28 June 2009
column
In September 2005, the former Chief of Intelligence in the Obote II government of 1981-85, Mr Clement Kasendwa-Ddumba, wrote a candid letter to the Ugandan Human Rights Commission clarifying the numerous allegations against the Uganda People's Congress.
In his 66-page letter, titled Land of Freedom, the author gives fresh insights into the 1966 crisis, the 1980 elections, the Obote II government, the operations of intelligence agencies at the time and the Luweero war that brought the National Resistance Army (NRA) to power. Today, Sunday Monitor brings you why the author believes that double dealing in Mengo is a bigger threat to Buganda today than it was in 1966;-
Continued from last Sunday
On 28th June 2005, Parliament took a decision to open term limits for presidents.
Needless to say, that was a crucial provision in the Constitution. Without the people of Uganda testing its worth in any way, Parliament removed it. What more does one need to prove that Uganda is sick? If members of Parliament do not care whether Uganda bleeds to death, who will care then? Despite tireless efforts, doctors have so far failed to prescribe effective treatment because they have not diagnosed the causes of the disease. But as could be expected, they are giving their patient, Uganda, some treatment. The treatment given is on the basis that most of the doctors attending to her believe that she is suffering from diseases called Oboteism or pluralism or both.
However, some of the people who know the patient very well believe the doctors are wrong.
Consequently, two of the people who so believed volunteered to approach more competent medical practitioners. One of the two volunteers happened to be the one who was quoted by the press to have said that the problem in this country was that "Ugandans have allowed themselves to live in a fool's paradise for too long".
Fortunately, the medical officers to whom the volunteers appealed for help took keen interest in the observations made by the said two volunteers on the patient. As a result, the disease has been diagnosed: it is militarism and dishonesty in public life. Suffering from dishonesty in public life? What should that be? I quickly recalled what one man of God said about the problems of Uganda. "The discord in our society is caused by a desire to fulfil personal needs". I nodded. And 1 would be surprised if anyone with respect for his or her conscience did not agree with that man of God.
Substantiation of allegations is an honourable and creditworthy act. It is a matter of honesty to admit that Africans and Ugandans in particular do not know the positiveness of this wonderful virtue. In that regard, President Museveni should be praised for the historic decision he took soon after NRM/NRA seized power in 1986 to set up a commission of inquiry into allegations of human rights violations by previous governments. However, that exercise was not handled as was expected.
Nevertheless, it was an opportune moment for me as chief of intelligence (1981-85) to share with the people of Uganda, my personal experiences.
Unfortunately, I was in exile in Tanzania. I find it strange that since I returned from exile in 1994, not a single person purporting to be recording the history of Uganda or interested in human rights matters or from the media world has ever approached me for the purpose of exchanging notes. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not eager to be a source of information to anyone.
I am only making the point that moral dishonesty has blinded even people for whom it is a top priority to search and defend the truth. As earlier pointed out herein, it is not my intention for the moment to bother you with a detailed presentation. Rather, this letter is to appeal for re-examination of major components of the story behind our tragic national life. Enough is enough with lies.
As a person who actively agitated for the independence of this country, I feel ashamed about what I have seen for nearly forty years now. Ugandans must be ashamed of many things they have done or failed to do.
Perhaps more than anything else, we should be ashamed of the degree of inter-ethnic mistrust amongst ourselves. We must equally feel ashamed of the way opportunists have reaped so handsomely by keeping alive issues which suffocated the common interest of Ugandans; carcasses which we should have buried long ago.
For example; in the sixties, Daudi Ochieng a former MP found a Land Rover covered with a tarpaulin parked at Amber Hotel. He touched it so as to find out what might be inside. He felt that the shape of things he touched could not be anything else other than ivory smuggled from Congo. He guessed who the smugglers were. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, Basil Bataringaya responded by asking Kenya and Tanzania to make available to Uganda one High Court Judge each to serve on a Judicial Commission to investigate Ochieng's gold allegations.
Three judges from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda investigated Ochieng's allegations.
Few people knew that the assumption in high government circles was that the allegations were actually a brain child of Ibingira. At the end of the day, the commission concluded that the allegations were baseless. But because of prejudice, malice and hatred people who should feel ashamed to continue with Ochieng's song are the ones still singing it.
There is also the example of the loud and persistent reference to the imprisonment of (Grace) Ibingira, (Ben) Kiwanuka and others. Ask those leading members of the Movement who were also prominent members of UPC at that time.
Their answer is likely to be that Obote tolerated Ibingira for too long. The case of Ben Kiwanuka is louder and clearer than that of Ibingira. Mohammed Ssebaduka, a leading character in the failed Lugogo assassination plot in 1969 of Milton Obote told The Monitor newspaper (11-10-2001) that Kiwanuka attended their last meeting. He further said that Kiwanuka did not only lend moral support to the plot but he also contributed money. In all due fairness, how can one say that Obote put Kiwanuka in jail for nothing?'
One day I listened to a talk show on one of the FM Radio Stations. It featured a Professor of history. Apparently, one listener was not impressed by the way the Professor talked about Obote. He called in to express his concern about it. He pointed it out to the Professor that Obote did some good things which should not be swept under the carpet. The Professor's reply was simple and short: He did not know anything good Obote did. That was a Professor of history talking. He has never heard about Gulu-Kampala or Mbarara-Kasese-Kabarole roads. It is an embarrassment when people like Eriya Kategaya refer to the cream of our elite class as quoted by the The Monitor of March 19, 2004 that "Kiwanuka(Ssemakula) has no sense of history. You
ask yourself why is this man is a Professor of history". Yes, the majority of the elite class in Uganda are sick.
With all due respect to the said Professor of history in the talk show, I wish to say that a lesser person would have found it embarrassing to give such a shallow answer on radio. Only pseudo professors would not have heard about the twenty two hospitals of one hundred beds each Obote built in a record time of eight years. How many black African countries boast of that record? It is also a fair assumption that Ugandans could not believe that there were Ugandan Professors who did not know that since 1971 there has not been a single block of flats added to Bugolobi or Bukoto Housing estates.
For the information of those who did not know, the two estates had been planned to be huge residential districts. Those are facts no Professor or any other person can push under the carpet.
Therefore, I suggest that if we want our people to take informed positions on national issues, government and other opinion leaders should truthfully endeavour to present to them both the positive and negative sides of issues. Why should we tell Ugandans that Amin killed people without telling them that under him Ugandans dressed decently? Is it right to deny Amin the credit that he gave Kampala the face of black Africa? For sure, President Museveni has done many good things. But we must also say that under him, the culture of one meal a day or no meal at all has thrived. Yes, giving credit where it is due is a pillar of civilised behaviour and good sense. It is a sign of strength not weakness. Let us try it.
1966 Crisis
Hardly a month passes without nasty references to the 1966 crisis. That should be a serious cause for concern to Ugandans. It should be a serious cause for concern because political opportunists seem determined to continue exploiting it in complete disregard of the common good of all Ugandans. Ugandans need peace and reconciliation. And lasting peace and reconciliation can only be achieved if we turned our backs against all forms of prejudices, malice and hatred. If we truly wanted to put our tragic history behind us, we must not fear telling Ugandans the truth about the public affairs of this country.
Uganda would have got its independence earlier than 1962 if Buganda did not insist on getting from Britain explicit answers on demands she had put forward. The demands were popularly known as "Buganda Weyimiridde" (Buganda's stand). Buganda threatened that unless its demands were met, the Kingdom had the right to demand separate independence from Britain. Those demands proved a big problem for Britain and our politicians. As the Musaazis, Kiwanukas and others scratched their heads to find answers to those demands, Obote was elected a member of the Legislative Council (Legco). And he immediately joined the search for a solution to "Buganda Weyimiridde" At the end of the day, Katikkiro Kintu and his team became convinced that the political Messiah Mengo was waiting for had come. As could be expected in those circumstances, there was talk about the miracle man called Obote in every corner of Buganda.
In fact, Baganda quickly changed the name Obote to Bwete.
Therefore, in the eyes of Baganda and in particular Mengo, Obote became the custodian of Buganda's dreams and provider of the answers Mengo demanded. I do not want to claim to know details of what Mengo and Obote agreed on but all I can say without any fear of contradiction is that Mengo placed unguarded confidence in Obote. Therefore, when the Buganda delegation left Kampala to attend the London Conference, they had all the confidence that their demands would be met. But as it is well known, the London Conference did not give positive answers to all the demands of Buganda.
Surprisingly, Kintu came out of the London Conference believing that he got all he wanted.
However, it did not take long for the truth to come out. On realising that Buganda did not get some of the things dearest to the Kingdom, Mengo turned against Obote. The rift between the two sides grew wider when Mengo failed to persuade Obote to disregard the Constitutional provision for a referendum to resolve the issue of the counties Bunyoro claimed had been lost to Buganda. The rift widened even further when Mengo pressured members of Parliament from Buganda to cross to the opposition so as to bring down Obote's government.
As the saying goes, whatever has a beginning must have an end. The climax of the struggle between the central governrnent and Mengo was the day when the Buganda told the central government to vacate _Buganda's soil.
To many analysts, that resolution by the Buganda Lukiiko was a declaration of intent for Buganda to secede from the rest of Uganda. In Proverbs 24: 10, the Bible says: "If you are weak in a crisis, you are weak indeed".
In my view, the biggest component of what was the immediate cause of the 1966 crisis wasKatikkiro Mayanja Nkangi.
For Nkangi and his ministers, May 20, 1966 must have proved a black day.
There was a scheduled Lukiiko meeting called without their knowledge. They panicked because they did not know what was happening.
However, with time, they were able to learn of the intention of Mr Kaggwa, the Lukiiko member from Kooki county to move his famous or infamous motion expelling the central government from Buganda soil. They quickly approached the Speaker of the Lukiiko who agreed for a closed door meeting of the Lukiiko. In the closed doorneeting, Kaggwa read out his motion.
Nkangi and his ministers were aware of the presence of organised hooligans to deal with anyone who dared to oppose Kaggwa's motion.
For all practical purposes, Buganda was in a crisis. Unfortunately, Nkangi and his ministers failed to measure to the demands of the situation. They proved "weak indeed". Isaiah 30:10 tells us that during his time, the people of Israel used to shout down prophets thus: "Do not talk to us about what is right. Tell us what we want to hear. Let us keep our illusions." In effect, that is what the vast majority of the Baganda were telling Nkangi. And poor Nkangi failed to act according to rules which govern crises.
WBS TV sometime back interviewed Nkangi about the life and contribution to this country of Ssekabaka Mutesa II. If one analysed what Mayanja Nkangi says in these programmes especially in connection with the 1966 crisis, one discovers that he shrewdly hints at the direction Ugandans should take in order to find the truth about those sad events.
He clearly created four major impressions. The first is that the crisis was a creation of the devilish intentions of Milton Obote against Buganda. The second is that he was opposed to Kaggwa's motion to expel Obote and his government from Buganda's soil. Thirdly, he creates the impression that at the time Kaggwa moved his motion, much of his powers as Katikkiro were being exercised by three county chiefs. And lastly, that some people in key positions in the Mengo establishment were double-dealers.
This letter is not the right forum to discuss what Nkangi said in the documentary, Mutesa and Uganda.
However, I wish to commend him for his kind words about the immensely respected late Prince Badru Kakungulu. It is a fact that up to the time the Lukiiko debated and passed Kaggwa's motion, Prince Kakungulu showed grave concern about its implications for Buganda. Credible reports revealed that after prayers at Kibuli Mosque on the Friday immediately before Kaggwa moved his motion, the Prince pleaded with late Sheikh Ali Kulumba, then deputy Speaker of the Buganda Lukiiko, to do everything in his power to stop the motion.
He was further reported to have emphatically cautioned Sheikh Kulumba that there would be endless tears for Buganda if Kaggwa's motion was passed by the Lukiiko. Despite his deep concern, Prince Kakungulu remained hopeful that common sense would keep the Lukiiko on the right path. I do not know who rang who but I know that soon after the Lukiiko passed Kaggwa's motion, Prince Kakungulu and Sheikh Kulumba talked on telephone. Kulumba then broke the news that the Lukiiko had passed Kaggwa's motion. In disgust, the Prince threw down the telephone receiver.
Inevitably, the moment of truth for the Lukiiko came. And it came at a time when it was an open secret that Nkangi was not in control. While the Lukiiko was busy attending to Kaggwa's motion, Obote was also busy analysing all aspects of the situation it was likely to create. In that regard, it can safely be assumed that he did not leave anything to chance.
Having said all I had to say about the 1966 crisis, let me express my concern that historians are not doing enough to ascertain that the history of Uganda is free from contamination of whatever description. Of course, they know better than I do that for history to be what it must be, its positive and negative sides must equally be presented. But in our situation of the last forty years, both sides could not be presented equally because the nucleus of the elite class in Uganda went astray.
They erroneously believed and behaved as if to tell Ugandans that there existed right and wrong sides of history in this country. It is no wonder, therefore, that in almost all contentious issues, the centres of political gravity in Uganda except one pulled in the same direction.
Currently there are whispers amongst the right side of history complaining that some characters in the documentary, Mutesa II ne Uganda are not talking wisely. That is to say they are saying things which may lead people to ask questions. Looking at it from that angle, therefore, Prince Simbwa made a grave mistake to say that he heard a soldier telling his colleagues not to shoot him (Simbwa) because they were under orders not to shoot. These same people also think that it was a mistake for people like Nelson Nkonge to discuss his missions to various places to look for guns. History should speak louder about such things because that is the surest way to durable peace and freedom.
Lastly, a word on the politics of 2004. During that year, Buganda was clear and loud in its demands for federo and the return of Kampala to Buganda. 1 take this opportunity to place on record my full support for the two demands. James Namayirira (RIP), Mengo's former divisional chief of Makindye, is one of the few people with whom I discussed challenges facing Buganda today.
The expression of concern I shared with Namayirira also touched a silent feature in the politics of Buganda. As students of the politics of Buganda will admit, influential circles in Buganda have misled the ordinary Muganda into believing that people who love Buganda can only be found in particular schools of opinion. This groundless fantasy has silenced men and women in Buganda who would have made more meaningful contributions than those shouting loudest on everything.
In support of my argument that no single school of opinion has the monopoly of boundless love for Buganda, I give the example of Haji Muhabab Ssemakalu, the former Speaker of the Buganda Lukiiko. It is common knowledge that Ssemakalu was a UPC member or supporter in the sixties. It may also be recalled that in the sixties, he was appointed county chief of Singo. Therefore, it can be argued that as far as UPC is concerned, he is a good and capable man. Similarly, Baganda see him as a good and capable man otherwise, he wouldn't have been appointed speaker. The case of Ssemakalu, among others, proves that men and women with true feelings for Buganda are not a monopoly of one school of political opinion.
Needless to emphasize, Buganda is at crossroads. If this sad state of affairs is to be checked or reversed, the current Katikkiro has no choice but to whip Baganda out of their slumber. The best way for him to do this it to courageously face the naked truth that double-dealers have for a long time fooled Buganda and took them for a ride with disastrous consequences. In that regard, former Katikkiro Nkangi revealed that at the height of the 1966 crisis, he was shocked to discover that high ranking officials in Mengo were double-dealers. Is history repeating itself? If we, are not lucky, some of the things which happened under Katikkiro Kintu and Nkangi would happen under the current Katikkiro. Certainly, double-dealing is a bigger threat to Buganda today than it was in 1966. And more than at any time before, those expected to show Baganda the way forward have become slaves of the politics of the stomach.
While my support for Buganda's stand on the two issues of federo and Kampala remains unshakable, I think it was a mistake to insist on the federo of yesterday. For example: What was there to discuss about the ultimate goal of electoral process? That is a settled matter in all democratic countries. What Buganda needed was to cause today's internationally accepted democratic principles to incorporate the focal aspects of its traditional political culture.
As for Kampala, Buganda should not accept half measures on its ownership. However, we should make every effort to sell our case to Ugandans in a most polished manner. I believe, at the end of the day, Parliament will see the need to come up with a formula for Kampala acceptable to all Ugandans. The formula in the 1962 constitution whereby the central government paid one shilling to Buganda every year as lease fee for Kampala was a very good arrangement.
Continues next Sunday
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 The Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
