Tag Archives: all

Museveni has no legitimacy to govern in Uganda

Museveni has repeatedly stated that the people of Uganda are sovereign. Ipso facto, Museveni cannot govern without their consent. There has to be a contract between him and the citizens of Uganda. Without this contract, Museveni has no legitimacy. Without legitimacy at home, Museveni and his government cannot be recognized abroad and welcome into the community of nations. Thus, without legitimacy, Museveni cannot represent the people of Uganda abroad or enter into agreement (contract) on their behalf. Museveni may have power through the barrel of the gun, but that does not confer legitimacy. Using power without legitimacy is tyranny.

The people of Uganda have withheld consent because the 2011 elections from the highest to the lowest level lacked a level playing field. They were organized by a discredited electoral commission, some five million Uganda voters were disenfranchised, an equal number of foreigners voted for NRM, there was massive intimidation by security forces, and NRM used public resources to fund its campaigns. The international observer teams have concluded that the elections were not free and fair.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Uganda’s 2011 elections are illegitimate

There is consensus that the elections results from presidential to the lowest level are illegitimate for two main reasons: disenfranchising some five million Uganda voters and allowing an equal number of foreigners to vote for NRM candidates including the president. The Commonwealth Observer Team concluded that the electoral cycle lacked a level playing field.

The disenfranchised voters are demanding that a transitional coalition government be established to prepare for fresh free and fair elections. In this regard, we applaud the efforts being made by religious leaders to bring the opposition parties and NRM to work out a mutually acceptable political arrangement. The discussions must therefore focus on a transitional government. The idea of giving cabinet posts to opposition presidential candidates with a view to forming a government of national unity is not acceptable. Ugandans also demand that the discussions must be transparent and the terms of reference made public. Secret deals are not welcome.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Museveni’s despotism must be stopped

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

We have agreed to adequately prepare an all embracing case for rejecting Museveni as Uganda’s despotic ruler who is increasingly relying on foreigners as Ugandans abandon him. We have also agreed that our grievances should be anchored on facts – not emotions or rumors.

Museveni has violated the constitution of Uganda which recognizes the sovereign and inalienable right of Ugandans to establish a socio-economic and political order based on the principles of unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice and progress. Museveni has ruled unilaterally using others as rubber stamp through bribery or people with little or no interest in Uganda.

We have analyzed at some length Museveni’s abuse of our political rights through, among other things, rigging elections since 1996 and using mercenaries from the great lakes region.

When Museveni had an interview in 1994 with an American journalist Bill Berkeley he sent a message to Ugandans that we did not pick up. He said that “I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave”(The Atlantic Monthly September 1994). This was a powerful message. Why should he blame his white cousins? Museveni believes he is white! I am told that in 1986 he was sworn in by a white judge when he became president! He cannot blame white neo-colonialism which has been imposed on Uganda on his watch.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Museveni has not felt the wind of change

On February 3, 1960 former Britain’s Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan addressed both houses of parliament in South Africa. He warned the Nationalist Government of South Africa of ‘the wind of change’ blowing through the continent. He served notice that Britain could no longer support the policy of apartheid. He stressed that Britain rejected the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. He added that ‘individual merit alone is the criterion of man’s advancement, political or economic” (Fifty Correspondents of Reuters, Putman 1967).

Museveni came to power in 1986, at a time of economic and political crisis. The leaders of Africa had been discredited for economic mismanagement and one party political system. There was a search for political and economic stability. The new breed of African leaders shot to the scene through the barrel of the gun including Museveni.

Economic reforms through structural adjustment necessitated curbing freedom to make sure opposition groups did not emerge. In order to implement the austerity program of structural adjustment in Uganda Museveni with tacit support of proponents of structural adjustment allowed abuse of human rights. His abusive actions were conveniently described as boldness. Museveni unlike other leaders was given room to postpone multiparty politics, enabling him to crush DP and UPC.

Read the full post
Posted on by

How French soldiers saved the National Assembly

In 1789, the king of France convened the Estates General (parliament) to find a solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. The meeting took place in the midst of food shortages, rising poverty and unemployment. The commoners (the Third Estate) demanded changes in the voting pattern and sitting arrangement which had advantaged the First (clergy) and Second (nobility) Estates. The King refused, insisting that each estate must meet separately and vote as before. This arrangement had always benefited the First and Second Estates that voted together defeating the Third Estate 2 to1. The commoners who constituted 98 percent of the total population of France decided they were the nation of France. They established a National Assembly to draw up a new constitution for France that would level the playing field. The king ordered it to disperse. It refused.

Because the king did not trust his royal troops, he mobilized mercenaries. When the people of Paris who had been protesting food shortages and rising prices heard that mercenaries were coming to Paris, they decided to arm themselves in defense of their city. They stole arms from a military hospital and proceeded to the Bastille prison (used as jail for political prisoners) to get more weapons and gun powder. The prison guards began to shoot and some of the rioters were killed. The commoners loaded their weapons and fought back. The prison guards had heavier weapons and pounded the commoners who had light weapons.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Kale Kayihura can’t impose Museveni as president of Uganda

In 1993 Museveni declared that if the people who are the sovereign force don’t want their leader, then he/she should go. He added unambiguously that the role of the army is to guard borders and maintain internal peace. “The army should guard what the people want, not do what the people don’t want”. The police force also has responsibility to maintain law and order.

Following the massively rigged elections of February 2011 with some five million Ugandans disenfranchised and many foreigners brought in to vote, the people of Uganda have rejected the results of these rigged elections at the presidential, parliamentary and local levels. They want to exercise their right of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech to denounce the results and stop the formation of an illegitimate government. International instruments and Uganda’s constitution allow peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Kayihura cannot violate these rights and freedoms with impunity.

By banning planned demonstrations under the pretext that they will be violent, Kale Kayihura is in effect imposing Museveni as president of Uganda. This imposition goes against Museveni’s own understanding of the will of the people as he articulated in 1993 namely that security forces should guard what the people want, not do what the people don’t want. The people of Uganda have rejected the February 18 elections so Museveni cannot be president without their consent. Millions of them were disenfranchised.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Museveni’s absolute power and 2011 election fraud

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

There was a time when monarchs in Europe had absolute powers and ruled by divine right (the right to rule came from God, not from the people). In the 18th century, leading (enlightenment) thinkers in Western Europe challenged the power of absolute monarchy.

To prevent one leader or a group of people from becoming too powerful and gain total control of government, Baron de Montesquieu suggested separation of power into three independent branches. The legislative branch would pass laws; the executive and judicial branches would implement and interpret them respectively.

The independence of the legislative and judicial branches has kept the executive branch in check in mature democratic countries. Consequently executive branches do not meddle in election matters.

However, in some countries separation of powers exists in theory only. For example, in Uganda presidents have reduced the independence of legislative and judicial branches and strengthened the power of the executive branch. Legislative and judicial branches have virtually become rubber stamps for the presidency – hence opposition leaders’ decision not to go to the Supreme Court after the rigged 2011 elections.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Uganda’s 2011 elections results are illegitimate

Greetings fellow Ugandans and friends

Let me begin with good news. The United Nations and the international community in general have increasingly shifted focus from support to governments and national sovereignty to people and their search for freedom, liberty, dignity and equality.

In 2005, the United Nations adopted a resolution on the Responsibility to Protect. It means that if a government is unwilling or unable to protect its people against crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to respond and restore order.

Thus, as we struggle to prevent Museveni from forming an illegitimate regime, we need to realize that the international community is on the side of Ugandans who have rejected the recently held elections. To facilitate our discussion this morning about the illegitimacy of elections, let us remind ourselves of the following points.

1. For elections results to be legitimate there must be a level playing field to allow a free and fair electoral cycle. While peace on polling day is necessary, it is not sufficient to render elections results legitimate as some people have argued.

Read the full post
Posted on by

Let us make Uganda a country of laws, not dictators

When I was growing up, we had unwritten rules, regulations and procedures at family and community levels (I am not talking about the rulers and the ruled because that is a totally different story). Nobody was above them. They were designed to ensure justice and equality, maintain law and order and respect for private property. Everyone had dignity within that community. Individuals and groups had responsibilities. For example, among children, the older one was obliged to take care of the young ones. Preference was especially given to weak or sick members. We did not take advantage of them.

Stealing or possessing something that was not yours was strictly forbidden. For example, when you picked up some money or handkerchief you would take it to the priest who would announce lost and found items on Sunday. People who swindled others would not get away with it.

There were procedures for sharing information and resolving disputes to avoid rule of the jungle. The most important instrument was sharing information. If a neighbor found your child doing something inappropriate, parents would be notified to take corrective steps. If a child stayed with friends or relatives, parents or relatives would be notified. Disappearance of children was unheard of!

Read the full post
Posted on by

Kale Kayihura and peaceful demonstrations in Uganda

Uganda’s Inspector General of Police, Major General Kale Kayihura has issued two press releases and addressed the press in Kampala on peaceful demonstrations designed to reject the 2011 elections. He is reported to have warned that “The call for mass protests to challenge the results of the presidential elections is a declaration of war on the Government”. The warning has shifted from possible violent demonstrations to a declaration of war on the government. By declaring war means that the security forces are going to intervene either to prevent peaceful demonstrations from taking place or disperse them when they see fit. Let us share the following information with the Inspector General and the general public so that we fully understand our individual responsibility, accountability and liability.

First, the people of Uganda, like people elsewhere, have an inalienable (natural) political right of peaceful assembly and association. They also have the fundamental freedom of opinion and expression as well as the right to take part in the government of their choice, directly or through freely chosen representatives. These rights and freedoms are incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights to which Uganda is a signatory and legally-bound.

Read the full post
Posted on by