August 2013
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Month August 2013

President Museveni ought to resign or get impeached after the recent revelation by a defected insider General

Maj Gen James Kazini who was clobbered on the head and had his skull split by a 6ft 6in thug- according to Gen.Sejusa

Maj Gen James Kazini who was clobbered on the head and had his skull split by a 6ft 6in thug- according to Gen.Sejusa

After the recent revelation to the London papers by an insider whistle blower General Sejusa, Ugandans are left in Shock and awe regarding the alleged orders by their President to murder several prominent army personnel and other civilians whose deaths shocked us all. In many of these cases we always gave the President the benefit of doubt by holding on to our own suspicions! In the case of late Kazini, there was an obvious unbalanced equation – girl friend could not have murdered the goose that laid the golden eggs! This fatal blow to the head of a trained army General by a woman who couldn’t even wield an axe was so hard to digest as absolute truth! The list of unsolved murders using poison,goons and accidents has been an albatross hanging around those in the halls of power in Uganda for quite sometime and now that news of high hand involvement is revealed, it warrants a serious investigation and indeed impeachment ought not out of the short purview of our law makers.

Now what ! how do we proceed as Ugandans given this new evidence against our President? – that he actually ordered the murder of several of his colleagues, some of whom were involved in the struggle to liberate our country – these revelations by one of his top Generals have seriously eroded his legitimacy to remain the commander in chief of the Ugandan army as well as the President of Uganda. He ought to be impeached by parliament or resign the presidency as he tries to gain his footing against such serious allegations.

Tendo Kaluma
Ugandan in Boston!

By Henry D Gombya, Editor – The London Evening Post

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni “ordered the killing” of Dr Lutakome Andrew Kayiira, a former Energy Minister in the Museveni Government who was killed during an attack on the house of this writer in Gaba outside Kampala in March 1987. The Ugandan leader was also behind the killing of a former commander of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) Maj Gen James Kazini after falsely accusing him of sending money to rebels of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) in Southern Sudan.

These shocking revelations were made today (Sunday) by Gen David ‘Tinye’ Sejusa in a letter to his Kampala lawyer Joseph Luzige when countering accusations that a relative of his had left Uganda recently with US$8million to bring to the General in England where he has been since he left Uganda nearly four months ago. Gen Sejusa said that this was not the first time that his former boss had used such accusations to lay the ground for harassing, disorganising and harming family members of those opposed to him. “The people of Uganda will get to know the game plan of Museveni and his gang,” Gen Sejusa said. “They will know that this is a trick long played by Museveni to get to his political opponents, their families and businesses.”

He revealed that after accusing Gen Kazini of sending money to elements of the SPLA, Museveni “ordered his execution by procuring the services of a 6ft 6in man to murder Kazini”. He went on to say: “Forget that trash of [Lydia] Draru. In case of Kazini, again some forex bureau, originally said to belong to Gen Kazini, but [which] actually belonged to a known relative of Museveni, was later to be used to pass the money for the payment of the executioners of Kazini, to the accounts of the assassins.”

In a story that appeared in the Kampala-based Monitor newspaper, a Kampala Forex Bureau was closed after allegedly handing over $8million to a woman said to be a relative of Gen Sejusa who in turn is said to have brought the cash to London. The paper also claimed that the unnamed woman had passed through stringent security measures at Heathrow Airport in London, handed the money to Gen Sejusa, took a flight home and has not been arrested since for any offence. The Forex Bureau was named as Pakasa Forex Bureau in Bugolobi on the outskirts of the Ugandan capital Kampala.

Before the story of the money being brought to London to Gen Sejusa broke, The London Evening Post had met the General in London and during our meeting with him he had denied reports linking him to owning a property in London. During our discussion he said unlike others in the Museveni regime, no one can accuse him of being corrupt and that he had not made any money at all from illegal businesses and denied owning any property anywhere. Told by The London Evening Post that it had been alleged he owns a property in Chiswick in West London, he said these were some of the many rumours linking him to property in Europe and the United States. He denied he owned any property in those countries. He said in London he was living on the kindness of friends and sympathisers. The London Evening Post actually paid for the drinks during the meeting.

Lydia Draru, the girlfriend of Gen Kazini who was ‘falsely’ accused of his murder.

In the letter to his Kampala lawyer, as copy of which was sent to us this morning, Gen Sejusa said the family of Gen Kazini is aware of who killed him. He said the late General’s brother ‘Singa’ who tried to follow up those that had killed the General, was also killed. “And the Kenyan team of private investigators which had been hired by the family, was attacked and it left the country at night,” Gen Sejusa revealed. He added: “And the family was threatened and their businesses targeted. Two very close senior relatives of Museveni organised this but I will not name them now, though their names are known by those with this information.”

Gen Sejusa warned President Museveni that he was now playing the same games against him since he left the country. “This time we shall not allow you to murder our people,” he wrote. “It started in the bush. Remember our army commander Sam Magara and those boys you used to kill him in cold blood? We kept their photos. They will be released for your enjoyment. This mischief must stop Mr President. You know we know you. You are dealing [now] with a different cup of tea. It will burn you. So go slow on your dirty tricks campaign,” Tinye said.

Gen Sejusa who before his flight to London was the coordinator of intelligence services in the UPDF, and is one of the allegedly 27 men who started the bush war that finally brought Yoweri Museveni to power in 1986, said Gen Museveni had in the past used money allegations against the late Dr Kayiira. He said: “For those in the know, again Andrew Kayiira was said to possess money before he was gunned down by Museveni’s goons.” The general had earlier on Saturday told The London Evening Post that he has a list of those who killed Kayiira, a personal friend then of this writer. In his letter to his lawyer, Gen Sejusa says: “The list of the killers [who attacked this writer’s family 26 years ago] is known because the case was investigated by the best police in the world [New Scotland Yard]. So there is no debate about that. The reason given was money. Mr Museveni knows the real motive and the real executioners.”

The UPDF General went on to warn President Museveni that if he (Museveni) does not seek amnesty from the people of Uganda, his crimes would overwhelm him. “Let Scotland Yard allow [the] release [of] the report of [the] Kayiira murder and many, many others. The world will be shocked about the murders in our midst,” Gen Sejusa revealed, adding: “For now, your game is clear. It’s stupid because it’s reckless. But watch out. I can assure you that your every move is being watched. Those who died will live to haunt you.”

Defending himself against accusations that one of his relatives had smuggled money through British airports, Gen Sejusa denies all this in the letter to his lawyer. He told President Museveni: “I do not steal like you. The British Government knows my situation. Britain [is] not a banana republic like ours which you have destroyed through your corruption. They would not allow US$8million to be smuggled [through their] airport. It’s a foolish lie.”

Gen Sejusa who changed his name into the Kiganda translation of Tinyefunza, accused the Ugandan leader of trying to use the story of a relative of his bringing him money in London to try and make him look “as dirty as that club of looters”. He said: “Unfortunately for you, it can’t hold now. It’s too late. I know you’re trying to destroy the little I earned at home. Just like you did in 1996, 1997 and 1999.” He warned Museveni: “If you do, God will reward me tenfold or more. He always did and will. But everything has its time.”

He said another reason President Museveni was using such stories against him was to threaten those that are trying to help the general now by trying to link them to a rebellion. “This rebellion is music to my ears,” Gen Sejusa said. “It’s not bad at all as it sounds when it’s being alleged. Not a bad story at all. We need to be told its extent, organisation, personnel, arms, support, target etc., etc. It’s gonna be interesting.” Sejusa went on to challenge the Ugandan leader to charge him with treason as was announced this week. He said: “So go right and charge me, not for desertion, for that’s not the real reason you assaulted Entebbe International Airport, but for that alleged treason. Bring it [out] in the open. It’s high time. Just be informed am not afraid.”

The renegade General ended his letter to his lawyer with a warning to those Museveni is now allegedly using for his propaganda. He told them: “…you may be paid. But when the country sinks, you too will be chief guests at the sinking party. So we need to be mindful of what all this portends to our country.”

During a meeting with The London Evening Post as well as with veteran London-based Ugandan journalist Dr Vincent Magombe Saturday, Gen Sejusa said he will in time release all the names of those that were involved in the attack at my house in which Dr Kayiira was gunned down. The attack forced my wife and I to flee the country and left her greatly traumatised, something she has failed to recover from to this day. We have not been home since then.

Tinye told us how Gen Kazini had been clobbered on with a big metal bar that opened his skull up. It had been alleged that his then girlfriend Lydia Draru had killed him. It is unthinkable to see how this woman can any longer be held on suspicion of murder after these revelations by Gen Sejusa. The General also promised that in time he will tell Ugandans the extent of the killings that President Museveni has organised among officers and men of the country’s armed forces, the UPDF and within the civilian population. This will involve details about the unexplained poisoning of Brigadier General Mayombo and former NRM Secretary General Wapakabhulo among many others. We urge readers to watch this space for more revelations.


Makerere University is the only university that defies the theory of Economies of Scale!!! How come with all those students and free government funding, the University can’t meet all its costs?? The University Council should look at cost cutting!!

My experience with foreign universities has shown that student accommodation alone can generate at least 5% of Universities internally generated fund. MAK sh’d turn all the halls of residence into income generating activity. I am sure there are many private (both internal & External) students willing to pay. Those who cannot manage seek Govt loans or relocate to other universities countryside since at least each region has a university. This will, again, go along in uplifting those universities to at least Webometrics ranking.

Me thinks the issue of “GO REAR GOATS” has been misunderstood and possibly misrepresented by a lot of commentators. It shows how we underestimate agriculture and what it can do!!! If you have been following Vision Harvest in The New Vision you will see many farmers earning over 5 million from farming each month- so in the actual sense, the President was saying that teaching is not a necessarily profitable profession, so the lecturers should for once practice what they preach!! Agriculture is so lucrative and it’s high time we all embraced it.

So many people are always quick to jump to conclusions about what they want to believe is right – wise men do not speak in the language of the lay man – always dig deeper to really understand what he is trying to say. I don’t like Museveni but I know that he meant well this time and lecturers and members of UAH should take him seruiously.

By the way most lecturers are already into farming! As well as ‘moonlighting’ in other areas of income generation. There is no problem in the president saying we go dig or rear goats! And also in whichever context the president chooses, we know the value more than most Ugandans I guess!

What we are dealing with at makerere is like the ‘ leaky food pipeline” what is collected or harvested is far greater than what is on the plate! Actually we have no business with the Presidents words and the Honourable minister words or threats!

Teaching should be regarded as a service to the State. Those who want to get rich should set up a business like goat rearing alongside serving the State. I hate the idea of trade unions locking horns with the State; it’s always destructive.

I should once again emphasize it that to think of being employed is outdated; for it is some form of slavery, if you think iam kidding do you see how these lecturers were embarrassed? With all the courses like project planning, business administration, venture management, commerce, procurement, the lecturers should be creative and put what they preach into practice. They think Gen.Kayihura is rearing goats for nothing. He told us that he has got over 500 goats on a 350 acre farm.

These lecturers don’t know what they want and I agree with the president. An assistant lecturer earns 2m,if that be the case if the increase is 100% then he will earn 20millions,a professor who earns 3m after increasing by 100% he will earn 30millions,is this realistic? Patriotic? Feasible? The president is right to say that he is tied of these games.

But the police should stop looking for the lecturer who answered Museveni back when he told them to go and rear goats. It’s backward and plainly stupid. Mbuuuuuuu In Uganda there’s a right to speak but no right after speaking! Uganda IS living in the Shadows of its past before the NRA went to the bush.


Where are we heading with killings everyday in Lango?

Where are we heading with killings everyday in Lango? Lango is running crazy? The lady Akullo Bianka in the photo was killed by the husband Ojok Dickens on August 12, 2013 in Alito by strangling and he left the child and dead mother inside the house. The child was found suckling. The conflict was over shs50, 000 which Ojok went and used in gambling. The man later presented himself to Police in kole that he killed his wife and child

Men r not serious, u kill ur wife! Someone who dedicated her life to u, instead of treating her like a queen, u killed her. U’ll reap the consequence! Her soul rip

Just yesterday in Layibi a man beheaded wife for stupid reasons. What are we going to do with these merciless husbands, should all women resort to single life?

Where are we heading with killings everyday in Lango? Is this the effect of the Kony Rebel rebellion??

These are symptoms of a much bigger problem in our society. We have now stopped following our own cultures under the pretext of being modern. We are just now copying and pasting cultures from abroad (colonialist). Such situations were rare and elders would handle them most effectively without repeat. What kind of generation are we creating honestly? Each and every one of has a responsibility to create a safe and healthy community for women and girls.

We are now experiencing an increase in serious mental health problems in the north and particularly in Lango as a result of two decades of conflict. B’se of the insurgency that happened there, majority are suffering’ from what psychiatrists call,”post traumatic stress disorder”. In other-words p’ple are accustomed 2 corpses.

Gambling and alcohol are the two evil spirits that our leaders need to confront head on, otherwise our people are being targeted in systemic manner to keep them in bondage. Gambling is the last thing the region needs, we have not even started recovering from the anguish and trauma of the war. A lot of men in Lango wake up to play cards from morning till sunset. They leave the women to do everything for them.

The local leaders and the development partners need to think and think…. with the community together to be able to come out with a solution with approach to engage the community members into a micro farming practices to improve on their household income during this recovery period other GAMBLING. It is very hard for the community members to adjust during the post war and the post war effect is more devastating than the period of the war.

There is need for massive sensitisation to communities about the dangers of domestic violence; otherwise it’s too much for life! At worst its women who are suffering mostly.


I am calling on my comrade Tony Owana to pull socks at UBC

Olympic Marathon Champion Stephen Kiprotich is now World Marathon Champion after stunning perfomance at Moscow2013

Olympic Marathon Champion Stephen Kiprotich is now World Marathon Champion after stunning perfomance at Moscow2013

Forum,I have been seeing on satellite TV our UBC advertising that they will telecast live, the return of Olympic and World Athletics gold medalist Stephen Kiprotich today from his good hunting in Moscow. This is good.However it was a complete disappointment that they failed to show live, the race where Kiprotich won gold and were instead beaming some music videos.

Many Ugandans cannot afford DSTV and failed to watch that historic run in Moscow live. Even KBC Television (Kenya) was trying to be a good neighbour and show the whole thing live, complete with analysis by former IAAF marathon champion Douglas Wakihuri giving analysis. I guess this was because they felt Kenya could win the marathon, but again, KBC is only available in Uganda on satellite DSTV.

I am calling on my comrade Tony Owana to pull socks at UBC so we don’t miss such golden opportunities in future. In fact I called a friend working at UBC TV and she told me “some of us did not know that Kiprotich was running today. It was a weekend and we could not get newspapers to update”. I told her that excuse was lame.

Perhaps our likeable UAH’s Tony Owana, who I know to be very hardworking and I know has the best interest of UBC and Ugandans at heart, should apologise a little to views of UBC. Otherwise good work with many previous live coverages that I have have watched.

Moreover, Tony should take this as constructive criticism. UBC TV signals is clearer and topnotch, way better than KBC when they relay international events from other networks.


Billie O’Kadameri
UAH member in Paris

Keep it Shut, Nantaba, or Somebody will shut it for U- Gen.Kayihura

I have read in the New Vision of, Friday, 16th August 2013, a story titled,”Nantaba and General Kayihura lock horns over Kayunga land” and I was, also, informed of utterances that the Hon Nantaba made on a Bukedde TV programme “Agataliko Nfufu”. (I was out of the country so I did not watch the programme myself.)

This is not the first time Hon Nantaba has made outbursts against me, and the Uganda Police in respect of land conflicts. However, being disciplined we have, hitherto, restrained ourselves to respond directly, through the media, to her false accusations, opting instead to channel our grievances to appropriate authorities. However, as it is becoming a pattern, and as the falsehoods could be believed if not countered (a prominent and effective propagandist in wartime Europe in the 1940s said that if you tell a lie repeatedly it becomes the truth), we have this time decided to respond.

To begin with, I find it wrong that an Hon Minister of government should choose to use the media to address whatever problems she has with the Inspector General of Police and the Uganda Police. Instead of going to the media to speculate and utter falsehoods, based on misinformation, she could have easily established whether my current work in Kayunga is an assignment to me by H.E. the President or not. Instead of the media smear campaign against me, if am involved in any wrong doing as she claims, surely the Hon Nantaba knows the disciplinary authorities, and channels of Government to bring me and the Police to book!! I don’t want to believe (as I could be tempted to do) that Hon Nantaba has some sinister agenda targeting me as a person.

To put the record straight, as I publicly stated in all the public meetings I held in Kayunga district, I am on assignment by H.E. the President to carry out specific tasks. My first task was to deliverthe message of H.E. the President to both the landlords, and tenants that they should tell the truth in respect of their allegations against each other; as well as claims and counterclaims of ownership/interests in the different farms/lands under investigation by the committee of Hon Nantaba. Evidently, this is after H.E. the President discovered through sample on spot investigation that both the landlords and the tenants were not being exactly truthful either to the Committee of Hon Nantaba or, even, directly to himself. I carried out that task of delivering the message of H.E. the President, although it was unpalatable to some.

My second task is to investigate all the allegations, and whoever is not telling the truth is held criminally liable. I have reinforced the team of detectives who, incidentally, have been in Kayunga district, for some time, investigating earlier complaints to the President, by both landlords and tenants, when he last visited the district. I have put the team under the new Commandant of the Land Protection Police Unit (LPPU), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Fred Enanga. They have expanded their scope of investigation in light of the fresh Presidential assignment, and the investigation is proceeding well.

My third task is to ensure law and order, given that the President was getting reports, for example that cattle on one farm had been cut, and there was general tension. Indeed, there were incidents of cutting of cattle, as well as a violent attack on a manager of a farm. Incidentally, before the President visited Kayunga, there were cases of houses being set on fire, and cattle and other animals being cut. These incidents were telecast on different TV stations, and they should be available for anybody interested. I have no reason to disbelieve the findings of the Committee of Hon Nantaba (by the way on which Police is represented, initially by Commissioner of Police (CP) Kototyo, and now ACP Fred Enanga) that injustices were committed by landlords on the tenants. However, the remedy must be through the due process of law and NOT through lawlessness and anarchy.

In fact, my first disagreement with the Hon Nantaba was when she ordered that the Police should, forcibly, take out cattle and other animals from two farms under dispute to give way to allocations pieces of land to bibanja claimants, and that the cattle should be herded in a cattle market in Bbaale, Galilaya, Kayunga district. On different occasions, when I learnt of it, I opposed that decision (which, by the way, our representative on the committee, CP Kototyo, should have opposed) because of two reasons. One, it was a wrong procedure in law because, legally, the respective owners of the animals were still the titled owners of the farms/lands.

In my judgment, the proper procedure should have been the following

· first cancel the title, and therefore dispossess the landlord of ownership, and order him/her to give vacant possession to government

· second, give him reasonable notice and time for him to remove his property, including the animals, in an orderly way, which would be witnessed by the Police and

· third, subsequently, give possession of the land to whoever was considered by the committee to be the rightful owners.

Two, the Police was being compelled to take on a responsibility which we were not able to carry out: herding and looking after the cattle. We did not have capacity (financial and technical) to look after the animals, even that could have been the correct thing to do, which, of course it was not. Moreover, we would be taking on responsibility, under law,for the animals, and should be prepared to compensate the owners in the event that the animals died or were stolen. Indeed, Hon Nantaba knows the position of the President on this matter, and should stop using me as a scapegoat.

In fact, to avoid the risk of government taking on undue responsibility, and even legal claims, with the guidance of H.E. the President, where there are such disputes, a temporary arrangement has been put in place whereby both landlords and tenants can, temporarily remain on the respective lands (coexist), but separated by barbed wire, which the landlord must put in place, each side engaging in their activities without interference or conflict. This is to ensure that there is law and order, as both sides await the final verdict of H.E. the President.

Clearly, this is my mission and assignment, which in any event is consistent with the duties mandated to the Uganda Police by the Constitution of Uganda, and I believe that is the reason the President assigned me the tasks as Head of Police.

In spite of this, however, Hon Nantaba in her outburst accused me of siding with landlords in Kayunga to “illegally” evict peasants from their land. She alleges that my intervention is to undermine her efforts, threatening to resign on my account. She even insinuates that I have personal interests in the land conflicts in Kayunga.

To the contrary, as I have explained above, our work is mutually supportive. Rather than consider me a liability, Hon Nantaba should consider the work that we are doing to be supportive and reinforcement of her work. In all my public statements in Kayunga, I was careful to underline that. Unlike her, my statements are respectful to her and a recognition of the good work she is doing. In fact, even in the instances where the committee has made mistakes, I told the public that it was the responsibility of the Police for not advising Hon Nantaba properly. However, personally, in my short and direct interaction with Hon Nantaba I have given candid advice and made appropriate interventions to uphold the law. If she found my advice wrong she should have engaged me or involved others in the matter but NOT to conduct a smear campaign on radios, and TVs to malign and tarnish based on lies.

I want to state, categorically, that in all my decisions/actions in respect of land conflicts in Kayunga and for that matter anywhere else, am not partisan, and/or personal, in favour of the landlords and against peasants or bibanja holders. Am as indignant (if not more) indignant against injustices irrespective of who is the victim, and I have a demonstrated record to prove it. I have never had, (and I have not intention of acquiring) even a single acre of land in Kayunga district. It is, indeed, malicious and evil for anyone, later on, a leader, to spread such malicious falsehoods.

Having said that, however, as Inspector General of Police, and, indeed as the Uganda Police, we shall continue the work of ensuring that there is law and order in the country, and that the rule of the law in Uganda prevails.

Otherwise, I have not locked horns with Hon Nantaba as suggested by the New Vision, and in spite of her attacks. I want to assure Hon Nantaba that I, personally, and the Uganda Police in general support her in her fight to redress past wrongs, if that is her agenda. But am afraid, in doing so, it is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever is done is within the law. That is the minimum. Hooliganism cannot be the response to redressing wrongs committed by hooliganism. The response must be to assert the authority of the law.

Gen Kale Kayihura

Inspector General of Police

Death of the founder of AMA (Africa Muslim Agency) Shaykh Abdul Rahman Al-Sumait

kuwaitDeath of the founder of AMA (Africa Muslim Agency) Shaykh Abdul Rahman Al-Sumait:Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’un.Shaykh Abdul Rahman Al-Sumait (Founder of Africa Muslim Agency “AMA”) passed away yesterday in Kuwait.Though his death has been shadowed by the events unfolding in Egypt, He is man who dedicated all his personal life for Africa. For those who don’t know this man, he is perhaps one of the most well known Kuwaiti da’yas who changed dawah in Africa. He spent the majority of his life calling to Allah and brought to Islam over 11 million people with blessing of Allah. He helped provide extensive humanitarian assistance to impoverished Muslims throughout Africa.

► He built over 4,000 Masajids, over 840 schools, over 120 hospitals and established orphanages throughout East Africa. He distributed nearly 6 million Qur’ans. His society has also established two colleges in Kenya and Zanzibar, offered 200 scholarships to Muslim African students to pursue higher studies in medicine, engineering and technology.

He is the founder of Direct Aid Africa Muslim Agency Which has built schools in Uganda such as Nakaswa Islamic Secondary, Kakiri Islamic Primary School, many orpahnage centers,hospitals such as umar bin khatab Medical center Kakiri, Wakiso Also AMA has built masajids in Uganda for example Kyambogo University Mosque and many more

► May Allah forgive his sins & grant him the highest place in Jannah!may ALLAH grant us ability to help the helpless and the needy

I ask Allah to accept all that he has done and grant him the highest level of Paradise. Ameen!

Mugumya Twarik Harouna

Statement on Public Order Management Bill by Hon. ( Amb) James Baba


1. As you may be aware, the Public Order and Management Bill (POMB), 2011 was recently passed and now awaits assent by His Excellency the President, after which it will be an enforceable law in Uganda. While such processes regarding the bill are still underway, Government is seeking to highlight its core aspects to help the public understand it better. This is because the NRM Government realizes that new laws such as the POMB are better enforceable, if they are well understood by various stakeholders and the general public.

2. To put the POMB into context, on 27th May 2008, the Constitutional Court made a ruling in Constitution Petition No. 9/06, Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General, annulling Section 32 (2) of the Police Act. This section empowered the Inspector General of Police to prohibit public assemblies or demonstrations where the assemblies or demonstrations posed a likelihood to the breach of peace. The Court found that the powers given to the Police in this section were discretionary, prohibitive and not regulatory. The Police therefore no longer has the power to prohibit a procession or an assembly even if it was likely to degenerate into violence and disorder.

3. It should however be noted that whereas Court annulled Section 32 (2) of the Police Act, Section 32 (1) was retained and it gives power to the Police to REGULATE and direct the conduct of assemblies and processions in public places. Thus, the POMB does not prohibit public gatherings but seeks to regulate them for the greater public interest and common good of all.

4. As members of the “fourth estate”, I hope you will be Government’s partners in disseminating this Statement and the contents of the POMB which I will highlight shortly so that any gray areas there-in are explained and clarified for every citizen and stakeholder to appreciate.


5. Broadly, the POMB is intended to regulate public meetings and to provide for the duties and responsibilities of the Police, the Organizers of public meetings and the people who participate in them, taking care of those who may be affected by such meetings. The term regulate as defined in the Bill, is to ensure that conduct and behavior conforms to the requirements of the Constitution and the law. Thus, I need to emphasise here that the Bill does not require of organisers of such public gatherings to seek for permission to have them BUT rather spell out modalities for managing their conduct.

6. Indeed, the Bill guarantees the right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully and unarmed as granted by the Constitution and the law. It emphasises the responsibility for security and public safety in excercising the fundamental rights and freedoms. The Bill also lays out measures aimed at safeguarding public order without compromising the principles of democracy, freedom of association or assembly and freedom of speech. It also provides for the Police to protect the persons and the property of the persons engaged in demonstrations, processions, assemblies or public meetings and other members of the public affected by the meeting.

7. The Bill enjoins us to observe the fundamental rights and freedoms of others who may not be participating in such public meetings and demonstrations in exercise of their rights not to participate. For instance, it requires of organizers of public gatherings to manage them such that they do not disrupt economic activities of others, say market vendors, along highways and activities in central business areas of urban centers.

8. For spontaneous gatherings involving public figures like members of parliament or religious or cultural leaders are often mobbed by their constituents whenever they go visiting. Here the requirement of notification will not apply for such unplanned unscheduled or unintended gatherings. The only consideration for law enforcers is to check that the gathering is not in a place that is already booked or is not suitable for traffic or crowd control.

9. The Bill also seeks to ensure that even when public gatherings are held, acceptable levels of civility are guaranteed. This is cognizant of the possibility of a gathering, which may have been intended to be peaceful getting charged and spiraling into violence, loss of lives and needless destruction of property. Those of you who witnessed the 2007 “Mabira riots” in Kampala concur with me that public gatherings, if not properly regulated, can indeed degenerate into chaos, loss of lives and damage to property. On several occasions, the “walk-to-work” protests of 2012, after being joined by criminal minded elements also tended to degenerate into chaos, disruption of business activity, destruction of property and cases of outright looting! It is such unintended and costly incidences, that the POMB seeks to address so that organizers and participants enjoy their right to public gatherings, but to also have safe-guards that ensure civility and order for everyone all around.

10. The POMB is also intended to have orderliness particularly at popular venues for hosting public gatherings like play grounds and open parks or gardens. The requirement to notify the Police when fulfilled, will ensure that a possible clashing of such gatherings with potential for conflict is avoided. This is because Police who receive documented notifications of intention to host gatherings on a first come, first served basis, would be in position to advise on whether or not a particular venue is available on a given particular date and time. Ordinarily, if the venue is available, the proposed gathering would be held while an alternative venue or date and time would have to be sought if the venue in question is already booked and not available. This is particularly required, for instance during campaigns when schedules of competing candidates must be harmonized, in order to avoid possible clashing at venues.

11. I need to emphasise here that the realm of the POMB does not encompass private gathering like funerals, parties, nightclubs, weddings and prayer sessions in places of worship! Such gatherings are exempt from the ambit of the POMB. However, for purposes of security and orderliness, it is only advisable that organisers of such gathering put in place sufficient security measures, including engaging the Police. Indeed, I have noted that some organisers of private functions are already undertaking such security measures. It has become more or less a standard requirement to address such security concerns at private functions by involving law and order agencies. This is important so as to ensure that tragic incidents like the one at Kyadondo Rugby Club where dozens of lives were lost in a terror attack in June 2010 do not re-occur in Uganda.


12. It is true that the Constitution under Article 29(1) (d) provides for the right to assemble and demonstrate. However, this right is qualified and not absolute. This means that as an individual seeks to enjoy and exercise this right, they ought to put into consideration the rights of others. As we enjoy our rights, we should not inconvenience or trample on the rights of others. It is the Constitutional duty of the Police to ensure that any one excercising their rights and freedoms does so peacefully and unarmed. Article 43 of the Constitution provides a general limitation to the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. It provides as follows:-

13. 43 (1) In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. Therefore, POMB forms part of the legal framework in which this Constitutional provision is operationisable, in as far as public gatherings are concerned.

14. We have a separate document with the specific legal provisions for the issues I have elaborated here. Copies of that document are available for you to review further and internalize. I thank you so much for listening to me.

Hon. ( Amb) James Baba



All banks you see in Uganda whether Teefe, whether Cooperative Bank, whether what, all worked through UCB and UCB dealt straight with Bank of Uganda, that Is why UCB was of a great value for it was setting the policies in the country that were of great value to the country. For a very unknown reason, Uganda closed UCB and handed its power to Kenya Commercial Bank. So all banks you see in Uganda deal with Bank of Uganda through Kenya Commercial Bank, and all moneys to and from Uganda go through the control of Kenya Commercial Bank. When you look in most of the banks in Uganda, many of the decision makers in the banking sector are actually Kenyans sitting in Kampala. And it is not only banking but so is insurance sector. Let me go back to Uganda observer and post a piece that was written on 04 May 2009 that many of you simply did not care about.

There are two major sectors in banking of any country, the national bank or central Bank, and the Commercial Bank. In Canada, the Commercial Bank of the country is The Royal Bank, this is the bank that connects us with Bank of Canada and it connects us with the international banking sectors. Every money you wire out or into this country goes out and comes in through The Royal Bank of Canada, and then to and from the National Bank. It does not matter if you wire it through Canada Post, Western Union your Papa corner store wiring system or any other Canadian bank, the get way for it to get out and into this country is The Royal Bank. That is our Commercial Bank. It is a very powerful position to hold for you set a whole lot of policies in banking sector.

Of the 21 commercial banks registered in Uganda, only 4 can be called Ugandan.
Take a stroll on the streets of Kampala and glance at the billboards, you either confront a message luring you into a foreign bank for a loan or an international telecom company announcing unbelievable discounts. Scan through the list of the biggest taxpayers and hardly a local company features in the first ten. Shuffle the business cards of the top managers of the top taxpayers; the names will read non-Ugandan.Since the 1990s when the privatisation wave reached fever pitch, Uganda’s investment policy has been haphazard with virtually no controls.

Unlike other countries in East Africa, for instance Kenya, where foreign investment is restricted to specific sectors, and joint ventures with locals a must, in Uganda it is a la carte; investors can own almost 100% of their businesses, employ 100% foreign workers, and repatriate their profits 100%.’

It is a systematic M7-government policy to allow foreign investment of weird investors to the exclusion of native Ugandan investment. The reason being that whatever amount of wealth the foreign investors may accumulate, they will never pose a political threat to the powers that be. You saw how the cooperative unions were strangled, Tteefe Bank, Kiggundu and company investors, UCB(and someone the other day was telling me that they have a Kenya Commercial Bank in Masaka). Can you imagine!!!

Ugandans are capable of planning well for their country, something just went wrong here and we all know who is responsible – Putting political interests above the national interest. That is so unpatriotic.



All the houses which belonged to Buganda were taken and kept by successive dictators of unitary Uganda.Makindye barracks was a Gombolola and of course Lubiri was the Kabak’s home.Kasirye’s house was also a Gombolola house.So its not surprising that former Buganda assets, including Kasirye’s house under contention, became safe houses because nobody could own them legally.Here is what I got.

1. This house was built and owned by Mengo govt/Kabaka. The freehold kyapa is available in Bulange .

2. House was taken over by the Obote 1 army and occupied throughout the late 60’s and 70’s by subsequent armies

3. At some point, probably in the 70’s someone FAKED a lease on it and sold the house to a Kenyan

4. In the 80’s the ‘Kenyan’ was forced to sell the fake lease to some speculators

5. Someone? found out that even the original FAKE lease had even expired, and told BLB, which issued a new lease and gave it to Kaisrye Gwanga Kasirye has a land title lease from Mengo for the last 26 years.

6. The lady claiming the house, must be connected to either the speculators or the Kenyan who had a FAKE lease anyway.

7. The same lady who claims the house is the baby mother of the lawyer chasing the case.

8. It is thought that the lady claiming the house has nothing to show her ownership, since whatever she has is fake..

So it is fraud Mr Gwanga is fighting then, or rather Mengo. I assume this lady has gone to court to enforce her rights to ownership of the lease, this is why she presumably was granted an eviction order against Mr Gwanga. Why then did Mengo not apply to be joined in the action on the basis that Mr Gwanga is in fact the lawful lessee of the property, and that the lady is an interloper who is interfering with Mr Gwanga’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment of the property?

Mr Gwanga should go back to court to apply for:

1. Revocation of the eviction order
2. An Injunction preventing the lady or her agents from interfering with his quiet enjoyment of the property.

Mengo could also go to court or apply to be joined in the action brought by Mr Gwanga, but in its case asking for:

1. A Declaration that the purported lease agreement held by the lady is fraudulent or was fraudulently obtained and therefore does not convey any title or at all to the property.
2. An injunction stopping the lady from passing herself off as a lawful lessee of the property, with an intention to mislead or commit fraud or other criminal act.
3. An injunction preventing the lady from trespassing on the property.




The Public Order Management Bill, 2011 was passed by Parliament on 6th August, 2013.

The Bill will become an Act of Parliament when the President gives his assent to it.


On 27th May 2008, the Constitutional Court made issued a ruling in the constitutional petition No. 9/06 of Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General annulling section 32 (2) of the Police Act.

Section 32 (2) empowered the Inspector General of Police to prohibit public assemblies or demonstrations where the assemblies or demonstrations posed a likelihood of breach of peace.

According to the Constitutional Court, section 32 (2) of the Police Act authorized the police to prohibit assemblies, rallies or demonstrations and this was inconsistent with article 29 (1) (d) of the Constitution which guarantees the enjoyment of the freedom to assemble and demonstrate. The impugned Section provided as follows;

“If it comes to the knowledge of the Inspector General that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any public road or street or at any place or public resort, and the Inspector General has reasonable grounds for believing that the assembly or procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the Inspector General may, by notice in writing to the person responsible for convening the assembly or forming of the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession”.

The Court found that the powers given to the police were discretionary, prohibitive and not regulatory.

As a result of the annulment of section 32 (2) of the Police Act, the Police no longer has the power to prohibit a procession or assembly. The Court further rules that if the Police entertained reasonable belief that some disturbance might occur during the assembly, then police should provide security and supervision in anticipation of the disturbances.

It is also important to note that whereas court annulled section 32 (1), section 32 (2) was retained and it gives power to police to regulate the management of assemblies and processions.


The right to assemble and to demonstrate as enshrined in Article 29(i) (d) of the Constitution is not absolute, it is qualified. This right must be enjoyed “peacefully and unarmed”. which means that this right to be enjoyed the above provision of demonstrating peacefully and unarmed should be observed. For Example if a group of people wanted to use a playing ground of a Primary School for demonstration when a scheduled football match is already underway, this may cause conflict of interest and subsequently chaos may ensue. That is why Police must be alert and available to regulate such conflicting freedoms and rights.

In order to fulfill the regulatory role of Police, Government introduced the Public Order Management Bill 2011.


Article 212 of the Constitution gives the Uganda Police Force the following mandate;-

a) to protect life and property;

b) to preserve law and order;

c) to prevent and detect crime; and

d) to co-operate with civilian authority and other security organs established under the Constitution and with the population generally.

Therefore, from the Constitution, it is the duty of the police to protect:

a. all persons (organizers, participants) exercising their rights and freedoms to assemble or associate under article 29 of the Constitution;

b. all persons exercising their rights and freedoms NOT to assemble or associate under article 29 of the Constitution;

c. all persons (general public) affected by the actions of the persons exercising their rights and freedoms to assemble or associate under article 29 of the Constitution;

d. all other persons who are either exercising their other rights and freedoms or not.

Regarding assemblies, processions, demonstrations and meetings in places that are accessible or used commonly by every member of the public, the cooperation of the organizers, the local authorities, the owners or operators of venues is necessary to make arrangements for the safe passage and conduct of the assemblies, processions, demonstrations or meetings.


The object of the Bill is to regulate public meetings, to provide for the duties and responsibilities of the Police, organizers of public meetings and participants. Regulate is defined in the Bill to mean ensuring that conduct or behavior conforms to the requirements of the Constitution and the law.

The Bill also lays out measures aimed at safeguarding public order without compromising the principles of democracy, freedom of association or assembly and freedom of speech.

It is the constitutional duty of the Police to ensure that any person exercising that freedom does so peacefully and unarmed.

Some critics have been saying that the Bill limits the rights of the Ordinary citizens to assemble or demonstrate. This is not true. The Bill is strictly in conformity with the Constitution, and the law.

Article 43 of the Constitution provides a general limitation on the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms in the Constitution. It provides as follows:

“Article 43. General limitation on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.

(1) In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.

(2) Public interest under this article shall not permit;-

a) political persecution;

b) detention without trial;

c) any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution”.

The Constitution therefore requires a balance between the enjoyment of one’s rights and freedoms and not prejudicing the rights and freedoms of others and the general public interest.

In many respects there may be competing interests to use or occupy the same facilities on the same day or even at the same time, this requires that a person who is enjoying his or her right in a public place should enjoy the same protection and guarantee from the Police as the person who wishes to demonstrate or hold a meeting in the same place.

The Bill emphasizes that the standard of peaceful enjoyment of rights and freedoms set by the Constitution should be upheld at all times,

The Bill further provides for the police to protect the persons and the property of the persons engaged in demonstrations, processions, assemblies or public meetings and other members of the public affected by the meeting.


Some populist politicians are using this Bill to make unfounded allegations and misrepresentation about the meaning of the Bill. In Parliament, the debate on the Bill was exhaustive and whenever there appeared to be an impasse’, consultations were made between the government and the backbenchers both in the ruling party and the opposition.

There was even an Addendum report following those Consultations. For example; on the question on the meaning of the word “regulation”, the Speaker halted the debate, tasked the members of the legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Attorney General to sit and agree on the meaning. This is what led to the Addendum.

Most of the people who are complaining about the Bill are still referring to the old version of the Bill. It is important to note that the Bill that passed was fundamentally amended.

You find that people are still quoting clause 6. It is important to note that the Bill that was passed was substantially altered after taking into account the contributions of various stakeholders. These included: The Uganda Law Reform Commission, The Uganda Law Society, UN Human Rights Commission, different political parties, Uganda Human Rights Commission etc. All the above had their inputs and as a result, over 80% of the original Bill was amended to accommodate most of these concerns.

It is also important to emphasize that the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs which has both members of the ruling party and of the opposition produced a unanimous report. Normally when there is dissent in the Committee, under the Parliamentally rules, the dissent is expressed by a minority report even if it was only one member dissenting. This time there was no minority report.

The report which Parliament debated which formed the basis of the Bill that was passed was informed and indeed reflected the many views expressed by all interested stakeholders in the Bill.

The Clauses that attracted most debate were the follow;-

(a) Notice of public meeting. (clauses, 2 and 7)

In order to regulate public meetings, the Bill provides for an organizer of a public meeting to notify the IGP or an authorized officer of the intention to hold a meeting at least 3 days before the proposed date of the meeting. The debate on notification was between 7 days by the Government side while the opposition proposed instant notification. After debate both sides agreed to 3 days notice as a compromised position.

The notice to the police is necessary since the police has to:

i. prepare for the protection of the organizers and the participants,

ii. to carry out risk assessment on all factors before the public meeting;

iii. to identify and appropriate traffic plan to allow the flow of both vehicles and human traffic;

iv. to direct traffic and the routes to and from the event to prevent obstruction of pedestrians, traffic or lawful business

An organizer of a meeting means any person or his or her agent in charge of calling the public meeting.

A public meeting is defined as a gathering, assembly, procession or demonstration of persons in or on any public place or premises held for the purposes of discussing, acting upon, petitioning or expressing views on a matter of public interest.

The public interest includes anything in which the public or a section of the public has a stake or is concerned about.

The essential elements in regulating public meetings are the place which should be public and the purpose for which the meeting is being held. The Bill therefore exempts social, cultural and religious gatherings and meetings of members of regulated bodies.

The following meetings are also exempted from the requirements of giving notice:

• meetings of organs of a political party or organization convened in accordance with the Constitution of the party or organization and held exclusively to discuss the affairs of the party or organization;

• meetings convened by a group, body or leader of a group or body at the ordinary place of business of that body, group or leader or any other place which is not a public place in the course of the lawful business of the group, body or leader.

The notice required to be given by an organizer should include:

i. the name and address of the organizer

ii. the proposed date and time of the public meeting which should be after 7.00 a.m and not beyond 6.00 p.m.

iii. the proposed site (venue) of the meeting,

iv. the estimated number of persons expected at the meeting,

v. the purpose of the meeting,

vi. indication of the consent of the owner of the venue, where applicable,

vii. and any other relevant information.

(b) Notification by authorized officer (clause

The opposition complained that clause 8 as amended was a re-enactment of S. 32(2) of the Police Act which was annulled by the Constitutional Court. That in effect this gave power of prohibition to the Police. During debate Government conceded that clause 8(1) ( c ) and a (1) (b) discretionary powers to the Police. It was therefore deleted. What remains in clause 8 of the approved bill is a) on notice and b) on suitability and venue.

So, what does Clause 8 provide?

i. The law requires the organizer of the meeting/demonstration to give notice to Police specifying the dates, the time and venue of the public meeting. The Police has no authority to accept or reject the notice. If however the Police has renewed previous notice from another body indicating that they would hold another meeting in the same place, date and time, then the law imposes Police to notify the later organizer that the place is already booked so that, in the interest of security, to reschedule or find another day or venue.

ii. Unsuitability of the venue:

When the venue is considered unsuitable for the meeting because either it is a market place, business centre, hospital, school …. then Police is required to inform the organizer to find an alternative place. This is like a traffic police officer who re-routes traffic to a different direction after noting that the other direction is not suitable due to things like accident ahead or road works. It does not mean that the traffic officer is curtailing the rights to road users to move but he is creating order in the flow and traffic.

Upon receipt of the notice by the organizer, the authorized officer is required to inform the organizer if it is not possible to hold the proposed meeting because of the following reasons:

i. where the authorized officer has received notice of another public meeting on the same date, time and venue;

ii. where the venue is considered unsuitable because of crowd and traffic control or the holding of the public meeting will interfere with other lawful business like legitimate trade.

The organizer is invited to identify an alternative and acceptable venue or to reschedule the meeting to another date or venue.

Authorized officer means the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or an officer acting on his or her behalf.

The Bill provides an appeal mechanism for a person aggrieved by the notification of the authorized officer. The appeal may be made against the notification to a Magistrate in the area where the meeting was scheduled.

(c)Spontaneous meetings (clause 9)

The Bill also provides that spontaneous public meetings may be held without the requirement of notifying the authorized officer.

A spontaneous meeting is defined as an unplanned, unscheduled or unintended public meeting. (Example: A public figure or a leader arriving in their constituency or area of origin or operation and is unexpectedly met by a group of supporters or followers.

While it is not possible to require these meetings to conform to the notice requirements since there may not be an organizer and the meetings are unscheduled, the Bill provides for the authorized officer to disperse the meeting if

i. the authorized officer has received notice of another public meeting on the same date, time and venue;

ii. the venue is considered unsuitable because of crowd and traffic control or the holding of the public meeting is interfering with other lawful business like trade.

(d) Responsibilities of organizers (clause 12)

Since police requires the cooperation of the organizers, the local authorities, the owners or operators of venues to make the necessary arrangements for the safe passage and conduct of public assemblies, processions, demonstrations or meetings, the Bill places specific duties on organizers of public meetings. These include;-

i. adhering to the required notification criteria for holding public meetings;

ii. informing all participants of the traffic or assembly plan and providing a sufficient number of stewards proportionate to the number of participants in a public meeting who shall be clearly identified with name tags;

iii. co-operating with the police to ensure that all participants are unarmed and peaceful;

iv. ensuring that the public meeting is concluded peacefully between 7.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m; and

v. being present at the public meeting and co-operating with the police to maintain peace and order.

(e) Duties of the Police (clause 10)

In order to protect the persons exercising their rights or freedoms to assemble or associate and the general public, the Bill places the following duties on the police:

i. to provide security and safety for both the participants and other members of the public affected by the meeting;

ii. to ensure fairness and equal treatment of all parties by giving consistent responses to organizers of public meetings;

iii. to carry out risk assessment on all factors before the public meeting;

iv. to identify an appropriate traffic plan to allow the flow of both vehicles and human traffic;

v. to direct traffic and the routes to and from the event to prevent obstruction of pedestrians, traffic or lawful business;

vi. to disperse defiant or unruly persons in order to prevent violence, restore order and preserve peace.


1. The Public Order Management Bill as passed by Parliament on 6th August 2013 guarantees the right to assemble demonstrate peacefully and unarmed as granted by the Constitution and the law.

2. The Bill as passed emphasizes the responsibility for security and public safety in exercising these fundamental rights and the freedoms.

3. The Bill also enjoins us to observe the fundamental rights and the freedoms of others who may not be participating in such public meetings and demonstrations in exercise of their rights not to participate.

4. It is not correct to suggest that all the rights and/ or freedoms in the Constitution are absolute. The exercise and the freedoms is relative to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.

5. The Public Order management Bill when enacted aims at ensuring that holding assemblies and demonstrations does not compromise security, law and order. It is also meant to ensure that there is minimum disruption to business as well as smooth flow of human and vehicle traffic throughout the country.

%d bloggers like this: