Category parliament




A bill is a draft of an Act of parliament and includes both a private member’s Bill and a Government Bill. Simply put, a Bill is that document before Parliament passes it into Law. E.g Anti- Homosexuality Bill which has now become the Anti- Homosexuality Law.


Under Article 79(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, parliament shall have the power to make the Laws on any matter for the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda”. A private member’s Bill is moved by a backbench MP and not by Government e.g the Anti- Homo Bill was moved by MP Bahati.


1. A Committee chairperson moves motion seeking leave (permission) to present this Private Member’s Bill after which that Chairperson produces the proposed draft of the Bill.

2. Members of Parliament then debate and vote on motion. If the MPs reject the motion, then the private member’s Bill is dropped.

However, if the motion is approved, then Parliament will print and publish the Bill.

3. The Bill is published in the Gazette. The Gazette is the official government publication. After it has been Published in the gazette, it is said the Bill has been “Gazetted”.


4. After the gazette, the Private member’s Bill is introduced for the first reading accompanied by certificate of financial implication.

5. After the bill is introduced, the Speaker refers it to appropriate committee.

6. The Committee Committee scrutinizes Bill.

7. The Committee then calls responsible mover(s) of the Bill and various stakeholders and government in public hearings.

8. The Committee will also review relevant and related laws/documents and then write a report with proposed amendments to the plenary. It should be noted that in such circumstances, the committee can only propose amendments and changes to the bill BUT cannot make those changes directly. Those changes can only be made through the following steps:


9. The Movers of the Bill e.g MP Bahati for the Anti- Homosexuality Bill moves and justifies the motion for second Reading of the Bill.

10. The Committee chairperson presents a report on the Bill.

11. MPs then debate committee report on principles of the Bill and then Parliament votes for second Reading of the Bill referred to the committee of the whole house

12. After this stage, the Bill is then sent to the Committee of the Whole house, which means a committee composed of all the Mps headed by the Speaker, in case of the current Parliament, Speaker

13. MPs in charge of Bill then ask plenary to resume and then goes ahead to Report outcome of committee of the whole house


14. Parliament the votes for Third Reading of the Bill and if approved, it is sent to the Clerk’s office.

15. The Clerk to Parliament then prepares copies for authentication and Assent of the president.

16. Basically, the president just has to sign the Bill after this stage to make it Law.

17. After the passing of the Third Reading, then the BILL officially becomes an ACT of Law and is no longer referred to as a Bill. E.g From Anti- Homosexuality Bill to Anti- Homosexuality Act.

18. After signing the Act i.e Assenting to the Act, then it becomes law.


20. After the President Assents, then the Minister Responsible sets a date when the law will come into effect. E.g the Public Order Management Act was signed by the President, but since the Minister has not yet set a Commencement Date, it is not yet Law Applicable.

21. Afterwards, the Law is then Published in the Uganda Gazette and becomes Law Applicable, which means it comes into force.


Why should the opposition care about the drama in NRM? So what if YKM kicks out PM Mbabazi? So what if the IGP Mr. Kale Kayihura-I say it again he was a very decent fellow -now nicknamed ”Mr. tear gas” by Mrs Mbabazi goes after NRM rebels and those bribed by the Mbabazis ? How many times have these NRM goons, okay, youth wingers terrorized oppo…sition youth wingers? How come when that was happening Mrs.Mbabazi never called the IGP Mr tear gas? How come when Arinaitwe was captured whipping Dr KB Mrs. Mbabazi said nothing? Hehehe.

Let Mr. “tear gas” and Ms. Akullo go after those crooks. How dare they use NRM money to bribe goons?

Also, why does Hon Anite’s age -she is 29 years old-matter? So how come a n 29 year old outmaneuvered the PM camp?

If NRM is crumbling the last thing the opposition should do is show sympathy for PM. Is it not the case of what “you wished for wind has brought down? I mean for a damn 28 years, the opposition has been hoping for the disintegration and when those signs appear, suddenly the opposition takes sides in the NRM fight? Why?

I would have thought that the opposition would ignore the drama, to be sure the embarrassment the PM and members of his political family, wife and sister in law are enduring. BTW, the sister in law was defeated in Kabale by a tsunami of forces including religion, Ms. Museveni and Minister Henry Banyenzaki. These forces came together to cut Hope Mwesigye to size. She has no chance of bouncing back politicaaly , hence the frustration and anger.

The PM is done. His downfall has a lot in common with how Charles Njonjo fell. It went on for a few days until the hammer came down.

I doubt the PM has anything closer to the apparatus Charles Njonjo had in place. He almost ran a parallel state.

The IGP and the minister of Internal Affairs, retired General Aronda have the PM and his supporters corned. The PM should have listened to Tinye.

Very soon, YKM will call for national elections to purge the PM’s people from leadership positions. Hon Anite may as well go down as the young MP who put paid the PM ‘s political ambitions.

To be honest I do not see the PM as presidential material, but hey, we are taking about Uganda where anyone can delude themselves, so he allowed those thoughts to cross his mind and he will soon pay the political price.

The PM is a not a likeable fellow at all and that means a lot in politics. Notice that it is only his political family standing up to the NRM machinery. Why is that the case if he is as popular or presidential material? When Njonjo went down, he took with him political heavy weights including the Masai maestro the late Stanley Oloi Tip Tip, GG Kariuki and others. But who will go down with the PM?

It may sound funny, but If it is true as the opposition claims that the fall of NRM is imminent, then they have only the IGP aka Mr. Tear Gas to thank. And of course the youthful Hon Anite who outsmarted the PM. Her move caught the PM napping like maziwa lala. The rest is history. Notice how YKM makes them look fools in military attire in Kyankwanzi.

Let me say that Mr. Kale Kayihura was a very fine fellow. That much many can attest to. There was no sign of violence in him. Nothing kabisa. He is just caught up in YKM’s prison.

Notice too that YKM recently named new RDCs! ‘



The drama and all pretences are over. Deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanyah, having experienced and tested the turbulent waters (in form of exercising authority over and above what is provided for in the applicable rules of procedure) came to face to face with reality. He was not going to sustain his demand for a written apology from Hon. Ssemujju et al. There was going to be a show down in Parliament on Tuesday – and the pressure on him was becoming unbearable gauging from the “kicks and punches” he was receiving from the day he ordered the physical removal of the MP from the house. The lines had been drawn and the following actions were all targeting the Dep. Speaker:

· a court case was to be lodged in the constitutional court to dismiss his orders

· the opposition was to table a motion to investigate his behavior

· the three MPs were threatening to enter Parliament by force – repeatedly emphasizing that they will never apologize to him in this case.

In order to find a soft landing, he called the Leader of opposition in Parliament (Hon. Mafabi) and went into peace talks, which resulted into the unexpected – Oulanyah turned out to be the man to apologise “on their behalf”. The rest is the history our children will read about in the years ahead.

The reason I am penning down these few paragraphs is not for any political objective, but for the purpose of discussing JUSTICE. In recent years, the noble values of Justice and honesty have deteriorated almost irreparably in our society (country). People with authority have introduced the culture of bending the laws to serve their selfish interests to the detriment of their subordinates or followers. This practice is slowly changing the way people perceive the laws. Instead of protecting us, and establishing fairness, laws have become the tools which the leaders use to oppress, marginalize, and harass the weak. It is very common these days for leaders to twist laws, rules, and regulations to exercise and assert their superiority (or settle scores with opponents), even if such laws were never designed for such purposes. These things amount to INJUSTICE and in my own view are eroding people’s confidence in the law.

What Hon. Ssemujju did in Parliament was the action of “last resort” for a weak person being unjustifiably harassed by a powerful leader using the law. He defied and accepted to bear the consequences of the forceful actions of the man with authority. The lesson from this scenario to me is one. We need to gather courage and say no to leaders who abuse their authority and power under the cover of the law. This is one PRACTICAL way of fighting INJUSTICE.

Final copy of POMB as submitted to the President for assent.Any comments?

Omara gets saved

Omara gets saved

Ugandans at heart,
I have obtained the final copy of the Public Order Management Bill from good friends in the president’s office. Still reading it but thus far, it does appear some substantial changes were made to the 2009 and 2011 versions. In making laws, you have an original bill which is discussed by parliament and then a final one (ACT OF PARLIAMENT) after amendments which is sent to the president for signing. After parliament handled the POMB everyone looked for the final copy, but it was very hard to find.

However, the legal and parliamentary committee report on POMB was available with all recommendations which informed the debate in the house. Just for your information, contents of the report of the committee on legal and parliamentary affairs were altered during the final debate in parliament and thus they do not reflect the current position. We have been criticising the original bill and the positions that the NRM re-introduced on the floor in the recomittal if you know what Am saying.

Clauses 8, 9, and 11 are so contestable. Hope the lady Immaculate that Kayihura posted on UAH can have something to say.

I also want Ugandans to know that there was training with the Ugandan Police on public order management in the run up to CHOGM, with the help of The London Metropolitan Police. This one week training took place in Entebbe at the Imperial Resort Hotel.

In a multi-sectoral meeting involving NGOs, Senior Police Officers such as Grace Turagumanawe, Edward Ochom and the IGP himself, Nicholas Opiyo[current ULS president] was seconded to a team of 4 with Commissioner Aliro Omara, Patricia Nduru of the UHRC and two other persons from the British High Commission to draft the public order and demonstration guidelines. These guidelines were adopted, validated and widely circulated by the UHRC.

In response to the guidelines and the Court petition (note not ruling) in the Muwanga Kivumbi petition, what later became known as the Rugunda Instrument – SI 53 of 2008 was drafted and gazetted to virtually outlaw public demonstration in every place in Uganda.

These guidelines were roundly rejected and subsequently annulled, by infection, by the decision/ruling of the Constitutional Court. The first draft of the POMB then resurfaced. It is believed that it was leaked from cabinet, and it has the handwriting of the IGP, Gen.Kayihura, instructing his Director Legal to make sure their proposal was included in the bill. The draft bill was forwarded by the PS Min. of Internal Affairs, Dr. Stephen Kagoda. The belief at the time was that the bill was also in part due to the Buganda riots and the Mabira demonstrations.

It was at this stage that the police inserted the firearms clause permitting the police to use, as a first line of defence, live firearms. The debate received massive revulsion in public debate and was shelved only for it to resurface after the 2011 electrons which was the height of the walk to work demonstrations.


The Constiutional Court judges in the NRM-Rebels case are so questionable

On Friday, September 6th 2013, the Constitutional Court directed that the 4 MPs who were expelled by the National Resistance Movement (NRM) stay out of Parliament until the main petition filed by the NRM is determined.

A ruling has not yet been made as of yet but in the mean time the court has just slapped an injunction on the MPS barring them from accessing the premises of parliament. An Injunction has gotten the whole clan celebrating? May be someone needs to tell us whether the injunction shares the same recipe with the yet to come judgment but may be known. An injunction does not declare anyone guilty but takes away your rights.

However, I found this comment from Hon.Erias Lukwago very good: ‘……….the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending determination of the issues in controversy’. Obviously the status quo that should be preserved here would be to keep the MPS in the House pending determination of the main petition. The rationale for this time tested legal principle is to avert an absurdity in case the main is decided in favour of the MPS. This is because court has no powers to order their return to the house in case they win the main petition. The other principle is balance of convenience. So, the current injunction is rather ridiculous and calls for in-depth research.

The court ruling today is a result of an injunction filed by the NRM lawyers to stop the said MPs from accessing parliament until this case is disposed of by the Constitutional Court. It does not in any way impute that the MPs cannot retain their seats. But who profiteers from Mps earning salary when they are not in parliament or doing their work? What happens of the electorate who voted them including Non NRM members?

The whole aim of the Constitutional Court is to help parties that fail to agree on a matter of constitutional nature to seek for interpretation as to what the framers of a particular clause actually meant at the time of debating ad promulgating the constitution. Most often it’s about interpreting language. Language has a tone and an intention. And clearly if one re-reads Article 83(i) g of the Constitution which says, ” if that person leaves the political party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in Parliament as an independent member,” you can clearly see that the framers of the constitution did not cater for “forced leave.” And I don’t see how the Hon Speaker erred because the constitution is not clear cut on the rebel MPs context.

Hon. Kadaga can never be put down. She did the most honourable thing and we all celebrate her bravery for standing up against all those ‘men’ who think that they own the world. I think she is getting the Constitutional Court to pronounce itself on the matter, so it has nothing whether she has been beaten or not.

The Minority ruling of Justice Remmy Kasule is an indictment on the other 4 Justices of the Constitutional Court. They are, Kasule says, impartial, unfair and based! Hon. Justice REMMY KASULE Blasts fellow Justices in his dissenting Ruling to the suspension of the Rebel MPs from the House. Excerpts of his ruling states:-

“With the greatest respect, I find the approach being adopted by my most Honorable brothers & sister justice of this court, to be prejudicial, pre- judgmental and contrary to the duty imposed upon this court, not only to act, but to appear to be acting impartially. The duty to act impartially is imposed in Art 28(1) of the constitution … and the language of the Judicial Oath … mandates every judicial officer…. to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Pg. 7-8

The Majority is not always right, may be that one judge is the one right!! This is a Clear manifestation that this gov’t is one man’s show. The constitution is working for expelled mps only. Where was that constitution when Museveni reappointed Odoki as chief justice? M7 the protagonist like any other movie star emerges and will emerge victorious regardless of the means. Genius or devil or both? Will the courts stop them from contesting? Just a waste of our money due to one man’s ego!!!!!

Justice Kasule’s ruling had substance, quoted precedents even set by Justice Kavuma in his previous ruling. he even reminded them about the Judicial Oath they took.Justice Remmy Kasule went ahead to state that he did not expect his four colleagues to deliver a judgments that is absurd.He says “the duty imposed on this court by Article 28 (1) is to ensure right to fair hearing. The effect and import of 28 (1) which is non derogable under article 44, as to the essentiality of impartiality of a court of law, is further manifested in the language of the judicial oath that every judicial officer subscribes to. For the Above reasons i decline to entertain the issue of granting a temporary injunction.”

When he was (KASULE) reading his ruling,majority in court we smiling, he put those 4 judges in a trash.The judges in this case are so questionable: Justice Steven Kavuma: is one of the NRM founder member and Promoter, former Minister of State for Defense, alternatively Known as an NRM cadre;

Justice Richard Buteera: Former DPP, a man once suspended by his professional peers, the Uganda Law Society, for professional incompetence. A man who sanctioned such frivolous vexatious and potentially fetal charges as Treason, Concealment of treason and rape on Presidential candidate Kiiza Besigye in 2005 basing on forged records and non existent persons and organizations, thereby ensuring that KB spends almost all campaigning time in Luzira while Candidate Museveni of NRM was busy campaigning; (It is also worth noting that for all these charges KB never took the stand to defend himself, and the treason case fell apart when it was revealed that the star witness- that lady with a massive headgear, was being coached on what to say- all presided over by our Honorable Buteera);

Augustine Nshimye: founder member and promoter of NRM party; and Faith Mwondha: She of the IGG fame, a Judge who failed to sustain her charges against The Daily Monitor who had accused her of pocketing 2 salaries;

The 4 “Honorable Justices” have ruled to block the “rebel NRM” legislators from participating in parliamentary business.

In the minority was Justice Remmy Kasule who ruled that the action was not proper.

Any surprises here? These are just Just NRM Moles hiding in the judiciary.As Allan Barigye would say:’Obuhangazi bwembeba bukagiriisa enkuru za Kapa’…..Roughly translated as: the longevity of the rat enable it to eat the cat’s hide. M7’s balance sheet in both quality and quantity is very dismal, especially if you take into account the time he’s spent in power and the fact that the three main contenders: Obote and Amin did what they did without plunging into debts.


Beti Kamya Doesn’t agree with the ruling made by Kadaga on NRM rebel MPs

As a student of the Constitution of Uganda (hereafter to be called The Constitution) and believer in organized (multiparty) as opposed to disorganised (individual merit) politics, I am provoked to respond to Prof Oloka Onyango’s opinion titled “NRM Wrong on Speaker” published in The New Vision of 8 May, 2013.

Quoting the Constitution extensively, Prof Onyango defends Speaker Kadaga’s ruling on the (no)relationship between MPs and political parties that sponsor them, once in Parliament. In my view, his powerful arguments sound like a skilled defense lawyer’s, than an academic analyzing the Constitution.

Article 1 of the Constitution says “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution”. Article 1(4) mandates the people to exercise their will on HOW they wish to be governed through referenda, hence, there is only one way in which the people can express their will on HOW they wish to be governed, i.e. through referenda.

Through the 2005 referendum, the people chose to be governed under the multiparty system, making multiparty democracy the apex principle of governance in Uganda, anything less being contemptuous of the people’s will.

In a multiparty system, people who subscribe to political parties are bound by the respective parties’ constitutions and rules, duly registered under appropriate laws. Those who do not wish to be regulated by parties do not join them, and seek election as independents. One cannot be sponsored by a party, then once in parliament, claim the benefits of independents, because you cannot eat your cake and have it.

It was in cognizant of this that Article 83(3) provides for recall of MPs by the electorate only during the Movement System where MPs get elected on individual merit, with accountability only to the electorate, so the electorate regulates them directly. It is in the same spirit that Article 83(g) requires an MP who “leaves the political party for which s(he) stood as a candidate to vacate the seat….” and seek fresh mandate because the electorate would have elected the MP knowing her / his political ideology, party manifesto and team-mates.

When the MP “leaves” her/his party, regardless of the exit method, the electorate are left with no clear knowledge of whom they are dealing with.

Article 83(g) is an entitlement of the electorate for the MP to redefine her/himself so that they know who they are dealing with. It is also a source of accountability to the electorate, who should not be taken for granted, because they know exactly whom they originally sent to Parliament. The much acclaimed “speaking for the people” by the rebel MPs is a fallacy because the people decided through the 2005 referendum that anybody wishing to speak for them must do so under the multiparty system, and under Article 255(3), “…. the results (of the referendum) shall be binding on all organs (including parliament) and agencies of the State, and on all persons (including the Speaker) and organizations in Uganda”.

Once the People speak (through referenda), their will must be reflected through laws, practices and policies that govern organs, organizations and individuals. The challenge at hand is to strengthen internal party democracy in order to derive inhouse consensus, instead of destroying multipartism when MPs fight their parties under the patronage of parliament.

I find it hard to concur with Prof Onyango (and Speaker Kadaga’s) insinuation that the Constitution of Uganda feigns ignorance of political parties’ interests in Parliament and the need to protect them or deems them irrelevant and inconsequential, in a multiparty dispensation.

Beti Kamya-Turwomwe


Uganda Federal Alliance

E mail:

Tel: 0783 438 201


Honourable members, you have heard about the much publicized letter from the Secretary General of the National Resistance Movement (NRM) Party informing the Speaker that the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the NRM Party had received a report and recommendations­ of its internal Disciplinary Committee and that four members of the party who are also members of Parliament, namely

1.Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo, member of parliament for Lwemiyaga Country;
2.Hon. Wilfred Niwagaba, member of Parliament for Ndorwa East Constituency;
3.Hon. Mohammed Nsereko, member of Parliament for Kampala Central Constituency;
4.Hon. Banarbas Tinkasimire, member of Parliament for Buywaga West Constituency .had been expelled from NRM.

The letter also requested the Speaker to invoke her powers to direct the Clerk to Parliament to declare the seats of the said members of Parliament vacant so as to enable the Electoral Commission to organize bye-elections in their respective constituencies.

Honourable members, you will appreciate that since we embraced the multiparty systems of Government this will be the first time that a political organization or party has expelled its members who are at the same time elected Members of Parliament and formally requested the Speaker to direct the Clerk to declare their seats vacant.

Article 83 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda provides as follows

83. Tenure of office of members of Parliament.
(1) A member of Parliament shall vacate his or her seat in Parliament

(a) if he or she resigns his or her office in writing signed by him or her and addressed to the Speaker;

(b) if such circumstances arise that if that person were not a member of Parliament would cause that person to be disqualified for election as a member of Parliament under article 80 of this Constitution;

(c) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, upon dissolution of Parliament;

(d) if that person is absent from fifteen sittings of Parliament without permission in writing of the Speaker during any period when Parliament is continuously meeting and is unable to offer satisfactory explanation to the relevant parliamentary committee for his or her absence;

(e) if that person is found guilty by the appropriate tribunal of violation of the Leadership Code of Conduct and the punishment imposed is or includes the vacation of the office of a member of Parliament;


Friday 15 Feb, 2013

It has not been a good month for Speaker Rebecca Kadaga – what with backtracking on recall of parliament, expulsion of journalists, stopping OPM investigations….. and two litigations, one by her very own “partners in crime”! I hear that women empowerment activists are planning activities to protest that Kadaga’s woes are chauvinistic driven, by men who can’t abide successful women. If it is true, I would advise them not to hide behind the timeless, “sex curtain”, for the sake of a public display of solidarity, otherwise they will be no different from Bahororo, Ateso, Acholi, Baganda, Moslems and Lugbara, who, when it was one of their own, threw values, morals and meritocracy to the wind! The “save-Kadaga” activism should focus on creating an environment that can nurture the principal and values of separation of powers, so that Speakers, male or female, are able give their best to this country, safe in the reality of a legislature independent of the executive! If women activists want to explain away Kadaga’s problems as chauvinist driven, they must also explain former Speakers Wapa’s abdication of the Speakership and Ssekandi’s apathetic tenure of that office!

Kadaga’s real problem was naivety. She (i) got carried away by success too early in the game leading to inability to manage her rising star. Success is the twin of rivalry, and unless it is handled with tact, it leaves some people bruised, which they don’t normally take lying down! (ii) she was naïve not to realize, after twenty four years in Parliament, that Uganda’s Constitution and Parliament are President Museveni’s home playground, where rules of the game are tilted in his favour and where anybody playing against him will lose the game, unless they are ingenuous enough to lure him to a neutral play ground, where the rules of the game are different! As part of the executive for seventeen years, Kadaga should have worked this out, and recognized her advantaged position as Speaker of the 9th Parliament, to turn around the status quo. Unfortunately she lacked entrepreneurship to take the risk, so a great opportunity is lost, for Uganda! (iii) As if that was not enough, Kadaga naively clashed with the international community, head on, on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Now she has three powerful foes, the international community, Museveni and the media! (iii) Gololaism. Golola promised kickboxing watchers a great match, but did not invest in learning the real game, part of which is to know your opponent’s strength, now, he stands a humiliated man!

Former Speakers Wapakhabulo and Ssekandi, to a large extent victims of their time (because Museveni was still fairly popular), were smart enough to recognize wars they couldn’t win, so they cut their losses and played ball. But with the current political climate bustling for change, Kadaga’s time is different, offering her the perfect break to play the game differently, albeit with tact and ingenuity. Unfortunately, she neither recognized nor seized the opportunity, now it seems she has only the devil’s alternatives to choose from – either (i) eat humble pie and climb down to Wapa and Ssekandi level (ii) re-assert herself and face a full-scale war with Museveni (iii) resign from the Speakership and keep her dignity! If she chooses the latter option, she will be well placed to begin the real struggle for independence of parliament, beginning with telling “The untold story” which Wapa and Ssekandi couldn’t tell because they became accomplices.

I sincerely hope her political career is not chasing after twilight, because all said and done, she is made of good stuff.

Beti Olive Kamya-Turwomwe

President, Uganda Federal Alliance

0783 438 201

‘We do not need “Divine intervention…” we just need parliament to make good laws or a referendum to trim the powers of the president’- Says Beti Kamya

Jinja Raliways also not functional anymore under M7

Jinja Raliways also not functional anymore under M7

I fear that parliament is sacrificing the tenets of democratic governance at the Altar of fighting corruption – yet corruption is just a consequence, NOT the cause of undemocratic governance.

Democratic governance entails (i) independence of the three arms of government (ii) free and fair elections (iii) a knowledgeable and informed electorate (iv) head of state is elected based on his / her manifesto (v) head of state is mandated to pick own cabinet that will best deliver manifesto (vi) parliament’s PRIMARY role is to make laws for peace, order, development and good governance (vii) judiciary administers laws (viii) citizens pay taxes to enable arms of Govt to function (ix) performance appraisal is done by voters through regular elections.

These principles of democratic governance are what the Constitution of Uganda should aim to deliver, but is it designed for the job?

Can the judiciary and parliament claim independence when the Chief Justice, judges and 20% of parliament are appointed by the President, while the rest struggle for his attention? Can there be fair elections and respect for human rights when electoral commissioners, army, police and prisons’ chiefs are appointed by the President? Who can stop the President taking liberties with the treasury when (s)he appoints the Minister of Finance, Commissioners of URA, Governor of Bank of Uganda and Secretary to the Treasury?

All senior public jobs are awarded by the president i.e. Vice President, Prime Minister, Ministers, Chief Justice, Judges, Ambassadors, army, police and prisons heads, permanent secretaries, chief administrative officers, RDCs, presidential advisors, heads of service commissions i.e. Judicial, Health, Education, Public, Electoral, Human Rights, Law Reform & Local Government Finance Commissions, Boards of Authorities & public corporations i.e. National Planning, National Environmental Management, Uganda Wildlife, Uganda Forestry, Uganda Investment, Uganda Coffee Development, Uganda Cotton, Uganda Electricity Regulatory, National Drugs, KCCA, Oil Regulatory, National Agricultural Research Organization, National Water and Sewerage Corporation, National Enterprise Corporation, Diary Development Corporation, Uganda National Roads’ Authority, Auditor General, Inspector General of Government, Attorney General, Solicitor General.

The president is also empowered by the constitution to create and fill public offices at will!

The president is the sole employer, boss of the armed forces, manages the National Treasury, has prerogative of mercy, and cannot be charged in Court.

What other ingredients does one need to create patronage and dictatorship?

Uganda’s constitution creates dictators. Dictators are arrogant, work for self preservation and believe in own invincibility, the outcome of which are human rights’ abuse, patronage, corruption and electoral malpractices. Like maggots and flies are consequences of rot emanating from a compost heap, these vices are consequences, NOT the cause of dictatorship! Until we deal with the constitution, dictatorship is here to stay, no matter who occupies State House.

Parliament should concentrate on its primary role of enacting a laws for the good governance of Uganda, instead of being the CID, police, Interpol, court, prison, civil society activists, celebs, the executive – demolishing illegal buildings, (dis)appointing ministers, receiving petitions, globe-trotting investigators, fighting over the budget and manifesto with the executive, who should have voters’ mandate to implement their manifesto!

80% of Uganda’s constitution heaps authority on the presidency, creating fertile ground for dictatorship. Instead of fighting a well-fed lion, Parliament should repeal provisions that promote dictatorship or undermine power separation and enact those that would protect institutions from undue influence!

Kenya achieved this through the 2010 referendum. Henceforth, the Chief Justice, Electoral Commissioners, Inspector General of Police, Central Bank Governor and all public officials except Cabinet, apply for jobs when advertised and submit to an open, competitive process.

UFA is pushing for a referendum to change Uganda’s system from the over-centralized, to the Kenya-like, power devolving system. The official launch of this program is Monday 17 December, 2012, in Lira Municipality. All are welcome.

Beti Olive Kamya-Turwomwe


Uganda Federal Alliance (UFA)

0783 438 201 / email:

Opposition should not celebrate their byelections wins

Hon.Winnie is remembered for her attempts to slap a Karamajongo woman begging on streets

Hon.Winnie is remembered for her attempts to slap a Karamajongo woman begging on streets

I have for a very long time disputed Mr Museveni’s assertion as the only one with vision to lead Uganda.However,following the euphoria that has greeted the so called Opposition electoral victory in a string of bye-elections and most recently that of Kasese,I am grudgingly coming to accept that actually Mr Museveni could have all along been right to state he and he alone at the moment is the mono-eyed King among the myriad of the visually challenged Ugandans.
First forward,even in established democracies,governing parties rarely win in bye-elections.The reason for it being varied ranging from voter indifference et fatigue to seeing no added values in the results of the bye-elections.

For Uganda,we must realize that the ratio of the NRM MPs to the Opposition MPs is about 8-9:1.So,for the Opposition to really start getting the tantrums about unseating Mr Museveni,they need to win 120-150 bye-elections so that they begin to impact on this disequilibrium in parliament.

So,our euphoria is just like a tear claiming to be an ocean!. So,who is the most beneficiary in all this bye-election fuss? It is of course the mono-eyed visionary Mr Museveni himself. By celebrating these small triumphs which is in line with what management studies say,we are helping improve on Mr Museveni’s democratic principles.He will cite how many times in the bye-elections he went to campaign for his party’s candidate and when the electorate never elected that candidate,he congratulated the victors in the spirit of democractic governance.

These bye-elections are being organized by an electoral commission that was once derided by the Opposition.Now with these small successes,we are endorsing the commission for being up to the task.
So,tell me,how will you make changes in the electoral laws and the composition of the electoral commission that you have already eulogized?

Mr Museveni is actually playing the Opposition and most of us are unaware of the bigger plan. Come 2016,how many Nambozes will be campaigning in Kasese,Bukoto West etc for the Opposition without risking their own seats?

Let Opposition to Museveni be based on programs that are counter to the one Museveni is following otherwise simply yakking Museveni must go is not enough glue to precipitate the real political change Uganda is in dire need of. For example,we all talk about the endemic corruption that Mr Museveni is presiding over.What is the cause of this? Is Corruption a Ugandan based vice? Unfortunately not! It is a world wide problem.In other countries because the conditions that promote corruption is well taken care of (i.e unemployment),many of the citizens of these countries rarely sit down to discuss corruption as they are always trying to keep themselves within the orbits of the rat race called employment.

If one were to look at the hordes that follow opposition leaders in their pet subjects of W2W,A4C or W2E(eat),most of these fellows are unemployed and vent their anger on the lack of visionary planning on our mono-eyed visionary leader. All that Mr Museveni has achieved in the job sector is to create jobs where political patronage is the order of the day i.e the creation of the myriad of county and village-based districts so that he can appoint RDCs,DISO,etc etc who owe everything about their jobs to him.

This is what we need to break. I am wondering whether when the opposition comes to power,they will be able to reverse some of these village and county based districts. The health sector is not worth talking anything encouraging about,and so is the education and agro-based sector.

So,instead of jubilating for the constituents of Kasese,voting back their original choice to parliament,we should ask the opposition leaders to show us what their plans for Uganda are and how they will execute it and if it is affordable there be no reason why Ugandans would not vote for them.

Dr. Owor Kipenji

%d bloggers like this: