Friday, August 31, 2012
MUSEVENI CANNOT MANAGE THE CORRUPTION WAR IN UGANDA: AS UGANDA LEADS NOW IN THE REGION, MUNTU A BETTER BET
UGANDA MOST CORRUPT IN EAST AFRICA
Ugandans can better focus on Muntu as an option to fight corruption and other vices of the Museveni era
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, 31 August 2012 00:45
Written by Hussein Bogere
Uganda has once again emerged the country with the highest levels of bribery in East Africa, according to the East African Bribery Index 2012, a survey by Transparency International.
The survey report, launched in Kampala yesterday, also showed the Uganda Police on top of the list of bribery-prone institutions. The judiciary and land services follow in that order.
Carried out in the five east African countries of Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, the survey revealed that, at 40.7%, Uganda has the highest bribery levels in the region, followed by Tanzania (39.1%), Kenya (29.5%), Burundi (18.8%) and Rwanda (2.5%).
The findings are particularly disturbing because they show that the situation in Uganda is not improving. Last year, Uganda polled at 38%. What is more, the respondents (1449) drawn from central, eastern, northern and western Uganda strongly believe that bribery levels will increase in the coming years.
What the results from Uganda mean is that bribery will gravely add to the cost of doing business, which in turn affects production. At a regional level, bribery will adversely affect trade between nations with countries. There is, therefore, need to address the issue.
On the current state of corruption, 82% of respondents observed that corruption levels either remained as bad or increased in the last one year. The biggest reasons given for this trend were the lack of political will to fight the vice and the fact that government officials in Uganda are too corrupt to effectively fight corruption.
The trend, Patrick Kayemba of Transparency International Uganda Chapter said, is worrying. “We are worse off than we were one year ago in spite of having the best anti-corruption institutions in the region. This trend is very, very worrying. We need to ask ourselves, what is happening?”
Findings
The police (85) and judiciary (44) ranked the two top most bribery-prone institutions in Uganda followed by Tax services (32.5) land services (26.9) registry and licensing services (23.2), city and local councils (21.8), medical services (20.7) and educational institutions (16.5). Of particular concern is the rise in the probability of a service seeker being required to pay a bribe upon interaction (69.5% in 2010 and 74.1% in 2011).
The police were followed by city and local councils (54.3%), judiciary (49.6%), registry and licensing services (46.1%) and land services (46%). The findings, however, drew sharp criticism from the Commandant of the Police Professional Standards Unit.
“Those people claiming the police are corrupt are the corrupt ones. Do you think you are being sincere? You are trivializing the issue of corruption. To talk about police but you never ask how much it is paid,” Samuel Kyomukama said.
Most of the respondents said they believed bribery solicitation was highest in the judiciary and councils, although those sectors registered the lowest actual payments. The report, however, says the outcome of the police was consistent for the two indicators (48.2%) followed by tax services (40.6) and registry and licensing services (34%).
Asked whether they would have received the services if they had failed to pay a bribe, half of the respondents who paid the bribes believed that was the only way to access services from police (54%), tax services (46.5%), land services (40.5%), registry and licensing services (39.6%) and judiciary (36.6%).
In terms of the average size of the bribe, the judiciary topped (Shs 594,137) followed by land services (Shs 235,259), tax services (Shs 115,500), police (Shs 105,512) and education institutions (Shs 75,322). It is a change from 2010 and 2011 where the police, local authorities and Uganda Revenue Authority topped.
Uganda reported the lowest rate of corruption cases simply because 34.1% of the respondents knew no action would be take even if reported, 17.6% fear intimidation, while 12.8% fear to self-incriminate. Three of every four people interviewed are likely not to report bribery in future because almost half of the reports on corruption don’t get acted upon. The reasons aren’t any different from those cited in the previous years. hbogere@observer.ug
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Muntu has overtaken Mafabi
Top Stories
Friday, 31 August 2012 01:11
Written by Edris Kiggundu
4 Comments
E-mail Print PDF
[SEEING VICTORY? Maj Gen Mugisha Muntu is currently in the lead]
SEEING VICTORY? Maj Gen Mugisha Muntu is currently in the lead
If elections for the presidency of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) were held today, the largest number of delegates would vote for Maj Gen Mugisha Muntu, the Secretary for Mobilisation.
A new poll reveals that 46.9% of delegates would choose Muntu. This would put him comfortably ahead of his major opponent, Nandala Mafabi, the leader of the Opposition who was favoured by 25.7% of the respondents.
The third contender, Geoffrey Ekanya, managed a paltry 0.6% according to the poll, which reinforces the fact that the race is a two-horse affair. Research World International (RWI), an independent research company, carried out the poll between August 23 and August 29.
The total sample was 335 delegates out of a total of 900 delegates who are expected to vote on November 22, 2012. While the results of the poll could give an indicator on how the race could eventually turn out, the sampled figure (335) represents only 41% of the total party delegates. This means that the views of the majority of the delegates (59%) are yet to be sought and therefore no concrete conclusion as to who will win the race can be reached yet.
In any case, a significant number of respondents (26%) said they were still undecided, meaning there is still a lot to fight for. Of the 335 delegates interviewed, 102 are from western Uganda, 96 from Eastern Uganda, 64 from the Northern region and 73 from Central Uganda.
Sampled delegates said Muntu is a hardworking, dedicated and principled leader. He has the ability to attract NRM supporters to FDC, and having worked with President Museveni, knows his tricks. Muntu was army commander from 1989 to 1998.
“He has a character that attracts people to the party,” said a delegate from central region according to the survey questionnaire which contained eight questions.
Dr Patrick Wakida, the Chief Executive Officer of RWI, said the aim of the poll was to assess the opinions of the FDC delegates about the ongoing party primaries to choose the leader of FDC.
“This is a significant moment in the history of the party and people would like to know who among the candidates is best suited to replace Besigye,” Wakida said.
Those who said they would vote for Mafabi said he is an excellent mobiliser, hardworking and strong hearted. They also described him as an effective fighter against corruption. In a sign that ethnicity could be an issue in determining the next FDC leader, some delegates said they would vote for Mafabi because his leadership of the party would represent “a change from westerners.”
The few who said they would vote for Ekanya described him as “young and energetic.”
According to the poll, Muntu leads Mafabi across all the four regions, including the East where it has been thought that the Budadiri West legislator holds sway. Muntu registered 47% support in central, 45% in east, 44% in northern and 51% support in western Uganda.
Mafabi on the other hand got 29% support in central, 34% in east, 22% in north and 18% in western Uganda. Similarly, more males (48%) and females (46%) said they would vote for Muntu compared to Mafabi.
Heated contest?
The survey contrasts sharply with the outcome of another poll, conducted in April, which showed that Muntu and Mafabi were running neck and neck. The earlier survey, which sampled 1,000 respondents –– not necessarily delegates –– revealed that 25% of the respondents said they would vote for Mafabi while 23% settled for Muntu.
The same poll showed that each of the two favoured candidates led the other in regions where they hail from (Mafabi in the east and Muntu in the west). In the same vein, a sizeable percentage of the respondents (29%) were still undecided. So, taken on the surface, the latest poll suggests a number of things. Firstly, the race might not be as close as had been anticipated since Muntu enjoys a clear margin.
Secondly, it shows that Mafabi’s support has remained static between April and today. Margaret Wokuri, a key strategist for Team Mafabi yesterday told The Observer that the poll was lacking in several aspects.
“In research I would be more interested in analysis but when you look at this poll there is something that was hurried about it. It has no conclusion and most of the data is not analyzed. What were the underlying objectives of commissioning the research?” she queried.
Nonetheless, she said, Team Mafabi would use the information from the poll to examine their candidate’s weaknesses and find ways of turning them into strengths. Yet whatever one makes of the Muntu vs Mafabi duel, it has already generated a lot of excitement and anxiety with some bitter words exchanged.
The new poll confirms that many delegates are finding it difficult to make a choice between the two candidates, leaving many undecided (26%).
“They are all good,” one delegate said. Another said that while Muntu is not a good mobiliser, he is a better public speaker than Mafabi. It is Ekanya who received the harshest criticism. “He [Ekanya] is unserious,” one respondent said.
Currently all the candidates are traversing the country canvassing for votes among the delegates.
ekiggundu@observer.ug
GIVEN THE MASS POVERTY IN UGANDA, WE NEED TO TRY OUT THE FORMULA BELOW
Victory over Poverty (VP) is possible if the Means (M) and Competences (C) of the Community (C) are combined: VP = M X C X C
The Philosophical bases:
Ignite self – awareness among the poor segments of the population;
Enlighten the population on the immense managerial capacity in their cultural patrimony;
Lead rural populations to a lasting self – ownership.
MISSIONS OF (M X C X C)
Sensitization:
Urge the community to show concern as regards the poor and present the advantages entailed in promoting a socially balanced and an economically acceptable environment,
Economic Mission:
Stimulate in each poor his or her natural abilities as far as savings and wealth creation are concerned,
Social Mission:
Make every one aware of the fact that social actions cannot go without economic initiatives and unity is the Unique invincible strength as far as development is concerned. Use resources generated by economic actions to establish social infrastructures profitable to the community.
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS IN UGANDA PARLIAMENT
Source: The Clerk to Parliament
Members of Parliament seek for information or press for action through questions. It is a method of demanding for accountability from those in authority by making them put information on the record.
A question can be put to a Government Minister, Committee Chairperson or Parliamentary Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining pertinent information or pressing for action.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
Ministers are obliged to answer questions on matters relating to public affairs under their mandate. Committee Chairpersons may be asked questions relating to a Bill, Motion or other public matter related with the business of the House for which the Committee is responsible.
Questions may be asked of a Parliamentary Commissioner relating to the administration of Parliament or other Commission matters.
TYPES OF QUESTIONS
There are three types of questions that can be asked namely; oral questions, questions for written answer and urgent questions.
A Question for oral answer requires an oral reply. A Member who desires an oral answer to a question is required to mark it as “oral reply.”
Supplementary questions may arise from an oral question.
Questions for a written answer are printed in the official report and are not answered orally. They do not attract supplementary questions.
Questions of urgent nature relate to matters of urgent public importance. The Speaker determines if the question is urgent.
Notice of urgent questions should be given by delivery of written question to the office of the Clerk at least three working days before the day on which the Member proposes to ask the question.
CONTENT AND FORMAT OF QUESTIONS
Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure details conditions for admissibility of questions. Questions shall not be asked if they:
Relate to proceedings in a Committee which have not been tabled before the House.
Solicit expressions of an opinion or solution of an abstract legal case
Are of a hypothetical proposition
Contain any arguments, expression of opinion or inferences, imputations, epithets or controversial, ironical or offensive expression
Raise an issue already decided, or which has been answered substantially during the current session
Relate to the character or conduct of any person except in his or her official capacity.
Refer to more than one subject and is too lenthy.
Have answers available in official publications
Relate to the character or conduct of a person whose conduct can only be challenged on substantive motion.
Relate to a matter before court.
Include the names of persons or statements of fact unless they are necessary to make it understandable.
Supplementary questions shall be subject to the same rules of order as an original question.
PROCESSING OF QUESTIONS
The procedure for processing questions is as follows:
A Member intending to ask a question makes a draft of the question and presents it to the office of the Clerk.
The Office of the Clerk ensures that questions are drafted concisely and comply with the Rules of procedure.
The Question is forwarded by the Office of the Clerk to the Speaker for approval.
Upon approval, the question is sent to the person meant to answer it.
Ministers are expected to respond to questions within 2 weeks of receipt.
Answers to questions should be printed and a copy supplied to the Member who asked it not later than 15 minutes before the Sitting at which it is to be answered.
All questions are recorded in the Question Order Book which is available for Members' inspection and contains:
All questions submitted by Members;
Questions admitted by the Speaker and the time of their transmission to the person to answer;
Questions not admitted and the reasons for their rejection;
Answers given to the question, and the form of answer;
Questions which have received no answers.
MANNER OF ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS
The Speaker calls a Member in whose name a question stands on the Order Paper. The Member called upon rises and reads out the number assigned to the question standing in his or her name on the Order Paper.
In the absence of the Member asking the question, he/she may authorize another Member with the Speaker’s prior permission to ask the question.
After the question has been asked, the Speaker calls on the person to whom the question is addressed to answer. The reply to a question is limited to three minutes. However, if the Speaker considers that the matter is of sufficient importance, up to an additional two minutes may be given.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
After the question has been answered, supplementary questions may be asked. Priority is given to the Member who asked the question. This is to enable the Members seek further clarification. Supplementary questions should be related to the original question.
Replies to supplementary questions shall be limited to two minutes, unless with permission of the Speaker.
PARLIAMENTARY DECORUM AND ETIQUETTE IN UGANDA
Source: The Clerk to Parliament
Parliamentary Decorum refers to the appropriate conduct which is expected by Members of Parliament while conducting Parliamentary business.
Parliamentary Etiquette is a set of acceptable norms that regulate the behavior and conduct of Members of Parliament.
Parliamentary Decorum and Etiquette relates to the mode of dressing, behavior and language of Members of Parliament.
The official dress for male Members of Parliament should be a suit, a pair of long trousers, a shirt and tie and a jacket; a kanzu and jacket, a safari suit, or decent traditional wear; while that of female Members of Parliament should be a suit, a jacket, a blouse and skirt or dress, or traditional wear.
Members of the Armed Forces may be dressed in Military attire. All Members should put on dignified shoes, save that a Member may, with the prior leave of the Speaker, put on foot wear which may not necessarily be described as shoes.
In keeping with Parliamentary Decorum and Etiquette, a Member should not enter the Chamber while the Prayer is being read or when the Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole House is on her/his feet; a Member should bow to the Chair on entering or leaving his seat; and a Member should not cross the Floor of the House or move around unnecessarily.
While a Member is speaking, all other Members should be silent and should not interrupt. When a Member has finished making his or her contribution, he or she should resume his or her seat. A maiden speech should not be interrupted except by the Speaker or in circumstances which in the opinion of the Speaker warrant interruption.
A Member should always address the Chair.
A Member is forbidden to: bring into the House any camera, arms or weapon, tape recorder, radio, mobile telephone, or other electronic devices, unless permitted by the Speaker, or under exceptional circumstances as old age and physical health; smoke or eat in the Chamber; approach the Chair personally in the House; clap in the House; indulge in inappropriate behavior; or be disrespectful towards other Members.
The Speaker, who is the Presiding Officer of Parliamentary Proceedings, regulates debates and enforces strict observance of the rules, which govern orderly conduct in the House. He/she preserves the order and dignity in the proceedings of the House.
In all matters, the general behavior of Members of Parliament is guided by the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.
The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public at large.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OF UGANDA
Source: Clerk to Parliament
‘Personal Explanation’ is a procedural tool used by a Member, with the prior permission of the Presiding Officer who is allowed to make a statement in response to the comments and criticism of personal nature made by a fellow Member or a Minister on the floor of the House. This right is also exercised by a Member when his/her conduct has been referred to, in a report laid on the Table of the House or when he/she wants to rebut some allegations made against him/her. This right is enjoyed by a Member notwithstanding the fact that the allegations made against him/her in the House do not pertain to his capacity as a Member of Parliament. The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament provide that any Member may with permission of the Speaker, make a personal explanation not exceeding fifteen minutes where an MP’s name has been brought in disrepute.
SCOPE
A Member may make a personal explanation with the permission of the Speaker in regard to:
Comments or criticism of a personal nature made against him by a fellow Member or a Minister on the floor of the House;
His/her conduct referred to in a report laid on the table of the House; and
Public allegations made against him/her.
After the Personal Explanation no further questions or counter statements or explanations are allowed. The Personal Explanation does not attract debate.
PROCEDURE TO BE ALLOWED
A Member wishing to make a statement by way of Personal Explanation should write to the Speaker in advance enclosing a copy of the statement to be made by him/her in first person.
A Member is not permitted to make a Personal Explanation unless a copy thereof has been submitted in writing to the Speaker and its text has been approved by him or her. The statement should be brief and concise and should not introduce any controversial or debatable matter. Words, phrases and expressions which are not in the statement approved by the Speaker, if spoken, shall not form part of the proceedings of the House.
After the Speaker has granted the permission, the item is normally included in the List of Business for the following day. As far as possible, the Member on whose remarks the Personal Explanation is based, is informed about the Personal Explanation being made.
I AM DISTURBED TO SEE LECTURERS TIME THE BEGINNING OF SEMESTERS TO GET THEIR GRIEVANCES ADDRESSED
The closure of Kyambogo University is most unfortunate. This is blamable on the Lecturers who mistimed the action to see their Vice Chancellor investigated. The question is, why did these people wait and instead timed the opening of the semester? It is a sign of irresponsibility on their part. If there are genuine reasons why the Vice Chancellor should be investigated, why time when students are back? There are so many organs where these lecturers should have taken their complaints.
We ought to be responsible people while we execute our duties. In case some of these lecturers are not aware, majority of the students who attend at the University have to pay for accommodation, they must have paid for this prior to the opening of the semester, what happens next? It means they have to pay a bigger deal.
It is said that while the University Council had resolved to have a side the Vice Chancellor investigated and other staff, the President came up with a communication which required the man and those he has been accused with back on job. The question is, why couldn’t the President allow these people a side? Worldwide, people step aside and they are investigated.
When we call for a change of regime, we look at all this rot. People find it hard to raise money to support their children in high institutions of learning, where because of politics, Government still pays fees and other benefits for a few children, instead of having the money spent on infrastructure to improve the learning environment so that at the end of it, all students can pay a reasonable amount instead of a few sponsoring the others.
I am of the opinion that the University is re – opened and students get the lectures as expected. There is no big deal why one person should make all students suffer.
William Kituuka Kiwanuka
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KYAMBOGO CLOSED: HOW MUSEVENI LETTER THREW UNIVERSITY IN MORE CONFUSION
Kyambogo University Administration Building
Friday, 31 August 2012 00:58
Written by IMMACULATE WANYENZE & MOSES TALEMWA
President Museveni sent a seven-page letter in which he directed the council to reinstate Ndiege as investigations into his alleged misconduct continued.
Kyambogo University was yesterday shut down until further notice, after staff rejected a decision by the university council reinstating Vice Chancellor Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege. Staff had been content with a council decision that initially asked Ndiege to step aside pending investigations into his alleged misconduct.
However, The Observer understands that President Museveni sent a seven-page letter in which he directed the council to reinstate Ndiege as investigations into his alleged misconduct continued. The President reportedly argued in his letter that the strike leaders were misguided and had been influenced by elements in the opposition to fight the government.
After Ndiege’s suspension was announced, it appeared as if the worst would be averted, with some lecturers suggesting they would return to work. However, all hell broke loose after Museveni’s directive. Sources in the Ministry of Education, to whom the letter was copied, say it fell to State Minister for Sports Charles Bakabulindi to persuade the council to reverse its own decision on Tuesday.
“We called a meeting in which we sensitized the council on its responsibilities and then advised them to reinstate the vice chancellor,” Bakabulindi said.
When the university council chairperson Prof John Okedi communicated the decision to staff on Wednesday, the staff dismissed it immediately and resolved to go on strike, a day after they had offered to return to work to allow an investigation to proceed. The decision prompted Bakabulindi to hold a three-hour meeting with the leaders of striking staff at Hotel Africana on Wednesday, in which he demanded that they return to work.
“I told them that if they are unhappy they can’t be the accuser, prosecutor and judge. I also told them that if they are indeed in charge of the strike, they should convince their colleagues to return to work, because we can’t have the entire management out and expect things to continue,” he explained.
But Jackson Betihamah, the chairman of the Kyambogo University Senior Staff Association (KYUSSA) later said they would continue with the strike until Ndiege leaves the university.
“We understand they [the Ministry of Education] are the supreme body and we respect their decision hoping they respond to our queries soon,” Betihamah said.
The strike started a fortnight ago when KYUSSA got upset by Ndiege’s letter to the council in which he rejected a staff request for an increment in allowances and later raised other complaints.
“We have taught in this institution for several years and we are not about to leave. This is how much we are committed to the university but we are never considered for promotions,” Betihamah said.
Sensing trouble, university council chairperson, Prof John Okedi, called a special meeting at Hotel Africana on Sunday evening which resolved that senior management step aside pending investigations. The university spokesman, Lawrence Madete, communicated the decision on Monday afternoon.
Those affected included Prof Ndiege; university secretary, Samuel Akorimo; academic registrar, Rose Bwire; dean of students, Winifred Buga; dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Dr. Cyprian Adupa; acting dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Daudi Mugisa; head of the Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Micheal Kyakula and head of Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Francis Gidongo.
Others are the head of department, Sociology and Social Administration, Dr. Deborah Mulumba; senior procurement officer, Richard Muwanguzi; former acting estates officer, Christine Kyayonka and deputy registrar of admissions, Ambrose Aryeija. Some senior staff retorted that the forced leave was unfair, arguing that council based its decision on hearsay.
wanyenze@observer.ug
mtalemwa@observer.ug
Thursday, August 30, 2012
COULD MUSEVENI’S NAME HAVE KILLED OYITE OJOK?
When you read the article below, you wonder whether our leaders ever learn from this type experiences. The article is clear testimony is that no single person in indispensable. Anybody can come up and be so powerful, but time comes, and he/she has to go. This should be a good learning experience for anybody who bothers to learn.
William Kituuka Kiwanuka
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The defunct The Crusader Newspaper
It will soon be 29 years since on December 3, 1983, when Ugandans woke up to the shocking news on Radio Uganda that the country’s powerful and feared army Chief of Staff, Major General David Oyite Ojok had died. It was the closest to Ugandans experiencing the death of a sitting President. Many shops in Kampala remained closed for days. People discussed in groups wondering what would happen to the country next.
Many had not loved Oyite Ojok, but they knew with his death things would never be the same. Indeed, one and a half years later, the Obote II Government was overthrown. The official explanation was that Oyite Ojok’s death was a pure accident. But was it?
Brigadier David Oyite Ojok was all smiles at Pece Stadium on April 11, 198. This day, like others since 1980, was celebrated to mark the fall of Idi Amin’s regime on April 11, 1979. The day was special for Oyite Ojok in another way; after the festivities, he walked out of the stadium a Major General, adding laurels to his much coveted job of Army Chief of staff.
Oyite Ojok and the Army Commander of Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA), then Major General Tito Okello, who became General, were just among the many army officers who were promoted. The pomp was pulsating as Oyite Ojok took turns in joining the Commander in Chief and President Apollo Milton Obote, in addressing the other with new pips. It was just another moment of glory for Obote and the men with whom he taunted the opposition with his trademark sarcasm: “where are the Ssemogerere commanders?”
Witnessing the promotion was the all – powerful Vice President and Minister of Defence, Paul Muwanga. He and Obote had genuine reason to smile because they knew how their post – Amin fortunes had rested on Oyite Ojok’s shoulders – or on the hip of where he kept his pistol. But behind the public smiles lurked the serious fears and doubts by the two men over the soldier they relied on most, but was increasingly running out of control. Down south the guerilla war by Yoweri Museveni’s NRA was taking its toll. Obote and Muwanga counted on Oyite Ojok to be the prince in shining armour racing through the woods of Luweero Traingle putting out the fire.
The “Liberation day” promotions in Gulu were part of an effort to boost moral among the UNLA officers, so that they could face the NRA with renewed vigour. When Museveni had just taken to the bush in February 1982, Obote proudly said, “We shall follow them there and leave them there.” But two years down the road in 1983 the NRA rebels were still alive and kicking. Frustration with Oyite Ojok’s leadership of the army offensive had crept into Obote and Muwanga. It was not that the man who dramatically escaped from Parliament in 1971 from Amin’s soldiers, only to turn up on Radio Uganda in 1979 to announce the dictator’s fall, had lost battlefield prowess.
The problem was that being Chairman of the then almighty Coffee Marketing Board (CMB), Oyite Ojok increasingly had no time for the war front. He spent much of his time keeping an eye on his swelling balance in a Swiss bank. Moreover, around the same time, differences between Obote and his civilian and military lieutenants on how to end the rebellion heightened. While Obote and Oyite Ojok insisted the ‘bandits,’ as they called them, had to be militarily crashed, Muwanga and some top UNLA officers – mainly Acholi – toyed with the idea of negotiations.
Late 1982 while on an eastern Uganda tour, Obote said if Museveni wanted negotiations, he should first identify his third great grand father to prove his Ugandan origins. With purported authentication from his Ankole allies, Obote branded Museveni a Rwandese immigrant and accused the Banyarwanda of fueling the rebellion in Buganda. In the same year, Obote had 25,000 people of Rwandese origin evicted from their homes in western Uganda and put in camps because they posed a security threat.
But with the military yielding nothing and with Oyite Ojok putting his coffee interests above the war effort, Muwanga and his group demanded for the resignation of the Army Chief of Staff as CMB Chairman. Obote’s wishes prevailed and some time in 1983 he replaced Oyite Ojok with another homeboy from Apac as Chairman CMB. But Obote and Muwanga had under estimated Oyite Ojok’s appetite for coffee fruits. The General went ballistic. In an angry remark to associates, he said he came footing all the way from Moshi in Tanzania to overthrow Amin while Obote and Amin flew in planes. For all his sweat, he complained, all he had got in return was chairing CMB. How could they dare take it away from him? A few days later, Otim was attacked by a group of UNLA officers and killed along with his whole family on Plot 22, Princess Ann Drive in Bugolobi!
Obote was helpless and Oyite Ojok continued as CMB Chairman! But Muwanga an accomplished political schemer, - he masterminded Obote’s disputed victory in the 1980 elections and even blocked attempts to remove Oyite Ojok from the army, - was not to be outwitted. Muwanga persuaded Obote that Oyite Ojok having shown his defiance by refusing to quit the coffee board was using the money to buy arms and take power for himself. Obote was also reminded of the several occasions Oyite Ojok expressed presidential ambitions. For example while speaking at a heated district council meeting in Apac in 1982, Oyite Ojok said in Luo: “An dang a ool itingo Obote Oko ingut bwoka. Cengoro akemo mia aketo oko ping (I am tired of carrying Obote on my shoulders. One day I will be forced to put him down).” At the same council meeting, Oyite Ojok told a prominent Lango UPC politician Yonah Abwon, who had reacted to his threats that some of them were still lucky, otherwise one day, “water would dry from their bodies.” Abwon shot back and told Oyite Ojok, “water will dry from your body too.”
A rift had developed between Oyite Ojok and Obote’s key minister like Joel Aliro Omara (Commerce) and Luwuliza Kirunda (Internal Affairs) and also UPC Secretary General. In one incident in 1983, Oyite Ojok clashed with Omara over a room in Lira Hotel. The Army Chief of Staff had booked the room, the most luxurious in the hotel a.k.a presidential suite and gone to his home in Apac. While Oyite Ojok was away, the Minister arrived at the hotel and demanded to take over the room, reportedly arguing that he was ‘minister’ and ‘soldiers’ are supposed to sleep in the bush. The Minister failed to take over the room and his words got to Oyite Ojok when the military supremo returned to the hotel. Oyite Ojok is said to have flown into a rage, demanding for Omara’s neck and saying that the Omara’s were ministers because of him - and the army and any time they could be sent packing for exile. Muwanga as Minister of Defence was not amused with Oyite Ojok’s threats and demanded maximum respect from the soldier.
A former driver for Amin’s Vice President, Mustafa Adrisi, who later chauffeured Muwanga, told The Crusader he noticed open blood between his boss and Oyite Ojok. At one point in October 1983, Obote tried in vain to mend fences with his two main lieutenants at a meeting in Uganda Club, but Oyite Ojok stormed out of it. A bitter Muwanga complained that he had sacrificed a lot for the regime, including the love and blood of fellow Baganda who were being killed by the UNLA in the Luweero Triangle. After the meeting, Muwanga quarreled all the way to his Kololo residence, saying that he was not ready to go back to exile the second time “because” of these stupid Langi (Obote and Oyite).” The tension only got worse and apparently Muwanga convinced Obote that Oyite Ojok was a good – dog – run – amok and had to be stopped. Subsequently, Obote had an exclusive meeting with his No. 2 at the Nile Mansions, whose final resolution was to liquidate Oyite Ojok.
On November 21, 1983 Obote left for the Commonwealth Conference in New Delhi, India. In 1971 when he left for a similar conference in Singapore, he left his top lieutenants with instructions to arrest Idi Amin. Amin however pulled a fast one on his boss and overthrew him instead. This time he left Muwanga with instructions to do all he could to eliminate Oyite Ojok. Interestingly, a day before he jetted out of the country for the Commonwealth meet, Obote held the last meeting with Oyite Ojok at State House Entebbe, between 3.00 and 4.00am. Immediately after the meeting Muwanga sent his driver to pick staff officer
Lt. Kiragga Kato from Entebbe. Kato was one of the most trusted UNLA officers and was close to Obote, Muwanga and Oyite Ojok. He was related to the first lady, Miria Obote. His closeness to the 1st family saw him speedily rise through the army ranks to the post of Director planning. He was a loyal officer and easily won the confidence of high ranking government officers including Oyite Ojok. But he paid major allegiance to Muwanga as a Muganda political head in government. Muwanga trusted Kato to do the job of bumping off Oyite Ojok. Kato’s assignment was simple or so it seemed. His job was to lure Oyite Ojok into a helicopter planted with a time bomb that would blow his muscular frame into ashes.
On December 1, 1983, a few days after Obote’s departure for India, Muwanga offered Oyite Ojok an irresistible bait to get him into the booby – trapped chopper. He called Oyite Ojok and told him that the soldiers in Nakasongola had captured the most wanted bandit – Yoweri Museveni. Oyite Ojok could not believe it. And Muwanga said he too could not believe it until the Chief of Staff went to the battle fields and brought Museveni to Kampala himself. December 2, 1983, the Major General left for the battle front. Oyite Ojok selected his most trusted officers and left with them in two helicopters for Nakasongola. The officers included Lt. Col. Wilson Okwonga (Dr); Director of Mbuya Military Hospital, Lt. Col. Alfred Otto; the Director of Air force, Major Stephen Abili; the Director Engineering, Capt. Harry Olwoch; a pilot, Sgt. Charles Kamara who was a Staff Sergeant and Kato. Obwanga, Olwoch and Otto hailed from Kitgum district, Abili and Oyite Ojok came from Apac, Kamara came from Kabarole and Kato from Kitende, nine miles Entebbe Highway. Most of these UNLA officers had been promoted at the April 11, 198 Liberation day celebrations in Gulu.
Oyite Ojok left in the 1st helicopter, and Kato traveled in the 2nd one to Nakasongola. When the team arrived, they were told of how close the UNLA officers had cornered Museveni, but the rebel leader had escaped by the skin of his teeth. Oyite and part of the team – Kato was not part of it then – boarded a surveillance gunship and visited several army detaches in the area before converging at Kisozi where the two choppers were stationed. It was during the absence of the Oyite Ojok team that Kato fixed the time bomb in the helicopter which he (Kato) had travelled in from Kampala. When it was time to depart for Kampala, Kato told Oyite Ojok that during their absence his inspection of the chopper the Chief of Staff had used earlier from Kampala revealed it was overdue for service. He therefore advised the big man to switch over to the second chopper. Oyite Ojok then selected those who would fly with him – including Kato. Kato resisted but Oyite insisted that they had to discuss military strategies aboard.
Kato entered the chopper but stationed himself near the door. He strapped his parachute to his back and sat on it. The chopper took off at 8.12pm. But just as the pilot, Capt. Henry Olwoch was picking direction. Kato dived. The other officers tried to restrain him but immediately the chopper exploded. It landed three minutes later engulfed by flame. The incident occurred between River Kafu and Nakasongola army barracks, 150km from Kampala on Gulu road. UNLA soldiers at the Kisozi detach immediately cordoned off the area. Oyite Ojok like everyone else on the chopper burnt to ashes. Oyite Ojok’s ashes were approximately by the seat on the burnt chopper on which his trademark silver pistol was found.
An official statement aired on radio Uganda from the Ministry of Defence said all the officers and men of UNLA had died on the plane.
The NRA/NRM rebels in Nairobi announced on BBC that they had brought the gunship down. However, when the NRA/NRM captured power, the leadership said they did not believe in assassinations.
The 1st high ranking officers to arrive on the scene that very night were Paulo Muwanga, Army Commander Lt. Gen. Tito Okello and Prime Minister Otema Alimadi. But what exactly happened to Kato after the crash is the subject of three conflicting theories. The 1st is the official line: he burnt inside the chopper. The 2nd is that as the helicopter descended, its propellers hit Kato mid air throwing him about 10 metres away from the scene of the blast. His body was partially in the fire that engulfed the surrounding area. His wife identified him by the teeth. The third theory is that Kato successfully bailed out of the chopper and reported to Muwanga that the mission was accomplished, but that soon as kato finished making his report, Muwanga had him shot to conceal evidence.
Kato’s wife, who by the time of this story worked in a Kampala firm, refused to discuss the matter with The Crusader. A family friend said the army refused to have the coffin opened before Kato was buried at Kitende, 9 miles along Entebbe Highway.
JUSTICE JOHN MULENGA HAS BEEN CALLED TO MEET HIS CREATOR!
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
THE TESTIMONIES ABOUT THE LATE DR GEORGE WILLIAM MAYANJA SHOW THAT HE WAS A MAN FOR THE OTHERS
WHAT IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF OVER SHS 2 BN WHICH THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION GETS FROM PARLIAMENT?
Hon. Mafabi, the leader of opposition in Uganda’s Parliament is a very powerful man. Following the changes made in the holders of the various Shadow Ministries, the Democratic Party has come head on with Mafabi over his methods of work, more so, on making appointments involving their party members without first seeking the views of the Democratic Party, which the Party Secretary General; Matia Nsubuga says their party cannot stomach, and that non of their members will take up the given appointments. The Secretary General of the Democratic Party has gone a step further to inform the public that the leader of the Opposition in Parliament has a budget of over shs 2 bn, and that it is as if this money is meant for FDC activities. Surely, the Opposition in Parliament cannot sit back and one party enjoys a budget so big up to over shs 2 bn.
William Kituuka Kiwanuka
HOW TO BETTER UNDER STAND DECENTRALIZATION IN UGANDA
In Uganda, the Local Government Act (1997) stipulates that most central government powers and responsibilities for public services planning and delivery should be devolved to local governments, which is decentralization. Decentralization may be defined as the transfer of authority from Central Government to Local Governments. It refers to the transfer of functions, powers, competence, skills, means and resources. Decentralization aims at addressing people’s needs at the grassroots. The measures one can use to identify levels of achievement are namely: Efficiency, Economy, Effectiveness and Accountability.
The LC system today is a consultative forum for local decision making. Elected Chairpersons of the Council form executive committees at respective levels, and propose policies for their legislative bodies of the Council, which are formed by the representatives of the people. The decisions are implemented by the civil service staff. This LC system is most clearly structured at district (LC 5) level, where district development plans are made and important policies are decided for the district. The actual public services are provided by sub-county (LC 3) level, where the extension officers and community development workers are located.
To better understand decentralization by various players in Local Governments in Uganda, The Ministry of Local Government in January 2012 came out with a publication: "Induction of Local Government Councils Participants’ Hand book." It provides councilors, civil servants and the general public with the knowledge and skills required in the implementation of a decentralized system of governance in Uganda. The handbook brings out the relation between the central and local governments. This is necessary to understand the boundaries of their power and influence. Below are some of the salient features of decentralization in Uganda, which are critical guidelines for its effective implementation.
THE RELATION BETWEEN DISTRICTS AND LOWER LOCAL COUNCILS
A Local Government may offer guidance to Lower Councils within its area of jurisdiction (Section 34 LGA) District Councils, through District Chairpersons and Chief Administrative Officers who have monitoring and supervisory powers over Local Councils within the District. This is provided for under sections 13(1)(d) and 64 (2) of the LGA, respectively. District Councils must incorporate plans of lower Local Governments into the District Development Plan.
THE RELATION BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (SECTION 95 - 98 OF LGA)
The Ministry of Local Government shall be responsible for the guidance, inspection, monitoring and coordination of Local Governments. Line Ministries inspect, monitor, supervise and where necessary offer technical advice and training to Local Governments within their respective areas, in order to ensure the implementation of national policies and adherence to performance standards on part of local Governments.
THE RELATION BETWEEN COUNCILORS AND CIVIL SERVANTS
Civil Servants are servants of the people and therefore accountable to the Council. At the district, Sub-county, division, town and municipal level; Civil Servants operate as a team under the direction of the chief executives. These are: The Chief Administration Officer (CAO) at the district level, the Town Clerk for the urban councils (town councils, municipal councils and divisions) and the Sub county Chief for the Sub counties. The duty of the Civil Servants is to: Implement lawful Council decisions; Assist Council in policy formulation; Suggest to Council strategies for dealing with identified problems. Civil Servants are experts in their fields and their knowledge and expertise is important to Council as it deliberates on various matters. However, Councilors do not always have to accept advice given by the Civil Servants. When Councilors decide on what to be implemented and why, implementation is left to the Civil Servants.
FORMS OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS INFLUENCE ON GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Article 193 (1) of the Constitution of Uganda and Section 83 of the Local Governments Act, CAP 243, provides that the Central Government shall transfer money to Local Governments through Conditional Grants, Unconditional Grants and Equalization Grants. Through these grants, the Central Government may influence Local Governments' policies and programmes.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EQUALLY HAS INFLUENCE IN FORM OF CONTROLS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS
Section 77 of LGA gives rights and obligations to Local Governments to formulate, approve and execute their budgets provided the budgets are balanced. In addition, Local Governments have to accord National Priority Programme Areas preferential budget outlays. If a Local Government budget significantly detracts from Priority Programme Areas, the Local Government Finance Commission (LGFC) is required to inform the Council, and the President through the Minister of Local Government for appropriate action. Furthermore, no money can be withdrawn from the General Fund Account or any other accounts of the district unless withdrawal has been approved by the Auditor General or his/her representative, as provided in Section 82 (2) of the LGA.
UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACT COMMITTEES
District and Municipal Contracts Committees are required to conform to the standards established by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets Authority (PPDA) in the performance of their functions. Customized Local Government Procurement and Disposal of Assets Regulations have been produced. The Contract Committee is supposed to consist of five members nominated by the accounting officer from among the public officers of the procuring and disposing entity and approved by the Secretary to the Treasury. In addition, every district or Urban Contracts Committee is required to publish quarterly summary of all tenders awarded and give a copy to all relevant councils, the Minister responsible for Local Governments, the Inspector General of Government (IGG).
LEGISLATIVE CONTROL
Enactment of Statutes, issuance of regulations and legislative investigations are the main controls exercised on the Local Governments by the Central Government. Laws regulating the affairs of Local Governments must pertain to National Goals if they are to be effective. In addition, the central Government may request Local Governments to implement National Policy Decisions through the enactment of local laws (ordinances and bye-laws).
JUDICIAL CONTROL
Local Laws and administrative actions must not be in conflict with National Law since it is all subject to Uganda's Constitution. Courts have a role in protecting the rights of citizens against unwarranted actions by local officials or other citizens.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Article 166 of the Constitution mandates the Public Service Commission (PSC) to guide and coordinate District Service Commissions (DSC). District Service Commissions are required to submit reports (Section 58 (2) of the Local Governments Act, CAP 243 to the District Council and the Public, Education or Health Service Commissions as may be applicable on the performance of its functions after every four months and whenever a report is required by the Council or the Public, Education or Health Service Commission.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN A DECENTRALIZED SETTING
Development Planning is the setting of goals, mobilization of and allocation of resources so as to ensure that the benefits reach the target population. Planning is a continuous process; it includes not only the document preparation with the details that provide the data/information base and justification for projects but also their actual implementation. Decentralized Planning aims at improving service delivery by effectively involving the communities and service delivery units in proposing development solutions for poverty alleviation.
OBJECTIVES OF DECENTRALIZED PLANNING
To empower Local Governments, identify their priority needs at the level and be able to formulate localized responses to address them;
Improve management efficiency in the LGs;
To increase democracy and popular participation in the development process through effective representation of the population and provision of opportunities for participation of the people in decision making; and form a basis for efficient resource mobilization and allocation by LGs.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF DECENTRALIZED PLANNING
According to Article 190 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), District Councils are required to prepare comprehensive and integrated development plans incorporating the plans of the lower level Local Governments for submission to the National Planning Authority.
ii) Section 36 (1) of the Local Governments Act, CAP 243 recognizes the District Councils as the Planning Authority of a District.
iii) In addition, Section 36 (3) mandates the District Council to prepare a Comprehensive and Integrated Development Plan incorporating plans of lower Local Governments for submission to the National Planning Authority, and the Lower Local Governments shall prepare plans incorporating plans of Lower Councils Section 37 (4) in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
COUNCILOR’S EMOLUMENTS
Emoluments for Councilors are principally paid from locally raised revenues. Regulation 4 to the first schedule of the LGA CAP 243, stipulates that expenditure of a LG Council in a Financial Year (FY) on emoluments and allowances of Chairperson and Councilors, shall not exceed 20% of the total revenue collected by that LG Council in the previous Financial Year. Regulation 4A to the first schedule stipulates that a CAO or Town Clerk who spends beyond 20% contrary to the provisions of regulation 4 without permission in writing from the Minister shall be required to refund the excess expenditure.
THE MOVE BY LORD MAYOR LUKWAGO AND HIS COUNCIL TO SEE BUGANDA PROPERTIES RETURNED IS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BRAVO!
KCCA set to return Buganda properties Health Centres, schools, and markets on the list
Wednesday, 29 August 2012 00:03
Written by Siraje Lubwama
Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago has announced that Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) will soon be returning properties worth billions of shillings to Mengo, the seat of Buganda Kingdom. In a four-page letter to the Buganda Katikkiro, Eng. J.B. Walusimbi, dated August 24, 2012, a copy of which The Observer has seen, Lukwago says some of the properties to be handed back include the pieces of land where Makindye and Kawempe division headquarters seat.
Lukwago also names the four Health Centres of Kiruddu-Buziga in Makindye, which KCCA recently proposed to be lifted to a referral hospital, that of Kisenyi in Central Division as well as Kitebi and Kawaala. These are some of the 11 Health Centres KCCA is running.
“I would wish to unequivocally state, that, going by the cogent documentary evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the said assets, currently occupied by KCCA, do belong to, and indeed should vest in the government of His Majesty the Kabaka of Buganda in accordance with Traditional Rules (Restitution of Assets & Properties) Act Cap. 247,” states Lukwago’s letter, which was copied to both the Attorney General of Central Government and his opposite number in Buganda among others.
The markets Lukwago proposes to return to Mengo include Wandegeya and Nakulabye. Lukwago says both markets were confiscated by Central Government in the aftermath of the 1966 crisis. Other markets on the list are Bakuli, Kibuye and Mengo.
Lukwago also wants Nabagereka Primary School, Katwe Primary School, Lugala-Kigobe Primary School, all operating under Universal Primary Education, and Kitebi Secondary School to be returned to Mengo.
The Lord Mayor says KCCA will convene a special meeting not later than next month to deliberate and pass a resolution “not to whether, but when and how” the said property should be surrendered to Kabaka’s Government.
Lukwago further proposes that if the Kabaka consents, KCCA may acquire leasehold interests in some of the aforesaid properties in order to build and modernise the city. Makindye Division had acquired part of the lease on the land where the division is located and where a Shs 1.2bn new office block was constructed a few years back.
The division had also applied for lease for Kiruddu-Buziga Health Centre. Whereas it is not yet known how Central Government will react should the Authority pass the resolution to return the said properties, most councillors we talked to said they will give the proposal the green light.
“I disagree on some issues with the Lord Mayor, but with this one I have no option but to back him because it has also been my wish for so long,” Bernard Luyiga, a Councillor representing Makerere University, said. slubwama@observer.ug
SMACK OB PROF. JOHN DDUMBA SENTAMU APPOINTED NEW VICE CHANCELLOR MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
