism operations, to withhold counter terrorism funding, it is not likely to be taken seriously by the two proponents of the global War on Terror, which, others say, is euphemism for Global War on Islam. It is likely that the Ugandan government is simply doing the bidding of the two powers. The ugly incidents of human rights abuses in Abu-Ghuraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and now the Baghran airforce base detention centre in Afghanistan are not different from JATT atrocities in Uganda. The role of the British intelligence in unfair detention of so called terror suspects in third countries has been widely reported.

Away from the consuming discussion about the victims of JATT torture, I was drawn, in retrospect, to the perpetrators – the men and women who exacted the crime. How could someone become so cruel, so insensitive.


Most of the human rights abuses by governments are carried out as acts of obedience to some sort of authority. Obedience is a basic element in the structure of social life. Many studies of Nazi behaviour concluded that monstrous acts, despite their horrors, were often a matter of faithful bureaucrats slavishly following orders. Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. Obedience is such a deeply ingrained behavioural tendency, so deep it often overrides training in ethics, sympathy and moral conduct.

Governments torture people. To do so they train the torturers. Recruits are carefully screened for physical, intellectual and sometimes political attributes. They are taken through rites to isolate the recruits from society and introduce them to a new social order, with different rules and values.

They are then helped to reduce the strain of obedience often by blaming and dehumanizing the victims, so it is less disturbing to hurt them. They are socially modelled by watching other group members commit violent acts and then receive rewards.

Recruits are also systematically de-sensitised to repugnant acts by gradual exposure to them, so they start appearing routine and normal despite conflicts with previous moral standards. Most state security and militia training worldwide is designed to make recruits comfortable with violence. The ‘enemy’ is given derogatory names and portrayed as less than human. This makes it easier to have them killed. A government, designates some derogatory label like “Islamic Militant”, “Islamist”, “Muslim Terrorist”, “Islamic Fundamentalist”, “Muslim radical”, on a section of world citizens. This is an indicator that their security agencies are being shown the target to torture and exterminate the suspected ‘bad guys’ if need be, without guilt. In the name of obedience, even your fellow high school buddy can turn against you without remorse. And she is not mad. Just obeying orders. Scary thought.

omarkalinge@gmail.com 0752 656 352

omar d. kalinge-nnyago
e-Learning Specialist/UAH forumist
demtac consulting-codlearn
922, Old Kira Road, Bukoto
P.O. Box 1635
KAMPALA
Cell: 0752 656 352

2 Comments

MPs are legally right on the IGG issue

April 25, 2009 at 2:42 pm (PRESIDENCY, legal issues)
Tags:

“This case is not about the powers of parliament to legislate.  Actually the case is about constitutional  interpretation which is why the IGG’s instance on going to the CC is the best solution.  Let the Court determine.”

Mr. WBK,
It is only parliament and partly gov’t where subdelegated (statutory instruments)by the parliament to both make and unmake national(not talking about other subdelegated local laws)laws. The role of the courts is only  to interpret those laws pursuant to the ’spirit and intendment’ of the legislators, so this means that parliament is supreme over other public institutions.

If you read well about Ch 13, Arts 223-232(1995) Constitution, nothing it suggests that IGG doesn’t have to go through similar procedures of (re)appointment upon expiration of her first tenure. Moreover ‘reappointment’ itself means that your previous term has expired and ‘if’ reappointed to start a ‘ a fresh one’. The word ‘fresh’ probably means something new, which implies that if you are starting something new you have to start from the basics, the basics which in this question would imply IGG going through similar procedures as before.  However, if the framers of the constitution perhaps expressly used ‘ the phrase ‘automatic extension’ upon good achievements,then legislators would probably be wrong to go back on their words  to call IGG, as they are doing now, to be re-vetted.

Mr. WBK courts are always inferior before the lawmakers because their role is only to give meaning to the words of the lawmakers and that is well known by Mwondha herself. This brings us to the conclusion that the CC is likely to rule in favor of the legislators. On the one hand if it were to rule in favor of the claimant, that is IGG, the lawmakers still have the constitional right to amend the part of the law which is ambigeous, the right which the courts don’t have.

In UK for example if any citizen brings to court a claim that a law made by the parliament infringes his right in regard to the now Human Rights Act (1998), an Act which was correponds to the European Convention of Human Rights(1951), the only role of the Court is to declare, if it finds the piece of legislation to contradict the aforementioned Act or convention, incompatible. However, incompatibility in itself means nothing at all because the law is still in application untill parliament decides otherwise.

So my learned friend, I aware that you are fond of the lady cos of her profound achievements(positive) speficially in such an extremely horrible environment……but but but…. why is it hard for her to go through a simple thing? Mr. WBK ,how about M7 advancing similar argument that he doesn’t have to go back to the electoral commission for vetting and nomination because the constitution is also silent about sitting leaders? would that set a good precedent?

Unless the parliament is undermined by the judges, IGG is unlikely to win this case at all judicial levels. As I have noted earlier, should, on the other hand, the ruling be in favor of IGG the parliament still has a right to remedy the situation. Let us just have eyes widely opened and see what the courts will have to say.

As regards passing of the bills and the president being the only legitimate person to assent them,  Mr. WBK, a bill can still become a law with or without his assent. Article 91 on the Exercise of Legislative powers state the following:

“(5) Where the President returns the same bill twice under paragraph (b) of clause (3) of this article and the bill is passed for the third time, with the support of at least two-thirds of all members of Parliament, the Speaker shall cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.
(6) Where the President-
(a) refuses to assent to a bill under paragraph (c) of clause (3) of this article, Parliament may  reconsider the bill and if passed, the bill shall be presented to the President for assent;
(b) refuses to assent to a bill which has been reconsidered and passed under paragraph (a) of this clause or under clause (4) of this article, the Speaker shall, upon the refusal, if the bill was so passed with the support of at least two-thirds of all members of Parliament, cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.
(7) Where the President fails to do any of the acts specified in clause (3) of this article within the period prescribed in that clause, the President shall be taken to have assented to the bill and at the expiration of that period, the Speaker shall cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.
(8) A bill passed by Parliament and assented to by the President or which has otherwise become law under this article hall be an Act of Parliament and shall be published in the Gazette”

The thing is Uganda is a struggling democracy where the rule of law is  no strictly adhered to.  For instance the constitution puts the age limit of  any aspiring president to something  between 35 and 73. General m7 is now, was it 60?, however don’t be surprised that he may rule beyond the constitutional limit if Allah were still on his side.

Robert Ssenkindu

Ugandan residing in Sweden

Leave a Comment

Museveni is right to tell MPs to ’shut up’

April 25, 2009 at 2:38 pm (PRESIDENCY, legal issues)
Tags:

Mr Semuwemba:

You are serious a commentator but this time you let us down.  MPs knew what they were getting into when Hon Otada speaking on behalf of the embattled appointments committee issued ultimatum to YKM.

If the MPs are so sure of their good deeds, they should resign at least from that Committee. So far no one has quit.  We need to know the entire composition and fully, yes fully mock them.  You bet the money they claim for sitting in that committee is too much for them to quit. MPs in Uganda put money above everything. They must have fought to get on that committee.  Will they voluntarily quit?

Mr Semuwemba many of the MPs were rigged in with YKM’s help. Do you really expect  them to bite the hand that gave them passage to 10 million monthly jobs?  Former MPs in Uganda are literally grassing and the current chaps know that.

I will tell you what, some of the MPs are panicking that the IGG wil soon go after them. Stay tuned.

Please do not have any sympathy for MPs. Once again, who was it that let Justice Faith Mwondha keep two jobs? I told you that she is still a judge of the High court who will simply move back to the High Court for redeployment should the IGG thing elude her.

Who knows she may even end up on the anti-Corruption court where she would wield some real powers.  MPs should be carefully what they wish for.

Yes, the case has ended up before the Constitutional Court. That is the favor the IGG has done the country. This may be the first case where the President has sworn an affidavit in case challenging the AG and Parliament so it is a big case.

You are wrong to argue that the AG’s opinion is supposed to be legally respected. The President has the legal right to refuse wrong legal advice from his or her AG. That is the case in this particular case.

This case is not about the powers of parliament to legislate.  Actually the case is about constitutional  interpretation which is why the IGG’s instance on going to the CC is the best solution.  Let the Court determine.

I am going to differ with you and many others who have sided with parliament on this one. If you think hard and long, it is the IGG who has saved the country any crisis if you may call it that. MPs were interested in public show with their threats to resign until YKM told them to shut up. Why shut up? Because they had no clue what they were talking about.

Mr Semuwemba I hope you have not bought into the notion that Uganda’s parliament is right. It has been more wrong than right. Their batting average on serious constitutional cases is nil. Zip. Nada.!  They have never gotten on base.

Now here is a question to ponder about: what should happen should the petitioners win their case before the CC and Supreme Court as the case will certainly be appealed there?  We shall find out. As they say “eyewwa ezomumba…”

When this is done with, President Museveni should do Uganda a favor and hire himself a senior lawyer as his legal adviser instead of mediocre fresh graduates from law school who cannot advise him properly.

We are still waiting for sections of opposition to weigh in. What we know so far is that the Leader of opposition weighed and sided with parliament.  He had to since he is one of the members of the appointments committee.  Whether that is the FDC position remains to be seen. But weigh in they have to.

I bet you that by the time this interpretation is done, parliament would have lost not once but twice.Twice because the CC will not bring finality to the matter. That will have to be the Supreme Court of Uganda.

Parliaments acts on behalf of the executive so who will have to bring the motion to amend the constitution? A private member’s bill passage in Uganda or for that matter in any parliament is not simple.  And even if the MPs were to somehow marshal  enough votes to pass the private member’s bill, YKM will still have to have the final word.  He is the only person who can sign bills into law.

The moral of this is that parliament cannot afford to antagonize other branches of the government. I suppose they are thinking along your lines that they dwarf other levels of govt. If that is the mentality, it is a wrong move.

I wonder whether picking confrontation on what looks so simply to rational Ugandans was worthy the fight?  Was the re-appointment of the IGG such a big deal to warrant this?

Had Justice Mwondha served as IGG, then left for another stint to the Judiciary and re-appointed as IGG after being away for some time, I would understand. But the lady Justice’s term was extended or re-appointed. I guess lawyers will be arguing about the meaning of re-appointment or extension.

If the teachers whop taught Makerere University students cannot agree, one wonders what they are teaching their students then?

If parliament loses, then the AG, The Hon Speaker and all members of the appointments Committee must resign.  No other way about it.

BTW, the IGG did not petition the CC. A group of 22 did under the leadership of EALA MP Ms Kawamara. The IGG only swore an affidavit.

That parliament has some very senior and bright lawyers but they all sat kimya as the appointments committee escalated  the tempo. Where was Hon Kawanga’s voice? where was Hon Wacha’s voice? Where was Hon Erias Lukwago’s counsel?  That is what happens when sober voices cede ground to non-experts.

Let the Courts decide. I suppose the case will be heard by a full slate of 5 judges not just 3, you tell us.

It is money for the smart legal folks in Kampala and I suspect all the big hitters will be on this one given the stakes.  For parliament it is do or die literally.  If they lose as I am projecting, kwisha which is why one wonders whether it was wise to grandstand on what seems obvious.

Smart people do not squander their political capital and credibility on easy cases.  But we are talking about the 5million Ugandan parliament here.

WBK

DP Activisit residing in USA

Leave a Comment

MPs should demonstrate against the ’shut up’ president

April 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm (PRESIDENCY, legal issues)
Tags:

Dear Ugandans,
Last time I read about a politician telling another politician to shut up was in 2003 when senator JohnMcCain told ex-presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter to “shut up!”. The two had become regular critics of the Bush presidency. McCain defended himself on radio stations by saying that there was an unwritten rule that ex-presidents are supposed to keep their mouth shut about the conduct particularly of national security affairs, by the people that succeeded them.


However, with what president did by telling MPs to ‘shut their traps’ because they disagreed with him over something, it is very sad for a developing democracy in Uganda. There is nothing more patriotic than criticizing the sorry state of affairs we now have in the State House. His decision to stand by the IGG may be right but at the same time he is obliged by the constitution to respect the legislative arm of the government without interfering in their work. If President Museveni goes away with this and I suspect that he will go away with it, all the more than 300 MPs will lose their credibility in the public eyes. Let the MPs do some ‘peaceful demonstration’ against the president’s present character and the way he is handling things

Whether Museveni is right or wrong we are soon gonna find out from the constitutional court. All I know is that the attorney General’s opinion is supposed to be legally respected by the executive according to the 1995 constitution of the republic of Uganda. So in this case, unless Museveni has got two AGs then this needs to be clarified. AG gave his opinion on the IGG issue and his opinion gave these MPs a base where to challenge the president.

I’m however happy that this issue has taken another twist and it ended up in the constitutional court(CC).The CC will eventually define the duties and functions of both the appointing authority and the parliament so that those entrusted with power know exactly what they are supposed to do.

Nevertheless, we should remember the opinion of Justice Wambuzi during the past constitutions when he said that parliament has the power to pass any law (so long as it follows the right form and procedures). The absolute power of parliament to legislate on any matter has also been recognised by the British courts for a long time, as sir William Blackstone also gave an opinion:’ what the parliament does, no authority upon earth can undo……..it has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expanding of laws-concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime or criminal…..’’

Another English legal expert, Dicey also wrote that: ‘parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever. Further, no person or body is recognised by the Law of England as having the right to override or set aside the Legislation of parliament.’’ I’m not sure how it is specifically stated in the Uganda constitution but all I know is that the opinion of the AG should be respected by the president and this is where we are at the moment. Whether these MPs are still being followed by the 2005 ‘ghost’ of the shs.5m each up to now, this is the time to fight that ghost by doing a ‘peaceful demo’ against Museveni’s the state of affairs in the state house.

Abbey.K.Semuwemba

Leave a Comment