Corruption and Dictatorship in Uganda

Corruption and Dictotorship Undermining Uganda's Unternational Credibility

1. The Uganda Peoples Congress has for the last twenty 21 years sounded warning drums to members of the International community about doing business closely with President Yoweri Museveni's government. Despite those warnings, the donor countries pumped millions of dollars into Uganda's economy without enforcing accountability and requiring the Uganda government to adhere to the universal principles of democracy, justice and constitutionalism.
2. When corruption became glaring, especially last year as Global funds and Gavi funds were openly stolen by NRM government ministers, the International Community called for stern action to be taken against the culprits. However no such action has been taken and the pending cases are merely symbolic. The NRM government was just interested in CHOGM and as soon as it attained its interest, it resumed business as usual. The same old way of looting continues.
3. The Uganda Peoples Congress would like to appreciate the Donor stand on Corruption since the stealing of "Global Aids funds" and "Gavi funds". No donor country has been increasing funding to the government of President Yoweri Museveni. Instead many have been quietly withdrawing from the country and many of their projects and programs have been suspended due to President Museveni inaction on corruption.
4. The recent Pronouncement by US President George W Bush while in our neighbourhood of Tanzania on his African tour that "America will not work with thieves and looters" is another strong signal that the International Community is not ready to tolerate impunity in public affairs management in Africa. Actually it was a direct slap in the face of corrupt leaders in Africa particularly within the East African Countries. No wonder President Bush cautiously avoided coming to meet President Museveni, the current Chairman of the East African Community and the commonwealth. To do so would have been seen as paying homage to dictatorship and corruption.
5. President Museveni has been a darling of the western world and belongs to the generation of the so called "New Breed of African leaders" who were supposed to usher in democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism. He was dubbed as a "beacon of hope" Uganda was paraded on the international scene as an economic success story and therefore a role model for other emerging African Countries.
6. However, Uganda remains a haven of corruption and dictatorship characterised by:-
1. Life Presidency Project where the Constitutional term limits have been removed for Museveni to rule forever and ever.
2. The Persecution and continued harassment of opposition members using all methods
3. Negative influence in the politics of neighbouring countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Congo and Sudan.
4. The current economic stagnation in Uganda and social despondency.
6. The Uganda Peoples Congress calls upon the International Community to play a more pro people and pro active roles in ensuring African leaders adhere to the principles of democracy, rule of law and justice as enshrined in International conventions and instruments.

For God and my Country

Mama Miria Kalule Obote
President, Uganda Peoples Congress

Milton Obote

Apolo Milton Obote (December 28, 1925 – October 10, 2005^[1]), Prime Minister of Uganda from 1962 to 1966 and President of Uganda from 1966 to 1971, then again from 1980 to 1985. He was a Ugandan political leader who led UgandaBritish colonial administration in 1962. towards independence from the

He was overthrown by Idi Amin in 1971, but regained power in 1980. His second rule was marred by repression, and the deaths of many civilians as a result of a civil war known as the Ugandan Bush War.

Milton Obote was born at Akokoro village in Apac district in northern Uganda. He was the son of a local chief of the Lango ethnic group. He began his education in 1940 at the Protestant Missionary School in Lira, and later attended Gulu Junior Secondary School, Busoga College and eventually university at Makerere University. Having intended to study law, a subject not taught at the university, Obote instead took a general arts course, including English and geography.^[2] At Makerere, Obote honed his natural oratorical skills, he may have been expelled for participating in a student strike, or alternatively left after a place to study law abroad was not funded by the protectorate government.^[3]). He worked in Buganda in southern Uganda before moving to Kenya, where he worked as a construction worker at an engineering firm. While in Kenya, Obote became involved in the Kenyan independence movement. Upon returning to Uganda in 1956, he joined the political party Uganda National Congress (UNC), and was elected to the colonial Legislative Council in 1957.^[4] In 1959, the UNC split into two factions, with one faction under the leadership of Obote merging with Uganda People's Union to form the Uganda People's Congress (UPC).
In the run up to independence elections Obote formed a coalition with the Buganda royalist party, Kabaka Yekka. The two parties controlled a Parliamentary majority and Obote became Prime Minister in 1962. He assumed the post on April 25, 1962, appointed by Sir Walter Coutts, then Governor-General of Uganda. The following year the position of Governor-General was replaced by a ceremonial Presidency to be elected by Parliament. Mutesa, the Kabaka (King) of Buganda, became the ceremonial President, with Obote as executive Prime Minister.^[2]
In January 1964, there was a mutiny at the military barracks at Jinja, Uganda's second city and home to a burgeoning military. There were similar mutinies in two other eastern African states; all three countries requested the support of troops from the British military. Before they arrived, however, Obote sent Defence Minister Felix Onama to negotiate with the mutineers. Onama was held hostage, and agreed to many demands, including significant pay increases for the army, and the rapid promotion of many officers, including future president Idi Amin.^[2] In 1965, Kenyans had been barred from leadership positions within the government, and this was followed by the removal of Kenyans en masse from Uganda in 1969, under Obote's guidance.^[5]
As prime minister, Obote was implicated in a gold smuggling plot, together with Idi Amin, then deputy commander of the Ugandan armed forces. When the Parliament demanded an investigation of Obote and the ousting of Amin, he suspended the constitution and declared himself President in March 1966, allocating to himself almost unlimited power under state of emergency rulings. Several members of his cabinet, who were leaders of rival factions in the party, were arrested and detained without charge. In May the Buganda regional Parliament passed a resolution declaring Buganda's incorporation into Uganda to be de jure null and void after the suspension of the constitution.^{[citation needed]} Obote responded with an armed attack upon Mutesa's palace, which ended with Mutesa fleeing to exile. In 1967, Obote's power was cemented when Parliament passed a new constitution which abolished the federal structure of the independence constitution, and created an executive Presidency.
Obote's regime, described as "dictatorial and barbaric," terrorized, harassed, and tortured people. Obote's secret police General Service Unit, led by Obote's cousin, was responsible for many cruelties.^[5]
Food shortages sent prices through the ceiling. Obote's persecution of Indian traders contributed to this.^[5]
In 1969 there was an attempt on Obote's life. In the aftermath of the attempt all opposition political parties were banned, leaving Obote as an effectively absolute ruler. A state of emergency was in force for much of the time and many political opponents were jailed without trial for life. In 1969-70 Obote published a series of pamphlets which were supposed to outline his political and economic policy. "The Common Man's Charter" was a summary of his approach to socialism, which became known as the Move to the Left. The government took over a 60% share in major private corporations and banks in the country in 1970.
During Obote's regime, flagrant and widespread corruption emerged in the name of socialism. The population increasingly hated Obote's rule.^[5]
In January 1971 Obote was overthrown by the army while on a visit to Singapore, and Amin became President. In the two years before the coup Obote's relations with the West had become strained. Some have suggested that Western Governments were at least aware of, and may have aided, the coup.^[6][7] Obote fled to Tanzania. The fall of Obote's regime was welcomed and celebrated by many Ugandans.
In 1979, Idi Amin was ousted by Tanzanian forces aided by Ugandan exiles. By 1980, Uganda was governed by an interim Presidential Commission. At the time of the 1980 elections, the chairman of the commission was a close associate of Obote, Paulo Muwanga. Muwanga had briefly been the de facto President of Uganda from 12 May to 20 May in 1980. Muwanga was the third of three Presidents who served for short periods of time between Amin's ouster and the setting up of the Presidential Commission. The other two presidents were Yusuf Lule and Godfrey Binaisa.
The elections in 1980 were won by Obote's Uganda People's Congress (UPC) Party. However, the UPC Party's opposition believed that the elections were rigged and this led to a guerrilla rebellion led by Yoweri Museveni's National Resistance Army (NRA) and several other military groups.
It has been estimated that approximately 100,000 people died as a result of fighting between Obote's Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA) and the guerrillas.^[8]
On 27 July 1985, Obote was deposed again. As in 1971, he was overthrown by his own army commanders in a military coup d'état. This time the commanders were Brigadier Bazilio Olara-Okello and General Tito Okello. The two men briefly ruled the country through a Military Council, but after a few months of near chaos, Museveni's NRA seized control of the country.
After his second removal from power, Obote fled to Tanzania and later to Zambia. For some years it was rumoured that he would return to Ugandan politics. In August 2005, however, he announced his intention to step down as leader of the UPC.^[9] In September 2005, it was reported that Obote would return to Uganda before the end of 2005.
On October 10, 2005, Obote died of kidney failure in a hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa.^[11]
Milton Obote was given a state funeral, attended by president Museveni in the Ugandan capital Kampala in October 2005, to the surprise and appreciation of many Ugandans, since he and Museveni were bitter rivals.^[12] Other groups, such as the Baganda survivors of the "Luwero Triangle" massacres, were bitter that Obote was given a state funeral.^[13]
He was survived by his wife and five children. On November 28, his wife Miria Obote was elected UPC party president.^[14] One of his sons, Jimmy Akena, is a member of parliament for Lira Municipality.

The Children of Independence Speak-Out Rukiya Makuma 14 October 2011

People were poorer than today but they did not notice it - James Tumusiime
In 1962, James Tumusiime, now Group Managing Director of Fountain Publishers Limited was barely 10 and a primary four pupil at Kinoni Primary school in Mbarara district. He could tell that something important was happening but did not understand what all the fuss was about.

"Every time, you tuned in to radio, something to do with Uganda's Independence would be said loud and clear, the term Independence was on everyone's lips. The hype created around it was too much for one to ignore," he says.
He was used to seeing White people as the rulers and everybody was excited at the prospect of their departure and self-governance. "Uganda was surely treading on new territory the Governor was leaving and the country would be managed by an Executive Prime Minister who would be a Ugandan," he says.
At school, they were hurriedly taught how to sing the national anthem in lieu. "We were given badges at the time," he recalls.
He remembers the country was awash with songs praising Prime Minister designate, Milton Obote. "Ye yekka Obote waffe, Katumukulisa katitikiro olwo obuwanguzi", "We mubanga mulya twemwelabila nga Obote wa Mirembe....( He is the only one, our Obote, we congratulate our prime minister for this victory, whenever you're eating, never forget Obote, the man of peace)"
"It spread like a bush fire, everywhere you turned, someone was humming one to himself," Tumusime recalls, "the scent of Independence promised good things." He says, however barely two years later, the ugly side of Independence reared its head.
"This time people were constantly reminded about Obote but not as a peaceful man. There were two years of infighting and arrest pf prominent ministers. Within no time, kingdoms were abolished, and this was like the biggest blow."
As a young boy Tumusiime, had grown up knowing and believing that the King was invincible, indispensable and respected by everyone. The value attached to the kings was inestimable.
The country was growing politically and the voices of the Prime Minister became more pronounced.
He says Just like all African countries that were colonised, Uganda has shared the same post-independence experiences; breakdown of law and order, shattered expectations, war, and turmoil.
"Bbut there has been great effort in getting the country back through sacrifice," he says, "the greatest advantage the country has is that today people are more equipped with knowledge and are aware of what a responsible government is. The other advantages include the vibrant media that puts government to task and an educated populace population which is optimistic."
"The country is witnessing economic pressures today and yet in the earlier days the situation was worse off. People were poorer than today but they did not notice it," he says.

Corruption has killed the country - Henry Kyemba, former minister, author of State of Blood
Unlike most people who were merely looking on and waiting upon Independence to pass, at 25 years and as a fresh graduate from Makerere University College, Henry Kyemba who held several ministerial and distinguished jobs in at least four of the eight post-independence regimes in Uganda, was deeply engrossed in the preparations for the activities of October 9, 1962 successful and memorable.
He says at the time, they had to deal with the issue of national anthem, the court of arms and the national flag since these three aspects were to be important symbols for the independent Uganda. Though the national anthem and court of arms were identified and agreed on early, Kyemba recalls the problem encountered in selecting the colours for the national flag.
"Benedicto Kiwanuka the first prime Minister had identified colours yellow, green and black," he says, "but Milton Obote who was in charge then proposed the colour red." Eventually the issue was sorted with Obote's red included in place of Kiwanuka's green.
He says to him Independence meant the ability to see Ugandans taking charge of their own destiny after colonial rule. "The events were very touching because it automatically put the blacks in charge of the country," he says, "In the colonial rule it was very infuriating because Ugandans in all professionals were seen as assistants no matter the qualifications they had. Whether one was a qualified doctor or engineer, in the colonial era that person was an assistant to the powers that were."
He says independence to them meant being able to do those jobs that had been saved for the foreigners instead of just hearing about how things a done. "Independence meant putting this new dream into reality," he says.
He says the environment has changed tremendously. "The latest innovations in technology have fast tracked the way people communicate and it is now easier to deal with situations as they come," he says.

On the negative side, he says the people who were put in charge have taken advantage of their positions as a quick way to get money. He says back then, salaries and purchasing power was commensurate with people's needs, which is not the case today. People want to get things so fast in the fastest way. This has killed the country because most resources meant for delivering services to the country are diverted by the greedy service providers.
"Corruption was unheard of in our days, but today it is everywhere," he says with melancholy, "Today people want to be paid for the services and jobs that they are employed to do. People are only propelled to work when you give them small hand outs and this has greatly contributed to the high levels of corruption."
Indiscipline holding the country back - By Apollo Nsibambi, former Prime Minister
Former Prime Minister, Apollo Nsibambi, was 24-years old at Makerere University when Uganda attained her independence.
For someone who was lucky to attain education at a time when Ugandans were being denied the right, he was excited by the prospect of independence and he saw it as an opportunity for Ugandans to shape their destiny.
"I hoped that with independence, Uganda would get good get good leadership, political stability, and economic development," he says. He looked forward to a time when Ugandans would have the best in the health, energy, and education sectors.
He recalls that as head of a young country, Prime Minister Milton Obote, ensured that things run smoothly and normally from 1962-66. He says, however with the new position he held, Obote fell prey to greed and when he was challenged by parliament, he declared himself president.
"That is when the problems started," he says, "On the Buganda question, he made the army important, killed and arrested whoever threatened his government especially those who opposed him and this caused a lot of instability and the situation that prevailed at the time has prevailed throughout Uganda's 49 years."
Nsibambi says Ugandans started witnessing some of the unfortunate events that dashed the hopes of having independence. The country was characterised with a lot of instability which was followed by different coups and liberation wars by different personalities as a way of ensuring that the country is restored back to normal.
He says Uganda at 49 has achieved a lot of stability politically but is grappling with global challenges which are affecting it like the energy and food problems but, he says, solutions are underway.
The country is on the right path. It is not only held back by the indiscipline that is being exercised by some sections of society," he says. If Ugandan were disciplined enough we would be doing better than we are - Prof. Joy kwesiga, Vice Chancellor of Kabale University
Prof. Joy Constance Kwesiga, the Vice Chancellor of Kabale University, was lucky to attend the Independence celebrations at Kololo Grounds in Kampala on October 9, 1962. She was a school girl in Senior Four at Gayaza High School and recalls how teachers helped them to learn the national anthem in preparation for the day.
Although she now knows how lucky she was to be among those who would witness Uganda's baptism from a colony to independent country, she did not quite grasp the whole concept of Independence even as she participated in the celebrations.
It was very fascinating to see the British flag being lowered and the Ugandan flag being raised up. Everything was too much for one to comprehend," she says, " Everything that time had a taste of Independence; I remember receiving independence adorned postcards from my young siblings then." She says much as the missionaries helped and introduced formal education, it was poorly suited for Ugandans as those who got an opportunity to go to school were brought up in a strict Pentecostal way. "We did not have the opportunity to learn about the roots of our country, our forefathers and what they did for a living, we were deprived of learning traditional songs, dances, and rhymes which were enriched with African culture," she says.
She says appreciation of colonialism and the good changes it brought came later because when people received independence, they associated independence to mean that they were free to do whatever they felt like doing without anyone questioning them.
Kwesiga says in Kabale Kigezi people are no longer disciplined in everyday life of farming and land management.
"Terraces are no more, and crop rotation is no longer practised and yet before it was compulsory. Soil erosion is a very common occurrence," she says.
She says in colonial times, parish chiefs played a very great role and would punish all those individuals who did not practise crop rotation.
"Punishments would range from one carrying rubbish to the Gombolola headquarters on their heads," she says.
She says up to date the indiscipline has widespread to all sectors of the economy and this had greatly affected our country.
"These days people look at the state as though it is not part of us," she says.

She says along the way the country has achieved a lot in terms of goods and services, and infrastructure.
"Many schools and hospitals have been built regardless of their quality and if Ugandan were disciplined enough we would be doing better than we are," she says.
Uganda at 49 is not the Uganda that independence fighters envisioned in their quest for independence - Jack Wamai Wamanga, MP
Jack Wamanga, the MP for Mbale Municipality, was 16 when Uganda attained independence on October 9, 1962. Wamanga says Independence promised the best and the leaders at the time were responsible to bring that peace to the people. Milton Obote, Idi Amin Dada and all the presidents that have ruled Uganda have all been admired in their early stages. However after a while the hope and promises they come with are quickly dashed. Uganda's 49 years have been tainted by the rampant killings by different regimes that came to power.
He says the country has acquired some of the best infrastructure but there is no service, the country has multiparty democracy but no term limits for the presidency, there is privatisation but the cooperatives have collapsed, many jobs have been created but many more people cannot get those jobs or if they do the salaries cannot sustain them.
"Uganda at 49 is not the Uganda that independence fighters envisioned in their quest for independence," he says.
Good buildings amount to nothing if people are poor - Drake Sekeba, WBS TV presenter
Renowned WBS TV presenter, Drake Sekeba, says after Independence in 1962, the country was at peace and people were free to do things they were denied from doing by the colonial government.

That is until the post-Independence African politicians turned around and started antagonising the very peace and changes they had craved so much. "There was infighting and the police started beating up people themselves, whoever challenged the ruling government was quickly silenced either by death or by putting them in prisons a situation that has persisted till today," he says.
Sekeba was an 18-year old junior two student at Kibuye Junior Secondary school. For him independence meant Africans would be free to do things which were not allowed by the colonialists. It meant that Ugandans would be free to visit certain hotels and would be able to attend schools that were previously only accessed by foreigners.
Schools like Nakasero primary school were for Europeans only, Norman Godinho Primary School, now called Buganda Road primary school and Nakivubo Primary School now Nakivubo Blue Primary School were mainly for Asains
Shops were only for Europeans. Only one or two very well to do Africans would be allowed to access drapers, the departmental stores that were located at the present day Crane Bank main offices on Kampala Road in Kampala.
At the time the talk around was that colonialists were going and Africans were going to be in charge of everything. Independence meant that Ugandans would be free.
Sekeba remembers the agitations and struggle for political independence which were greatly silenced by colonial governors like Sir Andrew Cohen. Demonstrations by politicians were not allowed and police would be on alert to beat up whoever came out to demonstrate. Demonstrations were regarded as illegal assembly.
With independence came the change in political leadership, before there was the head of State represented by the governor and later the position was changed to governor general after 1962. The 1962 constitution which was made in Britain with Ugandan representatives created a position of Executive Prime Minister, Milton Obote and ceremonial president, Sir Frederick Walugembe Mutesa II.
According to Sekeba the picture of Uganda at 49 in 2011 is a big contrast to the Independence people fought for.
"Are people free to do what they want within the laws? Are we not worse or like before the colonial period?," Sekeba questions.
For Sekeba , Uganda at 49 is a confused picture; because you cannot proudly say that Uganda is at peace, there is development economically, socially despite the existence of infrastructure. Everything that was attained and made Ugandans proud of has been destroyed. "Good buildings amount to nothing if people are poor," he says.

From the Grace of State House Entebbe to Exile in Lusaka - Revealing Dr Milton Obote's 20 Quiet Years Elias Mbao 9 October 2011

For the 20 years that he lived in exile in Zambia, Apollo Milton Obote kept a low profile. Almost never seen in public, limited associates, gave less than five media interviews and strictly adhered to his asylum conditions.
To date, many Zambians do not know the late Ugandan president lived in Lusaka. He was "too quiet". Many know the busy-and-famed Obote Avenue in Kitwe town than the man after whom it is named.

Obote spent most of his time at home reading, chatting with comrades - mainly from the liberation era, family and the Ugandans here.
"President Obote was a friendly person and I am one of the people who used to visit him regularly, and a number of other friends of his from old times, just to give him encouragement to live on," said Vernon Mwaanga, a renowned Zambian diplomat and politician, in an interview.
Dr Okiror Oumo, Uganda's High Commissioner to Zambia during the Obote II government and resident in Lusaka since 1985, explained that "Dr Obote kept his communication to the minimum" while he was here.
He was endowed with many capacities, but he spent most of his time reading and was "writing his memoirs," said Dr Oumo.
Born in 1925 in Uganda, Obote was president of the East African nation twice, each time toppled. He led Uganda to independence in 1962 but was ousted by Idi Amin in 1971, forcing him into exile in Tanzania but returned and was re-elected President in 1980.
He was again toppled by his army commander, General Tito Okello, in 1985. For the second time, Obote ran into exile.
This time, Zambia was to be his home until his death in 2005, aged 80, in South Africa - a country he fought to liberate. He had been take there for treatment.
Zambia's open arms
"Milton Obote had been a fellow fighter for Southern Africa's freedom and so we had to receive him. My task was to look after Milton Obote. For 20 years, he lived in Zambia. He lived humbly," wrote Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia's president between 1964 and 1991, in his KK's Diary column, which was published in The Post newspaper.
He added: "I received no complaints or pressure related to Milton Obote getting asylum in Zambia. Nobody protested to me."
To prove Kaunda's statement that "we willingly received him", upon their arrival in late 1985, Obote and his entourage that included about eight or 10 of his ministers was accommodated at State Lodge in Lusaka.
About 200 to 300 "young people" that came with Obote were kept in various parts of Lusaka, according to Dr Oumo, and "some are still here to this day".
Keeping up with presidential status, after State Lodge, Obote was moved to house number 15 Dunduza Chisidza Road in Lusaka's posh-and-quiet Longacres suburb.

It became his home until his demise. Mwaanga explained the significance of the new Obote residence. "The house used to be the late Mainza Chona's house when he served as Vice President of the Republic of Zambia."
Even now, the house is opposite the Vice-President's residence and about two kilometres from State House.
Keeping a low profile
Mwaanga said Obote led a "very quiet life" while in exile and was "almost never seen in public places".
According to him, Obote mainly associated with the Ugandan colleagues he came with, most of them "very highly trained" doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and teachers, who often kept him company.
Mwaanga, Zambia's foreign minister at different times under three presidents, explained that Obote was very conscious that he was in exile and kept a very low profile, which was one of the conditions of the asylum given by the Lusaka Government.
The conditions were meant to avoid creating complications and denting the relations between the governments of Zambia and Uganda. Mr Mwaanga admitted, "I think he succeeded in doing that." Despite Obote's quiet lifestyle, President Yoweri Museveni was still dissatisfied.
"The Uganda government of president Museveni raised issues with us about Obote from time to time and we assured them that we will not permit him to take part in politics because that was part of the asylum conditions given to him by the previous government and we inherited those conditions," recalled Mwaanga about his stint as Foreign Affairs Minister in the Frederick Chiluba government that succeeded Kaunda's.
Notwithstanding the Obote 'issue', ties between Kampala and Lusaka were cordial.
"No! (It didn't strain the Zambia-Uganda relationship) because Obote didn't participate in Ugandan politics from here.That would have violated his asylum conditions," Mwaanga insisted.
Ironically, President Museveni was in Lusaka for the historic 2001 summit that agreed on the transformation of Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to African Union (AU), but did not visited Obote, his predecessor who lived a stone throw away from the hotel he was lodging.
Fear for his life

Obote's reservation however, was not just because of the asylum conditions. According to Dr Oumo, the Uganda government wanted to assassinate some exiled leaders including Obote hence the former president's movements were "curtailed a lot" and "it was best for him to keep a low profile".
He was not a man that liked moving around too much, he was a very quiet person but still he had to keep a low profile "because of the threats we kept receiving" from Kampala, Dr Oumo explained.
Kaweche, Kaunda's son and a friend of the Obote children, also acknowledges that the Obotes led a quiet and normal life.
"Once in a while we would invite him (Obote) to join us like when we would go to Kasaba Bay [for leisure]. But he spent most of his time to himself," said Kaweche in an interview. We were friends with the family from the time he was president and when they had problems, they came to stay with us, he said. "I don't remember them getting involved in any issues that would put them in the spotlight," Kaweche explained.
Security at the Obote home was high. State police and the intelligence kept a close eye on him for his safety. Not everyone could meet the former president, either.
The Zambian government provided the security for Obote and ensured his "security and safety while on the Zambian soil", said Dr Oumo - a man who quit his ambassadorial post after the Obote II oust.
"What kept him going was the hope that things will be okay one day, again. He kept telling me that 'we have not failed but we have not succeeded yet'," Dr Oumo said.
He also helped the former president pen his memoirs, which are yet to be published, dependant on the family.
Former ministers, close friends, aides, Dr Oumo and Mrs Miria Obote kept contact with the outside world on behalf of Obote.
Maintaining links with the Mulugushi crew
Having been part of the Mulungushi Club - a group comprising Kaunda, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere and himself - aimed at fighting colonialism in Southern Africa, Obote was not lonely in Zambia, after all.
With a wide network of friends from liberation movements like South Africa's African National Congress (ANC), Namibia's South Western Africa Peoples' Organidation (SWAPO) and Zambia's political elites who were educated at the prestigious Makerere University. Obote had enough friends to chat with.
Obote never gave interviews until the last two or three years before his demise" because he did not like exposure, according to Dr Oumo. He was a "very timid and quiet person" but used to work from underneath and very efficient, the ex-envoy said.
After Obote gave an interview to a BBC journalist, Dr Oumo recalled, he told the interviewer "not to interview him again". It was a like premonition. Not long after that, he died.
In a rare interview with Zambia's The Post newspaper in 2003, Dr Obote lambasted corrupt African presidents. "Obote said he hoped Idi Amin would live longer so that he could suffer the same way he tortured and traumatiSed Ugandans during his leadership," The Post quoted the aging statesman.

Though 'officially' he was not participating in Uganda politics, Obote was still the head of his Uganda Peoples' Congress (UPC) from Lusaka.
"He wanted to groom a few people around him and show them the way, but he was going to retire at home and let the young ones take the mantle," Dr Oumo explained.
Not so rosy
Somehow, Obote's stay in Lusaka was not all rosy as government rhetoric portrayed.
In 2000, The Post reported that Obote was "sleeping in a garage" for five months because his house was undergoing renovations.

Due to government's delays to pay the contractor, the renovations were prolonged and he was "sharing the make-shift bathroom and toilet with his security men", The Post quoted Government sources.
"Sometimes he asks some people close to him to pray for him so that he can go back to his country because he is tired of living like a dog when he is a former president," anonymous sources told The Post.
But the Chiluba government underplayed the humiliating 'garage story' with the junior minister in charge of Obote's accommodation claiming ignorance about the former president sleeping 'rough'.
Uganda's Presidential Policy Commission member Oweyegha Afuunaduula, was quoted by this newpaper, said it did not matter where Obote slept because "even Jesus Christ was born in a kraal".
But, according to Dr Oumo, Obote was "well looked after by the Zambian government in every respect - transport, accommodation, food" and other requirements. Other than just being a close ally, perhaps, there was another reason Kaunda hosted Obote.
"For a long time, for over 34 years, I bore guilt for the 1971 removal of Milton Obote from office. I felt that if I had not persuaded Milton Obote to go to Singapore, he might not have gone. Perhaps Idi Amin could not have overthrown him. Perhaps the history of Uganda would have been different," Kaunda wrote in his KK's diary in 2005.
Consolation, Kaunda wrote: "now, a few days ago, my aide Duncan Mtonga pointed out to me that perhaps Milton's going to Singapore helped him to survive the coup."

The World Through the Musevenis' Eyes, Timothy Kalyegira 28 August 2011

President Yoweri Museveni's memoirs, Sowing the Mustard Seed, were published in Kampala on January 25, 1997. The First Lady, Janet Museveni, had her own memoirs My Life's Journey published in Kampala on July 6, 2011. The President's book was published by the British firm Macmillan while the first lady's was by the Kampala firm Fountain Publishers.

The effort to write books that state their view of events in their lives by the President and First Lady are a challenge to Uganda's middle class which often is content just to narrate what they witnessed over a bottle of beer, making no effort to write books. That, alas, is about where the credit to these two authors ends.
A weakness common in the books of both Janet and Yoweri Museveni is their tendency to overestimate their place in the world. They have a view of themselves as great historical world figures called upon either by history (Yoweri Museveni) or by God (Janet Museveni) to fight social ills (Janet Museveni) or dictatorship and injustice (Yoweri Museveni).
They sometimes forget that neither they nor their country Uganda are particularly legendary or achievers in any serious sense of the word. They also forget that as authors their books will be potentially read by an international audience. The effect of 25 years as First Lady, in a country where those in State House are either worshipped or feared, has taken its toll on Janet Museveni and it clearly shows in her book.
Because of the way political and economic power has been constructed under the Museveni rule, most businesses are careful to maintain some form of cordial relations with State House. Certainly they avoid as much as possible a confrontation with the Museveni's, including in this case Fountain Publishers. It is obvious from reading her book that Fountain Publishers did not dare question much of what Mrs. Museveni wrote or presented for publication.
The index of Janet Mueveni's book was an amateurish work. It lists entries in the form "Milton Obote", "Natasha Museveni", rather than the proper indexing format of an inversion of names such as "Obote, Milton" and "Museveni, Natasha". It also has that very Ugandan habit of adding (RIP) after deceased people's names. On that count, Yoweri Museveni's Sowing the Mustard Seed was much more professionally edited and arranged than his wife's. The fault here with the poor technical editing and indexing, perhaps, lies more with Fountain Publishers than Janet Museveni as the author.
Janet Museveni's book, much more than the President's own book, sheds light on who Museveni really is. And the light her book sheds is not entirely flattering.

While Museveni tried to make Sowing the Mustard Seed an intellectual work, devoid of emotion and dominated by a sense of mission and operational details, Janet Museveni's book is much more personable.
It is in this more personable side that she inadvertently gives her readers a glimpse into the mindset of her husband. Apparently, from her book, we learn that the Musevenis lived next door while in exile in Dar es Salaam in the 1970s, to Col. Toto Okello and his wife Jennifer. According to Janet Museveni, Mrs. Okello was affectionate and helpful.
She treated the young Mrs. Museveni like her own daughter and offered to baby sit the young Museveni children. This would make the informed reader wonder why then Yoweri Museveni betrayed Gen. Okello by abrogating the December 1985 Nairobi peace accords, storming Kampala to seize power from Okello, and in 1993 at Kololo Airstrip referred to the elderly Okello and his predecessors as "swine".
There are lazy parts to Janet's book, such as the title of chapter 2 two, "It takes a village to raise a child", a clear plagarisation of Hillary Clinton's 1990s literacy campaign effort in America's schools. Each chapter opens with what sometimes comes across as pretentious quotes, apparently to give the impression of high-mindedness on the part of the author.
President Museveni's foreword to the book, too, is similarly gushing and uncritical. Museveni is usually at his best when he's being sarcastic and witty and he could have brought at least some of his wit to this forward, but chose not to. Chapter 6 ("Yoweri Museveni") of Janet's book, devoted to her impression of her husband, surprisingly gives little away that would shed light on the personality of Uganda's future head of state.
There is very little up-close insight into Yoweri from his wife and the chapter is only 15 pages long. Chapter 13 ("Being Mom") in which Janet Museveni narrates her role as a mother, is as surprisingly sketchy as the chapter on her husband. Even a society reporter or former classmate of Janet Museveni's children would have been able to give a more up-close description of the First Lady's children than she does.
This chapter on being a mother gives the impression that Janet Museveni is not particularly close to her children.

Steep decline
Other weak chapters are 14 "Running for Parliament", 16, "Karamoja" and 17, "Reflections on Africa". From page 236 to the end, the book goes into steep decline in content and subject matter. Just as it was with President Museveni's Sowing the Mustard Seed, once Janet Museveni gets to the events of 1986 and the NRA's triumphant capture of state power, she seems to have little left to say.
The rest of her book, as the rest of Museveni's book after narrating 1986, becomes about political lectures and in Janet's case, moralising and preaching. However, there still are a number of important details of public interest to glean from Janet Museveni's book. She fills in several gaps in Yoweri Museveni's life story. She tells the reader that in 1980, it was the UNLF strongman Paulo Muwanga who actually sponsored and paid for her flight to London to deliver her baby Diana.
The tendency to deliver babies in Europe that Ugandans saw with the Museveni daughters starting with Natasha, we now see, seems to run in the family. Muwanga is a good man when he facilitates Janet Museveni's flight to London in June 1980 to give birth, but is a dictator and evil man when a few months later in December 1980 he announces a general election result in which Museveni is not the winner.
According to Janet Museveni, her late brother Henry loved to dance and party a lot, almost as an obsession. He was always out on the night with friends in Kampala and Entebbe. Everywhere she went for a job or opportunity, she got one unhindered, whether it was as a ground hostess with East African Airways at Entebbe International Airport or training as a nurse at Mulago.
Henry also did not seem to have a difficult time securing a job for himself or for his sister Janet. Henry Kainerugaba's life was one of partying and movement, hardly the image of suffering, political tension and fear that Yoweri Museveni usually likes to claim about Idi Amin's Uganda. All this, of course, begs the question: if this is what the 1970s were for a family from Ntungamo in western Uganda (and not just for people from Idi Amin's tribe in Arua, West Nile), where does this idea come from that the 1970s were "dark days" in which only northerners enjoyed any prosperity and fun?
Along with her description of the warmth of the Tito Okellos toward her family in Tanzania, this account of Paulo Muwanga inadvertently sheds light on a much needed area --- the very human and humane side to the Ugandan leaders before 1986 who have for 25 years been portrayed by the NRA-NRM as murderous and evil.
By this, Janet Museveni also unwittingly lets us see the ingratitude and insensitivity of her husband, that men who treated your family well and humanely are rewarded with accusations of being murderers or, in the case of Paulo Muwanga, jailed soon after Museveni took power.

Here Is the Man Who Hoisted Country's Flag

While many drummed, sang and ululated as Uganda's flag was hoisted for the first time in October 9, 1962, one young man stood still, probably shaking in his boots with a mixture of fear and pride. Proud, that he was the one performing this historic role and fear because it was a huge task for him, "I just couldn't believe it," he recounts.

Maj. Akorimo Kanuti's role was not a simple task and he knew it, just hours before, "the city was tensed, as some people thought the British would resist our Independence while the late President Apollo Milton Obote, then Prime Minister, feared Idi Amin, who was the army officer, would disrupt the function.
Now living a quiet life in Omatenga village in Kumi District, the 79 year old, carries the accolade of a national hero but lives a pauper's life in a dilapidated house, but still vividly remembers this day with much pride and joy.
First timer
Did he know he would hoist the flag? To this, he gives a broad smile and says, "no". Obote only told him at the last moment that he would perform this task. "Maj. Kanuti, you will bring down the colonial flag and hoist the Uganda flag, Obote told him". "I felt a huge responsibility at that moment, I was tensed," he recalls.
But events preceding the first Independence celebrations had to be planned well, Maj. Akorimo says, as there had been mounting suspicion for a possible revolution against Obote. A section of politicians aspiring for various roles and some senior army officers were opposed to the choice of Obote by the British as the Premier to be handed the instruments of power.
Being one of the most educated officers in the national army at the time, Obote consulted him on a number of issues, including giving him the responsibility to make the final decision as to who becomes the Army Commander. A decision that allegedly pitted him against Amin.

"I recommended Brig. Shaban Opolot (RIP) to be the Army Commander because he was better educated and announced the appointments but Amin had first to be sent on duty out of the country," Maj. Kanuti recalls. "I assured Obote that as long as he remained neutral and took no tribal sides, all would get on well with him. A national leader has no tribe. This is what I wished for my country," said Maj. Kanuti.
According to him tribalism has been the undoing factor for most of the past leaders since independence and partly the cause of the major power feuds the country has witnessed. He said much of the army hierarchy formed shortly after Independence comprised mostly soldiers who had served in colonial missions out of the country and had their own ambitions. "We wanted peace and prosperity but it has taken us long to achieve this. My prayer is that the curse between politicians and the soldiers does not get on for long," Maj. Kanuti said.
The army then, comprised ethnic groups from West Nile, Lango, Acholi and Teso sub regions. He says shortly after independence, Obote and Amin had developed intolerance for each other and could not get on well over tribal issues. "I had warned Obote to desist from tribalism. A national leader has no tribe. I told Obote to be neutral if he was to win the confidence of many (in the army)," Maj. Kanuti recalls.
Building a national army was one of the biggest tasks the leadership then was faced with given the narrow scope of the country's local recruitment. "Shortly before Uganda got its independence, I was given the task to spearhead a programme to form the national army. I moved to as far as Kabale but one thing I noticed with (people in) the west is that they were not willing to join forces," he recalls.
His journey

Maj. Kanuti went for a commercial course in Nairobi from where a tribe-mate of his, only identified as Okiria persuaded him to join the colonial forces then in Kenya. "He (Okiria) told me, you are a very good boy. If you carry on with your course in (secretarial studies) and join the army after, your career would be brighter." He went to Britain for a short service commission from where he returned as a senior officer in the army.
Currently the chairperson Kumi Association of Ex-servicemen, Maj. Kanuti has since lived past the Ugandan life expectancy but the little known ex-soldier, is yet to receive his terminal benefits.
Fading heroes
The story of Rtd. Maj. Kanuti only adds to the long list of uncelebrated Heroes of Uganda silently fading away in their undignified retirement. "Government should not wait for him (Kanuti) to die then spend lavishly on his burial. He should taste the benefits of his service while still alive," Soroti District chairperson Stephen Ochola said.
Forty three years since he quit the army, the husband of two, a father of 16 and grandfather to 21 is still anxious to receive his reward. "I left with a clean record in the army. I committed no crime while in service and I deserve a decent retirement," Maj. Kanuti said. A pang of pain reels through his frail voice but with a clear recollection of the past that he is pleased to be associated with.
Several government officials have in the past visited him promising to bring to the attention of President Museveni what the ex-serviceman is going through but with nothing much forthcoming. Currently living in a dilapidated house built with personal savings from service in the army, it is the dream of Maj. Kanuti though that what he has been promised in the past comes forth before he dies.
Among the things government representatives have in the past promised to help him acquire are, decent residence, a vehicle and some stipend to survive on. "Recently after I lost my first wife, a group of army officials came to offer their condolence and I tried to remind them of the pledges. I am getting advanced (in age) and about to lose hope in anything (yet to be fulfilled)," said Maj. Kanuti. "But I am happy even in the conditions I have lived in. I played my role and would not demand for much recognition but a peaceful Uganda," he said.

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."

I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause-- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution-- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?"

I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unConstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION."

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is LESS perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it WILL Constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. MUST Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that Constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is RIGHT, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is WRONG, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases AFTER the separation of the sections than BEFORE. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL right of amending it, or their REVOLUTIONARY right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and WELL upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to HURRY any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take DELIBERATELY, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In YOUR hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in MINE, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail YOU. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. YOU have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while _I_ shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy

We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom. . . symbolizing an end as well as a beginning. . .signifying renewal as well as change for I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now, for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forbears fought are still at issue around the globe. . .the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.

Let the word go forth from this time and place. . .to friend and foe alike. . . that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. . . born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage. . .and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today. . .at home and around the world.

Let every nation know. . .whether it wishes us well or ill. . . that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge. . .and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share: we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United. . .there is little we cannot do in a host of co-operative ventures. Divided. . .there is little we can do. . .for we dare not meet a powerful challenge, at odds, and split asunder. To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free: we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom. . .and to remember that. . .in the past. . .those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside. To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery: we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required. . .not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border: we offer a special pledge. . . to convert our good words into good deeds. . .in a new alliance for progress . . .to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. . .and let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states: the United Nations. . . our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support. . .to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective. . .to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak. . . and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversaries, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace; before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course. . .both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of Mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew. . .remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms. . .and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations. Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce. Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah. . .to "undo the heavy burdens. . . let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of co-operation may push back the jungle of suspicion. . . let both sides join in creating not a new balance of power. . . but a new world of law. . .where the strong are just. . . and the weak secure. . .and the peace preserved. . . .

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days. . . nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens. . .more than mine. . .will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe. Now the trumpet summons us again. . . not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need. . .not as a call to battle. . . though embattled we are. . .but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. . .year in and year out, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation. . .a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny. . .poverty. . .disease. . .and war itself. Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance. . .North and South. . . East and West. . .that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger; I do not shrink from this responsibility. . .I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. . .and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans. . .ask not what your country can do for you. . .ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world. . .ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the Freedom of Man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds; let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

10 Reasons to Eat an Apple a Day Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-reasons-to-eat-an-apple-a-day.html#ixzz1ZMEOGFQ1

Health Benefits:
1. Apples are filled with soluble fiber  (5 grams)

• This fiber has been shown to reduce intestinal disorders, including diverticulitis, hemorrhoids and possibly some types of cancer.
• Helps control insulin levels by releasing sugar slowly into the bloodstream.
• Cleanses and detoxifies, which helps eliminate heavy metals, such as lead and mercury.

2. Apple pectin helps reduce cholesterol levels by lowering insulin secretion.
3. In two studies researchers found that eating five apples a week lowered the risk for respiratory diseases like asthma.
4. According to Chinese Medicine: Apples strengthen the heart, quench thirst, lubricate the lungs, decrease mucous and increase body fluids.
5.  Apple cider vinegar can help prevent the formation of kidney stones.
6. Studies indicate that eating apples daily can reduce skin diseases.
7. According to a Brazilian study, eating an apple before a meal helped women lose 33 percent more weight than those who didn’t.
8. An apple has only 50-80 calories and has no fat or sodium.
9. Apples are packed with vitamins C, A , and flavonoids and with smaller amounts of phosphorus, iron,  and calcium.
10. Apples provide a source of potassium which may promote heart health

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-reasons-to-eat-an-apple-a-day.html#ixzz1ZMEYXA8H

BENEFITS OF LAUGHTER

What can laughter do?:

• Lower blood pressure
• Increase vascular blood flow and oxygenation of the blood
• Give a workout to the diaphragm and abdominal, respiratory, facial, leg, and back muscles
• Reduce certain stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline
• Increase the response of tumor- and disease-killing cells such as Gamma-interferon and T-cells
• Defend against respiratory infections–even reducing the frequency of colds–by immunoglobulon in saliva.
• Increase memory and learning; in a study at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, humor during instruction led to increased test scores

• Improve alertness, creativity, and memory

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/8-health-benefits-of-laughter.html#ixzz1ZMDpk4kH

Petition Against Increased Emoluments For Members Of Parliament

30th May, 2011

Honourable MP,

PETITION AGAINST INCREASED EMOLUMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
...
I am writing to express my outrage at the news that Members of Parliament are seeking to increase their emoluments in the face of rising inflation. Reports in the mainstream media indicate that some opposition MPs and some ruling party MPs put forward these offending proposals after throwing the media out of Parliament, blacking out television coverage and suspending formal recording of proceedings in the Hansard. It is further reported that in this blacked-out session, MP's prioritized their personal concerns including:

• Softer loans and tax free luxury vehicles for themselves;
• Advance payments of up to UGX 50 million each to cushion themselves from high interest rates that the rest of us pay to get a bank loan and;
• An increase in their pay checks to buffer themselves from double digit inflation.

If these reports are accurate, then it appears that MPs have prioritized their personal concerns ahead of those of their constituents in a very selfish and greedy manner. All Ugandans are affected by inflation, high interest rates and taxes. We sent you to Parliament to address concerns that affect us all and not to sit behind closed doors and improve your personal welfare through lavish spending of public funds at our cost. These reports have cast a dark shadow over the August House at a time when government has failed to offer meaningful solutions to corruption, soaring fuel and food prices affecting constituents.

I would like to express my discontent directly to you as a concerned citizen and a voter. It is my duty to request that your voice be heard on the floor of Parliament condemning any proposal that will add to the burden that we are already suffering under an unresponsive government.

Sincerely,
 

Democracy in Uganda

Nelson Mandela "During my lifetime... I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for ...which I am prepared to die.
Can the Parliament of Uganda and The Judiciary stand for these ideals of N. Mandela which have stood the test of time from 1964 to today 2011? The statements are true then, are true today and are spread spread out into the South Africa Constitution - without amendments affecting the core values of Bill of Rights since 1994.
These are the ideals we are all yearning for in Uganda.