March 2015
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
« Feb   Apr »

Day March 17, 2015



Of recent there has been arrests of Muslims following a spate of murders of Muslim clerics in Buganda and Busoga regions. The regime has linked the murders and arrests to the Islamic aligned Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) based in eastern DRC. Among those arrested are the leaders of the radical Tabliq sect. The ADF came to the scene around 1996 when it struck western Uganda. Its prolonged war with the Kampala regime saw Museveni’s army enter the DRC ostensibly to flush out the ADF but it remained intact as the army instead pursued an imperialistic agenda. The ADF remained active in eastern DRC with clandestine operations in Uganda’s Islamic strong holds of Buganda and Busoga. Museveni managed to have the ADF blacklisted as a terrorist organisation but his tireless efforts to link it to Alshabab and Al-Queda have not been fruitful. Recent report by the UN group of experts found no evidence of any linkage.

Also linked to the murders is Dr Agrey Kiyingi – a prominent Ugandan Cardiologist based in Sydney Australia. He has expressed intentions to vie for the presidency of Uganda. The Museveni regime alleged that he has been funding the activities of the above recently arrested Muslims. Interestingly, for the first time the alleged radical Islamic fundamentalist ADF is a devoted Christian Dr. Agrey Kiyingi!!!!!!!

Dr. Kiyingi – a Muganda

Muganda is the singular for Baganda who are Uganda’s ethinic group that occupies central region. Their geographical location coupled by their administratively superb ancient Kingdom of Buganda, made it the focal point of early European colonisation. The colonialists used the Baganda in their indirect rule in return for preferential treatment. The Baganda spearheaded and bore the brunt of the struggle for independence. The 1966 clashes with the central government led to their much cherished Kabaka (King) to flee into exile from where he died a few years later and the subsequent abolition of Kingdoms in Uganda. These events pitted the Baganda more especially the peasants against the UPC party and President Obote in particular. A series of assassination attempts on Obote by ordinary Baganda were halted by Iddi Amin’s take over in 1971. The Baganda fully embraced Amin’s military take over more especially when he returned the remains of their Kabaka and accorded it a descent burial.

In 1978 when the Obote led Uganda exiles backed by the Tanzanian army were battling to dislodge Iddi Amin, Museveni led a misinformation campaign of how the Obote and the UPC were not popular in the strategic Buganda region. This prompted the UNLF to put forward Prof Yusuf Lule and Paul Muwanga – all prominent Baganda at the top leadership of the post Iddi Amin government in order to win over the Baganda. Even when Prof Lule was ousted six months later, its another Muganda; Godfrey Binaisa who was selected to become President. Still the Baganda led “Twagala Lule” (we want Lule) demonstrations paralised the nation before Museveni who was the then Minister of Defence brutally crashed them.

When Milton Obote won the 1980 elections, the Baganda nder Andrew Kayiira and Prof Yusuf Lule resorted to armed rebellion. Museveni who felt his childhood ambition of becoming President was under threat, moved very fast to neutralize them. He tricked Yusuf Lule into joining hands with him before he embarked on laying the same traps for Andrew Kayiira whose group he openly undermined. He assembled prominent Baganda into leadership positions for his NRA guerrilla outfit’s political leadership hierachy. When the going got tougher, he enlisted the support of the then Buganda Prince Mutebi with promisses of restoring the Kabakaship (kingdom). However, in order to curtail the Baganda military influence, Baganda military fighters were systematically curtailed from advancing to top command positions. No wonder, Prof. Lule had to die so that Museveni becomes the President.

Since taking over power 30 years ago and restoring of the Buganda Kingship 25 years ago, Museveni has had fragile relationship with Buganda. The Baganda realised that Museveni had duped them by restoring a quasi kingship. The devastating five years war fought on Buganda territory coupled by systematic and malicious intervention measures aimed at trimming Buganda’s wings, its past glory has never recovered. The Baganda are losing their much cherished wealth in land to unscruplous regime cohorts leave alone its territory as Kampala was declared not to be part of Buganda. Museveni has consistently through both overt and covert actions undermined the cohesion of Buganda Kingdom. His main worry is for Buganda to produce a potential presidential material. After getting rid of the militant Andrew Kayiira in the late 80s, through the 90s he feared the likes of Mulwanyamuli, Dr Sulaiman Kigundu, Dan Muliika and a few others. He identified and brought on board other prominent Baganda like Prof Nsibambi and Prof Gilbert Bukenya so as to soil their reputations.

Since coming to power the influence of Baganda soldiers in the NRA has been contained. After placing the strategic components of the army under the command of his son Brig Muhoozi, he had to hoodwink the Baganda by appointing a Muganda Gen Katumba Wamala as the Chief of Defence Forces who is a mere figure head. With the new NRA Cadre Buganda Katikiro (Prime Minister) Peter Mayega, Museveni felt that he had now written off Buganda as a potential threat to his life presidency. The coming on board of Dr Agrey Kiyingi – a Muganda who has never been associated with his reign but more so given his international connections, Museveni feels threatened by Buganda once again. Museveni fears that Dr Kiyingi may rally the Baganda whom he thought he had sent into political limbo and was now focusing on northern Uganda. Therefore, he strongly feels that by linking Dr Kiyingi’s political activities to terrorism, he will manage to isolate him locally and internationally.


Brothers and Sisters,

Once again please find below another submission towards the Peoples’ 2016 Manifesto for your value addition and debate; as an innovation the ideas therein might look difficult to grasp but I am sure the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda (IRA) might provide the necessary professional guidance when required; in addition any legislative policy changes directed at the insurance industry resulting from this innovation might become a business opportunity that will create more premium and jobs for the sector. Just last week the CEO of IRA, Al Haji Kaddunabbi Lubega said that, “the insurance potential in the country is still untapped”.

During the State-of-the-Nation address of 2nd June 2010 President Museveni commited himself to end corruption and embezzlement of public funds by suggesting that the corrupt should be tried by court martial; he made these harsh sentiments to fight corruption and embezzlement in barely less than two months after he had signed the Whistleblowers Protection Act on 22nd April 2010.

Either the president probably found himself hostage to the above vices, hence the suggested solutions or he had given up on the entire institutional framework (in place for fighting corruption and embezzlement of public funds) such as the the Leadership Code of Conduct Act 2002, PPDA Act, Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit, Police CIID, Inspector General of Government (IGG), Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Anti-Corruption Court, Auditor General’s Reports and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

One other smart way (that might aid the above laws and institutions) in the fight against corruption, embezzlement and impunity in public expenditure is in the innovation of an insurance product (maybe to be) called the Public Funds Indemnity (PFI) insurance Policy cover to be taken by all public officers (who authorize use/release of public funds); by designing such a policy with proper supportive legislation in place, any public officer (having taken a PFI Policy cover) implicated in (corruption and) embezzlement by the Auditor General would (at the request of PAC) have his insurer pay the (loss) sums involved thus enabling government recover such embezzled money instantly. A habitual corrupt public officer would thus not get easily insured (the next time) due to the moral hazard he would pose to the insurance industry which could finally lead to change of his official status or termination of services to government; this might finally lead to
having only serious people vie for public offices in Uganda.

To lead by example even the president would have to take the PFI Policy cover to guard himself/herself against allegations of abuse of office (such as in the CHOGM enquiry that alleged that the president sanctioned a certain Bwebajja hotel to be (mis)allocated money only three (3) days before the summit).

The Donors would even benefit more from the proposed PFI Policy cover as they would easily recover their hard earned taxpayers’ monies (embezzled by our public servants) especially when contributed towards our development budgets. To counter any litigation costs (by use of subrogation rights), the Donors would make sure that they always (if government does not) insure both the Auditor General and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) with the PFI Policy cover since the (PFI) Legislative Framework would also give PAC (the constitutional) High Court powers (it already has) to authorize the recovery of public funds from the insurers of the PFI Policy holders. Government would on the other hand insure the Attorney General, DPP and IGG. The rest of the public officers would individually insure themselves; the PFI Policy cover could, therefore, be the first requirement submitted to and kept by the PAC before anyone assumes any public office that authorizes
use/release of public funds.

For example, the President would insure himself/herself up to a limit of say Shs 10 billion, Vice President Shs 8 billion, Ministers and Permanent Secretaries Shs 5 billion, District Accounting Officers Shs 3 billion, etc, etc; to check on influence peddling an “opt out clause” for any of the above officers (in order not to be insured) may be included in the PFI Policy provided that the said officer shall not authorize use/release of public funds during the whole tenure of his office (position/status). If the PFI Policy regime had been in place in 2007, (probably) all the misallocated CHOGM funds would by now have been paid by the insurance companies that insured the public officers who were investigated by PAC (given PAC’s High Court powers). Any public officer who would thus have got dissatisfied would then have sued the PAC and Auditor General (both having PFI Policy covers) to seek redress (by subrogation and recovery). In effect both Government and
Donors would have got back value for their monies.

Similarly (for a PFI Policy cover of say Shs 30 billion taken by the Governor of Bank of Uganda or the NSSF Boss, Government would have recovered the Basajjabalaba bailouts, AGOA monies and probably Temangalo would (by now) have been history or housing NSSF Apartments.

Already there exists in the insurance industry a product almost similar to the proposed PFI Policy cover called Professional Indemnity (PI) Policy for which as professionals we insure ourselves up to a limit of Shs 100 million before the Insurance Regulatory Authority of Uganda issues us a Loss Assessor’s Licence; likewise the Fidelity Guarantee insurance is (also) normally taken by employers (read government?) to provide cover against loss by reason of dishonesty of their employees (read public servants?) holding positions of trust. The only difference this time (with the PFI Policy cover) is to allow the public officer carry his cross by procuring his insurance policy! It might, therefore, be a good reciprical gesture by politicians in addition to the public officers to take up the proposed PFI Policy cover to insure themselves against embezzlement of public funds in their custody should insurers rise to the challenge of designing the PFI Policy

By: Dafala Khalil
via the UMBS forum

%d bloggers like this: