July 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Month July 2009

Both the Bible and Quran prohibit eating pork

Fellow Ugandans,
Not only does the Holy Koran prohibit the eating of pork, so does the Holy Bible. However, the people,especially Christians eat pork without any regard for the Holy Bible’s prohibition.

As I was growing up I noticed that pork was forbidden in our home. Attending Christian schools in which Church service was compulsory and Scripture being part of the school’s curriculum, it was easy to realize that pork was forbidden as food. However, the Holy Bible explains the prohibition of pork as, the Law of purification. I don’t know for sure how the Holy Koran states about the prohibition of pork for food or being close to a pig.

At home we, the children were told to go and call a devout Muslim whenever a bull, a goat or chicken had to be slaughtered. My parents said that eating meat of an animal which was not slaughtered by a devout Muslim was considered unholy and that God could not bless such food. That meant, at least for our understanding as children, that such food would not be nutritious.

With this ”Swine flu”, I don’t know how I would explain it to my parents who did not speak much English, perhaps could describe it as ”Senyigga y’empunu” (Influenza of pigs). My question to the UAH forum is, did the Prophets of God see the danger in pork that the people continued to ignore the warning? I use the tittle, Prophet to include Jesus Christ without any offence intended. I realize that some Churches refer to Jesus Christ as the ”Son of God”.


What does the constitution say about resignations

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

Museveni was never a member of DP!

Dear all ,

Ssebaana in no liar. Museveni states that he was a member of the Democratic Party. I repeat here Museveni was never a member! What my brother Abbey fails to do is to distinguish between the several categories that are found in a functioning political party. Parties have Members, Supporters, and Sympathizers. The research we have conducted indicates that he was a sympathizer for a very brief time; the question we could not answer, was as to whether he was sympathizing with DP because he was a benefactor of a strong DP family or it was ideological? As far as we know Museveni was even never a supporter of DP. Actually some of the confusion in Uganda’s political parties is for many to see parties as mass movements. Not every body who puts on blue, red, black during an electioneering period is a UPC or any one who clenches his/her fist and screams “Egumire” becomes a DP Member.


:- Usually they hold membership cards, they can vote and be voted in party elections. Often they pay a membership/and/or a subscription fee and they are usually bound by a code and have specific obligations to the party.


Usually they provide material and financial support to the party. (i.e. Mr. Sudhir R. Is a supporter of NRM, FDC, and DP.) These can influence party policies through there contribution. They do not vote and they are not bound by the party codes.


:- Usually independents, who vote for a given party of their choosing. Some can continually have feelings for a single party over a long period of time. Usually there only contribution is the vote to the given party.

Re-read Bwengye’s “The Agony of Uganda” (Regency Press), it is a long time since I read it, but the facts are that Museveni came to DP leaders and asked them to give him the party leadership. At the end of the negotiation he wanted on of the three most senior positions in the party. When DP told him that all party position are not given, bur he will have to face an electorate he scrummed. His collegues like Buzabo (RIP) T. Kabwegyere, stayed and stood for offices.

Mzee Ssebaana is no liar, it is museveni who is a congenital and pathological liar. He know very well that he was never a member of DP. And who believes the “messed-up seed”, it is a pack of made up stories at best. The only truth about that book is that he wrote it!

Abbey, also check your argument that many Bahima were DP members. Real data may tell you a different story.


:- DP was never opposed to the Federal status for Uganda. Our argument then and now was to not to page it to individuals, but look at it as a system of government. The Kind of Federal that was granted to some parts of the country in 1959/1960 was surely bound to fail. It is for the same reason that people should not be asking for Federalism from Museveni, we need to have a nation conversation as Ugandans and decide for ourselves. If Museveni “grants” anybody federal, minus the involvement of Ugandans it will be equally sham. DP fully participated and voted for the principal of federalism, the disagreement was in the details of how it would be structured and its leaderships.

Why Oyite Ojok fell out with Obote

Fellow Ugandans,
Do you remember the rift between President Dr. Apollo Milton Obote (RIP) and the Chief of Defence Staff Brig. General David Oyite Ojok?

The then NRA rebels had taken over the Western Region and Southern Buganda and were on the move towards Kampala. The national defence forces UNLA had failed to defeat the rebels. The President refused to talk to the rebel leaders, as he continued to call them ”Bandits”. The Chief of Defence Staff, Brig. General David Oyite Ojok urged the President to talk to the rebel leadership, but the President refused. At one point the Chief of Defence Staff threatened that the army would take over power. Well, we remember how the good Brig. General Oyite Ojok died, don’t we?

After the death of Brig. General David Oyite Ojok, the President deliberately sidelined the senior Acholi Officers to replace David Oyite Ojok as the new Chief of Defence Staff. He promoted Colonel Opon Acak to replace D. Oyite Ojok. The rebels continued to gain ground, as the UNLA began to split. The Acholi Officers were not happy and so they opted to take over power from Dr. A.M.Obote.

By dishonouring the ”Peace Agreement” signed in Nairobi, the NRA/M rebels might have noticed the disunity of the government with whom they were supposed to share power. They decided to dislodge the entire shaky government and assumed power themselves.

About Olara Otunnu serving the government that removed Dr. A.M.Obote from power, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I can’t speak on Olara Otunnu’s behalf, but I think he might have hoped for a democratic shift that would have emerged from the new government negotiations with the NRA/M rebels. I believe that Dr. Olara Otunnu should be welcomed warmly to any party of his choice without any blame for serving in the government that removed Dr. A.M.Obote from power.

Byaruhanga Jonny. Rubin

UAH Forumist

The only battle worth fighting in the proposed Kampala takeover is the democratic right of Kampalans

Ugandans At Heart,

While we await the official position of the FDC party on the Kampala Bill and the taking over Kampala by the central administration, let me volunteer the following personal perception:
1. FDC is unlikely to support the dilution of democracy as is proposed in this new Kampala bill. The people of Kampala deserve the right to be governed by their popular will just as other Ugandans in any other district. If other Districts are going to continue electing the LC5 chair persons by adult suffrage, why should city dwellers be denied this right
2.The question of territory is also not very clear, the expansion of the commercial attributes of Kampala into the areas surrounding it is inevitable. Urbanisation is on the up trend and that is good for our future, we can let the city expand into the neighboring Districts without first annexing them into Kampala. We could instead put in place the planning regulations in those areas that envisage such an eventuality.
 3.These Districts should be prepared to host the growth of the city into their territory, it will be good for their revenues and I don’t see how it harms anybody least of all central GVT
4.Let Mukono, Entebbe Wakiso and Mpigi, be part of the same planning framework that envisages the commercial territory of Kampala growing into them but let them maintain their administrative identity. We can have a modern well governed metropolis that sits across several districts. It should not be impossible.

Having noted the above, it is also important that we remind ourselves that the district boundaries are not unchangeable. Article 179 (a&b) of the constitution empowers parliament by simple majority to alter boundaries of districts and to create new ones

Parliament has been creating new districts by splitting existing ones and what is proposed in this new bill is not new, only that in this case, chunks of existing Districts are being added to another existing District. There is nothing illegal in it

What is contentious is that the Districts losing territory are all deemed to belong to Buganda but Kampala which is to gain the territory does not.

Ugandans need to remember, that the only territory that the constitution considers immutable is the territory of Uganda as defined in the second schedule. Everything else within the territory of Uganda can be adjusted for administrative, cultural and political convenience as long as it is done in accordance with   the constitution.

The regions, ie Acholi, Ankole, Busoga, Bunyoro, Buganda and Toro are not fixed territorial entities, they are instead groups of districts that consent or were deemed to have consented to co operate on cultural matters by article 178.  This co operation is not irreversible. A District can democratically opt in or out acording 178(4).

The facts as per our constitution are as below:-
1.Districts can be created and adjusted by power of parliament. Their boundaries are determined by parliament
2.Regional groups (including Buganda) can be created and adjusted by the democratic consent of the districts involved. Their boundaries are determined by the vote of the district councils.
3.Theoretically Mbarara can vote itself out of Ankole to Buganda or choose to remain an attached like Kabale, Masindi could decide by vote to join the Acholi group. It may be difficult to imagine but it would all be legal and constitutional. Regional groupings by their constitutional status are more cultural than geographical.
4.If any Ugandans or Baganda for that mater are unhappy with the above constitutional disposition then the focus should be on constitutional reform, not political pressure when the other side is on solid legal ground. Eventually this matter may need a national referendum

The only battle worth fighting in the proposed Kampala takeover is the democratic right of Kampalans, and the maintenance of the entire council under universal Adult suffrage.

The issue of territory to me is secondary, because like I have elaborated above, within Uganda, there are no other unchangeable territories, no permanently fixed boundaries. Government can legally adjust district boundaries even if that may affect Buganda’s current deemed geography. But what is legally tenable may not necessarily be morally right or politically tenable.

Let me again reiterate that these are my personal views.

Desmond Nzana

 FDC Activist and UAH forumist

Dr.Henry Gombya ‘lied’about the name ‘Bakuli’


London’s Dr.Henry Gombya claimed that Bakuli was named after “..a white man at this place who had a beautiful house and his name was Barclay..”.

But i say that Bakuli was named after the first British Commissioner of “Uganda” after proclamation of “protectorate” status in 1894 (…but third overall after Gerald Portal and Colonel Henry Colville of the pre-protectorate days); EJL Berkeley.

1/7  If Dr Gombya should want to debate other issues, let him do so in a manner that does not obscure the facts like we are seeing with Bakuli/Barclay; because that makes his silence on Lukuli even more disturbing.  I quote: “There used to be a white man at this place who had a beautiful house and his name was Barclay….and it became known in Luganda as ‘ewa Bakuli’ which, when translated (?!!!) in English was ‘at Barclays'”.  Yes, things that we learn from Professors of Afican History in London and Oxford ….that is is intellectual terrorism.  Anyway, there are things we learnt from the NCO Academy .

2/7  While I was at the NCO Academy, I was tought that Bakuli was named after the British Commissioner in “Uganda” from Christmas eve in 1894 to 1899.  The man was called Ernest James Berkeley.  He has a road named after him in Old Kampala and the place between Old Kampala and Namirembe Hill took on the indigenised version of at name: Bakuli.

3/7  Ernest James Berkeley took over as Commissioner after Col. Colville (also with a road named after him in New Kampala).  Col Colville was the man that together with 7 other European officers, 2 maxim guns, a steel boat, 450 Sudanese troops, and anything from 20,000 to 43,000 Baganda rifle and spearmen invaded and ravaged Bunyoro in 1893/94.

4/7  I mention Col Colville because of his contemporary significance in Uganda’s poltics today, particularly in the question on land, “ebyaffe” and the relations between Buganda and Bunyoro…and I hope Dr Gombya’s aim was not to distract us from this bit of “African history” by going into Barclay and all that.  The weapon that Col Colville ( Berkeley ‘s predecessor) used for the mobilisation of the 2-3 Divisions of the Baganda levies was the promise of land acquisition.  Commissioner Colville gave a verbal undertaking to the Buganda Chiefs that, “all Bunyoro territory south of Kafu River would be incoporated in Buganda and divided equally between Protestant and Catholic chiefs” (Lord Molson’s report, Page 3).  That territory of Bunyoro consisted of 6 counties, totalling 6,000 sq miles, later called “the lost counties”.

5/7 That was the undertaking which was to be upheld by EJL Berkeley (Bakuli); even against the instructions of the Foreign Office.  Commissioner Bakuli eventually signed away that territory of Bunyoro on the 19th November 1896.  Most of the infamous “Akenda” is in that territory which the Attorney General of Buganda, Apollo Makubuya has recently referred to as “Ettaka lya Buganda lya dda! Ettaka lirikko nnanyini lyo” ( Buganda ‘s land is ancient and it is owned by the Baganda).  By “ancient” he means 19th November 1896!

6/7  This is what EJL Berkeley (Bakuli) told the Marquis of Salisbury in dispatch No. 113 of 19th November 1896:

“I proceed to explain the distribution of these territories between two religious parties as made by Col, Colville, would be maintained, namely, the district (marked as South Unyoro) bounded to the north by Ngusi River, to the West by the south-east shore of Lake Albert, to the South by Muzizi River and to the East by Kitumbwi river, would go to the catholics and the territory lying to the East thereof, viz bounded to the North by the Kafu River and to the East by the Nile and to the South by Buganda (as therefore) would go to the Protestants.”  These are the areas comprising of Buhekura (Buwekula), Bugangaizi, Ebuuru, Buyaga, Buruli, Bugerere (Bunyara), Bulemezi and Singo.

7/7  So, to many a true student of African history, Bakuli is EJL Berkeley, the father of a huge chunk of 9,000 sq miles of land (arithmetically read as 4,227 sq miles)….forget about Dr Gombya’s ‘Barclay’…..and keep the eye on the ball call Lukuli.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Death of Habyarimana didn’t cause the Rwanda genocide

Dear world citizens,

Sorry, President Museveni of Uganda was kept in the dark as far as the intent and date of our going home  were concerned. Ask the Ugandan forces that tried to stop our guys from leaving what they met. As for the death of  Habyarimana as the cause of the genocide against the Tutsis, please just read the Arusha testimonies of the designers to that genocide. You will learn as to when the pangas were bought, which was way before Habyara died and which meetings came up with the list of the Tutsis in Rwanda and how fast they can be killed. You have also to acknowledge the killings of Abagogwe that was way before the Habyarimana’s  death to mention the few who were killed because of being Tutsis.

The return of Rwandans to Rwanda was in Uganda’s national interest.  The Uganda People Congress (UPC)’s that are preaching pretentiously about the genocide in 1994 were the same ones subjecting those same Rwandans to ethnic cleansing in 1982-83 in South-western Uganda.

I do not know whether some UPC supporters understand clearly what they mean when they say “..what triggered the genocide was the assassination of Habyarimana..”.  Do they mean that the mass murders of Tutisis and moderate Hutus would never have taken place if that plane had not been downed?  Does he mean that all the previous waves of Tutsi massacres were preceded by mini-Habyarimana plane crashes?  Had Tutsi and moderate Hutus been dying before or not?  Were the machettes bought in anticipation for the Habyarimana plane crash?

Or for that matter, what is a “trigger”?  As a corporal, I know that where there is a trigger, there is a round of ammunition with an explosive charge, there is a corking handle, there is a magazine, there is a firing chamber etc.  Is it YK Museveni of Uganda that concoted the Rwandan explosive mixture?  If indeed UPC supporters fully understands what they means by “trigger”, is it the same thing as the structural and historical causes of that genocide?  And in crisis analysis, do we previlge triggers over structural causes?  Unless we are UPCs who, when it comes to analysis, they highlight the first four letters of the word.

Why didn’t President Samora Machel’s death in a plane crash in 1987 spark off a genocide in Mozambique?  Yet many of us are the same people that were constantly calling those same Rwandans names, and claiming that they were taking all the good jobs.  When someone helps to find a way of getting them back where they rightfully belong, we again turn up talking the same nonsense of the Otikas, the Mulindwas and the rest of the loud-sounding-nothing horde……..just like the peasant husband who tells his wife, “do not peel the food and do not cook it but I should find it ready”.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick  and

Mr.John Rukumbura

UAH forumists

The peasant mode of production must be stopped to avoid further famine

Dear Ugandans,

I am recycling this message to once again emphasize that the uncertainty of national food supply (“food insecurity”) is a function of over-reliance on the peasant mode of production.  The peasant mode of production has now reached its elastic limit and recurrent famine is clear testimony to that fact.  The country must find the final solution to the peasant question.  That population explosion bogey we keep resorting to whenever we come face-to-face with the limits of subsistence agriculture is sterile.

Uganda’s principle problem now is that it is experiencing an explosion of a population of elite that is mainly made up of part-time thinkers.

These were my words a few weeks ago:

1/6 An average person feeding on grains, legumes, vegetables and common meats requires about 300 Sq Metres of land to provide for his food requirements if the calorific consumption per day is the minimum requirement for a human being, i.e., about 2,600 calories per day; and assuming that there are 3 harvests per annum on that land.

2/6 An average human being requires at least 715 square metres of dwelling space at maximum dwelling density, this being the average amount of space per person in the great New York area.

3/6 Uganda has up to 5.2 million Hectares of arable land, that is, 13 million acres or 52 billion square meters. For the current population of 30 million, the optimum arable land one would expect to be used for food production, (assuming an average Ugandan consumes 2,500 calories of food per day – which he does not) is 18 billion square metres (30,000,000 x 300).

4/6 The amount of space that used for living is 2.15 billion sq M (30, 000,000 x 715) giving a total of 20.15 Billion Sq M that we would currently utilise if every Ugandan was taking up the maximum optimum living space (OLS) and consuming the recommended daily allowance of calories.

5/6 Therefore, out of our 52 Billion sq M, we are theoretically “using” only 38.75%. Basing on that computation, Uganda’s maximum carrying capacity is at least 77.42 million, which at the current rate of population increase shall be attained at 23:47 Hrs on 17 September 2036.

6/6 Note that, although we claim to be agricultural, our productivity is still abysmal. Kenya has only 4.6 million Hectares of land and they are able to add value agriculturally to the tune of $1,600 million per annum, compared to Uganda with 5.2 million hectares but adding value only to the tune of $574 million. Uganda’s value addition rate is about 36% that of Kenya. The difference can be attributed largely to Uganda’s peasant mode of production.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick


Dear UAH,

1/7 The Countries of the world can be divided into three clans according to the waves of major change that they have undergone.  “First Wave” countries are the agrarian countries, whose Court of Arms is the hoe..  For such countries, man has only made one major transition: from being the hunter-gatherer to domesticating innocent beasts and cultivating crops.  “Second Wave” countries are the industrial countries whose Court of Arms is the assembly line and “Third Wave” countries are the post-industrial or information age countries Court of Arms is the Microchip.

2/7  The way countries work, produce, consume, socialize, politic, celebrate the beginning or end of life, raise families, fight wars, etc ……the way we live is shaped by the wave of change that precedes our present mode of existence.  Uganda today is a “First Wave” country, that is, one of those countries still living off the First wave of change unleashed ten thousand years ago by the invention of agriculture…about 90% of us are peasants just like England in 1381 during the peasant wars, and the 100 years war.

3/7 As you know, the precondition of any form human advancement is energy.  First wave societies like Uganda get all their energy from “living batteries”: human/animal muscle power, or direct from nature…the sun, wind, water.  If anything, Uganda is at the lowest end of the first wave: we have not even dared yet to make the transition from the use of human muscle power to harnessing animal muscle power.  We are not yet where Europe was by the time of the French revolution when they drew their energy from an estimated 14 million horses and 24 million oxen which pulled ploughs and carts, with waterwheels and windmills turning millstones etc.

4/7 Look at Uganda : everything is dependent on human muscle power.  Economic productivity of a low- grade first wave society like us is a function of the pairs of hands available to operate the hoe.  It is not a question of “moral hazard” as any member of UAH would wish to think, or ‘dark nights’ as Professor Kamuntu believes, or lack of financial penalties on reproduction as Mr Obbo has mused.  Making more and more pairs of hands available is a functional necessity.  Unless we break out of agrarianism, our demographic profile will not change.  The question here is: does high population growth cause poverty or it is poverty that causes a high population growth? If at all there is a causal relation between high population and poverty, then the latter is the cause and the former just a spinoff.

5/7 Civil War America graphically illustrates the contrast between First Wave and Second Wave demographics.  That civil war was a clash between the industrialism of the North (Unionists) and agrarianism of the South (Confederates).  The leader of the industrial cause, Abraham Lincoln had two siblings, while Jefferson Davis was the last born in a family of 10.  You mentioned China ’s one child policy.  China came up with the one child policy as soon as they started making the transition to the Second Wave. That policy has not been there all the time, as Mr Obargot has pointed out: it was conceived of in 1979, and implimented wef 2000.   The policy applies only to 35.9% of the population: it is restricted only to the urban areas. It does not apply to rural couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings themselves, or special administrative regions like Hong Kong and Macao..

6/7 The argument on population explosion is not convincing on several grounds: I remember from the days I was a mortar man, whenever there was an explosion, there would be fragments all around..  With our population explosion, where are the fragments?  We would expect to see a lot of old people around, yet globally, Uganda has the lowest number of people over the age of 65.  Why? : Because of our high mortality rates.  Just today, 2,794 children will be born in Uganda .  By 13 March 2010, 184 of them will have died, not because today is Friday 13th.  It is because in Uganda , 65.99 out of every 1,000 live births do not live to celebrate their first birth day.  We rank No. 35 in the world.  For the 1.02 million that will be born this year, those that will die will be the equivalent of 170 Boeing 747s packed with babies crashing at Entebbe at the rate of three per week.  Here is the point: the rate at which organisms reproduce is always commensurate with the odds of survival.  We reproduce a lot because we reduce a lot.  It is not immorality, it is mortality stupid!

7/7 The high maternal mortality you have highlighted is incidental to those underlying factors.  Uganda ranks at No. 23 in the world, with 510 mothers dying in child birth for every 100,000 live births.  Sadly, as long as we remain a “First Wave” or peasant society that atrocity against the mothers shall only pass as an occupational hazard, the whims/political will (or lack thereof) of our lumpen-bourgeoisie notwithstanding.  We are simply pushing the wrong buttons….Bottom line: we have to find the final solution to the peasant question.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

High Uganda population explained – A Shot in the Dark!…UGANDA….11.7 Bn

L_Cpl Otto:

Professor Kamuntu should have reflected on his own admission that only 9% of Ugandans have electricity.  If that is the case, how come the country is teaming with youth if only those with electricity are overdoing it?

Professor Kamuntu should  be helping the government to come up with credible measures to curb the population explosion. Uganda will not come close to meeting its millennium goals if the population growth continues to grow at that rate. Similarly Uganda won’t be able to offer effective health care to the people with such numbers.  It simply can’t even with plentiful oil money in the future.

Ugandans do not seem to appreciate the strong macroeconomic growth because the micro economic fundamentals are terrible. Very little attention has been paid to the household level which is both the victim and author of their own fate.

I understand the jist of Professor Kamuntu’s assertion: that lack of leisure and work activities forces Ugandans to engage in sexual activities.  he should live that to undergraduate students of micro economics. As the the minister in charge of planning it was very timid. He should tell Ugandans the uncomfortable truth, which is that as long as they continue to produce many babies, their fate is doomed. Period. Done.

There is no magic bullet out of poverty at the household level. Needless to say, households with more children are likely to be poorer than households with fewer children. As the minister in charge of planning that is the message he should convey to Ugandans religiously. As they say he should stay on message over and over.

The big question is how to get there given the socially conservative environment in the country.  Is the government of Uganda prepared to confront the elephant in the house and extend affordable, safe and accessible family planing services to those Ugandan women who want them? The minister can talk of natural methods if they want but the most effective method is well known.

Ugandans cannot have their cake and eat it too. No way. The best and yes more efficient method was the one suggested by Mr Onyango-Obbo in his Daily Nation column that to save Africa, time has come to levy a tax on babies. Incidentally  land tax would also be the most efficient in the country but Ugandans are allergic to taxation (read the big men are the largest landholders).  Yes, raise the cost of having babies without shifting the burden and cost on the poor Ugandan women. That could do the trick faster than this electricity angle.

The Minister as a respected economist should also help the state review the legacy of its  policies.  Are  some govt policies contributing to the population explosion?  For example could UPE and USE be having unintended consequences on population? How? Now that the barriers to education are no more even those Ugandans who may have sought of family planing/child spacing may not care anymore now that the burdens have been relieved.

You know Ugandans and their mentality “let us now produce the govt will educate” so they say.  But wait a minute the govt won’t feed or dress those kids.  Yes, it is proposing to treat them for free but not yet.  Are the very policies aimed to hep Ugandans hurting them instead?  That is for the govt to review and change course if necessary.

To be brunt, there is no political will to address the population explosion and its attendant poverty in Uganda. As a result the state is killing Ugandan women who have to produce until God relieves them of the burden.


%d bloggers like this: