Category Genocides


Fellow citizens,

Yesterday the brightness of Uganda’s future suddenly went dim. Another sad legacy in our history.
We still have assaults on traditional leaders palaces with the graphic pictures of mass shootings resulting in dozens of naked bodies, both men and women, piled together.
Isn’t this Oboteism reloaded?

It is sad to note that many of the dead have their hands tied behind their backs. Suggesting that they were shot at point blank while already under custody.
As we approach 2017, we cannot still be on the Obote II path where the Uganda army still points the gun at its own population and fellow countrymen, threatens citizens, shoots at civilians and kills poor Ugandans as it did yesterday.
The people are sovereign.
Sunday 27th November 2016 will now be remembered as another shocking day in the history of Uganda.
Memories of a similar turning point disaster at the Lubiri on 24th March 1966 are flooding the nations conscience as we speak. We all know how that unfortunate crisis started off the chain of wars and rebellions that litter our recent history since independence in 1962.
There is no way that the horrific massacre that occured Sunday morning can be acceptable.
Everything humanly possible should have been done to avoid such a confrontation, including just waiting.
Utmost restraint must have been exercised. Especially given the lessons from history.
Even if a stand-off seige took days, or months, it would have been preferrable.
An inclusive and comprehensive dialogue should prevail rather than any personal emotions that could have led to the massacre.
Restraint is one of the hardships of leadership. But it is also its best tool. Especially for the side that is said to entrusted with protecting lives and property of all citizens.
Political matters can only be resolved politically. Therefore a new, more transparent alternative dialogue process has to take on the Rwenzori crisis.
In 1971 it is President Idi Amin who after meeting a delegation of Bamba and Bakonzo elders, immediately created the mordern Rwenzururu as it is known today. Remember that all Kingdons had been abolished in 1966.

On 5th May, 1971 he announced that it would encompass the Rwenzori and Semiliki Districts. And in 1972, the Banyarwenzururu King Omusinga Charles Wesley Mumbere Irema-Ngoma who had reached adult age, took responsibility over the Kingdom and appointed Hon. Yolamu Mulima as his Prime Minister.
The BanyaRwenzururu lived peacefully and without any single incident under Field Marshal Idi Amin.
But when Obote returned to Uganda in 1980, that situation changed. The BanyaRwenzururu basically had to seek recognition of their Kingdom afresh. Obote being cunning and with his known dislike for local Kingdoms, appointed Charles Mumbere as Chief elder instead of King, and then sent him on a scholarship to the United States.
It is the NRM that unceremoniously cancelled that scholarship in 1986 and the Rwenzururu King had to return to Uganda.

While President Idi Amin had immediately let the Rwenzururu people quietly be, and clearly established their Kingdom boundaries as it exists to this day, the subsequent regimes flipflopped on the issue.
In fact history shows that from April 1979 when Amin left Uganda, until 19th October 2009 when the Kingdom waa finally recognized, the Rwenzururu people spent 30 entire years being deliberately led on, and then let down, repeatedly, by the so-called “liberators” as they sought official recognition for the Rwenzururu Kingdom and their King Omusinga Charles Wesley Mumbere Irema-Ngoma.
I suggest it is time for the people of Uganda to see what exactly is being fought over in Rwenzori. Where is the list of issues? What exactly do they want? If there is more than meets the eye to this matter, it could have something to do with the once rampant accusation that the King Charles Mumbere and his people were part of the rebel ADF group. Something that the Kingdom and their King have persistently denied.
However it is only their King, or his officially known representatives, who should be upfront, and present their matters publicly, and in writing, to the people of Uganda.
Why haven”t they been officially invited to the floor of parliament (or the appropriate committee) to bring this national security matter in its entirety to the nation.

I recall reading the Acholi MP’s caucus’ numerous presentations in Parliament to Ugandans during the LRA insurgency. They were also active during the 2006 Peace talks in Juba, South Sudan. So while there were surely lots of behind-the-scenes activities, they somehow reported back to the Ugandan people.
Everyone knows that the Rwenzururu kingdom had arms and fighters in the Rwenzori Mountains. Most were initially picked from military facilities abandoned by Uganda Army during the 1979 war. Though those were later cordially surrendered to Obote in the 80’s, the violence that has continued to this day points to some level of armed organization. It must be remembered that it is the NRA that would give the Bakonzo youths weapons and ammunition in 1999 allegedly to fight the ADF rebel group in the Rwenzori mountains, something that they reportedly achieved successfully.
But today, to the leaders in the Rwenzori region I say you have all tried the back deals with handshake photographs. Obviously the agreements and the smiles you made were not genuine. Because clearly you have all failed peace this year.
The subregions leaders, the MP’s, RDC’s, traditional chiefs and Local Councillors, were all given a chance. All have clearly defeated their purposes in this pacification process because of self-centered attitudes.

In fact I am told that since the last Rwenzori violence around April this year, the process was overtaken by unscrupulous opportunism, greed, and abuse.
What you and me know for sure, is that while you the politicians might play your secret games, you cannot surpass the firmness and resolve on the ground. The people of Rwenzururu are historically steadfast in their culture and related decisions. They are ready to persist to the death. That is on record since colonial times. Even Field Marshal Idi Amin new this trait.
As fellow Ugandans we are brothers and sisters with the Rwenzori people. We live together everywhere in this country from North to South, East, West or Central Uganda.
Many intermarriages have occured leading us to live as husbands and wives, uncles and aunts, cousins, nephews and nieces.
We work together peacefully in the army, police, civil service and the private sector. Even abroad we live together as Ugandans.
We are therefore together on every issue that affects us all.
So how else do you intend to resolve the violence and any political grievances besides making your case to all Ugandans at a national level?

Isn’t it also the only way to see that the people of this country have their say on any important matters that concern the peace and unity of this country?
We therefore now need to take on the Rwenzori afresh. There is no other alternative. Put it swuarely on the National table. To the Ugandan people and all their representatives.
They need to see substantive documents, official memorandums or petitions, from the Rwenzori people, duely signed, and containing all your grievances.
The rumour mongering and incitement about any other matters should then stop.
The political representatives can then debate one by one the issues presented on paper, and see their merits, including from a legal standpoint, and also basing on the provisions of the constitution.
They need to do it soberly and extensively before making any comprehensive recommendations.

Civil society and other impartial parties need to be involved. The media and its coverage needs to tackle the fundamentals rather than the sensational.
And most importantly, all parties must abide by any final outcome.
An official public inquiry on yesterdays violence, one that results in an extensive public report, is also called for today.
The gruesome pictures that are currently making their way globally will remain as one more unenviable episode in the history of Uganda.
Last April when one of the area MP’s, a senior woman representative from the opposition, said the Rwenzururu violence was reminiscent of the so-called “Amin days”, I responded with a public letter where I wondered how of all people, someone from Kasese could be so dishonest.
The only time in the almost 300 year history of the Rwenzururu people where they lived peacefully without any aggression from their violent and oppressive neighbours, and without any problems with the central government, was under Field Marshal Idi Amin.
But getting back to present events, justice ultimately has to prevail.

This country, for the sake of avoiding ethnic and political violence, and for the sake of building good governance for our common future, wouldn’t it need to see this matter being adressed comprehensively from the public angle, the politics and also in courts of law?
If the Rwenzori Kingdom has been aggrieved, I would like to see them file charges or at least some complaints.
As Ugandans we all have a stake in all the issues that are seriously affecting this country.

And as we try to grasp what might have happened Sunday.morning, and as we also try to unsee the naked dead bodies of young men and women with horrific injuries, some completely defaced by shots from armoured vehicles heavy gunfire directly to their heads, others clearly with burns and horrible shrapnel injuries from military grade explosives, bodies that were then gathered and strewn right in front of the palace gates under the scortching sun, the pictures of women stripped naked by the army and made to stand in a line before being taken to an unknown destination with the consequences that we can imagine, especially that the world just started this years 16 days of activism against Gender based violence, it is ultherefore upon each Ugandan plus the partners and friends of our beloved country, to use this moment of shock, sadness, and grief, to reflect on a just, transparent, inclusive, and conclusive way forward.
Because regardless of what side one is on, and regardless of who is in the right or wrong, what we witnessed this Sunday 27/11/2016 should never have happened.

Signed: Hussein Lumumba Amin

{UAH} Statement by Mr. Museveni on the recent attacks by some schemers in Kasese and Bundibugyo

Statement by Museveni on the recent attacks by some schemers in Kasese and Bundibugyo

Nantabuulirirwa asaabala bwabbumba: Whatever a man sows that is what he will reap.

Uganda started off her Independence, in 1962, on a very weak foundation. This was, mainly, because of bad politics pushed by opportunistic sectarian groups and manipulated by external interests. The sectarianism, as we have pointed out many times, was based on religion, tribes and gender chauvinism (marginalizing the women). There were only three women that I remember in the Independence Parliament of 1962 to take one example. Within four years of Independence, the then Prime Minister had to abolish the 1962 Constitution because of the contradictions that were getting ever sharper. Earlier on, there had been the conflict on the “lost counties” of Bunyoro.

A lot of blood was shed in the 1966 crisis, resulting in the abolition of the Kingdoms. Eventually, Amin made a coup detat in 1971 and more sectarianism was generated and much more blood was shed between 1971 and 1979.

The late Mwalimu Nyerere, writing about Uganda, said of that period as follows: “If the Ugandans thought they were on the frying pan under Obote, they found themselves in the fire proper under Amin”. That was the perfect description of that time.

Some of us have the advantage of having been old enough to know and understand everything that was going on and yet we were young enough to live for long after 1962 as we have done. Initially, we, as youth, belonged to those sectarian parties ─ I being in Democratic Party (DP) and some of my colleagues being in Uganda Peoples’ Congress (UPC) and Kabaka Yeka (KY). However, by 1965, we had started developing grave doubts about the direction of that blind, irresponsible, opportunistic sectarian politics. As students, that is how we founded the nucleus of the third force ─ a non-sectarian student body. That student Movement, during Amin’s time, metamorphosed into FRONASA that was part of the coalition that fought Idi Amin and, eventually, evolved into NRM. Right from the beginning, we opposed and despised sectarianism because it was illogical and, obviously, run counter to the interests of the people. As we have said, repeatedly, the core interests of the people are prosperity and security for each individual family and for the entire society. When we talk of prosperity and security, we mean prosperity through production, not through parasitism. When we talk of security, we mean security in pursuing one’s legitimate interests. Legitimate interests mean working, utilizing our legitimately earned assets and enjoying the fruits of your labour.

There are, of course, other interests such as cultural, spiritual, etc. However, the core ones and on which all the other interests depend, are prosperity (especially economic) and security of person and property. Prosperity through production means producing and selling what you produce. Your allies in that battle are the people who buy what you produce. The recent insecurity in South Sudan showed the importance to producers of markets. Many businesses suffered. The prices even went down. The insecurity in Eastern Congo or Kenya usually has similar effects on the producers’ prosperity. Recently, I was in Kanungu and found there prospering farmers because there is now, again, some security in Eastern Congo. Even before colonization, there was interdependence among the tribes ─ as far as the forest of Congo, South Sudan and the East African Coast. It was only some of the tribal chiefs that were inconveniencing this trade as was observed and recorded by the early European travelers ─ John Speke and Henry Stanley.

Therefore, those who have been in the habit of pushing for sectarianism are the real enemies of not only security but also the prosperity of the African Peoples, the Ugandans inclusive. It is this firm belief of ours that propelled us to sow the mustard seed of non-sectarianism that, eventually, became the mighty tree of NRM/NRA and the present peace in the whole country. It was on account of our non-sectarianism and always working for the unity of the people that, starting with a small force, we were able to build a very powerful force. That force enabled us to win all the wars we fought, bring democracy to Uganda as well as peace and development. In bringing democracy, we also restored the rights of the different cultural groups in Uganda, if they so wished, to restore the traditional cultural institutions or even create new ones on condition that they did not meddle in partisan politics, administration and legislation. Why did we insist on this? It was for two reasons. First, in a democracy, the population govern themselves ─ through elections. They are not governed by anybody else except themselves. Yet, when you hear some of the spokesmen of the cultural institutions that we restored speaking, they speak as if it is not the people that govern themselves. Worse still, some of the cultural institutions have, for some time now, been acting counter to our message of non-sectarianism. They have been actively fomenting sectarianism and tribal chauvinism ─ acting and talking as if the only thing that matters are certain tribes to which the respective traditional leaders belong. Yet, the NRM, the Bible and the Koran as well as common sense hold that all people are born equal and must be treated as such. We have repeatedly and politely pointed out this point. Yet, some elements among the cultural institutions have also been repeatedly uttering sectarian and chauvinist words and also acting in that manner.

This now brings me to my two statements above ─ the Luganda proverb that says: “Nantabulirwa yasabaala na bwa bbumba” and the Biblical statement that “whatever a man sows, that is what he will reap”. The Luganda proverb refers to somebody who defied all the advice and decided to use a clay canoe to cross a body of water. The consequences were disastrous for him and for those who travelled with him in the clay boat.

Last Sunday, a group of people in the Rwenzori region carried out coordinated attacks against security forces and civilians. Altogether, they carried out 13 attacks as follows:

(i) At 3.00 pm, they attacked policemen at the weigh bridge, killed 1 policeman, injured another one and took 2 SMGs;

(ii) At Bigando, a UPDF soldier that was on leave, was killed and all his family burnt in a house;

(iii) In Bigando, they also killed 6 Basongora civilians;

(iv) At Karugutu Police post, they injured one (1) policeman and took one (1) SMG

(v) At Kikyo Police post, they took one SMG;

(vi) At Kirumiya Police post, they took 1 gun;

(vii) At Ntandi they took 2 SMGs from Uganda Wild Life (UWA) personnel;

(viii) At Kibuku, they ambushed soldiers who were taking re-enforcements to Bundibugyo, killed one of them, and took 1 SMG but 3 of the attackers were killed including their so called commander;

(ix) In Bundibugyo town, they attacked Bundibugyo Police Station, killed the OC station and one policeman and took one SMG;

(x) They attacked Stanbic Bank but three of the attackers were killed;

(xi) They, then, attacked, Lakwena style, the camp of 39BN at Kanyamirima, injuring one Captain and killing one soldier but 45 of the attackers were killed and the attack was repelled;

(xii) Attack on the Palace of the Bamba King saw one gun being taken and one policeman being injured; and, finally,

(xiii) The attack on the shrine where 2 soldiers were killed and one gun was taken.

This means that 8 members of the security forces were killed and 51 attackers were also killed. This is a total of 65 Ugandans killed last Saturday by the schemes of some confused or selfish bunch of people. Fortunately, today Uganda has got a capable State that is able to deal decisively and expeditiously with such schemes although, of course, there was a failure of intelligence. How did these people weave such a scheme without being pre-empted? What were the GISOs doing? However, their main effort, which was to enter the camp of 39BN was decisively defeated. In their limited thinking, they thought it was a light matter to attack UPDF.

How did all this start? It started with Mr. Charles Mumbere, now HH Omusinga of the Bakonjo, coming to see me some years ago. He is the son of the late Isaiah Mukirane who, together with Kawamara, the father of the new cultural leader of the Bamba and Mupalya who died recently, started the Rwenzururu Movement in 1962 against the Batooro domination. Mukirane, eventually, died in the mountains and left his young son Mumbere. When Mr. Mumbere came to see me, he wanted to be the King of the Rwenzururu. I told him that the Rwenzururu had been a Political Movement for equality. Why did he want to turn a political resistance movement into a monarchy? His group, however, kept on insisting on the issue of monarchy although there was a big group in Kasese that also opposed the idea. Eventually, in order to create harmony, we withdrew objections to Mr. Mumbere becoming Omusinga especially after people like Dr. Kiyonga and a large group of people who were opposed to the idea of monarchy, withdrew their objection. However, the Bamba leaders of Bundibugyo were totally opposed to the idea of the monarchy.

In agreeing to Mr. Mumbere being Omusinga, we, therefore, agreed that that cultural institution should operate in Kasese. Those of Bundibugyo and other areas that were interested in the Obusinga could go to Kasese. Even within Kasese, there are other indigenous groups that did not support these ideas. These are the Basongora, Banyabindi and Bagabo. We encouraged HH Omusinga to have dialogue with these groups. I do not know how far that dialogue has gone. I have, however, been hearing of some chauvinistic positions from some of those who claim to be supporting Obusinga. They seem to insist that the Omusinga, apart from the Omukama of Tooro in his area, should be the only cultural leader in the Rwenzori region. Yet, there are other ethnic groups in the Rwenzori region: Bamba, Basongora, Banyabindi, etc. They have different ideas about this issue and have, in several meetings with me, made this categorically clear.

On account of those chauvinistic ideas being banded around for so long, it seems some groups hatched this criminal scheme that has caused the death of so many people. Apart from killing 51 of the attackers, we have captured 65 others. We shall get to the truth and will punish those involved. In the meantime, the country should not get anxious about this scheme. It was defeated right on the first day of its execution even before the full potential of the UPDF has been mobilized. This scheme is doomed to total failure. It is amazing how wrong ideas coalesce into wrong actions. Nantabulirwa ya sabaala na bwa bbumba. Whatever a man sows, that is what he will reap.

I thank you.

Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Gen (rtd)



The tragedy of the xenophobia in South Africa is saddening. The ANC must take most if not all the blame for it for reasons that include:

i) It has abysmally failed to tell and retell black South Africans the true story of South Africa’s liberation and the role and sacrifices played and made respectively, by good people everywhere and especially Africans and their countries’ governments, to ensure the successful conclusion what was without question the last epic struggle against colonialism in Africa in the 20th century.

ii) It over-promised on the dividends of liberation and has made insufficient in adequate honest effort to deliver even on deliverables

iii) It has grossly mismanaged the economy of a richly endowed country such that a majority of her long suffering citizens are in many cases poorer that they were under apartheid, and still or need to be.

iv) It encourages xenophobia in words and action including laws and policy implementation.

v) It has not acted sincerely and responsibly in holding accountable, perpetrators of South African crimes against both legal and illegally immigrants.

It is an appalling travesty of reason and good sense that a people who suffered unfathomable discrimination and other injustices for decades because of who they are, have apparently little hesitation in visiting equivalent and in some cases worse injustice on others because of who these others are, so soon after their emancipation.

The Zulu king has been reported to fan the embers of hatred of foreigners. Do black South Africans not remember that Mangosuthu Buthelezi- a Zulu Chief and a close confidant of the Zulu King Godwin, perhaps more than other high profile black South Africans, worked the hardest to delay the liberation of black South Africans? This man as founder and leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party was a happy Chief Minister of Kwazulu Bantustan, and in the opinion of many, a trophy collaborator of the Apartheid regime. He was a determined critic and opponent of The ANC. He travelled the world on the Apartheid regime’s budget denouncing Nelson Mandela and the ANC. As a Cabinet Minister, he took his Prime Minister Thabo Mbeki to court and prayed the court to force stricter immigration rules than the Mbeki government proposed. Is this Chief still at work?


Folks:The most despicable thing is for Uganda to be taking orders from Rwanda. Well, it is events such as this one that could lead to something bigger and hopefully better for our region. For how long does Kagame think he will terrorize DRC, Uganda and other countries? YKM may take it but TZ will not. More turbulence in the region.

Kagame has milked the genocide so far that as you point out many are now starting to say, wait a minute. But the dictator has recruited many Ugandans to do his bidding. Many in the media and even academia white wash his dictatorship on grounds that the man has delivered. My foot.

YKM should stand up to Kagame and say enough. Col. Karegeya will be buried in Uganda period. For how long is YKM going to appease dictator Kagame under the so called coalition of the willing?

Kagame’s tactics are setting up the so called coalition of the willing against SADC.

BTW, let me ask many Ugandans on this forum, if Col. Karegeya who was born in Uganda (so Ugandan by birth), and took up Rwandese citizenship does not fit the criteria to be buried in Uganda, what about many of us who have taken on American, British, Canadian, Swedish, French, Norwegian citizenship etc.? What message is YKM sending to the rest of Ugandans in the diaspora by listening to dictator Kagame? And if that is the mentality what the hell are they doing breaking up UNAA? Put simply, why does Uganda send huge delegations to waste donor and taxpayers money attending a forum of Ugandan born but now American/Canada citizens and permanent residents?

Let us be clear: irrespective of what we feel about Col. Karegeya, it is a big shame and total disgrace for YKM and Uganda to be taking orders from Rwanda/Kagame. It is actually an embarrassment. Everybody knew YKM was a nyampra of the West but Rwanda, Phew!

Something tells me that the assassination of col Karegeya could have unintended consequences that could resonate within the region.



President M7 is right about foreigners fanning conflicts in the region. But his correctness ends there. The key question is ‘when are foreigners good and when are they bad’? when do they become ‘development partners’ and when do they become ‘imperialists’. It depends on who is talking when to whom.

Tee Ngugi summed it up aptly in the run-up to the Kenyan elections 2013. To him, Kenyans were none the better. What was coming was another class of agents, whose links through international capital were strong with foreign powers whom they call imperialists when it suits the audience. Nyakwangwa ayangwa n’obwe. We reject foreign interference, let’s reject it wholesome. The EALA he was addressing( nay the entire EAC project) survives on hand-outs from foreigners.

The AU, lives in a foreign-donated building, eats from the EU, water from China. The AU IBAR( animal resource body) based in Nairobi reports to France and Spain.

Uganda’s road body, UNRA, reports to the EU. From teaching us how to wash hands to building our president’s office, a foreign hand is prominent.

Kids today aspire to join ‘civil society’ because it is the ‘civil society activists’ leading a flamboyant life: big cars, palatial homes, globe-trotting, five-star hotel conferences, et al. ALL IS THIS FOREIGNERS…The kleptocracy at OPM, the Merc of the PM, is foreign-oiled. Both thieving governments and ‘watchdog’ civil society are pawns of foreign powers, through different channels, while citizens are guinea-pigs: poverty projects, hand-outs, camps, ’empowerment’, GMOs, HIV-trials, vaccine trails, biological weapons trials, human organ trafficking( disguised as ‘child-sacrifice), slavery, et al.

Yes, foreigners are fanning conflict. It’s in their interest. And that of their pawns. Look closely at the South Sudanese refugees denied entry into Kenya or those in Uganda: do you find Kiir’s child or Machar’s child? People starving, while their ‘leaders’ are spoilt for choice at The Sheraton Addis!!

Sandra Birungi

ATIAK IDP DEATHS:a 2005 letter from the LC3 chairman of Atiak the county in Gulu that had some of the most dangerous IDP camps

Acholi camps

Acholi camps

I have with me a 2005 letter from the LC3 chairman of Atiak the county in Gulu that had some of the most dangerous IDP camps (…remember Barlonyo?). In the letter (attached for ease of reference), that chairman, Odong William George reported the deaths in the 14 Atiak IDP camps for the period 1-15 September 2005, i.e., 2 weeks, at 54 persons. In other words, the weekly mortality rate was 27 persons.

14 Atiak IDP camps are documented. Here are their names: Elegu, Gunya, Abalokodi, Pacilo, Muruli, Bajere, Laraba, Gordon, Okidi, Lagwe Ringo, Lulayi, Pawiro, Ajukumanyige and K

letter on the link below;


As you may know, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader had 114 IDP camps. If 27 persons died per week in 14 camps with the most adverse living and physical safety conditions, one can infer that on average about 220 persons died in all the 114 in Acholi region per week. So, where did some people get their figure of 1,000 per week from (and of course, earlier on, 1,000 per day)? For about 10 yearS?

1,000 x 365 x 10 years…..3,650,000 souls!

What we see in the fore ground is an IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camp.There was no such thing as refugee camps for Ugandans before Museveni came to power

What we see in the fore ground is an IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camp.There was no such thing as refugee camps for Ugandans before Museveni came to power

This is Swari Camp-Soroti:No idea why they called swaria kamp

This is Swari Camp-Soroti:No idea why they called swaria kamp

These camps are mostly found in Northern Uganda only as far as Gulu,Kitgum etc…and this camps are the direct result of the following:

The Karamojong incursions and the LRA insurgencies have had longstanding impacts on the Teso people in the north which shattered dozens of communities and the lives of thousands.

This has resulted in:

The creation of large camps for security
The desertion of the countryside with the abandonment of the long established villages
The destruction of key infrastructure such as schools, water points and churches business premises
The killing of many – notably the men – resulting in many families with one or no parents
The destruction of agriculture and live stock.The long term memory of the nightmare of incursions by vicious armed men in the local people.In 2006, in Katakwi there were an estimated 133,000, 45% of the 2002 Census population.

In the affected areas of insurgency south of Katakwi, better security means that the people feel able to return from the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camps to where they used to live. BUT…

The land has been desolate for 3+ years and is overgrown with weeds and scrub.Family members have been lost from being killed or through disease Infrastructure has been damaged by the insurgents eg schools, Churches, health centres .Water points have collapsed through lack of maintenance.The families have no seed, tools, animals or equipment to start farming again.Their homes have been damaged or destroyed. The money Kazinda, Bigirimana, Mbabazi, Janet M7 and others helped to themselves in the OPM were meant to help these people get better lives, but the selfish ‘Twalwanalism’ took over.

Internally displace Persons came about after LRA warloards raveged through the northern Uganda.These camps are found in Northern Uganda from Soroti to Gulu. The money that was meant to help Northerners get a better life ended up on the accounts of the Kazindas but the Ottos/Musokes/Muzigus don’t want us to expose these things.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick and Hannah Ogwapit

A trivia question comes to mind as Besigye starts playing the ICC politics

ttA trivia question comes to mind as Besigye starts playing the ICC politics. What did Saddam use for Kurdish Genocide? Chanel #5 or WMD? The answer is, let me give you a hint…..Saddam Hussein carried out mass killings on the scale of Holocaust which took the lives of more than 2,150,000 mostly women, children, and elders as most of these areas were only inhabited by civilians. He destroyed 4,000 villages. Halabja and the surrounding cities were bombarded with chemical agents such as: mustard gas; nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX as well as blood agent hydrogen cyanide; or more commonly known as Weapons of Mass Destruction. But what did the west do then when he was still their friend as Museveni is?tt2

We are not stupid? We know Saddam used “a” Chemical weapon against Kurds supplied by the WEST – Bush and Blair his lapdog – Gave out lies about massive hoards of WMD that would threaten WEST and their allies Saudis. Evidence was manufactured including Plagiarizing thesis of an Iraqi – Phd – Lies and lies – Because they wanted to take over control of Oil fields – BUSH, BLAIR and Saddam Hussain Should have been hauled over to ICC. But it did not happen and the west found a way to kill Saddam before he presents any evidence of anything to the international courts.tt3

If you are going to have Bush face charges, please also include the entire US Congress and United Nation for the unanimous(almost) vote as an accomplice. Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he had tried to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq. These are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill numerous obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.tt5

Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Does this remind you of someone named Assad.
Assad has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions. ….UNSCR 6686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, and 1284.tt6

The other trivia question is, if you own a gun, does it give you a right to shoot and kill innocent people? Does it not matter who the supplier is……………..? Do you only charge the shooter and leave out the supplier? Why can’t Ugandans sue Russia, China and other countries that supply these deadly weapons to M7 to use them to kill others?

ICC is funded by European Governments – Its primary aim is to serve the interest of its founders and funder’s – Western Countries. It has failed to haul Bush, Blair, Saddam Hussain, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Assad ( so far 60,000 dead). In case of Saddam – politically it would not have been expedient as dirty deals of Western countries with him would have been laid bare. Check out the article below:

ICC will cause considerable damage in Kenya – Uhuru has the Kikuyu vote and now purportedly Klengin vote via Ruto. Both have to appear before ICC – If he wins and refuses to attend( so he should) then these western nations will impose sanctions and hurt the common man.tt7


As the Telegraph article shows, Britain is meddling in the politics of Kenya through the witness protection program of the ICC and what’s more they are supporting the wrong man – Raila Odinga instead of Uhuru who is very popular in Kenya and will act as conciliatory figure in a country where conciliation is much needed. The irony of all this is that Raila had recommended Uhuru to succeed him during the days of the Orange alliance and Kanu politics. ICC will cause immense damage in Kenya. ICC is a political court. Uhuru is immensely popular in Kenya. He has the majority vote in Kenya.



In her retort to mine regarding the DRC Crisis, Virginie Kandolo rightly argues that Eastern DRC and the Congo Crisis in general is different from the case of South Sudan, The East African Dec 22-28, 2012. True. South Sudan was a case of oppressive, dictatorial government, thus the struggle for self-determination. Granted. The DRC case, is the extreme opposite: lack of government, or at best, an absentee government, thus the anarchy. Both situations are not tenable. Kinshasa has proved it is incapable of effectively governing Kivu.

This makes the Kivu people, who vehemently stick to being Congolese despite their language, vulnerable to foreign vultures, thanks to their resources. These people need to live a dignified life, as citizens. The 1998 chaos in Lubumbashi and Kinshasa against perceived ‘Banyarwanda’ has great lessons for Ms Kandolo, which she ignores. I have met victims of this, who still insist they are Congolese: twebwe tur’Abakongomani, ntagbo tur’ Abanyarwanda… ( we are Congolese, not Rwandese), spiced with their favorite jargons of being Lushois ( from Lubumbashi) or Kinois( from Kinshasa).

One strange fact about the DRC Crisis is that virtually all Congolese in the Diaspora( western capitals or working with international bodies), have narrowed the whole thing to Rwanda, nay, Batutsi. Listen to any of them, or read their writings as is the case with Ms Kandolo in this article, or those I have watched on Shaka Ssali’s Straight Talk Africa, on Voice of America. No one wants to face the bitter realities of the country’s colonial history, and intricate foreign interests that have refused to go away. No one talks of why UN SG Dag Hammarskjold had to die the way he did. No one talks of Lumumba’s fate, that parallels well with that of Rwagasore in Burundi across the Rusizi; the rise of resistance in form of the Maji Maji or Kimbangu and his religion, Kimbanguism.

From whichever East African country Ms Kandolo is writing, she needs to reflect on these realities and their link to the present DRC Crisis. Playing the ostrich will not take the truth away. As stakeholders in the region, we need to face the reality, forget the wild ‘reports’ of armchair ‘experts’, who are essentially paid by the wealth looters to escalate the crisis and divert attention from the truth in the Kivus. The people of eastern DRC are no bigger sinners than the rest of humanity, to lead a wretched life. Just as South Sudan suffered because it was pegged to a different polity to create Sudan by the British and their Egyptian agents, the various nationalities in DRC were patched together by a greedy Belgian monarch, and their plight was not eased even after the territory ceased to be his private property. Independence and its aftermath were even a worse farce!!

Whereas I appreciate Ms Kandolo’s sentiments, she loses it all when she falls into the standard Western trap of diverting all matters DRC to Batutsi in Rwanda and Burundi. This is very petty and wont solve anything. Being Congolese, she must be privy to the truth. Unless she is blinded by the trappings of the ‘diaspora’ that leads to such narrow analysis and repetition of ‘expert’ reports on the Great Lakes

Sandra Birungi

Uganda is virtually a militarized and tutsified nation and is likely to remain so for a long time

MUNTUUganda is virtually a militarized and tutsified nation and is likely to remain so for a long time unless we act quickly. Any Uganda patriot must be concerned about what is happening to the Pearl of Africa. Uganda was designed to be a country by, for and of Ugandans and participate in the development of the world. Because Ugandans are afraid of the military and of being branded genocidaire if they complain about what Tutsi are doing to our country, they are unable to express their discomfort and discuss a way out. But some voices of dissent are beginning to be heard and are getting louder for all to hear. If Museveni is trying to find a place for his people we also have a right to stop him from doing it at the expense of the people of Uganda. And we shouldn’t feel guilty about it provided it is done peacefully and transparently.

Museveni and his Batutsi kith and kin resolved to establish hegemony over Uganda by militarizing all aspects of Uganda society since they couldn’t do so democratically because of demographic handicap. So under Museveni leadership, Batutsi are methodically, silently and incrementally penetrating all aspects in Uganda but are being betrayed by a poor record of performance, rampant corruption, sectarianism, cronyism and above all an outstanding different lifestyle – they have become the richest kids on the block and are acquiring assets especially land at breakneck speed. Consequently, Uganda and the majority of Ugandans is in bad shape economically, socially and environmentally, raising questions about where Uganda will end up under military and tutsified leadership that is spreading tentacles in all directions particularly in the Great Lakes region where they plan to create a Tutsi Empire with some tacit external support. But first, let us understand how the military got into Uganda politics.

Uganda got independence in 1962 under conditions that were not conducive to political sustainability. The political parties were young especially UPC and KY and leaders unknown and inexperienced. Britain was in a hurry to hand over power because of the political volatility in surrounding countries of Burundi, Congo, Kenya, Rwanda and Sudan and the refugees and cattle that were crossing into Uganda in large numbers with possibility of epidemics. Uganda politicians were more concerned about who gets power first than laying a strong foundation for independent Uganda. The leaders that eventually emerged were relatively new to the political scene. Experienced politicians like Ignatius Musazi, William Rwetsiba and Ben Kiwanuka were replaced or marginalized by relatively inexperienced leaders like Milton Obote and Grace Ibingira with conflicting ideologies and social backgrounds. They chose to sweep under the carpet delicate issues like head of state, lost counties, regional integration and Amin criminal record that would have delayed independence. Because of a split among those in favor of a unitary or federal system of government Uganda came to independence not as a monarchy or republic but as the “Sovereign State of Uganda” with the Queen as head of state.

Because Obote and Ibingira were scared of John Kakonge who was popular and a successful organizer as UPC Secretary General, they conspired to get rid of him and his youth wing. First, he wasn’t nominated to parliament and so couldn’t be a minister and lost his post of secretary general to Ibingira at the 1964 UPC Gulu conference.

Ibingira, a distant monarchist from Ankole wasn’t going to accept the leadership of Obote, a commoner from Lango. As soon as Kakonge was out of the way, Obote and Ibingira fought for the leadership post, through Ibingira and Obote groups. As the struggle proceeded it became necessary to seek military backing. Opolot the army commander from Teso joined the Ibingira group, leaving Obote no choice but to ally himself with Amin, deputy army commander from West Nile. So, it was civilian politicians that invited the military into politics. Eventually, Obote group with Amin support trounced Ibingira group with Opolot support because the former struck first.

The precedent was set that politicians would only survive with military backing. When there was a rumor of arms cache at Mengo, the matter was resolved by military rather than political and/or diplomatic means. So the military became an integral part of solving political problems. From 1966 to January 1971, Obote was sustained in power by the military. Amin felt important and eyed the presidency itself. If he could keep Obote there, he could grab it and sustain himself there. When Obote tried to remove Amin on various allegations including the disappearance of $5 million from the defense department and the death of brigadier Okoya and his wife, Amin struck first against Obote like Obote had done earlier to Ibingira using Amin. So, Amin knew the trick but he had some external guidance and local support.

After Amin captured power he promised his was a temporary caretaker government and he would return to the barracks after a civilian government had been elected. He confessed he was a professional soldier to defend the nation and not govern the country. But he never returned to the barracks. Instead he declared himself president for life. The civilians couldn’t do anything about it because opposition was crushed. He was removed by Tanzanian troops and Uganda rebels in April 1979 and fled into exile first to Libya and then to Saudi Arabia where he later died.

At the Moshi conference in 1979, it was decided to return Uganda to civilian rule. Lule was elected head of state and a National Consultative Council of thirty members was elected. For security purposes, a military commission was also formed chaired by Muwanga with Museveni as the deputy. Sadly political quarrelling among Council members and between them and the executive resulted in the removal of Lule within 68 days upon assumption of office.

Binaisa, another civilian leader was elected to replace Lule with instruction to organize elections and return the country to civilian rule. However, differences developed over his ideas, one being the exclusion of old political parties from participation in the elections. The military stepped in and Binaisa was removed from the presidency opening the door once again for the military. The government was taken over by the military commission under the chairmanship of Paul Muwanga with Museveni as deputy. Once again it was civilian political fighting that opened the gate for the military into Uganda politics.

The military set the date for elections, allowed Obote to return and lead his UPC in the campaign which with military support won but the opposition called the exercise fraudulent although the Commonwealth observer team described it as generally fair, honest and valid exercise. Obote nominated ten members and the army returned 10 officers to parliament (Dennis Austin 1984). Obote also appointed Muwanga vice president and minister for defense. Thus, the military set foot into parliament and has stayed there since.

The military was increasingly being seen as the tool for resolving political problems. So, the solution to Obote challenge was the military and not to wait for the next election. Museveni and the opposition launched a guerrilla war against a civilian government led by Obote. In July 1985, Obote was overthrown by a section of his national army that conspired with Museveni’s National Resistance Army on the understanding that the two would form a government of national unity. But they soon fell apart. As Yash Tandon observed:“But, being militaristic and undemocratic, they were unlikely to agree to share power. For them the issue could only be decided by who was stronger militarily on the ground” (Azzam Mahjoub 1990). Museveni won.

Since he came to power in 1986, Museveni has carefully tried to achieve two major goals with tacit foreign backing: militarization and tutsification of Uganda. Museveni has made it clear many times that he didn’t kill a beast to then handover the carcass to others to enjoy the meat. The animal he killed is Uganda by defeating the national army. So Uganda is his and he will enjoy it with his fellow fighters. And who are his fellow fighters? The majority who planned and commanded the guerilla war were Tutsi mercenaries.

Upon capturing power, Rwigyema a Tutsi refugee was made deputy army commander and deputy minister of defense and Kagame was made deputy head of intelligence and counter-intelligence. Since they came to Uganda as political refugees in 1959, many Tutsi have adopted local names and local languages to disguise themselves as Ugandans – such as Banyankole, Bakiga, Baganda etc. Most of them fought in the guerilla war and therefore are soldiers employed or working in all sectors of Uganda including Uganda embassies and international organizations.

Museveni took a decision that in order to penetrate Uganda society with Batutsi and soldiers prevented educated and experienced Ugandans in the diaspora from going home and retrenched or marginalized Ugandans already at home. So wherever you go in the military, police, intelligence, prisons, private sector and civil service, in parliament and district councils you will find that many heads are Tutsi or tutsified Ugandans that have pledged to serve Tutsi interests instead of their own people in return for favors as a job. Tutsi and soldiers have also dominated political parties. The two major ones of NRM and FDC have been dominated by Tutsi since their establishment. Currently General Museveni a Tutsi heads NRM and General Muntu a Tutsi heads FDC. The Inspector General of Police is also a General and Mutusi so is the army commander. Thus, Uganda is being militarized and tutsified. This is a fact and there is no sectarianism or genocide about it. Furthermore, Uganda is being used as a staging post in pursuit of Tutsi Empire. This is real. The M23 has been directly supported by Tutsi leaders in Rwanda and Uganda.

Museveni and Kagame plan initially is to take Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and DRC as the nucleus of Tutsi Empire. Then grab Angola, Namibia, Congo, Gabon and Cameroon and Kenya and Tanzania: the idea is to have access from Indian Ocean to Atlantic Ocean, so middle Africa will become Tutsi Empire first. In 1997 Museveni spelt out his mission that is to create a federation of states into one nation stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Great Lakes region. But that isn’t end of the story.

If you have noticed Museveni has placed himself strategically by being Chairman of many regional organizations: soon he will add on AU. As chairman of these organizations he hopes to influence policy that will discreetly prepare a path for the realization of Tutsi Empire. Museveni wants to dominate the continent, now that Wade and Qaddafi are out of the way through politics, military and diplomatic means.

In one of the early interviews Museveni stated he would quit Uganda politics and focus on pan-African issues. This appears to be the moment because it is difficult to see how he can chair so many organizations and have sufficient time to devote to mushrooming challenges in Uganda.

This is the time that we should also re-establish civilian government starting with a transitional one of all stakeholders to prepare a level playing field for free and fair multi-party elections hinged on an independent electoral commission, term limits for president and MPs and standardized campaign finance so the wealthy don’t buy votes.

Second, to avoid taking advantage of incumbency, those who serve in the transitional government should not contest in the next elections.

To conclude, it has become clear that by and large whether educated or not, soldiers aren’t trained to run national governments and it shouldn’t be seen as disrespect. It means that they are trained to do something else. Imagine a chemist or economist asked to command a national army – just like that. That is what soldiers do when they overthrow a civilian government. They take over without tools to govern a country even if they stay for a long time they don’t do well. General Porfirio Diaz of Mexico was president for over 30 years but could not tackle many problems including poverty and illiteracy and was eventually overthrown in the Mexican Revolution in 1911, fled the country and died in exile. Museveni has been in power for a long time with all the external support in money and experts but Uganda is retrogressing because Museveni has ruled the country the wrong way including insisting that he is the only person in Uganda with a vision for Uganda’s development.

Let us bring civilian government back for the good of the country which should by now have become an upper middle income nation. Instead Uganda is drifting backwards. This is an indisputable fact and the donors who praised Uganda sky high have now recognized that there is something wrong because one can’t explain what over $30 billion of grant money has done.

When the Generals in Latin America realized their shortcomings they returned the business of running governments to civilians. And the countries and citizens are doing much better. Uganda should be next.


Museveni didn’t study the causes of political revolutions

Museveni didn’t study political revolutions and what cause them because what he is doing is exactly what has caused revolutions in time and space. Museveni specialized in colonialism, imperialism and slave trade. That is what he has been practicing. He has colonized Uganda, he is working on Tutsi Empire and companies are exporting Ugandans to international labor markets for a fee. To ward off criticism, Museveni doesn’t blame colonizers and slave traders. He has instead blamed Africans for accepting to be colonized and enslaved. Soon he will be telling Ugandans it is their fault for accepting to be colonized, exploited and to work in international labor markets under harsh conditions.

Those who have studied Museveni closely can’t fail to realize that he was driven principally by the desire to find land for his landless people, explaining in large part his search for a Tutsi Empire in the Great Lakes region and beyond in collaboration with foreigners. He would have moved faster in grabbing Uganda land for Tutsi settlers had it not been for the decision taken in the early part of NRM government against giving land to Tutsis.

But Museveni didn’t give up. Instead, he has designed other subtle ways to grab land for foreign occupation principally Batutsi who in one way or another are aware that if you come to Uganda chances are you will get a piece of land to settle on. That is why Tutsi people are trekking to Uganda from as far as South Kivu province in DRC and entering the country through western Uganda. Ugandans shouldn’t be surprised if the next population census records substantial increase in Tutsi population that may register as Bafumbira or Bakiga or Baganda etc.

Foreign occupation of Uganda land and the proposed removal of state boundaries in the East African community are serious national security issues that our leaders should take seriously if they are still patriotic. Those who want to take over our country are going to scream that I am promoting genocide in order to silence me and discourage those that would join in this noble cause to protect our country and citizens. Uganda needs bold and selfless leaders not those who are compromised or are even foreigners using Uganda names and languages to tighten colonization of Uganda and change the demographic composition with foreign settlers. These are national security matters and we shouldn’t be shy talking about them, otherwise we shall have no home for ourselves and our children and theirs. We may end up tenants in our country.

Museveni opened the door for foreign entry by arguing that Uganda has plenty of unutilized arable land implying that Uganda can accommodate more people, contradicting population advisers who argue that Uganda doesn’t have more land and couples should limit the size of their families through birth control. This is a very tricky situation: Museveni is inviting foreign settlers while population experts are telling Ugandans to reduce their population size drastically in order to create space for foreigners. Do you see the trick? Uganda is also practicing the concept of willing seller and willing buyer of property including land.

NRM government has come up with the concept of enlarging urban areas such as Greater Kampala, and municipal expansions which are controlled by municipal authorities with power to transfer land from those who own it to others under the pretext to promote rapid development. And freedom of mobility and settlement anywhere in Uganda is guaranteed by the constitution. These arrangements have created facilities to ‘bus’ into Uganda Tutsis mostly from Burundi, Rwanda and Eastern DRC. To hide their Tutsi ethnicity they pose as Bafumbira or Congolese. Those who pose as Bafumbira want to claim they are Uganda citizens with a right to settle and own land anywhere in the country.

A common thread that runs through most if not all revolutions is land. When land is concentrated in few hands a number of things happen that trigger revolutions unless checked before they explode. First, you create landlessness and second, the landless concentrate in urban slums doing odd jobs to make ends meet. In Europe the enclosure system that created massive landlessness didn’t result in political revolutions because the industrial revolution absorbed excess labor. Where labor opportunities are limited, landlessness and hardship in urban areas and exploitation of labor on large farms generate forces for a revolution. In the French, Russian, Mexican and Ethiopian revolutions, the desire for land together with other problems such as food shortages and unemployment contributed to the revolutions in these countries. Lenin won support for his October 1917 revolution by promising land and bread. The French, Russian and Ethiopian revolutions resulted in land redistribution to peasants. The use of force to contain the situation didn’t work because most soldiers like those in Uganda come from impoverished families and sided with them rather than protect those that have caused the suffering in the first place like Haile Selassie, Louis XVI and Nicholas II.

We also need to realize that decolonization was bloodiest in areas of white settlement and indigenous landlessness like in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

In Uganda Museveni is contributing to forces that have elements of a political revolution. Land is changing hands from indigenous to foreigners, causing many landless Ugandans to concentrate in sprawling urban slums. Lack of employment has raised the level of youth unemployment and under employment to explosive levels. Museveni reliance on security forces to contain the situation may not work in the end. Before the 1789 French Revolution began, the king believed that the urban population that had gathered in Paris demanding food would be contained by the police or the army if necessary. The security forces joined the mob instead and ended the French ancient regime. Similarly, in Russia what began as women demonstration for food and the Czar thought it could be contained by security forces turned into a revolution that ended the Romanov rule because police and military joined the demonstrators. Uganda security forces could desert the Commander- in –Chief in the face of increasing deprivation of their relatives and family members.

To preempt a political revolution in Uganda, it is suggested that Museveni stops distributing Uganda land to foreigners. He should reverse Prime Minister Mbabazi decision that peasant land will be allocated to foreign large scale farmers. Mbabazi statement with or without Museveni approval has agitated many Ugandans. NRM government should also create an enabling environment to create jobs so that the current high youth unemployment level is reduced significantly. NRM macroeconomic, economic liberalization, exchange and interest rate policies have made it difficult to create jobs through high economic and labor-intensive growth. Massive unemployment of youth is potentially explosive.

Finally, here is some advice for Museveni. There is no guarantee that you will continue to enjoy military and foreign support. When Emperor Haile Selassie, at one time considered the father of Africa, failed to contain the riotous situation in 1974 that degenerated into a revolution, he was abandoned by the military including the imperial guard and foreign supporters. The latter blamed him for a flawed autocratic style of leadership which they knew all along. After the fall of the emperor, Ethiopia was engulfed in a civil war exactly what happened in Russia, France and Mexico in the wake of revolutions there. Museveni should also keep in mind about what happened in the warm relations between Tutsi and Belgian authorities before the 1959 social revolution in Rwanda.

If complacency continues, Museveni and Uganda could be next. Many Ugandans have reached a point where they believe they have nothing to lose and are ready to take risks which could explode into a revolution. What is remaining is a spark which could happen any moment. Our development partners should also be aware of the potentially dangerous situation in a Uganda they consider stable. Kenya was considered stable until the Rift Valley exploded.


%d bloggers like this: