The Uganda Times: Why Gen David Sejjusa Inevitably Needs To Be Prose...

The Uganda Times: Why Gen David Sejjusa Inevitably Needs To Be Prose...: Why Gen David Sejjusa Inevitably Needs To Be Prosecuted   Is Gen David Sejjusa above the law? The politically dramatic year of 20...

Why Gen David Sejjusa Inevitably Needs To Be Prosecuted

Why Gen David Sejjusa Inevitably Needs To Be Prosecuted 

 Is Gen David Sejjusa above the law?


By  Fred Daka kamwada-Kamwada

The politically dramatic year of 2014 is coming to an end with a cloud of suspense and apprehension unfolding in the political circles of this country.

The fate of two senior NRM figures, Hon john Patrick Amama Mbabazi and self styled UPDF general David Sejjusa aka Tinyefunza remains hanging in the balance.

While the fate of the recently sacked Ugandan prime minister and eventually impeached NRM secretary general, Hon Amama seems to be sealed-as a dumped member of the NRM party with an option of joining the opposition, the future of Gen Sejusa remains contentiously hanging on the pendulum swing.

Here is a serving UPDF officer who has breached all the rules and regulations of the institution (UPDF) he has served for the last thirty or so years moving freely speaking politics and getting away with it.

In a country where the rule of the law applies, we should have seen more action.

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

But we seem to live in a country of civilized people who prefer to practice primitive tendencies and thrive on intellectual dishonesty.

We have interestingly seen so many political people find it very difficult to make a honest verdict of what should happen to Gen Sejjusa.

Most members of the opposition have sacrificed principles at the altar of political expedience. And it’s rather baffling that most of them are trained lawyers.

One such person who really made a contradiction of what we expect of him was a lawyer by the names of Mr. Makubuya. While appearing on NBS television morning show some few weeks ago, Mr. Makubuya who is a member of the FDC was asked what he thought of Gen Sejjusa‘s return and he answered thus;

‘’he (Sejjusa) is entitled to his return to the country. He has no case to answer. He only authored a letter which spited the regime and was forced into exile. We actually feel that he should join the opposition”

And its interesting to note that Mr. Makubuya made no mention of what the law says about Sejusa’s actions since he went to exile.

Another senior member of the opposition and also a lawyer by profession Hon Medard Segona was also asked the same question on the same NBS television by the morning show host Mr. Simon Kagwa Njalla what he thought about the Sejjusa conundrum.

And Hon Segona –without elaborating on the legal aspect of the whole issue simply said that Sejjusa was welcome to the opposition.

Both Mr. Makubuya and Hon Segona are a typical representation of Ugandans who suffer from intellectual dishonesty.

They prefer to make political explanations rather than making the honest analysis of the facts that obtain on the ground.

Some Ugandans are saying that Museveni’s has come out smarter by letting Sejjusa to enjoy his freedom despite of the obvious breaches of the law he has been engaged in.

But this assertion is only true to an extent.

Although it politically plays in his favor NOT to bring Gen Sejjusa to book ,but it’s practically absurd to say that Museveni’s is smarter when he lets the errant UPDF general to behave freely even when it’s clear that he is in breach of a clear set of rules.

Is Sejjusa culpable?

 Gen sejjusa meets the international media

For Christ’s sake there are rules and regulations of the game at stake here. And in a world where impunity is not part of the game, anyone who is in breach of those principles needs to account for his felonies.

We all know what Gen Sejjusa has done since he was holed up in exile in London-and most of it smells like a stench of indefensible illegalities.

It’s important to note here that Gen Sejjusa was not in breach of any law when he wrote the letter (that resulted in his exile) requesting the authorities to investigate reports that some senior officials including himself, Hon Amama Mbabazi and Gen Aronda Nyakairima were targeted for assassination for reportedly opposing the widely rumored Muhoozi project.

On that account alone, Sejjusa has no case to answer.  Instead its government which overreacted by closing two media houses and reshuffling the top leadership of the army

Gen Sejusa’s Illegalities

But on account of what followed afterwards-particularly when he was in exile-, it’s obvious that Tinyefunza messed up quite a number of principles.

And you don’t need to dig deep for evidence of his treasonable utterances because he did it on international media outlets like the BBC, VOA, RFI etc.

First of all Sejjusa was supposed to lose his seat as member of the Ugandan parliament by virtue of His long period in exile that meant that he inevitably failed to honor the mandatory fifteen consecutive sittings.

At least in this case sanity prevailed and the speaker of parliament Hon Rebecca Kadaga managed to oversee his removal as representative of the UPDF and replacing him with another member, as provided for by the law.

But it’s interesting to note that the due process of the law stopped at what parliament did.  The rest has been the absolute abuse of the laws of the land

First of all, he openly declared war on the government of Uganda.

His long stay in exile also meant that we expected the army to declare him a deserter, but it has not done it despite of provision within the law that a soldier who goes AWOL (absent without official leave) without official communication faces prosecution.

Partisan Politics

Thirdly; here is a serving Army officer who has even went ahead to form a political organization (known as FUF) aimed at propagating the downfall of a regime he has served for the last thirty years.

  This (forming of a political organization) is in total breach of the Ugandan constitution which bars serving army officers from engaging in direct partisan political contestations.

He then went on to declare war on President Yoweri Museveni’s government. The renegade general became an item on the international media outlets like the BBC , the VOA and others who cared to interview him where he took the liberty to call his commander in chief a killer and dictator who deserves to be kicked out of power.

Is Museveni Smarter or Promoting Impunity?

Of course by not taking any action against Tinyefunza, president Museveni reaps political dividends. First of all it demonstrates that he is not a killer-like most African leaders who hunt their rivals and kill them in exile, as Sejjusa was portraying him to be.

Secondly he denies the opposition an outright claim on the defection of one of the senior members of the UPDF.

And on this account, Museveni’s has scored tremendously by not taking action on Tinyefunza.

But on account of rule of law and safeguarding impunity, Museveni’s is losing it completely.

If corruption is defined as a breach of principle, like many of us believe, then this (taking no action against Tinyefunza) is the highest form of corruption.

It’s actually not sustainable because it has grave consequences of creating a system of selective justice.

We have seen officers face the court martial for merely making soft political statements on local radio. But here is Tinyefunza making seditious and treason statements on international media!

CONSEQUENCES

It sets a very bad precedence whereby it compromises discipline of the rank and file of the other members of UPDF.

What will happen to any other serving officer who engages in such political actions? Will he be allowed to even make processions, like Tinyefunza has been allowed to do?

This issue alone also shows that the UPDF has sectarian tendencies where some officers and men and are untouchable and others abide by the rules and regulations.

It also has the detrimental effect of reminding Ugandans of scenarios of selective justice where two Ugandans -both former members of the former UPC regime- were convicted of similar crimes,-but one of them  ( Hajji Sebirumbi , Chairman Of UPC –Luwero district ) was hanged and another one by the names of Chris Rwakasisis who was minister of security ) was pardoned and released from jail and given a job as presidential advisor because he –probably belonged to the same tribe as president Museveni’s.

 Chris Rwakakasis (above) was pardoned but Hajji sebirumbi was hanged for the same crime

With all the factors of fairness and poetic justice in play, even a blind man can see that there is an obvious miscarriage of justice and fairness.

And it’s practically inevitable that either president Museveni’s prosecutes Gen David Sejjusa, or he becomes an accomplice in fomenting impunity and tendencies of indiscipline in the governance of this country.

Ugandans must stop interpreting everything politically and also look at the need to uphold principles.

I rest my case with the possibility of highly being misunderstood.

Fred Daka kamwada-Kamwada is sociopolitical commentator and a senior journalist

Ends

Gen Idi Amin’s Son C roses swords with Gen Yoweri Museveni

Gen Idi Amin’s Son C roses swords with Gen Yoweri Museveni 
 

In what may come to be regarded as the battle of the first families, the son of the fallen former Ugandan dictator Gen Idi Amin has written a scathing letter in which he criticizes the government of president Museveni for failing to deliver services to Ugandans.

Mr Jaffar Amin wrote the letter to president Museveni himself and took it upon himself to defend the working style of his father, the late president Idi Amin Dada whom he considers to have performed much better than the current NRM government.
After the publication of Jaffar Amin’s letter, president Museveni made a personally attack on the former dictator and his family for having destroyed the country.

 While speaking to The Inter Religious council this Wednesday morning, Mr Museveni described former president, Idi Amin as an idiot for ‘bad rule’ and justified his [Museveni] participation in the war to overthrow him. “Amin was an idiot. If he had kept his idiocy to his family, we would have kept quiet. But he wanted to impose it on all of us,” Mr Museveni told a two-day inter-religious conference in Kampala yesterday
On the other hand Mr Jaffar Amin defended his father’s regime saying it performed far better than Museveni in a more than 2,300 word letter which has been published below;
THE ACIDIC LETTER
Dear Mr. President,

Kindly allow me to raise the current issue of NAADS.
Since your recent announcement during the State of the Nation address that the UPDF would get involved in the NAADS agricultural support program, there have been many comparisons between Idi Amin and you.
The main theme of the complaints is militarization of government.
I am not sure many young people have the correct, practical knowledge to discuss Amin.
However, it is that comparison that has prompted me to react, primarily on government support to agriculture, and
secondly, the economics of privatization (a related issue involving government assets,
many of which were put in place to support sectors like agriculture in the first place).
UPC and NRM, the two main parties that have largely run this country since Amin left, have
unashamedly blamed his government for the
appalling state of the economy that I recall discovering in shock when I returned to Uganda in 1994.
Yet I can clearly confirm that Amin left a country that was intact in terms of government
assets, roads, buildings, satellite television, world radio, public transport and many other
services including those intended for farmers.
These assets included government parastatals,
cooperative unions, and major technological capacities that were literally looted, run down
or destroyed by the "Liberators".
But let me start with a brief look at today's NAADS, the now failing government program
for agriculture.
This program has failed for the same reasons as all other government companies since
"liberation": Corruption.
Mr. President, the NRM followed the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank in getting government out of industry and
business. The argument was that government didn't know how to handle business (basically
the endemic corruption) and therefore would do better to leave all sectors of the economy
in the hands of the private sector that would then have to fend for itself.
To put it bluntly, the poverty stricken population was told "adapt or die. We won't help you."
This decision, Mr President, has directly affected agricultural output and productivity as
the government subsidies have literally been reduced to seedlings.
Yet the same mismanagement continues in NAADS and many other government programs
(i.e. Global Fund program, OPM...etc.)
The perception out there is that the introduction of the military in the running of government programs is equivalent to taking
the country back to when Liberators took over these companies, run them down, then sold them under the privatization program of the
90's to themselves and their friends.
You may be aware of those in your government that escaped being held accountable for mismanagement.
To them, the privatization program must have sounded like the salvation enabling them to
escape accountability as government parastatal companies were privatized, and
their mismanagement, theft and plunder therefore erased.
In regards to NAADS being militarized, many arguments have been put forward by all kinds of political analysts.
But to me, the most shocking visionary was a seemingly ordinary government official at a
hotel reception. He had taken a break from an ongoing ministry workshop and was discussing agriculture. He then said; "This
NAADS militarization is just Museveni saying "entebbe ewooma."
His proof was that today you seek to increasingly re-intervene in the agricultural sector with the military.
However, we should again question sweeping privatization.
It now seems that it isn't the best
economic remedy for any country. The efforts government put in taking control of the oil
sector is evidence that points at the necessity for state control in sectors of strategic economic interest. Like agriculture.
If Uganda had the required logistical capacity, government could actually have done oil
extraction, refining and transportaion by itself.
But todays government obviously can't achieve that.
Corruption is just waiting for the
opportunity to jump in. We here from parliament that it already did.
Britain had always regarded nationalization as a problem since post independence Uganda.
But they were doing this for their self interest: continued control of Ugandan resources and
supremacism ideologies. The companies that Apollo Milton Obote wanted to nationalize
back then were mostly British.
So what else could anyone expect from them besides
condemning nationalization.
We can therefore assume that privatization was your way of bowing to colonialists interests so
as to access their aid cash.
It is public knowledge that Western aid has strings attached. The elections that Uganda has these days was a positive condition though for
western aid. Without that clause in exchange for aid, I still wonder who would have ushered
democracy to this country.
But getting back to my initial point, if officials already exterminated governments capacity to intervene in selected crucial market sectors, I
wonder what miracle this lone UPDF "askari" per district is going to achieve upcountry
under NAADS.
The fellow doesn't have a single
tool, let alone ideas on modernizing agriculture.
When Amin appointed senior army officers to oversee government parastatals as exclaimed in the comparisons being made between you
and him, his was a security matter: Preventing sabotage.
Your book 'Sowing The Mustard Seed" is one clear collection of long standing clandestine efforts to undermine his government.
But the important point here is that the parastatals and government entities during
Amin's time had adequate assets (offices, heavy duty harvesting equipment, tractors, lorries, bank accounts, vehicles, telecoms, staff...etc).
They worked with cooperative unions and other organizations that also had their assets,
funds and a local agricultural management structure where state equipment could be
utilized by farmers grouped in districts.
It was also common knowledge that Idi Amin would immediately procure whatever else was lacking in the field as soon as it was requested for.
In case of emergencies, officials and citizens could dial 20241, his publicly known telephone number back then, and trust me
issues would be dealt with promptly.
His intervention in the economy simply provided strict security oversight against saboteurs and that is how government
companies were able to do exactly what they were meant to do.
Back then, much as an essential product like sugar was problematic for Ugandans to get
because of the economic embargo to get spare
parts for industries, the agricultural sector functioned.
Coffee, tea and cotton continued as exports. Other agricultural products for local consumption continued being produced, and
had their immediate market.
Farms and fields were producing milk, vegetables and other staple foodstuffs across the country.
I remember attending the launch of Kibimba Rice Scheme, a vast rice plantation that was
being operated by Chinese government experts in order to produce and supply rice locally,
then export any excess to neighboring countries.
But today, if truth be said, there is chaos in the emptiness of governments' logistical
capacity to massively and decisively develop agriculture, yet we hear officials talk
rhetorically of food security.
Just last month, a news program was presenting ongoing famine in Napak, Karamoja. Famine is unheard of ever in Uganda.
Yet we have an entire disaster preparedness ministry and another specifically for Karamoja.
If that isn't incompetence, what is?

Mr. President, as you rightly diagnosed, almost the entire budget of the NAADS program goes to pay salaries of its employees.
Virtually nothing is left for actual agriculture development in terms of equipment, storage &
processing infrastructure and agricultural inputs like seeds, pesticides and fertilizers.
Looking at a surviving government organization like the Coffee Marketing Board, it
is a skeleton of its former self.
The department can't achieve a tenth of its goals because of lack of funding and the inherent absence of honest, decisive political will to develop the sector.
What we hear in seminars and news stories has started sounding like empty rhetoric by
so-called brilliant specialist officials.
Yet the Coffee Marketing Board has a major role that they used to proudly perform back then as they processed, marketed and
exported quality Ugandan coffee.
They were heavily supported by government and the country was behind coffee as our star product.
Today coffee is still a big Ugandan international export product, and therefore still requires special preferential treatment.
Particularly with the fluctuating coffee market abroad and the sometimes virulent coffee wilt
disease that affects farmers productivity.
Today, it is a handful of enterprising private individuals who are using their own creativity and meagre resources to try and improve the image of Ugandan coffee abroad.
Obviously, talking to government departments is like talking to a brick wall. So these
individuals have focused on using foreign platforms available for developing countries.
Their government just doesn't care.
So looking at the current NAADS militarization, it is difficult to expect economic wonders from
the UPDF officers. The uniform alone can't help and the NRM already sold the required
assets/technical capacity that could have allowed a robust intervention.
You rightly said that we needed more tangible agricultural assistance to the farmers and less administrative costs.
Therefore you have correctly diagnosed the problem Mr.
President.
But your treatment is tantamount to re-injecting viruses back to the patient.
In fact, on top of that, the country could now also brace itself for another humongous
financial loss due to corruption.
The people are aware in advance that funds will surely vanish mysteriously under this new
initiative. It's as sure as the rising of the sun tomorrow morning. Your guys just can't help it being corrupt when money is in front of them.
Honestly!
The kind of fundamental change that government needs to undertake within its ranks and its policies to meaningfully develop this country's economy are the kind of things I can't waste time mentioning here.
Officials are known to simply pay lip service to important initiatives and only act when it suits their ulterior self seeking purposes.
Yet there are so many brains out there and they aren't necessarily NRM. Most are actually young, professionally motivated and apolitical when it comes to partisan politics. They are
interested in serving government, having a family, educating their children, building a house and getting treatment for their grandparents.
They would actually want to avoid the headaches of having to serve in politically charged working environments.
The same can be said of the private sector.
They are good at courting government only to protect their commercial interests. Let it be clear that they will definitely continue doing the same with the next administration.
Ideally, they would be glad to avoid government officials altogether, because some
are said to have become worse than pests, constantly extorting money.
Investors themselves have complained openly to you about this Mr. President.
They are tired of being turned into piggy banks where so-called "respectable" officials
smilingly extort hard-earned cash on a regular basis while withholding government services
that are either supposed to be free-of-charge or at a publicly fixed nominal cost.
The private sector is the main source of income for government and should therefore be allowed to grow without undue interference.

This reminds me Mr. President, sometime last year during a live press conference in Kampala, you mentioned the creation of NRM companies. I looked for details of the announcement in the press the following day
to no avail. It then dawned on me that the herd of journalists that were present during the
briefing were completely oblivious of a historic U-turn in economic policy that was
happening right in front of them.
Your initiative was in total contradiction with the purpose of the privatization program.
If government couldn't make state companies successful in the 90's, how could anyone
expect the same people to make NRM companies successful.
Even opposition parties have smaller but better maintained party headquarters.
But let us take a closer look at how leading world economies have strategically avoided
privatization in crucial designated sectors that remain firmly under government control.
The EU for example, has a budget that goes almost entirely to subsidizing their economies, particularly agriculture with
almost 80%, science & technology/research and education.
Many Western flagship companies (i.e General Motors in the US, Peugoet/Citroen in France, Rolls Royce vehicles and aviation engines in the UK...etc.) are either government owned,
have government as their major client, or receive heavy subsidies from their respective
governments, particularly in times of economic recession.
Airbus industries, a world leader in civil and military aviation construction, is another example of a common EU governments effort.
They build the state-of-the-art Euro-fighter jet that we can't even afford to dream of.
The point is that certain industries are important and wouldn't exist without
government leadership and direct investment.
The space industry is another example. It is globally controlled by US, EU and Russia.
But this specific investment has enabled all the telecommunications, digital television & radio, Geo-positioning services, research of all kinds on populations, resources and environment via all sorts of satellites orbiting
the earth.
And the countries involved in this sector are seeing a return on investment as major
corporations hire their services for transporting private satellite payloads.
Mr. President, these are momentous government initiatives from the very people
who successfully told your government to divest from government enterprises. Their
misleading argument was that the private sector will handle it.
When?
From the examples above we see that markets can be directly created by governments.
Particularly when innovation is a policy priority.
It also requires that government be bold enough to invest and provide visible, tangible
leadership in crucial sectors of a countries economy.
In the meantime, allow me to call upon the media to objectively report back to the people in a years time on how the UPDF/NAADS initiative is progressing.
We wouldn't want to read headlines like "NAADS Staff Face Military Court Martial For Treason, Sabotage, Misappropriation Of Funds". Would we?
As to the current comparisons between yourself and Idi Amin, they have reached beyond 70's levels.
Your Uganda is now also referred to as a nepotist and sectarian gross abuser of human
rights and involved in the killing, rape and butchering of over 6 million congolese.
Your Uganda is being called a police state that is imprisoning, torturing and killing political
opposition.

A British commentator recently said that the "fundamental change" you announced in 1986
has indeed turned into "No change", which happens to be your NRM party motto today.
The international press is now regularly talking of "Dictator Museveni and his henchmen".
The one who gave himself the presidency for life by forcing the lifting of term limits in the
constitution.
Soon someone will go a step further and give you the title of "Supreme Leader".
Dont smile when you hear it. They are being sarcastic. That was the title of your "friend"
Ghaddafi.
Sincerely,
Hussein Juruga Lumumba Amin

Instituting A Minimum Wage is The Same As Tasking government to Regulate Rent -Both of Which Constitute Direct Interference In The Private Sector

Instituting A Minimum Wage is The Same As Tasking government to Regulate Rent  -Both  of Which Constitute Direct Interference  In The Private Sector

By Fred Daka Kamwada-kamwada

   Since the Labor Day which is usually celebrated around the world on every first of the month of May, there has been a lot of agitation for the institution of a minimum wage.

Last week Hon Mwesigwa Rukutana attended a conference organized by the international labor organization (ILO) and was tasked to explain when his government was going to institute the minimum wage.

At that time he dillydallied and later revealed that by June next year, 2015, the issue of minimum wage will be solved. He also said that a board had been instituted to look at the issue.  

But when you look into the details of the matter, you realize that most of the agitators for the minimum wage are motivated by the fact that it (the minimum wage) will improve the status of the worker.

I have however come to realize that Most of the arguments on the social media and other forums around the country are mostly basing their argument on the ideal rather than the reality.

Yes, it’s true that Uganda first instituted the minimum wage in 1964.  From that time we continued having it set basing on inflation and dynamics related to cost of living.

While many are making that argument of the previous government putting the minimum wage in place, they forget that the circumstances of the time were different.

We have shifted from a nationalized atmosphere where it employed almost the entire workforce. Today we champion a private sector led economy. Therefore determining how much should be paid within the private sector would tantamount to interference in the sector that is naturally regulated by the market forces.

For instance at that time In the 60s when the minimum wage was set , the  government was the sole job provider within the public sector.

Since government was the sole employer, it was easy to institute a minimum wage.

But today government has withdrawn from business related enterprises. Out of 34 million Ugandans, government is only taking less than 0.3m Ugandans mostly in the civil service.

Yet, from the statistics from the ministry of labor show that the Ugandan labor force is around 14 million employed people.

state minister for labor Hon Mwesigwa Rukutana

This means that the effect of government in determining the wages of its citizens has been minimized or diminished altogether since it employs few people.

The emergence of a very powerful private sector has meant that government has little or no influence on how much the worker is paid in the private sector.

Even if government went out of its way to institute the minimum wage as many are agitating, there are no guarantees that it will have the desired effect.

HOW MUCH?

Because first of all there are different opinions about how much constitutes a minimum wage.

Even if you calculate it basing on inflation and cost of living, some people will still criticize it for not being enough.

It’s therefore obvious that we cannot have a concrete consensus on what should constitute a minimum wage because the economy keeps shifting all the time.

For instance, a casual calculation shows that if someone is sleeping in the cheapest accommodation which goes for 70,000 shillings, and eats 5,000 shillings per day ( for lunch and super),  a basic transport allowance of 2,000 per day  without going into the other needs , that alone will take the minimum wage to 280,000 shillings per month.

Now how many employers are going to pay this amount of money as a basic start for the lowest paid worker?

But most of all, the logical question is how many people are ready to pay their maid 280,000 shillings per month?

  In fact if you institute the minimum wage, it might instead have an adverse effect of job losses on the job market.

It means that the employer will employ few people thus leading to the unemployment of so many people who are willing to work for less.

This will certainly lead to adverse joblessness.

Yet in a freewheeling market within the private sector that is dictated by market forces, the employer can be in position to employ two people for the fee that you would regard as minimum wage (0.28m).

And it’s crucial to note the worker will also willingly work for lets say150, 000 shillings paving way for another job opportunity for someone else if it’s done in a laisez fair atmosphere where the worker personally agrees with the employer.

EXPLOITATION

Besides the reality of joblessness associated with the minimum wage, once we have it in place, there is a possibility that the employer will even exploit the worker more than ever.

The exploitation will happen because the worker will be tasked to do jobs which would have done by more than two or more people.

This will be done by the employer in a bid to recover a value for money from the worker.

Another issue which has been taken out of context is the politicization of an issue which is entirely not political at all.

It’s very unrealistic to expect government to determine how much the employer should pay their workers when market forces can deliver the living wage where the worker agrees to offer labor at a given wage.

When you say that the government should determine the wage, it means you are inviting government to also determine how much the landlord’s should charge for the rent of their premises.

Having made all those arguments, I strongly believe that it’s not conducive for government to institute a minimum wage in an economy that is private sector-led.

We should all agree that although Ugandans are not paid enough, some of them are earning a living wage. Besides every worker has the right to negotiate his wages with his employers and also has the right to withdraw labor if it’s not satisfying his or her needs.

I rest my case with high possibility of being completely misunderstood.

Fred Daka Kamwada-kamwada is a journalist, social critical and political commentator. You can get him on kamwadafred@yahoomil.com or 0782480480