December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Month December 2008

UPC perishability and Nekyon

Adoko Nekyon left his cousin’s UPC Gov’t in 1967. Maybe this was a sign of what was to come, in 1971(?). In 1980, Adoko Nekyon, as a DP, was the first to carry the news to Uganda and to the World [over the BBC and so on] that the DP had worn. After Paulo Muwanga imposed an embargo and announced the UPC ‘victory’, it was Nekyon who gave first-hand information on how cheating/rigging had occurred in the North. He detailed the rigging process. He later went into exile from his “cousin-brother’s” thieving government.

Under M7 after 1986, Nekyon was at home. He served m7 very well. In the late 1990’a/early 2000’s, Adoko Nekyon starts a war against Sister ‘Chechilia’ and Dr. Rwanyarara, the then interim leader of UPC. He completes the coup by journeying to Zambia and presenting a make-up of the “New UPC leadership” that exclude Dr. Rwanyarara/Checilia group. The ailing leader asked one question: “have you discussed this at Uganda House??” (With Rwanyarara and Co, that is}. The ‘fox’ in Nekyon said, “YES” [which was a lie and for which the “Dr.” later went to Court in Kampala].Obote approved the new leadership structure and the rest is history.

The cause of action and consequences are there for all to see. Why do you think, of late, up to and even during the burial of Obote, Nekyon was able to get away with such “political malayaism”, even to the extent of using his ‘clan-headship’ to close out the historical UPC’s and Miria’s family-friends from the burial rituals? The reasons are many but the following are indicative.

Nekyon, may be, being remorseful for abandoning his brother in 1967 for egoistic reasons, may have been trying to make amends before the old man’s demise.
May be Nekyon, having moved from UPC to UNLF then to DP and finally to the NRM, which may have disappointed him, may have wished to play a ‘prodigal son’ returning home, which home only be UPC could provide.
May be Nekyon is /was just being opportunistic and envious of Dr. Rwanyarara? “Why should this “munyarwanda lead our party”?

For political scientists, the most plausible reason has remained one: being an experienced politician, of the ‘meandering type’ though he may be, Nekyon and his group perceived wrongly or otherwise, the NRM as a “Westerner” party that has/had eaten into the UPC strongholds in Ankole, etc. Similarly, they may have wrongly/rightly seen DP as a “Ganda Party”. The strategy, therefore was to create a party for the “EAST and NORTH, so that UPC, presumably known to the people already, would still have a presence in Parliament and therefore give Nekyon and his buddies [‘Wangoola and Co’] a lasting and retirement voice in the final days, in parliament. Numbers thus attained would also give them a ‘block’ from which to bargain with the powers that be [NRM, etc].

They forgot one or two things though: The parliamentary elections of the mid-90’s left the UPC divided and discredited in the North. The UPC witch-hunted people like Checilia and Dr. Okullo Epak because they campaigned for and entered parliament against the party’s advice. They had/have followers too.

The KONY accentuated the Acholi_Langi divide. There is no way they were ever going to belong to the same party again, at least not the UPC.

They under-estimated the NRM machinations and propaganda abilities. After herding people into concentration camps, only NRM-sifted propaganda could reach them. Only NRM food could reach them. They therefore had a semblance of security under the new ‘regime’. The NRM presented national efforts as NRM-party efforts and this happens up to today.

Nekyon and his group disillusioned the UPC supporters all over Uganda by becoming too regional/tribal while the UPC in power had, at least, pretended to appear ‘national’. No wonder, Miria could not register even a single vote at many stations outside Lango/Bugisu. It is almost certain that, had the Nekyon group not fragmented the UPC leadership, UPC’s national credentials would have been retained in many places, minimal as these could have been.

MONTHER OF ALL QUESTIONS THEREFORE: “Is UPC perishable?” The answer is simple. When the likes of Dr. Oyet cross from London to the NRMO, things are not simple. He is not a stupid “everybody”. Imagine then, what could have happened on the ground.

The UPC that ruled Uganda with KY’s help from 1962-1966, with KY/DP crossovers from 1967-1971, with Tanzania’s help from 1980-1985 CAN NEVER BE RESURRECTED. In other words, it is a waste of time to even ask about the ‘perish-ability’ or not of UPC. The question is just academic. The National UPC was on the death-bed when Obote was ailing on his death-bed in Zambia, and Adoko Nekyon, who saw the national UPC as a dead “Co” tried to replace it with a regional UPC, with catastrophic consequences. The national UPC therefore perished long ago when Nekyon, Wangola, Walubiri, etc decided to hammier the final nail in its head.

It may remain as a Lira-party centred on Hon. Akena. New parties, including a possible ‘Acholi one” [not the Liberal party of Tiberio Okeny and Leander Komakech of 1980 but may one centred on Mao] after the DP rejects him], etc. “National UPC is History”. If this prediction is to be proved wrong, then today is certainly not the time. The ‘bwino” – hard evidence we have is that the UPC is no more, at least as a national party, thanks, among other things, to M7_Adoko joint Nekyon action.

Christopher Muwanga,



Kakungulu Not a Traitor(part 5)

Dear “Sir” Henry Ford and others.


Summary:Revanchism” and “Revisionism” -the desire for revenge and for the re-writing of history is a double edged sword. You may use it for a moment but it may cause you losses in the end.? How? Why? One now talks of a “master Plan”, etc. Does “Sir” Ford want a Kingdom where the Banyoro are a minority again?


It is a disease that occupies short-sighted minds, that plan looking at short-term scenarios and act without strategic calculations. Two examples will suffice before more details are furnished.


1/6. After the defeat of Germany in WW-I, many in Germany felt bad, despite the fact that their leaders at the time has started WW-I. One hot-head, a street artist called Adolfo Hitler used extremist language and support from conservatives to try to re-draw the borders of Germany as affirmed by the treaty of Versailles [Take note “Sir” Ford].


Well, he eventually became elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933 BUT remember, by May 9th, 1945, after WW-II, Germany was even smaller than it had been when he came to power. The rest is history. Even a re-united Germany [1989] is far smaller than the ‘post-WW-I’ one.

If revisionism were right or logical, Russia would demand for Alaska, France for Louisiana, Italy for Egypt or even for India and all the territories in-between [Roman Empire], etc, etc.

Mother of all questions; therefore, how far back in history or when does demand for the  ‘restitution’ and restoration of ‘lost territories ‘ begin and end? Shall all humanity now claim the so called “Garden of Aden” -because that is where we ‘all’ came from, mbu [one hears]? Stop being misled and excited by the heat of the moment please. Do not behave as though the ‘project’ called Uganda has ceased to exist.  Buganda is not a sovereign State. Neither is Bunyoro. How can then, one start claiming territory from the other? You are be shaming the State and GoU. Am surprised you are not yet charged with ‘treason’, for advocating ‘un-constitutional measures’ to solve sentimental problems.


2/6. Revisionism is illogical, especially when you mix mythology, wishes etc with fact. You say that even the people in the ‘3 -original counties’ of Buganda “would be speaking Luo…”. Since when, “Sir” Ford, did inhabitants speak the language of the visitors? The Banyoro Kings are of Luo origin, so we are told. Why then is Runyoro spoken in Bunyoro-Kitara, today, not Luo? It is like saying that there were no people in Buganda in advance of the Biito dynasties? I still have to learn that version of history which says “creation /existence started with the centralized states in the interlocutrice area”. Welcome to the World man. 


3/6. I have no words for the statements put out by one “Patric Von Otto” who seems to have qualified more in spewing vulgarities than ideas. One point though: by talking of a non-aggression pact between entities or peoples, I did not necessarily mean written ones. There is what we call “omukkago” stamped by “blood brother-hood” or consented intermarriage. There was such an arrangement between the principalities of Busoga and Buganda Kingdom. Kooki is another example. The Banyala of Bugerere changed/sought allegiance with Buganda, for protection at their own request for fear of Bunyoro, far in advance of the British arrival. They even produced one of the most famous Katikiro’s at Mengo, in recent times. Hold a referendum there today and see. So, the “tolintabaala-siri kutabaala’ is a non-aggression pact, written or not. Why should Bunyoro want to re-assert her authority on non-Banyoro peoples that were happy to survive its yoke earlier on. Are Banyala, Banyoro? Are Baluli, Banyoro? Are people of Bulemezi, Banyoro? Or you want the place empty when you re-gain it? The Nyamwezi Empire gave Buganda trade missions/expeditions rights of ‘safe –passage’ to and from the coast, while trading in cloth, guns, merchandise, Ivory, etc. Why was this possible? Why was Buganda not fighting the Nyamwezi to the south-west? Because there was a ‘non-agression pact’ arrangement, which was missing in the Buganda-Bunyoro relationship.


4/6. To come to our days: the British have no written constitution, neither had/has Buganda. It does not mean they do not have laws.

Please “Von” Otto, I know what I was talking about. If the Banyoro had “omukkago” with Buganda, they would have faced the Arabs and the British together.  But come this situation when Buganda had relations with England and not with Bunyoro and you expect them to betray this relationship because of a local rival they have been at war with for 300 years, because of geography and colour? One: Buganda is a dependable alley [Ask UPC: Buganda gave them power].Buganda is neither racist nor short sighted, please [see the nationalities represented in the Great Lukiiko, even former porters and herdsmen are represented!!]. But Buganda is Principled. There was no need to jeopardize a well-nurtured relationship with a World power that had the ability to provide education ,etc with a fair-weather neigbour, for sentimental reasons of race, proximity, etc, even when the neigbour has not requested for help. You cannot always guess the needs of people for them.


5/6. Why is all this coming up at this time? It is, among other reasons, the misplaced envy and nostalgia that are at work [giving rise to the ‘gandophobia’ syndrome].

 When a child from a needy family grows up and becomes able, it may want to revenge on a neigbour, “why did you have better toys than I did when we were young?” –mainly because the former needy child has a stick and may be campaigned by a ‘bully’, while the former well-off one has his (stick) unready and may be is seemingly un-campaigned. The real truth is that, the insolence of the former needy child, now envious of the peer would still have no chance in an ‘equal contest’ (without a biased third party that is).

 Wait till the Bachope and Alur start demanding for their own Cultural heads and districts apart from Masindi. Even the Buliisa people [e.g. the long suffering Bagungu, the original inhabitants of the Albertine shores, long subjugated by Bunyoro], may demand an ‘equitable share’ of the oil resources, to remain in the local communities.

The advise remains: Let Buganda and Bunyoro join to demand their say in a United Uganda, for the benefits of their people and Ugandans at large.


6/6. Concluding: So, “Sir” Henry Ford, seek not revenge. Revisionisim is a double –edged sword that can even harm the user. Do not mix the extent of the former Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom with “Bunyoro-ness”. This is one of the reasons ancient Bunyoro Kitara  broke up into pieces, in the first place!! Tooro did not secede on the intervention of Buganda. Karagwe in Tanzania was not lost due to Buganda, neither did Ankole, let alone Bunyala or even Bulemezi you wrongly talk of. If push and further you go back to that situation, Banyoro will become a minority in the Kingdom again and, what went around will still come around. Better keep what you have now and enjoy what the Central GoU and the locals will give to you, from the oil revenues. Better fight for more. Check the Oil Agreements first.

As for “Von” Otto, I am not ready to stoop to his level of vulgarities contained in his post on subject. Germany started WW-I and lost. Still it started WW-II and lost further. There is no benefit in revisionism especially that grounded on ‘illogic’ and blind revenge. Full stop.


Happy New year to the Compatriots.


Christopher Muwanga,




Who is Dr. Rwanyayare in UPC? Can he be bought by Museveni like others?

Summary: I will summarize the situation in advance of the replacement of Dr. Rwanyarare’s/Celilia’s PPC – Presidential policy commission by Adoko Nekyon-Okello Okello/Wegulo’s SCC – Constitutional Steering Committee. My research shows that the PPC, mainly backed by the young Turks, Makerere academia, etc was being undermined by at least two groups:The Nekyon-Okello Okello group and The Wegulo group.

Dr. Rwanyarare is not a “Munyarwanda” at all. He is a typical Muchiga, from Kanungu District. Dr. Rwanyayare has at least two achievements attributed to him, in his long life: He was among the group of Junior School students taken from Kigezi high School (outside Kabale town) to talk English to the African who talked ‘better English’ than white men. This was Sir Edward Mutesa, on his tour of the then Kigezi district, in 1957. He [Rwanyarare] was by then, already a member of the UNC.

He joined the UPC-youth wing at the party’s founding, March 15th,1960 [ Kampala club]. After the anti-Amin liberation, when all UPC’s walked with their heads bowed, Dr. Rwanyarare was the first person to fly the ‘blue-black-red’ flag [at his clinic, Blue Room, Namirembe rd, Kampala]. No wonder he became the minister of culture in the Obote-II government soon after.

Ironically, though it is at the same Blue Rooms { Namirembe Rd } that trouble started for veteran Musaazi in ’59. In reality, he was overthrown by the young Turks led by Jolly Joe Kiwanuka [Founder of Express FC, who introduced Obote], although the ‘coup de grace’ was finally acted in the Mbale conference, where his vice president Obote took charge of the ‘progressive wing’.

Dr. Rwanyarare had another quality. He knew Museveni so well that attacks on him [M7] were always well grounded, since the Dr. knew the ‘rubble-rouser’ from his days as a DP activist in the early 1960’s. More to that, he was useful as M7’s propaganda could not undermine UPC as a ‘party for northerners’.

Finally, it is Dr. Rwanyarare and [Chechilia] who registered the new UPC party as we know it today, according to the requirements of the current constitution of Uganda . Many factions were against this. So, he is the founder of the “new UPC”.

On Hon. Nekyon, I know he was an effective minister. Especially, when he said, “…History will prove me right..” on signing off the conversion of Nakasero European hospital into UTV/Radio Uganda headquarters in 1967, as M.O. Information, Broadcasting and Tourism.

We must admit though, a fact some people seem not to accept, that he is the one who engineered the removal of Dr. Rwanyarare from the PPC [leadership of UPC] together with Okello Okello. Wegulo was in the wings though. I stand by what I say on this and I would like you to find out more about it: Words always reached the ‘party president’ and many came with their views. I find it strange that some people forget that Sister Cecilia [read Chechilia] was ostracized from the party for standing in the parliamentary elections. When Adoko Nekyon arrived with his team, with proposal for the future of the party, the one question Obote reportedly continued asking were:

• Rwanyarare, Cecilia and Co. are in touch with the grass-roots. Are you people there? How will you communicate and explain the change?

• Most important: have you discussed this issue with Uganda House? [Meaning the Rwanyarare faction, the PPC]? To which they reportedly answered in the affirmative. Now, if Nekyon’s pre-mature announcement of the DP victory in 1980 [claiming support of soldiers, in case] was bad for UPC, this lie, to the ailing party president may be the one to haunt Nekyon and the party, for a long time to come.

In fact, when a member of the Rwanyarare team visited soon after Nekyon’s team’s departure Obote he behaved, not unlike Jacob after he has blessed Abel in place of Cain. He reportedly only communicated with body language and offered Nekyon’s reasons, not his. May be because of ailment or of remorse but, the rest is history.

Indeed Obote appointed and dismissed officials at Uganda House (when in exile) BUT, AFTER “CONSULTATIONS”, in this case, “LOBBYING”. It was after such consultations that he ‘dis-engaged’ the Rwanyarare PPC team from the leadership of UPC [he instead created a parallel organ, the CSC- Constitutional Steering Committee, headed by Hajji Badru Wegulo, another [anti-Rwanyarare coup plotter], making Rwanyarare the head of “Inter-party” relations. Another point though: The preparations for his comeback were now silently in progress. It may be that, since he was to go home in Lira/Apach, it may be assumed that Adoko and his team would have done better at grass-root mobilization in the area, or so they thought.

Ruhaihayo did not have a group but he was suspected to be vacillating between the Rwanyarare/Cecilia group and that of Wegulo. Rurangaranga was with the PPC.

To overthrow the PPC, openly because its members like Dr. Okullo Epak and Cecilia, etc had stood for Parliament defying Party directives but inside/innermost, because the party had to have a “home” [regional base].

Execution of the ‘coup plan’: The Nekyon – Okello Okello group wrote a very convincing proposal and took it to the party president. On receiving it and after talking to them, he asked them if there had been consultation. They answered “yes”. He told them to hold on. Meanwhile, someone from the ‘household’ (name withheld) rang Rwanyarare, “Nekyon and Okello Okello are here, confusing Mzee, yet he is tired”. Dr. Rwanyarare replied that, that, was unfair because, the last time he had visited, Mzee had been in such health as needing rest. On the question, by the caller, as to whether they had discussed the proposals, Rwanyarare answered in the negative. They spent two days and after seemingly getting some opinion from the Wegulo group, Obote signed their proposal.

In Kampala , when the PPC heard of the ‘coup’ [Obote did not in fact overthrow the PPC members. Instead, he created the CSC- the Constitutional Steering Committee but to which Rwanyarare was to hand over to, him coming in charge of the ‘Inter party desk” [liaison with NRM, DP, that is, imagine!!!].

The PPC young Turks refused the handover. Rwanyarare said, “no we shall create a larger crisis for the party. Instead we shall go to Court, after consulting the party president”. When contacted, Obote ordered them, “Sit together and discuss”. This was his last open word on party issues. The PPC group decided to go to Court and they did, judging that Mzee was too tired to be involved in the day-today conflicts at Uganda House. The Court Process dragged on; Uganda style till it was considered futile. At Obote’s burial ceremonies, word went around that some group had overworked Obote to death but this never held ground. Some cursed Nekyon but when he took charge of the ceremonies as clan elder, every rumour ‘died’ and complacency set in. The elections and the results are history.

UPC a party of the future?

Hmm. Physical scientists believe what they can ‘see’. Only social scientists try to predict the future. True, UPC will be there in the future. But, in power? May be. Did it not come in power in 1962, with no majority in parliament? Good luck.

7/8. On being ‘happy’ with Mama Akena, a.k.a. Mrs. Kalule Obote in charge: Ha ha!! Is it really believed that our people can support anything of their ‘like’ on such simplistic whims, even a hyena in a sheep’s fleece? Did she have power? If so, why was she being sidelined by Foreign Minister Sam Odaka from the Milton Obote Foundation in charge of Uganda House, Uganda School Supply, etc. Do you not know that Uganda House was gone but was only saved by one of the 99 tricks applied by the ‘city boys left in Kampala’ ? Did Miria contribute to saving it?

Party belonging is a commitment. A party is judged by its dream and may be UPC will rejuvenate and re-package itself. The intrigue that made the ‘once turn-coat’ Nekyon the party-hero in the evening of his cousin’s life makes the party an ‘enigma’ bundled in mystery, a mystery that can only be unwrapped by your geuine party members, that is ,if one of the 99 tricks does not include ‘fratricide’ as exhibited in the PPC-CSC un-necessary struggle, detailed above. That was a self-scored goal whose effects will take years, if not decades to heal.

[Note: These vies are only academic and are not based on my political leanings. the contents are open secrets at Kampala club, Kitante Golf course, Uganda House Shed, among many makeree discussin circles, etc].

Christopher Muwanga,



Bukedi-Bugishu Conflict over Mbale

The dispute between Bugisu and Bukedi was primarily over Mbale Town, and other areas such as Nakaloke and Lwanjusi. Bukedi initially was made up of Bukedi proper (excluding Samia-Bugwe), Bugisu, Teso and Sebei Districts. The bulk and ethnic diversity of the area worked against smooth administration. In 1909, Teso was sliced off. In the meantime, Samia-Bugwe was patched onto Bukedi. Then in 1923, that new Bukedi was split up into Bugisu (HQ: Bubulo); Bugwere (HQ: Nakaloke); and Budama (HQ: Tororo). The new Bugwere District also included Mbale county and Mbale town; a factor that did not go down well with the Bagisu who felt that they had been robbed of their land.

In 1937 there were further changes that saw Bugisu and Bugwere being combined, partly as a way of superficially mollifying the Bagisu. The two became Central District (HQ: Mbale). What made this arrangement rather ad hoc was that the constituent parts each of the new Central District retained its own local government, instead of the district having a unitary local government. When in 1947, Budama was also slapped onto the Central District, it was combined with Bugwere right within the Central district and together they were given their own local administration, called Bukedi Native Administration. Their jurisdiction included Mbale. Bagisu were also given their own native administration within Central District. So this took matters back to square one: the reason for formation of Central District had been forgotten, and Bagisu were sulking again.

To diffuse the quarrel over Mbale, the Town was given a ‘neutral’ status with a Sub-county chief that was answerable to the Central District DC, and to neither of the two native administrations, each of which viewed the neutralisation of Mbale as an injustice. The years leading to independence witnessed quite a few local fights of that issue. It is important also to note the demographic pressures that formed part of the undercurrents of this conflict. According to the 1959 census, Bukedi and Bugisu were found to have the highest population density in the colony (with Kigezi), of up to 300 persons per sq mile, compared to North and East, with 16 persons per sq mile.

Of course Bagisu were at the same time being harassed by the Sebei with whom they formed Bugisu District and wanted their minority status to be terminated.. They wanted a separate district with HQ at Kapchorwa. Every now the Sebei would block the Bamasaba’s only route to the mountains. That route went through Sebei lands. I think AM Obote’s resolution of the Mbale question was along the lines of the ‘Report of the Commission of Inquiry Appointed to Review the Boundary Between the Districts of Bugisu and Bukedi’

Kakungulu Not a Traitor(part 4)

Muwanga Doctrine: ‘People who live in the failures of the past will always move backwards’.




Mr Muwanga correctly points out the need to avoid REVISIONISM.  But he then proceeds to employ revisionism to debunk alleged revisionism…that made feel that it is important to make the following 10 plus 2 observations: 


1/12 In order to brush off Mr Miirima’s assertions, Mr Muwanga takes out of the context Germany’s territorial ‘losses’ after the two great wars in order to make Bunyoro’s claims to lost territories sound absurd.  The fact is that, Germany was not losing territory, but rather, she was handing back stolen territory that she had acquired during the three Polish Partitions of the 18th century, in 1772, 1793 and 1795 when Poland’s


neighbours (Russia, Hapsburg Austria and Prussia, ‘The Alliance of the Black Eagles’) dismembered the so called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.  In the Prussian example that Mr Muwanga provides as a basis of dismissing Mr Miirima’s claims, Bunyoro is comparable to Poland and not to Germany .  So Mr Muwanga’s is a false analogy.  Restitution in favour of Poland can not be bereavement on part of Germany (loss of Konigsberg – or Kaliningrad – notwithstanding). 


2/12  When we put the Prussian case in its proper historical perspective, Germany at the end of the great wars was in a similar position to  Buganda now .  Mr Muwanga is of course silent on who ‘gained’ what Germany ‘lost’.  The fact is that, Poland did not gain.  It was being reconstituted, after being cannibalised by the “Alliance of Black Eagles”…..very much akin to the Anglo-ganda alliance.  Bunyoro is in a similar position to Poland ..  Remember that, Poland was briefly resurrected in 1807 when Napoleon set up what he called the Duchy of Warsaw which itself was undone after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo . 


3/12  There was another Polish partition in 1939, the 4th Partition in which Germany and Russia once again shared out Polish territories (as part of implementation of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).  All these were reversed at the end of WWI and WWII.  If Germany tried to claim back those territories as Mr Muwanga argues, it would be like a thief trying to ‘resteal’ what he had pilfered in the past.  Ermland, Gdansk , Kuyavia and Netze ‘lost’ by Germany were Polish territories…call it war booty if you want.  Mubende, Buyaga, Bugerere, Bugangaizi, Bululi are Bunyoro territories yet to be ‘lost’ by Buganda . 


4/12 Whereas the treaty of Versailles restored Poland all its territories, and gave it a semblance of independence reversing a process that had started 170+ years before, the 1961 independence conference rejected Bunyoro’s claims for a 65 year old injustice to be addressed fully.  To quote Mr Muwanga, ‘…So, Bunyoro is going to claim the ‘Abalega‘ territory from the DR Congo government , because it was under Bunyoro 130 years ago and because Kabalega was born there?’:


5/12  Of course here we have a classical case of the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum: twisting an opponents argument, however weak, to make it sound silly.  Mr Muwanga, People do not lay claim to countries or territories just because they were born there!  That is appealing to ridicule or substituting mockery with evidence Mr Muwanga.  In that case, the Fujimoris of Peru will soon seek to annex Japan , Mr Muwanga would worry.  Mao Nobert, born in Mbarara will annex Nkore to the domains of the Rwot, afterall, someone is temporising on restoring Obugabe!  Mr Miirima was not looking at things that way, I think.


6/12  But lets us pretend that Mr Muwanga’s reductio ad absurdum ammunition can still fire.  We have already seen Poland reclaiming territories lost for over a period of 175 years, although Mr Muwanga elects in his critique of Mr Miirima to de-historicise and obfuscate that fact.  In any case, and just for the sake argument, how do the 175 years of Poland ’s deprivation compare with Mr Muwanga’s 130 years in relation to Bulega?  But what Mr Muwanga has selectively forgotten also is that, Bunyoro’s claims are not as dated as he has tried to portray them.  Uganda ’s (if you may allow me to use the category) oldest political organisation is the Mubende-Bunyoro Committee’ formed in 1921 by Banyoro to reclaim the territory excised by the British and given to Buganda .  This was about 25 years after the event.  They petitioned in 1943, 1945, 1949, 1954 etc.  The problem was not as old as 130 years.  So, even Mr Muwanga’s attempt to deploy ‘appeal to ridicule’ ends up being very much a case of a lame duck laying a putrid egg!  Just for reference, I have attached for Mr Muwanga and forumists a copy of the memorandum by Uganda ’s oldest political organisation regarding Bunyoro’s appeals to recover her territories.


7/12  Kakungulu’s treachery that Mr Miirima keeps referring to is in the moral, and not in the legal sense of flouting a non-aggression pact.  It is the question of an African siding with European invaders and being used as a tool to subjugate his fellow Africans.  A traitor is not necessarily a violator of a legal arrangement as Mr Muwanga would want to make us think. Mr Muwanga’s constant references to non-aggression pacts/treaties/alliances is a bit disingenuous.  He would want to make us believe that every mutual obligation between individuals and groups has to be codified into a legal document/framework.  That is an attempt to whitewash intrigue, subterfuge, underhandedness and opportunism.  Mr Muwanga is simply elevating skullduggery to the level of a science by trying to stress that, if there is no pact, anything goes! 


8/12  The fact is that, opportunism is a cancer that soon consumes its most ardent exponents.  Just look at Mengo between September 1888 and February 1892.  When the the so-called readers (converts to the cause of religious fundamentalism), the Baganda subjects of Kabaka Mwanga, turned against him and deposed him, was it because they lacked a non-aggression pact with their King?  When a month later, the readers split up into Christians and Moslems and turned on each other bloodily, was that skullduggery or lack of a treaty? When in 1892, the Christians turned against each other leading to the murders of Catholics and vandalism of Lubaga, that was fine – according to Mr Muwanga – because those brothers had no ‘non-aggression treaty/cooperation/ military alliance’.  Is that a principled way of looking at our past errors or simple glorification of myopia? 


9/12  Mr Muwanga makes a strong point when he states of Kakungulu that, ‘…even if he had disobeyed his bosses, another commander would have done the same job’.  However, this serves only to highlight the ferocity of British imperialism.  We cannot use that argument as a weapon for attributing moral uprightness to Kakungulu.  According to Mr Miirima, Kakungulu was a simple quisling who was willing to implement the unjust orders of his ‘boss’.  The trouble with quislings is that, they share the same fate as loo paper.  Once they are used, they are flushed.  When they insist on floating around, their ‘bosses’ flush them again and force them down the toilet with a plunger and brush.  That fate befell Kakungulu, just as it did to Selim Bey.  Quislings, scullions, reatiners and lackeys are never allies.  Hyenas lark around lions not because they are allies.  We know why they do do so. 


10/12  ‘Kabalega was ‘fool hardy’ to resist the mighty’: 1893 was not the first time he had engaged the mighty.  On 14.5.1872 Samuel Baker declared that he had annexed Bunyoro to Egypt .  Kabalega routed him and his contingent of Egyptian troops causing them to retreat ignominiously.  To use Mr Muwanga’s words but in a different sense, ‘it was a foregone conclusion’.  What was lacking then was a local quisling to stab Kabalega in the back.  Kakungulu had not yet been discovered.  Yet the same Kabalega refrained from attacking Col Gordon’s garrisons six years later.  This does not give the impression of a truculent, tactless, politically naïve ‘suicide spearer’ etc., the picture being paited by Mr Muwanga. 


11/12  And by the way, British colonial manoeuvres never received full endorsement from everyone.  Just as an example, upon the implementation by Berkley of Colonel Colville’s earlier undertaking to excise all Bunyoro territory south River Kafu and give it to Buganda for sharing out amongst catholic and Protestant chiefs, two British officers who were civil servants in Bunyoro at the time were so outraged by the injustice that they even resigned their posts and went back home.  These were William Pulteney and Forster.  They were taking a moral stand, compared to local quislings like Kakungulu.  May be Mr Muwanga will advise us that Kakungulu had signed a ‘non-disobedience pact’! 


12/12  Moreover, or rather, finally, needling Mirima over his references to ‘Ugandans’ at a time when Uganda was not yet a sovereign entity smacks of a tad of pedantry.  It is true that there was no de jure ‘ Uganda ’.  However, there is a lot more to ‘being’ than merely existing in the juridical sense.  The reality of the times that Mr Miirima refers to was that, there was a de facto ‘ Uganda ’, however nascent.  That entitles Mr Mirima (or even Mr Muwanga if he chooses), to employ the category ‘Ugandans’ retrospectively.




L/Cpl (rtd) Otto Patrick



Big words?  In my recruit training, a certain affande turned us into slaves at his quarry.  We were crushing stones for him to sell in the neighbourhood and many of us contracted – be ready for an artillery word –PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICONOVOLCANOCONIOSIS, due to the silica dust in the stones we were bashing….I have since been on inhalers.  When I sound unintelligent, which is always the case as you have pointed out, it is because of limited oxygen supply to my brain..  So, bear with me. 
Back to federalism.  I talked about the demerits of federalism, you asked, no – pestered me – for the superiority of unitarism, I rejected your demand because I had not talked about the inferiority of federalism.  Now you ask for the ‘advantages’ of unitarism, once again I reject that demand because I did not talk about the ‘disadvantages’ of federalism.
Allow me to give you the merits of unitarism…… I got them from S/Sgt Mwaipopo.
  • It is a very effective and efficient form of government.  The central government is all-powerful, and as such, it can take any step to meet the situation before it and is particularly effective in new countries that are still lacking in socio-political integration between groups and regions.  It proves very successful in dealing with the conditions of emergency. 
  • It is a flexible government..  The constitution can be amended easily by the central government according to the exigencies of the situation.  It may delegate some of its powers to local units, or take them back without any difficulty in the light of the obtaining circumstances. 
  • It brings uniformity of administration and legislation.  Since there is only one national legislature and since all powers are vested in the central government, there is uniformity in the spheres of law making and its implementation. 
  • It is less expensive as compared to a federal system because there is no duality in the field of legislation, administration and adjudication.  In other words, there is no duplication of work at the regional levels.
NB:  I am not talking about the merits of unitarism ‘in Uganda’.  Unitarism is a form of government.  In situations like in Uganda where there is limited government across the board, it is ludicrous to dwell on the choice between forms of government….decentralising what has never been centralised…..That is why, at times the debate here at UAH on federalism ends up sounding like shopping for a baby cot before we propose..

Composition of UPDF

This is just a small issue, but scribbled on a large tissue.
What one finds rather exasperating with you (in spite of all your rather un-UPC goodheartedness) are your tiring references to ‘NRA’ when you talk about the Ugandan military which, by the way, any future government, even a UPC one, will inherit.  Unless you intend to opt for the Bremmerian wisdom of disbanding the UPDF, like Paul Bremmer did in post-Saddam Iraq….the rest being as much of history as it is hysteria.
It is like some in the current set of Uganda’s political elite that are in charge, who continue harping on the ‘Okellos’; or worse still, if many years after its dissolution and renaming as the UNLA, one went on referring to the same UNLA as ‘Kikosi Maalum’…the UPC allied component of the Anti-Amin effort.  Of course the intention would be to denigrate the UNLA by linking it to Milton Obote and the UPC.  That kind of spin would be desperately hare-brained spin.  And yes, you are a UPC spin person but get your feet to the ground brother Ochieno.
I would suggest that you get yourself acquainted as quickly as you can,to the reality that, the rank and file of the Ugandan military is an amalgam of at least two dozen pliticomilitary groups that have graced the country in the last three or so decades, and not those Tutsis and Rwandese as many of you here like to refer to them.  The NRA is just one out those many groups that make up the UPDF, and the original NRA soldier is now a very, very, very rare commodity.  And by the way, that is not to imply that, yeah, good riddance.  Here you are with the nuts and bolts of the Uganda military which you still call the NRA:
  1. National Resistance Army (NRA)
  2. Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA)
  3. Uganda People’s Democratic Army (UPDM/A)
  4. Uganda People’s Army (UPA)
  5. Ruwenzururu Kingdom Freedom Movement
  6. Uganda Freedom Movement (UFM)
  7. Uganda Mujahdeen Movement (UMM)
  8. Ninth October Movement/Army (NOM/A)
  9. Allied Democratic Front/Force (ADF)
  10. Force Obote Back Army (FOBA),
  11. Federal Democratic Movement (Fedemo)
  12. West Nile Bank Front (WNBF) I &II
  13. Uganda National Democratic Alliance (UNDA)
  14. National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU)
  15. Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF) I &II
  16. Holy Spirit Movement/Holy Spirit Mobile Forces (HSM) I & II
  17. Citizen Army for Multiparty Politics (CAMP),
  18. Action Restore Justice (ARJ)
  19. Former Uganda National Army (FUNA),
  20. Anti-Referendum Army (ARA),
  21. Peoples’ Redemption Army (PRA)
  22. Uganda Salvation Force/Army (USF/A)
  23. Lord’s Army
  24. Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA),
 You sound a little bit clueless about the reality when you, Mr Ochieno, ad nauseum, refer to the NRA; and that causes many of us to really doubt your judgment and statesmanship if one may call it that. 
Your aim is to vilify those young men, many of whom have no idea about UPC, or even the NRA: many of the UPDF riflemen were born after 1986…may be 90% of the young boys in UPDF battalions.  The UPC many of them know is the group that in the 2006 elections polled 0.82% of the votes, behind a young independent man that polled 0.95%.  That is all they know!  They have no idea about your fixation with NRA.  They have never belonged to the NRA.
Many are from the groups I have listed for you above.  They joined the UPDF to earn a living, they work under severe hardships, when their bosses are busy stealing their pay and procuring for them substandard equipment.  Several were integrated into the UPDF from anti-NRM insurgency groupings which they were gangpressed into joining, through grissly initiations like murdering their own parents and siblings. 
The great majority of those boys are yearning for a change that can make their situation better than it is now.  100% of those boys who joined the UPDF through regular recruitment did not receive pay as recruits because Uganda is the only country in the world that does not pay its recruit during the first nine or more months of initial training.  This is the situation in the UPDF, and ironically, that was the situation in the UNLA…..
Just as an example, A Ugandan Colonel (whether Acholi, Langi or Munyankore) earns about the equivalent of $ 6,000 per year where as his British counterpart earns $150,000.  That UPDF Colonel needs to hear voices that promise to alleviate his plight, and not those like yours, that are bent on demonising him.  A future government that holds childish views about the hard-pressed UPDF soldier definitely alienates itself in advance.
For those of you who keep referring to the UPDF as ‘Tutsi/Rwandese’, you cannot imagine what anger you cause for young boys who are living under serious hardships.  Somehow, you end up politicising them, and poisoning them against your own interests.  Besides, an alphabetic listing of the UPDF would probably show that, about 40% of the surnames start with letter ‘O’, and not because they are Otafiire, Owoyesigire, Owakubariho or Owobusingye.  It is the Okellos, again!  Infact the name ‘Okello’ may be anything up to 10%.
You need to adopt a more mature attitude towards those boys, otherwise, you will not be ‘building for the future’.
Stop dancing the anti-NRA ndombolo of 1985.  Tune in to the new music brother.  Be seen to be moving on!
Very sincerely,
L/Cpl (rtd) Otto Patrick

Semei Kakungulu,Not a traitor(part 3)

If you can, please check out: RW Felkin ‘Notes on the Wanyoro Tribe’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh’ 19 (1891-2), 138 in C.Wilson and R. Felkin, Uganda and Egyptian Sudan (London, 1882) 209.  Felikn notes that, by the 1880s, Bunyoro had a population of 2.5 million with Buganda’s standing at 5 million.   

 When you look at the Uganda Protectorate; ‘Report on the 1911 Census of the Population of Uganda’ (Entebbe, 1912), page 15; and Uganda Protectorate, ‘General African Census 1959’ (4 vols., Entebbe, 1960), Vol II, 77, you observe that Bunyoro’s population fell from 130,992 in 1911 to 126,875 in I959. There were 270,557 Nyoro in Uganda in 1911 and I88,374 in 1959.. 

 The point here is not so much to do with those drops in the 1900s (which in themselves, are very significant, having been spawned off by the dislocation occasioned by the wars of the 1890s), but the decline from Felkin’s 2.5 million, and what the protectorate census was reporting one generation down the line…..KRS’s propensity for hyperbole and paparazzist waffling notwithstanding. 

 As a result of the war, Bunyoro suffered a major demographic crisis that it only started recovering from in the 1970’s.  Even by 1954, a certain geographer, Baker was noting how Bunyoro’s population never underwent as natural an increase as other communities in East Africa…see Uganda Journal, 18 (1954), p.102. 

 From 1910-25 the mean live birth rate for Bunyoro was 20.8 per 1,000, the lowest in Uganda; while the mean death rate was 28 per 1,000, the highest in Uganda; with 31.9 births being stillbiirths, the highest in the protectorate.  Why connect still births to the war of the 1890s?  The chaos and disruption caused by the wars sparked off a severe epidemic of yaws, syphillis and gonorrhea (just like the spread AIDS is facilitated by intractable civil conflict).  There were many reports of ‘barren women’…due to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

 In 1904, a certain George wilson carried out a minicensus in Bunyoro villages and found that the population of children was about 25.9%…extremely low in a preindustrial setup (Uganda’s rate now is about 60%).  While in 1921, the average figure for the protectorate was 41.5%, that of Kibiro, near Lake Mwitanzige (‘Albert’) was 23.6% only: a rather severe demographic crisis.  High infant mortality rates were partly contributed to by the destruction of Bunyoro’s pastoralist economy by the Anglo-Buganda incursion….protein malnutrition affected both mothers and children….in 1905, Dr Albert Cook notes that 90% of children in Bunyoro died during birth or in infancy, further noting that ‘Bunyoro is remarkable for its dearth of children’ (in a communication to Menog missionaries, Wellcome Library, PP/COO A255)…..etc etc etc….

 The names given to Banyoro children throughout the years embody the mood of fatalism that pervaded Bunyoro after the fall of Kabalega…..Kunihira (hope), Kyaligonza (what god will decide), Kisembo/Mugisa (mere luck or provident’s gift), Tinkamanyire (I am not sure yet..whether he will be one of the 10% survivors), Tinkasimire (can’t thank yet)…Byaruhanga, Byabakama, Byakatonda (in lost counties), Kaijamurubi/Komurubi (child of adversity), Tibulihwa (endless sorrow), Erabura (there will be no survivors) Kasigwa (father died before child’s birth), Kasangaki (will find no siblings/happiness), Kirokimu (take the day as it comes).  All those names carry the message of pervasive mortality and resignation. 

 When Miirima talks about the death of 2 million, we should be a bit inhibited in the manner with which we dismiss him.  I know Kalundi Serumaga and inhibition are like oil and water, but what do we do?

 Miirima’s problem might be that of passing a ‘process’ as an event….and that is a minor issue.

 …..And oh yes, another name: Miirima…era of darkness!…

Otto Patrick

Semei Kakungulu,Not a Traitor(part 1)

Executive summary: People who live in the failures of the past will always move backwards.

Accusing Gen. Kakungulu of murdering Ugandans is surely historically incorrect as well as it is morally so. When some one is defeated in battle, the terms of settlement are set by the victor, not by the anguished. Property, territory etc are lost. The accusation that Buganda gained under colonialism and that gen. Kakungulu was a traitor are therefore sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, for the following few reasons:


1/7). Kakungulu ‘pacified’ the tribes in the East and North-East as part of his job-description. He planted trees, built roads and district centres, forced people not to move naked [the so called baKedi, etc] to stop spirit worship, etc. KAKUNGULU WAS NOT THE colonial POLICY MAKER. He was not at Berlin1884.

2/7). To say he betrayed Ugandans is lack of historical ‘contexity’ (if one can use such word). It is anachronistic. FIRST OF ALL THERE WAS NO SOVREGNN STATE CALLED UGANDA. There was no such citizenship. He was not an employee of the Ugandan state. So, how can he be accused of betraying Ugandans when no Ugandan citizens existed then? Uganda has existed with citizenship only from 1962.

3/7). Even if Kakungulu were a war-lord and killed people [did he?]in the territorial space now called Uganda, he still should not be called a traitor becasue he broke no “non-aggression pact” between him and the peoples he defeated. And, even if he had dis-obeyed his bosses, another commander would have done the same job

4/7). The same goes with blaming Buganda for ‘cooperating’ with the Brits to subjugate Bunyoro: There was no ‘non-aggression treaty/cooperation/ military alliance’ between the two Kingdoms, which had been at war for 300-400 years in advance of the British. SO, HOW DOES BETRAYAL COME INHERE? 

5/7).  Speaking in terms of military strategy and diplomacy, one can say Buganda was very astitute indeed to ally with a strong force [the super-power of the day] to ‘teach’ the old enemy a lesson. Ford Mirima should instead blame the Bunyoro Kitara government of the time for failure, if not on the military front, certainly on the Diplomatic one. War is politics by other means and therefore it is a high time the Mirimas and the other apologists of failure should revisit history and apportion blame where it should be: Bunyoro’s failure in diplomacy AT THE TIME.

Speaking of betrayal how come that after King Kamurasi’s death, a very tragic succession civil war broke out, where many thousands lost their lives? Shall we therefore blame Prince Kasagama today [if not prince Kabalega in fact], for killing the Banyoro, in equal measure as the British did? Is the death of a Munyoro from a Munyoro spear ‘sweeter’ than the death of a Munyoro fighter from a Muganda warrior?

6/7) Examples: When the Germans marched on the USSR in June 1941; they shipped back everything, including people and even bridges and works of art. BUT, when you loose a war, there is what is called ‘war booty’ or war trophies. Ask the Germans: When the Soviets took Berlin in May ’45, the carried away anything of value, including research centres and scientists [the Americans did the same in their sector]. Even territory was not spared [Germany was dismembered and parts of her restored to Poland. Part of the former centre of German imperial Glory, PRUSSIA, is now an integral part of the Russian federation called Kaliningrad]. Germany is not claiming it back in 2008!!


7/7). CONCLUSION: It is VERY WRONG FOR UGANDAN REVISIONISTS TO HANKER FOR THE LOSSES THEY SUFFERRED BACK IN HISTORY. It was even a mistake for the British to lay seeds for the referendum of 1964, which Obote fulfilled, in violation of the Agreement between the KY and UPC reached in advance of the Lancaster Conference, in 1961. Worse still, is the recent wave of ‘district and chiefdom creation”, in areas recognised under the Constitution of Uganda to belong to other known entities. Mirima and the other hangers-on [under the cover of the NRMO] should not exploit the ignorance of their people to hide their kingdom’s failure on the diplomatic front in the years past. This is not to say anything abut Kabalega’s ‘foolhardy’ in engaging a much superior enemy {instead of negotiating like the Ghanaian Chiefs, the Buganda Kings, etc, as a politico-military tactic, to save their kingdoms’ integrity] against whom he has no chance [he may have been a good filed-commander but he certainly was no politician. A hare cannot engage a lion without consequences]. The results were a foregone conclusion. We may praise him for bravery and darling, for sentimental and mobelisational reasons. but, at intellectual levels, the gloves have to be removed; otherwise many will continue to mislead their people, with the negative consequences for all of us.


Christopher Muwanga,

Semei Kakungulu, NOT a traitor(part 2)

Fellow countrymen,


Summing up: The problem facing Uganda today is that of REVISIONISM and the search for revenge. Mirima is among but not the only victim of this symdrome. 

I am short of ‘machine time ‘ at the cafe but I will share, all the same, a brief moment with you on the reaction of the likes of Henry Ford (???), in reality Owekitiinisa Mirima, to my post. 

First, he mistakes Baganda to have been ‘colonial agents’. Forgetting the Buganda-British relationship, at least at the beginning, was not that of “a Colony with a Coloniser” but that between two allies. There was an “allied relationship” from the 1880’s.

I will mainly dwell on clarifying truth from ‘chaff’ (sorry the word). But to summarise, there are two tendencies observed here:

    • One is the distinction between intellectual discourse and political propaganda hype and sentiment. ‘Sir Henry Ford’ mixes his love for country [Bunyoro Kitara, which he is right to love] and hate for the victors [Buganda and Britain] with intellectual facts. Intellectual discourse has no room for tribal colours and sentiments.
    • The second is the idea of basing arguments on the common saying and syndrome that every tribe has in its language: “..mother cooks best” or “ knows all..”. Read ahead please.

1/5. The collapse of the Berlin Wall: This wall was created by a third party [the USSR] between on German territory, dividing a SINGLE PEOPLE for geopolitical reasons , in the aftermath of WWII. Like, if a wall was built between Hoima and Masindi Districts or between Kyadondo and Kyaggwe by a third party. Neither the Bunyoro or the Buganda nations would be happy with that situation. The collapse of the Berlin Wall was a result of the decision of the Soviets (Gorbachov) to withdraw and thus re-align their politics and economy. It was not a decision of German Nation at either end of the wall. Am sure Honneker did not want it off the map. So, by Henry Ford giving this as  an example, he is deliberately misleading the debate. Is he trying to say that Bugerere is inhabited by Banyoro? Is he trying to forget that the Baluli were colonial surfs under Bunyoro and they are NOT Banyoro and were happy to come under Buganda’s protection?
The right comparison should be: After WWII, Germany lost many territories, including the “Imperial Citadel” of East Prussia. Where is that territory now? Has it been given back to Germany? [for an answer, see Kaliningrad]. Check Germany’s Eastern Border with Poland? Where is it? See the Oder river? Has Germany claimed the pre-war territory ceded to Poland? The example of Georgia is anachronistic. Russia ruled Georgia by invitation from 1781 and, going by Mirima’s theory, they should have a right to ‘claim’ Georgia lost by Yeltsin in 1991. But, if the Russians pulled out of Georgia, last summer,  it was according to their own strategic plan, not by an external directive. Remember they prepared a draft of the ‘cessation of hostilities’ and president Sakorsy appended his signature. On the idea of military trophies being from ..”the last century..”, I give the following comparison:  In the Caucasus 2008, the Russians captured American Hamvees. Where are they now? They are being displayed at the military Museum somewhere in Russia as war trophies. Are the territories of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia still under Georgia’s control? Is Kosovo still under Belgrade’s control? Don’t underrate peoples’ understanding of facts, Hon. Ford Mirima. So, Bunyoro is going to claim the ‘Abalega‘ territory from the DR Congo government , because it was under Bunyoro 130 years ago and because Kabalega was born there?
Conclusion: The German/Georgian  examples Henry quotes are irrelevant here.
2/5. Heroes and villains: May 27th was/is “heroes’ day”, at least according to the UPC. To the UPC, Lutamaguzi was a traitor against an elected Governemnt while Haji Sebirumbi was an agent of the elected government then and may be declared a hero should they come to power again [Hmmm]. January 25th is liberation day, at least according to the “Aminists”. The saying, ”..mum cooks best..” fits here very well. Sir Henry Ford thinks, Midas style/way, that “what ever Museveni touches becomes Gold”. What he [M7] says is the WHOLE TRUTH. In other words,  “ knows all“.  No much debate needed here because the heroes of today may not be the heroes of tomorrow. They were not heroes yesterday. Political heroes are always a political invention, to suit the powers that be, at a given time. Example: you ask the “Aba-yudaya” of Mbale whether Kakungulu is a hero or not? He is their Patriarch!
3/5. Tribes of the East: Did you know why the Bagisu loved Obote so much? Open Secret: Obote ‘gave’ Maruku County Headquarters to the Bagisu, at the expense of the ‘Bakedi’, who set up post in Tororo. the rest is History. But why this example here? – to prove that these people were fighting physically in the pre-Kakungulu era and by proxy in the post Kakungulu era. It is 2008 and people and  lives are being lost in a boundary [swamp] dispute between the Bagisu and the Bagweri on one hand and between the Banyore and Bagisu on the other. Where do you live Sir Henry, to ‘seek evidence’ that Kakungulu pacified the East? How the Lango and Acholi come in, I do not know BUT, Kakungulu was mainly active up to Kaberamaido and I have not heard the Kumam complaining. I want to challenge Henry Ford instead to tell/prove to me that the Ateso have never fought the Karamajong, the Bagisu-the Ateso, the Bagweri-the Banyore, the Dhopadhola-the ‘Tororo’ Ateso, etc. Leave the sentimental and wishful world man.
4/5. Finally, on Buganda serving as ‘colonial agents’, not as Allies:  when Brittan joins the US in the war in Iraq, is that a master-colony relationship? Are the Hungarians the colonial agents of the USA because they are in Afghanistan as allies? Let Sir Henry answer that.
The point here is that Buganda was never a colony of Britain. they were allies. Buganda has been expanding that the expense of Bunyoro for 300 years in advance of the British coming here. to pretend that, when the British came in, Buganda should have reversed her strategic and historical mission of acquiring territory by diplomatic means [Kooki, Bugerere] or by war (parts to the north-west] is asking too much in retrospect. Once again, was there in place, a “non-aggression pact” [‘toli ntabaala siri kutabaala“]let alone ‘omukago – friendship treaty‘] between Buganda and Bunyoro? What friendship did the Buganda betray then?
5/5. Conclusion: On this forum, many tell lies and get away with it. this is because of the inherent nature of the medium, thought to be secure and affordable in cost. But, on the positive side, we exchange views freely and thereby learn something. This cannot happen on the pages of the ‘New Vision’ under the amateur and political apologist Kabushenga, that Muchiga-Musisu mix of an upstart.
For example, those drunk with power now think that what they want, they must get because they are in power and have the coercive elements of governance. We have also learnt that people are ready, with the means above, to use their power to reverse 100, 2000, even 500 years of historical evolution of events, on the space now called Uganda. This is a ‘tall’ order before such people. Loosing a battle does not translate into loosing the war and justice will always prevail in the end on ONE CONDITION: LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD where it is known, otherwise state it as own opinion, not as fact.
Christopher Muwanga,

%d bloggers like this: