Government is shedding crocodile tears over land evictions

Any keen eye should have noted by now that government rhetoric on land eviction has escalated – either because of frustration or in response to a growing problem or both.  The media has been awash with high level government warnings and action against land evictions.  Some of latest were chronicled in the New Vision article:  “Land evictions on despite Museveni directive” published on March 23, 2013. 

On February 26, 2013 President Museveni castigated what he called “bayaaye-minded, nouveau-rich, pseudo capitalists; corrupt local leaders, police and courts; and still unsensitized peasants” for the burgeoning problem.  He then banned all evictions involving peasants and announced a special committee headed by Hon Rosemary Seninde to “go area by area returning people illegally evicted back to their bibanja.”  Wheeew, what unenviable task!

Truth is, the Hon Rosemary Seninde Committee will ignominiously fail.  It will fail not because it won’t be able to return as directed, those evicted to where they were evicted from.  Indeed, the state’s organs of coercion must be mouth-watering at yet another ‘licensed’ bonanza to splash gun powder in support of Hon Seninde Committee.  The forced return though will be doomed because it neither is backed by the law, nor can it be sustained.  President Museveni has a right, just like any other Ugandan, to express his frustrations over the paralysis in land justice administration.  However, he does not have a right to use his frustration as a basis to circumvent judicial procedures and the law regarding land administration in the country.

While I accept and stand to be corrected by legal minds, I put it to Hon Rosemary Seninde and committer members that neither is their mandate unconstitutional nor provided for under any other law.  Any decisions made by this committee will therefore be subject to legal challenge to the individual chagrin of committee members. 

But a bigger driver for failure of the Hon. Rosemary Seninde Committee is the unsustainability of the committees’ work arising from blatant policy and institutional failures in land administration.  One needs to examine factors which have made “bayaaye-minded, nouveau-rich, pseudo capitalists; corrupt local leaders, police and courts; and unsensitized peasantry” thrive.

First, government is responsible for chaos arising from the creation of the “bona fide land occupant” concept – which is enshrouded in so much contextual and definitional confusion that most lawyers find it un litigable in the courts of law. No wonder Museveni thinks courts are incompetent and corrupt.  Judicial decisions can only be rendered to the extent of flawed legislation.  The onus is therefore on government to straighten up the law so that judicial officers can have a robust framework to litigate land cases.

In particular, the law as it currently stands provides for overlapping land ownership regimes.  It also sets “bona fide land occupants” (squatters) on a confrontational path against “bona fide land owners” - both of whom have rights to land ownership. Of note, government was supposed to operationalize a National Land Fund to, inter alia, compensate “bona fide land owners” at market prices and in turn, guarantee full land ownership to tenants or squatters.   The Land Fund is in total paralysis.  Government remains impotent with regards to getting it fully operational save for a few erratic, political pledges devoid of practical sincerity.  Unless dual, overlapping land ownership is resolved, Hon Seninde’s Committee can rest assured of perpetual work.

Secondly, it is to be recalled that Government established District Land Tribunals under section 74 (1) and (2) of the Land (Amendment) Act of 2004 to provide for a speedy resolution of land disputes.  These tribunals were choked into extinction by government indecisiveness shortly after they had come into existence. All jurisprudence on land matters was returned to the Magistrates’ Courts and the High Courts, which by the way are shunned by land dispute litigants because of public perception that legalistic procedures therein are too tedious and that one cannot access justice without a lawyer. 

In the wake of demise of District Land Tribunals, government provided for creation of Area Land Committees as land arbiters at the lowest level of government (Sub County and Division). Even though these have been appointed by nearly all the District Councils in Uganda, members of these committees have not been issued formal appointment letters because District Councils do not want to commit their resources to support the committees’ work.  Without financing from government, Area Land Committees have resorted to charging fees for the services they offer – an unaffordable prospect to some land litigants.  Crucially, without appointment letters from District Councils, these committees are illegal and any decisions they take, if at all, are open to legal challenge.

Although Sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Land Act CAP 227 require the establishment of District Land Boards to among other functions, create public awareness about land related matters, the operations of these Boards have been hamstrung by inadequate government funding.  Why then complain about massive peasant ignorance over land administration issues?

So, before government blames anybody for land evictions, it needs to soberly audit whether it has delivered on all its policy and institutional obligations required to improve land administration.  An honest introspection should reveal that government is actually to blame for most of the land evictions that have taken or will take place.  Indeed, given the level of government’s failures, ongoing state ‘outcry’ on land evictions can be tantamount to shedding crocodile tears! 

Yes, government systems are broken and paralyzed! But once again, no level of paralysis should justify any ad-hoc, extra judicial alternative to land dispute arbitration, such as the Hon Rosemary Seninde Committee.   Government needs to do what is required of it whilst recognizing that land rights administration should be treated as a professional function, removed from the realm of politics, insulated from political pressures. 

 

denismutabazi@yahoo.com

Only Jesus Christ can forgive NRM

A recent survey by Afrobarometer – an independent, non-partisan research project has confirmed what many Ugandans already knew: that the country has been mismanaged! The survey established that 82% and 72% of the urban and rural folks respectively believe Uganda is headed in the wrong direction. This trend has been catalysed, among other things, by corruption, blatant abuse of public resources, and lack of government commitment to abate drivers and effects of inflation.

While this trend is a grievous concern for ordinary Ugandans who are increasingly finding life unliveable, the ruling clique and system sycophants – who are living lavishly on state resources - have dismissed any claims of economic hardship as a hoax! To stress their point, they have threatened, quite recently, to prosecute whoever openly protests the harsh living conditions under economic terrorism rules – whatever that refers to.

Undeniably, the Attorney General’s superfluous issuance of a statutory instrument in April, out-lawing the Activists for Change (A4C) movement portrays how far the regime will go to make good of their threat! Of course, the regime has hitherto blatantly refused to accept that the A4C movement is an embodiment of citizens’ discontent with the regime’s management of public economic resources.

The sycophantic unleashing of section 56 (2) (c) of the Penal Code Act against A4C coincided with the leaking of a cabinet report, which revealed that the regime spends 377 billion shillings annually on treatment of senior regime functionaries. This annual bill is said to be nearly equal to what donors contribute towards the country’s annual health budget! No wonder those in government and benefiting from such schemes have callously dismissed claims of economic decadence as machinations of the opposition.

The callousness of the regime and its sycophants is nearly reminiscent of the brutality of the execution detail which dragged an innocent Jesus Christ to his crucifixion. Christians will remember that at Golgotha, a rag-tag gang of soldiers nailed a thoroughly tortured Jesus on the cross before hoisting him up, between two criminals. As they waited for him to die, they tossed dice, gambling away on how they would share his robes. But in the midst of all this, Jesus marshalled his residual strength to shout: “father, forgive them for they do not understand!” (Luke 23:34).

There is no doubt that this regime has unleashed torture upon its own citizens – literary, figuratively, and metaphorically! A4C have been severely clobbered and violently arrested for protesting the hash economic conditions; Ugandan mothers are 300 times more likely to die giving birth than their counterparts in developed countries – due to infection, haemorrhage, etc. Moreover, 130 for every 10000 Ugandan children die before their fifth birthday, making Uganda one of world’s riskiest places for infants. Yet, probably less than 200 of Uganda’s top leaders lie back with the assurance that they can always access part of the 377 billion shilling foreign medical cover kitty – should any of them or their family members fall sick.

As a largely Christian people, Ugandans could easily have said to the regime…we forgive your heinous transgressions, commissions and omissions – in the same spirit in which Jesus forgave his tormentors at Calvary. After all, the canonical gospel of Luke reminds us of Jesus’s impatience with those who call him Lord yet cannot do what he says (Luke 6:46).

The question we need to ask though is: Is the regime and its functionaries forgivable? Can we do what the son of man did in his last hour: pay evil with benevolence? May be---who knows, but most likely not! Jesus can, but I’m not under any illusion that most Ugandans can or will! Instead, most Ugandans seek or will seek justice. Time will tell, but I trust all those who have had a hand in the mismanagement of public resources must and will account for their commissions, omissions, and transgressions. Justice may be delayed but it cannot be averted!

The rebate for fuel transit through Tanzania is politically motivated

Both the Monitor and Newvision have recently carried stories about Uganda government’s imminent intent to introduce a tax discount of Shs150 per litre to fuel dealers who will import their fuel through the Tanzanian route, instead of the normal route through Kenya (see map). Although government is ascribing this discount to the need to lower fuel prices, business analysts agree that such a rebate would not reduce pump prices.

It’s a fact that the 1800km Kampala-Dar-es-salaam route is 600km longer than the Kampala-Mombasa route. With a despicable road infrastructure in Tanzania compared with that of Kenya, fuel deliveries along the Dar-Kampala route could be at least four days slower than the usual Kampala-Mombasa route.

In any case, a few traders who have tried the Dar es salaam-Kampala route complain of too many non-tariff barriers in form of weighbridges. While Tanzanian officials have indicated they would be willing to reduce these, there are no guarantees for such an action, given Tanzania’s reluctance to fully embrace the East African Community protocol.

For these reasons, major oil dealers in Uganda have conservatively estimated that importation of fuel though Tanzania will hike transportation costs by as much as four times compared with what they currently incur through Kenya. They have also indicated that the government’s proposed rebate of shs 150 per litre hauled through Tanzania would not offset the envisaged hike in transportation costs. By implication then, ordinary Ugandans would naturally brace for even higher petrol, diesel, and paraffin prices as clearly – which is contrary to what to the government’s argument.

Of course, over-reliance on a single route – which actually accounts for haulage of 99% of Uganda’s estimated four million tons of seaborne traffic is a risk factor. It may be recalled that in the fallout following the 2007 disputed presidential elections and the ensuing electoral violence in Kenya, ordinary Mwananchi in western Kenya uprooted rail racks, blockaded the Kenya-Uganda highway, and burnt or vandalised or looted cargo trucks destined for Uganda. It became apparent that such a rare rant was precipitated by Museveni’s rushed and congratulatory message to Mr Mwai Kibaki, who had widely been perceived to have grossly rigged the 2007 elections for his second and last constitutional term as President of Kenya. Western Kenya, from where Raila Odinga hails, and the man Kibaki had rigged out, was incensed that Museveni and Uganda by association could be that treacherous, hence the targeting of Ugandan interests.

With Mwai Kibaki’s last term of office set to expire in about a years’ time; and given that Raila Odinga is the likely next president for the Republic of Kenya, would it be logical to say Museveni’s government is simply trying, at all costs, to avoid facing and living with the reality of political betrayal? Could it be that Museveni’s government feels it lacks the moral stand to do business with Raila Odinga (if indeed he becomes the next president of Kenya) or his kins in Western Kenya who up to today, see Museveni as a treacherous big brother? On the hand, hasn’t there been a string of opinions that Museveni thinks Raila Odinga has been politically sympathetic to Uganda’s opposition, especially Col Kizza Besigye---Museveni’s main political opponent?

Wouldn’t it be more sensible for Museveni’ government to work with the Kenyan government, irrespective of who is president there, to eliminate obstacles on the more economic Mombasa-Kampala route than ramping up for the economically unviable alternative route through Tanzania? Is it too politically hazy for Museveni’s government to clearly see that Uganda needs Kenya more than Kenya needs Uganda in this and, perhaps, other regards? Or, is the incubating Migingo Island saga being discounted?

Let’s face it: the Shs.150 per litre rebate for a new transit route through Tanzania is driven by negative political ego and idiocy. A meaningless rebate for a new route to the coast away from Kenya is a puke at Uganda’s relationship with Kenya; I urge the Ugandan business community to reject it with the contempt it deserves.

Government should embrace the UN report on Congo war crimes

In a report released 1st October 2010, Uganda, along with several other countries, has been implicated by the United Nations (UN) for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic Congo, between 1993 and 2003. The crimes include systematic rape of women and girls; wanton torture and massacre of un-armed civilians; plunder of Congo’s natural wealth – including timber and minerals; and malevolent obliteration of civil infrastructure.

As expected, the Ugandan government summarily rubbished the report as "a compendium of rumours, deeply flawed in methodology, sourcing and standard of proof" and threatened to review its continued engagement in peace keeping missions in Somalia, Sudan (Darfur), Ivory Coast, and East Timor.

This is not the first time Uganda has been implicated for international crimes. In December 2005, the International Court of Justice ruled in the Democratic Republic of Congo vs Uganda case, that Uganda violated the principles of non-intervention under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and further violated international human rights and humanitarian law when it launched military operations in the DRC between 1998 and 2003. Uganda had pleaded self defence, but the Court explicitly rejected this claim, holding that Uganda should pay reparations to the Congolese government amounting to $10 billion.

The latest UN probe which was conducted between July 2008 and June 2009, sought to unearth evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity that had not been documented before. The Congolese government has welcomed the report and reaffirmed its commitment to seeking international justice for all crimes committed. If indeed the International Court of Justice at Hague finds merit in the allegations, Uganda could be ordered to pay additional billions of dollars for reparations or witness convictions for responsible individuals.

While Uganda will certainly have its day in court at Hague, the chances of vindicating itself appear bleak. It its improbable that Minister Sam Kutesa will buttress his claim of a “…deeply flawed [investigation]…,” when some of the best investigators in UN based their conclusions on interviews with over 1,280 witnesses and a thorough review of more than 600 incidents.

Army Spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Felix Kulayigye, argues that Uganda was denied natural justice since it was not asked about the allegations to get its “side of the story." Granted, “natural justice” would have added methodological rigour to the investigation, but it would not have altered the core conclusion of the investigation, i.e. that war crimes and crimes against humanity were unleashed against Congolese civilians over the 1993-2003 occupation of Congo by Uganda and other countries. It would be miraculous for any measure of “natural justice” to discredit evidence given by 1,280 witnesses. But for the comfort of Lt. Col Kulayigye, Uganda will certainly access “natural justice” at Hague.

The tendency for government or the Army to plead innocence – even in the face of overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity – should be a concern to Ugandans. The state should have the humility to admit that yes – crimes may have been committed during the occupation – not by the state as an institution though, but by individual elements within the institution. It should then proactively establish mechanisms, or support international efforts to identify, isolate and prosecute those individuals that may have perpetrated the crimes.

In that way, accountability for crimes committed would rest upon individual perpetrators, not the state or its citizens. It would also send a strong signal that those who commit war crimes and other related atrocities while on state duty will be held individually and severally accountable for their actions. The $10 billion reparation for the 2005 Hague conviction is bad enough; Innocent Ugandans should no longer be collectively punished for crimes committed by individuals or groups of individuals on state duty. It is unfair, unethical, and illogical. Without favour, the state must cooperate with the International Court of Justice to end impunity and render justice to victims of the Congo war crimes.

Address professional negligence in the medical profession

Management theory warns us about the “arrogance of expertise” whereupon experts in any field—medicine, law, education, agriculture, engineering, economics, etc—as a result of mastering the mental map that defines their field, grow more confident that their reputation is deserved, and that their interpretation of situations is correct.

Because of this “arrogance,” experts become fixated and fail to recognise the limits to their knowledge. Eventually, they loose their intellectuality and succumb to rigor mortis—a medical condition that refers to the stiffening of muscles after death.

The “arrogance of expertise” has manifested itself in many forms in Uganda, with detrimental consequences. The collapse of numerous buildings under construction in Kampala and other areas; shoddy road works whose construction had been overseen by expert government engineers; the procurement and supply of sub-standard seed and other farm inputs to farmers by agricultural officials; loss of high profile legal cases in the courts of law by government—are some of the overt examples.

Disappointedly, government response to this “arrogance” has been too little and too late for many Ugandans. The medical practioners for instance enjoy extensive latitude to commit professional crimes without fear of consequences. There have been reports of patients left to die on their hospital beds by government doctors whose preference is to hawk their expertise in private clinics. Doctors who never have time to attend to and diagnose sicknesses end up prescribing inappropriate treatments by phone call to a nurse.

Two weeks ago, my four year old son was taken to Mengo Hospital for medical attention after developing some high fever. The pediatric doctor in-charge told us we had come at a time for his Bible School, and without carrying out any tests, prescribed some medicines—which we were reluctant to buy until a proper examination had been carried out. Another doctor in another medical unit prescribed a completely different course of treatment after doing the necessary tests. It took a lot of courage to reject “expert” advice from the Mengo pediatrician.

Of late, it has become a norm rather than the exception for expecting mothers to deliver by caesarian. A friend, who is a medical doctor recently told me that doctors order caesarian operations because they make quick money from it, considering that the average cost of C-section in Kampala is shs1,200,000. The doctor in-charge of the operation often moves away smiling with the lion’s share.

A wife to a close friend suffered a miscarriage after a Senior Gynecological Consultant at Kabale Hospital administered a strong dose of quinine injections even though he was fully aware that the mother was in advanced term. The mother recovered from her sickness, but she lost her baby. Even the nursing aid who was on duty that day confessed in private that quinine was probably not the best treatment for a mother in advanced term.

And I will never forget the mockery of medical expertise, when in 1997, my boss, an expatriate from Holland was advised by a Buhinga Hospital doctor that an injury to a nerve was responsible for the groin pain he was suffering. A second opinion from another doctor after failure of the “conservative treatment” prescribed for “the injured nerve” revealed that the groin pain was in fact due to hernia. The expatriate was operated upon and he instantly recovered.

Cases could go on and on ad infinutum, and although we don’t have statistics, it’s probable that a sizable proportion of the deaths occurring in hospitals could have been averted, or at least delayed if the responsible doctors had treated the medical condition differently. Yet, transgressing doctors are never brought to account for professional negligence as has happened to for instance, KCC engineers who presided over the shoddy CHOGM road works.

Deaths due to professional negligence continue to be generalized as “untimely;” and while the marauding medical quacks wait upon their next victim, bereaved families helplessly reel in eternal loss that could have been avoided or at least delayed. Surely, the bereaved deserve justice! “Arrogant” medical experts must account for their omissions and commissions.

Hon. David Bahati is politically naive!

Politics has often been characterised as a dirty game; dirty because those in politics will often use uncouth means to reach their egoistic political ends. As the 2011 elections draw close, the majority of the country’s politicians have given up sleep in favour of scheming for a rebound into their elected positions. It doesn’t matter how they bounce back; they will tell you---if you ask them---that the end will justify the means!

One of those politicians seething with political anxiety is David Bahati, the Hon. MP for Ndorwa West. A first time legislator representing one of the most impoverished communities in Uganda, he has throughout his tenure struggled to make his voice heard on critical issues of nation-building and rural livelihoods transformation. Indeed, independent assessors have ranked him among the least performing MPs in the current parliament. For a first-time legislator without any political history---at least before his accession to parliament, this is perhaps not surprising! What is surprising is his machinations to get political recognition by sponsoring an utterly useless piece of legislation – the anti homosexuality bill!

Hon, Bahati hopes that the anti-homosexuality bill (whether successful or not) will help him claim political visibility a head of the 2011 elections! That’s playing dirty! If you asked his constituents, or even the general populace as to whether they think homosexuality is an issue, the answer would overwhelmingly be negative. Even to those who think it is a problem, they will most likely put it low in the rung of priorities.

Most Ugandans are concerned that: one in three Ugandans sleeps hungry every day; nearly 70% of the population in Northern and Eastern Uganda lack access to even the most basic necessities of life such as clean water; and 130 out of every 1,000 children die before their 5th birthday. The country’s maternal mortality ratio of 505 per 100,000 live births implies that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors – partly because only 38% of pregnant women have access to skilled birth attendants and professionals. Worst still, allocated government resources which would otherwise alleviate these problems are siphoned with impunity.

Homosexuality doesn’t cause any of the above priority concerns, therefore the anti-homosexuality bill is either irrelevant, or for Hon. Bahati’s comfort, untimely! Unfortunately for Hon. Bahati, President Museveni distanced himself from the bill while opening the National Resistance Movement conference in Entebbe on 12th January – citing the need to balance national principles with foreign policy interests. With a parliament which votes according to the whims of the President, it will be a miracle if the bill sails through!

Hon. Bahati failed to realize that his bill does not build political capital for the NRM and therefore will not be embraced by government. And because he is politically naive, he couldn’t predict the potential negative impact of the bill on Uganda’s foreign policy relations, and whether government would be willing to jeopardize these relations for the sake of an irrelevant piece of legislation.

If he thought the bill would strengthen his credentials for a ministerial portfolio – say Ethics, that’s now unlikely given the negative publicity the draft bill has generated among Uganda’s development partners abroad. Hon. Bahati’s appointment as a Minister would be a PR disaster for Uganda. At the local level, the bill is unlikely to help him consolidate his political capital because it’s irrelevant for Ndorwa West constituents. In fact, it is more likely to provide ammunition to his political foes who would argue that the MP lost touch with local development priorities during his tenure.

Hon. Bahati doesn’t have to be like the protagonists of Chinua Achebe’s two novels: Things Fall Apart and No Longer at Ease. The first is about the warrior Okonkwo, who hangs himself in despair after his clan’s men betray him by refusing to join him in the war against colonialists. The second is about Okwokwo’s own grandson Obi, who despite seeing himself as a pioneer for cultural adaptation and ethical values; he becomes a victim of circumstances and is eventually convicted of bribery in a court of law. Hon. Bahati can, and should do better next time!

Spreading potato diseases have hurt NAADS’ credibility

A lifeline crop for the Banyakigezi, (irish) potato was both a staple food and a main household income source throughout the Kigezi Highlands. Unfortunately, the crop has been decimated by pests and diseases, particularly bacterial wilt and late blight.

Where as research shows that potato can yield over 30mt/hectare, yields in the Kigezi highlands range between 4-7 mt/ha. Latest estimates show production declining even further per unit of cultivated land to the extent that most farmers have abandoned their lifeline crop.

Having realised the potato’s economic significance to communities in the Kigezi highlands, agricultural researchers and development institutions have over the years attempted to increase production of the crop by introducing higher-yielding, pest-resistant varieties into the farming system. The varieties have included: Uganda 11 (Rutuku) of 1973; Sangema of 1980; Cruza of 1983; Victoria of 1992; Kisoro of 1992; Kabale of 1992; NAKPOT 1 of 1999; NAKPOT 2 of 1999; and NAKPOT 3 of 1999). However the success of nearly all these varietal introductions was severely short-circuited by mediocre extension support and consequent low farmer adoptions.

Efforts by development organizations, including the South Western Reconstruction Project (SWARP), the African Highlands Initiative (AHI), PRAPACE, AFRICARE which provided farmers with production skills were disjointed and paid little attention to clean potato seed supply systems. Farmers continued deriving their seed from the previous harvest because organised potato seed production businesses were un-available and/or never received any support from the development organisations.

The inception of NAADS in Kabale in 2001, and its subsequent expansion to the rest of the Kigezi Highland districts of Kisoro, Kanungu, and Rukungiri gave potato farmers hope; hope which was rooted within the NAADS’ professed philosophy of integrated farmer access to knowledge, information and technology for profitable agricultural production. Between 2001 and 2005, NAADS focussed on strengthening capacity of farmer groups to produce improved potato seed at farmer-managed technology development and multiplication sites. In Kabale district, this had the immediate impact of increasing the number of potato seed producers from 1 group (Uganda National Seed Potato Producers Association –UNSPPA) before 2001, to more than 100 (albeit small-scale) by 2005.

However, the emerging (trainee) potato seed production groups required sustained technical mentoring through farmer advisory services---which were being delivered through the NAADS framework. The groups needed to learn potato seed quality control processes; integrated disease and pest management; entrepreneurship and marketing skills development; group dynamics; etc before they could become qualified clean potato seed producers.

Unfortunately, the restructuring of the NAADS which came after the 2007 presidential suspension altered the programme’s learning orientation. Accused of over-teaching farmers, NAADS was essentially converted into an input supply-oriented organisation with a minimal farmer advisory and training component. NAADS now had to source and supply thousands of metric tonnes of agricultural inputs, including potato seed. In an instant, the trainee potato seed producer groups were tipped to become commercial seed suppliers. After all, they were the only option available in an environment characterised by long-term neglect of the potato seed production sector.

Over the last three years, these half-baked seed potato producers have under the auspices of NAADS, supplied thousands of metric tonnes of contaminated/diseased potato seed to farmers that have received little or inadequate training about potato agronomy. In essence, the restructured NAADS has facilitated the trainee potato seed producers to become agents of contamination; to inoculate the entire farming system with pest and disease agents. The impact is devastating: late blight and bacterial wilt have scoured the entire Kigezi farmlands; diminishing production to its lowest levels in 30 years!

Courtesy of NAADS, the lifeblood of the Banyakigezi is gone or nearly so! Anybody who has travelled to Kigezi over the last few months and talked with farmers must have noted the cynicism farmers ascribe to NAADS: “NAADS has totally killed our gardens!”

Will NAADS ever redeem its credibility, given the increasing incidences of corruption and embezzlement of programme funds; and now its association with the spread of the decimating bacterial wilt and late blight in the Kigezi highlands, and perhaps other regions?

Published in Sunday Monitor, January 6, 2010: http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/836418/-/view/printVersion/-/j9l2cpz/-/index.html

We Are Under Obligation to Cooperate With ICC

On July 14th 2008, Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir made history: he became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC charged the Sudanese leader with three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of murder. He was accused of running a campaign of genocide that had afflicted Sudan's western Darfur region for more than four years; killing 35,000 people outright, at least 100,000 through 'slow death' and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes. Overall the United Nations put the death toll to roughly 300,000.

As expected, President Bashir shot back at the ICC, accusing the international institution of orchestrating an imperialist witch-hunt of African nationalist leaders. The Sudanese government swore never to let their leader get arrested.

Regrettably, Sudan’s position was supported by African governments, who at the conclusion of the African Union Summit in Sirte, Libya, released a resolution stating that AU member states shall not cooperate with the ICC regarding the arrest and surrender of President Omar al-Bashir.

Clearly, the position taken by AU member states ignored the plight of millions of women, children and men that have been victims of Sudan’s violence. Rather, it put the AU on the precarious side of one individual accused of mass murder.

Despite this absurdity, the fact remains that the AU resolution can’t erase the legal obligations of the 30 African countries which have ratified the ICC treaty, including Uganda.

The ICC is a permanent tribunal that prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The court came into being on 1 July 2002 when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force. As of October 2009, 110 states were members of the Court, and a further 38 countries had signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.

Uganda ratified the Rome Statute on 14th June 2002 as state party number 68, thereby binding itself to ICC obligations, among which is to cooperate in arresting and surrendering indicted suspects. President Museveni’s stance to invite Bashir to attend the AU summit on refugees due to be held in Uganda therefore contravenes the ICC Rome Statute.

In case the President doesn’t know, not cooperating with ICC’s indictment of Bashir isn’t a choice for Uganda as an ICC member state! And not cooperating should and will bring hefty consequences! Uganda gains nothing by shielding Bashir from capture; but it stands to loose if it joins the ranks of belligerent African countries that are bent on abrogating their international obligations. We could be isolated internationally through economic or political sanctions; ICC – which amazingly at the moment is handling the Joseph Kony case of as per Uganda’s request could black-list us.

But I doubt that President Museveni as a person would suffer any pain in the event of international isolation; his sustenance would continue to be met from state coffers. Evidence from Zimbabwe attests to this argument. On the other hand, the ordinary mwanainchi, whose well-being (health, production, education, name it) is well linked by how much aid flows from the international community will without doubt be the one to feel the pinch in the event of international isolation.

Only one type of sanction can hurt President Museveni as a person: an international travel ban imposed on him. It won’t take him long to succumb to the reality of ICC member states closing their airspaces, and refusing landing rights to his Presidential jet! Such a sanction will be effective in getting Museveni to comply with ICC obligations, yet too targeted to affect the ordinary mwanaichi.

The ICC is designed to exercise its jurisdiction across 110 countries. While Museveni may opt not to cooperate with ICC, he should know that in addition to damaging his own reputation, it won’t completely save his colleague Bashir from The Hague. Like other indicted war crimes suspects before him, he will eventually be extradited to The Hague.

Published in Daily Monitor on 19th October 2009: http://allafrica.com/stories/200910190584.html

Museveni’s tribalism endears me to FDC’s “One Uganda-One-People” slogan

No! Iam neither an FDC member, nor have I ever been its sympathizer, but the recent wave of abhorrent tribalist insinuations from President Museveni --- specifically that strategic jobs in Bunyoro be “ring-fenced” for the indigenous Banyoro endears me quite nostalgically, to FDC’s 2006 campaign slogan: “one-Uganda-one people!

It is inconceivable how a sitting President, who swore to defend, preserve and protect the constitution of the republic that he leads – can recklessly recommend that relevant constitutional provisions guaranteeing all Ugandans to live wherever they wish live in Uganda; or vie for any public office of their choice – be abrogated. Of course seeking a public office has a caveat attached – i.e. – being of the right character, state of mind, age, etc. But nowhere, either in the constitution or other electoral laws, is it mentioned that the right ethnicity is a requirement for a particular public office. It therefore does not require somebody to be a constitutional lawyer to tell that Museveni’s proposal to quarantine jobs in Bunyoro for Banyoro has a treasonable stint for which he should be held personally accountable.

In 2006, FDC run a vibrant presidential campaign geared towards national reconciliation, social-economic, and political integration. They argued that Museveni’s government had created two Ugandas---the north and the south; the haves and have-nots; the wealthy and the impoverished; the politically privileged and the suppressed; the Bahima and other ethnicities; name it. Uganda, FDC further argued, was on the verge of an implosion and therefore needed a detour in political leadership – oriented towards “one-Uganda-one-people.” Unfortunately, Ugandans then either chose not to, or were denied the opportunity, to freely decide whether indeed they had to politically detour.

Iam certain that even the most fervent FDC activists at the time, perhaps including their President Colonel Kiiza Besigye, could not envision how much more the country would be polarised further under Museveni’s regime. Indeed it can be said that the wanton dissolution of the nation into ethnic districts is only a spice to tribal profiling. My guess is that the Bunyoro saga will not be the last. In fact, Ugandans should brace for more state-inspired tribal malaise.

What is interesting is that Museveni’s tribalist stance has fully aligned him with other notable tribalists, some of which are his foes. An example is Hon. Betty Olive Kamya and her federo clique that is calling for a “Buganda for Baganda.” In essence, Museveni no longer has the moral spinal cord to deny Baganda federalists what they have been agitating for! No wonder Hon. Kamya remarked of Museveni that: “he has finally walked the Uganda Federal Alliance talk,” before shamelessly adding that “leaders should be regional to fight for regional equity.” How absurd!

While I loathe Betty’s ultra tribalist orientation, I will be the first to challenge President Museveni to yield to demands for a Federal Buganda in whatever form Betty and her federo clique want it. This is because it will not be fair to “ring-fence” Bunyoro jobs for Banyoro, yet persistently refuse to “ring-fence” Buganda jobs for Baganda as demanded by the federolists. My only consolation would be that while I head back to Kabale to grow tomatoes, potatoes and cabbages in my ancestral home, Museveni will also have no option but to recoil to Rwakitura because his own tribalist policies will have rendered him an alien species in Buganda. That would be the classical way of “walking the talk!”

If Museveni is not ready for the Buganda infernal, he should not trigger the Bunyoro blaze for this will be followed by similar unstoppable after-shocks in Busoga, Bugisu, Acholi, Lango, and elsewhere – for non-indigenous residents living or working there!

President Museveni ought to be ashamed that while he is seen to be advocating for East-African Federation characterized by among other elements – free movement of labour, capital, and other means of production across the five member-countries, he is presiding over a vicious campaign to dismember the Ugandan community along ethnic lines!

As FDC president chanted during the 2006 presidential campaign, the only way to go is “One-Uganda-one-people!”

Published in the Daily Monotor on 10th August 2009 on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Museveni_s_tribal_letter_endears_me_to_FDC_slogan_89418.shtml

Uganda should revert to Electoral Colleges

While three out of every ten Ugandans continue to wallow in biting poverty without access to basic necessities of life; and where as nearly 70% of the population in Northern Uganda face imminent hunger and starvation; the country is preparing to spend more than 500 billion shillings in electoral activities in the run-up to the 2011 elections.

Recently, EC commissioner Tom Buruku asked Parliament to intervene and compel the Ministry of Finance to release Shs105 billion to support the Uganda Electoral Commission’s operations budget for 2009/2010 – focussing on activities like voter registration, update of register and purchase of electoral equipment. Around the same time, EC Secretary Sam Rwakoojo told MPs that the EC projects the 2011 elections to cost Shs198 billion.

More over, it has been revealed that the ruling National Resistance Movement has drawn a Shs20 billion budget for activities culminating in the election of party flag bearers for the 2011 general elections. The party also plans to spend nearly an extra Shs30 billion to sponsor the campaigns of its flag bearers from village to the parliamentary level during the general elections. It is understood that other political parties are also mobilising colossal funds to match the NRM party spending.

How immoral! Can anything justify such colossal electoral spending in a country with staggering numbers of poverty-stricken citizens? Are Ugandans assured of a verifiable value for such colossal electoral spending?

There is no contradiction on the fact that Uganda needs a democratic system of governance. However, it should be a system that we can afford given the compelling development needs. There are plenty of lessons to learn from. For instance, NRM during the rebel days erected democratic structures (Resistance Councils - RCs) for their bush constituencies using electoral college systems. Being an impoverished rebel movement, it did not spend any money to elect those RCs.

Even after the NRM guerrillas had captured state power, they interpolated the bush era democratic model across the country, culminating in the election of vibrant democratic RC structures at village, parish, sub-county, county, district and national levels – using electoral colleges. Indeed National Resistance Council (NRC) of the late 1980s to early 1990s could pass as one of the most vibrant parliaments of the NRM era!

If we could have vibrant democratic institutions then without spending a lot, why is this craze about big electoral spending and the so-called universal adult suffrage? It hasn’t delivered a better democracy over the last 10 years or so; indeed the last couple of parliaments have been the most morally corrupt and legislatively inefficient. The last two parliaments as well as District Councils have been politically compromised, consequently resulting into gross failure to dispense their oversight functions. Yet, these were elected through the wasteful and expensive universal adult suffrage system.

The essential elements of democracy were defined by philosophers during the “Age of Enlightenment” (17th/18th centuries) as separation of powers; basic civil rights/human rights; religious liberty; and separation of church and state. The term “democracy” is known to come from the Greek language meaning "rule by the people". And U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) is reported to have defined democracy as: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” However, democracy is only remains the desired end!

It is important to realise that the means to democracy remains discretionary! Governments have to make a choice among the various options. But for the impoverished Uganda, the economic predicament dictates that cost considerations be the overriding criterion for choosing the means to attaining a democracy---and I would argue that the more affordable electoral college system should be preferred over the universal adult suffrage.

As to whether electoral collages deliver the best democracy is not an issue; after all, even Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), the British war-time leader contented that there is no such thing as the "perfect form of democracy" on earth! Let’s strive for a working democracy within our means! Electoral colleges worked in the 1980s and early ‘90s; they can work now and in the future.

Published in the Daily Monotor, July 7, 2009: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Uganda_should_revert_to_electoral_colleges_87643.shtml

Tinyefuza should find a better reason for land-grabbing

The story carried in the New Vision of Wednesday, 24th June, 2009 entitled “Seize idle land, says Tinyefuza” reports General David Tinyefuza as having said that there should be a limit to the size of land individuals can acquire; and that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop.”

This resonates with the on-going debate about land reforms and the proposed kangaroo justice systems for land arbitration in which land cases will be adjudicated not by courts of law, but the Minister of Lands using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees.

While the kangaroo justice systems are meant to protect those who illegally settled on people’s land prior to the 1995 constitution, General Tinyefuza’s latest drive for seizing un-used land will open flood gates for fresh land-grabbing!

By recommending that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop”, Tinyefuza knows full well in his mind that majority of Ugandans; the peasants will not join the race since they would not have capacity to “develop” any seized lands. Peasants will be effectively marginalised by the requirement to demonstrate ability to “develop” the seized land. The grabbing will therefore be meted by, and benefit only the economically muscled – the likes of General Tinyefuza and his compatriots.

What I failed to understand though from General Tinyefuza’s proposals is whether his concern for lack of government-imposed ceilings on land holding and acquisition was genuine. He certainly is one of the privileged Ugandans with more than the average household land holding in Kabale district – which according to latest statistics, stands at 2.4 hectares per a seven member household. More over, these 2.4 hectares are often heavily fragmented into 10 – 15 parcels scattered over a ten square kilometre area. I challenge the General to voluntarily donate part of his land to the land-strapped Bakiga, or even indeed any of his less fortunate kins from Ankole. He has to be seen to be walking-the-talk!

I appreciate that inequality in terms of land holding is a serious issue requiring attention, but General Tinyefuza’s proposal to seize idle land for those who can “develop” it is not a solution. On the contrary, his proposal will be a licence for fulfilling the biblical philosophy: “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance…” (Mathew 25:29).

Land is a tradable commodity, and as long as Uganda remains a free market economy, Tinyenfuza’s neo-marxist thoughts will be abhorred. Those who have capacity to develop land are not in short supply of land. Therefore Tinyefuza should think of another reason for land-grabbing!

Published in New Vision, June 28, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/686211

Warehouse Receipt System is far-fetched

In his article entitled “Why farmers need to produce for the market” (New Vision, 12 March 2009), Mr. Ambrose Bugaari argues passionately about the need for market orientation in the agricultural sector. He underscores the establishment of producer organisations; creation of certified rural agricultural commodity bulking centres; and scaling-up of warehouse receipt systems – as some of the measures to improve agricultural marketing.

His views indeed resonate some of the latest policy directions that many poor countries around the world, Uganda inclusive, consider as eminent pathways for rural transformation. Consider the warehouse receipt system for example. They have potential for improving overall efficiency of markets, particularly in the agribusiness sector, because producers and commercial entities can convert inventories of agricultural raw materials or intermediary or finished products into a readily tradable device.

Since warehouse receipts are negotiable instruments, they can be traded, sold, swapped, and used as collateral to support borrowing. They also provide farmers with an instrument that will allow them to extend the sales period of modestly perishable products well beyond the harvesting season.

However, In order for a warehouse-receipt system to be viable, the economy within which it operates must meet certain conditions. For instance the prospective recipient of a warehouse receipt should be able to determine, before acceptance, if there is a competing claim on the collateral underlying the receipt.

Secondly, the warehouse system requires sound operational architecture – such as reliable warehouse certification, guaranteeing basic physical and financial standards; the existence of independent determination and verification of the quantity and the quality of stored commodities, based on a national grading system; and the availability of property and casualty insurance extending to agricultural commodities.

Thirdly, a key prerequisite for the acceptability of warehouse receipts by the trade and by banks is the existence of a performance guarantee for warehouses, assuring that the quantities of goods stored match those specified by the warehouse receipt and that their quality is the same as, or better than, that stated on the receipt. Without this guarantee, farmers and traders will be reluctant to store their crops, and banks will be hesitant to accept warehouse receipts as secure collateral for financing agricultural inventories.

While I don’t want to sound a pessimist, I can’t realistically see these pre-conditions being met in the foreseeable future in Uganda. There is simply too much corruption in the system; regulatory institutions are riddled with incompetence at national level; while being non-existent at district and lower governance levels. In any case, there is considerable loss of public trust in collective marketing owing to the past fiascos, and I can guarantee that most commercial banks will remain sceptical about dealing with anybody who comes with a promissory note based on agricultural inventory.

Moreover, looking at the quality of government investments (in roads which don’t last a year; schools which crumble before they are commissioned; hospitals whose supplies are never delivered; etc), I doubt that there will be sufficient government commitment and investment of the required calibre to guarantee safe storage of agricultural products in rural warehouses. Letting the private sector to run rural warehouses will obviously make the service too costly for the impoverished farmers.

What I don’t doubt is that the government of Uganda will force through some legal framework on the warehouse receipt system. In fact, that is inevitable given the hysteria that has enshrouded the concept of agricultural warehousing in the recent past. However, government ought to know that passing frameworks is the easiest part; the devil will be in the details of operationalising such frameworks and ensuring they deliver benefits to farmers.

In any case, one needs to ask whether farmers have enough produce to warehouse when nearly one third of the country’s population is reportedly facing starvation! Therefore where as Mr. Ambrose Bugaari contended that the supply-driven, government interventionist approach is doomed, I strongly differ! Such an approach is what exactly we need at the moment to enable the starving farmers escape hunger. Talk of the warehouse receipt system, while undoubtedly good, is far-fetched for the impoverished rural farmers.

How safe is Uganda's airspace?

With nine plane accidents occurring in Uganda in nine years, our airspace might be one of the most unsafe in the world! Just consider the following statistics:

1) March 8, 2009 – A Somalia-bound Illyushin 76 plane operated by Aerolift crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria soon after taking-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing all 11 people on board;
2) February 20, 2009 – An Antonov 12 cargo aircraft also operated by Aerolift from Entebbe International Airport to Ukraine crashes at Luxor while attempting to take off after a refuelling stopover. All the aircraft’s five-member crew are killed upon impact;
3) April 21, 2008 – A Kenya Airways plane overshoots the runway at Entebbe airport but the aircraft and passengers are all safe;
4) September 25, 2007 – A twin-engine, eight-seater French-made aircraft belonging to Furgo Airborne Surveys crashes soon after take-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing two people;
5) June 16, 2006 – A Uganda People's Defence Forces aircraft crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria during a military exercise;
6) April 30, 2006 – A South African chartered plane goes missing in the DR Congo and is found crashed on the mountains bordering Uganda;
7) March 19, 2005 – A Boeing 707 cargo plane headed for Togo from Ethiopia with 3.2 tonnes of cargo plunges into Lake Victoria as it lands to refuel at Entebbe International Airport;
8) January 8, 2005 – A DR Congo-registered cargo plane belonging to Service Air Company crashes near Entebbe International Airport, killing its six-member Russian crew;
9) April 30, 2000 – A DAS Air Cargo DC-10 aircraft from London with over 50 tonnes of cargo crashes into Lake Victoria as it lands at Entebbe International Airport. All crew members miraculously survive;

Entebbe International Airport has been reported as having some of the best air space management radar systems (further revamped ahead of CHOGM). This not withstanding, more plane crashes and accidents have occurred in Uganda compared with other international airports anywhere else in the Africa.

It seems Uganda Civil Aviation Authority CAA takes the blame for most of the mishaps given that it has glaringly failed to exercise its air control functions. At the moment, CAA is one of the airport regulatory authorities in the world which still allow obsolete, poorly serviced, soviet-era planes not only to use our air space, but also land and take off at our International Airport. While you will not hear of an Illyushin or Antonov, or any carrier without a sound service record landing or taking off any where else where a reputable airports regulatory body is in charge, Uganda remains the safe haven for aircrafts which will soon have no where else to land.

True, Uganda CAA has for some time now enforced ICAO rules on registration of old planes and continues to refuse to register any of them in Uganda. However, it has utterly failed to ban such aircraft from actually flying in and out of Uganda as long those ramshackled planes are on the registry of other countries. Powerful businessmen such as Sam Engola (the owner of Aerolift) whose planes have been involved in the most recent air accidents) take advantage of CAA impotence to get their obsolete planes registered in countries such as the DR Congo, and then freely maraud in our airspaces.

To the shrewd businessmen, Antonovs, Iljushins and other out-dated, poorly serviced planes provide a silver-lining because of their cheapness. However, their accident record across the African continent makes a horrific reading. It is therefore high time Uganda CAA enforced a complete ban on such aircraft operating in Uganda’s airspace to save not only the lives of innocent passengers and but also restore the its own credibility, and that of the Government of Uganda.

I hate to see the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications wanting to be seen doing his job by appointing meaningless committees to “investigate the cause of crash” instead of ensuring CAA does what it’s supposed to do!

Uganda already has too much carnage on the road, air carnage would be a sour icing on an already sour cake!

Published on: http://newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/674236

Who will gun Wenger out of the gunners?

One day, a Ugandan woman who was cleaning her house poured hot water on a family of bed-bugs. While the baby bugs writhed in pain, the mother bug assured them not to worry because “whatever is hot gets cold in the end.” Indeed it did get cold but by that time, the entire family of bed-bugs had perished.

For three years, Arsenal has been under fire, conceding silly goals and finding difficulty to score. It has lost its place in the “big four” and continues its melodramatic slide from grace with its last league game win as far away as January 17. And where as it still remains undefeated in its last 15 games in all competitions, nine of those have been draws! Arsenal’s attack which used to disorganise defences with hurricane force has been rendered harmless by a confidence crisis which rather than ease out, seems to be deepening week in, week out. To delight of MAN-U’s noisy, spiteful fans, and indeed those of Liverpool and Chelsea, the Emirates guns have been silent for far too long; the gunners have been mercilessly out-gunned for far too much!!!

Arsene Wenger’s assurance of an eventual return to form will be synonymous with those of the mother bed-bug which gave false hopes to the baby bugs. It would do the fans and the club good if Wenger divorced the club right away on his own accord. That would be a more honourable exit befitting his contribution to the club. While no arsenal fan will dispute the fact that his contribution to the club has been immense, we don’t have to wait for what is hot to get cold because by that time, Arsenal will be in the Championship outfit.

At the moment, Wenger is untouchable, having won the unshakable trust of the Arsenal Board over the last decade or so. The fans can only heckle and boo him. As for the players, well – except if they would do it the Togo way: recall that Togolese players went on strike during their last international competition by hanging their boots unless their demands (allowances) were met. Perhaps Adebayor could help lead such a strike given his Togolese experience?

People will argue that Arsenal woes emanate from the ever growing injury list – which in truth is a key factor, but who in hell stopped Wenger from deepening his squad, to provide the necessary depth with experienced players that would cushion against injuries? If there is no other reason for Wenger to go, this certainly would be sufficient! As the Ugandan saying goes, ohingire ahorobi nawe nahinguuka (even the one digging on a soft ground rests!)

I have been, and I will remain a staunch, eternal arsenal fan but quite frankly, I need to be a happier fan than I have been over the last three years or so. Arsene Wenger’s youth policy – which he is keen to die defending, has painfully made Arsenal an ordinary club. At the moment, Arsene Wenger’s departure from the emirates stadium is the only option to turn-over a new chapter, and perhaps re-load those silent guns with lethal ammunition capable of terrorising league defences once again. The question is: who will gun Arsene Wenger out of the gunners?

Its action, not rhetoric that Ugandans want from NEMA

Ronald Musoke’s article (NEMA’s regular exposure of polluters good, New Vision, January 18, 2008) applauding NEMA for its plan to expose polluters in the media is utterly disappointing. Disappointing because merely listing environmental criminals in the media will not arrest the massive environmental damage the country has suffered over the last three decades – owing to policy and institutional failure.

The perpetrators of environmental crime are known not only to NEMA but the general public. In any case, the majority of industrial polluters operate based on EIAs which have been fraudulently approved by NEMA. The public has itself exposed various environmental violations and implored NEMA to take action – alas to no avail. So of what relevance will be the listing?

NEMA - the principal government agency for the management of the environment with the mandate to coordinate, supervise and monitor all activities in the field of environment has not delivered on its obligations. And of course, so are other government agencies responsible for implementing the Wildlife Act, National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, Regulations on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Wetlands Policy 1994, Wildlife Policy 1996, Fisheries Policy 2000, Forest Policy 2001 and the National Energy Policy 2000, among others.

The National Environment Act, (Cap 153, Section 7) empowers NEMA to enforce adherence to environmental regulations and standards as laid down in various instruments. NEMA also draws extensive legal leverage from section 57 (2) of the Environment Statute, which states that a person who discharges hazardous waste into the environment commits an offence, and in addition to any other sentence imposed by the court, meets the cost of restoring the damage including paying for reparation and restitution to third parties. The law also empowers NEMA to issue restoration orders and to take other measures in case of non-compliance within 21 days.

There are other economic instruments too, such as environmental taxation, which NEMA could unleash to enforce compliance with environmental legislation. Environmental taxes have recently become popular internationally as a type of tax which successfully meets the goal of allocating liability according to the source of environmental harm. There are myriad environmental tax regimes but the most eminent falls within the polluter-pays principle.

The principle aims to ensure that the polluter bears the cost of damage and/or cost incurred in controlling the pollution (the abatement costs and environmental recovery cost). In addition, it recognises that the burden of proof in demonstrating that a particular technology, practice or product is safe should lie with the developer, not the general public. From a legal point of view, liability is founded on the principle that we are responsible and accountable to others for our actions.

It is therefore inconceivable that despite all such leverage, NEMA rather than enforce the law has opted for the exhibitionist approach of merely listing polluters in the media while the plunder, degradation, and abuse of the environment continue. Like most other Ugandan bodies, Iam certain the underlying reason for such exhibitionism is to increase NEMA’s public visibility so that it is seen to be active – albeit doing nothing!!

By its own account, NEMA acknowledges that the economic value of environmental degradation in Uganda ranges between 4% - 12% of the Gross National Product (GNP). And because most Ugandans directly depend on environmental resources for their livelihoods, environmental degradation has fomented unprecedented poverty. It is therefore almost treasonable that NEMA has chosen to lament about those who pollute the environment (by merely listing them in the media) instead of apprehending them!

If I may use the words of one of the French encyclopaedists during the French revolution, the problems of the day won’t be solved by words, but by sweat and blood! Ugandans need action rather than rhetoric to arrest the environmental down spiral. NEMA should bring all those who abrogate existing environmental legislation to account without fear or favour. Otherwise, NEMA’s top management officials should be apprehended themselves for neglect of duty and professional incompetence.

The unrelenting tragedy of the Ndorobos of Mt Elgon

Socially, economically, and politically marginalised; the Benet (also known as Ndorobos) are without doubt one of the most miserable communities in Uganda! They comprise a cluster of Sabinys who have lived in and around Mt Elgon forest for more than two centuries, initially as hunters and gatherers but later on as sedentary pastoralists and small-scale farmers without land tenure rights.

In 1938, much of the Mt Elgon forest landscape in which Ndorobos lived was gazetted a forest reserve by the British colonial government implying the area would be managed primarily for protection of its water catchment values and timber exploitation. The colonialists did recognise however, the importance of the forest to the Ndorobo and so decided to leave them behind the demarcated forest boundary; inside the gazetted area.

In fact, the name Benet, which means "people who were left behind" in Kup Sabiny attests to this colonial goodwill. By-and-large, successive post-independence governments maintained the status quo, leaving Ndorobos to live and survive on Mt Elgon forest resources until 1983, when a decision was made by the then UPC Government to degazette and resettle them on 6000ha of reserve.

By that time, the increased Ndorobo population was impacting negatively on the forest reserve resources and their presence inside the forest reserve was legitimising and catalysing illegal encroachment from forest criminals and other non indigenous communities.

Contrary to government intentions, much of the 6000ha land was grabbed by, and benefited voracious power brokers at the expense of the voiceless, the powerless, and the impoverished Ndorobos. Prominent local politicians and businessmen parcelled out big chunks of land for themselves and their relatives. Even forest rangers who were on the land allocation became illegitimate beneficiaries.

To the Ndorobos, this was a double tragedy; a cruel unfolding of the biblical philosophy according to Mark 4:25: "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." They had been excised from their ancestral home with a compensatory promise of alternative land but by an ugly turn of fate, what was meant to be a gesture of goodwill from government was abused by officials of the same government! And because all illegitimate beneficiaries comprised of power brokers; the Ndorobos owing to their powerlessness had nowhere to turn for redress.

To survive, Ndorobos have since lived the life of an outlaw; playing a deadly game of “hide and seek” with heavily-armed Mt. Elgon rangers in an attempt to access the only livelihood means available to them: forest resources. This game has been even more ferocious since 1993, when Mt. Elgon forest reserve was elevated to a National Park status. For instance early this year in February, 4,000 Ndorobos living in Mt. Elgon National Park were violently evicted by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) rangers and the UPDF. People lost their lives while property worth millions of shillings was destroyed during the operation.

Yet amid all this animosity, conflict, and abuse of power; there is still a sense of goodwill from government. UWA for example, has consciously attempted to taper their fall out with Ndorobos through collaborative forest management; an initiative which empowers local communities to legally access their preferred forest resources in accordance with terms mutually agreed upon and laid out in a forest resource use agreement. In recent past, government has de-gazetted additional chunks of Park land to resettle Ndorobos - although a lack of fairness in land distribution is still apparent in much the same way as in 1980s (see “Mt. Elgon squatters petition IGG over land, The New vision, October 6, 2008).

Thus, while there has not been shortage of government goodwill to address the Ndorobo question, their tragedy remains unrelenting because a complementary political goodwill to bring corrupt power brokers to account has been glaringly lacking. And until government wakes to this deficiency, Ndorobos will remain mere pawns on the chess board; baits for local politicians and businessmen who seek personal economic aggrandizement from National Park land.

Lack of government regulation fans cults in Uganda

Mr. Robert Kalumba gave an excellent account of the scourge of cults which has gripped Uganda over the last two decades (see “Uganda now hit by an influx of cults”, Sunday Monitor, September 7, 2008). His article exposes the vulnerability of Ugandans to cultists, and the attendant government failure to safeguard its citizens.

The NRM regime soon after coming to power restored religious freedoms which past governments had constricted. Ugandans may recall that in the 1970s, President Amin banned all religious groupings apart from the mainstream three: Catholics, Anglican and Muslim. Even then, Anglicans and Catholics felt and were treated like second class citizens under Amin’s administration. In the early 1980s, Catholics and Muslims were marginalised by Anglicans following the defeat of Catholic-dominated DP by the Anglican-dominated UPC in the 1980 presidential election.

The 1995 Constitution guaranteed freedom to believe in, practice, and promote religion of one’s choice without interference, harassment, or other repercussions. Since the 1990s, religious demagogues preaching “the glory of God” have mushroomed, curving out new congregations from the Anglican, Catholic and Muslim denominations. But this growth draws less from the generosity of the 1995 constitution than it does from the increasing hopelessness of a people firmly gripped by suffering, poverty, ignorance and despair.

The word of God is a fountain of hope for the goodness of life here-after. To the dejected, it is the ultimate consolation; a motivation to walk through to the “promised land”. Uganda is a country where hope of a decent life for most citizens seems more like a dream that never will be. It is a country where HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases have traumatised millions; and hundreds of thousands of hungry women, children and the elderly sleep before dark because they can’t afford even the most primitive indoor lighting.

For such people, it is easy for religious demagogues to hide behind the message of hope, salvation and the glory of life here-after to advance an agenda whose real motive is not to secure their spiritual deliverance from sins, but to extort even the little they own – including their life through psychological blackmail!

On March 17, 2000, government was caught off-guard when an estimated 1000 religious cultists (including more than 100 children) were cremated alive at Kanungu by Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere of the “Movement for Restoration of Ten Commandments of God.” For more than 20 years, he had openly preached about “the coming of the Virgin Mary to carry her people to heaven” at the turn of the new millennium. To prepare for the “journey to eternity”, he requested his followers to sell all their possessions and bring proceeds to the church.

Neither did government anticipate the birth of the Holy Spirit Movement founded on the teachings of ''prophetess'' Alice Lakwena with a mission to “restore Ugandans on the road to faith” The Holy Spirit Movement evolved into fully-fledged rebel movements whose followers launched suicide attacks in the belief that magic oils spread over their bodies would make them immune to government bullets.

Dosteo Bisaka’s cult---“Abaikiriza” (Faith of Unity and Oneness) is certainly a time-bomb that is bound to explode. But there are other unexploded cultist ordinances too which government is aware about. For instance “Prophet” Samuel Kakande of the Synagogue Church claims the ability to heal and devotes weekly meetings to “delivering people from their physical ailments”. Every Sunday, he dishes out this “holy water” with “miraculous powers” to distressed Ugandans seeking deliverance from their woes. The “prophet” allegedly draws his inspiration from another West African “prophet” John Obiri Yeboah.

With government knowledge, many local pastors have taken advantage of Malachi 3:10: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house” to extort property and money from their impoverished flock.

While government has always reiterated its commitment to protecting Ugandans from religious sharks, it has not done much. Yes, it quashed, the 19-year-old “prophetess” Mbasa Gwajwa who in November 1999, was claiming to have died in 1996
before being sent back to earth by God on a mission to preach repentance to
her people prior to the turn of the millennium. It has arrested some religious leaders on charges of sexual harassment, witchcraft, abduction and theft. But lack of comprehensive government regulation leaves Ugandans exposed to cultists.

Fred Mukisa’s notion of Fisheries Governance is Archaic

Fred Mukisa, the Fisheries State Minister has allowed his frustration over chronic under-funding to fisheries sub-sector to impair his objectivity and perception as to how fisheries resources should be managed. Mr. Mukisa is irritated, and rightly so, by a paltry 2bn shilling fisheries budget despite the sub-sector being the second highest income source to the Government. Apparently, he seems to believe that unleashing a tighter central control over fishing licences and other potential money-making ventures will make up for his financial deficits. How absurd!

In his own article “fisheries sector needs vigilantes” (New Vision, August 25, 2008), Fred Mukisa enumerated bizarre measures aimed at re-centralising fisheries management and purging fisheries managers and technical staff whom he accused of “hiding in technicalities to frustrate government.” He threatened to disband local Beach Management Committees because of their alleged collusion in illegal fisheries exploitation and revenue leakages.

Surprisingly, Fred Mukisa is part of the same Government which in May 2004 endorsed the National Fisheries Policy whose strategic objective among others is to deepen decentralisation and community involvement in fisheries management. The policy clearly articulates roles and mandates for different stakeholders (Central Government, Local Governments, private sector, NGOs/CBOs and local communities). By pushing through his bizarre package of fisheries re-centralisation, Fred Mukisa is therefore acting like a chicken which eats her own egg after laying it!

It should be noted that the spirit of decentralised fisheries management as espoused in the 2004 Fisheries Policy was borne out of the sheer failure of the centre to manage fisheries resources as livelihood assets for the rural poor. Decades of central control over fisheries resources which Mukisa is seeking to reintroduce ignominiously failed to arrest fisheries resource degradation. It failed to address spiralling poverty, social inequality and economic marginalisation among the Barias and other local communities directly dependant on fisheries resources. Landing sites at lake fisheries used to be a haven for idlers and petty criminals. The essence of fostering government and local-level partnerships through decentralised fisheries management was therefore to let fishery folks decide how fishery resources would be managed to catalyse local development.

There is not doubt that illegal gears, unregulated fishing, and illicit trade in immature fish are still prominent issues to deal with. However, the solution to overcoming those vices is to strengthen decentralisation through local institutional capacity building. For instance local beach management committees, landing site committees, and other community institutions have not yet flexed their influence over fisheries resource management because they lack skills to do their job.

Government – whether for lack of resources or poor planning – has not provided the required training to make local fisheries institutions effective. Quite often, involvement of NGOs in sustainable fisheries management is not properly coordinated and has consequently remained disjointed and ineffectual. The private sector role remains largely egocentric with little or no provision for corporate social responsibility and fisheries conservation.

Even the fisheries managers and technical staff whom the State Minister is accusing of sabotaging government and failing in their duties are not adequately facilitated with the tools they need to do the job. This notwithstanding, the State Minister is prepared to unleash “a more aggressive (centralised) monitoring, control, and surveillance programme” by invoking the Department of Marine Police to take a lead. One wonders whether this Marine Police department has the capacity to patrol every inch of Uganda’s fishery resource – where Beach Management Committees, Local Governments and other local institutions have allegedly failed to patrol! I wonder why Fred Mukisa can not realise that General Kale Kayihura already has enough problems of “illegal” political rallies, escalating violent crime, etc to deal with!

Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex (UK) once wrote that devolution of power and responsibility is fundamentally a painful process of change; painful because those in power do not want to let go! Fred Mukisa might be writhing with pain and hangover of the former central control. However, there is no doubt in my mind that his proposal to recentralise fisheries management is archaic and should be rescinded.

Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/business/Our_fishing_will_not_get_any_better_with_tighter_controls_70719.shtml

Who Benefits from Cycad Plants at Mpaga Falls?

Achilles Byarunga’s article entitled “Mpanga George: Uganda’s ecological gem is going” (New Vision, Thursday, May 22 2008) is one of those that conforms to what is increasingly known as environmental romanticism. No doubt, Achilles raises sound environmental issues but he unfortunately fails to align them with the economic realities of the day.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which he bases on to rubbish the proposed development of the 18 mega watt hydro electricity facility at Mpanga falls by South Asia Energy Management Systems, does not give biodiversity precedence over development. It stipulates a strategic balance between conservation and development; a win-win scenario in which none (conservation or development) excludes the other. However, such a win-win scenario is more often than not, a contemplative goal that is untenable – especially in an impoverished country such as Uganda where the underlying impetus is fighting poverty!

Before making an argument for conserving the cycad plants for their tourist value, Achilles should have quantified in economic terms, how much benefit the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities have obtained from cycad tourism. He should also have first quantified the economic benefit of 18 Mega Watts to determine whether its “paltry” (to borrow his word) compared with the tourism value of cycads.

The question of “who benefits from the cycad plants?” is pertinent in this argument. Achilles indeed mentions that “the first alert to the destruction of cycad was made by tourists…” and that “…now there is a big alarm allover the world about the survival of (what he termed) the Ugandan dinosaur.” He surprisingly does not mention if there are any concerns from the local population with regard to cycad destruction. On the contrary, he points out that “local community activities are a threat to the cycads.” Must Ugandans maintain “amusement parks” for foreign tourists at the expense of our indigenous community needs? It is not a reality that revenues from those concerned tourists are appropriated by UWA away from Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities, and that therefore that’s why UWA is opposed to the power scheme?

Whether the cycad plants at Mpanga are more than 200-300 years old or not is irreverent to the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities who have not significantly benefited from their existence for all that time. On the other hand, the generation of 18 mega watts of power from that site stands to be a historic change to a whole generation of indigenous communities that have always been living in darkness; or indeed to the rest of the Ugandan population that has been bracing abominable power cuts and load-shedding for many years.

Achilles’ argument about the massive ecological damage arising from roads and other infrastructural investments within the “tourist spinner” landscape should be backed by guidance on alternatives (for roads, clean water, hydro power, etc). It actually reminds me of a similar rhetoric made recently by another senior environmentalist (Mr. Ofuna Adula of Makerere University) that Owen falls dam should be decommissioned because it has outlived its purpose. What then would happen to millions of Ugandans, Kenyans and Rwandans who depend on Owen falls dam for their electricity needs?

My view is that as environmentalists, we are not helping government at all! Rather than criticize government for every development endeavour, I would rather environmentalists thought beyond the typical “non-use” mentality, and set about advising government to tame nature; to use it as an asset for enhancing people’s livelihoods. We need to be part of the solution rather than romanticists; pace setters rather than obscurantists.

The stark truth is that conservation is meaningless if it relegates people’s development opportunities. Cycad plants may have tourist and other ecological values but this will remain meaningless unless it benefits the Banyaruguru and other indigenous communities. We have to accept that.

While I rarely agree with NEMA, Iam inclined to concur that lets have an electricity generation dam at Mpaga falls and identity entry points for mitigating the inevitable ecological alterations – such as the recommended on-farm planting of cycad plants. Achilles calls 18 Mega Watts “paltry,” but the Bakiga have a saying that “otuura okuzimu tagaya mushana” (one who has lived in darkness does not complain about dim light). In truth, 18 mega watts will be a valuable addition to the national electricity grid.

Where is the 30 Million-plus Ugandans?

Uganda is nation well-known for “creative” reporting. Creative in a sense that official statistics rather than depicting correct scenarios, often serve to meet egoistic (for individuals), or “revolutionary” motives (for government). That’s why senior army officers have been implicated in ghost soldier scandals, which despite imposing an enormous cost on human life and the national economy, have benefited commanding officers at a colossal scale. Most Ugandans must have heard that government failed to defeat the insurgency in the north because there simply weren’t enough fighting forces on ground. Some commanders in charge had among other things inflated the number of officers and men under their charge to make a financial kill.

The extent of these ghost soldier scandals first came into public domain when it was revealed that out-numbered UPDF soldiers guarding 20,000 capacity camps for IDPs in the North were running away without a fight, upon the advance of LRA rebels. Poor souls, those soldiers would always be court-marshaled and convicted for cowardice!

With regard to education, ghost enrollments have been discovered in Universal Primary Education (UPE) Schools. The reported population of the first generation of UPE products could have been inflated by up to 75%, although government preferred to attribute the difference to drop-outs along the P1 – P7 continuum. For obvious reasons, District Local Governments maintain ghost workers on their pay-roll until some “nosy” characters find out.

Even the HIV/AIDS prevalence statistics seem to have magically dropped, from 30% in the early 1990s to about 6% to date. On the other hand, the national economic growth rate that has averaged more than 6% over much of the 20 years of NRM rule is too good for a country whose 75% of its population in some regions (e.g the north) lives under abject poverty!

Several public procurements have been inflated (such as the junk helicopter saga) while others have involved fictitious deals, otherwise known as “air” purchases. In fact, “creative reporting has been so ably institutionalized that some local artists have composed hit songs, such as the “Kiwani” fame.

But of all the controversies relating to official statistics, none catches my imagination like the national population size which is currently projected at 30 million-plus. Who ever has traveled widely around the country will testify that it’s all bush and abyss around the country side. Except the Kigezi, Rwenzori, and some parts of Mt. Elgon highlands, it’s evident that there are scanty human populations in much of the country side – except in townships. Where is that 30 million-plus Ugandans living?

This quandary is augmented by statistics from religious houses: if you visited the Province of the Church of Uganda at Namirembe, you would be informed that there are about 7.5 million protestant Christians in Uganda. Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala would easily confirm that he has nearly 9 million Catholics in his flock. There are also 2 million Pentecostals, roughly 2-3 million Moslems, and not more than 0.5 million Pagans. That would constitute roughly 21-22 million Ugandans. How then, do we account for the remaining 8-9 million-plus people? They all can not possibly be living in the diaspora!

For a country which depends on census information to allocate resources, it would not be strange for Local Governments to inflate the number of their residents – much in the same way that army commanders inflate the number of officers and men under their charge. Iam actually aware of some Local Government (Rwamucucu Sub County, Kabale district) which attempted to have their 2001 population figures revised upwards by UBOS because the figures were lower than what local leaders had expected.

On the other hand, it is possible that the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) – the body charged with collecting, analyzing and relaying statistics on various parameters, including human population, “creatively” projects figures based on fictitious population growth rates to give us junk population statistics.

I do not know whether UBOS is subject to any quality assurance oversight, but the country would do better with an independent audit of census statistics, and indeed all other information that UBOS has released. Until there is such audit, I will remain reluctant to believe that there are actually 30 million-plus of us, living in Uganda!