Controversial John Nagenda Desperately Wants President Museveni Step Down From Power before 2021!

Controversial John Nagenda Desperately Wants President Museveni Step Down From Power Before 2021!

Mr. John Nagenda, is a senior Ugandan media personality known for writing a weekly column full of very difficult grammar.  His writings have exposed him as one of the most arrogant and uncompromising figures in the country who seems not to know the meaning of words like humility , courtesy and tolerance. 

At best you can call him a bigot.

While writing in his popular but snobbish column known as One Man’s Week, the highly opinionated presidential advisor has never hidden his desire to witness the peaceful transition of power from president Museveni to another Uganda, a topic that no Ugandan in government can dare discuss.
 

But Mr. Nagenda  has always fell short of mentioning the person he deems fit to fill the big shoes of the Ugandan presidency which Mr. Museveni has occupied for the last 30 years and on course to  make it 35 years after the end of his current reign in 2021.

Last Saturday he reiterated his desire by writing about the beauty of the Tanzanian two term limit format which has seen four tanzanian presidents (Ben Mkapa, Hassan Mwinyi and Jakaya Kikwete and now john pombe Magufuli)serving in the last thirty years, the same period the Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni has single-handedly been at the helm of power.

The 78 year old Nagenda is about six years older than president Museveni and both men have had a sweet sour relationship.

  Nagenda’s desire for peaceful transition of power from Museveni, directly affects his job security as media advisor to the president.

Although he is rumored to be a farmer, his job as presidential advisor remains the only officially known source of income. His other source of income is the weekly column which he eagerly writes without fail every Saturday in The Newvision newspaper.

His controversial opinions therefore endanger his livelihood.

Over the years he has poked his nose into very sensitive national matters.

A few years ago, he was quoted by the wiki leaks saying that the First Lady, Janet Museveni, as “a very extreme woman” who was behind the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and President Museveni as being “quite intemperate”, which means too extreme.

 By doing that Nagenda was trading on very slippery ground since there is an unwritten script that forbids Ugandans from criticizing the first family in general and Janet Museveni in particular.

The only sacrificial lamb from the first family that can be criticized and nothing happens, is President Yoweri Museveni. 

But even then, criticizing president Museveni has its own limits, since it’s only permissible as long as it doesn’t endanger his stronghold on power.

A good example of casualties of this rule was president Museveni‘s childhood friend Eriya Kategaya who was sacked from cabinet for opposing the continued stay of president Museveni in power.

The late Eriya Kategaya opposed the lifting of the term limits that paved way for president Museveni to contest in 2006 elections after the expiry of his constitutional term in 2005.

Kategaya went on to join the Forum For Democratic Change but was later reintegrated back into cabinet after reports that he was socially not doing well. He later died while serving as minster for east African community affairs.

At that time it was reported that Kategaya’s health was badly affected when he was sacked from government.  He reportedly couldn’t sustain the same lifestyle he enjoyed while in cabinet. 

Now Mr. John Nagenda is doing g exactly what Kategaya did; chopping the fingers that are feed him.

Some few years ago, Nagenda was interviewed by a Ugandan daily and he openly spoke out on Museveni’s long reign in power, saying Museveni had become “more autocratic”, “mischievous” and “no longer listens”. 

In the same interview, Nagenda said the First Lady is the only opposition voice in Cabinet.

The interview was the crescendo to the spat between Nagenda and Museveni, in which the President, while addressing teachers at State House, Entebbe, August 27, 2012 said “unlike some of those who engage in arrogance over Mabira, I do not drink alcohol or go to bars. I always think about developing Uganda for the well-being of Ugandans.”
President Museveni appeared to be reacting to Nagenda’s position against his (Museveni’s) insistence on giving away part of Mabira forest for sugarcane growing.
Nagenda, in his next column in Saturday Vision on September 3 2012, admitted thus: “Your columnist certainly and unashamedly enjoys a drink – come to that, many kinds of the stuff, each having its own place in the hierarchy of a meal. Rather than a bar, I repair to my seat at our table at the club.
A drink with others brings camaraderie where many things can be discussed, where for that moment they feel equals. I recommend it. I doubt, however, that I can convince some persons. Let’s admit: Equal-ness can form dangerous expectations!”
It’s highly unlikely that Nagenda will be sacked as a media advisor to the president but he is trading on very slippery ground. 

Ends

It’s Absurd That Simon Kaheru Remains Ignorant about the Strategic Advantages of Negative Energy

It’s Absurd That Simon Kaheru Remains Ignorant about the Strategic Advantages of Negative Energy

Major Barigye Bahoku used to be my friend (before he deeply got involved in AMISOM duties) and he once told me that ‘I was very negative for life’. 

At that time I had not internalized the practical repercussions of being negative so I decided to read widely about the subject and discovered that all the motivation speakers preached the same things about negative people; that we should distance ourselves away from cynical people. 

Well it so happened that major Barigye was right that I had a negative attitude to so many things and my cynicism was always reflected in my writings in one of the dailies.

I for instance wrote about Fidel Castro being a liability to Cuba because of his intransigence that led to the hard-hitting sanctions by the US on Cuba.

 I also wrote that most pan Africanists were good for nothing because they were propagating hate against the western powers other than embracing cooperation with them.

Major Bahoku was kind enough to solicit an invite for me to the Cuban embassy where I had a confrontation with a lady called Fatuma Taa, ( I was told she is daughter of former Guinean president  Sekou Toure who led it to independence from France in 1958. 

But Sekou Toure ruled with an iron hand, taking power as a radical who pursued Marxist revolutionary policies. He was also known for his pan African view which is why his daughter Fatuma Taa was deeply involved in the pan African movement in Uganda.

so at the Cuban embassy I had a spat with this Sekou Toure lady when I told the Cuban ambassador (during the question and answer session between him and the journalists) that it was Fidel Castro who was to blame for retarding the prosperity of that seemingly beautiful country, Cuba.

Although the ambassador was understandably cool with my views, Fatuma Taa and Prof Tarsis Kabwegyere were furious that i had the audacity to talk ill about the revolutionary leader.

Fatuma Taa curtly blamed major Bahoku for ‘’bringing bad people at the Cuban embassy’’
And that was when Major Bahoku came to me and accused me of being negative.
At that time I was too arrogant to care about what people thought about me.

Raison de'etre

So today that word negative surfaced to me again when I read The Newvision and saw a headline titled ‘How To Deal With Negative People’ written by longtime columnist Mr. Simon Kaheru.
I obviously read the article with the passion of a child who has been starved of a breast for days because of the contrasting views about negativity and positive thinking.  
from the onset i thought it was very informative because Mr. Kaheru brought in an educative perspective about a certain Glum character that featured in an old cartoon series.
Mr. Kaheru decried Glum’s tendency to always see things from a negative perspective.
Glum would say things like;
 ‘It cannot work’
‘We are doomed’
‘I wonder whether we shall make it’

And Kaheru wrote that he never appreciated the negative stance that Glum had for any undertakings of that time.
 However Kaheru contradicted himself when he wrote that in each instance where Glum was negative, things turned out to have a positive end!.

And that is the exact issue that has forced me to respond to Mr. Kaheru in this blog to educate him to him about the value of negative energy.

The Power Of Negativity
so many books have been written to show that negative energy is not good at all.
yet much as positive thinking is good when you are about to engage into a challenging venture , it’s the negativity that guides you to success.

Am actually of the view that you need negative people around you because they inadvertently warn you of the exigent risks involved in a given undertaking.

While most motivation speakers encourage us to avoid negative people because of the negative energy they bring to issues, am of the view that we can pick very important warning messages from negative people than we get from positive people.
For instance , if you are to undertake a journey, a positive perosn will encourage you without mentioning  any reservations. but a negative perosn will warn you about the likelihood of a inuring a flat tyre!

Let me use another dynamic example. In the 80s ,President Museveni was hugely motivated that he launched the bush war with just 27 guns. he needed optimists around him to push the cause. But he also used cynicism on so many occasions to avoid mistakes. for instance he abandoned an attack on Masindi barracks.

On the other hand, however positive energy can have drastic consequ3nces. For instance, we should consider Alice Lakwena to be the most optimistic person you could ever find in this world because she used to attack government garrisons with stones!.

Lakwena was so positive that she told her fighters that they had a natural immunity to bullets and bombs from the NRA troops. And her fighters were easily decimated because of that positive energy that Mr. Kaheru is preaching for us to embrace.

Now, it’s Obvious, that the advice to discard pessimistic people is hugely off the mark because its pessimism that warns you of the consequences of a given venture.
Negative people are like breaks in the car system that stops the car from advancing into an oncoming trailer. While positive people are like the accelerators that drive you forward.
You cannot operate without any of the two. You need both to both survive and thrive.
Kaheru's intolerant statements
 
Mr. Kaheru also made suggestions which I found rather selfish and intolerant when he advised that (1) negative people must be isolated as much as possible. (2) Negative people must be denied positions of influence and (3) denied chance from accessing the front page and confined to the back stage.
Oh dear me!

Mr. Kaheru forgets that when you want a seed to die don’t bury it in the ground!
But now Kaheru is proposing that negative people must be buried completely. I would like to inform Mr. Kaheru that when you bury the pessimistic person, he will germinate one day and you will find it very difficult to deal with that tree that comes out.
Remember, the mustard seed takes a very long time to grow, but when it does, it’s practically unstoppable.
mr kaheru should know that president Obote tried to bury one mustard seed deeply in the ground but it took five years for that seed to grow into a very strong tree that has lived around for the last thirty years and is still going strong.

Mr. Kaheru’s practical intention was that government should not tolerate people who criticize it! Oh dear ,oh dear!he was of the view that only sycophants must be tolerated. yet the reality is that government needs critics more than it does the sycophants.
In conclusion therefore , Mr. Kaheru should know that positive people are like brakes in the car that propel car forward while negative people are the brakes that stop the car from crushing.
I request Mr. Kaheru to stop copying and pasting what he reads from these books written by motivation speakers. These books will mislead you my dear.

The author Fred Daka Kamwada writes columns in Ugandan dailies and is also a blogger. Contact him at kamwadafreed@gmail.com

The Kayihura Trial Is A Test On Whether The NRM Is Still A Peoples Revolution Or Degenerating Into A Fascist Organization

The Kayihura Trial Is A Test On Whether The NRM Is Still A Peoples Revolution Or Degenerating Into A Fascist Organization 

• 

Justice Steven Kavuma’s Injunction Represents the Fascist Tendencies within NRM

 Today is the day the inspector general of police Gen kale Kayihura was supposed to appear before court to defend himself on allegations of aiding and abetting the torture of Ugandans.  But Justice Steven Kavuma has lodged an injunction stopping KK from appearing before court.

And the Ping-Pong reflects Uganda’s history which has largely been shaped by the character of the various political administrations that reigned since the advent of the 19^th century and most specifically in the last 150 years.

The African chiefs and kings governed their African subjects through a strict uncompromising totalitarian rule. The pre-colonial African rulers had the authority of life and death of their subjects. They openly engaged in extra judicial killings-as the case of the Namugongo martyrs who were killed by Kabaka Mwanga testifies.

So when the colonialists came, they largely interfered with the dictatorships of the African traditional kings.  

 They convinced the African kings to respect human rights. There is a story of how the Arabs convinced a very brutal Kabaka Mukaabya not to kill his subjects. Kabaka Mukaabya managed to get convinced to change his brutal ways and changed his name from Mukaabya (the name means the one who tortures people and they cry) to Mutesa (the name means the one who prefers negotiation)

Such was the brutality that reigned in Africa at the time that the African kings even sold their subjects to salve traders. .

Why Slave Trade Was Stopped By The Whites

 The white men got concerned and were got at the forefront of the fight against slave trade.

Much as the pan Africans argue that it’s the whites who benefitted from slave trade (with a  big claim that big global cities like London , Brussels , New York city were built by African slaves), the truth is that the African kings reaped more from the vice.

And when the agitation to end it started, it was the Whiteman who struggled to end slave trade and not the Africans.  The likes of William Wilberforce stood their ground against slave trade.

In fact part of the reason why the Europeans decided to colonize Africa was to stop slave trade.  This is because the Europeans had realized that they couldn’t stop slave trade when they were not in control of the African territory.  The white men knew that even if they stopped the slave trade in their backyards, the Africans would sell to the Arabs.

So a decision was made to colonize Africa.

But our pan Africanists will not want to tell us this bitter truth because they try to posture as the liberators and portray the Whiteman as the oppressor.

That’s why we study history that was largely written by afro centric historians who enjoy bashing the Whiteman.

Yet the truth is that the Whiteman interfered with the dictatorship of the African rulers.

So when the Whiteman was convinced that he had stopped slave trade and other evil vices like cannibalism by the African kings, he voluntarily granted independence to countries like Uganda.

Extra Judicial Killings And Torture

When we got independence, these post colonial rulers got another opportunity to revive their pre-colonial tendencies of killing and torturing their fellow countrymen.

The post colonial African rulers immediately embarked on torturing and killing their own people. In the case of Uganda, the governments of presidents’ Amin and Obote took the country to the point of anarchy.

During the Obote 2 regime, Uganda witnessed what can be termed as a reign of terror.

It was on that ground that Yoweri Museveni and a group of very young Ugandans declared war on that reign of terror that had started in the early 70s.

Although there have been suggestions that the five year bush war was premised on several factors (rigged elections), the restoration of the dignity of Ugandans was at the core of it all. Museveni himself was almost killed at a road block at Kireka.

Something had to be done to stop the torturing and killing spree.

The Peoples Revolution

It was therefore a sigh of relief when President Museveni’s NRA managed to restore the dignity of the Ugandans by eliminating extra judicial killings of the time.  And over the years there has been no direct contradiction to that philosophy of respect to life and property of Ugandans-with a few isolated exceptions of course.

Well, I have every reason to believe that president Museveni has been loved by Ugandans because of this factor. In fact when some few body guards of presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi beat up some NRTM supporters in Ntungamo , president Museveni angrily reacted by arresting all the culprits.

President Museveni categorically stated that ‘’nobody had the right to beat up any Ugandan’’. He even went on to say that anyone who does so ‘’would be poking his hands in the anus of the leopard’’.

So when some sections of the Uganda police started unleashing havoc on harmless Ugandans standing on the roadside, it was a test on whether president Museveni meant what he was saying or he was simply being populist

Ugandans wanted to see if the leopard would come out to protect Ugandans. But wapi, there was instead total silence from the principal.

It seems as if  the president was more concerned about NRM supporters and not Ugandans as a whole.

Suing Kayihura

It was for this reason that some concerned lawyers decided to sue the inspector of police for condoning the actions of the policemen.

Some of us who used to believe in the NRM ideology as a people’s revolutionary movement thought that Gen Kayihura had to appear before court as a gesture of working for a people’s revolutionary organization.

The most important point here is that KK’ court appearance in court would largely portray the NRM government as a people’s revolution that respects the rights of its citizens.

But KK seems to be falling into the trap which has been laid by the opposition. In their heart and souls, the Ugandan opposition doesn’t expect Gen Kayihura to lose the case, but they are laying a trap for him not to appear so that they fortify their claims that the NRM is a fascist organization.

  And in situations like these, Gen Kayihura should have appeared to debunk such evil intentions.

If KK doesn’t appear in court, the claims that the NRM government is a fascist government will gain more credibility.

WHAT DOES KK LOSE IF HE APPEARS IN COURT?

KK should have appeared in court because (1) he can easily argue that the errant police officers have already been put on trial.

(2) that he (KK)was not aware that the police officers were caning by-standers and not rioters.

 (3) that he only sanctioned the use of canes in the case of rioters and not on innocent Ugandans.

But it appears, Justice Steven Kavuma has put an injunction to stop Kayihura’s trial.

 Yet a more tactical way to deal with this would be to get there and argue the case out, to revive the belief that the NRM is law abiding.

As it stands KK’S trial is a contest between NRM posturing as a people’s revolution that respects the law or a fascist organization that rules by law. Its a trend that will determine its future as a peoples revolution.

End

The author Fred Daka Kamwada writes columns for Uganda’s major dailies and is a fast rising blogger. Engage him at kamwadafred@gmail.com

It’s Easier To Market The Lifting Of Age Limit But It Puts President Museveni In An Embarrassing Situation

It’s Easier To Market The Lifting Of Age Limit ,But It Puts President Museveni In An Embarrassing Situation

Immediately after the 12^th may 2016 swearing in ceremony of President Yoweri Museveni, a lukewarm but very steady agitation for lifting of age limit for judges and the presidency started doing rounds in the country.

In parliament, Hon Kafeero Ssekitoleko emerged as the biggest crusader of this motion.

Incidentally or coincidentally, in the Kiganda urban lingo, the name Kafeero is used as a derogatory word for a person who is dull , unwise and lacking inteligence---am not being abusieve , by the way..

 I don’t know whether the Nakifuma County MP, Hon Kafeero Ssekitoleko is living by his derogatory name or he is moving the motion out of good will.

But in principal, Hon Kafeero is seeking for amendment of the constitution to lift the retirement age for judicial officers, and the tenure of office for members of the Electoral Commission.

The MPs mainly from the opposition have tried to block Ssekitoleko from tabling the motion in parliament, saying he was rushing the matter which they said tampers with the Constitution whose amendment needs input by all Ugandans.

The MPs proposed that the House defers the matter to a future date for consideration, after digesting the motion.

The draft Bill, titled “The Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2016”, seeks to increase the retirement age for justices and judges, and for related matters.

The Bill also seeks to remove the limits on the tenure of the members of the Electoral Commission, and to also increase the period of adjudication of presidential election petitions.

The MPs however noted that the Bill is uncalled for; adding that the 9th Parliament resolved that there should be a Constitutional Review Commission, which they said should handle the matter.

The Merits Of The Age Limit Debate

In fact when I looked at the merits of the motion I realized that the agitation for lifting age limit is easier to market than the lifting of term limits.

On the surface of it, you can say that age limit on all positions of service is an infringement on the rights of people of advanced age and those above 75 years. In fact if Ugandans above 75 years contested against that provision in court they can easily win unnimously!

But the problem is that it has been politicized to appear is it’s for president Museveni’s benefit. 
and that is where the bone of contention begins to rear its head. 

Term Limit Conundrum 

During the debate on lifting term limits there was a big argument against the amendment. The principal for including term limits in the 1995 Ugandan constitution was premised on the fact that term limits were one of the constitutional checks on the presidency.

The spirit of the members of the constituent assembly was clearly to check or forestall any possibilities of dictatorial tendencies that emerge when someone overstays in office.

But it later turned out that it was to become a hindrance to president Museveni’s tenure in office.

It must be noted that during the promulgation of the 1995 constitution, President Museveni himself pronounced himself on the matter and agreed with the institution of the presidential term limits.

 But ten years later in (2005) he was forced to change his mind and went on to champion the cause for lifting the term limits on the presidency.

But one thing for sure, was that even president Museveni himself was ashamed of the whole issue and made all attempts to distance himself from it by denying interest.

How Presidential Term Limits Could Have Been Saved

There is a very good chance that he Museveni could have stepped down in 2006, but the volatile, revenge-driven politics of the time distorted it and forced him to cling on power due to the following reasons. 

 Ugandans should particularly blame Dr Kiiza Besigye for the continued stay of president Museveni because, (1) in 2001 he (Besigye) threatened to unleash havoc on president Museveni, his family and friends if he took power. Besigye designed a vindictive political campaign with a hummer as his symbol. He also vowed to banish the armed forces. Besigye’s vindictive political strategy hardened president museveni’s resolve to cling onto power with the solid support of the armed forces.

If Besigye had not pushed Museveni hard, there is a possibility that Museveni could have reconsidered his decision and opted to step down.

(2) The civil war in northern Uganda orchestrated by Joseph Kony’s LRA was another reason why Museveni found it hard to leave power. Remember the LRA was composed of counter revolutionary elements who had a strong political grudge on the person of president Museveni./ therefore Museveni had to first defeat them militarily to feel safe. Perhaps if Uganda was safe from any civil unrest Museveni would have found it safe to leave power. But you cannot leave power when your enemies are still at large.

The Vladimir Putin Example

Moving forward and holding the aforementioned factors constant for a moment, the best way to deal with that situation of presidential term limits should have been to adopt the Russian example where President Vladimir Putin stepped down when his presidential term ended, but bounced back after president Medyedev had served two terms.

The benefit was that the constitution was preserved even when the same individual (putin) served more terms.

Therefore, if president Museveni had stepped down in 2006, then someone else could have served one term up to 2011 as Ugandan president and then paved way for Museveni to comeback and serve two more terms from 2011-2016 and 2016-2021 without tampering with the constitution.

But in that way, the term limits on the presidency would have been preserved and president Museveni would have managed to serve much longer in power with a more credible mandate.

But lifting the term limits exposed him-Museveni as a selfish power hungry president.

WHY ITS EASIER TO LIFT AGE LIMIT 

Moving forward I think, the debate on age limit is going to be easier to advance than the term limit was in 2005.

It has widely been reported that during the 1994 constituent assembly, the spirit of the CA delegates in regard to age limit was more inclined at stopping president Milton Obote from coming back to contest for the Ugandan presidency  than regulating years of service.  

By that time Obote was still alive and about 76 years of age and still a political threat with a very big support base across the country. It was therefore considered a wise decision to block Obote from contesting for the Uganda presidency again by instituting age limit.

And that constitutional provision has not suffered any contradictions or need for amendment, until now when it became clear that president Museveni was going to become a casualty of that age limit provision since he will be around 76 and therefore constitutionally ineligible to contest for the presidency in 2021.

   
Now, as I told you earlier, it’s easier to make a case for lifting term limits because (1) it (age limit) sounds as if it segregates against old people. The crusade therefore becomes a case for respecting the rights of old people and a social issue.

(2)The old people can easily argue that they deserve the right to run the affairs of the country including the presidency since they are tax-paying citizens.

 (3)They (old people) have vast experience which can augur well for the country.

(4)They are not an outcast group and being above 75 years is not a crime.

(5) Other countries of the world don’t have age limits on the presidency and other higher positions of service.

Therefore it’s easier to sell the lifting of age limit through a contested debate and through strong intellectual arguments.

Counter Intellectual Arguments

I don’t see any counter intellectual arguments that the anti-lifting age limit camp can advance to push their cause to stop amending the age limit. Perhaps they can say that limiting age of service provides an opportunity for young people to serve.

But even that can be shot down by a counter argument that if the young people really deserve to serve, then they should freely compete with the old people above 75 years in a competitive contest.

THE BEST WAY FORWARD
I think we can get a win-win situation out of this amendment process if<
 1),the two  term limits are reinstated,
 2). if age limits are imposed on all public office holders,
,3), term limits are imposed on all public servants not to serve more than two terms.
 4) each term should be amended to be seven years each

The Point Of Embarrassment 

  But there is a point of embarrassment which was caused by president Museveni when he categorically pledged that he would not serve beyond 75 years. He told NTV’S Patrick Kamara that he thinks that serving beyond 75 was completely out of the question.

President Museveni also told the WBS talk show panel that included Hon Semujju Nganda , and its host Peter Kibazzo that he (Museveni )doesn’t think that he would be in good physical condition to serve beyond 75 years.

Conclusion

Therefore, from a moralistic point of view, this crusade to lift the age limit therefore puts president Museveni in a very embarrassing position. It portrays him as someone who doesn’t keep his word. Otherwise, if he had not uttered those promissory statements, it could have been  easy to amend the age limit provision and make president Museveni constitutionally eligible to stand for the 2021 presidential elections.

Ends

The author Fred Daka Kamwada is widely regarded as Uganda’s number one blogger'\ chat him up at kamwadafred@yahoo.com