OPPOSITION TAKES A NUMBER OF MAYORAL SEATS

By Vision Reporters

MAYORAL elections conducted yesterday saw most incumbents retain their seats. Partial results also showed that the opposition maintained a strong a grip on urban centres.
The exercise that was conducted in the 22 municipalities and the five Kampala city divisions, was more peaceful than the district chairpersons’ polls.
In Bushenyi/Ishaka municipality, Jackson Kamugasha (independent) retained his seat. Business came to a standstill when his supporters jammed the streets to celebrate his win.
Declared results showed that Kamugasha scored 8,342 votes, while his closest opponent, NRM’s Jaffari Bassajjabalaba, got 3,596 votes.
Shouting ekijegyere twakicwa (meaning, we have cut NRM’s chain), Kamugasha’s supporters jubilated in a convoy of more than 70 vehicles and boba-bodas.
They drove from Ishaka town up to Nyakabirizi town under a heavy down pour.

Asiki leads in Arua
In Arua Municipality, results declared showed that the incumbent, Charles Asiki of the NRM, had retained the seat.
According to results announced late last evening by Rose Acima Atima, the district returning officer, Asiki polled 6,169 (50.93%) of the votes cast in the 58 polling stations.
He beat his challenger, Juma Bakhit of UPC, who got only 4,921 (40.63%) votes. Kafu Nasuru, an independent candidate, got 158 (1.3%).
Another independent candidate, Andaku Dudu, collected only 81 votes (0.67%) and JEEMA’s Tipele Abdulzaki managed 41 votes, which is 0.53%.
FDC’s Mafabi takes Mbale
Forum for Democratic Change candidate Mutwalibi Mafabi Zandya was announced winner of the Mbale municipality mayoral elections.
Mafabi polled 7,282 votes, representing 37.98%. His closest rival, Alfred Magomu (independent), got 3,596 votes, representing 18.75%.
Hajjat Jamila Naleba, the NRM flag-bearer, was in third place with 3,038 votes, representing 15.84%.
FDC supporters were already celebrating through Mbale streets as the Electoral Commission officials tallied the results.
Kabbyanga ahead in Kasese
NRM’s Godfrey Baluku Kabbyanga was by last evening (7:30pm) ahead of his sole challenger, Nelson Ndungo (FDC), by about 4,000 votes in the race for the Kasese mayoral seat.
According to provisional results from all the 70 polling stations in the municipality, Kabbyanga had polled 10,075 votes against Ndungo’s 6,084.
On receiving the provisional results, Kabbyanga’s supporters poured onto the streets in celebration knowing their candidate would be the first elected mayor of the municipality created in July 2009.
Ndungo was the LC3 chairperson of Kasese town council but lost to Cosmas Byaruhanga, the outgoing interim mayor.
Both Kabbyanga and Ndungo have been ministers in the Rwenzururu kingdom. While Kabbyanga was the kingdom’s finance minister, Ndungo held the lands minister portfolio.
They both resigned to vie for the mayoral seat.
Kayanja edges Kabuye in Entebbe municipality
Provisional results declared in Entebbe municipality show that DP’s Vincent De Paul Kayanja was destined to dethrone NRM’s Stephen Kabuye who has been mayor for 21 years.
At almost all polling stations which had finished tallying results, Kayanja was leading.
At Kitoro Leisure Park M-N polling station, Kayanja got 121, while Kabuye scored 55 votes. At the Kitoro O-Z, Kayanja garnered 149 votes, while Kabuye secured 63 votes.
At A-L Kayanja got 237 votes and Kabuye secured 118, while at E-L, Kayanja had 218 compared to Kabuye’s119 votes.
At Mayor’s gardens polling stations N-M, Kayanja had 120 votes and Kabuye scored 41, while at the Survey training institute, Kayanja hit 118 and Kabuye beat him with 274.
At other polling stations at the institute, Kayanja got 65, while Kabuye managed 109. Elsewhere, Kayanja got 63 as Kabuye collected 168 votes.
In Kiwafu East polling stations, Kayanja polled 179, while Kabuye got 160; Kayanja scored 86 as Kabuye managed 48 and elsewhere, Kayanja had 157 votes compared to Kabuye’s 152.
At the three polling stations at Bugonga, Kayanja had 83 votes while Kabuye got 70. Kayanja secured another 191 as Kabuye garnered 129 and elsewhere, Kayanja recorded 179 as Kabuye got 152 votes.
At Kigungu Primary School Kayanja got 469, while Kabuye afforded 449 votes.
Kezaala remains Jinja mayor
Jinja mayor Mohammed Baswari Kezaala yesterday secured a second term in office after trouncing five contestants in the municipal elections.
Kezaala got 11,484 votes, representing 47% of the total votes cast. His closest rival, NRM’s Majid Batambuze, garnered 9,420 votes.
According to results that were declared by the district returning officer, Flavia Mujuluzi, at the district headquarters at around 10:30pm, FDC’s Andrew Kasigwa came third with 1,829 votes.
Pastor Rajabu Ssentamu from Evangelic church in Jinja town followed with 1,240 votes, while former mayor Joel Kafuko Munyigwa, who was eyeing a comeback, managed only 155 votes. Robert Isabirye trailed with 47 votes.
Mujuluzi noted that the results were from 94 of the 95 polling stations in the municipality, adding that results from the remaining station would not affect the final tally given the number of voters there.
Kezaala was not at the tally centre when the results were declared although he was represented by the DP district chairman, Samuel Kitanda, and other party stalwarts.
These went into celebrations and joined a horde of supporters who were waiting outside the committee room, where the Electoral Commission had set up the tally centre.
News of the final results spread so fast, which reignited street celebrations that had earlier been sparked off by preliminary results that showed Kezaala to be in the lead.
Supporters went wild hooting and riding motorcycles through the streets. Others went jogging, while wielding branches and chanting slogans extolling Kezaala.
Victory in the way of Mukono’s Muyanja
In Mukono, incumbent Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga, who stood as an independent, was leading with 10,592 votes.
His closest rival, NRM’s George Ssentongo, polled 1,559 votes, while DP’s Ffeffeka had 731 votes.
NRM leads in Gulu
In Gulu, George Labega of NRM was leading according to provisional results from 82 of the 107 polling stations.
He polled 5,662 votes, while Patrick Lumumba Oola of FDC managed only 3,615 votes and Walter Odong of UPC had 1,633 votes.
Hoima’s Atugonza loses
In Hoima Municipality, the NRM candidate, Mary Mugasa, was leading Francis Atungonza, the incumbent and FDC candidate.
With only a few polling stations left by press time, Mugasa had polled 9,702 votes, while Atugonza had 760 votes.
Kampala race still tight
NRM's Godfrey Nyakaana and DP's Charles Serunjongi were running neck to neck in most of the polling stations tallied for the race for Kampala Central Division.
Kalumba Sebuliba (NRM) was leading his opponents in the Nakawa race, while in Kawempe, Hajji Mubarak Munyagwa, fondly referred to as Mugaati gwa bata (buttered bread) was leading.
Boda Boda rider wins Masaka
In Masaka Municipality, Godfrey Kayemba Afaayo, a boda boda cyclist and the FDC district chairman, defeated the NRM candidate and a prominent businessman, William Kalumba, to take the seat. He polled 11,276 votes against Kalumba’s 4,084.
NRM leads MasindiI
n Masindi, Joshua Amanyire Kiiza of the NRM was leading with 9,077 votes. Joab Busingye, the FDC candidate, followed with 2,335 votes.
FDC’s Ruhemurana leads in Kabale
In Kabale, the FDC candidate, Dr. Pius Ruhemurana, was in the lead, while in Rukingiri, Charles Mukaru (FDC) was leading the NRM candidate, Saleh Turyamureeba, by a big margin
The NRM candidate, Jacob Kafureka, was also in the lead in the Ntungamo race.
PROFILES OF SOME OF THE CANDIDATES
MukoNo - Johnson Ssenyonga
Mukono mayor Johnson Muyanja Ssenyonga retained his seat despite stiff competition. Ssenyonga, an independent, is affiliated to the NRM.
He, however, did not contest the NRM primaries. He said he feared that his opponents in the NRM camp would rig the primaries. The NRM leadership in the municipality accused Ssenyonga of siding with the opposition, especially the area MP Betty Nambooze, with whom he held joint campaign rallies.
Ssenyonga won the mayoral race since he had massive support from the women and youth.
Rubaga, Kampala - Joyce Ssebugwawo
Given that the division was once held by a woman, the late Winnie Makumbi, Ssebugwawo has a chance of winning. She was reported to be leading late last night. Makumbi was replaced by the incumbent Peter Ssematimba, who is running for the post of Kampala mayor.
Ssebugwawo, an FDC supporter, who made her intentions clear immediately after Makumbi’s death, is said to be organised. She printed T-shirts, many posters and enrolled hundreds of youth to mobilise votes for her.
As if taking cue from President Yoweri Museveni, Ssebugwawo, according to one of her mobilisers, designed a strategy to reach out to students of voting age in the division.
Her schedule included visiting various secondary schools on special days like sports days. This was meant to build a relationship with students, their teachers and their parents. She is so close to the Mengo establishment; a relationship which many believe is an advantage for her since Rubaga is the official seat of Buganda Kingdom.
Jinja Municipality - Baswale Kezaala
Kezaala, the DP’s national chairman, remains a strong political icon in Jinja district. He was in 2009 remanded to Luzira Prison on charges of abuse of office when he allegedly allocated a prime plot on Lubas Road in Jinja town to a Muslim association where he was a major shareholder.
He was also accused of using public funds to the tune of sh16m to pay for personal expenses. Kezaala started off his political career as the LC1 boss of Rippon village, became a councillor before he got elected to LC3 chair for Jinja central division. His exemplary service earned him the mayor’s seat in 2006. He won again this time.
Bushenyi-Ishaka - Jackson Kamugasha
Kamugasha is the incumbent mayor for Ishaka municipality. He was reported to be in the lead yesterday. He joined politics as councillor for the then Ishaka town council to Bushenyi district. Kamugasha is a reserved politician and is adored as a performer. He is credited with transforming the municipality, which is now clean and organised.
He promised to work on the roads if elected and extend piped water to the rest of the town. Given his political background, Kamugasha has made his political calculations well. Coming from a staunch UPC family and a relative to UPC strong man Chris Rwakasisi, Kamugasha has stood as an independent in all elections. He rejected advances by NRM bigwigs in Bushenyi who tried to convince him to join the ruling party.
Mbale municipality - Zandya Mafabi Mutwalibi
Mafabi is an FDC party stalwart and was making a second attempt in the Mbale mayoral race. He was lucky this time around as results late last night put him in the lead. He is a businessman and deals in general merchandise in Mbale town.
By press time, the other contestants who included NRM’s Jamila Naleba, Michael Nandala (Independent) and Wasswa Masokoi (Independent) were trailing and heading for defeat.
Arua Municipality - Charles Asiki
From the beginning of the campaigns, NRM’s Charles Asiki, the incumbent, looked set for another victory.
He exuded confidence on the campaign trail as he told voters that he was not searching for votes but giving accountability for work “well done” during the five years he was in office.
He cited improved garbage management, tarmac on formerly dusty roads, and promotion of adult literacy. May be he was right. The voters returned him with a resounding win.
Soroti Municipality - Alfred Aruo
The incumbent Soroti Municipality mayor and FDC candidate, Alfred Aruo, was a top contender from the start. By press time yesterday, he was leading the pack and appeared set for victory. Charles Elasu, the NRM flag-bearer, was his main challenger.
Aruo won in 2006 and has since maintained the confidence of the people with his dedicated service. His character has endeared him both to the opposition and his party members. Aruo improved garbage collection in the town.
Mbarara municipality - Wilson Tumwine
In 2001, Tumwine who was then a new-comer on the political scene in Mbarara, relied on the support of traders to defeat mayor Robert Rutehenda. In the following election of 2006, Tumwine was unopposed after his archrival FDC’s Posiano Ntungirehi withdrew from the race.
He was headed for another round by press time. Tumwine is involved in business in Mbarara town where he owns several properties that include commercial buildings, a hotel and plots of land in a number of suburbs.
Compiled by John Thawite, Kigongo Sebalamu, Richard Drasimaku, Chris Mugasha, Esther Mukyala, Jackie Nambogga, Doreen Musingo, Joseph Wanzusi, Henry Nsubuga, Cornes Lubangakene, Paul Watala and Daniel Edyegu.


© Copyright The New Vision 2000-2011. All rights reserved.

GIVEN UGANDA'S MESS ARE WE TO BENEFIT FROM THE NEW WORLD BANK PLAN OF SUPPORT FOR AFRICA

PRESS RELEASE: New World Bank Plan of Support for Africa
* New World Bank Plan for Africa.docNew World Bank Plan for Africa.doc

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:22845777~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2011 – With Africa facing an unprecedented opportunity to transform itself and improve the lives of its people, the World Bank is responding with a new, ambitious strategy which could help African economies take off, the way the economies of Asia did 30 years ago.
The new approach, endorsed by the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors today, marks a significant shift in the way the organization views Africa and its own role as a supporter of the continent’s progress.
Laid out in three main business lines, the program was crafted over more than a year through extensive research and international consultations, especially with the people of Africa.
"We are excited about Africa's future. Today's Africa is exemplified by the many success stories and stronger economic growth being driven by the dynamism of its people and economies. We therefore used the opportunity of our new Africa Strategy to listen, learn and define how we could better support the continent's aspiration as it maintains the momentum of economic reforms over the next decade,” said Obiageli Ezekwesili, the Vice President of the World Bank for Africa Region.
Continuing, Ezekwesili stated: "In implementing the Strategy, the World Bank Group shall remain fruitfully engaged with citizens as they demand greater participation in the benefits of improved economic performance, deploy our partnerships, knowledge and finance to work with governments, private sector, civil society and other partners and help countries to speed up the attainment of the MDGs, expand economic prosperity and reduce poverty."
The plan, titled “Africa’s Future and the World Bank’s Support to it”, shifts from a more general focus on seeking economic stability and sound fundamentals to emphasize the need for attention in three key areas:
1. Competitiveness and employment - The plan will assist countries to diversify their economies and generate jobs, especially for the 7-10 million young people entering the labor force each year. It will help to close the gap between infrastructure needs and investments -- currently about $48 billion annually -- and support efforts to make it easier for business to operate. In addition, the plan will focus on building the skills of workers.
2. Vulnerability and resilience - Africa’s poor are directly affected by shocks -- economic, health-related, natural disasters and conflict -- which keep them in poverty. By focusing on better health care, dealing preemptively with the effects of climate change through improved irrigation and water management, and strengthening public agencies to share resources more fairly and build consensus, the plan seeks to reduce the number of shocks and limit the damage from those that do occur.
3. Governance and public sector capacity - Critical services, in education, health and basic infrastructure, are too often either not delivered or delivered badly because of weak management of public funds. The Bank’s program of support aims to give citizens better information on what they should expect from their governments, as well as the capacity to report on instances when services are not delivered properly. The Bank will also work directly with governments to help them improve their systems and capacity to deliver basic services and manage accounts.
Significantly, the new strategy reverses the order of importance of the Bank's instruments to support Africa. The most important ingredient will be partnerships, then knowledge and finally finance. The goal is to make sure that the Bank's interventions complement what others, including the African governments, the private sector and other agencies, are doing.
“This strategy is as much a reflection of what we heard from Africa’s people and leaders as it is the thinking of the World Bank,” said Shantayanan Devarajan, the World Bank's Chief Economist for Africa. “Though we are confident it is the right approach at this time, we also want to make sure that we are ready to adapt as Africa continues to change and progress. That is what makes this such an exciting time for Africa. The continent has surprised naysayers, with more than a decade of solid economic growth and sustained reduction of poverty. It can seize this historic opportunity. Other regions have done it. So can Africa.”

GOVERNOR COHEN TO KABAKA MUTESA II, 27 OCT 1953: WAKE UP!

Mutesa II
GOVERNOR COHEN TO KABAKA MUTESA II, 27 OCT 1953: WAKE UP!
Posted: December 10, 2009 by ekitibwakyabuganda in Mutesa 1 and 2, Secession of Buganda

“Moreover the separation of Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate might well be objected to by some sections of the public in Buganda and particularly the minorities, and might even lead in the case of the minori­ties to requests for separation from Buganda.”
“If the Protectorate were to be divided into separate parts, each of these parts would be much weaker economically and in every other way than the Protectorate as a whole; and not only much weaker, but much less able to hold its own in dealings with the neighbouring territories.”
“A strong and united Protectorate rather than weak separate units must therefore be the aim of all our efforts in the interests both present and future of the people of the Protectorate.”
“Buganda geographically lies at the centre of the Protectorate and economically and in other ways its affairs are completely bound up with those of the Protectorate as a whole. These economic and general ties, reinforced by Buganda’s geographical posi­tion, have been built up over many years and,…..it would be virtually impossible now to break them down.”

Entebbe

27 October 1953.

To: HRH Kabaka Mutesa 11,

I have the honour to refer to your letter of the 6th August regarding the relations of the Uganda Protectorate with the other East African terri­tories and to inform you that I duly referred this letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies as soon as it was received. I subsequently discussed the contents of the letter with Your Highness and your Ministers and during my recent visit to London I discussed the matter with the Secretary of State.

2. The Secretary of State has instructed me to inform you that he has considered your letter with the greatest care and that he fully realizes from its contents and from what I have myself told him the strength of feeling on the part of the people of Buganda on the subject of Federation. Your letter and recent expressions of public opinion in Buganda reveal fears and suspicions about the intentions of Her Majesty’s Government in this matter; the purpose of this reply which the Secretary of State has instructed me to convey to Your Highness is to dispel these fears and suspicions and to convince Your Highness and your Ministers, and the people of Bug­anda, that they are groundless. The Secretary of State attaches the greatest importance to removing these fears and suspicions and he has asked me, as Governor, to do everything in my power to achieve this object.

3. The reply which the Secretary of State has instructed me to make, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to the points raised in Your High­ness’ letter falls into four parts. It deals first with past statements on the subject of federation; secondly it contains a further statement by Her Majesty’s Government on this subject: while the third and fourth parts of the reply comment on your request that responsibility for Buganda affairs should be transferred from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office and your request for the separation of Buganda from the rest of the Protec­torate.

4. Past statements on the subject of federation made by or on the instructions of Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government have been examined and it has been found that no statement has been made in the past ruling out the possibility of federation for all time. The statement in the letter of the 18th March, 1922, quoted by Your Highness, which was repeated in 1924, specifically referred to the possibility of federation of the East African territories, and it is clear from all the discussions which followed up to 1931, when H.M. Government decided on the advice of the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament not to proceed with the matter at that time, that this possibility included the Uganda Pro­tectorate. East African federation, including Uganda, was being actively discussed in 1931, when a deputation from Uganda, including Mr. S. W. Kulubya, went to London to give evidence on this subject to the Joint Select Committee.

5. No further statements on the subject are on record until 1945, when proposals were put forward, in paper Colonial 191, for the establishment of an East Africa High Commission and Assembly to deal with certain common services of interest to all three East African territories, in the spheres particularly of communications and research. Colonial 191 stated in paragraph 9 that the proposals then made involved ‘neither political closer union nor the fusion of the East African Governments’, and gave as the reason for this in paragraph 10 that ‘H.M. Government in the United Kingdom have accordingly come to the conclusion after taking the advice of the East African Governors that political federation or fusion in any of the various forms which have been discussed in the last twenty years is not practical politics under existing conditions’. In his statement to Parliament of the 28th July, 1947, Mr. Creech-Jones, in announcing that it had been decided to implement the proposals in the subsequent paper Colonial 210, said: ‘The scheme is not to be regarded as a step towards political union or the fusion of the East African Governments.’ Mr. Griffiths in his statement to the Great Lukiko on the 15th May, 1951, said that the statement that the present inter-territorial organization did not involve the political union of the East African territories still held good. Your Highness will observe that none of these statements ruled out federa­tion for all time and I am instructed in particular to draw your attention to the use of the phrase ‘not practical politics under existing conditions’ in paragraph 10 of the Colonial 191.

6. In my letter of the 27th July, I informed Your Highness, on instruc­tions from the Secretary of State, that as regards the present intentions of Her Majesty’s Government the Secretary of State’s speech did not indi­cate any change of policy on the part of Her Majesty’s Government; that the future development of Uganda and the other East African territories must be largely guided by local public opinion; and that the assurance which I gave to the Great Lukiko in my speech of the 23rd April, 1952, still holds good. I also said in my public statement of the 11th August, again on the instructions of the Secretary of State, that ‘there should not be read into the Secretary of State’s speech any intention on the part of H.M. Government at the present time to raise the issue of East African federation’. In the view of the Secretary of State this assurance, so far from falling short of past assurances, in fact went somewhat further in that, in addition to ruling out federation at the present time, it stated that future developments must be largely guided by local opinion. It appears to the Secretary of State that you may not have fully appreciated the im­portance of this part of the statement in my letter of the 27th July. But, in view of the terms of Your Highness’s letter, the Secretary of State has decided that it is necessary to amplify the statement and make it more definite. I am accordingly instructed to inform you as follows.

7. Her Majesty’s Government has no intention whatsoever of raising the issue of East African federation either at the present time or while local public opinion on this issue remains as it is at the present time. Her Majesty’s Government fully recognizes that public opinion in Buganda and the rest of the Protectorate would be opposed to the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation; Her Majesty’s Government has no intention whatsoever of disregarding this opinion either now or at any time, and recognizes accordingly that the inclusion of the Uganda Protectorate in any such federation is outside the realm of practical politics at the present time or while local public opinion remains as it is at the present time. As regards the more distant future, Her Majesty’s Government clearly cannot state now that the issue of East African federa­tion will never be raised, since public opinion in the Protectorate, includ­ing that of the Baganda, might change, and it would not in any case be proper for Her Majesty’s Government to make any statement now which might be used at some time in the future to prevent effect being given to the wishes of the people of the Protectorate at that time. But Her Majesty’s Government can and does say that unless there is a substantial change in public opinion in the Protectorate, including that of the Baganda, the inclusion of the Protectorate in an East African federation will remain outside the realm of practical politics even in the more distant future. The Secretary of State is confident that you will agree that in this statement he has gone as far as he possibly can and has given you safeguards which cannot fail to be regarded as satisfactory.

8. Having given the firm assurances contained in the preceding para­graph, the Secretary of State feels sure that you need have no further fears on the question of federation. Nevertheless he thinks that you will wish him to comment on the suggestions put forward in paragraphs 10 and 11 of your letter. He does not propose to comment on the remarks about Central Africa in paragraph 7 of your letter, but this must not be taken as meaning that he accepts these remarks.

9. The Secretary of State has asked me to say that your request for transfer of responsibility for the affairs of Buganda to the Foreign Office is evidently based on a misunderstanding. The Foreign Office is respon­sible for the relations of Her Majesty’s Government with foreign countries outside the British Commonwealth. The Colonial Office deals with the affairs of territories inside the British Commonwealth for which Her Majesty’s Government is responsible, whether they be Colonies, Pro­tectorates, Protected States or Trust Territories. Your Highness has sug­gested in paragraph 6 of your letter that Buganda is a Protected State under Her Majesty’s Government; but this is not correct in the accepted constitutional sense of the term. Under the terms of the 1900 Agreement Buganda is clearly stated to rank as a province forming part of the Uganda Protectorate (Article 3), a position which has recently been reaffirmed in the joint statement on reforms in Buganda issued by Your Highness and myself last March. Not only Article 3 but other articles made it clear that Buganda was to be merged both fiscally and legislatively into the Protec­torate as a whole, and this in fact has been done. The whole tenor of the Agreement made it clear that Buganda was to be part of the Protectorate. Your Highness has referred in paragraph 9 of your letter to the 1894 Agreement as well as the 1900 Agreement. The Secretary of State is ad­vised that it is the 1900 Agreement which must be regarded as the pre­vailing document and the instrument regulating the relations between Her Majesty’s Government and Buganda. The Agreement was freely entered into and has ever since its signature been accepted both by H.M. Government, and by the Buganda Government and people as the document defining their relations with each other.

10. Even were Buganda a Protected State, which constitutionally it is not, its affairs would still be dealt with on behalf of Her Majesty’s Govern­ment by the Colonial Office, as those of other Protected States within the British Commonwealth are. Your Highness has claimed in paragraph 6 of your letter that the transfer of responsibility for Buganda from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office in 1902 involved a reduction of status; but this is not correct. As has already been stated, the 1900 Agreement clearly laid it down that Buganda should be administered as part of the Uganda Protectorate. In these circumstances there could have been no alternative but to transfer responsibility to the Colonial Office, a step which in any case logically followed once Buganda came under the protection of H.M. Government.

11. Furthermore the Secretary of State has asked me to point out that, even if it were appropriate to transfer responsibility for Buganda to the Foreign Office, which constitutionally it is not, this would not alter the position regarding federation at all. As far as Her Majesty’s Government is concerned it is not any particular Government department or Minister who decides major constitutional issues of the importance of federation in the territories for which Her Majesty’s Government is responsible, whether in East Africa or elsewhere; such major decisions can only be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom as a whole, where necessary with the approval of Parliament. It follows that, since Buganda is under the protection of Her Majesty’s Government, it would make no difference as regards federation whether it were dealt with by the Colonial Office or some other department, since the ultimate decision on this matter could only be taken by Her Majesty’s Government as a whole. Therefore it is clear first that this request cannot constitutionally be acceded to and secondly that even if it could be this would not achieve what Your Highness has in mind.

12. In paragraph 11 of your letter Your Highness has asked that a plan should be put into effect designed to achieve the independence of Buganda. It is not clear to the Secretary of State from your letter exactly what is meant by ‘independence’; but I reported the subsequent discussions which I had with yourself and your Ministers and the Secretary of State under­stands that you are not asking to go outside the Commonwealth – the wording of the first sentence of paragraph 11 indeed implies that you are not asking this. The Secretary of State also understands that you have informed me during the course of the discussions that Buganda has no wish to leave the protection of Britain. The Secretary of State in fact understands that you were seeking, without leaving the protection of Her Majesty’s Government, to safeguard Buganda against the possibility of East African federation in the future, either by separating Buganda now from the rest of the Protectorate or at any rate by removing Buganda from the jurisdiction of the Protectorate Legislative Council.

13. The Secretary of State asks me to say that he is glad that Your Highness does not wish Buganda to leave the protection of Britain because he is sure that this would not be to the advantage of the people of Buganda. Your Highness will no doubt agree that the Baganda have received many benefits from British protection and that the association between the Baganda and the British people has been fruitful over the years and con­tinues to be so. You will also, the Secretary of State is sure, agree that, apart from the many benefits received by the Baganda in the past, there have recently been very significant advances. In the political field there are the reforms announced earlier in the year, under which the people of Buganda will play a greater part in their system of government and the Buganda Government will be given substantial increased responsibilities for the operation of certain services in Buganda. In the economic field important benefits have been brought to the Baganda by the work of the Protectorate Agricultural and Veterinary Departments for the improve­ment of agriculture and cattle-keeping; by the expansion of the co­operative movement through the efforts of the Protectorate Department of Co-operative Development; and by the cotton and coffee reorganiza­tion schemes. In the field of education, to which so much importance is rightly attached by your people, the Protectorate has embarked on a great programme of expansion both of general and technical education which will greatly benefit the Baganda, while Makerere College is con­tinuing to expand, again to their great advantage. All these are benefits which have been brought to Buganda through its association with Britain and through action on a Protectorate-wide basis. The Secretary of State is therefore sure that Your Highness is right both from the point of view of the present interests of the Baganda and their future interests not to wish to leave British protection.

14. The points which require to be considered, therefore, are whether it would be possible or desirable in the interests of Buganda and its people, and whether it would affect the position regarding federation, either to separate Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate or to remove it from the jurisdiction of the Legislative Council. I have informed the Secretary of State that in discussion with me Your Highness has recognized that both these steps would involve amendment of the 1900 Agreement, since the Agreement lays down in Article 3 that Buganda ranks as a province of the Protectorate and in Article 5 that the laws made for the general government of the Protectorate are applicable to Buganda except in so far as they may be in conflict with the Agreement. Before discussing these suggestions in detail, the Secretary of State feels bound to say that he is surprised that they should have been put forward so soon after you had joined with me in stating at the end of our joint statement on the reforms in Buganda that ‘the Uganda Protectorate has been and will continue to be developed as a unitary state. The Kingdom of Buganda will continue to go forward under the government of His Highness the Kabaka and play its part, in accordance with Clause 3 of the Agreement, as a Province and a component part of the Protectorate.’

15. As regards separation from the Protectorate, the Secretary of State seriously doubts whether this would be practicable, even if it were desirable in the interests of your people. Buganda geographically lies at the centre of the Protectorate and economically and in other ways its affairs are completely bound up with those of the Protectorate as a whole. These economic and general ties, reinforced by Buganda’s geographical posi­tion, have been built up over many years and, in the Secretary of State’s view, it would be virtually impossible now to break them down.

16. Nor does he consider that this would be in the interests of the Baganda. In recent years they have been playing an increasing part in the economic life of the country as a whole and they are now entering industries which are established on a Protectorate-wide basis. Your people, with a longer experience of organized government than many of the rest of the people of the Protectorate, are well fitted to play an increasing part in public life on a Protectorate-wide basis and are in fact doing so. If Buganda, while remaining under British protection, were to be separ­ated from the rest of the Protectorate, Her Majesty’s Government would of course continue to do its best to help the Baganda develop in the political, economic and social spheres. But this would be infinitely more difficult if Buganda were separated from the rest of the Protectorate than it is now. The Secretary of State is convinced that such a separation would gravely upset the economic stability of the country; would seri­ously interfere with schemes for the economic development of the Baganda and other Africans in the Protectorate which are now being actively carried forward; would reduce the amounts of money available for development and for the advancement of the people; and in a word would completely disrupt all that is now being done to help the Baganda forward. The Secretary of State is certain, therefore, that such a separation would be prejudicial to the present and future interests of the Baganda. Moreover the separation of Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate might well be objected to by some sections of the public in Buganda and particularly the minorities, and might even lead in the case of the minori­ties to requests for separation from Buganda.

17. On the question of taking Buganda out of the purview of the Legislative Council, while retaining it within the Protectorate, this, in the Secretary of State’s view, would be seriously damaging to Buganda‘s interests. There are many laws of great and sometimes of vital importance to the Baganda which could not be passed by the Lukiko because they affect not only the Baganda but also Europeans and Asians. Notable examples of these are the cotton and coffee reorganization laws; but there are many other examples. If Buganda were taken out of the purview of the Legislative Council laws such as these would have to be applied to Buganda by the Governor by proclamation, and there would be no opportunity, such as is provided by the Legislative Council, for members representing Buganda to take part in the discussion of them, speaking for the interests of the Baganda. Such a situation would be detrimental to the interests of Buganda and would give the Baganda legitimate grounds for complaint that their views were not being properly put forward. In the Secretary of State’s view, therefore, it would be wrong to take Buganda out of the purview of the Legislative Council. Indeed the Secretary of State would go further than that and say that the members from Buganda ought to be selected by the Lukiko rather than nominated, seeing that this would link the members with the people whom they represent.

18. It remains to discuss how the separation of Buganda from the Protectorate, or its removal from the purview of the Legislative Council, would affect the position regarding federation. It is evident from what Your Highness has said to myself in discussing this matter that you fear that the Legislative Council could of its own act bring Buganda into a federation; but the Secretary of State has asked me to point out that this is not so. So long as Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom is ultimately responsible for the administration of the East African terri­tories, any scheme of federation which might be put forward could only come into force with the approval of Her Majesty’s Government; with Buganda under British protection this would apply whether Buganda was separated from the Protectorate or not. Her Majesty’s Government would of course take into account the views of the Legislative Council of the Protectorate; but would also take into account the views of the Buganda Government. Separating Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate or taking it outside the purview of the Legislative Council would not there­fore alter the position regarding federation – a position that is in any case safeguarded by the assurances conveyed to Your Highness in paragraph 7 of this letter. In so far as it would affect the situation at all, taking Buganda outside the purview of the Legislative Council would weaken rather than strengthen the position of the Baganda in this matter; for the Legislative Council, with its substantial number of African members, would provide an important mouthpiece for the expression of African opinion should this matter ever be raised. With Buganda members on the Legislative Council, these would have full opportunity to express the views held by the Baganda on this subject; but if they were not on the Legislative Coun­cil this opportunity would be lost.

19. For all these reasons the Secretary of State does not agree that the separation of Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate or its removal from the purview of the Legislative Council would be in the interests, either present or future, of the Baganda; nor would either of these steps alter the position regarding federation. The Secretary of State has instructed me strongly to advise Your Highness that the proper course is not to suggest breaking up the Protectorate into separate parts, but to strengthen its unity and to work for its future political, economic and social develop­ment. If the Protectorate were to be divided into separate parts, each of these parts would be much weaker economically and in every other way than the Protectorate as a whole; and not only much weaker, but much less able to hold its own in dealings with the neighbouring territories. A strong and united Protectorate rather than weak separate units must therefore be the aim of all our efforts in the interests both present and future of the people of the Protectorate.

Andrew Benjamin Cohen

Governor

WE SHALL GREATLY MISS ROGERS SEKIBAALA

At around 3.00am Thursday, 17, February 2011, a day to the Uganda's General Election, Rogers Sekibaala breathed his last while in the hands of his mother Mrs Kitanda. Rogers started feeling unwell the day he collected the results of his S.4 students of St. Benadate S.S. Kyengera. He was unable to reach school, so the school secretary collected the results from the parents' home of Rogers. The sickness which Rogers first felt through the foot rose up to his buttocks, the case got very serious after midnight until he died.
I met Rogers at Namirembe Guest House where his mother Mrs Kitanda was incharge of a Children's Learning/Resource Centre. Thereafter, we met when he had completed his degree at Makerere. Rogers was an industrous young man who from the word go wanted to start his own school. It is unfortunate that he is dead.
Rogers Sekibaala was Born on 5th October 1974 and Died on 17th February 2011
My the Almighty God Bless Rogers' Soul in eternal peace.

SHOULD THE PEOPLE JUST SIT BACK AS GOVERNMENT MACHINERY ABUSES THEIR RIGHTS?

Police chief warns public on protests

Kiggundu (left) and Kayihura addressing journalists in Kampala yesterday
By Henry Mukasa
and Henry Sekanjakko
THE call for mass protests to challenge the results of the presidential elections is a declaration of war on the Government, the Inspector General of Police has warned.
“The mass demonstrations will not be peaceful. Intelligence information has shown that the protestors want to burn buildings, Police stations and personnel. It is a declaration of war on the Government,” Kayihura said.
The Police boss made the remarks on Monday at a meeting with journalists and Electoral Commission (EC) staff. The meeting was aimed at briefing the media on the preparations for the municipal, mayoral and youth parliamentary elections.
Kayihura was asked to comment on statements by the leaders of the opposition that warnings by the President and the IGP to shoot down protestors were “kicks of a dying horse.”
He observed that the Constitution allows peaceful demonstrations but maintains that the right should not infringe on the rights of other citizens.
The police chief also said that the Police retains the Constitutional right to regulate demonstrations.
“The fact that the opposition has not notified the Police causes suspicion. We shall not allow anyone to destablise the peace of the country. The mass protests are not demonstrations envisaged by the Constitution.
Let them not play with words,” Kayihura said.
On February 24, four former presidential candidates called for mass protests to dispute what they termed as a “sham election” that saw President Yoweri Museveni win the February polls.
Kizza Besigye (IPC),Olara Otunu (UPC), Norbert Mao (DP) and Samuel Lubega (independent) urged district party leaders to organise and address peaceful public rallies.
Badru Kiggundu, the EC boss, referred to the declaration by Besigye on the election results as mere “gymnastics.”
“It has no legal force of the law. They are lucky the freedom in this country allows you to do anything, provided you don’t coerce others,” Kiggundu said.
Kiggundu announced that the mayoral elections would be held on March 14.
He asked politicians not to deploy any militia groups (kanyamas) at polling stations.
Kayihura blamed political leaders for the violence that marred the Kampala mayoral elections, saying they chose to work with hooligans instead of the Police.
He confirmed that the Police had arrested Juma Ssemakula a.k.a backfire, the leader of Kibooko Squad (stick-wielding men), and 40 others.
Kayihura, advised journalists to relay complaints over election violence to the Police public relations office or Professional Standards Agency.
“I haven’t got a report on the violence inflicted on journalists during the polls,” Kayihura said as journalists murmured in disagreement.

JUDICIARY DISOWNS LUBAGA RECOUNT!

Mukono MP Betty Nambooze and Rubaga North MP-elect Moses Kasibante leaving the High Court compound yesterday

By Anne Mugisa
and Andante Okanya
THE Judiciary has disowned the recount of the Rubaga North constituency votes.
The recount, which was ordered by Mengo Chief Magistrate Philip Odoki after a High Court injunction, handed victory to Singh Katongole who had lost to Moses Kasibante in the original poll.
The Judiciary has also declared an investigation into the saga to “establish what happened and bring to book whoever is responsible,” the Judiciary spokesperson, Erias Kisawuzi, said yesterday.
He said the Judiciary is the custodian of justice and and, therefore, will not condone or be privy to any illegality.
“Court orders are not issued in vain and whatever happened at Mengo from the beginning to the end was illegal and of no consequence as the subject matter will be entertained by the High Court on Thursday at 9.00am,” Kisawuzi stated.
“Following issuance and service of the High Court order to stay the Chief Magistrate’s order to recount the votes from Rubaga North constituency, the exercise was supposed to stop.
"But in complete defiance, the exercise continued. The exercise was, right from the beginning until completion illegal and of no consequence,” he added.
The statement disowning the Mengo vote recount was issued following a meeting by senior officials of the Judiciary over the Magistrate’s Court decision.
Katongole was declared winner at 2:45am yesterday by Kampala returning officer Molly Mutazindwa, following a Magistrate’s Court order.
Kasibante’s lawyers Erias Lukwago and Medard Lubega Ssegona had secured a High Court order stopping the recount.
According to the Mengo Magistrate, Phillip Odoki, the High Court order came after the recount had started and it could not be stopped.
The Magistrate’s Court had ordered the recount on Friday February 25, but the High Court halted the process, saying there was a matter relating to it that had to be handled on Thursday.
“It is necessary to maintain the status quo. An interim order is, therefore, issued pending outcome of the main application,” a registrar of the High Court said on Monday.
Electoral Commission chairman Eng. Badru Kiggundu denied defying the High Court order. He said he did not have the full story of what happened.
“But what I can say is that the second order was not issued on the institution (EC) but an individual. As far as we were concerned, the recount went on and the returning officer did what she was supposed to do,” Kiggundu said.
In the February 18 polls, Katongole who is also the NRM deputy treasurer got 18,595 votes against independent candidate Kasibante’s 24,054. There were seven other candidates in the race.
Asked whether this could be a case of contempt of court, Kisawuzi said there could be other issues, and that it was why an investigation has been ordered.
Meanwhile, Katongole’s lawyer, Asa Mugenyi, asked the High Court to give him time to defend his client. He said he had been served on Monday afternoon and he did not have time to prepare.
However, Ssegona said Katongole and his lawyer pushed for a hasty recount despite an order to the contrary by the High Court so that his name could be published in the Uganda Gazette.
He asked court to stop the EC from releasing the name of the elected MP for publication until the Rubaga North issue is disposed of.

GRAND MOTHERS STAND UP, GRAND DAUGHTERS SPEAK OUT ...

Grandmothers stand up – Granddaughters speak out – Communities take action

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been inspired by the courage and resilience of women, men and young people on the frontlines of the AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa, working to turn the tide of AIDS in their communities. The 2010 AfriGrand Caravan was a response to this outpouring of concern, compassion and commitment of Canadians.
From September to November 2010, the Stephen Lewis Foundation travelled across the country with African grandmothers and granddaughters orphaned by AIDS. The AfriGrand Caravan created a forum for these women to tell their stories and share their strategies, challenges and triumphs in dealing with the ravages of AIDS. It also offered Canadians the opportunity to be inspired by these stories and to join the movement.
For the first time, individuals in 40 Canadian communities from St. John’s, Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia were be able to connect directly with African women and girls at the heart of these community-based initiatives.
The AfriGrand Caravan was proudly supported by the Canadian Auto Workers, CIBC, the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Aeroplan. The AfriGrand Caravan vehicle is courtesy of Chrysler.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE 2010 AFRIGRAND CARAVAN
For more information on the AfriGrand Caravan please contact:

Alexis MacDonald, Director of External Relations
amacdonald@stephenlewisfoundation.org
1-888-203-9990 x259