Is this true Bout our beloved MP?

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

This article was published by Dr. Owor Kipenji. Read through and leave your comment

Here it goes……

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.


Batutsi must adjust or the Great Lakes region will burn

Batutsi (from now on used generically to mean Batutsi, Bahima, Bahororo and Banyamulenge) must adjust their centuries-old attitude towards others especially Bantu (Bahutu and Bairu) in the Great Lakes region (which refers to southwest Uganda – former Ankole and Kigezi districts and now being extended to the rest of Uganda under Museveni government), Burundi, Rwanda and Eastern DRC.

As a first step in the adjustment process, Batutsi must drop the idea that they are white people, superior, more intelligent and born to rule. Up to today, Batutsi are still falsely claiming that one Mututsi (singular for Batutsi) is equivalent to say 1000 Bairu or Bahutu people (sometimes they use a weighing scale where you have a small metal [Mutusi] weighed against say thousands of beans [Bahutu or Bairu]). Educated or not a Mututsi still considers himself more intelligent and superior to a well educated Muhutu or a Mwiru. Kagame and Museveni have very low education yet they pose as though they are on top of the intellectual pyramid in the Great Lakes region. Because of this false superiority they think marrying non-Batutsi women would devalue them. Consequently Batutsi men marrying non-Batutsi women is taboo and very much beneath their dignity; even eating/drinking or socializing unless artificially done for political convenience. Batutsi still vow that it is below their dignity to buy a beer for a Muhutu or Mwiru because that is the responsibility of the latter. Batutsi will only buy a few beers for Bahutu/Bairu only if they want something big from them like sending them to parliament to represent Bahutu or Bairu.

A former colleague who worked in Rwanda some years ago expressed to me how shocked she was when she invited Batutsi and Bahutu workmates at her home for a get together to relax after they had completed a project successfully. When the Tutsi arrived and found Hutu in the house, they just turned back and left because as the host was later told Batutsi and Bahutu don’t socialize together because Bahutu are below Batutsi dignity. While in a restaurant in Europe a Hutu woman teased a Tutsi woman for marrying a white man. The Tutsi woman angrily replied that “she would a thousand times rather marry a white than a Hutu because all Hutu [repeat all Hutu] were assassins”(M. B. Umutesi 2000). And all this is happening when Rwanda officials and their western supporters are boasting that ethnic differences have gone forever.

The mayhem they have caused including potential for political explosion is enough evidence that Batutsi as a group (there could be some individuals) don’t automatically qualify to rule others. Shooting people, imprisoning people, poisoning people, torturing people, exiling people, starving people, dispossessing people is the worst form of governing. That is the method Batutsi have used against Bantu since the 15th century. Outlawing reference to one’s tribe as has been done in Uganda through anti-sectarian and in Rwanda through anti-division laws does not mean that ethnic rivalries are over – far from it. If anything they have got worse.

We are also asking western commentators – diplomats, journalists and researchers – to drop the idea that Museveni and Kagame are the only people with a vision and leadership qualities to govern which they don’t have and to stop covering up atrocities Batutsi have meted out to Bahutu. Since the tragic 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Bahutu have been painted as uncivilized people and the equivalent of beasts thirsty and hungry for Batutsi blood and flesh. So, the few who have tried to dig into the historical relations between Bahutu and Bairu on the one hand and Batutsi on the other have not been listened to. The majority have dismissed Bahutu and their counterpart Bairu in Uganda as people worth paying attention to.

When the genocide of Bahutu was carried out by Batutsi at Kibeho camp in which some 8000 women, men and children perished in April 1995 (EIR October 23, 1998), not a single international finger was raised in protest. Information about millions of Bahutu that have perished in Eastern DRC at the hands of Batutsi is only beginning to surface and to gain recognition as the third genocide in the region. In 1972 Batutsi carried out genocide against Bahutu in Burundi and the world kept silent. Since 1995 Batutsi have systematically carried out genocide inside Rwanda and especially in Eastern DRC. So why does the world continue to condemn Bahutu as bad guys and treat Batutsi as victims?

A few weeks before he became president, Museveni was interviewed by John Nagenda and the idea of Batutsi white race was thrown into the conversation indirectly in the form of a question but what they meant to convey is that Museveni is a white man with superior intelligence and unequalled vision. Studies have demonstrated time and again that Batutsi are black and darker than Bantu people but they have refused to accept the truth. They have been told time and again that Bachwezi were a Bantu aristocracy (B. A. Ogot 1999) and that the earthen works in central Uganda belong to Bantu but Batutsi can’t accept the truth. They have been told time and again that some Bantu specialized in herding: “Many Bantu settlers switched to animal husbandry as the primary source of food, herding cattle, sheep and goats” (E. J. Murphy 1974) but Batutsi have insisted Bahutu and Bairu were and are cultivators, a profession below Batutsi dignity (J. Pottier 2002). Batutsi have been told time and again that they are Nilotic and their Nilotic Luo-speaking ancestors entered the Great Lakes region from Bahr el Ghazal in South Sudan but have insisted they are white from Ethiopia.

It is important to register that many Bantu in the Great Lakes region have acquired good education and experience, have travelled widely and established networks and now know their inalienable rights and freedoms. They won’t allow to be enslaved again. They won’t allow torture without crying or yelling as before. They won’t be dispossessed and keep quiet as before. They won’t grow food to feed Batutsi while their families go to bed hungry as before. They won’t allow their girls to be sexually used by Batutsi boys while Batutsi girls stay virgin until they marry like before. Bantu will not allow Batutsi to spit in their mouth like before (this is reported to have happened in Bunyoro recently). They won’t allow Batutsi to graze their cattle in Bantu gardens like before. They won’t allow Batutsi to pay them for their services with barren cows or bull calves or calves about to die or meat when a Mututsi cow dies.

We need to understand this history in the Great Lakes region which has adversely impacted the present in order to take informed decisions and make correct recommendations. We can no longer keep this troubling history under the rug/carpet which Batutsi are trying to repeat it. So this is not sectarianism as those who want to maintain the status quo are bound to reason.

UDU is advocating resolving differences by peaceful means so that all Ugandans can live together in peace, security and happiness. For this to happen, Batutsi under the leadership of Museveni must adjust and drop racial ideas of superiority and natural rulers. Batutsi must learn to share, not to grab everything – see what is happening to peasant land which Britain left in the hands of indigenous people.

To level the playing field, UDU has suggested the formation of a transitional government in which all stakeholders must participate in order to prepare for free and fair multi-party elections. To be fair to candidates in the presidential and parliamentary elections, those who participate in the transitional government should not contest the next elections so they don’t use their incumbency to disadvantage others. Batutsi need a De Clerk who together with like-minded Boers advised their conservative Boer fellows to adapt or die. They adapted and they are still alive in South Africa. The Portuguese in Africa who refused to adapt were swept out and Mozambique joined the Commonwealth.

UDU has already prepared a National Recovery Plan which should serve as a background document for the transitional government. The ball is in NRM’s court. So, let us strike while the iron is still hot.

By Eric Kashambuzi.


How Museveni has used the West to pursue the Tutsi Empire dream.

Museveni’s life and energies at least since the early 1960s have been devoted to resurrecting Mpororo kingdom and expanding it into a Tutsi Empire initially in the Great Lakes region of Africa, explaining in large part why Ankole kingdom was not restored as it would interfere with Bahororo/Tutsi Empire project. Although they lost territory when Mpororo kingdom disintegrated around 1750, Bahororo (Batutsi people of Mpororo kingdom) wherever they went including back to Rwanda (it is believed Kagame like Museveni is a Muhororo subject to confirmation, perhaps explaining why Rwanda kingdom was not restored) tenaciously clung together (Karugire 1980) by resisting intermarriage with other ethnic groups hoping that someday their Mpororo kingdom would be resurrected.

In preparation for Uganda’s independence, Bahororo in Ankole demanded a separate district but Bahima rejected the idea. Museveni was old enough to witness the mistreatment of Bahororo by Bahima. At the same time Batutsi of Rwanda including Bahororo suffered a double defeat through the social revolution of 1959 and pre-independence elections leading to independence in 1962.

It is believed (subject to confirmation) that Batutsi who sought refuge in Uganda were actually Bahororo whose ancestors had returned to Rwanda when Mpororo kingdom disintegrated. They believed they would be welcomed and accommodated by their kin and kith in Ankole and Kigezi and escape the inconveniences and stigma associated with refugee camps. And Kangaho then a member of LEGCO from Ankole insisted over objections of others that Ankole had enough space to accommodate Tutsi refugees and their cattle. Eventually some one third of the refugees and their cattle got absorbed in Ankole and Kigezi families raising population densities beyond the carrying capacity.

The rest were allowed to move and settle wherever there was pasture. This trek took them from “the new districts of Ntungamo, Mbarara, Bushenyi, Rakai, Masaka, Mubende, Luwero and even beyond the Nile River to Apac, Lira, Kitgum, Soroti and Kumi” (Dixon Kamukama 1997). British authorities permitted this mobility (to avoid problems connected with refugee camps) because they were speeding up independence for Uganda to escape political problems that were being experienced in Kenya, Sudan, Congo, Rwanda and Burundi.

Museveni and Bahororo fellow students and Rwanda refugees at Ntare School formed an association in the early 1960s presumably for restoration of Tutsi dominance over Bantu (Bairu and Bahutu) in the Great Lakes region, explaining in part why Museveni developed an early interest in East African economic integration and political federation and even unfairly blamed Obote for lack of interest in the subject.

Museveni knew that Bahororo didn’t have the numbers to realize Tutsi dream through elections. He opted for the military solution. He also knew that he would need external backing, either from Africa or beyond or both. He began to work along these lines from the middle of the 1960s. He and Rwigyema (RIP) were among the first to go for military training. Later he identified members of his group to pursue diplomatic networking and obtain western and African support. New York, London and Lusaka were among the capitals they operated from.

The 1980s characterized by Cold War confrontation and structural adjustment as well as the controversial 1980 elections in Uganda and later the 1994 Rwanda genocide gave Museveni a golden opportunity to pursue his Tutsi Empire dream without many noticing. The election of UPC and Obote in 1980 was not well received in western circles and other countries with interest in northern and central African geopolitics. Obote was seen as socialist and not suitable for Great Lakes and Middle East geopolitics. Obote also ran into disagreement with IMF over budget policy as part of structural adjustment conditionality and the World Bank over human rights violations and both withdrew support (Uganda Country Profile 1992-93. The Economist Intelligence Unit, and G. W. Kanyeihamba 2002). Museveni was identified as an alternative for support and eventual replacement of Obote and would in turn help in Great Lakes geopolitical conflicts (Peter Phillips 2007). Museveni’s five-year guerrilla war was thus facilitated with substantial financial, media and diplomatic assistance (EIR November 1994).

In 1986 Museveni captured power, became president and launched the popular mixed economy ten-point program. In 1987, under pressure from western countries and institutions (New African 1987-88), Museveni unceremoniously dropped the program and launched the unpopular “shock therapy” version of structural adjustment program (SAP), dismissed from the ministry of finance and central bank officials who wanted a gradual and sequenced approach to minimize social costs.

As reward for western support during the guerrilla war, Museveni invited all expelled Asians to return to Uganda and repossess their properties over strong objection among Ugandans even NRM cadres who thought they didn’t fight to bring back Asians (ironically Museveni refused return of Ugandans in the diaspora (The Courier 1993). Museveni also agreed to stick religiously to IMF and World Bank conditionality in stabilization and structural adjustment program in return for their solid support. These developments served the west and Museveni interests very well. IMF and World Bank controlled the design and implementation of Uganda’s economic recovery program (P. Langseth et al., 1995).

While IMF and World Bank implemented their program without interruption, Museveni used SAP to impoverish, weaken, marginalize and render Ugandans economically and politically voiceless and powerless. With zeal, Museveni retrenched public servants he didn’t like either because they worked for Obote or belonged to ethnic groups he wanted to marginalize. He abolished subsidies on education, healthcare and agriculture. He eliminated some schools and downgraded others in targeted areas. He introduced school fees and health charges which ordinary people could not afford. He abolished cooperatives and diminished extension services. He diversified exports with foodstuffs like beans, corn/maize and fish that traditionally were produced for domestic consumption. He refused to support lunch for vulnerable primary school children who dropped out of school in large numbers. He insisted the private sector was responsible for creating jobs and setting wages and working conditions and trickledown economics for distributing the benefits of economic growth among classes and regions.

Museveni was also allowed to build strong security forces especially the military and intelligence under the pretext he needed them to prevent demonstrations and riots against structural adjustment. Democracy was delayed for similar reasons as it would interfere with implementation of the program. He was permitted to delay elections for ten years and multi-party elections even longer, all of them rigged while the west watched to keep Museveni in power. One powerful western commentator and strong supporter of Museveni observed “You need a dictator like Museveni to push these types of policies [stabilization and structural adjustment]”(EIR September 19, 1997). Sadly, the policies failed miserably and were abandoned in 2009 having wreaked social, moral and environmental havoc.

Not surprisingly, the West turned the other way when Museveni removed presidential term limits from the 1995 constitution, refused to establish an independent electoral commission and massively abused Ugandan human rights and freedoms with impunity. In 2011 elections, Museveni emptied the treasury to run the campaign without donors protesting even after the minister of finance declared that the treasury was empty. Instead of condemning Museveni for this wrongdoing, he was congratulated for his re-election even when the Commonwealth Observer Mission protested that the electoral process lacked a level playing field and presidential opposition candidates refused to concede defeat, conditions for declaring the election results null and void. Corruption and sectarianism were allowed to fester with Batutsi or those connected with them in charge of the military and police, the economy and public service.

Museveni received more military advisers and training of the armed forces apparently to prevent terrorism from finding a home in Uganda and other parts of the region. Museveni engaged in regional wars and intervention in internal affairs from Sudan to DRC. Museveni assisted Kagame and RPF to capture power in tragic genocide conditions which were used to blame Bahutu as bad guys and treat Batutsi as victims that needed international sympathy and support. Museveni sent troops in peace keeping operations largely to win western gratitude but mostly to give his soldiers combat experience unmatched in the Great Lakes region to enable him implement his Tutsi Empire dream unrestrained.

Using international guilt over Rwanda genocide and overwhelming sympathy for Tutsi victims and exploiting geopolitical conflicts in the Great Lakes region, Museveni and Kagame have taken full advantage to disproportionately advance the interests of Batutsi in the region as an integral part of building a Tutsi empire. Other members of the East African community acquiesced when Museveni decided he wanted political federation to be fast tracked over economic integration so that federation is achieved while he is still president and he becomes the first federation president by virtue of his seniority. Anticipating federation may not be ready before 2016, Museveni has started campaigning for 2016 presidential elections.

It is reported that Kagame recently announced after a meeting between Rwanda and Uganda delegations that national borders in East Africa should be eliminated because they were drawn by colonizers of Africa and independent states are not obliged to keep them.

To protect Museveni western powers have focused evaluation on security in the Great Lakes region and participation in peacekeeping operations. Regarding the economy focus has been on economic growth and per capita income, controlling inflation, privatizing and liberalizing the economy and diversifying exports. They have ignored skewed income distribution, rising poverty and unemployment, collapsing education, healthcare and environmental systems as well as rampant corruption, sectarianism, cronyism and mismanagement of public funds and abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Museveni has also been tolerated to reappoint dismissed and censured ministers for corruption, divide up the country into tribal-like and economically unviable entities called districts and appoint some 70 ministers that consume a large chunk of development funds.

Confident that he had suffocated Ugandans to the point of no resistance to his dictatorship and assured of solid western support for serving them well, Museveni finally declared his mission on April 4, 1997. “My mission is to see that Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire [DRC] become federal states under one nation”(EIR Special Report 1997). Why he left out Somalia remains unclear.

As part of the final phase towards realization of Tutsi Empire, Kagame and Museveni have agreed to eliminate state borders within the East African Community possibly beginning with the border between Rwanda and Uganda which could happen anytime from now if Ugandans, East African community, African Union and the rest of the world does not object and condemn the decision.

Until recently, Museveni was garlanded as the dean of the breed of African leaders and his championship in efforts to bring stability in the Great Lakes region from Sudan to Burundi to Rwanda to DRC (In fact Museveni and Kagame have planted seeds of instability in their efforts to make Batutsi a dominant power over other ethnic groups that are far superior numerically – and now educated, well travelled and know their rights and freedoms – over Batutsi in the region). He was christened the darling of the West and invited regularly to attend Summits of G8. Uganda was regarded as an economic success story to be emulated by other developing countries. With collapse of SAP and rising opposition against NRM regime, former supporters are recasting their approach to Uganda.

Thankfully, the tide has turned and the West is seeing Uganda through different lenses. It is possible that through improved democracy and governance underpinned by creation of an independent electoral commission, restoration of term limits, standardization of campaign finance and fight against corruption, sectarianism, cronyism and mismanagement of public finance, Uganda could soon be counted among countries on the way to realizing true democracy in which the people elect their representatives and hold them accountable for commissions and omissions. These measures will likely put an end to the pursuit of a reckless dream of a Tutsi Empire in Middle Africa.

 Written by Eric Kashambuzi

DRC Warlord Sentence A Joke, Say Ngos, Inter Press Service, Thursday, July 12, 2012 (posted by Global Issues)

DRC Warlord Sentence A Joke, Say Ngos

  • by Emmanuel Chaco (kinshasa)
  • Thursday, July 12, 2012
  • Inter Press Service

Non-governmental organisations in the Democratic Republic of Congo province where Thomas Lubanga Dyilo used children as fighters in his militia in 2002 to 2003 have slammed his 14-year sentence as inadequate — and potentially dangerous.

The International Criminal Court sentenced Dyilo, a former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, to 14 years in prison for recruiting children during a bloody conflict in the northeastern DRC province of Ituri.

‘Fourteen years is a joke. Taking into account the six years he has already spent in prison (since his arrest in 2006), he will serve only eight more,’ Joël Bisubu, from the NGO Justice Plus, told IPS.

‘For his victims — and their families — who agreed to testify in court, Lubanga’s return to DRC will spark fear of reprisals. It would be good for him to be tried for other crimes he committed in Ituri, in addition to the recruitment and use of minors as combat troops in his militia.’

Bisubu, a human rights defender, said he was worried by the idea that Lubanga could finish serving his sentence so soon. ‘Lubanga’s early return (to DRC) makes me afraid, since he could well return as a hero. Many people in his community feel that it was wrong that he was sent to the ICC in the first place, since in their view he fought to protect them.’

The conflict in the DRC’s north-eastern Ituri region, lasting from 1999 until 2007, initially involved the Lendu, a group made up principally of farmers who migrated from Sudan centuries ago, and the Hema: more recent arrivals in the area. Fighting soon spread, however, to encompass other ethnic groups such as the Ngiti, generally perceived as loyal to the Lendu, and the Gegere, seen as supporting the Hema. The bloodshed claimed at least 60,000 lives.

Militias such as the Forces de Résistance Patriotique d’Ituri (Patriotic Resistance Forces of Ituri, or FRPI) and the Front Nationaliste et Intégrationniste (Nationalist and Integrationist Front, FNI) fought on one side, claiming to defend the Lendu and Ngiti — while the UPC took up the banner of Hema supremacy.

In 2004, the DRC government asked the ICC to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on its territory since July 2002. An arrest warrant for Lubanga was issued in 2006.

On Jul. 10, the ICC sentenced Lubanga to 14 years in prison rather than the 30 years asked for by the court’s prosecutor. ‘Lubanga must benefit from extenuating circumstances, notably for having agreed to cooperate with the court,’ said Paul Madidi, the ICC’s spokesperson in DRC.

The Office of the Prosecutor responded to the sentencing with a press statement. ‘By sentencing Thomas Lubanga Dyilo to 14 years in prison for the crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities, International Criminal Court judges have sent a clear message to perpetrators of crimes: you will not go unpunished.’

But the Prosecutor’s Office also said it was studying the judgement in detail and waiting to hear the judges’ decision on reparations before deciding whether or not to appeal.

‘Fear over Lubanga’s eventual return is very much a concern for our members and their families,’ said Emilie Buza, from the NGO Forum of Mothers of Ituri (FOMI), a group which includes many direct victims of abuses committed by the FPLC.

‘In 2003, we decided to come together to defend the interests of mothers in Ituri and we set up our NGO to defend the rights of victims of grave violations of human rights in court,’ she said.

‘We have produced many investigative reports which we have sent to the ICC and the United Nations. They all bear our names.’

Franck Mulenda, a lawyer for a group of victims whose identities throughout the lengthy trial have, for their safety, remained protected by code names, said the sentence is not that important.

‘At this point, what interests the victims who have been involved in the case is not the length of the sentence handed down by the court, but rather the decision on reparations that will be handed down in a few days,’ said the lawyer.

© Inter Press Service (2012) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Is Uganda being silently “tutsified” by Museveni? Written by Eric Kashambuzi, on 04-08-2012 08:32

With Museveni and Kagame recent announcement that national borders should be eliminated, the race to ‘tutsify’ Uganda and the Great Lakes region within the context of the East African community has entered the final phase. What are the views of Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania on this decision?

Museveni and Kagame have worked together on this project for a long time. Since Museveni came to power he has repeatedly talked about vision, metamorphosis or fundamental change for Uganda. Many of us thought he meant commercialization of agriculture, industrialization of the economy, social development, national unity, democracy and good governance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. But 26 years have passed and none of this has happened. But Museveni keeps talking and we keep listening and giving him the vote or he steals it. While Museveni is talking and we are listening he is very busy albeit quietly doing something fundamentally different.

Those of us who know Museveni from his early days are not surprised. I can tell you with full confidence that Museveni didn’t come to power to develop Uganda. He came to power to weaken Ugandans and cripple Uganda institutions, militarize and tutsify the country and then use it as a spring board to create a Tutsi empire in the Great Lakes region. The timing of regional geopolitics, structural adjustment program and decentralization strategy gave him the tools he needed together with strong backing of some powerful western and other governments, corporations and international institutions to embark on his project.

To use Uganda as a base for his imperial adventure, Ugandans had to be rendered powerless and voiceless economically and politically. He used balanced budget, regressive taxation (VAT), controlling inflation and diversification of exports. He privatized the economy, allowed labor flexibility and liberalized the economy and exchange rate. He drove the state out of the economy and introduced the invisible hand of market forces as the engine of economic growth, leaving distribution of economic growth benefits to trickledown economics which Museveni knew (as he claims to have studied economics) had never worked anywhere in the world. He imported young expatriates to run the economy and barred experienced Ugandans in the diaspora from returning home. He diverted development funds to build military and a presidential jet, police and intelligence forces, torture houses and prisons. He froze political activities and refused to hold elections for ten years (others hold elections within less than two years of coming to power by military means). Ugandans became poor, jobless, hungry, sick and homeless. People in this condition don’t have much resistance unless they have strong leadership which they didn’t have since political parties were not allowed to function. Then Museveni began his grand design of fundamental change.

Museveni packed the National Resistance Council or constituent assembly with Batutsi people (used generically to include Batutsi, Bahima, Bahororo and Banyamulenge but who use different names and speak local languages) to draw up the constitution on Museveni terms. In disguise for Batutsi who are nomadic and are more mobile than any other group, Ugandans were granted the right to settle anywhere in the country including on other people’s land as it turned out in practice. This allowed Batutsi to scatter to all corners of Uganda and speak Kinyarwanda which is similar to Kifumbira (a Uganda version of Kinyarwanda). Bus loads of people and cows were driven from one corner mostly Kabale district where a majority of Batutsi reside to another corner of Uganda. Then as Joe Magandazi advised an act of parliament was passed empowering parents to give their children any (Uganda) name. Batutsi therefore were given Baganda, Bakiga, Banyoro, Bacholi, Bateso names etc to confuse the public about Batutsi identity. Batutsi are also encouraged to learn local languages once they settle in a new place.

From the start Museveni was concerned about finding land for his landless tribe’s people and he used Uganda once he captured power. He tried to make them citizens after he captured power but it didn’t work out. So, he started the indirect and silent method being discussed here. These are facts and there are many Ugandans who know what I am talking about. Those who oppose me should do so on facts, not emotions and/or threats. Second, I am among those arguing for peaceful resolution of our differences so that all people can live together in peace and happiness. Those who accuse me of trying to incite genocide have no basis for that claim except to try and silence me (so that dispossession of Ugandans continues) which isn’t going to happen as long as the problems remain or I am still alive.

Museveni has repeatedly stated that Uganda has plenty of unutilized arable land, implying that Uganda can accommodate more people (at the same time compelling Ugandans to limit family size because there is an acute shortage of land). As a complement, Museveni has repeatedly stated that Uganda must adopt a liberal immigration policy so that outsiders can enter Uganda and propel development without impediments. It is important to note that since 1994 Bahutu in general don’t come to Uganda which is considered hostile and would be returned to Rwanda to face allegations of genocide charges, so people coming to Uganda are Batutsi who occasionally register as Bafumbira and Banyamulege who register as Congolese.

Uganda has the most liberal refuge policy allowing refugees mostly Batutsi to settle with kin and kith or are allocated land sometimes by evicting indigenous owners. Consequently, “The Rwandese are the best known of all strangers in Uganda. They have settled in Kigezi, the most overpopulated district of Uganda and either have retained their ethnicity or have claimed to be [Ba]Kiga. In the 1920s land shortages began to force Rwandese and Rundi to migrate to Buganda province as agricultural laborers [shamba boys or herders]. … The number of men migrating far outnumbered women”(Shack and Skinner1979).

Since 1959 Uganda became a major recipient of Tutsi refugees (some have argued that these are Bahororo including Kagame whose ancestors returned to Rwanda when Mpororo kingdom disintegrated but tenaciously clung to their Bahororo identity and were warmly received in Kigezi and Ankole although the two districts were heavily populated). Kangaho a member of LEGCO from Ankole argued strongly that Ankole was able to accommodate the refugees and their cattle against objections of others and in the end got his way. From there some filtered with their cattle to all parts of Uganda especially in Masaka as the British administration didn’t want its plans for Uganda independence to be delayed by refugee problems. Consequently unlike other groups, Batutsi are found in all parts of Uganda especially in Buganda where they have adopted local names and local languages but rarely integrated socially say through intermarriage with local women, retaining their Nilotic Batutsi identity and working in the interest of their kin and kith who still need land, education, healthcare and jobs, not in the interest of indigenous people they live among. That is why pure Baganda are complaining that despite well representation in parliament and cabinet, Buganda is getting impoverished and marginalized. These are not pleasant stories to tell but they are facts.

This scattering of Batutsi (and Museveni knows where they are) is the main reason why Museveni has created so many districts so that well funded Batutsi are being elected to district councils and parliament, wielding enormous political and economic power. To help him identify Batutsi in Uganda and elsewhere Museveni hired the best historians as his presidential advisers to compile a list of all Batutsi and where they live. So when Museveni appoints someone to a high office from Eastern, Western, Buganda or Northern regions that person will most likely be a Mututsi who has registered as an Itesot, Muganda, Munyankole or Mucholi or Mulango. To confuse the public most Batutsi (there could be a few non-Batutsi) have dropped their religious or first names. Consequently, key and strategic positions have gone to Batutsi, so don’t be fooled when Museveni gives you a distribution of posts by names. They may carry Kiganda or Kinyankole names when they are Batutsi. Ambassadors and/or their staff especially to the United States, United Kingdom and United Nations in New York are mostly Batutsi but carry different regional names.

Apparently NRM thinks it has monopoly over interacting with foreign governments and no one else. When another organ does so you hear stories that plans are underway to sell the country or resources to foreign countries forgetting how NRM got into power in the first place.

To prevent people from complaining about blatant sectarian practice, parliament passed a law forbidding complaints of a sectarian nature, failure to do would land one in jail for a long time. Therefore the anti-sectarian law is not about preventing sectarian practice but about preventing complaint against sectarian practice. Museveni also made sure there are no records on immigration. The 2010 Uganda Population report observed that migration information is scarce except census reports compiled every ten years during which time many things have happened like loss of migration records. The sketchy information available shows that the volume of internal migration was highest towards Kampala. Kabale district which is the entry point for Rwandese was the biggest loser of people, meaning that they have scattered to all parts of Uganda. Creation of Greater Kampala which has taken a big chunk of Buganda land is designed to accommodate this influx in a no-man’s land. Also expanding municipality boundaries deep into rural areas is to open up land for Batutsi settlement because they have access to credit and political cover to purchase land. Creating new parliamentary seats is a cover which greedy politicians swallowed without chewing.

In the absence of migration information, one could extract useful information from vital registration on births, deaths and marriages. But the files got lost or they are kept out of public reach. Consequently we don’t know (except a few people in the government that have up-to-date information) how many Batutsi are in Uganda or for that matter other migrants. Someone in the government who has accurate data on the settlement of Batutsi is using that information to demarcate new districts fully aware that there are Batutsi living there who can be facilitated with funds and logistics to win district and parliamentary elections giving them enormous power to control those districts and in the end the whole country.

With economic and political power in Batutsi hands under the leadership of Bahororo, two things on the final stage of tutsifying Uganda are under way. First, upon arrival from Israel, the prime minister announced at the airport that the government was going to redistribute land from small holder to large scale farmers. Why he chose this moment to make the announcement is unclear. Who are these large scale farmers: mostly Batutsi and other foreigners who have access to credit and political cover? There are reports that the World Bank which we thought supported small holder farmers is allocating money to enable purchase of land by the rich from the poor. Yet the World Bank claims to be an institution to eradicate poverty. You don’t end poverty by dispossessing the poor. This goes against G8 and United Nations agreement to support funding for small scale farmers including in Uganda. To deprive Ugandans of their land, Museveni has been advocating that future economic growth prospects are in urban areas (wrongly using UK industrial revolution experience), not in agriculture. Many peasants have either been pushed into loans they could not pay and have lost their land or have sold and ended up in urban slums without any means of sustenance. That is why slums in Kampala are spreading at breakneck speed. Already, about 70 per cent of Ugandans in towns live in slums.

Second, Museveni and Kagame have agreed to begin a process of eliminating the border between Uganda and Rwanda, reasoning that these are colonial borders and post-independence governments are not bound by colonial decisions. The reason behind this decision is to open Uganda gates for Batutsi in Rwanda, Burundi and DRC to enter Uganda and grab land paid for with World Bank money.

To thwart opposition to this grand design, Museveni made sure that the major opposition parties are filled with Batutsi or Ugandans aligned with them through marriage or in some other ways. Batutsi influence in parliament and district councils is growing. That is why these institutions are quiet about land grabbing and eliminating Uganda border with Rwanda. Museveni has also refused a federal system of government and issuing of ID cards to prevent identification of Batutsi.

In short, this is Museveni’s vision for Uganda. This is Museveni’s idea of metamorphosis or fundamental change for Uganda. He has had tremendous support from within and without Uganda by people and institutions that stand to gain through this fundamental change. That is why Museveni has insisted he is the only person with a vision for Uganda and he is running again until he has joined Uganda and Rwanda into one country with one flag, one national anthem and one president (there might be a fight between Kagame and Museveni over who becomes president first, remember Kisangani war over Congo minerals). Then he will grab Kenya and Tanzania and DRC whole or in part and declare his Tutsi Empire.

That is why Museveni refuses to appoint an independent electoral commission so he doesn’t lose the election and his supporters keep quiet. That is why he has refused a federal system of government so that he keeps all power in his hands and no meaningful objection is raised by the donor community. That is why he can afford to use public funds for his re-election and his sponsors keep quiet. That is why he can afford to appoint over 70 ministers and donors who contribute much to the budget keep quiet. That is why he can divide the country from some 30 districts to over 100 and the donors keep quiet. That is why he can divert money from development to the military and the donor community is quiet. That is why he can refuse to fund school lunches and the donor community keeps quiet. That is why Museveni can invade other countries and the international community keeps quiet. That is why corruption, sectarianism and mismanagement are rampant and the donors are quiet. The complaints donors make are not strong to shake Museveni into corrective action. Museveni hasn’t budged because he is doing what many of the donors are interested in and they have turned a blind eye to rising levels of poverty, unemployment, disease, hunger, functional illiteracy, slums and other excesses that have reduced Ugandans to voiceless and powerless onlookers.

A true and patriotic Ugandan would not accept policies like these. Is it too late to fight back? No. Ugandans still have a chance. To succeed, however, we need to understand who true Ugandans are. This is everyone’s responsibility. In our communities we know who is who. We need to work together and defeat NRM. We need to avoid being corrupted with temporary inducements from NRM. We need dedicated leaders based on merit, not parochial considerations. We don’t need leaders who get elected and then hibernate when the house is ‘burning’ and then campaign to be re-elected in order to rebuild a new house. The ball is in our court. Let the word go out about Museveni and Kagame grand design. These two leaders may be in good books in some quarters today and can do what they want with impunity. Tomorrow could be a different day. We have seen it happen in our lifetime.

In his swearing-in address in 1986, Museveni advised that Ugandans must “get to the heart of the matter and find out what the problem is. Being a leader is like being a medical doctor. A medical doctor must diagnose his patient’s disease before he can prescribe treatment. Similarly, a political leader must diagnose correctly the ills of society” Y. K. Museveni 1989). In the above paragraphs, we have identified the problem which must be treated by peaceful dialogue for equitable benefit to all stakeholders.

So fellow Ugandans, say a prayer and try by non-violent means in the first instance to regain our rights and freedoms. No one else will do it for us: others can only extend a helping hand if they realize we are serious, organized and well led. UDU is with you all the way.

Is there anything in Uganda that NRM has done right?

With a professional eye, it is difficult to see what NRM government has done right. However, it is very easy to see what it has done wrong. The costs have by far exceeded the benefits, raising serious questions about how long Ugandans should sustain NRM in power. So far, surrogates for the government have failed to convince the public. That they have failed comes through when asked to provide success stories. They don’t even know how to successfully attack their opponents, ending up embarrassing themselves when asked to substantiate their allegations. Let us illustrate what has gone wrong.

1. In the countryside, fisheries, forests, woodlands, wetlands and grasslands of Uganda that Winston Churchill talked and wrote about in 1907 have been extensively used with serious environmental damage. The clearing of vegetation to increase crop and animal production for domestic consumption and export has had negative impact. Vegetative cover has three functions. It protects soils from erosion, helps rainwater sink into the ground and maintain or raise water tables and contributes to convectional rainfall. Extensive de-vegetation has exposed soils to wind and rain erosion, water runoff has increased causing floods and lowering water tables that plants with short roots do not get enough water and have dried causing the development of desertification conditions (dust storms, shrinking water bodies and disappearing rivers – Kiborogota disappeared a long time ago and Rwizi is on the way to extinction on NRM watch). Convectional rainfall has also declined. Thermal (temperature) and hydrological (water) regimes have been adversely impacted resulting in rising temperatures and declining rainfall, hence warmer local climate change that has facilitated the spread of mosquitoes and malaria. The resulting combination of eroded soils, droughts and floods has contributed to a reduction in agricultural productivity and total production, leading to shortages of agricultural supplies (also contributed to by food exports) and the associated rising prices beyond the means of many Uganda consumers, hence rising malnutrition and other health disabilities like insanity. FAO published a report a few years ago and warned that if environmental degradation is not arrested and reversed Uganda will turn into a desert within 100 years – a very short time indeed by historical standards which NRM does not appear to view that way. Already some areas that were once crop cultivation some with two growing seasons a year have turned into grazing land conditions because of insufficient moisture for crop cultivation.

2. Inappropriate urban policies have contributed to two major problems especially in the nation’s capital city of Kampala. Unplanned construction of buildings has blocked water drainage channels causing frequent flooding and stagnant water that has created breeding grounds for mosquitoes to reproduce rapidly and transmit malaria. A combination of stagnant water in urban areas and warmer climate change as in Kabale district has increased mosquito population and deaths caused by malaria have doubled. Rapid rural-urban migration has given rise to rapid sprawl of slums to the extent that some 70 percent of urban population lives in slums and are experiencing all sorts of economic, social, environmental and moral challenges.

3. Deficits in social policy have given rise to poor school attendance, poor quality and largely irrelevant education and functional illiteracy of many graduates most of them unemployable. Poor health and nutrition policy has resulted in high levels of mortality especially among women and children. Re-emergence of diseases that had disappeared is a reflection of serious deficits in the health sector. Malnutrition is killing more people in Uganda than malaria – and deaths from malaria have doubled. A combination of poor education, poor health and poor diet has undermined human capital formation that is necessary in a knowledge-based global economy. That is why Uganda youth are unemployed while jobs with knowledge-based skills are going to foreigners including Kenyans. Defenders of government should not describe Uganda jobs going to foreign workers because of the forces of globalization beyond government control. It is the result of NRM policy failure.

4. There is nothing good to report about infrastructure. The roads are in a sorry state especially in rural areas. When bridges are washed away which are costly to repair given scarce local government resources roads become unusable, with multiple problems. The countryside is cut off from the outside world, trade is affected, shortages in rural and urban areas increase, economic growth falters and poverty escalates. Shortages of affordable energy have undermined rural transformation. The high prices of kerosene and electricity have increased the use of charcoal and fuel wood, resulting in accelerated deforestation. Providing grid electricity from Jinja or elsewhere for political purposes has not served any useful economic purpose because the majority of Ugandans simply cannot afford it.

5. At one time especially in the 1990s, the government boasted about rapid economic growth reaching 10 percent and poverty declining dramatically from 50 something to thirty and later to 20 something percent. The president boasted that there was no problem NRM could not handle. He confidently reported that Uganda would be an industrial country within 15 years and tolerating high inflation was indiscipline. With the economy growing at 3 percent and poverty at 80 percent in 2012, the government no longer boasts. Instead it is blaming external factors and opposition sabotage for Uganda’s current ills including de-industrialization. NRM did not realize (or knew but ignored it) that what drove Uganda’s rapid economic growth was not market forces and private sector under favorable structural adjustment conditions. Uganda’s source of economic growth especially in the 1990s came from utilization of excess capacity inherited in 1986, the presence of foreign troops that increased demand for goods and services and improved security in southern Uganda (that is why insecure north and east of the country did not share in rapid economic growth). With troops and excess capacity gone and walk to work demonstrations discouraging investments, the economic growth dropped precipitously from 10 percent in mid-1990s to 3 percent in 2012. To meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 including reducing poverty and hunger in half Uganda’s economy needs to grow at a minimum rate of 8-9 percent per annum. The prospects for realizing that goal in the next three and half years are very bleak indeed.

6. NRM’s performance in democracy and governance is defined by deficits. Elections since 1996 have been marked by violence, intimidation, bribery, overuse of incumbency and fraud to the extent that opposition parties rejected the 2011 results and have declared the current government illegitimate. There is virtually no transparency in government operations and accountability is non-existent. As mentioned already, things that have gone wrong are blamed on external factors beyond control and opposition sabotage. Despite complaints from Ugandans and development partners, rampant corruption, sectarianism, cronyism and mismanagement of public funds have intensified. When pressure mounts, NRM government embarks on investigations that produce reports that gather dust on shelves while bad governance continues unabated. Donors that have continued to pump money into Uganda have helped to prolong irresponsible NRM behavior.

Supporters of NRM regime have pointed to successes in export diversification, the number of vehicles on Uganda roads, mobile phones and country houses roofed with corrugated iron sheets. Here is what NRM supporters don’t tell you that negate overall performance.

1. It is true that Uganda’s unprocessed exports have been diversified with non-traditional exports (NTEs) including foodstuffs such as fish, beans and maize traditionally supplied for domestic consumption. Fisheries (wild harvesting and fish farming in ponds) were developed by the colonial administration to provide an affordable source of protein to low income households. Fish and beans provided enough protein. The export of these two items has reduced supplies in the domestic market. Consequently Uganda diet for the majority of consumers lacks protein. The export of food has resulted in two major problems. Ugandans are not eating enough. Some thirty percent go to bed hungry every night. Those who do eat one meal of maize or cassava a day or in two days. Eating too much cassava or maize has contributed to serious neurological handicaps including insanity, explaining why Uganda’s mental hospitals are overflowing. Despite warnings of the danger of poor diet, the president has insisted Uganda will continue to export food to benefit from high external demand which benefits large scale producers but grossly disadvantages Uganda consumers. Government cannot even support a school lunch program so that food for export is not reduced. NRM has amply demonstrated disinterest in Uganda’s human welfare. Those Ugandans and others who have not seen this must recast how they view the NRM government.

2. The number of used vehicles which in other countries would have been taken off the road for pollution has increased on Uganda roads. The result of too many vehicles on limited roads especially in Kampala became time consuming and counterproductive because of traffic jam. The exhaust they emit became a health hazard. When you add up the impact of these two shortcomings you see clearly why on balance too many used vehicles on Uganda roads are not something to boast about.

3. It is true that the number of mobile phones has increased tremendously. Mobile phones were praised in terms of communication opportunities they offered in commercial terms. It was believed for example that farmers would get information about price levels in different parts of Uganda so that they are not cheated by middlemen. But the majority of phones have ended up serving a social rather than an economic function. To buy the very expensive air time many phone owners have had to make a choice between putting food on the table and buying air time. The latter has often ended up the winner. Many mobile phone users in rural areas do not have electricity to charge them. So they have to go to town and that is a day lost. Providing mobile phones should have been synchronized with affordable energy supply. Mobile phones have for many users become a liability than an asset.

4. In a New York restaurant, I had a long conversation with a compatriot from the same home area as mine about the achievements of NRM government. He stressed that the most visible achievement was the multiplication of country houses roofed with corrugated iron sheets because NRM’s coffee price policy had put more money into the pockets of coffee farmers like never before. I asked him to give me names of people who grow coffee that has earned them so much money. He looked baffled because he could not find them. Then he faced me sternly and asked me to explain where the money came from. I told him that before Amin came to power there was a lot of thatch grass in wetlands and in areas where agriculture was prohibited for ecological reasons. Amin’s agricultural policy of using any piece of land available including swamps resulted in de-vegetation. Consequently thatch materials which were free disappeared virtually overnight. Households had to purchase corrugated iron sheets. Those who had wage incomes used part of it and purchased iron sheets. Those who didn’t sold part of their assets such as cattle, goats or a piece of land to raise money and purchase iron sheets. I told him a story of two families that forced their daughters to marry early to raise money to be able to roof their houses with corrugated iron sheets. I further told him that because iron sheets were expensive new houses were on average smaller than old ones that used free grass thatch materials, leading to overcrowding and associated health hazards. He concurred with the presentation from our home area in southwest Uganda.

Limited space does not allow giving more illustrations. Hopefully the above analysis suffices that NRM does not have a good record. This has been the result of many factors including inappropriate policies, many incompetent staff at professional and political level (ministers or ministers of state with high school diploma or dubious degree can’t handle today’s complex issues) and poor governance. Above all, as we have stated many times before, the core of NRM has devoted disproportional amount of time on planning the colonization of the Great Lakes region with tacit support of external helpers: that is where the bulk of development funds has gone. That is why modernization of agriculture and poverty reduction programs did not get off the ground. That is why East African political federation, elimination of national borders and naturalization of illegal immigrants and refugees have become top priority. Hopefully Kenya and Tanzania understand what is happening. For these reasons NRM has no case to continue governing Uganda. The time has come for Ugandans to look for an alternative government to save Uganda from extinction. States have disappeared before! When it finally happens don’t say you didn’t know what NRM was up to all along. We have told you many times already.

Thus far UDU is the only one with a viable alternative. The National Recovery Plan has been well drafted and well received at home and abroad. That is why NRM government is unable or unwilling to comment on it because it contrasts NRM failed policies. UDU has seasoned officials who understand Great Lakes complexes within which to situate Uganda. It has a bottom up and participatory approach to development and a public and private partnership development model. Our sense of direction can be deduced from what we have published so far and posted at Give us a chance and you won’t be disappointed again. We are ready to hit the ground running.