Migration!

There is a new-born in the family and Dad likes the new-born more! Dad will therefore be updating this new-born more frequently and is cutting the umblical cord that ties me and my other sibling with him (Males are not good mothers at all). So, find us at Words and Noise. That is where Dad is making Noise and writing Words from and at.

Why the human rights justification for the invasion of Libya is faulty.

Human rights are generally defined as entitlements which accrue to human beings for merely being human. Human rights have since the foundation of the United Nations been classified into two major categories, socio-economic rights and civil-political rights.

Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, the right to housing, and the right to health while Civil and political rights protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Throughout history, notably during the cold-war era, the west insisted on civil political rights as the only rights and as mutually inclusive of socio-economic rights while the east argued that socio-economic rights are the only rights worth the tag and are mutually inclusive of the civil and political rights. This divergence in opinion has outlived the cold war. To-date, in China, it is understood that a citizen’s right to housing, food, work, health, education among others is more important than the right to free speech, sexual orientation and others which the United States of America may consider the bedrock of the other rights.

Muammar Gaddafi’s thinking as espoused in the Green book naturally falls on the China-way of thinking. Thus Libya has in the forty two years Gaddafi has ruled the country attained one of the highest standard of living, not only in Africa and the Arab world but also arguably in the world. It is reasonably understood that whereas the United States of America is reputed as a developed nation, the poorest man in Libya is incomparable to the poorest in America; the latter will perceive the former as rich.

The noise that has of recent been made regarding Gaddafi’s seemingly endless rule over Libya is largely a matter that borders on ideological thinking and preference and detestation for and of socialism and capitalism on either side. That Gaddafi largely ensured that Libyans of population strength of 6,461,454 as at July 2010 attain education free of charge, free quality health services proven by a Life expectancy of 77.47 years generally, male 75.18 years and female 79.88 years is no mean feat.

The “mighty” United States of America knows the opposition the Health proposals by the Obama administration went through. Thus, some Americans do not have access to what an ordinary Libyan has access to. We must admit however that the ordinary Libyan would/cannot not express him/herself like the broke and poor ordinary American.

The dichotomy between socio-economic rights and civil and political rights is largely academic, all rights, socio-economic or civil-political are interdependent and mutually inclusive. The Libya-America comparison is thus a story of two brothers building their houses. Each house needs both civil-political and socio-economic rights to be complete. However, each brother prefers to emphasize one of the rights against the other as they build. America has built well so far by implementing civil and political rights but there is huge deficit regarding socio-economic rights, we must admit. Libya has also excelled in building its own but has only worked on socio-economic rights without considering the civil and political rights.

In the process of these brothers building, America (in this case representing the west) is however smitten by their brother Libya’s progress and has put a stop on his own house to first destroy Libya’s house and also force it to start on the civil-political rights path in the process destroying the progress made in the socio-economic rights realm. At the end of the day, the Libyan is the loser. The progress made in the socio-economic rights realm is lost for good. They have to start afresh to build the civil and political rights realm and following America’s instruction will concentrate on that and forget the progress they once made. As for America, destroying Libya’s progress is not only inhuman but also evil and immoral. To hide behind the human rights cloak is not only shameful but also hypocritical because they know that Libya’s progress was huge and admirable!

Why you should desist from giving your law savvy friend the coveted “counsel” title

It has become common to hear people refer to their friends and colleagues who are law students or practicing lawyers as “counsel”. Interestingly even among the law student community, it is not unusual to hear one student refer to another as “counsel” anywhere and at anytime in any circumstance. Is every lawyer “a counsel” as the common speak seems to suggest? To appreciate the depth of the problem with the title “counsel”, we need to look at all possible titles to a person whose professional attachment is the practice of law with particular regard to Ugandan legal practice.

A lawyer according to the 7th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is a general term for a person who is trained and qualified to advise people about the law, to prepare legal documents for them and/or to represent them in a court of law. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines a lawyer as a person learned in the law. Mr. Francis Wazarwahi Bwengye writes in his book; Legal Practice in Uganda; The Law, Practice and Conduct of Advocates at page 16; “... there are notable lawyers who have not been advocates. These include law professors, corporation secretaries, business managers and others with academic qualifications in law. … These people have all the justification to call themselves lawyers.” My understanding of Bwengye’s view is that graduates of law can use the lawyer tag even when they are not advocates.

Who then is an advocate? An advocate according to the Advocates Act, Cap 267, Laws of Uganda, 2000, section 1(a) is any person whose name is duly entered upon the roll. The roll is according to section 1 (m), (l) and 7 of the Advocates Act, Cap 267 means the roll of advocates kept by the chief registrar of the High Court. One becomes an Advocate following the provisions of the Advocates Act, Cap 267 and compliance with such requirements, relating to instruction, examination and otherwise as to the acquisition of professional skill and experience as specified in regulations made for that purpose by the Law Council. The process of becoming an advocate is a long winding one but briefly, one must complete four years of university study thereby attaining the LLB qualification, and then pursue the one year postgraduate bar course at The Law Development Centre and the satisfy set requirements and go through elaborate procedures before they can have their name entered on the roll of Advocates of the High Court and issued with a practicing certificate.

There are individuals who have completed four years of university study and attained the LLB qualification only or have even completed the one year postgraduate bar course at The Law Development Centre but stopped there. They are lawyers but not advocates because to be an advocate, one must have their name entered on the roll of Advocates of the High Court of Uganda following the elaborate procedures and requirements set by the Law Council.

Before we address our minds to how problematic the apparent use of the title “counsel” is, let us first consider the title attorney and Esq. also in use in relation to legal professionals. The 6th edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Law states that an attorney is a person who is given power to act on behalf of another in business or legal matters. This is done by signing a power of attorney. An attorney according to the 7th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary is a lawyer especially one who can act for somebody in court. Thus, whereas in common speak, an attorney can mean a lawyer or advocate, in legal language, an attorney is the bearer of a power of attorney, not necessarily a lawyer. In the United States however, an attorney at law (or attorney-at-law) means a practitioner in a court of law who is legally qualified to prosecute and defend actions in court on behalf of clients.

Esq. is the title used after the name of a male or female lawyer according to the 7th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Wikipedia agrees that the suffix Esq. frequently used in the United States, most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and applies to both men and women. Wikipedia adds that although many attorneys in the United States use the form of address Esq. when signing correspondence or filing documents with a court, it is usually used only when the reference is in the third person, such as addressing an envelope, making a formal introduction, or on business letterhead. Esq. is never used with any pre-nominal form of address, such as Dr., Mr. or Ms. Thus, Brian Bwesigye, Esq. or Mr. Brian Bwesigye would be correct, but Mr. Brian Bwesigye, Esq. would be incorrect.

Let us turn to the problematic title; “counsel”. The 7th edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines Counsel as a lawyer or group of lawyers representing somebody in court. According to Wikipedia, the word counsel is used to mean either a single person who pleads a cause, or collectively, the body of barristers engaged in pleading a case. Barrister, a word in use in the United Kingdom means a lawyer in Britain who has the right to argue cases in the higher courts of law.

The word counsel is thus used during court proceedings to refer to the advocates in court who are arguing the case before court in that particular court session. Wikipedia notes that it is customary to use the third person when addressing a barrister instructed on a case: "Counsel is asked to advise" rather than "You are asked to advise". The word has no plural thus “counsels” in reference to more than one person does not exist.

It is important to emphasize a few things; firstly that in Uganda, only advocates argue cases before judges of the High Court and other superior courts, secondly, that the use of the word “counsel” is limited to a court session and to the advocates arguing the case. Out of the courtroom, the use of the word Counsel to refer to anyone is erroneous. Even in the courtroom, only advocates arguing a case are referred to as counsel. The law students should therefore relax and read harder, you are not yet qualified for the title of “counsel”, even when you become advocates, you shall only enjoy the reference when in court and arguing a case. My fellow bar course students, we should only savor the weekly moots when we get to argue mock cases, because then we are in imitations of real court proceedings and as “advocates” we qualify for the tag, “counsel”, but then, even then, it will be a mock title, like the moot is a mock case.

So, the next time you want to utter the word “counsel” to refer to a lawyer or law student, remember this. Those with non-law backgrounds might be forgiven for misusing the title, but how the law students and lawyers explain the abuse of the title is even worse than the non-law public. How unlearned!

Tribalism and Tribal Identities in Uganda, no need for polarization.

On Friday 22nd, October, 2010, while at Uganda Christian University, one of the lecturers that attended the competition that the Uganda Law Students Society and the International Committee for the Red Cross organize annually came close to me and asked, 'Are you Kenyan?' I was not surprised as much because my neighbor had in the last week observed that I have a Kenyan accent. But I didn't want to assume, I asked the lecturer why she thought I was Kenyan. She told me about my curly hair, that I speak so fast and yes, my accent!

In 2006, fate threw me to Pallisa where I was working in a restaurant. Pallisa is a melting pot of tribes; it has Bagwere, Basoga and Itesots among others. I was always bemused at how it was so easy for people to greet me in Ateso, than Lusoga or Rugwere. Almost everyone thought I was an Itesot. When I engaged one of my co-workers on the matter, she told me that all my physical features are Itesot, from my dark complexion to my height and small body.

Later in 2007, as we lined up at Makerere university freedom square (was helping a friend applying to join the university), some two tall boys fluked some space in front of us in the line. Annoyed at the arrogance, I told them that they should respect us and go behind. One of them sneered at me and blurted in heavy Runyankore, 'ogu omwairu egyi agyetsire Gulu?' meaning 'does this "mwairu' (Runyankore for servant) think this is Gulu?' I understand Runyankore because my mother tongue Rukiga is linked to it, but to this man, I was from Gulu, probably an Acholi. How wrong! Pretending not to have understood, I pestered them further and then they responded more rudely and even referred to me as a 'mukooko' (Runyakitara for animal)! That is when I lost my cool and I guess others in the line had been equally annoyed by the couple of these arrogant and no doubt discriminatory boys. We united and threw them out of the line, almost physically.

So, Brian Bwesigye, before disclosing his surname that always offers a free clue to his tribe has been mistaken for a Kenyan, an Itesot, an Acholi and a Rwandan (Tutsi)! Yet I am one simple Mukiga, born among the Basyaba of Maziba, Kabale! To judge a person's identity by their looks and physique is folly. Many a time when people realize that I am a Mukiga, the first comment is that I do not look as strong as Bakiga! My height, from an early age has always attracted comparisons to the Tutsi, my dark complexion when I started living in Kampala also attracted comparisons to Acholi and when I lived in Pallisa, I was a typical Itesot! That is not to mention my accent when speaking English, some have said it is Kenyan, others have said that it is Rukiga-influenced!

But that does not mean that tribal identity is non-existent because it can not easily be discerned by physical features. It is in fact important. Those who have lived and stayed with me, (they no longer judge my tribe by my looks) easily tell you that I am a Mukiga. My identity comes through many aspects of character. You can not see them the first time we meet. My ancestry, my history, my culture, my mother-tongue, my likes and dislikes, the taboos in my life, the values that my parents, community and folklore have inculcated in me are all that make me a Mukiga! Do not take it for granted that the hills of Kabale have also shaped this identity. Our interaction with nature shapes how we think and what we think and no doubt the hills have shaped that. One who has lived on the shores of a lake has their identity shaped by the lake.

And this is the identity the Baganda yearn for when they say there is one radio in Uganda (kingdom owned CBS), it is the identity the Bahima jealously guard including using force, when they clothe their fascination with large patches of land in legitimate claims of bonafide occupancy. It is the same identity that the Karamajong also want, despite the fact that other pastoralists like them get preferential treatment. The Rwezururu kingdom inhabitants of the Rwenzori mountain ranges want the same right to have their identity recognized, the same for Banyoro, Acholi etc. That does not mean we are dividing the country, it means we are uniting the country as we celebrate our diversity! So, why is there polarization among the different identities? Because politicians have messed us up! They have attempted to inflict their own identity on us, to destroy our identity in favor of theirs! And to judge our qualities and entitlements on the basis of our identity, than merit and citizenship!

Thus when Col. Dr. Besigye contested for FDC president with Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu in FDC, we did not hear any voice against "tribalism", when one won, now a one Nabillah is saying that FDC is ruled by "westerners", an ambiguous identity because as a Mukiga, to be humped together with a Muhima does not augur well for my identity! And was Col. Besigye voted for being a Mukiga and Muntu not voted for his tribal identity? And who did the Baganda vote because there was no Muganda in the race? Do people like Nabillah and Betty Kamya want an election where the eight plus tribes of Uganda are having a candidate each? It is shallow to resort to tribe to justify selfish ambitions. We should vote people because they deserve and have the qualities we want. And we should out rightly reject those who undermine our identities, those who look down upon us when we respect our cultures (like kneeling for our kings). Those who use tribal identity to divide us like one that once wrote that Bakiga should not contest for elective positions have no place in the Uganda we deserve. Our diversity should not polarize relations among us; our diversity should fortify our efforts to develop as country!

Ugandan media buried beyond resurrection?

A blogger named Tumwijukye tickled a topic I have been thinking about for years now in her post titled "Death of the Watchdog" (read the post here http://ugandaninsomniac.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/death-of-the-watchdog/)


The revelations made by the links in the blog make a moralist want to choke, the radical want to launch a revolutionary war (of words or of guns, whichever). Well, they added to some baggage that I have heard, seen, sensed and I thought my eyes were already wet with tears. Well, I did not cry, because it hit me that mere tears cannot help the situation! I would certainly lick them off my cheek and with them, I would lick the worries and the Ugandan media would continue losing its dignity and without dignity, credibility would be lost.


Then, a thought invaded my brain, maybe journalists need a Uganda Journalists' Society (like Uganda Law Society for lawyers)! This thought clarified itself by telling me that this society would have a disciplinary arm. Then I asked the thought, who would comprise of the body? Who would appoint members? By an election? Government appointments?


Then, my memory told me of the existence of the Uganda Media Council! First wait and I say something about that council.The council was established by the Press and Journalist Act of 1995 and charged with the regulation of the Mass Media. From their website (http://www.mediacouncil.ug/council_members.php), I gather that the members are Dr. Gorretti Nassanga (Chairperson), Mr. James Walugembe, Mr. Katebalirwe Amooti, Mr. Wafula Oguttu, Mr. Paul Mukasa, Mr. Paulo Ekuchu, Ms. Beatrice Were, Mr. Kawooya Mwebe, Mr. Sunday Wilson Ojiambo and Ms. Lina Zedriga. The council has a disciplinary committee. This council has heard around nineteen cases. My facebook friends that have followed my status updates since August easily recognise the last member of this council. At a personal level, I wonder which justice she dispenses, knowing that she left her magisterial job under unclear circumstances, left the job she had at Gulu university fearing a probe and with the recent turn of events at APILU where she is under a probe, to hear that she is adjudicating a matter makes the whole matter a joke! I respect some members of the council like Wafula Oguttu and others but why keep the company of individuals like Ms. Lina Zedriga who could assault an employee (that employee is yours truly) as a member of a council meant to regulate the media? And I have not mentioned the list of claims of forgery claims on her name and other undignified acts and incidencies of misconduct. Which dignity can such an undignified member instill in the media? Thus with the Media council, I do not think there is much hope for any help in regard to instilling dignity in the fourth estate. And it is not because of Ms. Lina alone, thus do not jump to dispute the African saying that one girl that produces before marriage taints the whole village (loosely translated Rukiga saying). The general public generally seems not to apprecaite the role of the council, you just need to see the statitistics of cases filed at the council and that does not mean that there are no cases to report. You perhaps remember the infamous role of the council in the "Vagina Monologues" saga sometime back!

Someone remembers that there is a Uganda Journalists' Association. I know it more for its scandals than its good work, I can not risk to talk about its good side which I do not know. (Read further on the dignity of this body here; http://ababaka.com/cms/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=40&func=view&catid=15&id=9568&lang=en)


We know what the Mutabazi led Broadcasting council can do. Don't we remember the record closure of more than three radio stations in two days? And Mr. Mutabazi owns some media (broadcasting to be exact) entities as well, meaning he is the judge-goat judging fellow goats! I do not see any dignity in that.


One asks, where should those interested in an independent and dignified Ugandan media turn?I know a predictable comment that there should be a media tribunal like that proposed by the Zuma led government in South Africa, I am not sure that is a one-fix-all solution! I can not point out an exact and precise solution now and here, so should I cry and lick my worries?

UGANDA’S EDUCATION SYSTEM KEEPS US BEHIND!

Mr. Jesse Yesiga, the protagonist of Nick Twinamatsiko's novel, Jesse's Jewel studied Civil Engineering at university. He however had to study Structural engineering afresh courtesy of his employer when he was given a job, and he realized that university had not taught him anything useful as regards structural engineering! This same Jesse Yesiga, loved Literature so much besides his love for Mathematics! He actually attempted to offer PCM/L at A’ level and was refused on the basis that he could not combine an Arts subject like Literature with Science subjects! This same Jesse Yesiga however went on to read all sorts of literary works so much that he says when in the library he found himself reading more of Shakespeare than his Engineering notes and that is besides his immense love for mathematics!

This autobiographical novel is written by a civil engineer that a reviewer and literary critic Dennis Muhumuza has described as the civil engineer who builds words and sentences. Nick owns a publishing firm, has published two novels (Jesse's Jewel and my best, Chwezi Code) and an anthology of poems. Before you think that he digressed from Engineering, I should add that Nick is a lecturer of Civil Engineering and owns Kisaana Consults, a Kampala based structural engineering and construction management firm! Nick last studied Literature as a subject in his O'level but you should read his novels for you to understand that our Ugandan education badly needs reform judging from the quality of these novels coming from a man not trained to be a writer up to university level.

My opinion is that our education system should be remodeled to focus on developing students' talents' than mechanically instructing them to be what they are genetically not meant to be. I know a story of another man who was a hit in the media until he joined the European Union as a communications expert. This man had offered science subjects as we know them at secondary level up to A’ level. He was offered government sponsorship to study Veterinary medicine! He turned the offer down because he had set his target at human medicine! That is when he joined the faculty of social sciences! From there, he joined the media, literally working in all genres of the media including Television, print media, radio etc. Watching him on TV reading news, or listening to him moderating a talk show or merely reading his story in the print media made you believe that he had studied mass communication from the best journalism schools. Yet he had not even done Mass communication at university, neither had he offered an Arts combination at A’ level! He had been engrossed in studying enzymes and other biology related stuff for his secondary life, yet this he would throw to the gutter when he decided to follow his talent! Similar examples abound! I know another who actually studied veterinary medicine but has since found his feet fitting properly in the media. I should also add that Mr. Francis Bwengye was a public health official before studying law, and he is to date named among the top lawyers in town. There are also examples of those who have offered courses as law, medicine, engineering and have since never done anything worth writing home about in those fields, simply because their feet are misplaced!

I just want to emphasize that those who identify what they are born to be and their talents have without doubt excelled at their crafts and professions! Those who attempt to be mechanically made into something they are born not to be, struggle all through their professional life and can never reach the level of efficiency that those with talent are known for, even when the latter have no university or formal training in the areas where their talents lie! Now, one wonders, if everyone's talents are identified and developed, how far would Uganda be?

What the state of Electoral Democracy in the East African Community means!

All the East African community partner states have elections in the period from 2010 - 2012. However in four of these states, there are doubts on whether these elections will be free and fair. Far from the fairness of the elections themselves, talk of violence is rife in the four partner states of Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya. Tanzania also has elections in 2010.

In Burundi, the only candidate in the Presidential Election slated for June 28, 2010 is the incumbent alone after opposition candidates boycotted citing failures in the Electoral managers;

In Rwanda, Victoire Ingabire, an intending opposition candidate in the August 2010 election is under house arrest, other forms of opposition also stifled; of late the govt under attack for a suspected assasination attempt at an exiled former army chief;

In Uganda, the opposition alliance of five parties has been demonstrating against the Electoral Commision; with skirmishes that have pitted youths and women against the police and militant groups of soliders disguising as civilians, meanwhile the president threatened to cut off the head of the biggest kingdom in the country where kingdom officilas have resigned to contest elections in 2011.

In Kenya, talk of violence is rife with bombs aimed at an assembly in the city... National elections will be held in 2012 in Kenya!

With this brief peek into the state of electoral democracy and governance in the four partner states of the East African community, isn't it well-founded fear for some Tanzanians who in 2008 preffered a go-slow on the fast-tracking of the East African community?

Some Notes For The New Makerere Law Society (MLS) Leaders.

Warning; This post might be longer than the normal posts on this page.

On Friday, 16th, April, 2010, law students at Makerere University went to the polls to select new leaders for 2010/2011. I personally voted my favourite candidates, some who went through and some who failed. I congratulate those who emerged successful and commiserate with those who did not win the hearts of the majority, especially the two “Brians”, Mr. Manyire Brian, one of the students who attended the founders’ meeting of the Makerere University Society of International Law and Mr. Bakampa Brian, the firebrand that characterised the student activism at Kigezi High School for the four years I was there and whose guts and candour always reassure me of a great future for our country. These notes are meant for all, whether winners, losers or even mere voters.

The notes are picked from a Report I co-authored with Mr. Black Moses Nyeko and Ms. Ivy Amoko after the MLS Speaker had appointed us to investigate alleged Mismanagement of the 2009 Annual MLS Dinner Funds following a petition signed by Mr. Male Hassan (LLB II), Reg. No. 07/U/880 and other students of the Faculty of Law requesting for the expulsion and an order of refund of the misappropriated funds against Mr. KAMAU Simon (President), Mr. SEBUUFU Usaama (Organizing Secretary) and Mr. KIWANDA Yusuf (Treasurer).

I have clustered the notes under four sub-headings; I request that you take heed of all the sub-headings to clearly understand my message. It might help you during your term of office at MLS.

Background.
During the course of the investigation, we invited the individuals against whom accusations had been levelled to interface with the commission but they all refused to meet us. They instead manipulated the office of the Inspector General of Government (IGG) of MLS to pen documents challenging the work of the commission. We however managed to meet some eminent members of the MLS including the petitioners, those who participated in the organisation of the dinner itself and those who merely have interest as members of the society. The people interviewed and gave public testimonies included Mr. Male Hassan, Mr. Jamiru Mujurizi, Mr. Brian Bakampa, Mr. Agaba Simon, Mr. John Teira, Mr. Humphrey Tumwesigye and Hon. Meddie Mulumba among others.

The Findings.
We broadly found that there were gross irregularities in receiving and spending funds meant for the 2009 MLS Annual Dinner; Improper Conduct and Mismanagement of the Dinner proceedings; that no one took the responsibility to account for funds received and how they were spent and that specific individuals in the MLS leadership should be held liable for abuse of office and embezzlement of funds.

It was found that selection of members of the dinner organising committee was based on selfish interests of the President personally following no set criterion. That the commercial sponsors of the Dinner including Post Bank U Ltd, Nile Breweries Ltd and Club Sway among others id not receive the exact performance of the terms given to MLS as part of the sponsorship deals clinched with them. That the said dinner organising committee was given a lot of money for facilitation referred to as “over facilitation” by one of the witnesses. It was found that for a short distance as the Faculty to Buganda Road, one would be given a sum of 20.000/= for their transport.
The commission also found out that individuals within MLS notably the President borrowed money on behalf of MLS which was not sanctioned and MLS had not paid them at the time of releasing the report. Mr. John Teira told the commission that he had not been paid the amount of money the President picked from hi on behalf of MLS. Some members of the committee who had lent their personal money to the committee decided to pay themselves by diverting the moneys they were collecting to pay the debts.
Creative accounting during organising meetings was engaged in by notable individuals. We received evidence that the agreed contract price for printing dinner cards was 1200/= for each card while the organising secretary, Mr. Usama Sebuufu declared to the organising committee that the cards were made at a cost of 1700/=.

Further, the president reported having received from State House a sum of 2,000,000/= yet several accounts were told to the committee with considerable evidence that the amount was much more than 2.000.000/=. One account from a witness who requested anonymity is to the effect that State House released 5.000.000/= while another account puts the figure at 10.000.000/=. The fact that only one member of the committee was involved in this matter, that is Mr. Kamau Simon makes the truth scarcer but the allegation that the amount was under declared was corroborated.

Several dinner cards were also issued without payment and little where payment was made. All members of the organising committee were given cards to attend the event for free. Members of the executive also gave out cards for free towards the final day. Mr. Jamiru Mujurizi confessed to having been given a free card by a member of the executive yet he was not even a member of the organising committee.

The President personally allowed some finalists to pay a less amount of 25.000/= compared the others who were supposed to pay 30.000/=. Evidence established that most finalists did not pay any coin and had cards given to them by the president, MLS. Further, on the real day of the dinner, cards were being sold as less as 10.000/=. All this resulted in an influx of cards which did not correspond to the paid up moneys.

According to Simon Agaba, as corroborated by Humphrey Tumwesigye on the day of the dinner, coupons were meant to be issued to those who would present invitation cards. The coupons were originally meant to be used for food purposes but were also used for entrance purposes. According to the testimonies of Simon and Humphrey, the students responsible for distributing the coupons before the organising secretary and the president arbitrarily removed them from the role, the coupons issued were fewer than the invitation cards that were in circulation by more than 50%. This therefore meant that some people would be denied entrance for lack of coupons yet they had invitation cards. This caused confusion and a scuffle at the entrance as students demanded to enter the dinner venue with their invitation cards, yet the security guard wanted them to present coupons which they did not have.

According to the hotel manger, they had been paid to serve only 150 people and had prepared food for only that number. This therefore meant that the more than two hundred guests that turned up for the function were not all guaranteed of food. As a matter of fact, only those who came early got food to eat. A few others were able to get food after shouting their voices hoarse. This happened after the person of the organising secretary and president had pleaded with the manager of the hotel to allow them more plates of food than planned. The manager insisted on having a surety before he could allow, and the dean was contacted and he refused. Some witnesses who met the commission said that having entered the venue late after a physical brawl to allow them in, they found when all the food was finished and in fact ever ate.

The performance of the ushers at the function came in the spotlight mainly in regard to the treatment if the VIPs who turned up for the function. Prof. Hon. George Wilson Kanyeihamba by his own complaint at the dinner and as witnessed by Mr. John Teira was not ushered in the function in a befitting manner. According to Mr. John Teira’s account, the justice of the Supreme Court was asked for a coupon by a couple of ushers which prompted Teira himself to go forward to welcome the justice. After attracting media attention, Teira narrated that the justice was swarmed by MLS executive committee members struggling to be captured by the camera near the Justice.

The selection of the chief guest raised issues of protocol exhibited the highest level of inexperience, ignorance and disorganisation. Prof. Kanyeihamba had been contacted before to officiate at the dinner yet when State House confirmed giving a contribution towards the budget, the chief guest was changed to the President of the Republic of Uganda. At this level, Prof. Kanyeihamba was not updated on the developments. Thus when the President delegated to the Attorney General as Chief Guest, there was an incident of disrespect of protocol. The commission finds that due to greed for donations, the position of chief guest was misused and the whole faculty was embarrassed especially when members of the bench were practically told to rise to respect the Attorney General.

The mode of awarding students at the dinner was not clear. With the heavy involvement of the treasurer in the organisation of the event and the unclear mode of selection of awardees, it is a clear case of conflict on interest for him to receive an award at the same dinner. Ample evidence also exists that other awardees as Mr. Chege Daniel Kamau, save from being the president’s personal friend and country mate, the only role he has played at faculty is managing Mr. Kamau Simon’s personal campaign to become Law Society president. To honour him with an MLS award for services he rendered to the person of the president is to personalise MLS thus abuse of office.

It was indicated on the invitation that arrival at the dinner venue was 5:00pm. By 5:00 pm however, only two students Mr. Humphrey Tumwesigye and Mr. Agaba Simon had reached. The other officials arrived an hour later. Evidence has revealed that Prof. Kakooza Joseph, founder member of the Faculty of Law, now the chairperson, Uganda Law Reform Commission arrived at the venue at around 4:15pm and found only two people who had given him a coupon in return for his card. Lacking company the good old professor left the hotel promising to return later. That when he returned, there was chaos and a series of brawls at the entrance and he left for good.

Having been told that their presentation on the program was at 6:00pm, the Post Bank marketing team arrived at the venue of the function at around 05:00pm. There was normal business at the hotel and in the view of the marketing team, no dinner was scheduled to happen at the hotel, so they left.

As laid out above, several issues arose in the course of the preparation and holding of the dinner itself. It is only prudent that the MLS executive was expected to claim responsibility and account for all that happened at the dinner, both positive and negative. What the President did was to congratulate everyone about the dinner and noting that the dinner was hugely successful. No report was produced even up to now.

The MLS constitution in article 30 provides that the treasurer shall ordinarily cause to be submitted and laid before the executive, IGG and the general assembly. The dinner happened on 2nd, May, 2009 which means the report was due by 9th, May, 2009. The commission officers received appointment letters on 25th, May, 2009, twenty three days after the dinner. Still there was no report. We released the report on 04th, September 2009, one hundred and thirteen days after the dinner and there is no report yet. Today, in April, 2010, there is no accountability at all detailing what happened at the dinner and how much money was raised and how it was spent.

In an undated communiqué from the IGG pasted on notice boards at the faculty, he purported to have waived the seven days requirement for the presentation of a report, after allegedly receiving a request letter from the treasurer and organising secretary asking for the waiver. After intense Investigation, the commission established that no such letter was written to the IGG asking for the waiver. There is also sufficient evidence that the communiqué by the IGG was penned by the President, Mr. Kamau Simon and as a matter of fact, the different copies of the communiqué bore different signatures with some which had no signature at all. The machinations continued even to interfere with the work of the commission. All the implicated officials declined to meet the commission and effectively discouraged other members of the society from meeting the commission citing the IGG’s communiqué which in any case, one of them penned it himself.

In the view of the commission, from its findings, there were strong reasons for the accusation levied on Mr. Kamau Simon, Mr. Usama Sebuufu and Mr. Kiwanda Yusuf. The commission added Mr. Wasswa Bengo among those who were responsible for the abuses of office.

The commission opined that Mr. Kamau Simon had a case to answer for false accounting under article 36(4) of the MLS constitution, gross misconduct and irresponsibility under Article 36(3) (d) of the MLS constitution. That Kamau’s forgery of a communiqué and impersonating the IGG, he did not only abuse his office but also can be charged for forgery and uttering of false documents. Under the principle of collective responsibility, Mr. Kamau Simon was the head of the executive, thus existence of faults within the executive implicates him as the head.

Mr. Yusuf Kiwanda, according to the commission violated article 30(1) of the MLS constitution under which he was supposed to prepare and present a report about the dinner within seven days which he never did. That Mr. Kiwanda was grossly negligent in the meaning of article 36(3) (d) of the MLS constitution in the handling of MLS funds. The commission noted that Accountability is key and Mr. Kiwanda as treasurer should know better. Merely not accounting for public funds shows incompetence.

Mr. Sebuufu Usama in the view of the commission violated article 23(6) of the MLS constitution, article 30(1) of the same constitution, and article 36(4) for having deceived that cards were made at 1700/= each yet the actual price was 1200/= among other wrongful acts.

Mr. Wasswa Bengo in the opinion of the commission did not only fail to do his duty of ensuring accountability but has abused his office by colluding with the implicated to muzzle a process intended to ensure accountability. Allowing Mr. Kamau Simon to pen a communiqué in his name intended to undermine the work of the commission of inquiry is a gross contravention of the constitution. Mr. Wasswa or anyone else has no powers to amend the constitution unilaterally. By attempting to waive the seven days requirement for accountability, Mr. Wasswa attempts to suspend a provision of the constitution thus Mr. Wasswa as IGG committed a wrong within the meaning of Article 26 (4) of the MLS constitution as incompetence and misconduct.

Recommendations made.
We recommended that the specific officers named in the report as potentially culpable (Mr. Kamau Simon, Mr. Yusuf Kiwanda, Mr. Usama Sebuufu and Mr. Wasswa Bengo) should make a genuine apology to all stakeholders that were involved in one way or the other in the process of organising and holding the 2009 Annual MLS Dinner. The persons to whom the apology in our view was to be made include the faculty of Law administration, the sponsors of the function, key guests at the function, the students who were embarrassed on the specific day and the general student population at the faculty of Law whose reputation they put at stake.

We also recommended that a report containing the accountability for the dinner be made by the implicated and should be published and publicised as much as possible. The implicated officials should ensure that all stakeholders receive a copy of this report and accountability most especially the faculty senior administration and the faculty student community.

In the event that the implicated officials did not abide by the above recommendations, we recommended that the speaker grants the petitioners their wish of establishing a tribunal to consider expulsion of the said officials from Makerere Law Society leadership. In the event that the tribunal starts work on considering the petition, we recommended that the Makerere Law Society Council takes over roles of Makerere Law Society activities to ensure continuity of activities.
We recommended that the speaker on receiving the report makes it public and all the recommendations considered for implementation.

Action taken and some pieces of Advice.
We released the report on 04th, September, 2009 and handed it over to the Speaker. Three days after the release of the report, I received several SMS messages and a telephone call from Mr. Jamiru Mujurizi urging me to erase his name from the report or else no action is taken on the report. He further warned that I would personally be reported for “disciplinary” action if I did not erase his name from the report as having received a card without payment, a confession that he made to the commission after agreeing to make public all the information he gave to the commission before he gave it.

I deliberately refused to edit the report as I had already handed it over to the speaker, but true to Mr. Jamiru Mujurizi’s threat, the report’s recommendations were not implemented. The speaker did not even publicise the report. No apology was given by the named officials as recommended thus the report and work of the commission was shelved in the interest of hiding the truth.

having invested a lot of time and personal resources in the process, I believe that we as the commission did our work though we were let down by the speaker, Mr. Adam Byarugaba who instead of implementing the recommendations of the report preferred to hide the truth that one of his friends, coincidentally one of the petitioner Mr. Jamiru Mujurizi had benefited from the mismanagement of the Dinner.

My call to the incoming MLS executive is to take note of the recommendations we made and our findings to a void future mistakes. As the Bakiga-Banyankore say, “eibare ririkurebeka, tiriteera enfuka” literally meaning that a visible stone can not hit the hoe.

Someone ought to stop playing with the dream to have an East African Federation.

I was invited to present a paper on the Prospects and progress of the East African Political Federation on 11th, April, 2008 at Makerere University senate building level 4 in a public debate organised by Makerere University Convocation and Konrad Adenaur Stiftung. Below is the paper I presented.

The East African Political Federation: Progress and Prospects for Regional Economic and political development.

Introduction
The Treaty establishing the East African Community (EAC), which was ratified in November 1999 and came into force in July 2000, was a tri-partite initiative to revive cooperation between Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania that was disbanded in 1977. The Treaty is a culmination of regional efforts to resurrect cooperation in the planning and implementation of regional programmes for integrated development.

In accordance with the provisions of the EAC Treaty (Article 5, Paragraph 1), the partner States undertook to establish among themselves a Customs Union, a Common Market, a Monetary Union and, ultimately, a Political Federation. The purpose of this unique arrangement is to strengthen and regulate the industrial, commercial, infra-structural, cultural, social, political and other relations of the partner states so that there is accelerated, harmonious and balanced development with sustained expansion of economic activities that will be shared equitably.

It is thus the key goal of the whole process of integration in East Africa that economic and political development will result. All that is done is aimed at achieving political and economic development thus to determine the progress of the whole arrangement is to assess the development it has brought or the prospects for the same.

Background
The idea of the East African Federation is not an idea of yesterday but had been tried from the colonial days, to the early days of getting independence until it collapsed in 1977. Since that time attempts to resurrect the idea have been undertaken until March 14, 1996 when full East African Cooperation efforts began with the launching of the Permanent Tripartite Commission at the East African Community headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. Considering the need to consolidate regional cooperation, the East African Heads of States’ second summit in Arusha on 29th, April 1997, directed the Permanent Tripartite Commission to start the process of upgrading the agreement establishing the Permanent Tripartite Commission for the cooperation into a treaty.

Thus, during a one day summit in Arusha, Tanzania on 22nd, January, 1999, the heads of states of Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda resolved to sign the Treaty re-establishing the East African Community at the end of July 1999. The community was to take over from the Permanent tripartite Commission for the East African cooperation.

East African Political Federation
Whereas Article 5 of the EAC Treaty clearly provides for the establishment of a political federation there is no subsequent article that elaborates on the provisions for the establishment of a political federation. Therefore, there are no answers to several key questions related to the establishment, operation and growth of an East African Political Federation. What is a political federation? What does it entail in the East African context? What are key pre-requisites for establishing a political federation? What mechanisms are essential for forging a political federation?

What is a Federation?
Federalism is closely related to a Political federation thus to understand what a political federation I will first define federalism. Federalism is the political philosophy that underlies a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units such as states creating what is called a federation. Federation entails the surrender of some powers by federating units to the center and vice versa. Where a federation is constructed of states that are already sovereign (as is the case for Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda) it requires them to surrender some of their sovereignty. Federalism is a political system under which every citizen is subordinated to at least two state organisations (institutions) and is in immediate connection with each of them. The larger organisation is the federation and the small organisation is the member state of the federation. I will not go into the characteristics of the units that federate as I consider that to be clear, that in East Africa, we have a semblance of a hegemonic state though we may not exactly be on similar economic, social, cultural and political levels.

Political Federation for East Africa; Which model?
What type or what political federation model are we opting for? Is it a locally crafted/indigenous model? What are the lessons, if any, are we drawing from our past attempts at federating right from the 1950’s? Are there lessons to learn from our failed attempts? But more importantly, how are we planning to address the problems we faced in the earlier attempts at federating? Have we had thorough consultations, debates, dialogues, memoranda submitted, views collected and synthesized to have a more broad-based all- inclusive consultative process - a process that will enable us achieve consensus on a plausible model?

Let us remember that there is a recommendation that January 2010 is the time when the Federation of East Africa will be launched and the Federal President and his/her Cabinet, Members of the Federal Parliament and the Chief Justice and Judges of the Federal Supreme Court sworn into office. The period between 2010 and 2012 will then be the Consolidation Phase of the Federation of East Africa. During this period the Presidency will rotate between the sitting Presidents of the partner states. An enlarged Federal Parliament be elected along the lines of the method used in electing the current East African Legislative Assembly or as may be recommended by the Constitutional Commission.

From 2010 to 2012 the Electoral Commission and other institutions provided for under the Federal Constitution should be put in place. Federal Constituencies should also be delineated and between January and March 2013, elections for the President and the Federal Parliament should be held. Hon. Amos Wako who was the Chair of the Fast Track Committee stated that the road map is indicative and emphasized that with adequate political will and resources the time frame provided for in the road map could be compressed to enable the East African Federation to be realized much earlier.

To start with, how many East Africans were consulted? Of course the Wako committee, which was chaired by Mr. Stephen Akabway in Uganda, has figures of those that were consulted but I am certain Makerere University students were not. Now how, do you leave out the youth in such a process? For honesty requires us to state that the cream of Uganda’s youth that is educated is at this premier institution. If these future leaders were not consulted, aren’t we braced for a surprise when their generation gets into power and wants to correct some issues thereby throwing the federation aside as they did not understand the whole process or disagreed with it?

When the Presidents of the five states are speaking especially their counterpart in Uganda, no mention of consulting the people is made. This leads me into asking, “Where are the people in this whole set up?” Where are the peasants? We are aware that in Uganda, more than 80% of the population lead a peasant life, and if they are not consulted, who then is making the decisions? Aren’t we then disenfranchising these same people we will expect to participate in the political activities of the federation? Don’t we k now about the African Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation?

For the political federation is to be successful, it requires the participation and genuine ownership by the people. We are aware of how to involve the people. Far from the formal ways of communication as notice boards, or the newspapers and televisions which are urban based and reach only a small percentage of the population, let us go straight to them through their informal institutions. The church, the mosque are just examples. Those that have cultural institutions can be put on board through their cultural leaders. For the youth, concentration be put on institutions of learning. From that, we can then start to federate informally. The same informal institutions then are influenced to federate before we rush the constitutional processes for laws that cannot be implemented nor respected are not worth the ink in which they are written. The different churches in East Africa can have a way of integrating and schools can also charge a uniform tariff for East African students.

We have heard of the proposed models of federation on which the small sample of the population used in the consultations was asked about. That one of starting with an economic federation and a political federation later. Then, the question of whether to fast track or not as fronted. But key to this process is that even the few that were consulted were not all comfortable with fast tracking the process. Where as no one is against the idea of federation, many are against the idea of fast tracking. Reason? Every individual knows their reasons and I believe before we go anywhere further, we should first get to know these reasons.

Indeed some sections of the population are beginning to question some people’s intentions with the fast tracking of the process. For starters, among the five heads of states in East Africa, two are older than the rest and their countries were very much in favor of fast tracking. Do you smell something? Is someone chasing the record of becoming the first ever President of East Africa. I pray we are not being driven by personal ambitions for the process will again crumble if we fail to realize them or if we pass away.

Where we came from.
As I hinted in the introduction and background, the idea of the East African Federation has been toyed with for some time even before independence was attained in any East African country. There were challenges then that led to the failure of federating before independence. However after independence in 1964, an Accord was signed in Kampala and a federation of sorts was formed. The East African Court of Appeal that existed at the time had jurisdiction in the whole East Africa, there was a uniform Railway network and road network managed regionally, an East African Development Bank, East African Post and Telecommunications network and many other institutions of that nature. However, all this vanished with the advent of Gen. Idi Amin Dada on the scene as there were irreconcilable differences between him and Mr. Nyerere who was the president of Tanzania at the time. Since then the federation died until some efforts started in the 1980’s, only yielding some fruits in the late 1990’s and the present efforts. There are lessons however we should learn form the failed attempts such that we do not fall into the same.

First things first.
For starters, the above history creates three phases for federation if we are to move systematically thereby building a strong and lasting federation with a dependable foundation.
1. Rebuilding what was destroyed after 1977.
2. Establishing institutions that can steer the federation.
3. Take off. The reaping of fruits and harvest stage.
My proposal is to the effect that we first analyze what went wrong in 1977, the 1950’s such that once we start on the rebuilding of institutions that existed at 1977, we are sure of their longevity and continuity. And the youths should be central to this process. Those in the generations of the 50s and 60s should know and concede the fact the federation cannot come into place overnight such that they reap from it. They should understand how long such a process is if it is to truly yield fruits. Thus the youth should be involved in the rebuilding of the defunct institutions. The grassroots should also be involved as much as possible. I am sure this can be done effectively. If the NRM after their bush war could even go to churches for the sake of telling people about Resistance councils in the late 1980s and government in the late 1990s used the same approach of using the informal institutions in the country to fight HIV/AIDS, to the extent of using cultural leaders, why not do the same when it concerns the political and economic future of East Africans? Is there any justification not to use the methods we are sure having worked before and can work?
To use the Tanzanian example, when the government was spreading information abut Ujamaa, what did they do? How come everyone was aware about Ujamaa however complex it was yet it is taking ages for the East Africans to appreciate the concept of federation if at all they are being told?

The first thing therefore, if we are to build a federation that will last forever, is to create enough awareness in the population about the federation, to let the population help with the determining of which model to follow and to put emphasis on the youth. Informal institutions like the church, social institutions like kingdoms, leisure activities and the rest also are incorporated in the mix. After this, when the peasant population is at par with the educated population, then we can move onto putting laws and regulations in place. For nothing can put us back as everyone will be on board. Short of that, we are bound to face difficulties and delays as we have to update the sections of society we are leaving behind. And the burden of letting them catch up with us may be too heavy that the federation may not manage to survive with such a burden. To be slow, but sure and to start from the beginning truly pays dividends and we should do that exactly.

Conclusion
The East African Political Federation is in the process and should be here to stay. I can not say that the stages for implementing integration should be rolled back. Let us as East Africans be ready for what is coming and let our leaders incorporate activities and programmes that will involve the citizenry. The critical issue that needs the attention of all East Africans and needs to be underscored repeatedly is that the political federation has to be people- led with policies designed collectively with civic actors and with the involvement of all segments of society including the marginalized. This requires the commitment of civic actors, democratic institutions and the political will of the Heads of Summit who have to abide by the will of the people. The most important thing about the political federation is that it has to be people centered or it faces the potential risk of collapsing like its predecessor. The political federation has to be owned by the people. The people have to determine through consensus the type or model of political federation they desire and which they think will work best for them. Participatory consultations that are all-inclusive have to be set in motion immediately and all modes of reaching the waninchi through the use of the popular but informal institutions should be expansively utilized. The process should not be top-down or seen to be led by a few but bottom to top.

I hope that my paper raises issues for further contemplation, debate and dialogue as we move towards a political federation.

Why any “sane” lawyer cannot support the Land Bill!

Folks, we know better that the joy of any lawyer anywhere is a flourishing society with many transactions going on in business, land and normal social life. That is the life of a rich lawyer. Get your hands to handle real deals in which you charge a commission. And when anything that seeks to disrupt the transactions deserves opposition and serious criticism. Let us be honest about the land amendment bill of 2007.

In its section 3, it is provided that a transaction by a tenant by occupancy without permission of the land owner will be criminal offence but the transaction remains valid whilst a transaction by the land owner without consent of the tenant is void. This implies a tenant can prevent the sale or mortgage or lease of land on which he is based on the way the section is worded because the tenant is given an indefinite joint and several veto. How do you think lawyers will survive when there is such a hustling process before a single transaction on land can go through as valid?

True, the land Bill has been attacked left, right and centre but surely, if it cannot even favor the lawyers, who are known worldwide for having an eye for business and services in any situation, what is it for?