The Buganda Kingdom attorney general, Owek.  Apollo Makubuya said in a press statement yesterday that the second Buganda conference would take place on Saturday December 17, 2009. Owek. Makubuya, who chairs the organizing committee explained that the  conference would clarify the differences between Federalism, Decentralization and Regional Tier.  The theme of the conference is to promote federalism as the best form of governance for Uganda.

Decentralization is an improvised form of government which Jaberi Bidandi Ssali and Uganda’s warlord president, Yoweri Museveni, implemented in 1995, with the help of Denmark, Norway and other western countries. It was brought in to derail Buganda’s demands for a federal system (Federo). Regional Tier is a highly unpopular (in Buganda) form government which was secretly negotiated between Museveni and Katikkiro Mulwaanyamuli Ssemwogerere, which would have allowed Museveni to take charge of the Buganda government and for non-Baganda to assume the cultural office of Katikkiro.

When announcing the 2009 Buganda Conference, Owek. Makubuya revealed that federalists from the USA, UK and Nigeria were expected to participate in the conference. Participants are also expected from Busoga, Bunyoro, Toro, the Diaspora and academia. Owek. Makubuya suggested that Buganda is politically isolated and promised to fix the problem by making it clear that Buganda is not demanding for Federo alone.”

Two weeks ago, a retired former Buganda Government official currently visiting in North America, told us that there are three camps at Mmengo on the issue of Buganda political situation. He said: “The situation is similar to administration of Katikkiro Michael Kintu in the early 1960’s. Kintu and his supporters pushed for Buganda independence, arguing that all our neighbors secretly hated or envied Buganda and could not be honest partners in the long run. They were accused of being ‘radicals’, not accommodating and even ‘uncivilized’. Today, it is Muzei Nsubuga Nsambu in the camp which is accused of the same because he insists that Buganda must not repeat past mistakes and the solution is secession.”

The elderly grandfather continued: “Opposite to Kintu’s camp, in 1960, was a larger camp which was ‘more educated’ and liberal camp, which promoted ‘Federo for all who want it’. Mayanja Nkangi, who now helps Museveni manipulate Buganda’s lands, was one of these young firebrands and ended up becoming Katikkiro. Even today the second camp are viewed as the more educated and modern and, like 45 year ago, they are  pushing hard for ‘Federo for all who want it’.  History is repeating itself 100% except that Museveni is more sinister and dishonest than the colonialists or Obote.

“The third camp, both in 1960 and now, are those who either do not have enough information or enough courage to push for one side or another. Thanks to Buganda’s democratic traditions, all camps are expected to have their say at the Buganda Conference in December. Also expected is heavy infiltration of occupation government agents, to intimidate people and influence events.”

Send you letters to letters@bugandapost.com as a text email or MS Word document. They must not exceed 500 words in length. If you want us to withhold your name, write WITHOLD next to it.

If you have an image, audio or video to accompany your letter we will also include it, provided it meets our standards for copyright protection. Send it as an attachment or as a URL link.

We are not obligated to publish any letter. We shall only publish letters that we consider appropriate and suitable for our readership. Click here to see the About page for more information on our terms regarding the content on Buganda Post.

Boston, USA: Mengo Victim of Unconstitutional Acts

We Won’t Tolerate Mengo’s Unconstitutional Behavior
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/293/694329

Says Museveni
A RESPONSE

by Aloysius M. Lugira

Last Wednesday identified with 09.09.09 became a September day, which in Ganda Africism reflects eventful numerical situation. It was on that day that many of us in the Diaspora became aware of the intensity of riots that raged in Buganda in protest of the marginalization of a peoples’ heritage. His Majesty the Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was being blocked from attending to a function in his kingdom because a Uganda army Captain, against members of his family, had declared himself to be the cultural leader of Kayunga. This as of today, September 12, 2009, has led Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to record that: “In September 2009, declared its secession from the traditional Kingdom of Buganda. The King attempted to visit but was banned by the Ugandan government, provoking riots in Kampala”.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buganda

It is against this background that President Yoweri Museveni, on September 10 , 2009, at Entebbe State House chose to address the Buganda Parliamentary Caucus with the heading of: “We won’t tolerate Mengo’s unconstitutional behavior”.

President Musevei’s address to the Buganda Parliamentary Caucus is made up of forty paragraphs some of which are as short as two lines. The contents of the address non-chronologically include unconstitutional events of the terrorism which was perpetrated against Buganda in 1966. He then, without elaboration, mentions that he was a youth-winger of the Democratic Party, the party according to his words he considers to principled. To verify this one may be advised to check with Mzee Boniface Byanyima to know the whole truth about. The fact is that Museveni has estranged himself from his erstwhile benefactor..

Whatever President Museveni may be intending to mean by unconstitutional behavior his colonialist dictatorial stances are not likely to endear him to the people who would have otherwise cared to care. Insisting on addressing the Kabaka in the colonialist superiority complex form of “His Highness Kabaka Mutebi” instead of His Majesty the Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi creates an indignation that does not allow smoothness to prevail. Keeping inconsistently harping and derogatorily sneering at the understanding of the importance of the Kabakaship by the late Dr. Andrew Lutaakome Kayiira to many Baganda becomes nauseating. When in your address regarding monarchies you say: “We said that we were fighting for the freedom of Ugandans; once the Ugandans had got their freedom, they would decide on what to do.” In his Uganda Freedom Movement, that is exactly what the late Kayiira was about. He wanted Ugandans to have freedom and the freedom of having their Kabaka whose kingdom was unconstitutionally desecrated. Mr. President save us the inconvenience of suspecting you as being supportive of the unconstitutional events of 1966 in Uganda. It should certainly not be illogical to demand reparation from the Government of Uganda for those constitutionally criminal perpetrations against Buganda.

During the late 1950s speaking in Mbale the late President Milton Obote announced that his mission was to wipe Buganda off the map. Presumably according to your own words when you deserted what you have referred to as a principled party you landed into UPC with a leading position as a General Service Operative. According to what you have written in your Graduating Paper at the University of Dar-es-Salaam, it sounds logical that you are in for the destruction of Buganda.

The terrorism you have devised in the30th paragraph of your address is a case in point not only of “unconstitutional behavior,” but also of unconstitutional acts against

Baganda. In your own words you say: “On the issue of the Land bill we had to launch our own counter-campaign of sensitization and forming the bibanja associations. These associations have empowered and emboldened the bibanja-owners. Now that the bibanja members are empowered, some of them have started taking the law into their own hands, if we take the recent examples of lynching landlords in some areas of Kayunga.

Ugandans please, read and read this paragraph again. Should such terrorism be tolerated?

.

Boston, USA: Obsequious Dance For A Death Culture Captain In Kayunga Mr. President?

Fellow Ugandans,

Our inability to protect the Kabaka or the president for that matter in kayunga, sounds more and more like the Benazir Bhutto, case, where the state could not protect her in certain areas of Pakistan, we all know where that ended.

Kayunga is not a war torn area and should be accessible to all Ugandans including the president and the King of Buganda, even those who unfortunately lost their lives  trying to go there.

General Museveni, should reign in one of his rogue captains, responsible for creating a beligerent culture a climate of banditry and perhaps responsible for some gruesome murders that have occurred in Kayunga.

What if the Kabaka refused say General Tinyenfunza or Otafire from coming through Kampala or Entebbe or Nakivubo how reasonable would that wish be?

what does this Kayunga man hold against our president-to make him a siloed King and grant him such foreign wishes?

Now we have spilled blood unnecessarily and Gwanga mujje calls are sounding in every township. This denial of movement to a sitting King is not going down the throats of Baganda well, and should not be the hill that defines the death of NRM in Buganda.

If I were an advisor to the president, I would ask him not to go out on a limb for an indefensible rogue captain, given all the murders presently witnessed in Kayunga. He as president has to draw the right line in Bugerere.

Tendo Kaluma

Concerned Ugandan Boston

Uganda’s vice president, Dr. Gilbert Bukenya has told Kabaka Mutebi and his subjects to forget about  the Federo, which they are agitating for.  Bukenya is supposed to have made these statements in an interview that is published in government owned and controlled Sunday Vision of September 6, 2009. Bukenya was echoing the statement made by president Museveni, during a July 12, 2009 public debate On WBS TV, where he (Museveni) declared: “I can never allow Federo for Buganda”.

August 16, 2009 Bukenya attended the Coronation Anniversary celebrations in Lubiri where Omutaka Nakirembeka chided the vice president and other Baganda members of the NRM government for  parroting their anti-Buganda bosses. Kabaka Mutebi , in what appeared to be a veiled reference to Museveni’s TV declaration, made clear that Buganda would not tolerate any more double-talk on Federo. The Kabaka said: “When we hear some people saying that they don’t know what Federo means, I think they have failed to understand what we mean. You should reply to them that Federo is all about justice and truth, and this is what we demand.”

On his part, Bukenya told Kabaka Mutebi and the tens of  thousands of Baganda present that:  ”Buganda’s Federo concerns are genuine and we need to talk about them seriously. I will make sure to recommend to the appropriate authorities that they be handled.”  Apparently  Bukenya  chose the newspaper interview format to inform  Kabaka Mutebi and his subjects to forget Federo, only saying, “We are giving them a regional government.”

Below is what Bukenya told Moses Mulondo of the new vision in response to a question on Federo. According to our sources in Ugandan media, Bukenya and Uganda state house were involved in composing both the question and the answer . Moreover, Bukenya’s answer was first  shown to the Uganda state house, by Robert Kabushenga, before publication. Therefore, all the vagueness (kavuyo) it contains is intentional.

Question: Do you think Buganda’s demands on federalism are genuine?

Answer: Lets  first of all make this very clear. Long time ago when the Europeans came to the centre of Africa here, there was an absolute monarchy. All the power and the leadership was enthroned in the king of that kingdom. He would even order for the killing of a person if he wanted. When the British came in they started taking away power from the king and giving it to the chiefs.

That was the beginning of process of reducing absolute monarchism. By 1950 monarchism was beginning to die out because the colonialists had introduced elections. Once they introduced the system of one  man one vote, democracy began to take over from the monarchy. Today you would be wasting time or dreaming if you thought of going back to the absolute federalism of the monarchy we used to have before the colonialists

But the Buganda kingdom is not demanding for the federalism it had before colonialism, rather, it is demanding for the federalism it got in 1962 after we had acquired independence

But the 1962 federalism is what we are giving them. We are giving them a regional government. They told you to manage many things; I do not know what they were told to manage in 1962. However, I want this to be re-emphasised for it seems to be our major disagreement. In a democratic arrangement you cannot expect that there will ever be a leader of a government without their being voted for by the population. It’s not possible.

That is why we have been saying, ‘why we don’t dissolve some power by creating regional governments whose leaders will be voted for by the people?’ The central government can give some power and you can call that federalism. But the previous federalism of an absolute monarchy is gone forever.

The full interview is available in the Interview sections of the Sunday Vision at www.sundayvision.co.ug.

In a letter which a New York based Muganda analysts has called “clear evidence that Museveni is a tired, drowning and anti-Ganda man who Baganda must avoid at all times”, the Uganda strongman called Baganda sub imperialists who grabbed Bunyoro land and turned it into mailo land. Mr. Museveni’s letter, seen by many Baganda as an unveiled anti-Ganda hate campaign, has been read more than once on government radio stations.

In the unsolicited public letter to his own minister of Presidency, Museveni says that the purpose of his memo is “to guide you [the minister] in the tasks you are [she is] to handle in the matter of the Banyoro-Bafuriki question in Bunyoro Region.” Bafuruki are Bakiga, Balaalo, Banyankore and other westerners who have migrated to Bunyoro over the last few decades. Over the last 10 years, the so-called Kibaale district has experienced sporadic land wars between Banyoro and Bafuruki, sometimes resulting in big losses of human life and property.

Mr. Museveni described the problem as, “the modus vivendus between the Banyoro and the Bafuruki in terms of land, and political rights.” (NOTE: Mr. Museveni probably meant to say modus vivendi). Elaborating further, the Uganda strongman claims that the problem has three major elements:

• The land grabbed by the British colonialists and their Mengo-sub imperialists and turned into Mailo land.
• Former public land currently occupied by the Bafuruki; and
• Threatened political marginalization of the indigenous groups of the area (Buyaga and Bugangaizi) – Banyoro, Bagungu, Bachope, Baruuli, Banyara, and, curiously, the Bahima/Balaalo.

Later in his letter, Mr. Museveni, prescribes what he calls nine principles to be part of the solution. Those principles include the following two:

• Reserving elected district and sub-county (LC 5 and LC 3) political leadership positions for indigenous people of Bunyoro.
• Evicting all illegal encroachers in forest reserves without compensation and re-settling the gun toting nomadic cattle keepers (Balaalo) of Buliisa in Buganda (being done already).

As he concludes his letter, Museveni asserts that: “All this [Bunyoro land violence] is a consequence of the colonial policies also supported by the traditional chiefs like of Mengo in Uganda, of discouraging the use of Swahili as a national language. If the people of Bunyoro-the Banyoro or the Bafuruki were using Swahili, their differences would be submerged. It is the use of vernacular that provokes, in part, these contradictions.”

Commenting on Mr. Museveni’s letter, our New York based Muganda analysts said: “This is clear evidence that Museveni is a tired, drowning and anti-Ganda man who Baganda must avoid at all times. First, he tells you that Banyoro should have a monopoly on political leadership in their kingdom and controversial Balaalo must be resettled elsewhere. And when it comes to Buganda, he says that Kampala should be expanded to over 30% of Buganda so that non-Baganda can take and get a monopoly on political leadership in that part of Buganda. He also openly tells you that the problem gun toting Balaalo from Bunyoro are being resettled in Buganda – overtly courting genocide in Buganda.

“This man’s disease, whatever it is, has reached the brain. That is why Mengo must emulate Kabaka Mutebi and totally avoid this man. There is so much Buganda can do to advance, even under the current ‘occupied’ status, without talking to this genocide courting man. The challenge for Buganda is to get out of the ‘reactive’ (Museveni yagambye ki?) mode of operation and get into a ‘work according to our plan’ (Museveni yatomera) mode. Museveni is a tired, drowning man; if you stay too close to him, he might grab you and take you under with him.”

We have reproduced president Museveni’s unedited letter below (without effort to correct any spelling and grammar errors) below:

PO/16.34

15^TH July, 2008
Copy received Office of the minister of internal affairs

To the Minister in charge of the Presidency

Hon Beatrice Wabudeya, Minister of the Presidency

RE: Guidance on Banyoro Bafuuriki question.

This is to guide you in the tasks you are to handle in the matter of the Banyoro-Bafuriki question in Bunyroro Region. You should, first of all, define the problem. What is the problem? The problem, obviously, is the modus vivendus between the Banyoro and the Bafuriki in terms of land, and political rights.

This is on top of the old problem of the British Colonialists and Mengo sub-imperialists that grabbed land from Banyoro and engaged in a genocide in the region, resulting into the depopulation of the area. This means, essentially, three elements in the problem.

●The land grabbed by the British colonialists and their Mengo-sub imperialists and turned into Mailo land.

●The land currently being occupied by the Bafuruki that was part of the former public land including the forest reserve, beyond the original settlements of Luteete (Rutete) and Kisiita that were promoted by the government without foreseeing the consequences; and

●The resultant threatened political marginalization of the indigenous groups of the area-The Banyoro, the Bagungu, the Bachope, the Baruuli, Banyara, and the Bahiima.

We, the NRM members, being nationalists and panafricanists, cannot undermine our vision and program by associating ourselves with the vulgarized versions of “national integration.”

Genuine national integration must include scrupulous respect of everybody’s rights to the land of their heritage, politics, and culture. To do otherwise, is, actually, to undermine our vision and program. It is to make the threatened groups resent or even resist, legitimately, our invaluable vision. In any situation, we should always ask ourselves “where is justice in this case?” The NRM must always fight of justice -for just causes.  I am not, for instance, a monarchist. The area of Ankole, where I come from, is, obviously, thriving without a monarchy. Nevertheless, you remember that I spearheaded the restoration of monarchies in the parts of Uganda that wanted them. This was part of my nationalism and part of my panafricanism eventually.

Therefore, in the case of the Bunyoro Region, it is clear that the Banyoro are legitimately there because that is their origin. The Bafuuriki are also legitimately there because some were settled there by the central government, or, the Late Sir Tito Winyi while others have, subsequently, bought land from the original Bafuuriki, the Banyoro, or the absentee Mengo landlords. If the indigenous Banyoro had not been bled by colonialism and Mengo sub-imperialism, such an infusion of Bafuuriki would not have caused disequilibrium.

The Ankole-Mpororo area (Ankole, Rukungiri and Kanungu) is such an example. There, the Bafuuriki were settled in the amahamba (unoccupied wilderness) but the indigenous population remained in the core part of the area in large numbers. The Bafuuriki in such cases are, actually, an advantage for the areas. There can only be some minor problems like those affecting the Banyabutumbi a sub-group of the Banyakore Bahororo that used to live in Imaramagambo forest. The issues of such groups should also be addressed in a conscious way using administrative actions before they become radicalized.

The vulgarized version of integration goes like this: “We are Ugandans and we all have equal inherent rights in all parts of Uganda”-right to property, all political rights such as competing for political offices. That is correct as long as you ensure that in exercise of those inherent rights, you do not fundamentally damage the legitimate inherent rights of others- especially of those indigenous to the area. If that happens, the central government must come in to regulate the enjoyment of the inherent rights of the respective groups so that disequilibrium does not develop or become entrenched.

To throw more light on the incorrectness of the vulgarized version of integration, I would like to pose some few questions.

(i)           If the Bafuuriki dominate political space in the area to which they migrated, where do the indigenous people of the area find another political space?

(ii)          If the Bafuuriki were more nationalistic, why could they not find some person among the indigenous people and vote for them?

(iii)        Can some people from indigenous groups successfully compete, politically in the areas of origin of the Bafuuriki? If not, is this not unequal relationship?

(iv)         Suppose we were to infuse 100,000 Bafuuriki into Acholi or Karamoja, what would be the reaction? If the Acholis and Karamajongs were to react violently, would it mean that they are not Ugandan enough or would it be that the policy was wrong?

Horizontal rural migration by peasants after they have exhausted land in one area is not a progressive way of creating national integration. The more correct way is vertical migration, from the farm to the factory. That is why the factories should be detribalization centres through the use of Swahili on the work site.

Some people confuse normal individual migration with the mass insertion of big groups into an already enfeebled population on account of history. These are easy to distinguish from what we are talking about in Bunyoro. In 1955 the Banyankore (through their Ishengero) elected Hon. Kapa an immigrant from Rwanda as their first MP along with Hon. Katiti. This was positive and, besides, Kapa was a munyakorenised mufuuriki. He was, therefore, capable of defending the multidimentional interests of the Banyakore groups that is economic, political and cultural. Is this not different from a situation where two significant but different cultural groups are precipitately juxtaposed with each other? Is the situation in Bunyoro unique or otherwise?

Having thought about all this for a long time, I am proposing the following principles to be part of the solutions.

1.     Ring-fencing the LC 5 positions in the whole of Bunyoro region for the indigenous people; and also ring-fencing the sub-county leadership in the whole of Bunyoro.

2.    Ring-fencing the positions of Member of Parliament in the whole of Bunyoro region for the indeginous people except for the special constituencies created around Rutete (Lutete) and Kisita resettlement schemes. Number and two will in the spirit of article of 9 and article 10 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda. They were also envisaged by article 32 of the constitution of Uganda which talked about affirmative action in favour of marginalized groups by reason of history or otherwise for the purpose of redressing imbalances that exist against them.

3.    All the indigenous people that were on the Mailo land in 1964 should be granted ownership and the absentee landlords should leave the land. All the indeginous people that have been on public land should get titles ownership of that land. The Bafuuriki in the settlement schemes already have their land and should get titles if they do not have them. The Bafuuriki who bought land legally should have their rights recognized.

4.    All the illegal encroachers in forest reserves should be evicted without compensation as the normadic cattle keepers of Buliisa are being settled in Buganda.

5.    The towns and trading centre should be exempted from these affirmative action measures. They should be free for all Ugandans. This is the healthy integration. The totally integrated Uganda should have its nucleus in the urban centers, factories, the hotels, the shops, the real estate etc. in oreder to promote healthy integration, industrialization should be promoted to pull redundant population from rural areas to the urban areas. Here there should be no regulation beyond ensuring that the workers are Ugandans.

6.    The indigenous people who get land should be prohibited from selling the land for 20years and also leasing it.

7.    A program of sensitising the Banyoro and Bafuuriki should be promoted.

8.    Government should have a special program for developing Bunyoro using money provided by the central government including the British funds.

9.    Finally there should a sunset clause to terminate or cause a review of this policy after 20years.

All this is a consequence of the colonial policies also supported by the traditional chiefs like of Mengo in Uganda, of discouraging the use of Swahili as a national language. If the people of Bunyoro-the Banyoro or the Bafuuriki were using Swahili, their differences would be submerged. It is the use of vernacular that provokes, in part, these contradictions. I like the indeginous languages, in fact I am about to complete a dictionary in Runyakore-Rukiga. However, I see these vanaculars not as an end in themselves. I see them as a source of enriching Swahili. That is why NRM promotes Swahili. We included it in the constitution; we use it in the army etc.

The committee, should, therefore, look at the principles I have mentioned above and see them work. You should also identify any other problems that I have not identified and propose solutions. You should propose any solutions you feel are useful in the areas for which I have suggested solutions.

Yoweri K. Museveni.

President

Copied to VP, PM, all Members of Cabinet Subcommittee of Bunyoro Issues, Head of public service, P.S/ Office of the President.

Louise Edwards
Programme Officer – Access to Justice (East Africa)
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Professor Philip Alston, presented his detailed report on Kenya at the recent 11th Session of the UN Human Rights Council.  In an extraordinary week of political maneuvering, reinforcing the internal tension that plagues Kenya’s Grand Coalition Government, the Kenyan delegation responded with an oral statement to the Council that contradicted their earlier written response. Having initially denied Professor Alston’s accusations of the widespread and systematic use of extrajudicial killings by the Kenya Police Force, the delegation conceded that there is a problem, but stopped short of acknowledging Government complicity.

The proceedings and outcomes at the 11th Session have received much local and international press.  Now, two weeks later, the focus must shift to action taken by the Kenyan Government to address the issues raised by Professor Alston and the fall out from the publication of his report, which included the killing of two human rights defenders that had previously cooperated with his mandate.  Despite the eventually positive response from the Kenyan delegation in Geneva, early signs of action are not necessarily promising.

Professor Alston’s report articulated what concerned local and international organisations have been saying about the Kenya Police Force for many years and which the Government failed to acknowledge until their oral statement to the Council – that extrajudicial killings are part of the policing landscape in Kenya. The oral statement also contained a public acknowledgement of Kenya’s weak police oversight mechanisms, the need to establish a local independent police commission and assurances that no human rights defenders would be intimidated or harassed as a result of their cooperation with the UN Special Procedures mandate-holders.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the promising outcomes in Geneva will translate into credible action in Nairobi.  Successive promises of reform articulated in a number of strategies and processes over the past 10 years have not been completed or sustained by the Kenya Government.  Kenyans continue to be policed by an organisation that lacks sufficient accountability structures, fails to protect or uphold basic human rights and is continually subject to illegitimate political interference.  Millions of dollars have been invested in the development and publication of commission reports, task force findings and reform strategies without any genuine steps by the Government to implement systemic reform.

The concerning state of policing in Kenya has received significant national and international attention over the past 18 months.  The police response to the 2007 post-election violence brought the issue of political partisanship, impunity and brutality to the fore.  The Waki Commission report into the violence strongly recommended comprehensive reform of the Kenya Police Force and Administration Police and Professor Alston’s report reinforced the brutal and corrupt practices that have been permitted to flourish by the unreformed, colonial policing model. 

Police reform is a daunting and long term process.  It requires substantial law reform, a radical shift in policing culture from one of impunity to accountability and the restoration of trust between police and the community.  None of these urgent reforms will happen in Kenya without the political and financial commitment of the Government to undertake reforms of this scope.  The recent establishment by the President of a special Police Reform Task Force represents a positive step towards delivering credible advances.  However, the Government must translate the Task Force’s recommendations into actual reform that goes beyond improving operational capacity to address governance, accountability and legal structures.  Otherwise the Task Force, for all its good intention, will become another failed reform vehicle.

Drawing on the previous recommendations and those foreshadowed to appear in the current Task Force findings, the Government should implement the following minimum reforms:

• Constitutional and legislative amendments that clearly separate the operational control of the police from the direct control from the political Executive and provide for transparency in monitoring police performance and conduct,
• Strengthening internal and external oversight mechanisms, including the enactment of legislation and budgetary allocation to give full effect to the Police Oversight Board plus the establishment of an independent complaints mechanisms,
• Establish a clear demarcation between the role of the Kenya Police Force and the Administration Police,
• Improve police human rights training and resourcing to strengthen human rights compliance and operational effectiveness in the prevention, detection and investigation of crime, and
• Establish clear legislative guidelines on the use of force, torture and adherence to basic due process that accord with Kenya’s existing obligations under international law.

If the Government is serious about reforming the police, a commitment to implementing past and current recommendations is not enough.  It must also take immediate steps that both demonstrate its firm commitment to reform and restore public confidence in the reform process.  A positive first action should be the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those police officers who commit or acquiesce to illegal acts including, but not limited to, those responsible for the 2007 post-election violence and the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings.

Other immediate steps must include measures to implement the Government’s guarantee of protection to individuals who have been intimidated or subject to retribution for their cooperation with the UN Special Procedures mandate-holders.  Human rights defenders, including members of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights have been subject to threats and some have been forced to flee Kenya.  The high profile execution of two prominent human rights defenders, who cooperated with Professor Alston, and the failure by the police and Government to identify those responsible, highlights the inadequacy of protection and security for human rights defenders.  While Kenya has a witness protection programme, reform is urgently required to ensure the integrity of its internal processes (including accountability, Executive control and information storage and sharing) before those who are most in need of protection will have confidence in the systems that are designed to deliver it. 

The 2007 post-election violence, followed by the findings in Professor Alston’s report, and the tragic consequences for human rights defenders who cooperated with his mandate, have kept the problems with Kenyan policing firmly in the international spotlight.  Whether the political will to commit to genuine reform is present in the Grand Coalition Government remains to be seen, but what is clear to the international community is that the need for police reform is more crucial than ever.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) is an independent, non-partisan, international NGO working for the practical realisation of human rights in the countries of the Commonwealth.
www.humanrightsinitiative.org

The United States DOD has defined an occupied territory as:

Territory under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory.

We argue that even a casual but sober review of Uganda’s political history should lead to the conclusion that the aggrieved people of Buganda, under their Kabaka (king) have a case to declare their nation an occupied territory under the authority of a belligerent armed force.

• Fact: Buganda has internationally recognizable boundaries that in 1967 were not in dispute by any of her neighbors (Tanzania, Busoga, Bunyoro, Ankole, Tooro and Lango).
• Fact: The natives of Buganda constitute a distinguishable nation, with distinct cultural practices, national language and customary laws that developed over more than 500 years ago.
• Fact: In 1962 the civil government of Buganda, headed by Kabaka of Buganda, entered a legal agreement (Uganda Constitution of 1966) with other nations and populations in colonial Uganda to federate and gain independence as a single country.
• Fact: In 1966 Prime Minister Obote and his supporters, without consulting Buganda’s civil government or population, illegally overthrew the Uganda Constitution with the use of armed forces. The then Kabaka, Muteesa Walugembe, was exiled to the UK where he died under suspicious circumstances.
• Fact: Between 1966 and 1986 various warlords, including Obote, Idi Amin and Museveni captured Uganda state power through the violent and illegal use of arms.
•  Fact: After Yoweri Museveni captured power by the force of arms in 1986 he organized an exercise to develop a new national constitution that would return the governance of Uganda to a legal status. The flagship activity of the constitution making exercise was the independednt Odoki Commission (leg by Justice Odoki) which collected information that would be properly address the aspirations of all the people in Uganda.
• Fact: According to the “Odoki Report”, over 90% of the people of Buganda explicitly demanded that they be governed under federal form of government which prevailed before the overthrow of the 1966 Uganda constitution.
• Fact: Museveni, Bidandi-Ssali and their supporters illegally (under natural law) broke the terms of the constitution making process and administratively invalidated the demands of the people of Buganda and introduced an experimental substitute that they dubiously name “decentralization”.
• Fact: Since 1986 has, through decrees and targeted laws, constructed a legal system that is selectively punitive to Buganda, her people and her civil leadership, the Kabaka institution. One example is the currency reform decree which devalued the Uganda Shilling by 90% in an environment where Baganda held over 60% of all cash wealth in Uganda. Another example is the 1998 Land Act which set “mailo” land rent (nearly exclusivel found in Buganda) to less than 1$ (US) regardless of size and freely gave away Buganda’s 9,000 square miles customary lands but not those of other nationalities.
• Fact: Museveni, Tinyefunza and their accomplices have issued numerous public statements over radio in newspapers threatening to “destroy” elements of Buganda’s civil leaders, calling Buganda leaders “hyenas”, reminding Baganda that “you don’t have the guns”, telling Kabaka Mutebi to fire Buganda leaders “who don’t agree with Government” and even reminding Baganda of the “1966 crisis” when the 1962 constitution was overthrown.
•  Fact: Buganda’s civil leaders (Kabaka’s Government), with overwhelming support, are only demanding that Museveni and his supporters stop the injustices again the people of Buganda – return the 9,000 square miles and other properties and restore the only form of governance that Buganda has ever willing accepted (federal).

Over the weekend of July 19, 2008 the people of Buganda held a national conference (Lukiiko Ttabamiruka) to discuss the issues of land, poverty and governance which confront them. The Uganda government seems to have underestimated the conference until, on July 18, 2008, one Buganda official, Lubega Ssegona, eloquently’s spoke about its expected results in front of Government agents.

Unexpectedly powerful speeches by Kabaka Mutebi, his wife Nnabagereka Nagginda and others seem to have created virtual panic among Government officials and their Baganda collaborators, resulting in one of the most ill conceived political decisions by Museveni since he came to power. The government arrested Betty Nambooze, Peter Mayiga and Lubega Ssegona (detainded just before the meeting) to preempt further political damage. And in the process handed Baganda nationalists the strongest case so far that the Uganda government considers any expression of Buganda nationalism as a crime. Evidence that Buganda is all but occupied by a belligerent force that will not tolerate and use force against the national aspirations of the native population. Isn’t Buganda under armed occupation?