Blocking the Kabaka from visiting Kayunga was Illegal according to constitution

February 9th, 2010 No comments

All this has absolutely nothing to do with what happened to Kabaka’s visit to Kayunga.

EM Toronto

Thé Mulindwas Communication Group “With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy” Groupe de communication Mulindwas “avec Yoweri Museveni, l’Ouganda est dans l’anarchie”

[mailto:ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of william bogere Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 2:31 AM according to constitution

ARTICLE 29:

Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.

(1) Every person shall have the right to— (a) freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief which shall include academic freedom in institutions of learning; (c) freedom to practise any religion and manifest such practice which shall include the right to belong to and participate in the practices of any religious body or organisation in a manner consistent with this Constitution; (d) freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and (e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations.

(2) Every Ugandan shall have the right— (a) to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda; (b) to enter, leave and return to, Uganda; and (c) to a passport or other travel document.

OK! How do we reconcile these provisions, specifically, Article 29 (2)(a) with the recent blocking of Kabaka Ronald Mutebi’s visit to Kayunga?

And will Kayihuraa’s Police Force ever allow us to exercise the freedom in Article 29(1)(d) without invoking the infamous Police Act or some obscure municipal provision?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:40 AM, abbey semuwemba wrote:

Friends,

There’s a lot at stake in the debate that involves president Museveni’s confirmation that Bugerere is part of Buganda – our freedoms of movement and speech and the future of this country. This is one we cannot pass up. My grandfather always told me that if you couldn’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all! He also told me that the most important thing about politicians was not what party they represented, but whether you could trust them. But I’ve been breaking his advice about saying things about people ever since I picked some interest in both Obote and Museveni presidency and their relationship with Buganda. Obote broke a lot of laws during the 1966 Buganda crisis as Museveni also did last year before and during the Buganda riots. As a result, we have ended up with a country where president Museveni is the top law. When he says, ‘don’t go to Kayunga, you don’t dare go there’. As a result, minister Kivenjinja was not afraid to tell us that the Kabaka must seek permission from Sabanyala or Sabaluli before going to Kayunga despite confirmations from the president at his rally in Kayunga yesterday that Bugerere was part of Buganda. Going by his constitutional interpretations at the Kayunga rally, then I can categorically say that Buruli is also part of Buganda and Brother Kivejinja was used. The point here is that without law, we have the rule of men who do the “right” thing and ignore the law in places like Bugerere and Nakasongola and get away with it.

The relationship between president Museveni and Buganda can be compared to a woman who tells a man in the face that ‘I’ve fallen out of love with you’ but the relationship just keeps going because either because they have got a kid together or the man is still in love with the woman and cant just let go. But the question I always ask guys in this situation is that ‘would you still love her if she cheated on you and ran away with another man and stole all your money? Museveni has been cheating on Buganda by having an open affair with Bunyoro, Baluli and Banyara against Buganda. That’s why sometimes I get astonished when I hear people who tend to love him or hate him without any complicating shades of gray. May be Museveni has got USA’s former president, Reagan, ability to make the people love him even as they hated their misery. Personally, I can compare Museveni’s rally in Kayunga to a rich man who rather take pictures with poor children than feed them.

All I know is that Buganda or Mengo adminstration loves political power not Museveni. For the time being Museveni’s a source of it though he won’t always be. That doesn’t require Buganda to love him in any way that that term is ordinarily used. All Buganda needs to do now is to be like our normal women in the world. A woman must make herself wanted, desired, hard-to-get- that’s the whole appeal of womanliness, that she’s not easy because she is the sought one; the final decision rests with her, not with the man. A woman who lets all these creeps do her is just an idiot.

Buganda’s assumed woman role will take her very far, after all – behind every great man there’s a woman telling him he’s wrong. Women know what irks and frazzles men, and they vote accordingly. It is a reasonable speculation; Bill Clinton would not have been elected President if Joey Buttafuoco had decided to run in the Democratic primaries.

Therefore, between now and 2011 elections, Museveni is gonna pull all the tricks in the book to win Buganda’s hearts again but they should be on guard. Like they say, for some elected officials, winning an election is like an overdose of steroids. They suddenly feel all-powerful, invincible, and above the law. They believe churlishness and bullying prove their might. They treat other people with contempt. Since the current men in statehouse are wicked and will not keep faith with Buganda, you need not keep faith with them whatever they promise you.

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

United Kingdom



Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Fw: RE: women – No intimidation shall work- Kateregga

February 9th, 2010 No comments

Kateregga,

If Otunu is a homo then he must defend himself. Similarly if Museveni asajalatira ku bakabasajja, he must also defend himself.

  Jude m

Jonathan’s Latest Article: Mayor threatens to raze 200 homes

February 9th, 2010 No comments

The height of Israeli intransigence

Jerusalem’s mayor threatened last week to demolish 200 homes in Palestinian neighbourhoods of the city in an act even he conceded would probably bring long-simmering tensions over housing in East Jerusalem to a boil…

To read more, click on the link below: http://www.jkcook.net/Latest.htm

Nyakazaana was the wife of Zachary Kiwanuka Sensalire

February 9th, 2010 No comments

Kintu’s emergence into Buganda, and later Kimera wanyana’s son coming from Bunyoro and the folkrole of Buganda’s Lubaale with Nakazaana, Nabuzaana and Nakayima Omulaalo all point us to a central lineage of the origins and blood relationship of the Bantu groups. The River Nile has clues to the Shemites and Hamites migrating along that river. Ham is not a coincidence but should be treated as a point of interest in the anthropological inquiry of the origins of Baganda , Bahima and other Bantus. My little research helped me with the understanding of the Baganda word Amakka (homestead) and the central Islamic/Hebrew place where God wanted A place of Worship MAKKAH. Compare with a hill Baka where there is a lot of traditional Ganda worship of God. It is therefore, not a coincedence at all that Baganda are the most accommodating of other tribes/races that migrate into Buganda. It is pureley due to their God-given grace. Kings of Buganda have always inter-married from other tribes and in a non discriminative way (until recently when we have seen evidence of angry people being very zenephobic; yet aglance into any clan you will find migration and assimillation) Awangale Ssabassajja atasosola. Sadly the Hima are less accommodating and usually insecure. Banyoro accommodate widely……..the reasons are historical,

*Kaggwa* http://ekitibwakyabuganda.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/nyakazaana-was-the-wife-of-zachary-kiwanuka-sensalire/ **

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:49 AM, william Ekwelu < williamekwelu@googlemail.com> wrote:

Majid Fauz Asset for the journalists community

February 9th, 2010 No comments

May God rest Majid Fauz’ soul in eternal Peace

I am shocked to hear that our senior colleague and veteran Mr. Majid Fauz is no more among us. I express my shock and grief over the sad demise of Majid Fauz. He was an asset for the journalists community .His role for the cause of journalists community will long be remembered. May God rest his soul in peace and his blessings and give courage to the bereaved family to bear this irreparable loss with fortitude.

WASEEM FAROOQ SHAHID Assistant Secretary General PAKISTAN FEDERAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS 12-Nazimuddin Road, F-6/1 Islamabad, Pakistan Phone Office +92(0)51 2870220-1 Facsimile +92(0)51 2870223 Sub Office LAHORE 3 Diyal singh mention Mall road LAHORE Ph Off +92(0)42 37351147 Cell +923009430693 Email apnamalik@gmail.com

Categories: Asia Tags: , , , ,

Gomesi is the de facto national dress of Uganda

February 9th, 2010 No comments

Am having my wedding in April and I desperately want my female guests to wear gomesi pliz can i make orders—from where? am in nbi kenya.

celine olaktar colaktar@yahoo.com http://semuwemba.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/gomesi-is-the-de-facto-national-dress-of-uganda/

On 8 Jan 2009, 18:19, Patrick Otto wrote:

Categories: Middle East Tags: , , , ,

Guantanamo in Kololo:’Safe Houses’ Violate Article 23(2).

February 9th, 2010 No comments

23. Protection of personal liberty. (1) No person shall be deprived of personal liberty except in any of the following cases— (a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court, whether established for Uganda or another country or of an international court or tribunal in respect of a criminal offence of which that person has been convicted, or of an order of a court punishing the person for contempt of court; (b) in execution of the order of a court made to secure the fulfillment of any obligation imposed on that person by law; (c) for the purpose of bringing that person before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon reasonable suspicion that that person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda;

(d) for the purpose of preventing the spread of an infectious or contagious disease; (e) in the case of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of the education or welfare of that person; … See more (f) in the case of a person who is, or is reasonably suspected to be, of unsound mind or addicted to drugs or alcohol, for the purpose of the care or treatment of that person or the protection of the community; (g) for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of that person into Uganda, or for the purpose of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal of that person from Uganda or for the purpose of restricting that person while being conveyed through Uganda in the course of the extradition or removal of that person as a convicted prisoner from one country to another; or (h) as may be authorised by law, in any other circumstances similar to any of the cases specified in paragraphs (a) to (g) of this clause. No person shall be deprived of personal liberty except: Article 23(2)A person arrested, restricted or detained shall be kept in a place authorised by law. (3) A person arrested, restricted or detained shall be informed immediately, in a language that the person understands, of the reasons for the arrest, restriction or detention and of his or her right to a lawyer of his or her choice. (4) A person arrested or detained— (a) for the purpose of bringing him or her before a court in execution of an order of a court; or … See more (b) upon reasonable suspicion of his or her having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda, shall, if not earlier released, be brought to court as soon as possible but in any case not later than forty-eight hours from the time of his or her arrest. (5) Where a person is restricted or detained— (a) the next-of-kin of that person shall, at the request of that person, be informed as soon as practicable of the restriction or detention; (b) the next-of-kin, lawyer and personal doctor of that person shall be allowed reasonable access to that person; and (c) that person shall be allowed access to medical treatment including, at the request and at the cost of that person, access to private medical treatment.

(6) Where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence— (a) the person is entitled to apply to the court to be released on bail, and the court may grant that person bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable; (b) in the case of an offence which is triable by the High Court as well as by a subordinate court, the person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable, if that person has been remanded in custody in respect of the offence before trial for one hundred and twenty days; (c) in the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, the person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable, if the person has been remanded in custody for three hundred and sixty days before the case is committed to the High Court.

(7) A person unlawfully arrested, restricted or detained by any other person or authority shall be entitled to compensation from that other person or authority whether it is the State or an agency of the State or other person or authority. (8) Where a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence, any period he or she spends in lawful custody in respect of the offence before the completion of his or her trial shall be taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment. (9) The right to an order of habeas corpus shall be inviolable and shall not be suspended.

– Think ’safe houses’ – they violate Article 23(2). Think of people who are taken to safe houses and they do not know what they have done. That violates Articles 23(2) and (3). How many times has the 48 hour rule in Article 23(4) been violated? And Article 23(5) (a)are there any lucky relatives here who got a call from the police to let them know that their relative was taken to a safe-house?

– 23(5)(b) and (c) remind of the late Joseph Kifefe. Lack of access to medical care led to his death.

– And 23(6) was violated by the Black Mamba and now the President wants bail conditions removed for treason charges…what are the implications of such an amendment for a person like Kizza Besigye who has had a treason trial hanging over his head for 5 years?

– When a court makes an order Habeas Corpus in article 23(9) it is required that a missing person allegedly detained by the state be produced in court. does it always happen?

Guys and gals at UAH, we have a brilliant Constitution but there is no will to implement it!

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Mayiko Makula wrote:

Blocking the Kabaka from visiting Kayunga was Illegal according to constitution

February 9th, 2010 2 comments

Thanks abbbey for your observations. We must play the hard to get woman. Now that the President has shot himself in the foot, the Kabaka should now sue the government for breach of his Majesty’s right to move within Uganda. The people of Kayunga must also sue the government for infringing on their right to associate with the Kabaka. Unless we take the government to court on these issues, the lunies in Kaampala will continue to misbehave. Abbey, I think you and I and members on this forum must take it upon ourselves and find a lawyer to take on this case for the people of Kayunga. The Kabaka knows what to do.

We must ram this M7 rhetoric back down his throat.

ARTICLE 29: Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.(1) Every person shall have the right to—

(a) freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media;

(b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief which shall include academic freedom in institutions of learning;

(c) freedom to practise any religion and manifest such practice which shall include the right to belong to and participate in the practices of any religious body or organisation in a manner consistent with this Constitution; (d) freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and

(e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations.

(2) Every Ugandan shall have the right— (a) to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda; (b) to enter, leave and return to, Uganda; and (c) to a passport or other travel document.

OK! How do we reconcile these provisions, specifically, Article 29 (2)(a) with the recent blocking of Kabaka Ronald Mutebi’s visit to Kayunga?

And will Kayihuraa’s Police Force ever allow us to exercise the freedom in Article 29(1)(d) without invoking the infamous Police Act or some obscure municipal provision? On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:40 AM, abbey semuwemba wrote:

Friends,

There’s a lot at stake in the debate that involves president Museveni’s confirmation that Bugerere is part of Buganda – our freedoms of movement and speech and the future of this country. This is one we cannot pass up. My grandfather always told me that if you couldn’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all! He also told me that the most important thing about politicians was not what party they represented, but whether you could trust them. But I’ve been breaking his advice about saying things about people ever since I picked some interest in both Obote and Museveni presidency and their relationship with Buganda. Obote broke a lot of laws during the 1966 Buganda crisis as Museveni also did last year before and during the Buganda riots. As a result, we have ended up with a country where president Museveni is the top law. When he says, ‘don’t go to Kayunga, you don’t dare go there’. As a result, minister Kivenjinja was not afraid to tell us that the Kabaka must seek permission from Sabanyala or Sabaluli before going to Kayunga despite confirmations from the president at his rally in Kayunga yesterday that Bugerere was part of Buganda. Going by his constitutional interpretations at the Kayunga rally, then I can categorically say that Buruli is also part of Buganda and Brother Kivejinja was used. The point here is that without law, we have the rule of men who do the “right” thing and ignore the law in places like Bugerere and Nakasongola and get away with it.

The relationship between president Museveni and Buganda can be compared to a woman who tells a man in the face that ‘I’ve fallen out of love with you’ but the relationship just keeps going because either because they have got a kid together or the man is still in love with the woman and cant just let go. But the question I always ask guys in this situation is that ‘would you still love her if she cheated on you and ran away with another man and stole all your money? Museveni has been cheating on Buganda by having an open affair with Bunyoro, Baluli and Banyara against Buganda. That’s why sometimes I get astonished when I hear people who tend to love him or hate him without any complicating shades of gray. May be Museveni has got USA’s former president, Reagan, ability to make the people love him even as they hated their misery. Personally, I can compare Museveni’s rally in Kayunga to a rich man who rather take pictures with poor children than feed them.

All I know is that Buganda or Mengo adminstration loves political power not Museveni. For the time being Museveni’s a source of it though he won’t always be. That doesn’t require Buganda to love him in any way that that term is ordinarily used. All Buganda needs to do now is to be like our normal women in the world. A woman must make herself wanted, desired, hard-to-get- that’s the whole appeal of womanliness, that she’s not easy because she is the sought one; the final decision rests with her, not with the man. A woman who lets all these creeps do her is just an idiot.

Buganda’s assumed woman role will take her very far, after all – behind every great man there’s a woman telling him he’s wrong. Women know what irks and frazzles men, and they vote accordingly. It is a reasonable speculation; Bill Clinton would not have been elected President if Joey Buttafuoco had decided to run in the Democratic primaries.

Therefore, between now and 2011 elections, Museveni is gonna pull all the tricks in the book to win Buganda’s hearts again but they should be on guard. Like they say, for some elected officials, winning an election is like an overdose of steroids. They suddenly feel all-powerful, invincible, and above the law. They believe churlishness and bullying prove their might. They treat other people with contempt. Since the current men in statehouse are wicked and will not keep faith with Buganda, you need not keep faith with them whatever they promise you.

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba United Kingdom

ARTICLE 29:Right to a fair hearing(Know yo constitutional rights)

February 9th, 2010 No comments

Right to a fair hearing.(1) In the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law(2) Nothing in clause (1) of this article shall prevent the court or tribunal from excluding the press or the public from all or any proceedings before it for reasons of morality, public order or national security, as may be necessary in a free and democratic society.

(3) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall— (a) be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty or until that person has pleaded guilty; (b) be informed immediately, in a language that the person understands, of the nature of the offence; (c) be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence; (d) be permitted to appear before the court in person or, at that person’s own expense, by a lawyer of his or her choice; (e) in the case of any offence which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment for life, be entitled to legal representation at the expense of the State; (f) be afforded, without payment by that person, the assistance of an interpreter if that person cannot understand the language used at the trial;

(g) be afforded facilities to examine witnesses and to obtain the attendance of other witnesses before the court.

(4) Nothing done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with— (a) clause (3)(a) of this article, to the extent that the law in question imposes upon any person charged with a criminal offence, the burden of proving particular facts; (b) clause (3)(g) of this article, to the extent that the law imposes conditions that must be satisfied if witnesses called to testify on behalf of an accused are to be paid their expenses out of public funds.

(5) Except with his or her consent, the trial of any person shall not take place in the absence of that person unless the person so conducts himself or herself as to render the continuance of the proceedings in the presence of that person impracticable and the court makes an order for the person to be removed and the trial to proceed in the absence of that person.

(6) A person tried for any criminal offence, or any person authorised by him or her, shall, after the judgment in respect of that offence, be entitled to a copy of the proceedings upon payment of a fee prescribed by law.

(7) No person shall be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute a criminal offence.

(8) No penalty shall be imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed for that offence at the time when it was committed.

(9) A person who shows that he or she has been tried by a competent court for a criminal offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence shall not again be tried for the offence or for any other criminal offence of which he or she could have been convicted at the trial for that offence, except upon the order of a superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal.

(10) No person shall be tried for a criminal offence if the person shows that he or she has been pardoned in respect of that offence.

(11) Where a person is being tried for a criminal offence, neither that person nor the spouse of that person shall be compelled to give evidence against that person.

(12) Except for contempt of court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it prescribed by law.

THABO MBEKI IN NAIROBI, AND THE FRUITS OF RETIREMENT

February 9th, 2010 No comments

When Thabo Mbeki was South Africa president, especially in his last two years, he virtually never smiled. He is in Nairobi, and on Friday he went for a long walk around Nairobi streets – and the masses gathered gathered to behold this complex man. But he is a very different Mbeki–he was smiling all the time, and that stiffness that the was mark of his presidency was gone. He even went in, no surprises there, into a bookshop and bought a book. The man is addicted to reading (which, ironically, is what got him into political trouble because he fell in love with some of the very alternative and controversial ideas he encountered in books, and carried them into policy). If life outside the presidency can be so fruitful and bring out the sunny side of a humourless man like Mbeki, why you wonder do others cling to the job and kill and arrest opponents whom they think threaten their seat?

A smiling Thabo Mbeki (CENTRE) and South Africa’s High Commissioner to Kenya Tony Msimanga walk along Nairobi’s Wabera street on February 6, 2010. Photo DAILY NATION/WILLIAM OERI Thabo Mbeki walks along Nairobi’s Wabera street after shopping at Prestige Bookshop on February 6, 2010. Photo DAILY NATION/WILLIAM OERI