JonZu News

whatever the sections these are, let the people of uganda be senstized about these sections and let them uphold the constitution. let then understand it s they can bring to book those who front with egoism and liar should be given an elementary education at luzira.  actually  okello george  was looking for a way to settle on some  countries tax payers money . how can we continue with such beggers lazy and they dont want to work at home! Oh I did not know he was lakwena’s legal advisor.

But let  public leaders know the citizens of uganda would want to be educated on their rights to speak the truth about what they see goes wrong in public organisations.  

The four questions/issues I’ve introduced on appeal of my District Court Case (Gold v. State of Montana DV 09-320) are: 1) Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiff and Appellant’s summary judgment motion while granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion and while not addressing Plaintiff and Appellant’s claims against the State of Montana? 2) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant’s arguments regarding the Duty of Care of Montana Constitution’s demanding sworn oath of office upon Montana Legislators and the Governor in the performance of their duties of office and their greater duties to our Constitution, especially in regards to discrimination? 3) Did the District Court err by not addressing in the final order, Plaintiff and Appellant’s procedural arguments and objections, especially in regards to the Montana Constitution’s demanding oath of office and Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, in both his “summary judgment motion and brief’ and in his “Combined Memorandum in Response to Defendant’s Combined Memorandum in Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment?” 4) Was Plaintiff and Appellant denied his Constitutional Right of the Administration of Justice Article 11 – $16 and deprived of procedural due process and substantive due process of law guaranteed by the 14′~A mendment of the US. Constitution and Article II. § 4 of the Montana Constitution by the 4th District Court in its final Order and Memorandum by not engaging in required constitutional analysis as well as offering no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law, specifically as to why Plaintiff should be denied his Constitutional claims against the State?

May be you are right!

But still Mr. Mamadou’s term in Office had expired. Why change the constitution?

The bigger question is what did Mr. Mamadou do for the people of Niger when the proceeds from the purchase of Uranium was still coming in?

Did he for instance build good roads, hospitals, airports, rail system for his people? The answer is probably nope!

You see it is but for the good work which you do to and for the people for which you will be remembered…everything else is vanity.

Mere changing uranium clients from France to China… is just like changing one opportunist for the other. The Chinese too are opportunist! They

are in for what they can get out of Africa.nothing else .Do not let anybody deceive you!

Perhaps Kwame Nkuruma was right we need a united Africa in order to stop all this nonsense of wakina Mucebeni grabbing power by force arms and then turn around and become the greatest butt lick er of Imperialist and neo-colonialism …. so much so that they are willing to sell of the very rights of poor peasant Africans to the greatest bidder..in the case of Musebeni to the lowest bidder.

Matek

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Obargot Paabwola wrote:

Poor guys, these fellows are just hostages of what they never will know.!

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Obargot Paabwola wrote:

Me think he was booted because he signed Uranium deal with China!

Had he not signed the Uranium deal with China I am sure he would have stayed put in power. The coup may have been engineered by France, taking advantage of the political schism.

OpaA

Mr Tandja was widely criticised when he changed the constitution in August to allow him to stand for a third term. This one decide to change the constitution and wants to stay for ever as president for life like Mucebeni! Why cannot you serve two terms and leave? If you can not achieve what you have set your self to achieve for the country in two terms, what makes you think you can do so in third of fourth term? My be as president for life, you are the problem hindering development! Therefore you deserve the BOOT matek

Military coup ousts Niger president

The president was seized in a gun battle in Niger’s capital, Niamey A coup has taken place in Niger and the president has been captured after a gun battle in the capital, Niamey. In a television announcement, a spokesman for the plotters said Niger’s constitution had been suspended and all state institutions dissolved. The country was now being led by a group called the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD), the spokesman said. President Mamadou Tandja is believed to be in captivity at a military barracks. Reports say government ministers are also being held. Making the announcement on television, the spokesman for the coup leaders, wearing a military uniform, was surrounded by a large group of soldiers. He called on the people of Niger to “remain calm and stay united around the ideals postulated by the CSRD”, to “make Niger an example of democracy and good governance”. “We call on national and international opinions to support us in our patriotic action to save Niger and its population from poverty, deception and corruption,” he added. A newsreader on Niger television said the country’s borders had been closed and a curfew was now in force. Tensions have been growing since last year in the uranium-rich nation. Mr Tandja was widely criticised when he changed the constitution in August to allow him to stand for a third term. Long-term tensions A BBC correspondent said earlier that tanks were firing and witnesses reported seeing injured people being taken to hospital.

AT THE SCENE

Idy Baraou BBC News, Niamey

The exchange of gunfire has been between soldiers but it is confusing and one cannot tell one side from another. I saw tanks being fired and soldiers on the streets using machine guns.

The area near the presidential palace is where the business of government takes place and at least four military barracks are based there. People have fled the area and some civil servants have locked themselves inside their offices. Earlier, smoke could be seen from the roof of the office where President Mamadou Tandja was holding his cabinet meeting. An unnamed French official told AFP that the president had been seized. “All I can say is that it would appear that Tandja is not in a good position,” he told the news agency on condition of anonymity. Soldiers captured Mr Tandja while he was chairing his weekly cabinet meeting, a government source told the BBC. AFP later reported an official as saying Mr Tandja was possibly being held at a military barracks about 20km (13 miles) west of Niamey. A witness told the news agency that the bodies of three soldiers had been taken to a military mortuary. The situation in Niamey remains unclear – there has apparently been no large-scale deployment of military personnel. The government and opposition have been holding on-off talks since December – mediated by the regional body Ecowas – to try to resolve the country’s political crisis. Constructive engagement Ecowas has told the BBC that it is closely following developments in Niger. The organisation’s political director, Abdel-Fatau Musah, said that, if needed, Ecowas would be in the country as quickly as it could to ensure order was maintained and constitutional order restored as soon as possible. Mr Musah said that while Ecowas would never recognise a military takeover, it would maintain a constructive engagement with those in authority in Niger. Mr Tandja, a former army officer, was first voted into office in 1999 and was returned to power in an election in 2004. Niger has experienced long periods of military rule since independence from France in 1960. It is one of the world’s poorest countries, but Mr Tandja’s supporters argue that his decade in power has brought a measure of economic stability. Under his tenure, work has begun on the world’s second-biggest uranium mine, and energy deals have been signed with Chinese firms

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

Palin Attacks the US Constitution

By Juan Cole, Sarah Palin’s turn before the teabaggers was an exercise in emptying the US Constitution of meaning while seeming to exalt it. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion/75-politics/944-palin-attacks

Saying ‘Constitution’ While Meaning ‘Lawlessness’: Palin Attacks Obama

arah Palin’s turn before the teabaggers was an exercise in emptying the US Constitution of meaning while seeming to exalt it.

She praised US military personnel for defending the constitution.

But she complained that constitutional protections were offered to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underpants bomber. She said it is ‘our’ constitution, reducing it from a universal document (the Declaration of Independence says ‘all men’ are endowed with inalienable rights) to a tribal one.

She said Abdulmutallab could otherwise have been questioned. But why should he have answered, rights or no? Holder’s methods got him talking. (Nor is it likely constitutional to arrest a lawbreaker on US soil and whisk him off to military detention.)

Then she said we need a commander in chief, not a professor of constitutional law.

But Obama is designated by the constitution as commander in chief. Is she denying that status to him?

And if the constitution is so great and worth dying for, why is it bad to study it systematically?

So at every turn she invoked the constitution to undermine the constitution.

She is not about law, but is about power. We’ve had enough narcissistic sociopaths in politics.

And note that Jerry Brown, e.g. Would not be put on CNN addressing 600 leftwing democrats in prime time. I’m afraid of Time Warner now.

*Chapter Four* Protection and promotion of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.

General.

*20. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.* (1) Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State. (2) The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organs and agencies of Government and by all persons.

*21. Equality and freedom from discrimination.* (1) All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law. (2) Without prejudice to clause (1) of this article, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground oftribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability. (3) For the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from enacting laws that are necessary for— (a) implementing policies and programmes aimed at redressing social, economic, educational or other imbalance in society; or (b) making such provision as is required or authorised to be made under this Constitution; or (c) providing for any matter acceptable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (5) Nothing shall be taken to be inconsistent with this article which is allowed to be done under any provision of this Constitution.

Published on Monday, February 1, 2010 by _Salon.com_ (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/01/collins/index.html) Susan Collins Spreads Central Myth About the Constitution by Glenn Greenwald

Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released _a five-minute video_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8j9lwTmiSA&feature=player_embedded) in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the _most pervasive myths in our political discourse_ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-christmas-day-terror-attack-n apolitano/) : namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ’s decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: “Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist ‘lawyered up’ and stopped talking” (_h/t_ (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/31/173422/852) ). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government’s treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false — for multiple reasons — yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in “War on Terror” propaganda. First, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in _Boumediene v. Bush_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html) , which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What’s more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices — and, indeed, not even the Bush administration — argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim. What divided the Boumediene Court was the question of whether foreigners held by the U.S. military outside of the U.S. (as opposed to inside the U.S.) enjoy Constitutional protections. They debated how Guantanamo should be viewed in that regard (as foreign soil or something else). But not even the 4 dissenting judges believed — as Susan Collins and other claim — that Constitutional rights only extend to Americans. To the contrary, Justice Scalia, in _his scathing dissent_ (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZD1.html) , approvingly quoted Justice Jackson in conceding that foreigners detained inside the U.S. are protected by the Constitution (emphasis added): Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ: “The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . . . . “But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act.” Id., at 770-771. That’s from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It’s not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ — not even Antonin Scalia — believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. — not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally. The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court — all the way back in 1886 — explicitly held this to be the case, when, in _Yick Wo v. Hopkins_ (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356) , it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution. Just read what the Court said back then, as it should settle this matter forever (emphasis added): The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Could that possibly be any clearer? Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over. Only extreme ignorance or a true desire to deceive would lead someone like Susan Collins to claim that such rights are “protection[s] our Constitution guarantees American citizens.” Second, basic common sense by itself should prevent people like Susan Collins from claiming the Constitution applies only to American citizens. There are millions of foreign nationals inside the U.S. at all times — not only illegally but also legally: as tourists, students, workers, Green Card holders, etc. Is there anyone who really believes that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to them? If a foreign national is arrested and accused by the U.S. Government of committing a crime, does anyone believe they can be sentenced to prison without a jury trial, denied the right to face their accusers, have their property seized without due process, be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and be denied access to counsel? Anyone who claims that the Constitution only protects American citizens, but not foreigners, would necessarily have to claim that the U.S. Government could do all of that to foreign nationals. Does anyone believe that? Would it be Constitutionally permissible to own foreigners as slaves on the ground that the protections of the Constitution — including _the Thirteenth Amendment_ (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii) — apply only to Americans, not foreigners? Third, to see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights. It says nothing about “citizens.” To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . or abridging the freedom of speech”; “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner”). And where rights are expressly vested, they are pointedly not vested in “citizens,” but rather in “persons” or “the accused” (“No person shall . . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . . and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”). The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are “persons.” Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not “persons,” then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen? There are, of course, certain Constitutional rights that are clearly reserved only for citizens — such as the right to vote or to hold elective office — but when that is the case, the Constitution explicitly states that to be so (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . . . .”). Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, in the very same clause, demonstrates the distinction between “citizens” (which only includes “Americans”) and “persons” (which includes everyone), and proves that the former is merely a subset of the latter: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thank William,

You have made it easy to understand. Rigging elections is aborogation of the constitution and therefore an act against the right of the people of Uganda to govern themselves. Yes, we have a right to fight people who rig elections and remove them from power. We need to educate our people about these rights.

This is why people like Kiggundu and his cabal at the EC must know that time will catch up with them. They must know that we shall punish them one day.

Michael Senyonjo

Ugandans at heart, Know Your Rights! What does the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995) provide with regards to democratic governance and sovereignty of the people? How do you interpret the following provisions in National Objectives and Article 3? Political objectives. II. Democratic principles. (i) The State shall be based on democratic principles which empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in

their own governance. … See More

(ii) All the people of Uganda shall have access to leadership positions at all levels, subject to the Constitution. (iii) The State shall be guided by the principle of decentralisation and devolution of governmental functions and powers to the people at appropriate

levels where they can best manage and direct their own affairs. (iv) The composition of Government shall be broadly representative of the national character and social diversity of the country. (v) All political and civic associations aspiring to manage and direct

public affairs shall conform to democratic principles in their internal organisations and practice. (vi) Civic organisations shall retain their autonomy in pursuit of their declared objectives.

Articles:

1. Sovereignty of the people. (1) All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution. (2) Without limiting the effect of clause (1) of this article, all

authority in the State emanates from the people of Uganda; and the people shall be governed through their will and consent. (3) All power and authority of Government and its organs derive from this Constitution, which in turn derives its authority from the people who

consent to be governed in accordance with this Constitution. (4) The people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referenda.

Article 3

Defence of the Constitution (1) It is prohibited for any person or group of persons to take or retain control of the Government of Uganda, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. (2) Any person who, singly or in concert with others, by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends, overthrows, abrogates or amends this Constitution or any part of it or attempts to do any such act, commits the offence of treason and shall be punished according to law. … See More

(3) This Constitution shall not lose its force and effect even where its observance is interrupted by a government established by the force of arms; and in any case, as soon as the people recover their liberty, its observance shall be reestablished and all persons who have taken part in any rebellion or other activity which resulted in the interruption of the observance shall be tried in accordance with this Constitution and other laws consistent with it. So in light of these provisions, what do we do with a government that retains power through rigging elections?

Article 3. Subsections 4 and 5 are very empowering:

3(4) All citizens of Uganda shall have the right and duty at all times— (a) to defend this Constitution and, in particular, to resist any person or group of persons seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order; and … See More

(b) to do all in their power to restore this Constitution after it has been suspended, overthrown, abrogated or amended contrary to its provisions.

(5) Any person or group of persons who, as required by clause (4) of this article, resists the suspension, overthrow, abrogation or amendment of this Constitution commits no offence.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Monsieur Edward Mulindwa wrote:

Rehema Uganda

Tell the whole story kindly, Dr Kiiza Besigye has as well already been in war, the Luwero jungle war, and it did not work for him either. Has Dr Kiiza Besigye figured out that he might be the God dam problem?

No just asking !!!

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 rehema uganda

Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:54 AM

Besigye said he had gone to court twice protesting the results of the 2001 and 2006 elections and court proved they were fraught with malpractices.

“I will not go to court for the third time in 2011. If the election is not free and fair, then we shall see what else to do,” he vowed.

http://www.sundayvision.co.ug/detail.php?mainNewsCategoryId=7&newsCategoryId=125&newsId=708544

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Richard Gudoi Gid’Agui wrote:

I think there is law in Uganda.

Again I must confess that we Ugandans are passive and ignorant. We dont know how and what to complain of! How many times must educate about this.

Pliz if you have any issue with any body just go and get advise from your attorneys on what to do.

Why dont o u ask ur area MP to handle those issues ,I believe that area has a representative of some sort at any level.

Then my advise here again is that some of those issues have Uganda Police to handle, why do u want to involve some us into the matterS we dont know?

File ur dissatisfaction with relevant parties, Ask the person u believe did what he did for defense in courts of law. I know everybody is not above the law in God and our constituion which I have not read. I think this must be sent to all Ugandans at their area LCs and all Schools for people to read, including u my fellow citizen friend.

We delve oursselves here simply because we can identify ourselves as Ugandans, this spirit is not anywhere in africa, so go ahead to say what ur saying then we can improve in communications and you will learn alot on how to complain! or air ur feelings

Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 7:24:28 AM

Dennis

I dont know whether it is big or not but for me Mukomba boxi means ’some one’s house girl or house boy’. You do what your master tells you to do-no questions, and that is who i see Gudoi. This man killed 30 people last year in open day light and how can anybody sane continue supporting him? He gives with one hand and kills you with another.Museeveni is a hypocrite and he does not deserve to be our president anymore let alone a leader of the UPDF

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Dennis Nyondo wrote:

Hello Rehema,

Please go slow. Try to control your immotion. That term you have used is publically big at this forum. Though he deserve it, but it would have been sent to him on a private mail.

Thanks.