Buganda Assets aren’t limited to those in the 1993 Act


The items listed in the 1993 Act are those that the Act says must be returned “immediately” (and even that has not happened in full, by the way).

The Act then clearly also makes recognition that there are other properties that must also be returned through further “negotiations”.

This is exactly where we have been stuck for 14 years: Buganda and Uganda have not been able to establish and follow a clear negotiation process. The problem is President Museveni seeking to personalise what talks there have been, and keep the proceedings vague (as was the approach to many of the NRM Peace Talks in the past). Second, while the process stalled, the NRM has been making fundamental legal and demographic changes to the properties that would be under said negotiations (e.g. donating land to ‘investors”; bringing new settlers to these areas; introducing decentralisation, and creating new districts whose “land boards” then claim and sell the land; using the CA to “constitutionally” remove Kampala from Buganda etc).

The purpose is exactly as one Ugandan called Patrick Otto inadvertently puts it: to ensure that by the time NRM sits down to serious conclusive talks, there is nothing left physically to talk about. This is exactly how they prevaricated for six months during the 1985 Nairobi Peace Talks. so that by the time they “agreed” with the Okellos, they had changed themselves from a beaten army of 4000 to a LONRHO sponsered mercernary force of 40,000, and promptly stormed Kampala.

Buganda’s position is simple and clear: follow the law and conclude the legally stipulated negotiations; stop making status changes to property that is supposed to be subject of negotiation; hand over all the peoperty that was supposed to be handed over immediately, or pay the rent arrears for those you wish to keep using; and stop making constitutional changes by the back door (eg: the Buruuli issue. If indeed Buruuli is not part of Buganda, let it be debated in Parliament, and a Constitutional amendment be enacted).

The choice is clear: either all concerned should follow the law, or we can and should all ignore and reject it. This will be the basis of a real revolution that will remove the neo-colony for once and for all.

This approach by Mr. Otto Patrick Mutengesa is what the English call being disingenous. Maybe it is part of Sandhurst training.

Peace,

Serumaga

Journalist/Member of the ‘UAH’ forum

………………………………………………………………….

For clarification,in principle, saza and gombolola land estates were in principle, handed over, although actually, they have not been done so.

Advertisements

Comments

2 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. Mr Serumaga,

    Could you please send me the version of the act in your possession.
    I quote you:

    “The Act then clearly also makes recognition that there are other properties that must also be returned through further ‘negotiations’.”

    The act that I have, which I will attach for you to this message notes that,

    “In the case of traditional rulers other than the traditional ruler of Buganda , the Government shall hold negotiations with the traditional rulers concerned with a view to returning to them such assets and properties as may be agreed.”

    The word negotiation is used only in two instances: the one I quote above, and also in reference to regalia.

    You say:

    “The items he lists are those that the Act says must be returned “immediately” (and even that has not happened in full, by the way).”

    There is no instance of the use of the word “immediately” in the act tha I have. So where are you reading all this from?

    Send me the version of the act in your possession. After that, we could carry out “immediate negotiations” on “what the English call being disingenous.”

    I am standing by.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick (aka ‘Mutengesa’)

    “THE SAME HEAT THAT MELTS THE BUTTER HARDENS THE EGG”

  2. Mr Serumaga,

    Could you please send me the version of the act in your possession.

    I quote you:

    “The Act then clearly also makes recognition that there are other properties that must also be returned through further ‘negotiations’.”

    The act that I have, which I will attach for you to this message notes that,

    “In the case of traditional rulers other than the traditional ruler of Buganda , the Government shall hold negotiations with the traditional rulers concerned with a view to returning to them such assets and properties as may be agreed.”

    The word negotiation is used only in two instances: the one I quote above, and also in reference to regalia.

    You say:

    “The items he lists are those that the Act says must be returned “immediately” (and even that has not happened in full, by the way).”

    There is no instance of the use of the word “immediately” in the act tha I have. So where are you reading all this from?

    Send me the version of the act in your possession. After that, we could carry out “immediate negotiations” on “what the English call being disingenous.”

    I am standing by.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick
    [“THE SAME HEAT THAT MELTS THE BUTTER HARDENS THE EGG”]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: