Category Archives: Uganda

Militarized oil fields in Uganda: The future of Human Rights

Over the last 5 years, the level of militarization in the oil regions of Uganda has increased. This increase is however worrying for human rights.

It was recently confirmed in a UN report that Heritage oil, a British company that was active in the Albertine region in 2007 triggered the killing of six civilians. The killings that happened on Lake Albert were orchestrated by the Uganda Military under the notion of a rescue mission.

This incident that has never been investigated or looked into by the Ugandan government of the army goes to show you the extent of disregard when it comes to how the military operates in the oil areas. Of course the oil companies in Uganda today say that they are critically following all procedures to make sure that they do not violate the human rights of the locals in the oil producing areas.

For a country like Uganda that is still grappling with the idea of the army being professional as asserted by the political leadership, this is bound to create fear in many locals. Therefore there is a lot to be done by the government to make sure human rights issues are given high regard as the 3 joint oil operators (Tullow, CNOOC and Total) move on to the next phase of their oil production quest.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2012 in Politics, Uganda


Tags: ,

Former President Apollo Milton Obote on language and identity

I was flipping through some speeches online this morning and I saw this speech by Obote. I was so humbled at the fact that even then, he saw the need for commonality especially in the East African region. I was also amazed at the high regard he had for African culture.

Read it here

Have a great day


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 17, 2012 in Africa, Politics, Uganda


#STOP KONY response from my friend Harry Verhoeven

Over the last few days Uganda and Joseph Kony have been trending. The reason for this, a video by Invisible Children that is intended to help capture Kony and put him away for good. There has been massive reaction to this video and I must say, I am one of those critics. I shared my thoughts with a great friend of mine Dr. Harry Verhoeven and I asked him to give me his views. He decided to write this in response.


Dear friends,

I hope this finds all of you very well. Since this morning, I’ve been bombarded with all kinds of questions and assumptions regarding Northern Uganda and Joseph Kony, the self-declared Prophet-leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army which hails from ‘Acholi land’ (the colloquial term for the North of Uganda) but has been active in Southern Sudan, Congo & Central African Republic as well since its creation in the late 1980s. I’m frankly very surprised to see all this buzz around Kony, for never in all the years that I have been following conflict in that region has such a thing happened. To the contrary, I’ve often bugged people and possibly annoyed them with my stories and memories of Northern Uganda and the war there; the reaction was more often one of boredom and disinterest.
How interesting thus to see this change in the space of 24 hours. People who don’t even know on a map where Uganda is, urging all of us to “do the right thing”, pictures of Hitler and the Rwandan Interahamwe militia being mixed with the rare images we have of the LRA as well as with footage that is more than 10 years old of the humanitarian situation around major population centres like Kitgum, Gulu, Masindi and Arua. What on earth is going on?

As someone who spent quite a bit of time in Northern Uganda and saw the violence and its longlasting effects myself on a daily basis, I always have very mixed feelings when an advocacy group tries to cast a deeply moral and often one-sided judgement on the war between 1986 and 2006 there…The language of the video is the language of emotion, the language of a self-righteous humanitarianism and the language of the internet age. It’s a language that tries to draw out a carefully cultivated sense of guilt regarding a part of the world that few people know and where a seemingly apolitical war has been raging, with no clear interests, no tricky games and no deeper meaning but above all a lot of savagery (and intuitively, we can all imagine ghastly things going on in the dark heart of “Africa”, can’t we?). The imagery is powerful: the Prophet vs children, the killers and their “sex slaves”. How could anyone ever condone such things?

Yet, as always, with conflict, things are little bit more complicated than what slickly produced American video teams -and their Hollywood instincts of good and evil- can churn out. There is little history, context, sociology or critical inquiry in the Invisible Children campaign, today or yesterday; we are not encouraged to learn or to explore more or even to reflect on how we got to this point. Instead we are encouraged to act. And we are told action is simple, really. It’s all about one man and one movement. It’s only about mouse clicks and students “uniting” because “they care”. This is solving war like playing a videogame. It’s an illusion.

There is no question that Joseph Kony is a monster; that the LRA have killed and kidnapped tens of thousands of people; that systematic looting, raping and maiming has occurred (and in Congo, CAR and South Sudan) is still occurring; and that the world has not cared very much for Northern Uganda.
But there is also no question that simplifying the very complex and extended processes that underpin the violence in the North and neighbouring regions to the actions of one man is disastrously wrong and likely to be counterproductive. Invisible Children speaks not of the effects of colonial rule; of long standing and grinding poverty; of a region riven with internal contradictions; of regional geopolitics; of militias and standing armed forces with similar human rights records (but perhaps less beastly practices: though, which is worse? Killing a man by boiling him alive or killing a woman by running her over deliberately with a truck? A life is still a life for me); of the Ugandan armed forces and their lucrative trade in resources in the north and neighbouring countries; of the complex relationship between Kony, his men and local tribal leaders; of Ugandan oil and Anglo-Saxon interests; of land grabbing by the Kampala government; or of the IDP camps in which more people have probably died than in the actual conflict; etc.
Even if we accept that an NGO campaign cannot engage with all the fine nuances of war, we must acknowledge that leaving these factors out means we are giving a very different meaning to the violence, deliberately prioritizing one line of explanation over another and undoing it of all its complexity until, well, very little remains.

And thus no awareness is spread really. Because the language is liberal-humanitarian and the images are so moving, the video’s message is particularly hard to resist and one might even be willing to overlook glaring factual efforts (no LRA attacks in Uganda since 2006, for example) and painful simplicity (Northern Uganda is actually experiencing serious economic growth these days). After all the takeaway is: it’s ugly and it’s in Africa (a tautology); it’s that monster; Kony; and it’s remediable by killing him through a clean strike by a bunch of heroes (a classic Hollywood story in another words; a two hour ride and just finished in time for dinner!). And, of course, those who question this story-line are really siding with the killers.

Yet what Invisible Children is thus really doing is setting an agenda and framing the conflict in particular narratives, at the expense of others, and campaigning for war, not for peace. It’s incredulous, but the founders claim to get their inspiration from the anti-apartheid movement which explicitly disavowed force. The issue is here that once the tone has been set and people have done their “facebook thing” (today activism often seems reduced to posting a link and then patting one’s self on the back: “I care”), it becomes much harder than is commonly acknowledged to rephrase the dominant narrative and inject the nuance and complexity that will ultimately be required to obtain any durable peace in Uganda, or elsewhere.

And so the question is that what presents itself as a message about you caring is really deeply political, though the Invisible Children crowd denies it. Lobbying is never innocent stuff, even for the “right cause”- the question is not just about superficiality, but about military intervention and about agenda shaping, but also about encouraging American students (and others overseas) not to question what their own governments are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Palestine. Instead attention is diverted to remote locations where there is no such “complicated politics” and where we can all unite behind banners of good and evil. We don’t need to understand these places or their crises or even their people. We know evil when we see it and it is apolitical. Therefore we must act.

I’ve seen first hand in Darfur how the same kind of arguments by the same kind of people played out and were actively abused, deepening the conflict as opposed to spreading awareness or resolving any violent confrontations. The links between Invisible Children and the Save Darfur Coalition, an organisation with strong Zionist links and tactics that are rather questionable, only serve to highlight the problematic character of this kind of pseudo-activism. For those interested in what happened in Darfur and the campaigning around an immensely complex series of wars: (and my own piece in response to Mamdani:,32018 )

Discourse setting ultimately decides which policy options are acceptable and which aren’t. Some people are stigmatised as victims and others as perpetrators: hardly ever is there a way back from these deeply political labels. Now the lobbyists in Washington DC or the moralists at Invisible Children won’t give a damn about the implications, because they don’t have to live in Northern Uganda, South Sudan or Darfur. But other people do. And they are unlikely to benefit from simplistic videos and facebook hypes.

With thoughts and prayers for Northern Uganda,



The Mirage of Fundamental Change after 26 years

“No one should think that what is happening today is a mere change of guard: it is a fundamental

change in the politics of our country. In Africa, we have seen so many changes

that change, as such, is nothing short of mere turmoil. We have had one group getting rid

of another one, only for it to turn out to be worse than the group it displaced. Please do

not count us in that group of people.” -President Museveni 1986

This morning, I asked my boss if he had bothered to tune into Uganda Broadcasting Service (UBC) to listen to President Museveni’s remarks commemorating NRM Day. His replied saying that he never wastes his time listening to Museveni. I know for certain that a great majority of Ugandans would agree with him.

I, on the other hand, like the idea of listening to Museveni wax on about the Movement’s achievements, and how, without the Movement, Uganda would be backward. And yet, if we were to read the speech that Museveni made in 1986 upon taking power, we would realise that the ideals that the NRM stood for at the time have since faded. The NRM overthrew the prior regime, only to morph into a version of it, a quarter-century later.

Indeed, looking at the NRM after 26 years, I still believe that the fundamental change that was promised has turned into a pipedream. In fact, it’s become a mirage—one that eludes you every time you think you’re getting closer to it. When the president stated yesterday that he had achieved that fundamental change, for a second I thought that he was reading off another speech script. Of course, it would be wrong to say that the NRM government has not done some remarkable things over the years as I will be make note of in this article.

However, let me look at the areas he mentioned yesterday.


President Museveni is very wrong to say that the NRM government discovered oil in Uganda. What he fails to acknowledge is that this resource was discovered way back in the 1920s—unless, of course, he is saying that the NRM somehow traveled back in time to make that discovery (a claim that is, sadly, no less fantastical that many others made in his latest speech)! Indeed, if there is any government that took a keen interest in the notion of oil in Uganda, it’s the Obote II government. It is this government that came up with the 1985 Petroluem (Exploration and Production) Act. So it would be very misplaced to lie to the people that the NRM “discovered” oil.

Another issue that seems to elude the president is that the oil we have in Uganda is a resource that will be depleted at a certain point. Experts put the lifespan of oil production in Uganda at about 40 years. Current estimates put Uganda’s oil potential at about 2.5 billion barrels of recoverable reserves from the three blocks that have so far been drilled. This should mean that despite the oil that is present, we need to invest in other sectors simultaneously. It is shocking to state that the agricultural sector—the biggest employer of Ugandans—has one of the slowest growth rates in the country, averaging two percent per annum since 2000. I would rather the president prioritise this sector as a way of uplifting the populace. Uganda before the NRM exported more agricultural products compared to today. Parastals and arrangements like the cooperatives that were used to make this possible were killed off, sadly, by the NRM.

The potential of this oil is enormous and exciting. But with the business as usual model that is a characteristic of the NRM government, it will be very hard to see the ills of this discovery come into play. Interestingly, Africa has not yet had a success story with regard to oil. It is a fact that countries with oil tend to have a slower economic growth as compared to many others that have no oil. The resource curse, characterized by corruption in the political realm, has moreoften made people suffer than rejoice.


I fail to understand why the President cannot see that he is the person that can best deal with corruption. The problem with Museveni is that the same people cited in these corruption scandals are always close ‘comrades’. The failure to reprimand them is very worrying. When he calls for foot soldiers to help in the fight against corruption, I feel like he is shortchanging Ugandans. People have talked and talked about corruption, although whistle blowing has not helped either. So when he says he needs foot soldiers, I really wonder what more he wants.

Sectarian Exclusion

Lastly, one of the promises that Museveni made upon his swearing in in 1986 was the he would end the spell of sectarian exclusion and violence by forming a broad-based government, and yet today we see a government as sectarian as the past ones.

I spent some time looking at the trends since 1986 and I found them very compelling. Stefan Lindemann, a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, in his research on Uganda states that all post-independence governments failed to accommodate ethnic, regional, and religious cleavages and the same is going on in the NRM government.

According to Lindemann’s research, the main beneficiaries of the NRM, regarding ethnic favouritism, have been people from the western region who have been overrepresented in the cabinet while dominating the inner core. Most of the positions go to Banyankole, who happen to be Museveni’s group.

Lindemann goes on to show how military power sharing has been limited since 1986. A classic example of this can be seen in the appointment of Army commanders. Five out of six commanders came from the West (Elly Tumwine, Salim Saleh, Mugisha Muntu, James Kazini, and Aronda Nyakairima). Four of these were Banyankole, out of whom three are from the Bahiima subgroup. Jeje Odong, who is from Teso, is the only non-western commander who, according to Lindemann’s research, wielded very little real influence. I find this intriguing.

So, when the President uses his 26th anniversary to preach to Ugandans about the attainment of fundamental change, I am left wondering what yardstick he is using. I think we need to be very cognizant of the fact that the NRM has economically transformed the country in one way or another. Of course, the massive liberalization of the economy might have had some casualties, but I must say that the Ugandan economy has grown. The next five years are going to be very critical in making claims of fundamental change. How the NRM deals with these years will determine a lot in all sectors of the economy, including the elimination of poverty in the country.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2012 in Politics, Uganda


Political elitism and the demise of the Walk to Work protests

While thinking about what to write today, I randomly set my eyes on an opinion piece on the walk to work protests by Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, the Director of the Makerere Institute for Social Research. The first thought in my mind was that the walk to work movement was not even worth debating since it has completely lost its focus. However on reading on, I realized how alike his views were with mine towards the end of last year. I have always asserted that any movement that does not have the people behind it cannot sustain itself.

When I first heard of Walk to work in 2011, I believed that it was a protest to reckon with following the other incidents that were taking place on the African continent at the time like the Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan uprisings. After the first attempts by some opposition politicians like Besigye, ottunu, my great friend Mao and their interactions with might of the police forces, I reflected and thought that there are surely other brilliant methods in which these protests could succeed.

The need to make these protests a people’s protest was and is the only way to go. Personally, I have never taken the majority of the opposition politicians seriously. So for you to think of a movement led by them without getting into these useless arguments that we hear every day like Museveni this Museveni that was going to be a miracle. And indeed, these politicians took that road.

Here is what I think. I do believe that the opposition political elite have killed the essence of these protests. The moment they got in and tried to take the lime light from the ordinary Ugandans who had started it, the steep decline in interest was initiated.

Take Ingrid Turinawe for example. She now being branded ‘FDC iron lady’. Why, because she can cause some drama that gives her the attention she needs. Dr. Kizza Besigye who knows for sure that every time he tries to walk to work he will be apprehended, is another reason for the failure of these protests. These politicians and many others are betrayers of what could have been the end of an era. I cannot deny the tremendous sacrifices they have made that have seen some loose more than many. However, Ultimately the primary focus of the protests still stands.

For as long as these protests are political, they cannot sustain themselves. What I would have expected to see is for these politicians to provide the strategic leadership needed and control the movements from the back. By putting more effort into bringing into the fold groups like teachers, traders, farmers and even the policemen etc, the masses would feel the element of ownership of a cause that would take long to put down. These groups that I prefer to call the greater Uganda would pull the middle class who seem to be the most passive of Uganda’s structure. There would be a massive connection, enough to drag them (middle class) in and trust me, that would have a great impact.

While the NRM delegates roast mchomo in Kyankwanzi and have fun, the common man still feels disenfranchised and yet there is not a single cause for him to ‘walk to work’. After all he walks to work every day.

Walk to Work may have just had its era, a great idea killed by the political elite.

1 Comment

Posted by on January 23, 2012 in Africa, Politics, Uganda