Category Police


Last week a Police Constable Julius Mugambagye attached to Mbarara Police Station shot dead four people over a love affair. He was formerly a member of the Local Administration Police (LAP) that was dismantled and integrated into the Uganda Police Force (UPF). As usual immediately after this incident for fear that the it could spark off the much feared civil disobedience, the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Gen Kayihura rushed to the scene of crime. He addressed the residents and dished out cash handouts to the families of the deceased. In his ADDRESS, he expressed regrets over integration of former LAP into the UPF without adequate training. He promised that all police officers were to be subjected to fresh vetting to wipe out the undisciplined and unprofessional thus: “We can not tolerate this. All Police persons are to be subjected to fresh vetting to remove the undisciplined, those with criminal mind and character and the non patriotic.” He ordered that all former LAP personnel be taken for fresh training in Yumbe. He cited patriotism among the few benchmarks for one to be a Police Officer but fell short of disclosing that they were to undergo political indoctrination under the guise of fresh training.

Privatising the Uganda Police Force

When Museveni came to power in 1986 he inherited a Police force that was dominated by people hailing from the northern and north eastern regions though the force had a a good number of personnel hailing from the other regions. He viewed the entire force as being hostile to his regime the same way he it had been the case with the Judiciary and the entire legal fraternity. That way, the army took over policing with Gen Aronda’s team stationing itself at the Central Police Station (CPS). In the countryside, Civil Intelligence Officers (CIO) – the old version of the present District Internal Security Officers (DISO) took over running of police stations. His desperate efforts to recruit loyalist cadres into the police force around 1987 did not make any impact save for a few like Cadre Turyagumanawe. As time went on his conflict with the police escalated to the extent that he one time publicly told them that unless they learnt to vote wisely,their welfare would never improve.

He initiated the Julia Sebutinde commission in order to target and eliminate certain individuals in the Police force. He deployed Gen Katumba Wamala not to improve the force’s performance but to give way for ‘his own’ Gen Kaziini to rise to the position of Army Commander. At the time it was Gen Ivan Koreta and Gen Katumba Wamala who were most qualified to replace Gen JJ Odong as Army Commander. For the same purpose Gen Koreta was diverted to Internal Security Organisation (ISO). At the same time the rising star in the Police force, Inspector Fred was diverted to peace keeping in South Sudan. While at the helm of the Police, Gen Katumba Wamala was accused of mobilising logistics from City tycoons to facilitate community policing – a move Museveni described as “nonsense”. By the time both Gen Katumba and Gen Koreta returned to the mainstream military service, Gen Kaziini had raised to the position of army commander. The same way Gen Aronda had been assigned to the privatisation of the army scheme, Museveni appointed Gen Kayihura turn it into a coercive arm of his ruling NRM clique.

Intergrating LAP into UPF
As part of the wider privatisation scheme of the security forces, the traditional LAP was integrated into the UPF. The Uganda Police Force is provided for by Art 211 of the Constitution thus: “There shall be a police force to be known as the Uganda Police Force and such other police forces in Uganda as parliament may by law prescribe.” The LAP had been provided for under the Local Government Act Cap 243 S.179 thus: “Local Government Police and Prisons existing at the enactment of this Act shall CONTINUE in existence until a new law covering them is enacted.” The Police Act Cap 303 S.67 provided for LAP to be under the local government system but for matters of training and standardisation placed under the responsibility of the IGP. The Police (Amendment) Act 2006 amended the principal Police Act, S. 67 thus:

Police Authority means:-
(b) In relation to Local Administration Police, the administration of the area in which that force is

S. 67A(1) A local Administration Police force existing immediately before the commencement of
this Act shall continue to exist in accordance with this Act and shall be fully integrated into the
Police Force as a Local Administration Police.

S. 67A(3) Local Administration Police shall be under the command and control of the IGP who
shall be responsible for all its operations.

S. 67A (4) The Local Administration Police shall:
(a) Receive the same training as officers of the Uganda Police Force.

S. 67A (5)
(b) Assist the local government in collection and safe keeping of money collected by
division councils.
(c) Work with Chiefs and Local Councils as may be required in the enforcement of law
and order.

S. 67A(6) Local Administration Police shall be appointed by the respective authorities under the

Going by the above, it is the IGP to blame for the alleged lack of training and professionalism by the former LAP personnel. However, the issue is not lack of training and professionalism but the erosion of discipline orchestrated by institutional impunity and protectionism. Just during the same time of the Mbarara incident, there was a similar incident in Jinja where the Police and the so called Crime Preventers OPENED fire to unarmed traders who had a scuffle with tax officials and injured two. The Police at the scene were under the command of the District Police Commander Apollo Kateba. In retaliation, the traders also descended on one of the crime preventers whom they almost lynched to death. The Regional Police Commander disclosed that two of his officers had been arrested for shooting people adding that they should have used their training to contain rioters. This phenomena of District Police Commanders leaving their stations to oversee small operations by their men alludes to the much feared civil disobedience. Its for the same reason that the other day the DPC of Old Kampala was involved in chasing the innocent journalist on the street before attempting to murder him. The Police Commanders are under briefing to be on the look out and not to take any incident for granted thus acting under pressure.

Its not only LAP that was integrated into the Uganda Police Force; all the different auxiliary forces that had been created in different parts of the country ended up in the Police force as Special Police Constables without going through the formal police recruitment and training. Currently the drive is targeting millions of NAZI GESTAPO like secret police in the form of Crime Preventers. As part of the reaction to the Mbarara shooting incident, plans were announced to recruit and train 23370 Crime Preventers throughout the district. But AGAIN how does a Local Administration Police personnel from Bunyaruguru end up serving in Kotido in Karamoja. The suspect Mugambagye Julius had just been transferred to Mbarara from Karamoja shortly before the incident.

Essence of vetting
Periodic vetting of Police officers would be a healthy move if it was done in good faith. In Kenya it is provided for in the constitution under Art. 246 and the S.7(2) and (3) of the National Police Service Act. It is carried out by the National Police Service Commission who invites the public to provide INFORMATION that may assist in determining the suitability and competence of officers. The overall objective is to build confidence and trust in the national Police service. The APPLICABLEvetting standards include officers satisfaction of entry and training requirements, their professional conduct and discipline, integrity financial probity, and respect for human rights. Those who satisfy the commission are retained and those whose integrity is found lacking are removed from the service. The last such vetting in Kenya was carried out in late 2013 through early 2014 when some heads rolled.

Therefore the vetting Kayihura is talking about is a purge to get rid of those suspected not to be fully loyal to Museveni’s life presidency project.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gen Kale Kayihura

Inspector General of Police

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hon. ( Amb) James Baba




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

a) to protect life and property;

b) to preserve law and order;

c) to prevent and detect crime; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) political persecution;

b) detention without trial;

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clauses that attracted most debate were the follow;-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. the name and address of the organizer

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

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

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

v. the purpose of the meeting,

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

vii. and any other relevant information.

(b) Notification by authorized officer (clause

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

So, what does Clause 8 provide?

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

ii. Unsuitability of the venue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c)Spontaneous meetings (clause 9)

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Responsibilities of organizers (clause 12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Duties of the Police (clause 10)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

‘I have no mansion; but i own now 350 acres of land’- Gen.Kayihura

Dear Ugandans at heart,

The house I stay in Muyenga is rented from someone by the Police as the terms and conditions of service of IGP provide that he or she shall be accommodated. Whoever says I have a house in Kololo is really mocking me. Yes, I have a goat project in Kabila I began in 1992 on a 160 acre piece of land that over the years I have been adding small pieces from neighbours which is now 350 acres. Because of lack of time and capital, it is limping, at the moment I think it has about 500 goats, at rate they have never reached 1000. You are free to visit it. And those people calling me a mercenary simply do not know me.

I repeat I have no mansion or a kiosk in Kampala or anywhere else including my home in Kisoro, unless of course they take the two- room cabin at the farm in Kabila as a mansion. Incidentally, am not proud of it. Surely, at my age you should expect me to own a decent home. But its OK, God is there as they say. I don’t have any posh house. That is the truth. I don’t need any fund raising, thank you. I don’t need any pity. It was my choice.

There is no such thing as NRM police. You will strive to poison children against us, but I assure you in the end you will fail because children are pure angels. Children are pure, and have their own way of seeing the truth. What always excites me when I move around the country is the genuine happy excitement whenever I find groups of children and they call out “Kayihura, Kayihura”. It is so priceless…… it is priceless. I almost choke with emotion, especially when I know they are evil people who simply won’t see anything good we try to do.

On standing for presidency in future?

All I strive for is to serve the country and our people. That is the choice I made when I left London in 1982, ( where by the way I could have stayed, continued my studies, and worked) and, alone, without any prompting began my long road to the bushes of Luwero where I reached in 1983. I have been consistent. The journey has been and continues to be hard, but I have no regrets, and, anyway, what could one have expected. That one survived when greater and better comrades fell along the way is providence.

Yes, mistakes have been made, (but again what could one have expected), But so have we made tremendous achievements, as a country especially given the incredible and unprecedented challenges we have had to confront. I don’t mind in what capacity I serve as long as it makes a difference in the lives of our people; it improves the quality of their lives.

I want to assure you that am not self serving. I just strive to make a contribution so that our people are happy. Is it easy? Of course not. But I believe in struggle. Development, progress like all phenomenons is a unity and struggle of opposites. But am strongly convinced that in the end good will prevail, and that iam on the right side of history. We mean well, it’s just that managing society is not a cup of tea, and we understand that.

Cooperation with the Muslims

Yes, last year we organized Idi celebrations for Muslims in the police. The problem is resources. But am proud to say the Police during my tenure has developed very close links with the Muslim community and because of that we were able to diffuse what would otherwise have been a very bloody confrontation between Kibuli and Old Kampala. Am proud to say I personally enjoy very close relations with both. It is a legacy I intend to endure even after me. The problem in these controversies, depend on which side one is, Police will be condemned. Sometimes, it is the case of “You are condemned if you do, you are condemned if you don’t.

Accusations of the Uganda Police murdering two innocent young men in Masaka

That child in Masaka was killed by Undisciplined LDUs who had nothing to do with the Police, and who were supposed to be on guard duty of some property in Nyendo. I personally went there, and arrested them in Nyendo, in a public meeting (which was covered by the media) outside the home of the family of the little child. The family and the community appreciated the action of the Police including other support we gave them.

Some People tried to use the family to politicize the issue but the family refused. In my case, it is informal and nobody mobilizes them. And the children know how I stood up for them alone in the fight to bring Kato Kajuba who had sacrificed the little boy, Kasirye (again of Masaka) but the judge, Justice Mukiibi, let him off the hook ruling that he had no case to answer. Against the legal/judicial establishment I stood up for justice, and eventually, the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of Justice Mukiibi, and ordered for a retrial. And now Kato Kajubi is behind bars in Luzira.

While I acknowledge that once in a while individual officers make mistakes, I reject the characterization some of you give the Uganda Police. That is the political propaganda out there by those who think they can use it to demonize the government and justify regime change. You will be shocked how much appreciation and understanding we Police receive from the world, including UK, Ireland, Germany, US, Holland, Italy just to mention a few. They have far better network of information than you will ever have. If we are as terrible as you wish to portray us, surely we would not enjoy such support. I wish those opposing us were real human rights advocate. Then we would work together to build rather than haranguing all the time. The people of Uganda know the good we do.

Police updates

Thank you UAH moderator, Abbey Semuwemba. Nabakooba Judith is a bit busy, and am sure she will get in touch with you when she can, but am assigning a special liaison officer, Cadet Assistant Superintendent of Police, Immaculate Musimenta, to become active on UAH and update forumists on Uganda police work. She will regularly update as you request.

Gen.Kale Kayihura

If the constitution is not protecting our rights, Let’s ignore it starting with the POM Law!

The Magna Carta (1215), a.k.a The great charter, is actually the mother of all constitutions. In the magna carta, the Kings (England) subjects forced a document (Agreement) on the King limiting the power of the King; The document forced the King to proclaim rights of subjects and and accept that his powers had a limit.

The most important input of Magna Carta was the principal of No Taxation without representation which was to form the basis for the American civil war. The principal of no taxation without representation was the rallying call for the America war of independence against their colonial masters, the British. In 1649, King Charles I was beheaded for being a traitor and violating the constitutions of the Kingdom- the magna carta (So much for those claiming Britain has no constitution)

The French revolution, credited for the revolutionizing governance and democracy, also owed their ideological back ground to this document.

As expected, the King of England declared this document unworkable and banned it, but the ideas were out of the bottle and could not be bottled again. Several thousands of Royal and Quasi Royal necks later, Constitutions are established documents FOR LIMITING THE POWERS OF THE RULERS AND PROCLAIMING RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

Our rulers would have us believe that the Constitution is an instrument to rule us, and they have proceeded to delete, dilute, ignore, amend all those provisions that protect citizens from the excesses of rulers and they have highlighted and strengthened those provisions that curtail the liberties of citizens in the constitution.

IF CONSTITUTION OF UGANDA PROVES INCAPABLE OF GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, THEN IT WILL BE USELESS AND DESERVES TO BE IGNORED. Why would any Ugandan respect the Public Order Management Bill that was passed yesterday? It is tampering with our natural rights.I have so far seen over 10 damaging international headlines, and are all about this law.

At one time in the Soviet Union, a KGB agent ran berserk and went shouting on the streets of Moscow, “Nikita Khrushchev (ex towering leader of the Communist Party) is stupid, Khrushchev is stupid” such an abomination against a towering figure! He was charged with revealing a state secret under the Official Secrets Act!!!!

Actually our official secrets act does not apply to persons not in the employment of Government unless that person is an agent of a foreign power!!I have reread the Official Secrets Act and see nowhere one can be brought under its operation for possessing a state document if one is a civilian not working with the government of Uganda!!!

Wait a moment!Is the Muhozi project an official secret? No wonder government wants to start monitoring social media, hehehehe…………Anyway power belongs to the people but they cant have access to state secrets?What is a state secret?


Those who are opposed to the Public Order Management Bill simply want anarchy, rights without responsibility-Says Kayihura

We need serious discourse on this matter of managing public order, which by the way is the core function of any police force anywhere in the world: keeping law and order, and which in the case of Uganda, some quarters suggest it is must not be, police must not regulate public order. We shall soon tell our own story since 2005, with the opening of political space, and having to deal with political activists driven by the thinking (to put upside down the words of the great German military philosopher, Von Clausewitz,) “Politics is war by other means” (what he actually said was that “war is politics by other means”.

As for the deliberately distorted presentation of the public order management law in offing, soon the correct interpretation of the same will clearly come to light and you will find nothing different from similar laws of other countries such as UK, and other European countries. Those who are opposed simply want anarchy, rights without responsibility; they believe that they have superior rights over other Ugandans, for instance staging rallies, and provoking riots in markets and taxi parks. What happens to the rights of the traders, the rights of motorists?

Imagine a leader organising a rally next to the Heart Institute in Mulago hospital, not only without notifying the Police, but even without notifying and seeking permission from the authorities of the hospital, who are the proprietors of the venue. Not even bothered as to what effect the noise from the rally would have on the heart patients. What insensitivity, what arrogance! They must block roads with stones and burning tyres, and attack motorists because it is their right to do so! That is the problem, guys. That is the issue. Otherwise, the bill actually restricts greatly police discretion, and police action, which by the way we have by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution.

Ghana Vs Uganda

As for the contrast between Ghana and Uganda, while am not attempting to explain away weaknesses in our system, it is important to appreciate that the two countries have had different historical experiences. In the period you are talking about, Ghana was at a peace, but in our case, we are only now seeing the tailend of insurgencies both within and in our neighborhood.let’s begin serious and objective discourse about our situation, looking at all sides. We owe to our children.

By the way, in the history of Uganda, the military and the police have never been so close to the population as we are today. In the police, we are striving to build community policing establishing close partnership with the population. With me, Not only do I not have any mansion, I don’t even have a kiosk in Kampala. You can do your investigation.TEARGAS

What is shown in the picture above is not teargas. It is a water cannon dispensing water mixed with a dye that is meant to identify rioters for purposes of legal action either to caution or prosecute them. By the way, recently a study by a team of Irish police on public order management by the Uganda Police, concluded that incidents of use of force including teargas are minimal in contrast to the challenges that we face, the wide negative publicity that we were bombarded with, and comparable situations in other countries.

Did you see the recent images in Turkey, Brazil, not to mention Egypt. Otherwise, I had not commissioned research on how much teargas we use annually. Am going to try to see whether we can do it. Otherwise, the use of teargas is quite minimal. Incidentally, we last bought teargas in 2010, and this financial year we are not procuring teargas. Instead, we are procuring fire equipment to ensure that every major town has a fire station, as well as additional ambulances to add onto our current fleet of 21 ambulances which have provided excellent service of saving lives in accidents and other emergencies. The Uganda Police does a lot of good to the country, apart, of course fm the task of preventing and hunting criminals.

We are reorganizing and very soon we shall begin giving UAH updates. By the way, we opened a ground breaking meeting of police officers from 25 African countries of EAPCCO, and SARPCCO policing regions (i.e. from Cape Town to Asmara) in Imperial Botanical Beach hotel to review the very successful Operation we simultaneously conducted in all the countries mentioned targeting the crime categories of trafficking in human beings, proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons, drug trafficking, and motor vehicle thefts. I will post my speech, and also the results of our Operation, including Uganda country report. That half the police forces of Africa are coming together and networking, and that that Uganda is playing a leading role in this. Surely, Abbey Semuwemba, this is something to celebrate. Yes, we shall regularly inform you about what is going, and by the way, even where we get wrong we shall acknowledge.


Police Airwing is a very old department of the Uganda and if I may add all police forces the world have aerial capability. The wing over the years, especially in the late 70s and early 80s, lost its helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts. In 2007, we bought a new helicopter which sadly was involved in an accident with the former PM Nsibambi. We got compensation fm the National Insurance Corporation where we had insured the helicopter. We want to use that compensation as part of the down payment for acquisition of the three helicopters. This is good for the country. The helicopters are meant to enable carry out search and rescue, air ambulance, aerial surveillance, and operational transport. It is only an ignorant person who can question a country acquiring such capability.

By the way, I wish you and all the brothers and sisters on this UAH Forum and beyond happy Idd, and congratulations on successful completion of Ramadhan.



police quarters at Kasese

police quarters at Kasese

Between 1981 & 1985 there was a very powerful minister of internal affairs, Dr. John Luwuliza-Kirunda (one of the best trained gyns and obs consultants and was cousin of Ali Muwabe Kirunda Kivejinjja- u can ask around). He decreed that one of the 4 lifts at Crested Towers was for his exclusive use even when he was out of the country. No one dared question him (he had pre-signed detention orders and all one need was to insert a name and voila- u r incarcerated).

UPC’s Kirunda one time went for a workshop at hotel triangle -Jinja. He arrived late when all the rooms were taken. He went to the counter and asked for the guests register. He saw Tito Okello’s name. He told the receptionist ” how can u allow this bush monger to sleep like a human being am taking over his room these fellows are meant to stay n sleep in the bush not in hotels like us”.

Kirunda detained over 2000 political dissidents without bail between 1981-1985.He passed away like 2 years ago in exile in Zimbabwe.He remained true to his party up to the end. He couldn’t have returned alive- he stuffed drums of cooking oil with acid when he was fleeing in 85 and dozens of people (neighbor and relations) died when they helped themselves to the booty.

I also heard that he one time ordered for the public address system to be brought to where he was seated during a rally instead of him going to the podium.They had to disassemble and assemble the whole system just for this gentleman. He was also a relative of Shaban Nkutu.The Mwandha’s too are their relatives.

Fast forward- 2013, a newly appointed Internal affairs minister decrees that the upper gate at the ministry is to be used by him and his PS and we lesser mortals who voted his CIC should be crammed through the much smaller an inconveniencing lower gate!!!

If anybody is doubting that Gen.Minister of Internal Affairs, Nyakai, gave those orders, ask those who attended the hand function in the board room. They will tell you everything.

Kakinzi Police post in Luweero District. This, and several police posts in the area operate without sanitary facilities

Kakinzi Police post in Luweero District. This, and several police posts in the area operate without sanitary facilities

Amazes me how Ministers sometimes act like prefects in Primary school……..Indeed military men have no place in modern/democracy politics!We are going backwards. We shall get that point in time when Mr. Museveni’s idea of shooting each other was amongst the sensible things to do.When a man is used to a foot path and suddenly you make a Muram road for him, expect trouble. I gather, even commissioners have to park outside! Who will pay when the street boys snatch of the side mirrors etc?

There is another army guy who enters a super market and his guards seal off the entrance until he is done with shopping. I love the Kahinda Otafire style, the guy goes shopping to a supermarket and u can even not think he is a minister; he even waits at the entrance when the lift is full.

I also read about one Dr.Ochola Latigo who in1986, was the General Manager of the now defunct Uganda Airline,, ordered the recall of a plane which had been airborne more than 30 minutes back to the ground. The plane was destined for Dubai in the United Emirates when it was recalled back to Entebbe airport.

A wise evangelist who went to be with the Lord some years back called Leonard Ravenhill once said, ‘The thing about learning from history is that we never learn from history.

I am inclined to agree with Mzee Yoweri K. Museveni that he could be the only one with a vision in the NRM. U have a newly appointed Minister-Internal Affairs, whose first day in office is marked by issuing threats to derail the democratisation process rather than confronting the challenges in the ministry such as porous borders, undocumented immigrants, easing of passport acquisition for citizens, correctional and pennitentially reforms (read prison services) etc! Why are suppossedly intelligent Ugandans drawn to goofing?

police is in a dilapidated state(as confirmed by General Kayihura yesterday under those Kasese police post photos); people take years processing passports,policemen have not been paid for three months, teachers are now an internal security threat as they have started stealing to survive. BUT the first thing that comes top of his agenda is STOP THE OPPOSITION? Parliament really created a monster.

UPDF is under SFG, SFG is under Brigadier Muhoozi Kaneiruguba who is under M7 hence the only Ugandan with Vision! Don’t be surprised should the defence jet fighters purchased using your money be used to fight your children if not you & your brothers, sisters & parents-Libyans know it too well!

The constitution has been overthrown and we are being governed by martial law. Well, they say that vision is also about sense of judgement. If you have a vision, you are going to appoint the right people. The whole thing about vision is inspiring or infecting your team with it. So, i doubt whether a one-man vision is no vision. It is solipsism (to use a philosophical term].


When I saw the pictures of Gen.Kayihura happy and matching, my mind went back to 1979 when wakombozi from TZ finally entered Kampala

Kayihua wave has got power in it, guys

Kayihua wave has got power in it, guys


Why did General Kale Kayihura inspect a police and not military guard of honour? I mean the rank of general is a military and not a police rank? Some of you may sometimes wonder why I always try to give a brief about people’s past. When I saw the pictures of General Kale Kayihura happy and matching, my mind went back to 1979, precisely April 1979 when wakombozi from TZ finally entered Kampala and the late Professor Lule (RIP) was about to be sworn in as President. It was none other than Mr. Kale Kayihura, yes him, who led Makerere University students through the streets of Kampala to parliament buildings. Mark you then Makerere University students were still well respectable and thus respected and actual admired by the peasants. Not anymore of course but that is beside the point.

If anyone could have predicted that Mr. Kayihura would preside over a fascist police force and try to force editors to sign oppressive agreements to not write about certain individuals, they would have called you mad.

BTW, The Monitor carved in to the regime when it appointed Mr. Asiimwe as its boss. That was a purely political appointment to appease the regime. The moment you appease you have to appease more. Ndiyo

The biggest mistake the Monitor made is contained in the following:

“In Monday’s Observer, when Monitor MD Alex was contacted for comment
on the conditions government is reported to have presented to them
before any consideration of re-opening, he reportedly responded: “We
met the minister but i can’t go into the details or discuss them in
the press.”

The Monitor board tried to buy peace by making a son of the soil boss. But the regime wants more. Therein lies the problem of appeasement.

If the Monitor Board caves in and agrees to the conditions being pushed in their way by the regime that will be the end of the Monitor for real. Better to die now under General Kale Kayihura, LLM and General Aronda, also a lawyer I believe -and you folks blamed Amin’s lesser educated colonels, eeh-than later after appeasement.

The Monitor can die a principled death-yes it will hit the shareholders and employees-or die disgraceful death should it cave in. As the Baganda say “mpaawo magombe gazza”/death is death. Who will buy a paper that guarantees not to write about certain people no matter how news worthy they are?

Folks, the actions by an LLM general IGP illuminate my thesis about Uganda, which is that all LEADERS y are all the same, Museveni, Amin, Obote, Okello, same . You show me the difference. For me there is no REAL difference. Sure there are small differences here and there, but overall, Museveni, Obote, the educated are no different from lesser educated souls of Amin and Okello. Erase that. Actually in some cases the latter were far better than the former. I know this will rub defenders of the former the wrong way, but it is the truth.

Let me repeat my thesis: the educated and uneducated Ugandan leaders have behaved the same. If you still have any doubts, look at the actions of General Kale Kayihura under YKM. We have to exclude General Aronda so far from this saga because he was named minister when it was underway. It was Minister Onek who gave orders. Yes in Uganda having morons or educated leaders leads to the same outcome. Phew!

Well if I were leading the Monitor, rather resign than burry the paper. I said in the Kiganda saying “mpaawo magombe gazza”. The odds facing the Monitor are honestly not good. If it caves in to the govt demands it will die a miserable death. I guess if it refuses it will be killed by the Minister of Internal affairs and the IGP, but that will be an honorable and principled death. . I say better to die on their orders than through self-inflicted death. The decision is up to the Board of directors holding brief for shareholders-the residual claimants.

I know the likes of Hon Wafula Ogutu are reading, so it is up to them to determine the fate of the Monitor. I am telling them that if they carve in they will accelerate the death of the Monitor. Yes they are caught between a rock and hard place. That is why I say that all Ugandan leaders, educated or not are the same.

Sad but true.

So you have some of you-I mean media people-salivating at the woes facing the Monitor. Recall the kisoga saying “ekiri kummwino nekirungi okuwaaya/okuseka or the Kiganda one that “eryokanga netoonya ….”

I saw in the pictures Mr. Kale Kayihura of 1979, happy, being mobbed by ordinary wanainchi. The only difference is back then there was no massive security and unfit policemen based on their tumbo.

So I try to give brief so Ugandans can see how power corrupts and changes people. General Kale Kayihura’s transformation is quite something. Another chap who went through the same is Mr David Pulkol, from being SAVEED to heading ESO and certainly killing Ugandans. I have no clue whether Mr Pulkol is still SAVEED but that is also neither here nor there.

Yes power is sweat but it also corrupts. Like i said ‘atakulaaba akunyoma’/those of you who only know General kale Kayihura the General are probably not amused. But no, he had a very descent, admired and respected life.

I have said that the overthrow of Amin was catastrophic for Uganda in many ways. For starters Ugandan has never been at peace since. Think about it. Since 1978 when Amin blundered and went to Kagera and gave TZ and the so called liberators-not sure what they liberated Uganda from when Monitor and Red Pepper are occupied by police led by an LLM holder-the excuse to invade Uganda.

Uganda as a whole has NEVER known peace. Think about it again, a peaceful Uganda, I mean peace and happiness in all of Uganda, ended with Amin. Well that is the change for you.

National schools ended with Amin. National railways ended with Amin. Everything national died with Amin. What replaced it has always been parochial Teue dat.

So as the rest of you congratulate General Kale Kayihura, some of us mourn, his demise.Let Ugandans compare the actions of the Uganda police under Kassim Obura (Amin), Okoth Ogoola (Dr Obote 2) and General Kale Kayihura, LLM (YKM). In terms of education and rank, General Kayihura is way above them, but what about sadistic actions? Start with press freedom. Do you see any difference?

Times like these demand that we tell the truth, bitter as it may be. So UAF folks stop sugar coating shit or trying to appease. This is not the time for imbecilic debate. No

General Ssejusa is responsible for the wider changes in UPDF. The winner is actually General Ssejusa. The biggest losers are General Nyakairima who becomes minister of internal affairs and becomes the lead minister for another loser, UAH’s very own IGP, Lt General Kale Kayihura. Basically General Ssejusa’s letter and the IGP’s moronic reaction cost him the CDF post, which was his to lose.

So General Aronda is now technically speaking General Kale Kayihura’s immediate boss, but given recent developments General Arond will realize what general Sejjusa’s letter was all about. To be blunt, IGP Kale Kayihura ain’t gonna report to General Aronda. Hell no.

The permanent secretaries are interesting. Congratulations to Nnalongo Guwatudde Kintu Christine, who goes to the thieving OPM. Incidentally, she is probably one of the longest serving Permanent secretaries. She became PS at a very young age. That Budo lady (1975-1978), Makerere College School (1979-1981), MUK 1981-1984 is very lucky. Be firm.

Why has YKM refused to promote Mr. Matia Kassaija who has stood with him since their tough days in UPM to full minister?


Police has not violated any laws in the Ssejusa-DailyMonitor-Redpepper saga, Says Kayihura

Whatever we are doing is within the law. CID needs the letter published by the Daily Monitor, and other documents published by the Red Pepper purportedly originating from Gen Sejusa to assist in the investigation of possible criminality committed. CID sought cooperation from the management of the Daily Monitor and they refused to cooperate to handover the letter, and disclose their sources invoking protection from s.38 of the Press and Journalist Act.

Faced with this, the CID sought and got a court order to compel them to do so, as the same s.38 states that a journalist can be compelled to do so by a court order, among others.

The management of the Daily Monitor Publications have to date defied the court order. In fact, it is in anticipation of this that CID sought and got search warrants from court for both media houses. This is routine in investigations. It is consistent with any standards of investigative practice in any democracy. Moreover, these are not the first searches to be conducted by the Police in Uganda, or anywhere else in the whole.

It is not a violation of the lead judgment of the late Justice Mulenga in the Supreme Court case of Charles Onyango Obbo & another vs Attorney General SCC No 2 of 2002. The issues that were addressed were different. The Court did not rule that searching media houses violates rights and freedoms. They outlawed sections of the Penal Code Act providing for the offense of sedition which to their judgment were too widely worded that they could be used to unjustifiably violate freedoms and rights. The court did not declare that media rights and freedoms are absolute. Read the judgment well.

Let me remind you of Article 43(1) of the Constitution which states “In the enjoyment of the rights prescribed in this chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest”. In fact, in his lead judgment, Justice Mulenga, my uncle as pointed out highlighted this constitutional position, saying there must be balance between exercising rights and freedoms and what he called the common interest.

Therefore, there is no inconsistency between what Justice Mulengs ruled and what the Police is doing under the leadership of his nephew. Ndugu, I have nothing to be ashamed of. Just serving my country diligently, and lawfully.


%d bloggers like this: