Forum Replies Created
President Museveni seeks to tame a growing and unrelenting opposition
President Yoweri Museveni’s approach to containing a growing and unrelenting opposition to his rule appears to be a double-edged sword.
While his “containment tactics” provide him short-term relief to execute his aims, say, like eliminating or at least minimising any interruptions on the day he takes the oath of office, they put the judiciary and security organs tasked to execute them to an unnecessary test as they reignite questions over their impartiality.
The tactics include an interim court order that falls short of outlawing the opposition altogether, a Cabinet directive banning media coverage of the opposition’s activities, and increased deployment of security personnel on streets to quickly and forcefully break up any protests against President Museveni’s rule.
In the face of unwillingness by both the state and the opposition to soften their seemingly inflexible stands on how to resolve the prevailing political dispute, arising from the February 18 election, analysts say the current standoffs and violent confrontations are likely to become a common feature throughout the course of President Museveni’s seventh term.
“Shortly after the elections, President Museveni said his target over the next five years will be to wipe out the opposition completely.
What this actually means is using state machinery to oppress anyone who attempts to expound any ideas that are opposed to the government,” said Sabiti Makara, a senior political science don at Makerere University.
“If indeed this happens then we will have entered a full dictatorship because if you talk about a regime that will silence all other views that is a dictatorship. There is nothing else to call it as the cloak of civility will have completely been removed,” added Dr Makara, who researches on governance and electoral processes in Uganda.
READ: Ugandan opposition chief Kizza Besigye condemns month of house arrest
ALSO READ: Ugandan opposition leader Besigye arrested again
As a matter of necessity, Dr Makara said a compromise must be sought to diffuse ongoing political tensions that are potentially harmful to the economy and distractive to governance and both contending sides need to review the way they engage each other.
“There is no harm in bringing the discontented party to the table to talk. Even if ‘winner takes all’ is the practice of politics in this country, how you win is also important.
“On the other hand, if the opposition is truly discontented they should try a silent campaign instead of their preferred confrontations, which have adverse effects on the public as they trigger the state to react violently.
“Quiet mobilisation and campaigns to encourage supporters to work to strengthen the party might yield more results than calling people to the streets, which often results in injuries or even death,” said Dr Makara.
Although both the ruling NRM party and the FDC, the largest opposition party, have claimed to be open to dialogue, each side’s tough conditions cast doubt on their supposed willingness.
The NRM said FDC must first acknowledge President Museveni as the duly elected president and renounce their so-called defiance campaign — a position that runs counter to their core demand for an independent, internationally-supervised audit of the 2016 presidential elections.
Such an audit, FDC insists, would establish who truly won the February 18 polls whose final outcome — as declared by the Electoral Commission — remains contested even if the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it.
While the FDC has conceded to the government’s argument that there is no constitutional provision for the audit, it also argues that, “neither is the illegal detention of a candidate, raiding and taking over party offices, or illegal detention of hundreds of party leaders and officials,” wrote its former flag bearer Kizza Besigye, whom the police has put under house arrest again “until further notice.”
The FDC’s demand is at the heart of nationwide demonstrations the party had planned to begin on May 5. But on Thursday, April 29, Deputy Chief Justice Steven Kavuma issued an interim order to stop them after hearing the application to grant it in the absence of the respondents: FDC and Dr Besigye.
The order, which was granted a day after the application was made, also roped in any other activities — processions, public meetings, media campaigns or pronouncements — related in any way to the furtherance of the party’s so-called “defiance campaign.”
Six days later, on Thursday May 5, Information Minister Jim Muhwezi announced a Cabinet directive banning all media coverage of any activity under the said campaign, which appeared to be aimed at reinforcing Justice Kavuma’s orders.
Predictably, both actions drew widespread condemnation. According to the Uganda Law Society, Justice Kavuma’s orders went against standing practice in hearing and determining complaints involving civil rights and liberties.
“We do not see any justification for hearing such a politically charged application where the Attorney-General is the Applicant ex parte,” said Francis Gimara, the president of the Uganda Law Society.
“The ban on live media coverage of Besigye’s defiance campaign is illegal, unnecessary, disproportional, unacceptable and unjustifiable even in a society like ours that is neither entirely free nor fully democratic,” said Peter G Mwesige, the executive director of the African Centre for Media Excellence, a media training and advocacy NGO.
FDC secretary for mobilisation Ingrid Turinawe is reported missing.
FDC preacher Doreen Nyanjura, said Turinawe was surrounded by heavy military police in Gayaza town earlier on Sunday.Nyanjura also FDC secretary for trade and investment said police started chasing the iron lady as she left home to go and visit her daughter.
She was reportedly picked from Gayaza trading centre at 2pm and whisked off by uniformed men.
“Ingrid Turinawe was kidnapped by military goons as she attempted to leave home today at2Pm,” Nyanjura said.
“We have searched all police stations including Kasangati, Naggalama, Kira, we cannot trace her whereabouts.”
FDC youth activist Shawn Mubiru, related the incident to Idi Amin days.
“Days of Pandagari are back, Ingrid Turinawe was picked up by men in Police and UPDF uniforms! She cannot be traced anywhere not at any police station,” Shawn said.
Another handler said “Kifeesi police have decided to violate her freedom to celebrate mother’s day with her children”.
Recently, Ingrid was attacked by goons at her home and her vehicle vandalised.
Ugandans amaze me..up to when will we continue coming to help at the last minute. .even when we help we turn it into showbiz..Which type of a peoples president cant mobilise funds to treat a single patient?I thought by being a prominent doctor he could have made reliable private hospital facilities instead of him making petrol stations..At times we blame the govt but we also lazy..we clearly know this is a failed govt why cant we find lasting solutions to major problems..if Bobi wine can build a beach why cant he build a hospital??
One is a self proclaimed pastor raised by the dictator himself another is a former political commissar for ten years..Have Ugandans become that cheap to follow whatever opposes the government? MR BESIGYE SAYS VOTES WHERE STOLEN..WHAT ABOUT THE FEW MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT U GOT.THE DISTRICT CHAIRMEN?UNLESS YOU LAY A STRONG FOUNDATION YOU WILL NEVER BE THE PRESIDENT..I BEG THE POLICE TO TAKE YOU TO BUTABIKA INSTEAD OF NAGALAMA..TUUKOYE KATEMBA WAMWE.
The acute disease most NRM cronies are suffering from seems to spread like wildfire. No one is ready to relinquish power peacefully and handover to other able Ugandans. Everyone seems convinced that they’re the best in the positions they hold and any alteration in the status quo is an abomination. This has been developed, well nurtured by the so called revolutionaries that are obviously masqueraders. Just like her colleagues, Kadaga is not ready to say goodbye unless forced out.
Hon. Kadaga has been in parliament since 1989, held so many senior positions in the Museveni led gov’t..Though she has nothing much to show, she still wants to continue being at the helm in public service. She has interesting, but also unfortunate reasons to support her stand.
Kadaga says she must serve her 2nd and last term as speaker of parliament, arguing that all her predecessors served two terms which is a lie. James Wapakhabulo and Francis Ayume served a single term each. Only Kiwanuka Ssekandi served a two term stint, in fact, it was Kadaga that fought and made him and abandon coming back for the 3rd term. Remember, the term of speakership in Uganda is open, there are no term limits.
She wants to Gazette the speakership position, a culture of self entitlement she seems to cherish.
Another reason she gives why it’s a do or die for her is that she represents woman emancipation. Unfortunately, these politicians think Ugandans so naive and stupid! As I pointed out earlier, this woman has been in parliament since 1989, held so many senior positions in the Museveni gov’t. What’s in the Busoga region where she hails from? A part from extreme poverty and jiggers, what can we talk about from the region? If woman emancipation was directly impacting women, Busoga would be like New York, don’t you think?
The first lady vice president in Uganda, Specioza Kazibwe hails from Busoga, the current NRM Secretary General Justine Kasule Lumumba is from Busoga, what have they changed? It’s public knowledge that over 2.4m Ugandan girls can’t go to school when in their monthly periods, reason; they don’t have and can’t afford sanitary pads. If she claims to stand for women emancipation, let her tell us how she has helped these helpless and hopeless Ugandan girls before preaching woman emancipation.
If indeed emancipation is what she stands for, how about the 18 women that die daily when giving birth? As I write this, probably a woman is dying somewhere in a banana plantation while giving birth. It’s no secret therefore that Kadaga’s women emancipation is for the fat cats in Kampala, not her fellow women wallowing and riddled in absolute poverty deep in villages.
A man and his wife were traveling to Italy by air, as they were at the peak of the journey, the pilot announced that: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are sorry to announce that one of the engines has stopped working while the remaining one is not functioning as required therefore, we may crash in a few minutes from now. We advise that everyone should reconcile with God and settle every issues that need to be settled.”At that point, Mr. Manji touched his wife Ellista and said “Honey, please forgive me ooooo, your sister Simi that stays with us is my sex machine,
we had several abortions she has even planned to poison you on our returned from Italy so that the both of us will elope for the U.S.A please find a place in heart to forgive me.She responded “No problem dear” She continue, “since it’s a confession moment, let me also confess. Please you must also forgive me oooo, John and Esther among our three children are not your biological children. Your biological child is Victoria the rest belong to Eti Your best friend. You also remember you were robbed by arm robbers last year?” He answered “Yes I remember” she continues “I actually set you up by some gangs who robbed you because I needed to pay for my boy-friend Albrass’ tuition fee. He got admission in Oxford University in England. Even now as we are talking, I have arranged for your death through hired assassins on our return.” Mr. manji responded “no problem I have forgiven you.” Meanwhile as the confessions were going on, the pilot announced again.
“Ladies and gentlemen, is like you people are powerful men/women of faith because, God has answered your prayers, the two engines are perfectly ok and we are sure of safe landing” At that point, the whole passengers became mute instead of celebrating the good news. One of the passengers shouted “Pilot, Pilot, this plane must crash ooooooo or we will crash the plane” everybody shouted “YES oooooooo”
Dont laugh alone. Kindly share and put a smile on someones face.
Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd Company knew beforehand of a capital gains tax that Uganda later imposed, and worked aggressively to circumvent it, according to previously unreported details contained in internal correspondences.
Panama Papers: secret accounts of the rich and powerful
The company, also known as HOGL, besides deciding to fight the tax liability head-on, engineered a re-domiciliation from the Bahamas to Mauritius in a move that would have benefited it since Uganda has a double-taxation agreement with the latter.In an April 1 2016 email to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, HOGL, through a law firm, Carter-Ruck Solicitors, said the process of re-domiciliation began “long before the completion of the transaction [in Uganda] … [and] for a variety of business reasons”.
After HOGL, in 2010, sold its 50% stake in Uganda’s oil fields at US$1.5 billion (UGX5tn) to Tullow Uganda Ltd, yielding the first biggest windfall of the country’s nascent petroleum sector at the time, the government through the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) slapped a US$404 million (UGX1.4 tn) capital gains tax on the transaction.
Tullow Uganda Ltd is a subsidiary of Tullow Oil Plc, which, like HOGL at the time, is listed on the London Stock Exchange. HOGL shares’ listing and trading on the stock market was suspended on June 27 2014 and cancelled four days later, on July 1, according to information from the company’s website.
The tax dispute became a protracted legal battle and different courts, including a Ugandan Tax Appeal Tribunal and a commercial court in London, combined took four years to resolve it.
New evidence shows HOGL learned of the imminent tax liability weeks before it was officially imposed and contracted tax accountants and lawyers to fight it off as unwarranted and illegal.
In the offshore and tax haven business, nothing moves until lawyers and accountants have had their word and cut.
The oil firm settled for two options: tackle the levy head-on and, on failing, move the business and assets to a tax haven with the professional help of lawyers and accountants. Whereas HOGL was at liberty to restructure its business portfolio, including for the purpose of paying the least taxes, its re-domiciliation approach was contrived to defeat the tax liability in Uganda, according to copies of emails obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) based in Washington, D.C.
The proposal to re-domicile from the Atlantic island nation of Bahamas to Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean, the correspondences show, was “primarily due to the double tax agreement between Uganda and Mauritius”.
HOGL then contacted Bruce McNaught, a chartered accountant and then director of Hansard, the firm’s administration office in Guernsey, who on February 8 2010 wrote to Messrs Moller and Morris introducing Mossack Fonseca & Co Bahamas as the oil firm’s registered agent. The identity of Messrs Moller and Morris is not clear from the correspondences or online. Mossack Fonseca is a Panamanian law firm that helps investors to set up tax structures in Panama and other Caribbean tax havens.
“HOGL … is due to complete the sale of an asset in Uganda within the next 11 days,” McNaught noted, “Due to tax reasons emanating from Uganda, the directors have been advised by tax accountants to re-domicile HOGL to Mauritius from the Bahamas before completion [of the sale].”
He added: “The group’s tax accountants are working hard to eliminate the potential tax charge imposed by the Ugandan authorities without HOGL having to be re-domiciled, but as a second line of defence, the directors have been advised to put in place all that is necessary to effect re-domiciliation to Mauritius so that the process can be completed if it becomes necessary (which we believe to be the case).”
The double-taxation agreement enables only one of two countries where an individual or entity earns income to collect tax, and Kampala signed one with Mauritius to attract direct foreign investment, Uganda’s Foreign Affairs ministry Permanent Secretary James Mugume said on March 20 2016.
“The double-taxation principle is to benefit us, not the foreign oil companies,” Mugume told this newspaper. HOGL, however, embarked on a different game plan that people familiar with the dealings in the underworld of tax evasion say could have only been to deprive Uganda of the tax revenue.
“The proposal to re-domicile its operations is clearly an attempt at aggressive tax avoidance since the only motive is to dodge a potential tax liability,” the London-based Tax Justice Network Executive Director John Christensen, a foremost global campaigner for tax justice, noted in reply to Uganda’s Daily Monitor email enquiry.
Shortly after HOGL initiated the tax avoidance scheme, Hansard’s general counsel Jonathan Hart, in a follow up to his colleague McNaught’s email, wrote to the Mossack Fonseca & Co Bahamas office to emphasise how “extremely urgent” it was to stop the capital gains tax.
Hart asked them to share information about HOGL with the contracted two firms and “provide them with all such assistance as they may request.”
The teams then set up an impromptu conference call to discuss the nitty-gritty, shortly after McNaught, in his email, sought guidance on know-your-customer (KYC) requirements or key information to minimise risks across jurisdictions, including on anti-money laundering, to allow them to assemble the material necessary to save HOGL from a huge capital gains tax.
In July 2015, International Monetary Fund (IMF) researchers published an estimate of profits shifted by multinational companies, suggesting that developing countries such as Uganda lose around $213 billion (UGX710tn) a year, almost 2% of their national income, to this practice.
The IMF’s Monetary and Exchange Affairs department in 2000 listed Mauritius as one of the offshore financial centers where companies prefer to be headquartered to avoid paying tax, Uganda’s Observer newspaper reported, adding that the operation of offshore financial centers reduces transparency in different jurisdictions and impacts good governance.
Much of the potential benefit from attracting foreign direct investment to developing countries under double-taxation agreement is lost, Christensen noted, because of the aggressive tax avoidance practices of the companies involved.
At below 14%, Uganda’s tax to gross domestic product ratio is one of the lowest in East Africa, putting authorities on tenterhooks to muster resources from all tax heads.
Such was the approach Ugandan officials adopted in dealing with the foreign oil firms, and their meetings over the tax dispute often turned hostile, according to revelations before London’s Commercial Court. Justice Michael John Burton heard the case in which Tullow sued to recover monies it paid in capital gains tax to the Ugandan government on HOGL’s behalf.
With HOGL unwilling to pay tax, Ugandan officials, including President Yoweri Museveni and the then URA Commissioner General Allen Kagina, put their feet down and demanded the payment.
The London court heard that in one such meeting on August 3 2010 with Tullow’s head of tax Richard Inch, Kagina lost her temper and “there was shouting and she was angry”. When they met two months later, on October 23 2010, Kagina told Inch, “tax is imposed and collected by law, not compromise”.
Because Tullow, as the buyer, had yet to pay HOGL, the Ugandan government threatened not to renew its exploration licenses, which were due to expire, unless it deducted and remitted the equivalent capital gains tax.
After a hard bargain, in April 2011 Tullow capitulated and sent to the Ugandan government US$121 million (UGX403b), an equivalent of a 30% threshold down payment, antecedent to filing of tax appeals under the country’s laws. The balance of US$283 million (UGX943b) was deposited on an escrow account with Standard Chartered Bank in London, pending resolution of the tax dispute that ended in 2013.
Another US$30 million (UGX100b) was separately assessed on a US$100 million that Heritage additionally paid Tullow Uganda Ltd as cash settlement arising from a breach of the companies’ Sharing and Production Agreement.
HOGL later opposed these tax payments as “collusion” between Tullow and the Ugandan government, resulting in the London case that Justice Burton on June 14 2013 decided in Tullow’s favour.
Whereas Uganda eventually bagged its capital gains tax, the protracted flexing of muscles of rich and powerful foreign investors, often supported by their equally mighty home governments, would more likely arm-twist developing countries fraught with corruption and weak systems to capitulate than fight for what is their right. Uganda’s approach, in this instance, was an exceptionally strong act of political will.
The URA deferred comments for this story on lessons it learned from the tax dispute, but the Ugandan Parliament is currently considering proposed amendments to the country’s income tax law to help close some of the loopholes that foreign investors exploit.
According to Christensen, developing countries need to re-negotiate or revoke weak treaties, particularly on withholding tax, to prevent multinational companies from shifting their profits to tax havens. “[Their] governments should require all inwards investors to provide annual accounts based on country-by-country reporting requirements, which might reveal where profits shifting is taking place and trigger a tax audit,” he noted, proposing that African leaders support attempts by the United Nations Tax Committee to shape new global rules for taxing multinational companies.
HOGL, alongside Hardman Resources Pty which the parent Tullow Oil Plc later acquired, and Tullow Uganda Ltd, gained a reputation in Uganda by striking the first commercially viable quantities of the hydrocarbon deposits, bringing the country closer to becoming an oil producer.
Although the intent of HOGL, which has since left Uganda, to use offshoring to avoid tax liability was referenced in the London case, this is the first time emails to expedite the scheme have been leaked.
This story was produced by Times Media in conjunction with the African Network of Centers for Investigative Reporting and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni addresses the nation after being re-elected, from his home in Kirihura district, Uganda, February 21. An analysis of Uganda’s election results shows that Museveni polled 100 percent in certain parts of Uganda.James Akena/Reuters Ugandan opposition parties are faced with a familiar conundrum—fairly sure that the election they just lost was rigged, but unsure how to prove it.
There is evidence that President Yoweri Museveni’s main challenger, Kizza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), made significant gains in many parts of the country, especially urban areas. It is also clear that intimidation and repression were widespread, including the repeated detention of Besigye in the weeks of and after polling day. But neither domestic courts nor international election monitors are likely to declare an election unfree or unfair on the basis of this kind of background manipulation, although both the European Union and U.S. State Department found the election process to be marked by a lack of transparency and worrying irregularities. At the end of the day, it is only hard evidence of ballot box stuffing or faulty vote tallying that is likely to sway them.
So, do the results, published by the Electoral Commission (EC) in almost complete form towards the end of February, point to a rigged election? And if so, how was it done?
When evaluating election results it is important to keep in mind two questions:
- Is there clear evidence of rigging that systematically benefitted one side over another?
- Was this rigging sufficient to change the result of the election?
In many elections, we see one of these questions answered affirmatively but not the other. In the Ugandan context, Museveni officially received 60.62 percent of the vote, with Besigye on 35.61 percent—a gap of almost 2.5 million votes. So, with these two questions in mind, what do the results tell us?
The results: Election rigging, Ugandan style
As expected, urban areas including Kampala voted overwhelmingly for the opposition, with Besigye winning a presidential majority in 14 constituencies, up from just 4 in 2011. These results fit with reports by journalists and commentators during the campaign. But in other ways, the election results appear far-fetched. In national elections, it is practically impossible that 100 percent of registered voters at a particular polling station would turn out to vote. Yet the results for this election show a high number of such cases clustered in particular areas.
In Kiruhura District—in the heartland of Museveni’s National Resistance Movement (NRM)—67 polling stations logged highly improbable turnouts of 100 percent. Forty-three of those stations made the even more dubious claim of 100 percent of votes in favor of the incumbent. In the same district, a further 59 stations recorded turnout of between 98 and 99.99 percent of the registered voters. The total turnout in Kiruhura District was 86.87 percent, contributing more than 120,000 votes for the president or 91.35 percent of the district’s total valid ballots. In Nakaseke District, two sub-counties had 14 stations between them with 100 percent turnout and 100 percent of the votes in favor of the incumbent out of a total of 29 polling stations. Taken in total, all the polling stations across the two sub-counties recorded a 97 percent turnout, with over 97 percent of the valid votes going to Museveni. This pattern was repeated across multiple other districts.
The suspect results tend to come from rural districts—where media coverage and opposition party networks are generally weaker—and NRM strongholds, where opposition party agents are least likely to feel safe in monitoring procedures. The results suggest an election rigged in favor of one side, and with significant attention paid to where manipulation was—and was not—likely to be detected.
But this conclusion is cold comfort to opposition parties for two reasons. Firstly, the NRM has been careful to prevent so-called over-voting. Vote inflation looks to have been used to ensure 100 percent turnout and 100 percent support for Museveni, but no polling station recorded a turnout of over 100 percent, and so no electoral offense is represented, strictly speaking. Second, the total votes cast at these polling stations was considerably smaller than the overall gap between the two candidates. This evidence therefore fails to prove that Museveni got less votes than Besigye. Further data would be required for this, but it is extremely difficult to collect, and in spite of some questionable results there is little of the kind of hard evidence that would be needed to persuade a court of law.
In part, this is because of the strategies employed by the NRM government since voting ended. Ballot stuffing was reported in a number of districts, but it is the opaque transmission of results from polling stations to district tallying centers and then to the National Tallying Centre that has raised the most questions regarding the reliability of the Electoral Commission’s counting process. Attempts by the opposition to collate their own results were thwarted by police raids of party tallying centers, the seizure of computers and equipment, and the alleged intimidation and disappearances of party agents.
The EC is also culpable. Three weeks after the election, the commission still hasn’t released the results of the parliamentary vote—this would provide an opportunity to cross check the high levels of voter turnout in the presidential polls. In Kiruhura in the 2011 election, 22.45 percent more voters participated in the presidential elections than the parliamentary ballot, despite both being held simultaneously. Opposition candidate Amama Mbabazi and his movement are challenging the results in court with a petition that must be decided by March 31, but the case has been hampered by a suspicious robbery at their lawyers’ chambers by 30 assailants—some reportedly in police uniform—in which only the election case files and relevant computers were taken.
A warning sign for the NRM
A danger of election rigging, even if it does not change the actual result, is that it undermines the credibility of the government. This has clearly happened in Uganda, where Besigye has won a moral, if not an actual, victory. Rigged results also distort information on government popularity, potentially leading to a false sense of achievement and the low prioritization of much needed reforms.
Moving away from the overall figures, which show an overwhelming victory for Museveni, voting patterns in polling stations at police posts, stations and barracks tell a story of a ruling party in decline. In Gulu, at the barracks housing for police and their families, the station polled 62 percent in favor of the opposition leader, higher than the district total of 50.67 percent. In Ntungamo, at the police headquarters, votes for the opposition were particularly high—53.66 percent relative to the district total of 30.74 percent.
Typically, polling stations like these reflect the broader patterns of the communities in which they are based. If police are voting in large numbers at these stations, they are likely also voting for the opposition in numbers similar to the rest of their communities, potentially calling the loyalty of the police force into question. This hasn’t gone unnoticed, with police officers and their families being evicted from some quarters in suspected retribution for their voting choices. Police loyalty is particularly important for a regime that is increasingly reliant on coercion during periods of insecurity, such as elections. It might also mean a more prominent role for a better-resourced and more dependable enforcer—the military.
Ultimately, the 2016 poll suggests that the Ugandan state is less secure in its electoral legitimacy, opting to ensure favorable outcomes through subversive means. It seems clear that there was vote inflation, but this is unlikely to result in either observers or the courts intervening to challenge the final result, as opposition parties face the incredibly difficult task of trying to prove that it was sufficient to change the poll’s outcome. Yet although Museveni may have been declared the winner again, he is unlikely to rest easy in the knowledge that his mandate, and hence his legitimacy, is on the wane.
Nicole Beardsworth is a political analyst at the University of Warwick. Nic Cheeseman is associate professor of African Politics at the University of Oxford and the co-editor of the journal African Affairs. Nicole tweets @nixiib and Nic tweets @fromagehomme
FDC preacher Doreen Nyanjura, said Turinawe was surrounded by heavy military police in Gayaza town earlier on Sunday.
Ugandans amaze me..up to when will we continue coming to help at the last minute. .even when we help we turn it into showbiz..Which type of a peoples president cant mobilise funds to treat a single patient?I thought by being a prominent doctor he could have made reliable private hospital facilities instead of him making petrol stations..
One is a self proclaimed pastor raised by the dictator himself another is a former political commissar for ten years..Have Ugandans become that cheap to follow whatever opposes the government? MR BESIGYE SAYS VOTES WHERE STOLEN..WHAT ABOUT THE FEW MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT U GOT.THE DISTRICT CHAIRMEN?UNLESS YOU LAY A STRONG FOUNDATION YOU WILL NEVER BE THE PRESIDENT..I BEG THE POLICE TO TAKE YOU TO BUTABIKA INSTEAD OF NAGALAMA..TUUKOYE KATEMBA WAMWE.
A man and his wife were traveling to Italy by air, as they were at the peak of the journey, the pilot announced that: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are sorry to announce that one of the engines has stopped working while the remaining one is not functioning as required therefore, we may crash in a few minutes from now. We advise that everyone should reconcile with God and settle every issues that need to be settled.”
