Watchdog Uganda
Oulanyah spoke at the retreat of opposition legislators, who are on a two-day induction on best Parliament practices.
“Colours only apply during elections, but now is the time to push the colours aside and we work together; let what we do reflect on the lives of the people we lead; we cannot disagree on the interests of the people, we can only disagree on how to achieve it,†he said.
The Speaker added: “We know you have a different opinion on certain things [but I assure you that] in this Parliament, ideas must be put up against each other; the weak ones will die and the strong ones will survive.â€
On his absence and the speculations that were reported in some sections of the media, Oulanyah said the country needs to do some soul-searching on its values, and learn to empathise with rather than wish ill for those said to be unwell.
“What we are losing in this country is what we call humanity. If somebody is sick, why declare that the person is dead? Why should we be painting and vanishing coffins for the sick?†he said.
Oulanyah had a busy morning, starting with a welcome by the Deputy Speaker Anita Among, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Mathias Mpuuga, and Commissioners of Parliament â€" Hon Solomon Silwany (NRM, Bukholi Central), Hon Francis Zaake (NUP, Mityana Municipality), Hon Esther Afoyochan (NRM, Zombo), Hon Prossy Akampurira (NRM, Rubanda) and Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja.
The Parliament leadership then held a closed door meeting with the Speaker, where Director of Communication and Public Affairs, Chris Obore, said he emphasised unity and working for the institution without fronting individual interests.
Obore said the new scheme of work in Parliament allows one presiding officer to conduct House business, and then takes leave as the other takes charge in succession.
The Deputy Speaker, Anita Among, thanked Speaker Oulanyah for giving her the discretion to manage House business, saying she will continue to do her best whenever assigned by the Speaker.
]]>WILLIAM ODINGA BALIKUDDEMBE: Uganda cannot defeat Covid-19 with guns and authoritarian directiveshttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/op-ed/20210729/118228/william-odinga-balikuddembe-uganda-cannot-defeat-covid-19-with-guns-and-authoritarian-directives.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:47:48 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118228July 30 marks the end of a 42-day lockdown placed on Uganda in June by Gen. Yoweri Museveni among measures to control the spread of Covid-19.Security forces have since June 18, when he made the announcement, been forcefully stopping any unauthorised movement of people during day or night. The millions of Ugandans who are starving in their houses will be anxious to know whether the additional chains on their lives, as a result of the pandemic and lockdowns, are loosened or tightened. The most logical thing in our circumstances would be to open and let people return to work. Uganda cannot defeat Covid-19 with authoritarianism and guns, but people can negotiate their way through it with their attitude and actions.
The NRM government’s target is to vaccinate 50 percent of the population which is about 21 million people. By early this week the country had administered just over 1.1m dozes of covid-19 vaccines. It is not clear how many people have so far been vaccinated but Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja told Parliament last week that just about four percent of the target number had received the jab.
While we wait for the vaccines, which the government is begging from richer countries, we will have to continue with our home made herbal concoctions whether we have the virus or not (there is no capacity to test us) because that is the best we can do.
If you cannot vaccinate people, and you can’t feed them, it is ridiculous to stop them from finding their way around the situation. Unfortunately the state has increasingly been taking away people’s power to the extent that by now, the central leadership is totally authoritarian, and local leadership has been rendered powerless. Our responsibility and ability as individuals and communities has been robbed away by a few individuals who use authority and the gun to squeeze us into destitution â€" that state where you feel incapable of anything other than following orders and receiving whatever crap is thrown at you.
For the good of the nation, it is important to acknowledge what works and what does not work, under our circumstance. Most Ugandans live like chicken. If they don’t work today it means they will have nothing to eat tomorrow. Lockdowns are a far greater distortion to their livelihoods than the pandemic.
I am among those who strongly opposed the first lockdown in March 2020 as it loomed. I even sent a communication to Dr. Jane Ruth Aceng, the Minister of Health, showing her an alternative approach but I think she was being bombarded with a lot of information during that time so mine could have gone unnoticed. Like most people do these days, I took my frustrations to Facebook and warned that someone would fall from heroine to villain. The judgement is yours. But what did we achieve in the first lockdown?
The priority was to stop the spread of the virus: “Wash your hands, sanitise, keep a social distance, stay home.†Wherever a case was reported specialists flew in with an ambulance. There was “contact tracing†and “quarantining†â€" very expensive measures â€" while people starved in their houses. No one was allowed to distribute to them food but authorised government agents. People waited for food but in vain.
Poor boda-boda riders who attempted to get out and scratch for survival risked the wrath of anxious and ill trained LDUs as well as other security forces. I don’t want to talk about where all the “covid moneyâ€, donated and borrowed, went because that will disrupt my present thoughts. Did we stop the spread after locking people in their homes for months, closing everything and going after anyone who ventured off the given guidelines? No.
That one variant is more dangerous than the other matters little. What is important is the capacity to deal with Covid-19, regardless of the variant. Football fans in Europe are back in their stadia. We in Uganda and other poor countries watched in envy on our screens as mask-less Europeans filled their stadia during the recent UEFA EURO-2020. They are back to active living while lockdowns are pushing us closer to our graveyards each passing day. Why? Because instead of solving problems our way, we often want to solve them their way, and we eventually fail.
One of the biggest problems we have, and this has been alluded to by so many people, is the so called elite class. Their poor parents sacrificed everything they had to see them through school with the hope that they would bring prosperity to their families and communities. But most of these are either swimming in corruption or are victims of denial and fear.
Those who seat in boardrooms can’t boldly tell their bosses the truth. They are only told what to do and how to do it, even when they are more learned and better positioned to advise the bosses. The other group debates on social media and that is all. The plain truth is that Ugandan leaders have bungled properly in managing the pandemic and succeeded very well in torturing their citizens into further fear and submission.
Let’s have a flash back. On May 29, Gen. Museveni addressed the nation and told those upcountry to avoid Kampala and Wakiso where Covid-19 was on the surge. If his government had capacity at that time to handle the infected, take care of the sick and provide food for the poor city dwellers, they would have locked those hot zones in time, just as it has been happening in other countries.
Museveni returned on June 6 and ordered a lockdown for 42 days but gave learners four days to travel back to their homes.
This was also an indirect message to those who starved in urban areas, especially in Kampala and Wakiso, during the previous lockdown to run to their villages before those four days elapsed. It was an admission that the government had no capacity to deal with the sick or those that would need food support. People had to be left on their own, but authority and guns had to come out to show them that someone was still in charge of the country.
Returning students and fearful urban dwellers scattered the virus across the country. Death immediately spiralled. Dead bodies were everywhere. In the rural area where the lockdown found me, the elderly were quickly signing out while other bodies were being brought in mainly from Kampala and Wakiso. By the time he returned on June 18 to order a harder lockdown for 42 days, the situation was completely out of control.
We did not stop going to burial sites as the president had ordered. Those who died from our villages we wrapped and buried in our own usual way, accept with more urgency. Bodies from elsewhere were being brought in a especial way by strange people. We had to stand a distance as men in white performed their rituals and sunk into the ground our loved ones.
Every serious or critical case of illness that left our villages and reached a major hospital was covid-ised (diagnosed as COVID-19 as if other diseases had vanished). Hospitals, ambulances, funeral service companies went into a bonanza. The murmurs in our community were about the government stealing from its people even during hard times such as death of a loved one â€" the bills for “covid corpses†were beyond imagination. We kept our sick and treated them from home. I am very sure this has happened everywhere in Uganda.
No one should blame us because the healthcare system in Uganda is badly wanting. Infrastructure, supplies and human resource are all insufficient. When it comes to managing Covid-19 the story is even worse. At the national level, for example, Museveni ordered the purchase of 42000 hospital beds for treating Covid-19 patients but a year later, upon the president’s grilling, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Diana Atwine, reported that they had installed only 3000 beds.She still holds her office!At the local level, again another example, our nearest government health centre has been diagnosing any patient who visits it from a distance and throwing tablets at them.
They don’t allow them to get anywhere close to the entrance. The poor nurses neither have the right clothing to wear during this pandemic nor the capacity to test for covid-19.
Meanwhile, here we continue to socialise even in the evening over a drink. But we have enough discipline to wash our hands and social distance. We even drive our cars and use our boda-boda transport as before. The case is not different in most parts of Uganda. It is mainly Kampala and Wakiso suffering the violence and extortion of security forces.
Using the gun only allows the gun wielder to extort money from the public but does not stop the spread of the virus. What we need to do is to allow people to manage the pandemic by themselves, within their respective communities, during transit and during interactions with other communities.
Let us tell everyone that the government is not responsible for their lives. This does not sound politically interesting but it should work. It will allow communities to educate and remind themselves about their responsibility to protect themselves, about the dangers of not following the given standard operating procedures. Let them police themselves on wearing masks, sanitising and keeping social distance â€" be it in the market, church or during a village gathering.
Let people manage the pandemic themselves.
The writer is a Science Journalist and the Head of Research, National Unity Platform (NUP)
]]>Uganda Airlines cabin crew members undergo mandatory extensive traininghttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/business/20210729/118223/uganda-airlines-cabin-crew-members-undergo-mandatory-extensive-training.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:28:13 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118223As a way of ensuring the safety of its passengers, Uganda Airlines has completed a mandatory extensive training of more than 40 cabin crew members in safety emergency procedures.The emergency procedures include; evacuation of passengers, First Aid, fire fighting, ditching (water landing), smoke evacuation and crew incapacitation among others.
The comprehensive pieces of training are in preparation for flights on the newly acquired Airbus A330-800 Neo, set to begin operation soon after the concealment of the Air Operator’s Certificate.
Trainees have been trained in different rating pieces of training, the first one was carried out in Toulouse (Airbus Europe manufacturing Base), Dubai (Emirates Aviation Academy) and the latest have been carried out at Base (Entebbe).
In Toulouse (France), the Uganda airlines crew and aircraft dispatchers trained by Airbus instructors were offered an Airbus manufacturer’s training on an A330-800 Neo.
In Dubai at the Emirates Academy, the cabin crew were trained ditching drills, Airbus A330-800 Neo specifics training including shouted commands and exit operations in a normal and abnormal situation.
“All these pieces of training including the ones carried out recently on Wednesday and Thursday at the Hub (Entebbe) were carried out by certified Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (UCAA) Approved Training Organisation (ATO),†the airline management said.
All the undertaken pieces of training are a means of compliance as required by the UCAA for operations of commercial Airlines before certification.
It should be noted that with the fulfillment of the above requirements in line with other departmental engagements and fulfillment towards the same goal, it puts the young Airline in its final stages of being completely certified with an AOC (Air Operator Certificate) for the two lately acquired Airbus A330-800 Neo.
“This means that esteemed passengers and Ugandans at large should happily prepare for the Uganda airlines long haul (long route) flights,†the source said, adding: “The Airline will be largely privileged to expand your choice of destinations.â€
]]>THOMAS KAYANJA: There is every reason to celebrate the Kabaziguruka case but the most powerful legal missiles should be directed towards section 119 of the UPDF Acthttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/op-ed/20210729/118220/thomas-kayanja-there-is-every-reason-to-celebrate-the-kabaziguruka-case-but-the-most-powerful-legal-missiles-should-be-directed-towards-section-119-of-the-updf-act.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:35:10 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118220Recently, the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment in which Michael Kabaziguruka a staunch member of FDC and former Member of Parliament Nakawa East Constituency was challenging his trial in the General Court Martial.The petitioner (Michael Kabaziguruka) was on 8th June, 2016 arrested and detained at Uganda Police special investigative Unit (SIU) Kireka where he spent the night and on the following day was placed under house arrest by officers of the Uganda Police. On 28th of June, 2016, he was arraigned in the General Court Martial for offences relating to national security contrary to S.130 (1) (f) of the UPDF Act and that of treachery contrary to S.129 (a) of the same Act.
The petitioner objected to his trial by the General Court Martial claiming that it had no jurisdiction to try him because it was not a competent Court established under the constitutional authority. The General Court Martial insisted that it is a court of law with the power to try the petitioner and other civilians.
The petitioner stayed on remand for several months until he was granted bail by the High Court on 20th October, 2016. Therefore, pursuant to Article 137(1) and (3) of the Constitution, the petitioner moved the Constitutional Court to interpret the Constitution and make declarations on a number of questions.
The questions for determination were set out in the submissions of the petitioner as follows:
Great strides were made in this judgment as the Constitutional Court pronounced progressive declarations that are likely to give respite to civilians that have strong reservations about being subjected to the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial established under S.197 of the UPDF Act. These inter alia include: â€"
The Constitutional Court pronounced itself on the fact that the General Court Martial established under Section 197 of the UPDF Act is a competent quasi-judicial military Court established under the UPDF Act whose jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of military discipline. I find the words “Limited to the enforcement of military discipline’’ instructive and a step forward in Uganda’s jurisprudence as far as removing civilians from the ambit or jurisdiction of the General Court Martial or Military law is concerned. This implies that civilians are exempted from being dragged to the General Court Martial for offences prescribed under Part VI of the UPDF Act.
Previous cases that have been placed before Court for interpretation have fallen short of addressing the issue of jurisdiction expressly. A case in point is the case of Attorney General v Joseph Tumushabe (Constitutional Appeal. No.3 of 2005) where Mulenga JSC who handed down the lead judgment to which other Justices of the Supreme Court agreed to, opined that the Courts Martial are not parallel but complementary to civilian courts hence the convergence at the Court of Appeal level. While analyzing the hierarchical nature of Courts in Uganda’s corpus juris, the Judge averred that the General Court Martial which whose appeals lie before the Court Martial Appeal Court, is both a subordinate Court within the meaning of Article 129(1)(d), and lower than the High Court in the Appellate hierarchy of Courts. This proves that though the courts tried to make strong pronouncements against the Courts Martial as seen above, the Kabaziguruka case is particularly instrumental in defining by trimming and / or containing the jurisdiction of the Courts martial in Uganda.
The Constitutional Court in taking progressive steps towards trimming the powers of the General Court Martial held that the General Court Martial’s jurisdiction is only limited to trying service offences specified under the UPDF Act, only in respect of persons subject to Military law. Section 2 of the UPDF Act, 2005 defines service offence to mean “An offence under this Act (UPDF Act) or any other Act for the time being in force, committed by a person while subject to military law.’’ The words “or any other Act’’ in section 2 were problematic in the sense that they made the section to mean any offence under all the laws of Uganda, thereby conferring jurisdiction unto the Court Martial over any criminal offence including non-disciplinary offences and over every person. This was unnecessarily stretching far and wide the jurisdiction of Military Courts in Uganda.
Therefore, limiting the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial to trying service offences enshrined in the UPDF Act and only in respect of persons subject to military law implies that offences triable by civil courts of judicature that is those encapsulated under Article 129 of the 1995 Constitution are taken out of the ambit of the General Court Martial. Therefore, if a civilian commits an offence which is provided for in Acts of Parliament like the Penal code Act, the Anti-terrorism Act, the Fire Arms Act and so on, such a person is exempted from the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial. No wonder the Constitutional Court in the Kabaziguruka case further held that Military law under the UPDF Act must be construed to exclude laws that are the preserve of civil Courts of Judicature established under Chapter Eight of the Constitution.
THE PROBLEMATIC SECTION 119 OF THE UPDF ACT
Although the Constitutional Court in the Kabaziguruka case has struck down Section 119 (1) (h) of the UPDF Act for being unconstitutional and inconsistent with Article 28 (1) of the Constitution, Section 119(1) (g) was left standing.
The basis of subjecting Civilians to military law is found in part V of the UPDF Act, S.119 (1) (g). Section 119 (1) provides that the following persons shall be subject to military law-
(g) every person, not otherwise subject to military law, who aids or abets a person subject to military law in the commission of a service offence.
The above provision of the UPDF Act has received legal backing from decided cases. In the case of Namugerwa Hadija v Attorney General & Anor (Civil Appeal No.04 of 2012) the Supreme Court held that Civilians in Uganda can become subject to Military law and once they do can be tried by the General Court Martial. Tumwesigye, JSC, further said that he does not see any exemption of civilians from the application of s.179 of the UPDF Act once they become subject to Military law under S. 119(1) and (h) of the Act.
In the instant case (Kabaziguruka), the Constitutional Court agrees that Civilians who voluntarily place themselves under the jurisdiction of the UPDF Act can be tried under Military law. Kakuru JA while making orders in this case stated that:
“Persons subject to military law under the UPDF Act must exclude all those persons who have not voluntarily placed themselves under the jurisdiction of that Act except as provided for under s.119(1)(g).’’
Justice Kakuru went ahead and held that: â€"
“Section 119(1) (g) of the UPDF Act is not unconstitutional, provided the person not otherwise subject to military law is tried as an accomplice together with a person who is subject to Military law as the principal offender on the same charge sheet.’’
Justice Kakuru is of the fortified view that, all persons recruited into the armed forces do so voluntarily. He opines that each individual who seeks to enlist, it must be presumed, is well aware of the risks such enlistment entails. He or she contracts to voluntarily limit some of his or her fundamental rights and freedoms. Where an individual aids and abets a person subject to military law to commit a military offence, such person would by his own consideration have brought him or herself under the ambit of the UPDF Act.
The above seems to have informed the reasoning of the Judge to hold that Section 119 (1) (g) is not unconstitutional thus making it lawful to try civilians as accomplices.
In my opinion, civilians should not be brought under the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial even when they have allegedly aided or abetted serving military officers. In my opinion, these can be presented during proceedings in the court martial simply as witnesses and then tried in civil courts. Parliament was empowered by the Constitution to enact a law to regulate the Uganda People’s Defence Forces under Article 210 and it is through that spirit that it enacted the UPDF ACT, 2005. This can be deduced from the long title of the Act which inter alia states that:
“An Act to provide for the regulation of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces.’’ Therefore, the UPDF Act was never intended to be an Act of general application. It is a statute of special and limited application. Article 210 of the Constitution from which Parliament derived the mandate to enact the UPDF Act, is itself restrictive on the coverage of the laws regulating the defence forces. Therefore, the General Court Martial established under S.197 of the UPDF Act is a competent Military Court specifically designed to deal with military discipline.
Article 210 of the Constitution which gives Parliament mandate to enact the UPDF Act should be interpreted together with Article 28 which provides for the right to a fair hearing. The principles of Constitutional interpretation as set out in Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere and anor V Attorney General SC (Constitutional Appeal No.1 of 2002) require the Constitution to be read together as an integral whole and no particular provision destroying the other but each sustaining the other. That is the rule of harmony, completeness and exhaustiveness.
It should be noted that the Constitutional Court in the Kabaziguruka case stated that because the judges of the military courts are appointed by the High Command of the defence forces, they are not part of the Judiciary but rather of the Executive. Important to note is that, judges in the civilian courts are appointed by the President on recommendation of the Judicial service commission and approval of Parliament which is not the case for the military courts as explained above. This made court to hold that the General Court Martial is not impartial and independent within the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution because it is likely to obey commands of the appointing authority and therefore cannot guarantee a fair, speedy and public hearing.
The Constitutional Court in Caroline Turyatemba & 4 others V AG (Constitutional Petition No.15 of 2006) held inter alia that the right to be heard is a fundamental basic right. It is one of the cornerstones of the whole concept of a fair and impartial trial. It is my opinion that the UPDF Act cannot override the provisions of the Constitution because indisputably, the latter is the supreme law of the land.
Therefore, subjecting Civilians who aid or abet serving military officers to commit a military offence is denying them their non-derrogable right provided for under Article 28 and further placed far from reach by Article 44 (C).
I agree, as Justice Kakuru stated in his lead judgment that, in this Country “all Persons recruited into the Armed forces do so voluntarily.’’ Important to note however is that the authority for recruitment is expressly vested in the Defence Forces Council as encapsulated under S.51 of the UPDF Act. Further, one has to meet the prerequisites enshrined in S.52 of the same Act. Every person on enrollment into the Defence Forces has to take the oath of allegiance and the oath of secrecy set out in the fifth and sixth schedule of the UPDF Act. Therefore, no person can qualify to be part of the defence forces without undergoing the procedural steps and meeting the requirements and qualifications set out in part IV of the UPDF Act, 2005.
In my opinion, it is only people who satisfy the requirements of part IV that can be regarded to have voluntarily placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial. A civilian who is not recruited and enrolled into the Army cannot be said to have waived his or her rights of not being subjected to Military law just because he or she is alleged to have aided or abetted a person subject to Military law in the commission of a service offence under S.119 (1) (g).
I agree with the reasoning of Justice Remmy Kasule in the Kabaziguruka case that ‘’a civilian who is alleged to aid or abet a person subject to Military law does not become a serving member of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces to be tried by military court. It is the civilian courts that have jurisdiction over such a person. This informed his holding that Section 2 and 119 (1) (g) of the UPDF Act are inconsistent with Articles 28 (1), 44 (c) and 210 (b).
THE GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY OF STRIKING DOWN THE ONLY REMAINING SECTION THAT BRINCGS CIVILIANS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL (119 (1) (G) OF THE UPDF ACT).
As the position of law stands, the only law that has remained in Uganda’s Statute books that brings civilians under the jurisdiction of Martial law is S.119 (1) (g) of the UPDF Act.
As the Attorney General possibly prepares to appeal the Constitutional Court decision in Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka V AG (Constitutional Petition No.45 of 2016), it is crucial to point out that it presents a great opportunity for the respondent to make a cross appeal over the Constitutionality of S.119 (1) (g) which I think can be premised on the analysis I have made above.
I am cognizant of the Supreme Court decision in Namugerwa Hadijah (Supra) that held inter alia that Civilians can be tried in military courts by Section 119 (1) (g) of the UPDF Act. However, the decision in Namugerwa Hadijah (Supra) can only be used as a persuasive precedent but not binding, I say so while well aware of Article 132 of the Constitution which provides for jurisdiction of the supreme court.
The decision in Namugerwa Hadijah (Supra) was decided by the Supreme Court while sitting in an appeal as a second appellate Court hearing an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in an ordinary civil appeal. The quorum of the Supreme Court was a panel of 5 Justices of the Supreme Court unlike in Constitutional Appeals where the quorum is a minimum of a panel of 7 Justices of the Supreme Court.
In Murisho Shafi & Ors V AG & Anor (Constitutional Application No. 02 of 2017), Egonda Ntende JCC disagreed with the holding in George Owor V AG & Anor (Application No.38 of 2010) which had criticized the holding in Isaac Isabirye V AG & Anor Miscellaneous Application No.001 of 2007, 2008{ ULR} 523 for not making reference to Section 13 of the Judicature Act when it held that neither a three Judge Panel or a single Judge of the Court had jurisdiction to hear the application for interim orders before Court. Egonda Ntende, clearly stated that, S.13 of the Judicature Act is clear and unambiguous and hence applies only to the business before the Court of Appeal.
Further, in drawing distinction between the Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, Egonda Ntende JCC in Murisho Shafi (Supra) stated that the Court of Appeal is not the Constitutional Court. Two separate Courts with separate jurisdiction were created by the Constitution. One cannot simply read the provisions that relate to one and apply them to the other.
Still in Muriho Shafi (Supra), Kakuru JCC alluded to the confusion between the two Courts when he stated that: â€"
“There has been confusion in jurisprudence especially at this Court arising from its failure to separate and treat as separate entities, the Constitutional Court and the Court of Appeal. These are two separate and distinct Courts established separately by the Constitution each with its own jurisdiction and rules of procedure.
Another plausible Court decision which in my view is a justification not to treat the Namugerwa Hadijah case (Supra) as a binding precedent is the American Procurement Company V Attorney General & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 0035 of 2009) where the Constitutional Court refused to follow the Supreme Court holding in Gordon Sentiba & 2 ors V the Inspectorate of Government (SC Civil Appeal No.6 of 2006) where it had been held that the Inspectorate of Government is not a body corporate and as such it has no capacity to sue or be sued. There was two contracting Court decisions over the corporate status of the Inspectorate of Government, that is the Gordon Sentiba case (Supra) and Inspectorate of Government V Kikondwa Butama Farms Ltd & Anor (Constitutional Petition No.14 of 2007) where it was held that the Inspectorate of Government has corporate status. The Court of Appeal while comparing the two contrasting decisions stated that the ‘’proposition that the IGG has corporate status was set out by the Constitutional Court’’. Justice Kakuru, JA further stated that the Supreme Court sitting in a civil appeal cannot set aside a decision of the Constitutional Court. It is only the Constitutional Appeal Court that has the power to set aside such a decision. Therefore if the decision of the Supreme Court in Gordon Sentiba (Supra) was binding on the Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeal in American Procurement Company (Supra) should have followed it but declined to do so.
As I conclude, I agree with the above reasoning by the Honorable Justices of the Constitutional Court in Murisho Shafi (Supra) as it is also my fortified opinion that indeed, the Constitutional Court and the Court of Appeal are two separate Courts. Whereas the Court of Appeal has only appellate jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court has original jurisdiction. The quorum for each of the Courts is constituted differently and their respective mandate also differ. Therefore, a decision of the Court of Appeal cannot be held to be that of the Constitutional Court.
Going by the above reasoning and holding in Murisho Shafi (Supra) and American Procurement Company (Supra), it makes me believe that the case of Namugerwa Hadijah (Supra) being a Civil Appeal is not binding on the Constitutional Court and neither does the Supreme Court need to distinguish it in order to strike down Section 119 (1) (g) of the UPDF Act.
Should the prospective respondent in the Kabaziguruka case make a Cross Appeal, the Supreme Court will be tasked with a duty of using its constitutional mandate to strike down Section 119 with the most powerful legal missiles and that will mark the end of trying Civilians in Military Courts in Uganda’s jurisprudence.
The author is Thomas Kayanja- A law Student at Makerere University And the FDC Youth league secretary for Education, Sports and Student Affairs
]]>MP Semujju Nganda forced to apologize after calling Minister Muyingo Personal Assistant to First Lady Janet Museveni https://www.watchdoguganda.com/news/20210729/118214/mp-semujju-nganda-forced-to-apologize-after-calling-minister-muyingo-personal-assistant-to-first-lady-janet-museveni.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:54:21 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118214Kira Municipality Member of Parliament Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda has been forced to apologize for referring to State Minister for Higher Education John Chrysestom Muyingo as Personal Assistant to Cabinet Minister of Education and Sports Janet Kataha Museveni.During a plenary sitting on Thursday, Semujju said Muyingo was a Personal Assistant to the Mrs Museveni because he always represents her in Parliament.
“I apologise to the Minsiter Muyingo to the extent I offended him,†Semujju said.
To say this, the Forum for Democratic Change(FDC) Spokesperson first raised a procedural matter over the continued absence of Mrs Museveni in plenary sittings.
Semujju had demanded for an explanation on the same and to know whether there are super Ministers who cannot attend the sittings.
]]>DENIS JJUUKO: What graduates could learn from those with informal educationhttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/news/20210729/118210/denis-jjuuko-what-graduates-could-learn-from-those-with-informal-education.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:55:01 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118210There is always a debate in Uganda and perhaps in other parts of the world about formal education and entrepreneurship. The argument posits that formal education incapacitates entrepreneurship.The argument is that people who don’t go through formal education set up businesses and become very successful. A few examples are always cited pointing at who owns which high-rise building. American tech entrepreneurs who abandoned their formal education programs to set up companies that became unicorns are also always mentioned.
It is easy to get caught up on the side of this argument until you ask how many of these billionaires actually exist. The argument is always devoid of numbers and percentages. Of the uneducated people in Uganda, how many actually become billionaires? How many are able to survive in this treacherous world of business? Of the buses that ferry people who dropped out of primary in schools to Kampala or any urban areas, how many make it in the city? How many return to abject poverty? How many such entrepreneurs are not one health emergency away from abject poverty?
Having said that, what makes some of the people who only attained informal education especially as traders make it in life than those who attained formal education? I think there is not a single answer to this question because I think people who are to succeed will always do regardless of their formal or informal education. There is always something beyond educationâ€"formal or informal; the X-factor or what some call destiny.
But I think one of the main reasons why people who didn’t go far with their formal education succeed is time â€" the most important element that makes most entrepreneurs successful. People who don’t go into formal education start handling money at a very early age. By around age 10 or 15, they have started handling money, they are learning more about money and the opportunities that money creates than those in school.
By age 30, those with informal education have had 15-20 years of working experience handling money. Those with formal education at the same age, are just starting out. They are underemployed and are basically where their colleagues with informal education were 15-20 years ago.
Most people with formal education at age 30 haven’t done much. They are just getting noticed at work and because they don’t have any experience with money, whatever they earn goes to consumption. A high end rented apartment, a Subaru on salary loan, and the latest iPhone and thinking or going back for a masters degree so they could land the corner office. The guy with informal education, at this time they are investing in assets that will be worth a lot of money in 10-15 years.
At 40, the guy with a formal education is now starting to invest, buying their first plot of land and dreaming of entering an incomplete house on a 50×100 feet plot as the ultimate dream. At 45, he starts investing for products that will mature in 5-15 years. Meanwhile the guy with the informal education is now cashing in on his maturing investments and getting more investments.
To make money, unless you are an outlier, takes time. To invest Shs1m and be able to get Shs10m out of it, requires time. That is why majority of guys with formal education once they withdraw their NSSF money, it is wasted within two years. They have no experience handling money. One investment failure is the end of the life. By this time, the other guys have failed, failed and failed and somewhat got it right.
The issue, therefore, is not formal education rather time when one starts investing. If you look back at some of your formal education friends who were trading and investing while at university, there are most likely far ahead today in terms of investments because they have had much more time learning about money and investing it. They also know how to handle failure and have the experience to dust themselves up and move again.
And that is the lesson people with formal education should learn from those with informal education. To start learning about money early. Ugandan university students have a lot of time. Many only have classes in the evening, weekend or even a few hours a day. The rest of the time is spent indulging in mostly entertainment and such other things. How can they use this time to learn more about money by doing some businesses?
In hostels around universities, people with informal education turn up to plait students’ hair, do laundry and selling them used spaghetti tops. What stops a university student from going to Owino buy clothes and sell them to fellow students? That way they can learn about money early in life.
The writer is a communication and visibility consultant. djjuuko@gmail.com
]]>How Covid-19 has played into Africa’s secret burial beliefs and practiceshttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/news/20210729/118208/how-covid-19-has-played-into-africas-secret-burial-beliefs-and-practices.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:26:45 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118208An analysis of recent media reports in Uganda, especially from the districts of Budaka, Pallisa and Buikwe, has revealed multiple cases involving relatives of people suspected to have succumbed to Covid-19 exhuming their bodies at night in order to accord them “decent and proper burial ritesâ€.Similar concerns have been raised in many other African countries and societies. For instance, in South Africa, as a way of enforcing the Covid-19 regulations, burials have also been modified from traditional ones to those with limited crowds, with burial teams donned in hazmat suits and with bodies wrapped (or “trappedâ€) in plastic bags.
Such “scientific†burials have enraged many families, especially those in rural communities. In turn, they are defying the government and are secretly exhuming the bodies. Their argument is: How could the spirit of the dead be reached and engaged when it is so trapped? Can the spirit be able to escape its ‘plastic prison’ and join the ancestors, or remain locked in captivity?
Some have expressed fear that these new burial rules have posed serious spiritual consequences for their families. They claim that, in their dreams, they receive messages from the ancestors warning of the suffocation and entrapment of their spirits in the plastic body bags. Thus, the need for exhuming the bodies, removing the plastics and reburying them.
In Kenya, relatives of a man suspected to have died from Covid-19 sued the government and asked that his hurriedly-buried body be exhumed and then re-buried with proper traditional rites. They complained that the body of their loved one was buried in a shallow grave wrapped in a plastic bag, contrary to their Luo customs and had caused stigma in their village.
In her judgment, the learned judge ruled that, given the health hazards involved, it was not advisable to exhume the body, but ordered that the grave site be cemented. Also, she stated that “One does not cease being a human once dead; only the state of life is altered. … I conclude that indeed the dead have rightsâ€.
Most communities in Africa believe in life after death. Consequently, burial practices are given a lot of significance as they are perceived as crucial steps in transitioning from the world of the living to the spiritual world. It is believed that a properly conducted funeral helps the dead to relocate to the world of the dead where they live a similar life to those on earth and continue to participate in affairs on earth.
The fact is, there are so many rituals and social behaviours surrounding death, mourning and burial in the African society. Some cultures prepare for burial by washing, kissing and dressing the corpse. For others, in order to access the last wishes of the dying, they choose not to take them to hospital for medical attention. Of course, all these practices represent a considerable infection risk for Covid-19.
Many believe that if these rituals are not performed in the prescribed manner, or crucial steps are missed, the deceased would be condemned to wander eternally and would return to torment their relatives. This is even feared more than the Covid-19 infections because the angry spirits could cast spells on their descendants.
As Africa’s health systems continue to buckle under the onslaught of Covid-19, the recent trends in burial practices have demonstrated that the use of scientific methods alone without a holistic consideration of other contextual factors is not sufficient to control the disease. Governments should consider how Covid-19 plays into the cultures of the societies affected.
Mr. Mukalazi is the Country Director of
Every Child Ministries Uganda.
bmukalazi@ecmafrica.org
Oulanyah was received by Deputy Speaker Anita Among, Leader of the Opposition Mathias Mpuuga among others.
Last Friday, the Speaker quietly returned to the country.
Oulanyah had been out of the country for one and half months. He last presided over Parliament at the reading of the 2021/2022 financial year budget at Kololo Independence Grounds.
His absence from the public had continued to raise speculation with several media reports indicating that he had tested positive for COVID-19.
There were also reports that he was allegedly transported to Entebbe International Airport in an ambulance and carried on a stretcher to the plane that evacuated him from Uganda.
The Director of Communications and Public Affairs at Parliament, Chris Obore, said that the Speaker had travelled to see one of his children in the United Kingdom- UK.
“He travelled to the UK, but this is in no way related to sickness or anything, but to see his son whom he had not seen in a long time,†Obore said.
Last Wednesday, Members of Parliament tasked Deputy Speaker Among about the continued absence of Oulanyah.
]]>How NUP’s Bobi Wine, Rubongoya duped Ugandanshttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/news/20210729/118199/how-nups-bobi-wine-rubongoya-duped-ugandans.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 08:56:46 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118199By Del w OmonySir Winston Churchill pronounced Uganda ‘’ The Pearl of Africa’’ due to its biodiversity, ranging from the number of tourist attractions, the loving and welcoming people , the different cultures, the weather and climate among others. The same cannot be said of the country’s politics.
The question here is; Do we really have opposition in Uganda? And can Ugandans entrust the future of this country to the opposition?
Recently, we embarked on finding out the truth behind the bickering between the founding members of National Unity Platform kibalama team and the current leadership led by Robert Kyagulanyi alias Bobi Wine. We are out to highlight on a number of illegalities which include; the illegal smuggling and swapping of the original party constitution to suit individual target and personal gains.
It should be remembered that Mr. Kyagulanyi and the People Power team having been frustrated by the so called big opposition political parties he hoodwinked the less powerful but strategic original leadership of NUP headed by Nkonge Moses Kibalama, into signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
Due to limited time to beat the nomination deadline and the urge to elect Kyagulanyi as the party leader before the 2021 general elections, both teams on the 11th /July/2020 being in a rush drafted an MOU between both parties to fufill their goals.
Indeed David Lewis Rubongoya being one of the leading negotiator of the joint venture drafted the MOU for the relationship of both parties and signed upon the agreement.
On the 14th /July/2020 a simple handover meeting was organized at Kakiri gardens and hotel in Wakiso which saw Mr kyagulanyi and Mr Rubongoya as NUP’s duly elected president and secretary general respectively. We have since reliably learnt that Mr kyagulanyi and colleagues did not at all adhere to the terms of the MOU and nothing what so ever has ever been put into account thus throwing Mr Nkonge in moods of calling off the understanding which has also since been discovered to have expired on the 11th /07/2021 according to clause 5 of the same MOU.
The bickering of the senior NUP leadership also stems from the establishment that after Kyagulanyi and Rubongoya taking charge of the party leadership, the team selfishly violated the laws of political parties and swapping the original party constitution of 2004 when the it was first registered.
According to Nkonge, the constitution of which he has a copy in his custody has never been amended yet the one he sees in public domain is different and even the behavior of the leadership clearly shows they are not following any guidelines.
A case of these unconstitutional characters has since been brought to the attention of the regulator of political parties and organization- the Electoral Commission of Uganda for determination and possible actions if proved if Nkonge’s allegations are proved right.
In the turn of events, after realizing all the mess, the promoters took up a step of calling for sanity after a long strive to have matter at hand resolved failed.
They wrote to Mr Kyagulanyi a letter dated 09/11/2020 and signed by William Odinga Balikuddembe on behalf of other promoter/ founders of which a call was deliberately ignored and all efforts to get matters raised attended to fell on deaf ears.
One realizing the MOU was set for review after one year as clearly stated in clause 5 of the same, Nkonge and Ssimbwa Paul and others through thier lawyers of Mugabi Shyaka and company Advocates wrote a reminder to Mr Rubongoya to cause a meeting on or before the 11/07/2021 to review and or evaluate the performance of the 11/07/2020 memorandum of understanding between both parties which was also ignored.
In a very surprising turn of events, social media was awash with a statement from two of the less known Co-founders of NUP party mentioned in the MOU distancing themselves from the call to review the understanding which was due for review on the 11/07/2021 and these included Mr Kigozi Winstone and Mr Odinga William Balikuddembe. It’s not clear why this time round Mr Balikuddembe distanced himself from the complaints yet last year he is the one who signed a letter demanding to review the way the opposition party was being run by the new leadership.
How these two co-founders distance themselves from such unresolved facts is a story to tell.
]]>SIMON KIMOYI: What does Rwanda-DRC gold deal entail for Uganda?https://www.watchdoguganda.com/op-ed/20210729/118196/simon-kimoyi-what-does-rwanda-drc-gold-deal-entail-for-uganda.html Thu, 29 Jul 2021 08:02:07 +0000https://www.watchdoguganda.com/?p=118196Regional economic reports indicate that Rwanda earned slightly more than half a billion-dollars from gold receipts of FY 2020/21. With approximately $2bn in Uganda we earned four folds more. We both don’t possess fundamental deposits of gold but have lately identified the precious metal as a strategic item for international trade. In our situation, the foregoing period was also our best performance with the strategic cash cropâ€"coffee. But forex from gold surpassed that from coffee by four times.In positioning Uganda as a regional destination for gold trade, three state-of-the art refineries have since been establishedâ€"including African Gold Refinery at Entebbe, Bullion Refinery and Simba Gold Refinery in Kampala.
In Uganda we are blessed with about eight million ounces of gold; big enough to spur our economy but not sufficient to sustainably feed the refineries. This partly explains why despite having the capacity, the Entebbe based refinery is yet to engage in jewelry manufacturing.
Across the border, our friends in Rwanda are already into jewelry making. Kigali was excited by the gold returns of $522m last fiscal year that registered a mammoth increment of over 200%. This notwithstanding, Rwanda feels the confidence to do better than that.
In the new measures, Kigali has disengaged from the partnership with a Dubai-based gold firm, Aldabra Ltd whose international experience had brought it thus far since 2019. It cites tax evasion issues although the duty to manage the Aldango gold refinery in Kigali was a 50-50 shared responsibility with Ngali Mining, a state-owned company.
Now, the frozen Aldabra Ltd had been responsible for the inflows of raw gold mainly from neighboring DRC and other African sources such as Central African Republic, Sudan and South Sudan. But the owner of Aldabra in UAE is the same majority stakeholder at African Gold Refinery in Entebbe, Uganda. He is called Alain Goetz, a Belgian national. The same Mr Goetz secured the refinery equipment for himself in Uganda with an operation capacity of 219 tons and earmarked for his partnership in Rwanda a refinery of 73-ton capacity; just a third of that in Uganda. This must have maddened Kigali.
To completely cut off Goetz’s supply lines for the Entebbe firm, last month on June 26 president Paul Kagame inked a gold-mining deal with president Félix Tshisekedi of DRC. In detail, the deal practically places the responsibility of providing security to DRC gold mines squarely on Rwanda’s shoulders. It is categorical on: (i) promotion and protection of investments, (ii) avoidance of double taxation and tax evasion and (iii) gold mining cooperation.
Rwanda will invest in DRC gold sites (most likely by upfront payment), deploy security (military by all means) to sentry the mines, physically engage in mining activity, transfer the metals to Kigali for refining, manufacture the ornaments thereof, promote and market them internationally and share the dividends with Kinshasa. Bad to anyone? Obviously.
Whereas Kigali’s main target is Alain Goetz; the major victim is us, Ugandans. It is an expanded attack on our regional economic interests. An extension of what started in 2019 by closure of the common border.
The explanation then was to rehabilitate inland access roads within Rwanda which eventually evolved into an economic embargo to-date.
Today, the excuse for severing relations with Goetz’s Aldabra firm is tax evasion. But in a real sense the measure constitutes an economic war. If things are left as they are, we shall be short of what we earned from gold last FY. More Ugandan gold dealers risk death from inside the DRC than have been shot dead at the common border with Rwanda.
Apparently we are investing in DRC’s physical infrastructure for one major purposeâ€"to maximize trade benefits. Hence Kampala must expeditiously review existing economic protocols with Kinshasa to guarantee unconstrained access to all resources in either country that are of mutual benefit to all.
Simon Kimoyi is a PhD Candidate, Kampala International University
]]>
0 Response to "Watchdog Uganda"
Post a Comment