ANDREW MWENDA, MUSEVENI and the RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION; THE 2005 INCIDENTS (QUOTES AND EXCERPTS)

These are quotes and excerpts that are intended to give flesh to the famous or infamous 2005 incidents that landed Andrew Mwenda into prison and later resulted into a constitutional challenge of sedition as a crime. The choice of the 2005 incident starring Andrew Mwenda and Yoweri Museveni as lead actors does not mean that Andrew Mwenda is the only Ugandan who has suffered the increasing tendency of the state to suppress freedom of expression but rather because his harassment is better documented compared to the radio journalist who is harassed for praising an opposition candidate on his show or Mr. Gawaya Tegulle who was dismissed from UBC (Uganda’s public broadcaster) for hosting a leader of one of Uganda’s political parties among many other incidents, including the 2009 closure of CBS (a kingdom owned radio).

Museveni on August 10, 2005 at Kololo Airstrip said;

“These newspapers, I am the elected leader of Uganda. I therefore have the ultimate mandate to run their affairs. I will no longer tolerate a newspaper which is like a vulture… I will simply close it. Finish. End. Gasiya tu. I have been seeing this young boy, Mwenda, writing about Rwanda, writing about Sudan, writing about UPDF, he must stop. Completely. He is an expert on SPLA, he knows the minutes which took place where… he must stop. And this other paper called Observer, what is being said in the army. This is not how a country is run… Red Pepper also. I thought those were confused young boys busy with naked girls… These newspapers must stop or we shall stop them. If they want to continue doing business in Uganda, they must stop interfering in security matters of the region…”

Below is what the motor-mouth journalist, Andrew Mwenda delivered to his listeners on his evening show on KFM after Museveni’s words on August 10, 2005; (Andrew had hosted Presidential Assistant Moses Byaruhanga, Mr. Reagan Okumu, a Member of Parliament and ex-intelligence chief David Pulkol in studio that evening).

“… If he was elected, does that mean that other actors do not have views? … Does it mean that when people elect him, those who disagree with him should keep quiet? … You go and tell him to listen to this show, then he can get some wisdom, because all of you guys sit at State House and say, yes sir, yes sir. Here we say no sir… I can tell you, his little threats are completely ignored… Mwenda should not discuss security in the region, how can you say something like that? I don’t want… we run a newspaper and pay taxes which buy his suits, does he know that?… You see these African presidents. This man went to University, why can’t he behave like an educated person? Why does he behave like a villager?… But, how can he insult me like that? Museveni has no monopoly of irrationality, do you know that?… If he wants to behave like Saddam Hussein, let him go to Iraq… Peace and security is a public good… I think I understand security better than Museveni… That is what I think. I am a security expert… Oh, Jesus Christ! You really think laying the whole northern region, a third of the country, in waste, 20 years of war, is how you bring security into a country? Let him resign today, let me become President and you will see what I will do. This country will be better managed and there will be security all over the country. Security will no longer be a tribal good enjoyed by the Bantu in the south. Everybody in Uganda will be entitled to security. Museveni can never intimidate me. He can only intimidate himself… We are willing to pay Museveni a handsome pension if he decided to go home and rest and stop mismanaging this country. Why does he call me a boy?… Listen to me and you will get the correct security analysis. Listen to the President you will get the wrong one… The President is becoming more of a coward and everyday importing cars that armour plated and bullet proof and you know moving in tanks and mambas, you know, hiding with a mountain of soldiers surrounding him, he thinks that that is security. That is not security. That is cowardice… this one’s security is Jurassic security. Why does this one move with mounted anti-aircraft guns, AK 47 assault riffles, tanks and mambas, buffels and katyushkas, Jesus Christ? Actually Museveni’s days as a President are numbered if he goes on a collision course with me… I wish I was 35, I would have contested the next election… you mismanaged Garang’s security. Are you saying it is Monitor that caused the death of Garang or it is your own mismanagement?… Aah what caused Garang’s death? Garang’s security was put in danger by your own government putting him first of all on a junk helicopter, second at night, third passing through Imatong Hills where Kony is… Are you aware that Garang died in Imatong Hills where you have always complained that Kony is?… Are you aware that your Government killed Garang? … I would say the Government of Uganda, out of incompetence, led to or caused the death of John Garang. They put him on the plane when it was already late. That plane the President said it has the capacity to detect bad weather 100km away. Why couldn’t they detect the bad weather 100km away? … Let me challenge you. When a plane is taking off from place A going to place B, it is supposed to establish weather at place B. If the weather at place B was bad, why didn’t your people here decide not to go? Maybe you don’t recognize that the Government of Uganda is responsible for the death of Garang. Whether it is by commission or omission, the government of Uganda cannot run away from that responsibility.”

For those words, Andrew Mwenda, listed among the World’s most influential people for 2009 by US magazine Foreign Policy, is battling a sedition charge (one among many other charges) in the courts of law. He insists that sedition is an outdated law that does not meet the Ugandan constitutionality test (we await the decision of the constitutional court on his case).

Having read Mwenda’s words (I labored to quote them extensively) on that show in question that led to the temporary closure of the radio by the state and Mwenda’s own imprisonment, does it impress anyone in anyway that Mwenda’s talk that night was criminal or wrong for that matter? Following the extensive debate we have held over Kalyegira’s own tales of police questioning over stories that have not pleased the state, does the reminder of Mwenda’s ranting help the debate on freedom of expression in Uganda?

I will conclude with two quotes; in a Human Rights Watch interview, Hon. Kabakumba Matsiko, Ugandan minister of information on April 9, 2010 said; “No journalist should be afraid in Uganda except those that are seditious.”

In Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda v. Attorney General, Supreme Court of Uganda, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2002, February 11, 2004; Justice Mulenga stated; “A person’s expression or statement is not precluded from constitutional protection simply because it is thought by another or others to be false, erroneous, controversial or unpleasant. Everyone is free to express his or her views. Indeed the protection is most relevant and required where a person’s views are opposed or objected to by society or any part thereof, as “false” or “wrong.” … A democratic society respects and promotes the citizen’s individual rights to freedom of expression because it derives a benefit from the exercise of that freedom by its citizens. In order to maintain that benefit, a democratic society chooses to tolerate the exercise of the freedom even in respect of ‘demonstrably untrue and alarming statements,’ rather than to suppress them.”

Museveni shares a light moment with journalist Mwenda at a family function.

All Ugandans want an immediate withdrawal of troops from Somalia.

July 11th, 2010 will go down in the history books as the day Uganda was thrown into a somber mood mixed with shock, bitterness and panic. The twin bomb attacks did not only turn an otherwise merry night into a dark night of death and suffering but also raised concerns of the state of the nation’s security. The Al Shabaab, an armed extremist organization soon after claimed responsibility for the deadly attacks thus centering the debate on this shocking tragedy on Uganda’s role as a contributing state to AMISOM and the implications for its citizens. Al Shabaab has warned Uganda and Burundi that there will be reprisals in Kampala and Bujumbura if the two states do not withdraw their troops from AMISOM. AMISOM is an African Union Mission in Somalia with a United Nations (UN) mandate to protect the Somalia Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the shaky peace process in Somalia. Al shabaab, an extremist military organization with links to Al Qaeda controls a larger part of Somalia and perceives AMISOM as a belligerent thus has launched attacks against it and has warned that it will continue to attack the citizens of the contributing states to AMISOM.

The AMISOM soldiers that are currently in Somalia are under-manned, under-equipped as the AU is incapable of logistically and financially managing the Mission which relies on funds from the United States of America (USA), the UN and the European Union (EU), among others. The hostile environment in which AMISOM is placed creates insecurity on the part of the troops who face the challenge of how to man a peacekeeping operation when there is no peace to keep. Al Shabaab has killed over 100 AMISOM soldiers and injured a larger number. AMISOM’s personnel face significant restrictions on their ability to operate as the UN-authorized mandate given to AMISOM does not provide sufficient protection to the troops, yet the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon insists that AMISOM remains without legitimate authority to use military force unless fired upon. Thus AMISOM troops only open fire when its soldiers can visually identify their attackers, and will only use weapons that allow for discriminate fire. Al shabaab fighters dress as civilians and use weapons that produce large numbers of casualties at once. AMISOM is thus a crippled mission that cannot defeat Al Shabaab as their mandate does not even allow them to fight Al Shabaab unless in self defense. Thus, as Al shabaab attacks Uganda for its deployment in Somalia through AMISOM, Uganda’s forces in Somalia to date have no mandate to fight Al Shabaab. This calls for a re-thinking of Uganda’s security and foreign policy on Somalia in a holistic manner.

From the outpouring of emotion and reaction from the Ugandan public, two important opinions on what citizens want the country to do filter through. One, that Uganda should hunt down Al Shabaab so as to disable them and save the world from terrorist attacks. Another that I subscribe to, that Uganda should withdraw from AMISOM and beef up its national security. I take the latter view for two reasons; if we have no peace and security in Uganda, the citizens of the country have a right and duty to ask their state to withdraw its forces and maximize security efforts inside Uganda. We can contemplate a mission to hunt down Al Shabaab later when we are assured of our own security.

Further, AMISOM as it stands today has a limited mandate and is limited in resources, thus cannot achieve the aim we want our forces to achieve – hunt down Al shabaab. AMISOM as an AU-UN mandated peace-keeping force under chapter six of the UN charter has a limited mandate to protecting the Presidential palace, the Mogadishu airport and the small parts of Mogadishu under the TFG control. The UPDF presence within the AMISOM framework does not answer the needs of the Ugandan populace. When the population talks of wiping Al Shabaab from Somalia, they mean militarily defeating the outfit and ensuring that it is not capable of launching attacks anywhere, let alone Uganda. Thus, for Ugandan forces to remain in AMISOM does not help achieve the aims of the Ugandan public, thus the only viable option is withdrawal of the UPDF from AMISOM and then Uganda intensifies its national security in the short run.

We can then later, in the long run as a member state of the UN, ask the UN Security Council for a mandate to use force and invade Somalia to hunt down Al Shabaab and bring peace and security not only to Somalia but to the whole region. This UN Charter chapter seven peace enforcement mission in Somalia that I am proposing would allow Uganda to launch offensives against Al Shabaab. That is what can serve Uganda’s ultimate interests of national security for citizens internally and lead to international peace and security. Otherwise, Uganda must withdraw troops in the short-run and consider a “legal” invasion in the long run. It is thus the naked truth that all Ugandans, even those who want Al Shabaab smoked out of Somalia support an immediate withdrawal. Because to stay without peace enforcement mandate does not answer any Ugandan’s wishes. Rather, immediate withdrawal and preparation for a peace enforcement mechanism in the long-run is what is desirable. And aware of the bureaucracy involved at UN level both through the UN Security council and the DPKO (department of peace keeping operations), Ugandan cannot stand to wait as its troops remain stuck in a peace-keeping mission that is as crippled as any other mission has never been.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑