Freedom of the Press in Uganda 2002-2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Former DFCU Bank Bosses Charged Over Global Fund Scam
4 NEW VISION, Thursday, April 3, 2014 NATIONAL NEWS Former DFCU Bank bosses charged over Global Fund scam By Edward Anyoli Lule, while employed by Lule through manipulation of 300 sub-recipients and DFCU – a company in which Former Global Global Fund foreign exchange, individuals be audited further Two former managers of DFCU the Government had shares – falsely claiming that it was and that former health minister, Bank have been charged with directed the bank to convert Fund boss Dr. commission fees for soliciting Maj. Gen. Jim Muhwezi and abuse of office, costing the $2m Global Fund money into Global Fund business. his deputies; Mike Mukula Government sh479m. the local currency at an inflated Muhebwa was last Kantuntu, Lule and Kituuma and Alex Kamugisha, be Robert Katuntu, the former foreign exchange rate of Magala (a city lawyer, who is prosecuted. managing director of DFCU sh1,839 per dollar, which was week charged with summoned to appear in court This resulted into the and Godffrey Lule, the bank’s higher than the rate of sh1,815, on April 11) are jointly facing establishment of the anti- former head of treasury, were raising a difference of sh48m. causing financial the charges with Dr. Tiberius corruption division of the yesterday charged before the On another charge, Lule Muhebwa, the former Global High Court in December Anti-Corruption Court chief is accused of fraudulently loss of sh108m Fund project co-ordinator. 2008, which has convicted magistrate. They denied the directing the bank staff to Muhebwa has been charged two suspects; Teddy Cheeye charges and were granted cash convert $1m Global Fund with causing financial loss of the presidential adviser on bail of sh3m each. -
The Dynamics of Political Leadership and Democracy
THE DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND DEMOCRACY IN UGANDA-1962-2011. A CASE STUDY OF KABALE DISTRICT BY PAMELA ANKUNDA 2006/HD03/8262U BACHERLOR OF ARTS (BA EDS) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF A MASTERS OF ARTS IN LEADERSHIP AND HUMAN RELATIONS, SCHOOL OF LIBERAL AND PERFOMING ARTS, COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, MAKERERE UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 2012 1 DECLARATION I Pamela Ankunda, declare that this is my original work and has never been presented to any Institution of learning for any award. NAME:……………………………………………………………… SIGNATURE:………………………………………………………… DATE:…………………………………………………………………. This work has been submitted with my approval as a university supervisor. NAME: DR. TUGUME LUBOWA HASSAN SIGNATURE:…………………………………………………………….. DATE:……………………………………………………………………… 2 DEDICATION This work is dedicated to daddy and mummy, so long forever gone. 3 ACKNOWLEGDMENTS: This study would never have been possible without the guidance of Dr.Lubowa whose patience is unmatched. I can‘t possibly mention all my friends, but no doubt-Emma Kaduku, Don-Benji, Carol, Kansiime J, Violet, Grace, Charlotte, Asimwe, Ruth, Bugzy, Oquals, Eropu, Kyompeire, Harrison, deserve special recognition. You guys are the best! Puki and Lydia, thank you for the unconditional open arms. I also would like to thank the family of OR for their support and prayers. My sisters and brothers, thank you. Special love to Brenda Naturinda, Mark, Malcolm, Diana and Keza-Maria. Prof. Michel and Dee, you taught me virtues I will always cherish. Thank you. I am also extremely grateful to all my respondents, some of whom have a lot of human stories about an everyday struggle for democracy as they understand it. -
The Inspector General of Government and the Question of Political Corruption in Uganda
Frustrated Or Frustrating S AND P T EA H C IG E R C E N N A T M E U R H H URIPEC FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel Ronald Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER NO. 20 November, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA Daniel R. Ruhweza HURIPEC WORKING PAPER No. 20 NOVEMBER, 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating FRUSTRATED OR FRUSTRATING? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT AND THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN UGANDA aniel R. Ruhweza Copyright© Human Rights & Peace Centre, 2008 ISBN 9970-511-24-8 HURIPEC Working Paper No. 20 NOVEMBER 2008 Frustrated Or Frustrating TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... i LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS......................………..………............ ii LIST OF LEGISLATION & INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS….......… iii LIST OF CASES …………………………………………………….. .......… iv SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS……...... v I: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………........ 1 1.1 Working Definitions….………………............................................................... 5 1.1.1 The Phenomenon of Corruption ……………………………………....... 5 1.1.2 Corruption in Uganda……………………………………………….... 6 II: RATIONALE FOR THE CREATION OF THE INSPECTORATE … .... 9 2.1 Historical Context …………………………………………………............ 9 2.2 Original Mandate of the Inspectorate.………………………….…….......... 9 2.3 -
An Independent Review of the Performance of Special Interest Groups in Parliament
DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS IN UGANDA DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS IN UGANDA An Independent Review of the Performance of Special Interest Groups in Parliament Arthur Bainomugisha Elijah D. Mushemeza ACODE Policy Research Series, No. 13, 2006 i DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS IN UGANDA DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS IN UGANDA An Independent Review of the Performance of Special Interest Groups in Parliament Arthur Bainomugisha Elijah D. Mushemeza ACODE Policy Research Series, No. 13, 2006 ii DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND ENHANCING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS IN UGANDA TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................. v 1.0. INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1 2.0. BACKGROUND: CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGANDA.......................................................... 2 3.0. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................... 3 4.0. LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE.................................................................... 3 5.0. UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND REPRESENTATION.................................................. 5 5.1. Representative Democracy in a Historical Perspective............................................................. -
REALITY CHECK Multiparty Politics in Uganda Assoc
REALITY CHECK Multiparty Politics in Uganda Assoc. Prof. Yasin Olum (PhD) The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung but rather those of the author. MULTIPARTY POLITICS IN UGANDA i REALITY CHECK Multiparty Politics in Uganda Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 51A, Prince Charles Drive, Kololo P. O. Box 647, Kampala Tel. +256 414 25 46 11 www.kas.de ISBN: 978 - 9970 - 153 - 09 - 1 Author Assoc. Prof. Yasin Olum (PhD) © Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung ii MULTIPARTY POLITICS IN UGANDA Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................... 1 List of Tables ................................................................................................. 3 Acronyms/Abbreviations ................................................................................. 4 Introduction .................................................................................................. 7 PART 1: THE MULTIPARTY ENVIRONMENT: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND INSTITUTIONS ........................... 11 Chapter One: ‘Democratic’ Transition in Africa and the Case of Uganda ........................... 12 Introduction ................................................................................................... 12 Defining Democracy -
The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. O1 OF 2016 (CORAM: KATUREEBE, C.J, TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE, 10 ARACH AMOKO, NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA,OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JJ.SC.) AMAMA MBABAZI …………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 15 YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI ……………. 1stRESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION ……………… 2ndRESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………… 3rd RESPONDENT PROFESSOR OLOKA ONYANGO & 8 ORS………..AMICI 20 CURIAE DETAILED REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The Petitioner, who was one of the candidates in the presidential 25 election that was held on the 18th February, 2016 petitioned the 1 5 Supreme Court under the Constitution, the Presidential Elections Act, 2000 and the Electoral Commission Act, 1997 (hereinafterreferred to as the PEA and the ECA, respectively). He challenged the result of the election and sought a declaration that Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the 1st Respondent, was not 10 validly elected and an order that the election be annulled. On the 31st March 2016, we delivered our decision in line with the Constitutional timeline imposed on the Court to render its judgment within 30 days from the date of filing the petition. We were not, however, in a position to give detailed reasons for our 15 findings and conclusion. We found that the 1st Respondent was validly elected as President in accordance with Article 104 of the Constitution and Section 59 of the PEA. Accordingly, we unanimously dismissed the petition. We made no order as to costs. 20 We promised to give the detailed reasons at a later date, which we now give in this judgment. Background The 18thFebruary 2016 General Elections were the 3rd since the re-introduction of multiparty politics in Uganda as the country 25 shifted from the movement system. -
The After Month of Eletoral Democracy in Uganda
Quest Journals Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science Volume 6 ~ Issue 11 (2018) pp.: 54-73 ISSN(Online) : 2321-9467 www.questjournals.org Research Paper The After month Of Eletoral Democracy In Uganda Nabukeera Madinah* Lecturer Kyambogo University Faculty of Arts and Social Science Department of History and Political Science ABSTRACT:The purpose of this paper is to analytically connect the post management of elections and electoral democracy in Uganda. In particular I focus historical and political synopsis of Uganda-from colony to “one- party state”, conceptualization of elections, majority rule and minority rights, pillars of democracy, types elections, who votes in Uganda, making decisions regarding political participation a theoretical explanation, detention of main opposition leader, state of fear for war after elections , crime preventers, army and policy deployment across streets, election violence, religious leaders, defiance message, strategies for defiance and court petition.. I used a historical perspective to locate the linkage between elections and democratic processes. The squabble of the paper is that, while elections are essential condition for democracy, they do not establish democracy per se. The sardonicism is that, democracy cannot exist without the elections process taking place, although elections that have taken place in most of the African countries including Uganda since the 1996; have been self-governing deficits and setbacks in Uganda. This research was purely library based where the research kept track on issues of 2016 elections before and after from all types of media i.e newspapers mainly balanced independent papers rather than government owned.The videos, radio and television talk shows and tweets where the public expressed their views. -
Uganda to Produce Bio-Fertilisers
4 NATIONAL NEWS The New Vision, Wednesday, July 7, 2010 IN BRIEF Uganda ALI MAMBULE Suspect to to produce get sh32m KAMPALA Court has ordered the State to pay sh32m to a man who bio-fertilisers was falsely accused of mur- dering eight foreign tourists and a Ugandan in Bwindi By John Kasozi GDP is lost through soil ero- Impenetrable National Park sion. “Land degradation is a in 1999. Hakim Mwesigye UGANDA is to increase major loss of soil fertility.” was arrested in Kakoba in agricultural productivity The minister noted that Mbarara Municipality. He was following support from only 6% of the farmers rely later charged with imperson- Korea to construct a factory on certified seeds, keeping ation and retaining stolen to make organic fertilisers. yields at less than 40% of property after the State The agriculture minister, their potential. failed to link him to the Hope Mwesigye, said organ- She added that poor farm murder of the tourists. ic fertilisers are cheaper storage leads to post-harvest Mwesigye was acquitted of than synthetic ones. crop losses of up to 30%. Fishermen ponder their next move after sudds blocked Dimo landing site the offences by the Buganda She said the new factory is Mwesigye said challenges Road court in 2002. After his likely to increase applica- to the agriculture sector acquittal, Mwesigye filed a tion of fertilisers, currently include limited credit sup- civil suit with the Mengo estimated at only 1%. port for agro-dealers and Chief Magistrates’ Court The minister was address- farmers, poor infrastruc- that ruled in his favour on ing participants from nine ture, costly farm inputs and Sudds block Masaka landing site June 28. -
Fhri Rountable on At
REPORT OF THE ROUNDTABLE ON THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT 2005: Fostering ‘Open Government’ Through Access to Information. 18th—19th September 2006 Sheraton Kampala Hotel Directorate of Information, Foundation for Human Rights Ministry of Information & National Initiative (FHRI) Guidance Roundtable on the Access to Information Act 2005, Fostering ‘Open Government’ Through Access to Information TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………… Pg 3 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………. Pg 4 OPENING REMARKS …………………………………………………………………………… Pg 6 Livingstone Sewanyana Executive Director, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, FHRI KEY NOTE ADDRESS ……………………………………………...…………………………….. Pg 7 Rt. Hon. Kirunda Kivejinja 3rd Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Information and National Guidance PRESENTATIONS AND EMERGING ISSUES ……………………………………………….… Pg 9 CLOSING REMARKS …………………………………………………………………………... Pg 24 Mr. Apolo Kakaire Manager, Rights Monitoring & Advocacy Project, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, FHRI Mr. Faustine Misanvu Ag. Commissioner Monitoring & Inspection, Directorate of Information, Ministry of Information & National Guidance Hon. Dr. James Nsaba Buturo Minister of State, Ethics & Integrity, Office of the President APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………………….. Pg 26 • Kampala Declaration on the Implementation of the Access to Information Act 2005 • List of Participants • Agenda 2 Roundtable on the Access to Information Act 2005, Fostering ‘Open Government’ Through Access to Information ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FHRI would -
Exclusionary Elite Bargains and Civil War Onset: the Case of Uganda
Working Paper no. 76 - Development as State-making - EXCLUSIONARY ELITE BARGAINS AND CIVIL WAR ONSET: THE CASE OF UGANDA Stefan Lindemann Crisis States Research Centre August 2010 Crisis States Working Papers Series No.2 ISSN 1749-1797 (print) ISSN 1749-1800 (online) Copyright © S. Lindemann, 2010 This document is an output from a research programme funded by UKaid from the Department for International Development. However, the views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. Crisis States Research Centre Exclusionary elite bargains and civil war onset: The case of Uganda Stefan Lindemann Crisis States Research Centre Uganda offers almost unequalled opportunities for the study of civil war1 with no less than fifteen cases since independence in 1962 (see Figure 1) – a number that makes it one of the most conflict-intensive countries on the African continent. The current government of Yoweri Museveni has faced the highest number of armed insurgencies (seven), followed by the Obote II regime (five), the Amin military dictatorship (two) and the Obote I administration (one).2 Strikingly, only 17 out of the 47 post-colonial years have been entirely civil war free. 7 NRA 6 UFM FEDEMO UNFR I FUNA 5 NRA UFM UNRF I FUNA wars 4 UPDA LRA LRA civil HSM ADF ADF of UPA WNBF UNRF II 3 Number FUNA LRA LRA UNRF I UPA WNBF 2 UPDA HSM Battle Kikoosi Maluum/ UNLA LRA LRA 1 of Mengo FRONASA 0 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 1: Civil war in Uganda, 1962-2008 Source: Own compilation. -
HOSTILE to DEMOCRACY the Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda
HOSTILE TO DEMOCRACY The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda Human Rights Watch New York $$$ Washington $$$ London $$$ Brussels Copyright 8 August 1999 by Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN 1-56432-239-4 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 99-65985 Cover design by Rafael Jiménez Addresses for Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299 Tel: (212) 290-4700, Fax: (212) 736-1300, E-mail: [email protected] 1522 K Street, N.W., #910, Washington, DC 20005-1202 Tel: (202) 371-6592, Fax: (202) 371-0124, E-mail: [email protected] 33 Islington High Street, N1 9LH London, UK Tel: (171) 713-1995, Fax: (171) 713-1800, E-mail: [email protected] 15 Rue Van Campenhout, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel: (2) 732-2009, Fax: (2) 732-0471, E-mail:[email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to [email protected] with Asubscribe hrw-news@ in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all. -
The Republic of Uganda in the Supreme Court of Uganda
5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PETITION NO. O1 OF 2016 10 (CORAM: KATUREEBE,C.J; TUMWESIGYE, KISAAKYE,ARACH AMOKO, NSHIMYE, MWANGUSYA ,OPIO-AWERI, MWONDHA, TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JJ.SC.) AMAMA MBABAZI …………………………………….PETITIONER 15 VERSUS YOWERI KAGUTA MUSEVENI……………………1st RESPONDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION………………………2ND RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………3RD ESPONDENT 20 PROFESSOR OLOKA ONYANGO & 8 ORS………..AMICI CURIAE DECISION OF THE COURT The Petitioner, who was one of the candidates in the Presidential election that 25 was held on the 18th February, 2016 petitioned the Supreme Court, under the Constitution, the Presidential Elections Act and the Electoral Commission Act. He challenged the result of the election and sought a declaration that Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, was not validly elected and an order that the election be annulled. 30 On the 20th February 2016, the 2nd respondent declared the election results as follows; 1 5 - Abed Bwanika 86,075 (0.93%) - Amama Mbabazi 132,574 (1.43%) - Baryamureeba Venansius 51,086 (0.55%) - Benon Buta Biraaro 24,675. (0.27%) - Kiiza Besigye Kifefe 3, 270,290 (35.37%) 10 - Mabiriizi Joseph 23,762 (0.26%) - Maureen Faith Kyalya Waluube 40,598 (0.44%) - Yoweri Kaguta Museveni 5,617,503 (60.75%) The petitioner contends that the election was conducted without compliance with the provisions and the principles of the Presidential Elections Act, 2000 15 the Electoral Commissions Act, 1997 ( hereinafter referred to as the “PEA”, and the “ECA” ) and the 1995 Constitution and that this affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.