January 2011
« Dec   Feb »

Month January 2011

FDC Manifesto makes ”Mukononians” to Remember Ham Mukasa

Ham Mukasa And Apolo Kagwa

Dear Ugandans,
FDC should not be blamed for copying some ideas from the UK conservative manifesto because manifestos are not like copyrighted materials. Is it bad to try UK’s ideas in Ugandan politics?The British parliament makes reference to Sweden all the time. Right now, Sweden in UK’s development model and MP’s confidently argue that in Sweden………………………………..The University of Lundi and Uppsala are now European model Universities in Public Health.I actually think that it is politically healthy to look somewhere else for ideas and knowledge. The English alphabet is actually supposed to be called the Greek Alphabet but who cares?

Politics is about policies that will improve the welfare and wellbeing of Ugandans regardless of where these policies originate. Mr. Museveni was Karl Max and Fidel Castro’s admirer and many policies such as barter trade, Kyaka Muchaka, the militarisation of the police, so called pan- Africanism, weakening of the judiciary etc , are all borrowed from Mr Castro. Trouble is, these policies came from a man who was a victim of the cold war between capitalist USA and Communist USSR. But Mr Museveni did not know if Castro’s policies were effective or not. I think that he has never even bothered to review them to know what went wrong. As a result,In 1986/1987, NRM/A was the major importer and seller of Sugar , soap and salt in Uganda. Thanks to Fidel Castro the greatest teacher of all.

The current sewage system in Kampala and Entebbe was as a request that the Late Mr Ham Mukasa Rwamujongoza the former Sekiboobo of Kyaggwe in Mukono district made to King Edward the 7Th. Ham Mukasa attended the installation ceremony of King Edward the Seventh when he was enthroned after the death of his mother Victoria in 1901.Ham Mukasa informed King Edward that he was surprised to see that there was water in the lounge, kitchen, the bathroom and even in the horse pipes in the garden.Ham Mukasa requested that the British Empire provides water supply services to the people of Buganda and he argued that this was to bring about a great deal of change to his Kingdom .But today, no one cares where this idea came from. All that people want is clean and accessible water in the country. Projects like Rural Water , Rural Electrification, etc are all not African or Ugandan.

Ham Mukasa provided the Church Missionary Society with a huge chunk of land to build the Bishop’s Secondary School, Bishops primary schools i.e East, West, and Central and Mukono Boarding School. The current Uganda Christian University is located on the same land. Ham Mukasa , on his visit to London, learnt that Education is power and it is the key to success. That is why he brought Education to Mukono. And that is why I and many people from Mukono are educated.

Almost the entire district administration of Mukono attended Bishop’s Primary schools or Bishop’s secondary school. This, to us the people of Mukono is what makes us proud. We were happy to have heard such an intelligent leader who had the wisdom of borrowing ideas from a land too far away from home.

So stop this childishness of so and so plagiarised Tories ideas. We must be talking about policies and procedures that will take the country forward.In England, National Policies like EVERY CHILD MATTERS were not authored by British scholars. These are ideas that were imported from Sweden.

Every single social policy in Uganda was plagiarised from the west. These include the Penal Code Act, Judicial System, and even our own Constitution is a by- product of the English Law.The entire education system was plagiarised by the Debunken’s commission which introduced the three Rs (as in the letter R). The three Rs are the foundations of a basic skills oriented education program within schools here in England. They denote Reading, writing and aRithmetic. This is a Cambridge curriculum which Debunken plagiarised and took to Uganda. The entire Banking system in Uganda was plagiarised from the West.

Lastly, plagiarism is an academic crime and not a political crime.In UK, the Conservatives and the Labour party do not have much ideological differences. All they are trying to do is to lie that they are different but in real sense, the are almost similar.

If you compare the CP’s former policies on Europe, Immigration, tuition fees, etc, they are the same as those of labour. The difference is, where the labour party charges £3000 for tuition fees, CP can charge up to £9000 and who knows if Labour wouldn’t have increased it?

Let us stop wasting time over these childish arguments. We must focus on real issues that affect the people of my home village down in Bukunja. We do not care where these policies come from. All that we want is clean water, accessible education, security, health care, good roads etc.

Richard Mukasa
UAH forumist in the UK

“If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave” – Museveni

Museveni had an interview with Bill Berkeley. Berkeley’s report was published in the Atlantic Monthly magazine (USA) of September 1994. Museveni stated at the start of the interview that “I have never blamed the whites [Museveni considers himself white] for colonizing Africa; I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave”. This statement reveals a lot about the character of Museveni and why he has (mis)treated Ugandans with no remorse.

Slave trade was a ruthless enterprise that had no respect for human lives whatsoever. Slave trade involved foreigners who facilitated local slave catchers with guns that were used in slave trade wars. When slavery was suppressed for various reasons, slave trade was replaced by colonialism that continued foreign ruthless exploitation of Africans using local agents. Museveni is trying to cover up his being used by foreigners as an agent in the western neo-colonization project led by Britain and the atrocities that have occurred amounting to Ugandans being treated as slaves witness their low wages and awful working conditions.

Slave trade and colonialism (and now neo-colonialism) did not take place and succeed because Africans are stupid. There was and still is African resistance against powerful forces. Makobore of Rujumbura would probably have failed to defeat his neighbors if he did not get the support of Arab slave traders who supplied him better European weapons than spears and arrows used by his neighbors. Kabarega would probably have prevailed if he did not face British mercenary forces with better weapons. Museveni is therefore very wrong to argue that enslaved people (politically, militarily, economically and socially) including Ugandans are stupid and it is their fault they are treated like slaves.

Museveni used that language because by 1994 there was ample evidence that his guerrilla war was funded, directed and commanded by foreigners. The return to Rwanda in 1994 of Tutsi refugees who had played a prominent role in Uganda’s guerrilla war and NRM government and visible presence of western advisers such as William Pike, Lynda Chalker and Paul Collier have left no doubt about who has been in charge of Uganda. With his image and dignity wounded, Museveni therefore used the general remark that stupid people (including Ugandans) should be enslaved supposedly for tolerating foreign domination and ruthless exploitation. Museveni’s outbursts, body language, priorities, threats and policies leave no doubt that he does not care about Ugandans. He treats them as stupid, primitive and bankrupt people (that is the language Museveni uses) who should be exploited like slaves.

The good news is that Ugandans have become enlightened and dialectical and are producing indisputable evidence that he is a ruthless agent in the employ of white people particularly Britain and that is why he does not blame them for enslaving ‘stupid’ Uganda people using him as their agent. There are indications that Museveni like many other Batutsi and Bashororo people continue to consider that they are white and superior people who have a right to enslave ‘stupid’ black cultivators. John Reader (1997) recorded that the hamitic myth – the notion that pastoralists have a separate origin from and are superior to cultivators has persisted to this day. It was reinforced by colonial regimes and has gathered strength in subtle ways under neo-colonial regimes in Rwanda and Uganda led by Britain. That is why Tony Blair former Britain’s prime minister a few weeks ago defended his warm and cordial relation with Paul Kagame even after allegations that Rwandan troops had committed genocide against Hutu people in DRC. And that is why Museveni does not tolerate any mention that he is foreign, was picked, groomed, installed and is being sustained as president of Uganda by foreigners led by Britain with Lynda Chalker as the main agent. Here are a few illustrations.

First, during the guerrilla war in the Luwero Triangle a Muhima young man was imprisoned and tortured in a very cold cave half naked for asking Museveni who these guys in their midst were that spoke a strange language. Museveni acted swiftly to send a message to others that he did not want such questions asked because that was sectarianism. If you recall, soon after becoming president he enacted through rubber stamp legislative body anti-sectarian law to stop any mention of sectarian actions which Museveni was committing like appointing foreigners as deputy minister of defense and deputy chief of intelligence and counter intelligence respectively. Therefore many Ugandans either do not know that Uganda is run by foreigners or they know but cannot say anything for fear of prosecution and punishment.

Second, three top UPC officials were arrested and charged with sedition stemming from the manifesto in which it was alleged that Museveni’s government was dominated by ‘foreigners’ specifically Banyarwanda (Tutsi), people of Rwandan origin. “Many top officials in Museveni’s NRA were, in fact, Rwandan refugees, who had settled in Uganda … others were Ugandans of Rwandan descent”. UPC supporters were ordered arrested by Museveni because they are criminals when they raised doubts about Museveni’s ethnicity (Atlantic Monthly September 1994). The issue of Museveni’s ethnicity has resurfaced. Until Museveni clears the air satisfactorily, this matter will haunt him and damage his legacy.

Third, there is credible evidence that Museveni was handpicked to lead Uganda and wage wars in the great lakes region (P. Phillips 2006) with strong Britain support. It has been reported that Museveni took power in Uganda in 1986 “with hefty aid from the British Privy Council’s London-Rhodesia Company (Lonrho) of Tiny Rowland, Nigeria’s British agent [wealthy] Mashood Abiola, and various refugee aid operations… Propaganda and publicity was supplied free of charge by British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], whose ‘correspondent’ William Pike, now editor of the Uganda government newspaper New Vision, accompanied Museveni in the bush through most of his 1981-86 campaign of violence to seize power” (EIR September 26, 1997).

Well placed sources know very well, “it is London that installed Museveni in power and [it is] London which runs Uganda today” (EIR August 8, 1997). Museveni has been guided or instructed by Lynda Chalker who placed British many experts in Uganda. British Ambassadors in Uganda have also provided Museveni additional regular guidance. And William Pike is believed to report to Lynda Chalker (EIR November 1994, June 1995, May 1997).

In order to create space for British experts, Museveni urged experienced Ugandans in exile to stay there and those at home to join them. In an interview with Augustine Oyowe Museveni was asked “Uganda has a shortage of skilled labor despite the fact that it has many very able professionals living abroad. What measures have you put in place to entice them back?” Museveni responded “We do not mind very much if they stay away abroad. They earn and send money to their families. It is one form of advantage to the country. We are training new people all the time in the university and technical schools. So we do not feel their absence”. Museveni forgot or deliberately skipped to mention that the acute skills gap created by Uganda experienced professionals who fled the country during the period of political instability was being filled by foreign experts (mostly young and very expensive but largely ignorant of Uganda’s history and culture) as elaborated later by the deputy minister of finance in an interview with Oyowe (The Courier September-October 1993).

Fourth, because Museveni lacks popularity in Uganda he has applied three strategies to hang onto power: he initially stated he would not stay too long as president, in the meantime he built a repressive machinery to impose him on the people, and since 1996 elections he has used bribery, intimidation of voters and rigging of votes etc.

Bill Berkeley reported that the twinkle in Museveni‘s eye during the interview “masks toughness, arrogance and even ruthlessness. He has not stayed on top of Uganda by being soft”(Atlantic Monthly September 1994). And where is the source of his ruthlessness? “It is London that has given Museveni full license to strip Uganda to feed his military machine… It is the companies of the British Commonwealth, led by the Commonwealth Corporation, which follow behind the armies, taking the property titles on the wealth seized by Museveni’s warlords (EIR August 1997). The high defense expenditure as a percentage of total national recurrent budget (out turn) for example rose from 34.5 percent in 1989/90 to 43.5 percent in 1990/91 (Uganda Human Development Report 1996) confirms the use of force even in areas not at war. Museveni also with tacit support of Britain rejected and has since frustrated multi-party politics. It is reported that Lynda Chalker said that “You need a dictator like Museveni to push these policies [brutal policies of globalization and structural adjustment of the IMF, democracy must be defeated] to push these types of policies” (EIR September 19, 1997). Britain’s Labor Party government exempted Museveni from introducing multiparty politics when other African governments were being forced to do so as a condition for continued foreign aid (Journal of Democracy April 1998). It is surprising that the donor community in Uganda is silent when there is evidence of intimidation, massive bribery and preparation to use military as the election date of February 18, 2011 approaches. Where are the election observers who should monitor the whole process?

Fifth, Museveni’s lack of respect for Ugandans is reflected in his actions. Early in his presidency he reported that he was not interested in staying in power for long because he wanted to focus on Pan-African issues. In 1994, he repeated that he would be leaving the presidency to tend to his cows. In an interview with Bill Berkeley referred to above Museveni reported that he would step down after five more years [in 2000] because “My cows are crying for me” (Atlantic Monthly September 1994).

Some people, Ugandans and others, think that Museveni is still hanging on – despite his unpopularity at home and increasingly abroad because of his failed economic policy and rampant corruption – because his western sponsors still need him for their geopolitical goals in the Horn of Africa and Great Lakes region. It is believed that he is being pushed by western powers especially Britain to conclude the East African economic integration and political federation or the Tutsi Empire. The realization of these two instruments would strengthen the hand of Anglo-Saxons in their struggle against France and other emerging powers such as China and India. Therefore he is not doing so for Ugandans and that is why Museveni should be defeated so that he does not push us into harm’s way. This is the only golden opportunity we have got fellow Ugandans!

Sixth, Museveni’s disrespect for Uganda peasants (the focus is now on Kampala City) can be deduced from his policies. In 1989 Museveni appealed to peasants to produce maize and other crops in large quantities for sale as part of his efforts to transform peasant subsistence to commercial agriculture. Throughout the countryside farmers responded but the government did not put in place the mechanism for collecting the crop and paying the farmers. The bumper harvest rotted away and peasants suffered heavy losses especially those that had hired labor. I visited one area in Luwero and saw another harvest of vegetables such as pepper, tomatoes and cabbages that were rotting in the field because none had come to buy the stuff which government had promised would be bought at market prices.

As if the 1989 harvest scandal was not enough, poor peasants were once again called upon to grow – this time – cotton in large quantities. The peasants once again responded in a big way. However, at the same time, the government put a squeeze on credit in the economy to control inflation (Uganda Confidential May 1-14, 1993) as required by the IMF. The peasants were not paid and the harvest went to waste. If these mistakes had been committed in the security forces sector heads would have rolled. Not so when the people affected are the ‘stupid’ peasants.

Museveni has been arguing during the campaign that he should be re-elected on the basis of his performance record. Clearly, Museveni’s record has been one of ruthlessness, corruption, sectarianism, inequalities in favor of the rich few families connected to the first family and the impoverishment of the rest as witnessed by the spreading diseases of poverty, deteriorating infrastructure, institutions and the environment in rural and urban areas.

If – in view of Museveni’s poor development performance record (he abandoned the failed 22 year structural adjustment program in 2009), ruthlessness and foreign dominance as sketched above – Ugandans re-elect him for another five year term, then there may be an element of truth in Museveni’s statement that “If you [Ugandans] are stupid, you should be taken a slave” and exploited because for all intents and purposes Museveni has treated Ugandans like slaves except that he has not yet sold us in an open market.

Eric Kashambuzi
UAH forumist in New York



If we dare not identify the nature of our ailment, then our only resort shall be witchcraft; and I see the equivalent of witchcraft here at UAH, in the manner in which we continue to debate the phenomenon of “brown envelopes”.

The way the political elite (including our own in Uganda) relate with their constituents is what ordinarily is called responsiveness, i.e., the extent to which policy elites defer to the preferences of the populations they serve and capacity of those populations to articulate their preferences.


To have a proper grasp of elite responsiveness, one has to be aware of the four country/political system contexts that shape the policy process. First, is the ‘traditional’ political systems, very low income largely pre-industrial, rural societies, non-monetised economy; second are the low income countries undergoing rapid socio-economic and political change with rising expectations, low levels of political institutionalisation, low integration of the socio-political system; third are the middle income countries, and the fourth group are the high income, highly urbanised industrial countries, high on the human development index.

4/6 While Uganda is hovering between the first and second group of countries, many of us tend to refer talk as if Uganda is in the fourth group, and that is where problems begin in all areas of policy debate in Uganda. This brings back to mind the tired metaphor: If you want to love a butterfly, you care for caterpillars. Whereas caterpillars feed on leaves, many of us would feed them on nectar: the food for butterflies.

5/6 For the countries in the first group, the common type of responsiveness is “symbolic”. All that the populations want is to be waved at by the politician, or to be allowed to prostrate before the monarch, or for the gombolola to be visited by the President, with crowds jostling to have a glance:…”Eeeeeh! Magulunyondo Ansekedde”…’he smiled at me’, Ooooooooooh bannange, I shook the president’s hand…..mere symbols. Populations of the countries of the second group demand for services, soap, salt, fees, jobs, uniform for children, etc. Uganda falls between those two. Populations in the third group countries demand for allocations in terms of infrastructure etc, in the fourth group they demand for good policies. Uganda does not belong to the latter two.

6/6 In the matrix below, Uganda straddles between Group 1 and 2, but mainly in 2..shaded….and attempting to imagine that it is in Goup 4, like many at UAH is a dream which is as hopeless as it is hapless. Unless we take bold measures to cause ourselves to metamorphose to stage three or directly to stage four, we shall be stuck with brown envelopism (and brown barkclothism). When that metamorphosis takes place, the time to introduce the word “revolution” in our vocabulary will have arrived. As of now, bado!

Uganda: between Group 1 and 2……

STYLE OF ELITE RESPONSIVENESS : click below to open the table showing all the groups:

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Patrick Otto

The Origin of FRONASA and Museveni, according to Mbabazi’s daughter

Nina Mbabazi

I was challenged to find out the truth about Museveni’s origin and I have asked around. I will not of course lay claim to be the expert but this is what I have been told;
1. Museveni was born in Ruhaama Ntungamo in the plateau behind that Ndaija hill of Rwampara. This plateau strands Uganda – Rwanda border so sorry to burst your bubble. He is very much Ugandan and so is Amos Kaguta his father.
2. The Banyakore are nomadic in nature like the Karamajong and what one has to understand is that for such people the borders are very fluid. In fact for all of us who come from border districts (39 of them) the borders are very fluid.
3. His father’s cow settlements saw him move across, Ntungamo, Rukungiri, Kisoro, Tanzania. If you go to Kisoro, they will show you where some of Kaguta’s relatives settled in their nomadic movement period (I will get the details later)
4. The Bahima like the karamajong tend to thrive when living in a herd simply because their cows are their only livelihood so like their cows, there is comfort in baraaro numbers.
5. Museveni comes from a very backward Kinyankore family of the Basiita clan and very poor and humble background. These banyanokre did not bury their dead. In fact they believe that when someone died, you simply moved away from the “hut” where they had died because their death had come as a result of witchcraft. These people had a very strong belief in witchcraft and practiced it. It would explain why he got saved at Ntare?
6. His family was so conservative that when the Omugabe’s chiefs introduced the law of every household having latrines, Amos Kaguta’s brothers and sisters protested. They were used to open air defecation. It is the refusal to build latrines that saw many of Kaguta’s brothers seek self exile in Tanzania in Karagwe with their cows. They have since moved back and abandoned their backward ways.
7. Muhoozi is Janet’s son. He is named after Janet’s brother who disappeared/was killed/ a great mystery when they were very young. Her brother was called Kainerugaba and in memory of her brother, she named her son after him. She is after all a Mweine Rukari and very proud of it (Don’t ask me what that means, I have no clue).

This has all been narrated to me by an OB of Ntare who comes from Rwampara and knows this family very well. He was also in S1 when YKM was in the senior school so it is an outsider telling what was talked about that boy who was not as prominent as Mwesiga Brown at Ntare and appeared rather destined for an ordinary life compared to the rest of the chiefs’ sons who were well polished, intelligent and articulate.

In fact I was also told that FRONASA was not started by Museveni but it started in the 1960’s by a group of chiefs’ sons of which Mwesiga Brown was the Leader. The group did not pursue it further and in 1972 another set of Ntare boys called Yoweri Museveni and Amama Mbabazi decided to push the FRONASA forward. It is therefore not factual that he is the founder. I have not received any information from Museveni himself.

Amama Mbabazi

Muhoozi’s mother is Janet Museveni not any woman from Ntare Secondary school as Obote claimed in his memoirs. There has never been a female student at Ntare. It was an all boys’ school. Believe me, I know. My dad, my dad in law, and all the gang of NRMs that went there have been very categorical on this one. There has never been and unless Ntare becomes Co-ed in 2011, there will never be a girl from Ntare School.

I know that by 1972 FRONASA was dead, because the Main leader Mwesiga was disillusioned. If some of you got your stories from Museveni’s ‘’Sowing the Mustard Seed’’ , it gives a very wrong account of how it was revived. FRONASA was formed by Ntare boys with Martin (brown) Mwesiga as leader in the 1960s, it of course suffered from social class problems with the Mwesiga’s on a higher level (Sons of Chiefs) and the others (Museveni’s) who were just trying to be visible but could not match the level of sophistication of chiefs sons. But brown was a people magnet and people found him friendly and non-threatening.

In fact when Museveni wanted to revive FRONASA in 1972, he looked for my dad who then brought him a very vocal, noisy cantankerous leader from Makerere who was in his year. The leader was Otafiire. Museveni(M7) in his book has misrepresented the facts for reasons that are obvious. While Museveni was in the external wing then, Tanzania, Zambia he proceeded to activate more members of the group. It was a group of mostly Western Uganda boys and never expanded until it was brought to Makerere University. In the 1960s in Ntare for those who were there, the first formation of the group was like a debate club where radical views were shared.

As a matter of fact, while Museveni was activating the external wings, my father was activating the internal wings within Uganda. I think you will get great insight when his biography comes out. I have not engaged with my father on this. I have spent time with his OBs and the FRONASA crowd asking them these questions. I have always wanted to hear his part of the story which he doesn’t tell because he claims to be too busy.I think that when you read the ‘’Mustard Seed’’, you must read a book and see that this is the way Museveni wants you to view history. It isn’t necessarily in line with the fact.

I think that Kategaya, Museveni, Amama, Ruzindana and all of them were all in UPC because they believed in the ideology and the common man’s charter and nothing else. My father was diehard UPC because of his father who was active in Kinkiizi at that time as a political elder. They left UPC because they felt that the leadership was just giving lip service to serving country and then they formed UPM. The formation of UPM saw the likes of Rukikaire, Bidandi join them. The UPM crowd says that the FRONASA crowd was too hard-line and too communist and to form UPM, they has to make them abandon their ideologies somewhat. The UPM crowd, according to my father in law, for example, found my father’s rigid stance very difficult to deal with. They then preferred to work with Museveni who seemed to accept the middle ground. So to answer someone earlier, M7 never had any Marxist tendencies. He simply had middle ground tendencies as witnessed in the current election campaign.

When Museveni left for DP, Kategaya and the Ntare group thought he was a traitor to the cause. FRONASA has been made into such a big word in part because this is where Museveni derives his history of struggle from BUT and I repeat BUT, he is not the founder of the first FRONASA in 1960s. He was an active member of the club as was all the Ntare boys but their leader was Martin Mwesiga, you are free to dismiss this if you wish but the truth is the truth. Mwesiga was the leader until he met his death in 1973. You know he is not the founder because when Museveni, my father and Otafiire revived it in 1973, there was still that personal struggle for power between the two Mwesiga and Museveni. People still gravitated towards Mwesiga and he remained a balancing factor according to the Ntare boys.

My father was a state attorney during Iddil Amin and was arrested by Amin for taking pictures of his in-laws graduation at Makerere. My father worked as a State Attorney when he graduated from law school in 1970s so yes he served in Ministry of Justice while working in the underground movement. The expansion of other non Ntare boys into FRONASA started in earnest in 1973, not before that. The Maumbe Mukwana’s, Nambuya’s all of those are people that Museveni recruited in Mbale.

My father is actually the one who told Binaisa that he was President. Binaisa became President by only 11 votes and Amama could not have been there to encourage a life Presidency when he enjoyed the coolers courtesy Amin. Augustine Ruzindana was a member of the first group. He would like to portray his significance in the post 1973 FRONASA as significant but it has been repeatedly denied by all.

Like I said, Museveni was the most amiable of all the FRONASA people. People gravitated to him because he was persistent and yet had the qualities of someone who wishes to maintain the middle ground and make everyone happy. In forming UPM, FRONASA lost almost all its character because they compromised beyond recognition. FRONASA died the day UPM was born.

Museveni was a member of DP. His friends thought him ideologically bankrupt for moving from UPC to DP and then UPM. I think this is Kategaya’s main bone of contention with him? The members of FRONASA after 1979 wanted to form their own party, they needed members and they made many compromises in the process. It was not a well thought out political move. It was simply bringing people together for purpose of creating a party to keep FRONASA alive, but when they did eventually find the people, they mutated so much that anyone looking at the two organization now would simply say that they are not one and the same.

What was happening in Western Uganda was that the political debate and inclination was based on pastoralism. for example in Mpororo the Karegyeza group were UPC leaning and the UPC was clearly advocating for all to have land titles and settled cattle rearing. The Bahima of Mbarara mostly under the influence of the Omugabe were DP and very conservative Bahima who like I said earlier defecated in open spaces and resisted toilets. If you go to deep Kyankwanzi were baraaro are, you will find that they are still the same. They would probably not even know that Museveni was President if they didn’t have radio’s. Anyway this Bahima group were in DP primarily because DP said that to have titled land would cause them to lose their grazing land and culture. The DP group was led by Byanyiima and Omugabe and the Omugabe is very significant here as I will explain later.In Bushenyi they embraced cattle grazing as a non pastoral activity and hence the UPC support but even then, it was on idividual merit.

In Mbarara where Rushere is, these people could not be DP. There was a class struggle between the Basiita clan who were the original holders of the drum and the Omugabe who was a Muhinda (royal). The two groups could therefore not be in the same political camp. They viewed leaders on individual merit. This is why Museveni was able to listen to all views from all sides and move from all sides. He came from the individual merit background. It is this struggle that has delayed the restoration of the Kingdom. If you care to read the handsard of 1986s you will see that Amanya Mushega put President Museveni’s views out there very well. He said that they never went to the bush to return Obugabe. The drum which they have been bickering about which should be at the Ugandan museum, the Bahinda believe is being held by Museveni because as a Musiita he believes that it rightly belongs to them. This has always been a class struggle that would not allow the two to be on the same side. So again, you have raised a point that emphasizes his middle ground, non ideological approach to politics. I would like to say though; the hatred by Museveni of the Obugabe is legendary.

Museveni’s Ntare age-mates say they had all agreed to join UPC and indeed joined UPC, but were shocked when he went to DP. Considering the historic perspective of the political landscape, this could only be while FRONASA was alive and kicking which is after 1973.

Andrew Mwenda and Onyango Obbo

I again hate to burst some people’s bubble but Salim Saleh and Major Muhoozi’s visit to journalist, Andrew Mwenda, in prison acouple of years ago, was purely selfish. It had nothing to do with wishing Mwenda well. It was about how to use Mwenda to elevate his status. This is the hard reality of politics and this is why and when people figure this out, you seize to be a person but turn into a commodity to be traded for the best climb and easiest climb up the ladder. I feel sorry for Mwenda if he thought he was his friend. From the outside looking in, I can smell a fishy smell from miles away. I guess because to some, I too am nothing more than a stepping stone, a ladder, a commodity. Mwenda too has woken up and realized that Muhoozi who came to use him when he was in prison can also be used, and that is why he is supporting NRM and Museveni in these elections. Again this is all about HARD CASH!!!! No blood relative I am afraid.

Mwenda and Muhoozi are not related at all. My knowledge is based on what has been declared by Mwenda (that he is a Mutoro from Kabarole) and the people that went to school with Val Rwaheru a proper Mukiga from Kabale. How would Mwenda then have a blood relation with this Mukiga? Maybe through marriage? Maybe not?

Nina Mbabazi Rukikaire
Amama Mbabazi’s daughter

What has happened in Tunisia cannot happen in Uganda


Contrary to what some Ugandans are saying, Uganda’s population is not the type that carries out the kind of action we have seen in Tunisia and there are many examples one can cite. What we have seen in Tunisia is a manifestation of material conditions that do not obtain in Uganda, and will not obtain for the next 5 decades or so if current trends remain uninterrupted.

First, that action in Tunisia is action by a fairly homogenous and horizontally integrated populace that is capable of dancing on the same sheet of music: 98% of the population of Tunisia are Arabs. The Uganda ethnic heterogeneity story is an old one with all the tragedies that have arisen there-from….

Secondly, the Tunisia action is one of a highly urbanised population, easy to mobilise for mass action . Tunisia is 60% urbanised, Uganda only 12%….like England in the middle ages….all in rural hamlets, weighed down by jiggers, scared of running around on tarmac…

Thirdly, Tunisia has enough youths to pour onto the streets. Tunisia’s median age, i.e., the cohort that splits the population into two is 29.7 years. They have a youth bulge and that is normally an indicator of potential for mass action. Uganda has a median age is 14.9, the lowest in the world. You have a toddler bulge, not a youth bulge. The majority of the population are the age of P.7 and below and such are not what you call upon to sustain the kind of action like we saw in Tunisia. The few that come on the first day are whipped back to class by Kiboko squad. You do not use Kiboko squad when the median age is as high as Tunisia’s, with the average demonstrator being old enough to be head of state. Uganda: bado!

Forth, Tunisia has one of the most literate, easy to co-ordinate population in Africa. Up to last year, they were on top of Africa, having been so for many years. Zimbabwe dethroned them in July 2010. Tunisia’s literacy is the literacy of many University graduates, given the median age. Uganda boasts of a 63% literacy, but given the median age, it is P.7 graduates mostly….cannot articulate effectively/forcefully any political message…..Tunisia style.

Fifth, the economy. Only 7.4% of Tunisia’s population live below the poverty line, while for Uganda, about 40%. It is not very poor people/beggars crushed by poverty that agitate for the Tunisia kind of changes. It is those for whom a better life is in sight. As they say, the most poor people are as conservative as the very rich. Both believe in maintenance of the status quo……

When it comes to GDP per capita, Tunisia’s is $6,900. Many analysts have observed that the magic level of GDP that is known to give a warning sign for a country’s capacity to make an irreversible transition to democracy is $6,000. This was the threshold that we observed with Taiwan, South Korea, many Latin American countries etc. Once a country that is not dependent on oil hits that threshold, the political elite have to wake up! They have to know that they have bourgeoisfied, and have to open up political space or they will be consumed by popular anger. Ben Ali’s Tunisia hit the threshold but he did not take heed (the point of that threshold has been made most articulately by Francis Fukuyama and Fareed Zakaria….).

Uganda’s GDP is now $1,200…way below the level what would cause any body in power to worry. Way, way, way below. Sorry! When one uses the GDP figures/trends from 2000, Uganda will be able to reach that threshold of $6,000 on 21 October 2069 at 2136 Hrs. It is around that date that the political elite should have woken up. Those who are saying that it will be YK Museveni to be woken up, you are simply wishing him a really long life…of 126 years…which is a paradox!

There are many other crucial variables that have a bearing on the panning out of some of those projections….I could only abbreviate as much as that. When you look at all of them, even the 2069 for attaining $6,000 is unduly optimistic. There is one trend analysis programme that I used that gave me 2163, when YK Museveni will be 219 years old…for those who think that it is YK Museveni who stands to face the Ben Ali predicament…….

In terms of opposition politics in Ugnda, part of what we see in Tunisia is the fact that under the tutelage of the iron hand of Bourguiba and Ben Ali, the country has undergone a significant level of vertical stratification producing distinct classes….labour, middle class etc, the infrastructure for a real opposition. Uganda: bado sana!

With Uganda, all you have in terms of a middle class is a non-productive pseudo elite, all of whom are exactly the same but are only pretending to be different because they all want to access state house to dish out patronage….and that elite is only about 10%, not sufficient to sustain the kind of liberal democratic dispensation that we are pretending to run.

Premature liberalisation like we have undergone in Uganda is as dangerous as growing permanent teeth long before you lose your milk teeth…you end up with a mess of a mouth, crowded, teeth looking in every direction…every kilo of meat you eat, half remains stuck in the teeth…only delaying meaningful development etc….

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Patrick Otto

What will Uganda do about the Nile water agreement after southern Sudan votes to secede?

Picture showing a general view of the River Nile river in Cairo

It is true the CPA Agreement is silent on the issue of the Nile, implying that if the New Southern Sudan state may choose to do what it pleases with the Nile as they are not bound by the colonial Nile treaty although this could be the subject of a protracted international legal case, focusing on inherited responsibilities

To conclusively understand this issue, one needs to closely consider the following:Strategic interests of Uganda, Southern Sudan and Egypt vis-à-vis the Nile water;The degree and scope of control/influence Egypt and Uganda have over the new entrant (southern Sudan);The international and economic options of the new Southern Sudan State.

Other than Kenya, Uganda is a key ally of the SPLM, hence South Sudan, it has made strategic investments in the SPLM struggle and government, and remains critical to the security and economic health of a new south Sudan state, simply put; south Sudan will collapse without Uganda’s support (logistical and supply lines, foreign investments, geographical location and supply of manufactured items; the latter clearly demonstrated in the multi-billion investment in the Nimule-Juba road and recent trade figures between Uganda and South Sudan).

Uganda on the other hand seeks regional domination and repute through control of South Sudan (so far, we have played very good patronage to the South), its a pretty good market; check our exports statistics since the CPA was signed.

Egypt on the other hand has the Nile at the top of its national security. While the current Nile agreement tends to favor Egypt and North Sudan, the fact is that the portion is simply not enough and even the slightest reduction will lead to significant impacts on the Egyptian economy, they recognize these hence the explanation for the Egyptian envoy in Jinja, their reluctance to re-negotiate, and the recent overtures towards south sudan in light of increasing signs of breakaway from the North, its a courtship in the making.

Uganda has been at the forefront of revising the Nile agreement not because it is critical to its economy (except for power generation) but for moral (right and wrong) as well as regional power issues; which Egypt has resisted.

My impression is Uganda will use South Sudan state as a tool to put more pressure on Egypt since the south depends more on Uganda than Egypt and they too like Uganda have little to directly utilize the Nile in the immediate future.

Keep in mind the Nile agreement only serves the interests of North Sudan and Egypt hence any actions are likely to affect the two more than any other state.

In the unlikely event that the opposition wins (I am under the impression they will loose and become even more weakened as a result of absorption of strong individuals into the NRM; this will leave Mao a stronger contender in the next election), I have the feeling that they still have no concrete plans for the Nile and it would be unwise for us to attempt to guess what they will do even when they themselves don’t know. I reckon they will concentrate more on establishing themselves internally other than rocking the boat internationally and regionally in the event that they win.

As Abbey Semuwemba says; “Byebyo banange”

Phionah Kesaasi

The NRM ‘Genocide Letter’ was Forged and i think Dr.Otunu is Responsible

Dear Ugandans,
I Just want to make a few observations on the Olara Otunnu letter above that has been making the rounds here, apart from exciting Olara Otunnu into calling a press conference in Kampala to declare that he had made some important discovery regarding YK Museveni’s plan to eliminate the population of Acholi.

One most prominent point that gives away Otunnu & Co is their statement on Chefe Ali, and I quote: “I will transfer Chef Ali from Teso to command the Army in the area to seal off the four districts of Apac, Lira, Gulu and Kitgum….”. That statement summarises the ambush that always awaits many one-track mind forgers like the authors of this letter, namely, attempting to be retrospective but missing out key historical details. Throughout the 1980s to 1991, Chefe Ali was in charge of the Fort Portal based 7th Division (after a short stint as Kololo-based 11 Bn Commander in 1986). In the mind of the authors of the letter, just because in 1995 Chefe Ali moved to Gulu from Teso, that means he had been in Teso ever since the Pope was an altar boy. What this simply means is that the letter could not have been written between 1986 and 1991 because at the time, Chefe Ali was not in Teso.

The second point to observe is the opposite of the first point where they disregarded key historical points. They have attempted to “overcreate” the past. They have imagined that because there were no computers yet in 1986, they would look more authentic by using a manual typewriter. They have forgotten that most key government offices even by the fall of Obote II were using electric (mainly IBM) typewriters, not the portable Olympia Monica S which they seem to have used to type their forgery. They learnt a wrong lesson from the forgers of the DP document on Kayiira who used the Arial font launched in 1991 to forge a document dated 1987. Those are the brains of the country’s oldest parties!

Thirdly, and very important, I want to refer you back to the top secret letter that AM Obote Obote circulated ahead of the 1980 elections and note the close parallels not just in tone but also in the style of phrasing. I have pasted both of them below. Look at the similarity between the underlined sentences. In Otunnu’s forgery, the author states (red underline): “I am at pains to propose that it is necessary to eliminate some old politicians who are likely to give us troubles.” ; while the Obote 1980 elections strategy stated: “I am at pains to propose if necessary the leaders of other parties should be eliminated.” Look also at the bits underlined in green on the appointment of Kikira and Bigombe: Otunnu forgery: “I have in mind one young woman,Betty Bigombe, who would be suitable….” ; Obote 1908 strategy : I have in mind our old friend Kikira who would be suitable….” . Of course that coincidence in phraseology is not accidental. The same fascists that authored the Obote strategy of 1980 are the authors of the forgery of 30 years later.

Fourth, the codenames used in the forgery are also typical of the millenerian/mystical lexicon that has been in employment by Lakwenaist/Konyist strategists: “Meteor”, “Tremor”……very much in line with “Holy Spirit…”, “Lord’s….”; or Kony’s units, “Stockree Brigade”, “Altar Control Brigade”, “Gilva Brigade”, “Trinkle Brigade” and all such.

Sadly for the country, all these gentlemen are intellectuals who want to take charge of the lives of 32 million souls. They are among our very best, the country’s elite! Olara Otunnu who made the announcement of discovering that “genocide plan” is addressed as “Dr”, so is Ochan Otim. Just see how animated Otunnu looked as he addressed the press upon “discovering” Museveni’s “genocide plan”. Just look at him. One could easily speculate that his own enemies within the UPC have laid a trap for him by causing him to make such a fool of himself. They know he is sufficiently desperate to clutch at any nonsense.

of course the signature on the letter is not YK Museveni’s. No remote resemblance even.On the point of the quasimystical/non-rational/occult/other-worldly language in the forgery…”Tremor and “Meteor”, as I have said, that lexicon falls neatly into the known style of Lakwenaism/Konyism as shown.
So, it is not really difficult to identify the minds behind some of that nonsense.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Patrick Otto

Why has Museveni’s birth place issue resurfaced?

Without realizing it, Uganda has entered two somewhat related phases: the enlightenment phase and the dialectics phase. The enlightenment phase involves reasoning: asking questions and demanding convincing answers. The dialectics phase means that Ugandans are scrutinizing Museveni statements like never before to demonstrate that the truth of his intentions is in that he does not say. In other words, Ugandans are trying to make the absent the present because the greater part of the truth is in that which is absent.

Based on his actions during and since the guerrilla war a rapidly increasing number of Ugandans have concluded that Museveni is a foreigner whose intentions are to marginalize indigenous Ugandans economically, demographically and politically working in close cooperation with foreigners especially Britain, Uganda’s neocolonial master.

The following harsh actions (some of them repeated for easy reference) taken by Museveni are used as illustrations that only a foreigner can impose on a people he does not belong to.

1. During the guerrilla war Museveni ignored true Ugandans (whom he deployed as administrative assistants and resource mobilization etc) and relied on Tutsi refugees as commanders and intelligence officers. Fred Rwigyema was deputy commander of Uganda’s National Resistance Army (NRA) and later deputy minister of defense with Museveni as minister of defense; Paul Kagame was head of intelligence and counter intelligence; Dr Peter Baingana was head of NRA medical services; Chris Bunyenyezi was a commanding officer of NRA’s 306 brigade; and Sam Kaka was commanding officer of NRA’s military police etc (New African November 2002). Other commanders were mostly Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda). When Ugandans complained about high profile foreign involvement in military matters, Museveni acted swiftly and imposed harsh measures against complaints (EIR Special Report 1997) to silence dissent to his dictatorship. When he captured power, Museveni passed a law through a rubber stamp parliament that forbids Ugandans from discussing or complaining about sectarian practices. But Museveni has utilized sectarianism to hire, promote and reassign Bahororo (people of Museveni tribe), his friends and in-laws to fill important and strategic positions in the country. A true national would not do a thing like this.

2. Upon becoming president, Museveni introduced new currency and imposed a massive 30 percent service charge to convert old into new currency. Thirty percent charge at such a time of crashing economic hardship was judged brutal even by IMF officials. (This was followed by massive devaluation of Uganda currency that increased the price of imports beyond the reach of many peasants and urban poor). Museveni showed no compassion even to retired people whose livelihood depended on their scarce savings. What is even worse is that it is not clear to what use the money was put. Some have alleged that much of it ended up in foreign banks.

3. During the guerrilla war Museveni attacked Obote viciously for introducing debilitating shock therapy (severe) version of structural adjustment (SAP) that made Obote unpopular and contributed to his overthrow in July 1985. By the time he captured power in 1986, Museveni was also fully aware that shock therapy had been abandoned in Chile and Ghana. Despite all this information and advice of experienced Ugandans, Museveni went ahead and adopted the same severe shock therapy that he bitterly criticized. Museveni even dismissed the minister of finance and governor of the central bank who wanted a gradual and sequenced approach so that Ugandans are not excessively hurt. Museveni, with tacit agreement by some donors, built a repressive tool that he used to suppress dissent related to implementation of structural adjustment. Some donors interpreted this brutality as bold and commendable leadership.

4. Dialectically, Ugandans have reasoned that Museveni adopted harsh SAP version to use it to cripple those indigenous Ugandans he did not like. Through massive retrenchment, Museveni targeted Protestants particularly from the west that supported Obote and UPC. He threw them out of civil service and public enterprises en masse. He targeted agriculturalists (Museveni comes from the pastoralist group) by removing subsidies and in particular scrapping cooperatives that had served them reasonably well. He closed schools disproportionately in areas he targeted to crash. He introduced high school fees and health charges knowing full well that the poor who are agriculturalists would suffer. Museveni deliberately introduced private schools and medical services. He starved those public schools and hospitals used by poor peasant people. He encouraged medical staff and teachers in public institutions to work abroad where job opportunities were better than at home knowing that these public institutions would be crippled and poor people hurt. Museveni made sure his cattle people got good jobs and incomes in government, international organizations and private sector and therefore could afford school fees for their children in private schools and pay private hospital bills.

5. Museveni’s export diversification drive focused on those foodstuffs particularly maize, beans and fish he knew low income families depend on. From his speeches and writings Museveni understands the importance of food in human development. So he knew the adverse long term physical and mental implications of encouraging peasants to produce for cash rather than for the stomach. Museveni also knew that undernourished mothers produce underweight children with severe and permanent disabilities. Museveni knew that by depriving peasants of balanced diets brain development of their children would be impaired. Museveni knew that eating non-nutritious foodstuffs like cassava would lead to severe health problems including neurological disorders and insanity. That is why Museveni is not disturbed by alarming insanity rates in Uganda and children wards turning into hospices. He treats the jiggers’ emergency as a problem of hygiene which he blames on Ugandans. He deliberately ignores poverty as the principal cause of the problem. He cannot admit that when he is telling the world that poverty in Uganda has declined significantly which is not true from the mushrooming diseases of poverty. Poverty in Uganda is over fifty percent and probably spreading and deepening. And 20 percent in low income bracket have got poorer.

6. Museveni knows that unemployment of indigenous people (Bahororo people – Museveni is a Muhororo – who came from Rwanda are being taken care of economically) will in the end reduce them to voicelessness and powerlessness economically and politically. (We have seen this already in action as Museveni has hired desperate unemployed youth to campaign for him in exchange for a yellow NRM tea shirt). He has therefore refused to start a stimulus package program and associated public works to create jobs for the unemployed youth now over 80 percent. Other governments in developed and developing countries are helping their unemployed citizens: not so in Museveni’s Uganda.

7. Museveni’s liberal immigration policy and handing over Uganda’s economy to foreigners have been interpreted as a demonstration that he is a foreigner. Museveni’s relentless push for East African economic integration and political federation when he knows that losses (especially land and jobs) to Uganda will far exceed gains (East African passport) sends a message that Museveni intends to create another Ivory Coast on the eastern part of Africa with immigrants in excess of indigenous population.

8. Museveni’s support (directly or indirectly) for birth control for indigenous poor people has the potential of reducing their overall numbers while those of immigrants (especially those related to Museveni in the Horn and Great Lakes regions) are increasing. Targeting indigenous poor and low quality people also carries a ‘genocide threat’. This is based on the fact that rural poor subsistence peasants are producing more than salaried urban high quality dwellers (David Yaukey et al 2007).

9. Museveni’s insensitivity towards the people of Uganda is reflected in the statements he makes. He is reported to have said that ‘sustained high growth of the economy has translated into significant decline in poverty across the country’. The truth is in what he left out. He did not utter a word about how sustained high economic growth has translated into improvements in living standards of the majority of the people. What has happened on Museveni’s watch for 25 years is that food insecurity has increased with over 10 million Ugandans going to bed hungry every night, the number of insane people has increased because of poor feeding and stress, the number of underweight children is close to 20 percent because of poor nutrition, unemployment has increased with over 80 percent of youth unemployed and 60 percent of them university graduates, primary school dropout is over 80 percent for lack of school lunches which Museveni has single handedly refused to support. What Museveni has not recognized is that Ugandans are in the enlightenment and dialectics mode that emboldens them to scrutinize everything that he says unlike in the past when his word was taken as gospel truth.

10. Museveni’s consistent reliance on foreign advisers and blocking indigenous Ugandans from participating in decisions (he has kept or forced them abroad) that affect their lives is reminiscent of colonialism.

11. What has pushed many Ugandans to conclude Museveni is a foreigner is when he declared last week that he has no money for school lunches but has enough to help with funeral expenses. The people of Uganda are still numbed by this statement. There is anger out there! A Ugandan cannot say a thing like this!

12. In my communications with the president, speaker of parliament and prime minister I have raised most of the issues in this article. Some of the letters to them are contained in chapter three of my book titled “For Present and Future Generations” published in 2010 and available at http://www.jonesharvest.com. I was totally ignored. I did not even receive acknowledgement. That Museveni or any of his advisers did not respond (when Museveni is criticized) confirms that silence means consent.

13. Because of these revelations implying that Museveni is a foreigner and he has not responded, it is fair to conclude that Museveni should not be re-elected. His re-election will surely make matters worse for indigenous Ugandans.

Eric Kashambuzi
UAH forumist in New York

A message to voters in Rujumbura constituency

Next month (February 2011) you will exercise your right and elect a president, a member of parliament and district councilors for the next five years. The purpose of elections is to choose people that will represent the interests of all the people in their respective constituencies through for example building schools (and providing school lunches), hospitals and clinics, constructing roads, providing affordable energy, improving agriculture, storage and processing facilities. Representatives should implement development promises they make during campaigning time. When a representative does not deliver as promised he/she should not be re-elected.

Like other constituencies in Uganda, Rujumbura has had elections since 1961. For most of the time (some 95 percent) Rujumbura has been represented in parliament by Bashambo clan of Bahororo people.

By way of background information, Bahororo are Batutsi from Rwanda (not Bahima as previously thought. There are no Bahima in Rujumbura) who came to Rujumbura around 1800 as refugees when Bahima overran their short-lived Mpororo kingdom (after it had disintegrated) in present-day Ntungamo district. In collaboration with Arab slave traders who came with superior European weapons, Bahororo managed to defeat and enslave, exploit and marginalize Bantu people they found in the area. Bantu people who were dubbed Bairu (which means slaves) lost their short horn cattle and industrial enterprises. They were reduced to cultivators growing food for and providing free labor to the new masters in a master/serf relationship as existed in pre-colonial Rwanda and medieval Europe. Punishments were severe to prevent rebellions or when they occurred.

When Britain extended her colonial rule to Rujumbura it appointed Bahororo as salaried civil servants or administrative chiefs that helped Britain to administer the county (Bahororo falsely think they were hereditary chiefs). For administrative convenience all people of Rujumbura who had until them been recognized by their tribal names (Bazigaba, Basyaba and Bakimbiri etc) became Bahororo (hence Nilotic Batutsi/ Bahororo on the one hand; and Bantu/ Bahororo on the other hand). In Bufumbira all people there were reduced to Banyarwanda in colonial days. Since independence the people of Bufumbira have changed the name to Bafumbira. In Rujumbura changing Bahororo to another appropriate name has not been possible because Bahororo have remained in control and Bahororo title serves them better at present and possibly in the future.

It should be clearly understood that Bahororo was a collective term used for colonial administrative purposes. Therefore it is Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo represented by Museveni and Muhwezi that have become filthy rich. On the other hand Bantu/Bahororo people have got poorer under Museveni’s NRM regime although they have voted overwhelmingly for Museveni and Muhwezi. That is why some Bantu/Bahororo people in Rujumbura who do not like to be called Bahororo are beginning to refer to themselves as Banyarujumbura or Banyarukungiri. They can’t come out in the open because Museveni and Muhwezi who are powerful Bahororo in Uganda would not like it. Some day an appropriate name will be found.

Bahororo people falsely believe that they are superior to Bairu and mixing would dilute their superiority (evidence shows that Bairu are more intelligent (have more and advanced degrees) and more enterprising (more cattle since the 1960s) than Bahororo. That is why Bahororo have deliberately blocked progress of Bairu people by denying them functional education and jobs (at home and abroad) and frustrating their businesses). If Bahororo did not get the support of Arab slave traders in pre-colonial days and British from colonial days to today in 2011, they would not match Bairu – and they know it. One day Bairu will prevail no matter how long it takes! What Bairu need is to collectively realize that potential and the earlier the better.

Until very recently, intermarriage between Bantu and Bahororo people was strictly forbidden by Bahororo. Since the restriction was relaxed for political purposes of maintaining dominance over Bairu, Bahororo women are marrying progressive Bairu men and converting the latter into Bahororo of a lower class. Meanwhile Bahororo men have resisted marrying Bairu women (they have sex with them alright and even produce children together) because they want to keep their secrets about dominating Bairu and since 1986 the rest of Ugandans to themselves while they use Bahororo women as spies on Bairu and increasingly other Ugandans so they pre-empt plots against them (Bahororo). Thus Bahororo’s main reason for participating in Rujumbura politics is to advance and protect their interests at the expense of Bairu’s. Political participation at all levels gives Bahororo opportunities to squeeze Bairu and other tribes in Rujumbura.

Let’s resume the 2011 elections story. As noted already, Bashambo people have represented Rujumbura people for over 90 percent of the time since 1961 elections. Apart from Bashambo politicians, Rujumbura has also had Bahororo civil servants in strategic positions influencing allocation of development resources. Rujumbura being one of the least developed areas in Uganda one would have expected considerable resource allocation to the area. The reality is that very little, if any, has been allocated to Rujumbura. Secondly, these prominent Bahororo people who are filthy rich have invested all their resources outside Rujumbura. They prefer Mbarara town, Nyabushozi and Kampala. In Rujumbura, they have invested in building their homes including Jim Muhwezi’s ‘palace’ and a few hotels in Rukungiri town to provide accommodation when they are in town campaigning. Other than these residential homes and hotels, Bahororo whether politicians, presidential advisers (Susan Muhwezi wife of Jim Muhwezi and Joan Kakwenzire in-law of Jim Muhwezi) or civil servants have totally ignored the development needs of Bairu people of Rujumbura (investing outside Rujumbura is one way of denying Bairu opportunity for getting jobs and improving their standard of living).

Bairu have suffered terribly at the hands of Bahororo. Those who argue that all westerners have benefited from Museveni’s government need to visit western region to see how extreme poverty has affected Bairu people including through malnutrition. Suffice it to read Shifa Mwesigye’s article titled “Despite its rich profile, Rukungiri [Rujumbura is a part of Rukungiri] wallows in poverty” in Observer dated January 2, 2011. This article confirms what I wrote two years ago in Observer titled “How Rujumbura’s Bairu got impoverished”. I was clobbered by Ephraim Kamuhangire for telling the truth!

There is sufficient evidence that Bahororo representatives at the presidential level (Museveni) and at parliament level (Kham Karekaho Karegyesa and Major General Jim Muhwezi) have not shown interest in the advancement of Bairu people. In fact their divisive practices have been designed to weaken and impoverish Bairu so they are easy to govern.

In the 1960s division of Bairu Protestants into Banyama and Baboga groups weakened Bairu and their UPC candidate lost at the nomination stage. The DP Mwiru candidate was intimidated and cheated and lost the general parliamentary election to a Muhororo.

In 2001 Rujumbura people who did not support Museveni in the presidential elections were attacked at a rally, one was killed and others injured (Business in Africa April 2001). Those who organized the attack are known and will answer in a court of law when the time comes.

Progressive Bairu who did not marry Bahororo women have been systematically harassed in all sorts of ways and have been rendered virtually useless. Those who know the well educated men and women we are talking about find out how these Bairu who were enterprising have almost vanished from the scene.

Recently, Major General Jim Muhwezi (illegally some think) pushed through parliament a bill that has incorporated a targeted area occupied mostly by Bairu into Rukungiri municipality knowing full well that Bairu peasants will be pushed out because they can’t afford municipal high land rents. The ministry of local government has responsibility for municipal matters (and not area MPs like Jim Muhwezi) but it was shut out. Muhwezi took it upon himself to make a presentation to parliament (that was termed ‘political robbery’ by some members of parliament who smelt a rat) knowing whom he was targeting for destruction economically and politically etc. There are plans to declare Rujumbura county Mpororo kingdom (Mpororo name already appears on some Uganda maps (Ian Leggett 2004 page 10). Jim Muhwezi and collaborators knows that Bairu will object. Therefore disorient them and eliminate their resistance by chasing them away from the area. This action will ultimately reduce Bairu numbers which could be classified as genocide (J. Symondies and V. Volodin 2003). So Muhwezi’s decision could have far-reaching implications.

Recently, Museveni added an injury to a wound while addressing residents of Rujumbura in Rukungiri town. He told the audience that he has no money for supporting primary school lunch but he has enough money to help the people with funeral expenses. This was not only insensitive culturally and politically it was also a deliberate abuse of Bairu and other tribes in the area.

Museveni favors constructing roads and installing grid electricity to providing school lunch. But roads or energy and school lunch are not mutually exclusive. And Museveni knows that. He knows that when you are absolutely poor you cannot afford to purchase a vehicle or a bus ticket to use the road. He knows equally well that poor Bairu and other tribes in Rujumbura will never afford grid electricity. So Museveni was being sarcastic (I will give you roads and grid electricity which you will never use and deny you lunch so you drop out of school). Or maybe he sensed that Rujumbura being Besigye’s birth place the constituents have come to their senses and are going to vote for home boy Besigye.

May be Jim Muhwezi also sensed that Bairu in Kagunga sub-county were going to vote for Dr. Kamugisha and he decided to throw Kagunga into Rukungiri municipality to form a new constituency thereby denying Kamugisha support. A week before NRM district elections were to be held, a group of reportedly unknown people started a demonstration in Rukungiri town. Security forces used tear gas and live ammunition to disperse residents and intimidate the entire district. Supporters of opposition candidates were so scared that many did not show up and Major General Jim Muhwezi got re-elected as district chairman of Rukungiri district. Force and intimidation etc are expected to be used on elections day in February 2011. Without intimidation and harassment of opposition Jim Muhwezi cannot win in Rujumbura!

Whatever prompted Muhwezi’s action and Museveni’s statement, they should serve as good reasons for rejecting Museveni as presidential and Muhwezi as parliamentary candidates in spite of a difficult environment. It is therefore recommended that as an expression of disapproval, Museveni and Muhwezi should not be re-elected. If Bairu do not do it this time you will always be taken for granted and abused at will. This is the time to show that you have sharp fangs and you can use them to maximum effect. You will retain your dignity intact for it. If you are afraid of bruises or even worse you will never do anything meaningful in your life. So master courage and reject Museveni and Muhwezi come February 2011. Bishop Muhima – a very brave and admirable man who has already earned a place in history – has led the way.

Bairu people have been abused too much for too long. Those who have deserted their Bairu relatives should reconsider possibly because you did not know Bahororo’s hidden agenda at the time of your conversion. Instead of leading your people to greater heights you have ended up serving the interests of your in-laws in sub-standard positions (no disrespect). To confirm this, look at the positions you are occupying vis-à-vis Bahororo men and women and compare the level of education of both groups and see whether you are where you should be! I am sure you will find that you are occupying a much lower position than you deserve.

Charity begins at home and there is no sectarianism about this provided the playing field is level and the exercise of liberty is associated with equality. It is the right thing to do everywhere in time and space. Therefore, Bairu need to begin to lay a strong foundation for their children and grandchildren. You can’t do that when you are serving the interests of another group in an atmosphere of winner-take-all – Nilotic Batutsi/Bahororo being the winners!

Eric Kashambuzi
New York

Case to resist the curtailment of political freedoms of cultural leaders in Uganda

Fellow Ugandans,

I marvel at the way the executive is quick to embrace the idea of bringing political annihilation to the other leaders with the new parliamentary bill designed to curtail the political will and bring paralysis to traditional structures as ancient as the soil of the country itself . I’m in shock and awe at the timing and wondering this time who has anesthetized the NRM top brass to not realize that there is a chunk of voters out there who are traditionalists at the core.

If I were them “NRM top brass”, I would primarily concern myself with surgically dealing with any elements that might cause instability in the country or bring about insecurity . Killing the political will of institutions because insults were hurled at the president, despite their governance record which is far superior than the modern system being touted with increasingly deceptive presidential campaigns, is indeed a bizarre call and one which is hard to stomach.

Peaceful assembly and rallies of our kings to garner support for their immediate and future causes, should not be considered a taboo thing in Ugandans. If there are any lessons to be derived from kayunga, it is the president’s own doing with the new created virtual kings which caused the worst civil unrest bubble in Buganda’s history and when it came to burst many people lost their lives and folks like Betty N, were given political wings to fly in the country. I had forgotten that we are in a country that hardly goes through a post mortem of an incident or follow up to draw upon lessons learned from fatal mistakes of our immediate past.


In the case of Buganda and Bunyoro and other kingdoms with a long history of stable Kings, many traditionalists feel more comfortable putting their trust in these more traditional figure heads, for long they have come to terms with the fact that a central government exits and politically these two twin institutions should not be mutually exclusive in furthering the political aspirations of the nation. Though, if polls were conducted today, they would leave no doubt to our social scientists as to what is considered most popular and trusted by large masses of Ugandans in these regions.

However, a sense that their interests are best served with these more familial bonds build over the ages of time, should not be viewed as a rebuff of the central government but rather an opportunity to further strengthen the ties for a better Uganda.

When Britain’s Iron lady Margaret Thatcher, decided to remain the last friend of apartheid in South Africa, it took the Queen’s hand to nudge her into the proper line, now if she had been in Uganda with the new proposed political gag legislation being imposed on traditional figure heads, she would have been thrown in the slammer for towing a line that was morally right but not popular with the central Thatcher administration.

A deep mistrust exists of this fairly new institution “our central government”, while unwavering support and ancient chains of trust and allegiance flow deep in the veins of observant traditional Ugandans who are counting centuries, not decades, well served with a just a few hiccups by these traditional heads.

The people’s choice should come as no surprise to our central government which has had such a tumultuous history of barely 50 years in leadership, it’s time in service pales when compared to centuries of leadership boasted by our kingdoms. We already have a lot of orphaned institutions, why is the government preoccupied in orphaning these great ancient institutions?


The new institution central government has track record of failure, and it has been plagued with dictatorship, mayhem, fuzziness, promotion of a self serving culture and is often matching in an incomplete state of democratic demerits with every rising opportunity. This unstable history of the central government has made it nearly impossible for many Ugandans, traditionalists and non traditionalists alike to consider it a steady and proven rock of political stability.

The sooner our central government realizes the usefulness of a laissez faire climate for our traditional institutions and puts a cessation to harassment, curtailment and meddling in their internal political matters the faster we will get to a state of political equilibrium, whatever that may turn out to be.

People all over the world are now turning to bodies of common values to air out their views and to form alliances that address and protect their interests in an increasingly greedy corporate driven and insular central government, even in long lived democracies of the likes of the USA tea party loyalist are a force to contend with.

All able minded Ugandans should resist the temptation and attempt by such a young institution to define and to have an overriding force to kill the other as the bill being tabled by the current government seeks to do.

It will put us all in a state of in equilibrium creating an unnecessary vacuum and turn the people’s institutions into orphans of ineffectiveness, causing uncertainty in an already chaotic environment. Our collective psyche as a traditional people still relies heavily on these critical central figure heads, and their continued stability as a stable and reliable political force. Unifying the country will take more than the creation of lesser kings Mr. president ,we need reform frames that are well thought out.

These two systems with their imperfections must exist symbiotically for Uganda to continue on it’s rather foggy path of political hegemony. Looking at where we are now with inexplicable and unsolicited redistricting, a parliament and judiciary branch heavily tilted and dependent on the executive branch, absence of these traditional institutions in the current political arena would take away the only seemingly functional political institutions that we trust to bring checks and balances to an increasingly power thirsty central government.

Tendo kaluma

Ugandan In Boston

%d bloggers like this: