The Champions for an HIV-Free Generation (Champions) have asked president Museveni of the occupation Uganda government to be careful about the likely ramifincation of two contravesial NRM bills on AID and Homosexuality. Museveni’s NRM government is quietly pushing for passage of the two bills by Uganda’s rubberstamp parliament.  In a letter signed by Festus Mogae, the Champions chairman, the group tells Museveni that, if passed, the NRM laws, which include imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality, would go against international human rights standards and best practices for combating AIDS.

The Champions for an HIV-Free Generation is a group of former African presidents and other influential personalities, have agreed to meet this challenge by advocating for a renewed and revitalized response from our regional leaders, with a focus on proven HIV prevention measures. It is chaired by Festus Mogae, former president of Botswana. Members include Desmond Tutu, Benjamin Mukapa and others. More details about the Champions are available on their website at www.hivfreechampions.org.

 The letter to the presdent of Uganda’s occupation government is reproduced below:

OFFICE OF THE CHAMPIONS SECRETARIAT

Festus G. Mogae
Chairperson
Telephone: + 267-3914071/3914082 Fax: + 267-3914097
Plot No. 115, Unit 4 Millenium Park Kgale Mews GABORONE
P/Bag 00318 GABORONE BOTSWANA

October 30, 2009

CFHIVG-PR-200910

 His Excellency, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni President of the Republic of Uganda
State House Nakasero
P.O. Box 24594
Kampala, Uganda

Your Excellency,

On behalf of the Champions for an HIV -Free Generation, I send you warmest greetings and best wishes.

We, the Champions for an HlV-Free Generation, are on a mission to exchange ideas and encourage stronger and more visionary leadership in response to the HIV and AIDS epidemic in Sub Saharan Africa. Our mandate is to promote key policy, legal, cultural and behavioral practices, as well as messages that help accelerate the social outcomes needed to achieve an HIV-free generation.

The first is a draft Bill, the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009,” recently introduced by a private member’s motion in the Parliament of  the Republic of  Uganda. Among the most disturbing  provisions of the bill are: Incarceration for any person convicted  of  ”homosexuality”; a sentencing of death for anyone with HIV convicted  of  ”aggravated homosexuality”; incarceration for “promotion of homosexuality”; criminal penalties that apply to citizens and permanent residents living outside of Uganda; and declaring null and void any “international  legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act:”

The second Bill that has come to our attention is the draft “‘HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Bill,” currently under debate in the Uganda Law Reform Commission. Many positive aspects of the bill exist, including provisions against discrimination of people with HIV and AIDS in schools and at places of work. However, one provision of the Bill stipulates incarceration for offenses related to the “breach of safe practices of HIV prevention.”

Your Excellency, we respectfully express our concern at the provisions referenced in these two Bills and fear that passage of such legislation, which deviates from international best practice and recommendations, could lead to increased stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV and AIDS and the groups most vulnerable to the epidemic.

The 2001 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment on HIV and AIDS, adopted by all UN Member Stares, emphasized the importance of addressing the needs of those “at the greatest risk of, and most vulnerable to, new infection as indicated by such factors as … sexual practices.” At the 2006 High Level Meeting on AIDS, the Member States reiterated their commitment underlying the need for “full and active participation of vulnerable groups … and to eliminate all forms of discrimination against them … while respecting their privacy and confidentiality.” Furthermore, assessments conducted by UNAIDS for the General Assembly have confirmed that stigma, discrimination and criminalization faced by men who have sex with men are major barriers to the movement for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.

UNAIDS has recommended that governments respect, protect and fulfill the rights of men who have sex with men and address stigma and discrimination in society and in the workplace by amending laws prohibiting sexual acts between consenting adults in private, enforcing anti-discrimination, and promoting programmes for men who have sex with men who may be especially vulnerable to HIV infection.

With respect to the “HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Bill”, UNAIDS and other international best practices recommend against HIV -specific criminal laws, laws directly mandating disclosure of HIV status, and other laws which are counterproductive to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support efforts, or which violate the human rights of people living with HIV. Inappropriate or overly­ broad application of criminal law to HIV transmission creates a real risk of increasing stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, thus driving them further away from HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services.

Your Excellency, the Champions for an HIV-Free Generation believe that positive action by both government and individual leaders of stature, like yourself, can help create environments that promote HIV prevention efforts and behaviour change. We humbly ask that you take action to halt the harmful provisions in the draft Bills cited in this letter, and by doing so, preserve the rights of all Ugandans.

Yours Sincerely

Mr. Festus G. Mogae

Chairman of the Champions for an HIV-Free Generation and Former President of  the Republic of Botswana

Copied To:
(a) The Champions: Their Excellencies: Kenneth Kaunda, Joaquim  Chissano and Benjamin Mkapa; His Grace, Desmond Tutu; Dr. Speciosa Wandira; Justice Edwin Cameron; Prof. Miriam Were and Ms. Liya Kebede

(b) Chairman, Uganda Law Reform Commission

Justice Julia Sebutinde, Judge of the High Court of Uganda was scheduled to receive with an honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of Edinburgh on June 30, 2009, according to a press conference issued by the university press office. Julia Semambo Sebutinde, a Muganda of Njovu clan, is among several internationally distinguished men and women who have been offered honorary degrees by Edinburgh University, which is ranked among the tops universities in the world. At this time, Sebutinde is seconded to the UN Special Court in Sierra Leone.

Others who have received Edinburgh honorary degrees at the same time as Sebutinde Mr Anthony Bryan Hayward – CEO of British Petroleum, Mr Muhtar Kent – President and CEO of Coca-Cola and Justice Unity Dow – High Court Judge, Botswana.

Sebutinde is married to John Bagunywa Sebutinde of Mmamba clan and they have two children. Additional information on the University of Edinburgh and its Summer 2009 degree awards is available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/.

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

Baganda, opposition politicians and human rights activists cried foul yesterday when Justice Wilson Kwesiga sentenced special police constable Ramathan Magara  to a 14-year prison term for killing two Baganda men. The victims were Vincent Kavuma and Gideon Makabayi. Justice Kwesiga and Magara are both Banyankore. On February 15, 2006 Magara walked to his car, pulled out an AK 47 and fired into a crowd of supporters of the FDC president, Dr Kizza Besigye, after one of them threw a stone at his car and broke the wind shield. The then presidential candidate Besigye was meeting his supporters during a visiting to Mmengo Bulange.

The charge against Magara was murder of two people when he fired into the crowd of Besigye supporters. Justice Kwesiga rejected the argument by Magara’s lawyer, McDusman Kabega, that his client shot in self-defence. The justice said that this theory was presented only as an afterthought. Also, the two court assessors (private citizens who are appointed to guide the judge) recommended that Magara be found guilty of murder, which could have fetched a death sentence.

However, many observers, especially Baganda and opposition party members in the packed court were shocked when Justice Kwesiga said that what Magara did was more like killing “in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation”. Based on that, the judge convicted Magara man slaughter and sentenced him to 14 years in prison. Several angry protesters outside the court complained that this lenience towards people who kill Baganda could encourage government security operatives to do the same. At the time of going to press, it was not clear if Mmengo has been following the case. Occasionally, Mmengo speaks out crimes or injustices such as ritual killings as a Ugandan problem but is usually quiet when individual Baganda are mistreated by the police and judges.

Transparency International, a Berlin-based anti-corruption watchdog has published a report saying 53% of 73,000 respondents from 69 countries now saw the private sector as being corrupt, up from 45% in 2004. The report also stated that most people believed that private firms have to pay “sweeteners” to public officials to influence policy. In addition, the respondents said political parties were the most corrupt bodies.

Within governments law enforcement, specifically the police, appear to be netting the most illegal money. The most likely bribers tend to belong to low income households. Bribery of public officials is seen as a particularly serious problem in Georgia, Armenia, Cameroon, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Uganda. The respondents from these countries claimed to pay at least one bribe in the past year.

The entire report can be found here.

On May 11, 2009 the Lukiiko (National Assembly) of Buganda sat to discuss a draft of the proposed new land law from Mr. Museveni’s government. Below the Luganda press release by the Buganda minister of Lukiiko Affairs and Information, followed by an English translation (by Buganda Post).

Reaction to the resolutions by ordinary Baganda have been mixed. On one extreme are the polititicaly aware men and women who are not afraid of President Museveni and are frustrated by, what they claim to be the cowardice reflected in the resolution. One of these is one Kampala businessman who said: “It is a shame that while our forefathers and Muteesa II died for Buganda, today’s Lukiiko is even afraid of making Museveni angry by stopping to beg him for our stolen property”. And on the opposite side are those who insist that if we carefully and respectfully tell Mr. Museveni what Buganda wants, he will one day be kind and give everything back to us. This group includes Uganda prime minister Apollo Nsibambi, Vice President Gilbert Bukenya and other staunch supporters Katikkiro JB Walusimbi and Buganda minister Charles Peter Mayiga.

EBITEESO EBIYISIDDWA OLUKIIKO LWA BUGANDA – May 11, 2009

Olukiiko lwa Buganda olutudde olwaleero nga 11 May 2009, lutegedde bulungi ya Ssabawolereza wa Gavumenti ya Ssaabasajja Kabaka ku bbago ly’enkola y’enfuga y’ettaka mu Uganda.  Oluvanyuma lw’okukubaganya ebirowoozo ebiteeso bino wamanga biyisiddwa:

1.   Newankubadde nga waliwo ensonga enkulu ezirambikiddwa mu bbago ly’enkola n’enkozesa y’ettaka eryakasembayo okufuluma, naye wakyaliwo ensonga endala enkulu ennyo eziruma Buganda ez’etaaga okwekenenya n’okukenenula n’obwegendereza nga tetunatuuka ku nzikiriziganya ey’awaamu ku nkola y’enfuga y’ettaka mu Uganda.

2.   Wakyaliwo ettaka lya Buganda lingi erikyali mu mikono gya Gavumenti eyawakati eryanyagibwa nga kyandibadde kirungi Buganda okuwa ebirowoozo ku nkola en’efuga ettaka mu Uganda, ng’ettaka eryo limaze okukomezebwawo eri bannyini lyo abatuufu nga mwemuli n’ettaka lya lukale mu Buganda erimanyiddwa nga erya Mayiro 9000, embuga z’amasaza, amagombolola emiruka n’Ebyaffe bonna omuli ne official Estates.

3.   Olukiiko lusabye Katikkiro wa Buganda ategeeze Gavumenti eya wakati eyamuwereza ebbago ly’enfuga eyo agitegeeze ebiteeso by’olukiiko bino wamu n’ensonga zonna ezirambikiddwa mu kiwandiiko kya Ssaabawolereza wa Gavumneti ya Buganda.

CHARLES PETER MAYIGA
MINISITA W’ENSONGA Z’OLUKIIKO N’AMAWULIRE

RESOLUTIONS OF THE BUGANDA LUKIIKO – MAY 11, 2009

The Buganda Lukiiko which has sat today on May 11, 2009, has fully understood the presentation by the Attorney General of Ssaabasajja Kabaka’s Government on the draft new law intended to govern land administration in Uganda. After discussion, it has been resolved as follows:

1.  Although  there are many important questions which have been addressed in the latest draft of the proposed law, many important issues that negatively affect Buganda remain, which require careful further study and analysis before we can reach comprehensive agreement on how land administration should work in Uganda.

2.  The [Uganda] central government still holds a lot of land that was stolen from Buganda and it would be nice for Buganda to participate in the debate on the law after that land has been returned to its rightful owners, and that includes the 9,000 square miles of [Buganda] native lands, real estate for ssaza (county), ggombolola (sub-county) and miruka (parish) headquarters and all that is ours (“Ebyaffe”), including office estates.

3. The Lukiiko has requested the Katikkiro of Buganda to communicate these resolutions to the [Uganda] central government which sent the draft proposed land law, along with the additional details which have been documented by the Attorney General of the Buganda Government.

CHARLES PETER MAYIGA
MINISITA W’ENSONGA Z’OLUKIIKO N’AMAWULIRE

BUGANDA EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE
PRESS AND GENERAL BRIEF

23rd JULY 2008

This is an update on the unfolding situation of the detained Buganda Kingdom Officials.

The Current Situation:

As all are now aware, two Ministers of the Buganda Government and the Chairperson of Buganda’s Central Civic Education Committee were arrested by plain clothed security operatives on Friday July 18 th 2008. The arrested individuals are:

1. Owek. Charles Peter Mayiga (Minister of Information and Cabinet and Lukiiko Affairs, Buganda Government);
2. Owek. Medard Lubega (Minister of State for Information, Buganda Government); and
3. Omuk. Betty Nambooze Bakireke (CCEC, Buganda Government).

They were arrested on the day of the successful inaugural Buganda Conference. It is increasingly apparent that the Uganda Police Force, which is the arm of Government, lawfully vested with the powers of arrest and investigation had nothing to do with the clandestine and brutal operation of the 18th July 2008. The Police have only been brought in to provide cover for an operation being carried out by a more clandestine security organ. As we write, the officials have been detained for coming to 120 hours without being presented to any court of law. This is a blatant violation of Article 23(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, which directs that no person arrested upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda shall be detained for more than 48 hours from the time of his or her arrest.

The Detainees Physical Wellbeing and Welfare:

Instead of presenting the officials to a court of law, the Government has decided to take them around Western Uganda, moving them around Bundibugyo, Ibanda, Fort Portal, Kyenjojo, Ntoroko and Kagadi and other places unknown. The Uganda Human Rights Commission has come out and stated that these movements amount to physical and psychological torture which is contrary to Article 24 of the Constitution. It is also hindering the detained officials’ access to their next-of-kin, legal representatives and personal doctors in violation of Article 23(5) of the Constitution. The Uganda Human Rights Commission stated that two of the detained officials are in need of medical care. There is also a concern that the detained officials are suffering from the combined effects of dehydration, lack of nourishment (hunger) as well as sleep deprivation. Betty Nambooze is said to be suffering from mastitis (inflammation or infection of the breasts that causes swelling and fevers) owing to the fact that she has not breastfed her 1 year old child for over 5 days. She was allegedly detained in a car at Ntoroko for most of the day on the 21st July 2008 before being driven to Bundibugyo and dumped in the cells there. It has also been reported that Medard Lubega Ssegona collapsed during an “identification parade” in Kagadi, Kibaale District. The Kingdom of Buganda has despatched a team of Ministers to the places where the officials are being detained to investigate their wellbeing and to offer moral as well as physical support. But it must be reiterated that whilst Kingdom of Buganda and the families of the detainees will do their best to ensure that the detainees have access to food, clothing and medical care, it should not be in any doubt that responsibility for the physical wellbeing and welfare of the detainees rests squarely with the Government of Uganda and the individual actors responsible for the perpetration of these gross crimes.

Curious Justification of the Government’s Actions:

Senior Government officials have come out with a curious justification for the detention of the Kingdom’s officials well beyond the lawful time limit and subjecting them to physical and psychological torture, which should be of concern to all Ugandans. Appearing on the WBS TV programme “Issues At Hand” on the 22nd July 2005, the Minister of State for Internal Affairs, Hon. Matia Kasaijja, said that the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution, requiring suspects to be produced before a court of law within 48 hours of arrest, are a “bad law” and do not bind Government. The Minister of Defence, Hon. Dr. Crispus Kiyonga, appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Defence also said that even though 48 hours had elapsed, Government would only produce the detained officials before a court at its own convenience and give an explanation later. This statement echoes that of Hon. Kasaijja, insofar as it implies that the provisions of the Constitution do not bind Government. Worse still, the Co-ordinator of National Intelligence, General David Munungu Tinyefuza, was quoted in the Daily Monitor as saying that under some circumstances, which he did not specify, “some laws can even be suspended”. This can only have been a reference to the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution. These statements, which come on the back of blatant violations of the provisions of the Constitution, are very alarming. It is also worth quoting Article 3(2) of the Constitution here, so as to highlight the grave implications of the statements of the those high ranking Government officials and the actions of Government:

“Any person who, singly or in concert with others, by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends, overthrows, abrogates, or amends this Constitution or any part of it or attempts to do any such act, commits the offence of treason and shall be punished according to law.”

[Emphasis ours] For ease of reference, the punishment for treason, under the laws of Uganda is death.

Difficult Negotiations:

As previously stated, the Katikiro has been engaged negotiations with high ranking Government officials, trying to secure the release of the detained Buganda officials. It must be made clear that this situation has been forced upon the Katikiro. He is not seeking special favours but is acting in good faith and out of concern for the physical wellbeing of the detained officials. The Katikiro is also thoroughly convinced of the innocence of all of the detained officials and is trying to ensure that they are swiftly restored to liberty and re-united with their families. However, with every passing day, the situation deteriorates and it increasingly appears as if the detained officials are being held as hostages in order to compel the Katikiro and the Kingdom of Buganda to make various concessions regarding the conduct of Buganda’s affairs. However, the Katikiro has the interests of the people and the Kingdom of Buganda at heart and will not make any concessions.

Call to Action:

We continue to call upon all Ugandans, Religious Bodies as well as human rights and civil society organisations to join the Kingdom of Buganda in denouncing this heavy-handed and illegal action and to engage the Government of Uganda to abide by the Constitution and to cease and desist from the needless persecution of people who are engaged in lawful and democratic debate. The Kingdom of Buganda would like to thank the Uganda Human Rights Commission, the Acholi Parliamentary Group, the Foundation For Human Rights Initiative and all others who have come out with timely statements of support and assistance.

BUGANDA EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE