October 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Day October 23, 2009

Instead of a regional tier lets try a new ethnically balanced senatorial structure to bring about a balance of power

Fellow Ugandans,

Buganda took a long view of the regional tier and decided that it was dead on arrival. Fellows who have Buganda at heart like Katikiro Dan Mulika, view it as yet another gimmick that would eventually provide an additional power edge to the majority party.

Due to the sheer numbers and an unfair advantage of NRM  officers in government ,any proposal to bring about a balance in the decision making machinery will require a genuine shift in paradigm, designed on pure proportionality of ethnic numbers(numerics) to be viewed as meaningful by all players in the huddle.

A long view on Ugandan issues of power these days is generally centered around a single cow kyozi which has gulped up all the fields as the saying goes. The problem of checks and balances both in terms of political numbers for legislation and other organs of the state vital to decisions making is currently a magical funnel with the NRM party at the obvious end that holds most of the volume.

The tipped balance as is currently evidenced has brought in un sustainable levels of bias in the system, completely ignoring inherent loops designed for feed back and stability. What we have built is a completely unstable system which has shown signs of fatigue and chaotic behaviour due to lopsidedness.

How do we solve the chaos that surrounds us in an unbiased manner?

The answer lays in looking at other alternative structures of governance with a capability of instituting the missing balance. The regional tier though good for inter regional commerce is not among them, it is too simplistic to provide a lasting solution to a range of complex structural issues of not only service delivery, but graft and trust by the majority of Ugandans to provide lasting change.

The arguments forwarded for the regional tier were not convincing enough for it not to be viewed as yet another round robin structure designed to feed to an already overwhelmed hub of the NRM party. We need devolution in a more realistic sense and the answer lays in ethnicity thus the idea below.

A few weeks ago upon hearing about the revival of the regional tier, I hinted on a system of ridding the state of ministers who have been ineffective on delivery in their respective ministries, in lieu of a more ethnically proportionate balanced senatorial body filled by ethnic senators from the 15 original tribes of Uganda. This elite body will assume the administrative tasks now run rather inefficiently by the permanent secretaries of each ministry.

This proposed group of senators will form the necessary committees to run the affairs of  the state efficiently with veto power to compliment the current parliamentary body and a similar ethnically balanced judiciary.

I further proposed a similar proportionately balanced ethnic structure for our supreme court, and any regulatory body that has to make decisions that impact the majority of the people.

It is my hope that Majority tribes like the Baganda, Iteso and others will need to come up with the necessary formula that reflects their size to represent the will of their people. I hope any Buganda negotiations with the central government will be geared towards an improved structure of governance for all the people of Uganda and not just those with powerful cultural leaders.

I hope all interested Ugandans can start to look at this very simple but necessary adjustment in the structures of governance as steps that we can implement to arrest not only corruption that has become rampant, but as a way of returning our central government back from the malaise of a single ruling ethnic group of the time.

I’m not sure where we lost this senatorial structure, perhaps during 1967, when the president then was more interested in controlling the administrative structures. After the abrogation of the constitution and removal of all kingdoms; he deliberately chose not to enhanced the existing system with a senate (or house of the Lords) thus causing the systemic failure as observed.

When one looks at the current adopted system this missing structure sticks out like a sore thumb, and it’s absence is witnessed in many of the constitutional gaffs of our time.

Parliament will remain as it is, where folks of all walks of life from dominant and non dominant political parties can convene and deliberate about our issues of the day, however qualification to the senate will require a more elite cadre. The choice of who is sent to the senate will remain purely in the hands of these 15 original ethnic groups.

Tendo kaluma

Ugandan in Boston

The Regional Tier versus Federalism

By Joseph Senyonjo

New York, New York

The Regional Tier versus Federalism

The New Vision reported on July 3rd, 2004 that the Uganda Cabinet had proposed a regional tier system for regions that desire it. The districts of Buganda would be deemed to have formed a regional tier. The central government would give some powers to the regional tier and to the districts. Districts would form a regional council.

The proposed regional tier system may at first glance seem to give way to de facto federalism.  Indeed, while announcing the proposal, the government statement conceded one of federalism advocates’ major points: it pointed out that some districts are too small, and that the regional tier would enable them to pool resources.

Wherein lies the difference between Federalism and the proposed Regional tier? The fundamental difference lies in the conception and the spirit, as well as, the structural and constitutional underpinnings of the proposed system.

Structural and Constitutional Issues

There are two structural and constitutional issues that distinguish the proposed regional tier from genuine federalism.

First, the regional tier and the districts would essentially be mere agents of the central government. In genuine federal Systems such as those of the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada and Australia, among others, jurisdiction is constitutionally demarcated among the three levels of government: Federal (central), State (regional) and local (districts, counties, cities) in such a way that none of the levels derives its fundamental powers from any of the others. None of the levels can arbitrarily infringe on the other’s jurisdiction. In the proposed regional tier these powers and privileges would be contingent on the central government’s goodwill. Worse still, the proposed regional tier would be dependent on the ability of the districts to work cooperatively with it while they, simultaneously, report to the central government. Federal systems have no room for the central government agents in local politics, at either regional or local levels, yet all Uganda’s districts have Presidential appointees, the Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), charged with overseeing the districts.

Second, federal systems are designed to ensure national stability through regional checks on powers of potentially autocratic central governments. Consequently, federal regions are indivisible, that is, they cannot be broken apart. Their boundaries are inviolable. The Uganda cabinet’s proposed regional tier system, on other hand, stipulates that districts could withdraw from the regional tier by votes of two-thirds of the district councils. Such an arrangement would be a recipe for instability and disaster due to the inevitable acrimony among the different levels of government. The system would render the regional tier hostage to the districts since districts could threaten to withdraw from the system. In effect, the regions and the districts would be powerless to check on the excesses of the central government, since they would ultimately be consumed in petty power plays among themselves.

The Conception and the Spirit of the proposed regional tier

The proposed regional tier further falls short of federalism in that it was clearly conceived as a stopgap measure designed to contain Buganda’s federalism demands. The abiding spirit within the cabinet was clearly that of the unitary status quo rather than genuine empowerment of all Uganda’s people through powerful regions that would work in concert with the central government to address Uganda’s chronic under-development. If it were otherwise, the cabinet would not have ignored submissions to the Constitutional Review Commission from Acholi, Bunyoro, Busoga, and West Nile that also requested implementation of a federal system of government for Uganda.

The Example of the American Founding Fathers

When the U.S. ‘founding fathers’ started their campaign for federalism, they set out to educate the people on the benefits of federalism despite the fact that not all American regions at the time understood, nor appreciated the need for federalism. Some political elites from the various regions preferred a confederacy that essentially left most of the powers to the states with the central government having very little power; others preferred a unitary system. The founding fathers were far-sighted enough to ensure that the new constitution would be grounded on a system that would ensure its stability. They choose federalism– over a both a confederation and a unitary system– based on the fact that it ensured that all regions could advance many of their economic and political interests without interference, or veto of the central government, while simultaneously ensuring that the central government was powerful enough to guarantee the unity and harmony of the country. Federalism ensured that all of America’s regions had a stake in the integrity of the constitution since it empowered them to protect their interests.

Major components of a genuine Federal constitution

First, there would be a national federal constitution that gives equal powers and privileges to all regions while allowing for regional differences in administration within the bounds of the national constitution.

Second, there would be states / regions with capitals and regional constitutions.

Third, there would be elected regional legislatures in which all the districts, or counties, in each region would be represented. Kingdom regional legislatures could have upper chambers specially representing cultural interests such as clans, and ethnic minorities.

Fourth, the governors of the regions, including the Katikiro in Buganda, would be elected officials. In kingdom regions, the candidates for election as governor, or Katikiro, in Buganda, would go through a nomination process with the involvement of traditional rulers. The traditional rulers would be the constitutional heads of areas where they are wanted, but would not be involved in partisan politics.

Fifth, the national legislature would have two chambers: the lower house, representing constituencies, and the upper house, similar to the senate in the United States, representing each of the regions. While in the lower house more populous regions would have more seats, in the Upper House all regions would have an equal number of representatives to guarantee that all regions small or big have an equal chance to protect, or advance their interests.

Sixth, the federal equalization concept would constitutionally ensure that funds are redistributed — via pre-established formulas — to less privileged regions to help them achieve and maintain standards of living which are, at the very least, comparable to the national average. The federal government would help ensure that social services such as roads, schools and hospitals in less privileged regions are built up to a desirable national standard.

In conclusion, unlike the proposed regional tier, or the 1962 constitution, a genuine federal system for Uganda would encompass all of Uganda’s regions. The architects of the system would have to transcend a 1962-like semi-federal arrangement, which many Ugandans mistakenly believe is representative of true federalism in a Ugandan context. The 1962 arrangement was not a genuine federal arrangement for Uganda. Under the arrangement, one region was heavily favored, because it was sophisticated and organized enough to strongly negotiate for a certain level of self-determination, while most other regions were content to cede much of their power to the central government. The system was so imbalanced that it exposed Buganda, the only true federal region at the time, to envious talk of being a state within a state.

In Federal Uganda all the regions would have equivalent constitutional powers to raise and mobilize resources locally, nationally and internationally, without undue interference from the central government. There would be elected regional assemblies and governors, along with special accommodation for the role of cultural leaders. Once empowered, by the federal constitution, all Ugandans regions would jealously guard it against encroachment. The Ugandan nation-state would for the first time in its history gain legitimacy in the minds of all Uganda’s people — leading to lasting stability and prosperity.

Long Live Federalism!

Visit www.federo.com, and check out the report that Ugandans in the Diaspora presented to Constitutional Review Commission regarding federalism.

Joseph Senyonjo

UAH forumist residing in USA

Dr. Henry Gombya lied about me in the story he published in the str8chronicle

Fellow Ugandans,
I convey this message to the UAH forum after many hours of restlessness and confusion, for the trust I feel was misplaced. I write this message knowing that many of you will read it with the purpose of understanding and of course, as in every society some may read it with indifference. However, I am not worried about that. This concerns Dr. Henry Gombya and the story he published in the str8chronicle, which I believe many of you have read. I here convey to you my reaction to the story he wrote and published without my prior consent for approval of the contents. He has since not replied to my e-mail I wrote to him expressing my disappointment. However, I convey to you the e-mail to Dr.
Henry Gombya in its entity, so that you may judge his journalistic work for your selves
and perhaps inform me and the forum what you think. This e-mail also puts right the statements which may have been deliberately or otherwise wrongly presented.
The purpose of his visit was to interview me about my case which also had been partly judged by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The case had attracted many, including the Danish media who came to my residence in Denmark to interview me for the Danish Television. The UNHRC ruled that Denmark observed remedy and to make sure that the mistake never occurs again in the future. However Denmark ignored the ruling of the UNHRC and after waiting two and a half years for the implementaion of the ruling to no avail, I left the country with the purpose of requesting another country to inform Denmark to respect the ruling of the UNHRC.

I hope that this message will give you a better picture of what transpired, as opposed to Henry
Gombya’s ”sensational article”.
Byaruhanga Johny. Rubin.

UAH Forumist

Hello Henry,
I hope this e-mail finds you in the best of your health, as I appreciate mine. I tried to find the story on the internet this morning, but there was no network to my computer. I got the network a while ago and I have read through the story. Since you asked me to tell you what I think, I shall be honest with you. I think that you wrote the story hurriedly without even referring to the documents, the audio tapes and the notes which you took from here. Not only are there many mistakes in the story, it is also not written in a chronological manner. The story only raises more questions in the mind of the reader , as I mentioned above, chronology of the events
that led to my present situation was vital to the comprehension of the
Without repeating what you wrote, let me give you some corrections. I am sure you will find the paragraphs that need correction.
1- I left Uganda in March, 1981. Within 24 Hours I was in Europe.

2- By 1983 I was undefeated in the German Bundesliga, so that I turned professional. By the end of 1984, the German Boxing Magazine, Boxsport ranked me no.10 in the World. The US Ring Magazine ranked me no.2 in the Commonwealth.

3- The National Resistance Army, NRA took power in January, 1986.
4- I requested the Danish police to communicate with the German Authorities to let me return to Germany which I considered home at the time. The police requested for the telephone number of where I was residing and I gave it to them. It was an unregistered number. The
next day I received a telephone call from the Danish Boxing Promoter, Mr. Mogens Palle. The police called me several days later and wanted me at their station. I went there and I was told that the Germans could not take me. At that moment the police advised me to apply for asylum in Denmark. They instructed me how to do it and they took my statements for asylum.

5- My sons Henry and Ronny, their mother comes from Gombe, Butambala. She disappeared during the war that overthrew President Idi Amin.
When Henry and Ronny’s mother disappeared, I met the Tanzanian girl who had come to visit her uncle in Kampala. Her uncle was a childhood friend of mine and so was the Tanzanian girl. I asked her if she could help me take care of my children because it was during the time of war and as a Platoon Commander, I was extremely busy. After several Weeks, she wanted to return to Tanzania. She told me
that if I wanted her to stay helping me with the children, I had to marry her. Thence we became intimate and she conceived. She is the mother of my daughter who lives in Denmark.
6- By 1989 when I learned that the National Resistance Army/Movement (NRA/M) had taken the children to their army, Ronny was 9 years old and Henry was 11 years old. They were not ”teen age”, as you put it in the news.

7- May 6, 1996 the culprit rang the doorbell. He could not have knocked the door. My appartment was on the 2nd floor.
8- When the man attacked me, I was trying to run away from him when he stabbed me on above my left wrist.I did not fight him. However, as I turned trying to run away from him, I tripped on the pavement and fell. That is when he stabbed me again twice, once close to my waist and once again on my buttock. Someone shouted from one of the apartments
above us and that is when the culprit fled. I saw him talking to a woman who spoke from the window above. He took the key from his pocket and opened the main door. I walked to the door and read the name on the apartment doorbell of which the woman spoke.I suspected that the culprit lived in the same apartment with the woman. As I tried to walk away from their main door, I was bleeding profusely. I felt dizzy and weak, so that I could not walk any more. I collapsed and was picked from there by the Ambulance staff and rushed to the Hospital. I spent about 4 hours in the Hospital.

9- The Doctors advised me to go to the police and make a statement about what had happened. I phoned a friend, Charles Muteguya (Not Mutebi) who came with a car and drove me to the Police where I identified myself. The Police Officer checked with the computer, after which he asked me, ”Bore De i Danmark?” Do you live in Denmark?. I told him that ”We
are speaking Danish. If I was not living in Denmark, where do you think I could have learned the language?”, I asked him. He then told me that according to the computer I did not exist in the Immigration files. He told me to sit in another room and wait, as he made telephone calls. He told me later that, ”We cannot find your immigration files and therefore we have to open a new file for you”. The new file was opened and I received a new Immigration Number. After that, my interview about how and what had happened to me commenced. I was assured by the police that the culprit would be apprehended. My friend, Charles Muteguya drove me home with his car.

10- Although my neighbours told me affirmatively that the culprit had been arrested, within less than two Weeks, after 10 days precisely I received a letter from the police stating that, ”the culprit could not be found, therefore the case is closed”.

11- On the way to dowtown Copenhagen, there was a bus stop, next to the Police Station. It is the Police Station that handled my case.
12- On the 31 July, 1997 I received a letter from the Danish Immigration Authority that my wife and daughter would soon be coming to Denmark. I was so happy, so that after preparing a meal, I decided to take a walk downtown Copenhagen. On my return that afternoon, my key could not open my apartment door. The lock had been changed. Whence I remained homeless for about a year. Later I received a letter from the Post Office, written by the police to inform me that all my belongings had been auctioned. Up to this day, there is no accountability of my belongings which the Danish police claimed to have auctioned without consulting me.

13- The last paragraph you wrote, ”The story took another turn when the Lawyer who defended him, Ms Tine Vuust, said she was shocked that a Court in
Denmark could find a person guilty of such a serious crime on flimsy evidence”. There was NO evidence atall. Even the boyfriend of the Prosecution’s witness to whose case I was allegedly linked, was not allowed to come to the Court and testify.

14- When I fled Denmark, I did not request for asylum in the Netherlands. This was the idea of my Dutch Lawyers who thought it necessary. My idea was to request the Netherlands to help me inform Denmark to respect the ruling by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

15- Pastor Mient Dijkstra did not say that he would help me aquire asylum in the Netherlands. He is sympathetic and concerned about my situation and so is his family.
Although you interviewed me for several hours in which I told you almost the whole story about my troubles in Denmark and how my daughter managed to come,you wrote nothing about that. How I was instructed by the
Danish Immigration to go to Tanzania and bring my daughter and how she got stranded in Dar es Salaam for four years, was not mentioned. How I was eventually told by the Immigration Authority that my daughter could not be allowed to come to Denmark because I was ”not married” and how my fiance’e was deported from Copenhagen Kastrup Airport, was not mentioned. How my wife and daughter eventually got permision to come to Denmark, was not mentioned. Infact, how and why I was imprisoned is not clarified. How I was denied a Lawyer of my choice, is not mentioned. You have a copy of the statement made by the Court President, in which it is stated that, ”You cannot change the Lawyer….” You have not mentioned how I smuggled a letter from prison to another Lawyer, Mr.Tyge Trier. You have not mentioned that the Lawyer, Ms Tine Vuust wrote a letter to Mr. Tyge Trier to inform him that the Police ”has taken the Case File to be destroyed”, so that Mr. Trier
could not find out why I was in prison and why I was beeing deported to Uganda.
Henry, very frankly the story leaves many questions and infact gives a suspicion that I commited the crime for which I was imprisoned. Even the previous attempt by the Danish police to arrest me under, Anti Terror Statute was not mentioned. Do you remember, the Ugandan function in which the Ugandan Ambassador and other Diplomats were in attendance, after which the police squad came and ordered us out ”slowly”, that there could be a bomb? I was later informed by the Danish police that I was their prime suspect in the threat calls to the Ugandan Embassy and the bomb threat to the function I mentioned above. Well, all that did not qualify for a sentence in your story.

Anyway, atleast the correction of the errors I have pointed out will be a positive step, if you donot inted to re-write the story
I wish you all the best, as I hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours brotherly,
Byaruhanga, Jonny Rubin.

The True Byaruhanga Rubin’s Story in his own words(part 1)

Dear Ugandans

This concerns Dr. Henry Gombya and the story he published in the str8chronicle, which I believe many of you have read. I here convey to you my reaction to the story he wrote and published without my prior consent for approval of the contents

The story by Henry Gombya was, in my view wisely distorted. What I wrote to him expressing my disappointment is just the skeleton of the real story. I kept it from the UAH forum because of its sensitivity and the fact that the creators of the problem are heavyweights that I have failed to defeat after all these years.

When I conveyed my disappointment about Gombya’s story to the UAH forum, I expected questions. As I pointed out earlier, the corrections I made about Gombya’s story are just a ”skeleton” of the Story.
        Do you remember the article about sports in Uganda that I wrote?


I stated that the professional Boxing Promoters are very powerful, so that none messes with them. You mess with one, you’ve messed with them all. However, Germany did not do anything wrong to me. The problems are all from the time I was advised by the Danish police to apply for asylum. Although I gave the police an unregistered telephone number of where I was staying, it is the Danish Boxing Promoter who telephoned me and wanted to sign me under his management. After the advice from a compatriot who was, in my view very kind and honest to me, I turned down the offer for the boxing contract. I did not understand at the time that all the delays and derailments of my requests might be linked to the refusal of the boxing contract. Today, I suspect that the police made a deal with the Boxing Promoter to block my return to Germany, hoping that I would eventually sign a contract to fight for  Denmark.
       There were many disappointments over the years, but always thought that it was bureaucracy to blame. You have read through my mail of correction to Gombya’s story, so that you know a bit of what transpired. The ”Knock out blow” by the Danish police was when they approached me and claimed to ask for my help. They told me that they had checked me out and found that I was the Coordinator for Pan African Forum and President of the Union of Ugandans in Denmark. I had just left the class for the day, at the Danish School of Transport. They told me that if I did not mind, we could discuss the matter at their station. I said that I did not mind. They took me to the Police Headquarters. There, they showed me many photographs of Africans. They asked if I recognized any of them. I told them that I recognized some of them, at least by one name. They told me that those photos are of smugglers of illegal narcotics into Denmark and that’s why they needed my help. I asked how I could be of help. They told me that in my capacity as the Coordinator for the Pan African Forum and President of the Union of Ugandans, I was a well respected person in the African community. That they would take me to a Court Justice to whom I should say that I suspect Africans for smuggling and selling of illegal narcotics in Denmark. By that they said, the Court Justice would give the police authority to ”remove those Africans from the streets”. I told the police that I did not suspect any African because none of those in the photographs is known personally to me. I also said that if I did that, I would be telling lies to the Court Justice and I would later be charged for it. They told me that I should not worry about that because after investigating, the innocent ones would be released. I still told them that it would be wrong to incriminate probably innocent people. They angrily told me that if I did not help them, I would be the one to go to prison. They told me to think about it and left me in the office. After a while, they returned and asked if I had made up my mind. I told them that I had made up my mind. One of the policemen said, ”I knew you would be wise”. I told them that I have decided not to lie to the Court Justice. One of the cops punched me on the head and then lifted me by the shirt collar saying, ”You are going to prison now”. Although the punch on my head was very painful, I thought that they were trying to scare me. I believed that it was impossible simply to throw me into prison without commiting a crime. I was wrong. When I realized that they were serious, I asked to telephone my family. They told me that I had many years to telephone my family from prison. They drove me to the Vester Faengsel (prison). As I was escorted by the prison guard to the cell, I requested to telephone my wife, but I was told that I should have telephoned from the police because they, the guards are very busy. The following morning I was taken to the Court, only the Procecutor to request for my detention for two Weeks in isolation, while they carried on their investigation. The man who had been introduced to me as my Defence Lawyer, was even more aggressive than the police. He did not even ask to know why I was being detained in isolation. He only told me that it was a serious matter. After the Prosecutor made his request to the Judge, the Judge asked ”my Defence Lawyer” if he had any objection. He answered that he did not have any. The Judge then ordered that I be detained for two Weeks in isolation. I raised my hand and the Judge asked if I had something to say. I told him that, ”I was detained yesterday, but have not even communicated with my family”. He ordered that I be given a telephone to call my family. After about half an hour, I was allowed to call my family.
       Anyway, to cut the long story short, I wrote a letter to the Court President requesting to change the Lawyer. I got no response, until I went to Court after the two Weeks in isolation. At the Court, the Judge introduced another Lawyer to me saying that my ”Lawyer is unable to come today due to lots of work”. I told the Judge that I don’t want him, and I have written to the Court President requesting to change my Defence Lawyer. He told me that before I am allowed to change the Lawyer, I should cooperate with the one offered by the Court. The lady Lawyer told me that I would not be released and that if I gave her a chance, she would try to find out why I was being held in prison. The Prosecutor requested for two more Weeks and that was granted.
       On my return to the prison, I was told that I had a letter in the office. It was the letter I had sent to the Court President. There was a response on it that, ”You can not be allowed to change the Lawyer….”
       After about three months, the prosecution brought a Tanzanian woman from prison, as their witness against me in a case that I knew nothing about. That’s when the woman claimed that in the Summer of 1999, she and her former boyfriend met me in Sweden and drove with me back to Dennmark. She claimed that her boyfriend had told her that I had 300 grams of heroin for her boyfriend. She continued to say that they brought me to my ”residence in Tingbjerg, Copenhagen. Asked whether she saw the heroin or heard her boyfriend and I talk about the heroin, she answered that she did not see any heroin and that she did not hear us talk about it. But she said that there was a smell of shit in the car. Asked where the smell came from, she answered that she did not know. Her ”boyfriend” was never brought to testify. I was then found guilty and sentenced to 2 and a half years in prison and expulsion from Denmark. I was shocked. My Defence Lawyer appealed the sentence. We returned to Court about 5 months later. The Tanzanian woman repeated her claims, but with lots of contradictions from her previous claims in the previous Court. She was asked whether she was sure my residence they drove me to was in Tingbjerg, Copenhagen. She replied that she knew the place very well and that she even had friends living there. She was later led out of the Court room. The Prosecutor then told the Court that after the testimony by the witness, I be jailed for a period not less than 3 years and be expelled from Denmark. My Defence Lawyer stood up and handed a document to the Judge and another one to the Prosecutor. She said that the witness for the Prosecution ”is not truthful”. She said that in the Summer of 1999 she, the witness for the Prosecution was in prison and that there was no possibility for her to have travelled to Sweden with her boyfriend. The Lawyer handed another document to the Judge and another one to the Prosecutor. She then said that according to the document from the Housing Company, I ceased to reside in Tingbjerg, Copenhagen on 31st July, 1997 and that it was also not possible that the Prosecution witness and her boyfriend could have taken me to my ”apartment in Tingbjerg, Copenhagen”. However, after that I was found guilty and the sentence from the previous Court was upheld. My Defence Lawyer tried to appeal the sentence, but the appeal was denied. She was subsequently removed from the case.
        I was then transfered to Albertslund Faengsel (prison) where I was supposed to serve my sentence. In January, 2004 I smuggled a letter out of prison to the New African publications. You may find the letter on line in the New African of 1st February, 2004. The police had to warn me against such letters. Prior to the letter to New African I had smuggled a letter out of prison to another Lawyer. The new Lawyer sent a telefax to my former Defence Lawyer requesting for my case file, as he intended to represent me. The former Lawyer wrote him a confidential letter in which she stated that, ”The police has taken the case file to be destroyed”. Whether intentionaly or by mistake,I got a copy of the letter.The new Lawyer tried to reopen the case, but failed. I then sent a letter to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court sent me a document for the Lawyer representing me to sign. My new Lawyer told me that the European Court of Human Rights was not a good idea. He told me that he had sent the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. While the UNHRC was investigating the case and communicating with the state of Denmark in this regard, I was released from prison. Later the UNHRC ruled that Denmark ”should observe remedy and to make sure that the mistake never happens again in future”. Denmark appealed the decision. The UNHRC replied that, ”there was no Legal basis to appeal the Decision”.
        I waited 2 and a half years for Denmark to correct their mistake, to no avail. Instead I got a letter from the police ordering me to leave my family residence and be detained in Sandholm, north of Copenhagen.
        My coming to the Netherlands was to request the State of the Netherlands to inform the State of Denmark to respect the ruling by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
        Hopefully, the details will be in the Book planned for the people, especially my children to know what happened, should anything happen to me before the young ones are old enough to understand.
        I know that some of the members of the UAH forum may be asking themselves the same question. Believe it or not, I am not with the habit of, ”an eye for an eye”. I was brought up with the knowledge that one lives peacefully forgiving those who tresspass against him. I have no intention to sue him, but I shall tell him if or when we meet again, that he hurt me very much. You saw the mail I wrote to him expressing my disappointment, but in a brotherly manner. I know that the Dutch family whose hospitality he dishonoured by publishing their photographs in the story that does not concern them, are very unhappy. The man is a Pastor and a Senior Official of Defence. I can not talk on their behalf, but if Gombya has to worry, the publication of that family’s names and photographs without prior consultation, should be enough.
         I thank you for your concern.
                                                                BJ. Rubin.

                                                               UAH Forumist in Europe

%d bloggers like this: