I have been quietly following
Gen. Sejusa aka Tinyefuza conundrum keenly – through newspapers and statements
through his lawyers. I needed to listen to him speak. He has now spoken- far
away from home – in the comfort of London- at the BBC. His interview at the BBC lacked creativity
and he could be classified as a Dr. Besigye copycat both in the issues he
raised and the tone he used. And when I recalled the 2004 Andrew Mwenda live
KFM discussions that pitted Gen. Tinyefuza and Col. Besigye I wondered whether
Tinyefuza would be willing to listen to himself! In that interview, Col.
Besigye was talking about evoking Article 3 of the constitution which requires
all citizens to do all in their power to defend the constitution of the
republic of Uganda. In response, Gen.
Tinyefuza argued that all democratic avenues are available in Uganda to contest
for power and articulate alternative views. He in effect, invited Col. Besigye
to come back from self-imposed exile and participate in Uganda’s political
process. Well, Besigye returned and it is Gen. Sejusa himself who commandeered
his arrest- the rest is history! Now, Sejusa is seeking to play Besigye. What a
conundrum? Isn’t Tinyefuza a revisionist?
How I wish a sharp and clever journalist can dig up the records of KFM Andrew
Mwenda live interview and juxtapose it with the BBC interview. Ugandans would
then have an opportunity to judge the character of Gen. Sejusa and measure his
authenticity as an aspiring leader of Uganda. I was also disappointed that
General Sejusa did not give Ugandans details of strong claims he made is his popular
letter. He for instance claimed that there is a plan to extra judiciary
assassinate some top officials in government. As a top member of Uganda’s
secret society – I expected him to divulge more details. He instead veered off
from the content of his letter. Why? Was the letter a prank and only part of
the strategy to launch his political campaign for change?
Gen. Sejusa, says to be “A four
star General without ambition, you must be in a wrong place”. What did Sejusa
mean? Is he suggesting that to be President of Uganda, one must have four star
General credentials as a mandatory criterion? Now, the foregoing defines
clearly the ideological position of General Sejusa. An ideology that seeks to
perpetuate a psychological belief that to be a President in Uganda, one must
be, or rather must have been a soldier! What a wrong ideology that seeks to
trap Uganda in the past- yet this country has changed. Gen. Sejusa must stretch and realize that
Uganda is under civilian authority and the military submits to civilian
authority. Ugandans are looking for contests that are based on ideas –period. General
Sejusa disagreement with President Museveni stems from his misunderstanding of this
particular milestone, and his misplaced sense of entitlement as one of those
who sacrificed to liberate Uganda. The liberation was a sacrifice – and a
sacrifice not for individual gratification and power but for setting Uganda to
a democratic and transformational path. That is why President Museveni subjected
himself to democratic elections and by doing so handed power to civilian
authority. I therefore, tend to think that Sejusa did not appreciate that and
feels power should be shared in turns by those that participated in the
liberation war. Even then, the military is an institution where any citizen can
chose to pursue a professional career like any other institution of state. It
is not intended to be a sure pathway to presidency. Anybody with ambition,
whether a four star general, two star general or any citizen with required
academic qualifications and age can aspire and subject himself or herself to
the people of Uganda for any position including that of President. Therefore,
Gen. Sejusa should state clearly his agenda. For example what does he want to
change? What is his program of action? What new things and value does he want
to add? What and which policies does he want to address?
Gen Sujusa also said, “ … once
you are in the military and you think you have the capacity to be anything else,
you are never released from the military. So we have a situation where you have
everybody going in and nobody goes out”. Really? Again this is a falsehood. Many
retired soldiers are active in business and politics. For example, there are
many senior leaders both in opposition and government who are retired soldiers.
We also know for sure that many constituencies in this country are represented
in Parliament by for military officials. So why is Gen. Sejusa insinuating that
his former colleagues who are retired and active in politics have no capacity
to be anything else? Is for example being a President of the biggest opposition
party –the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) a demonstration of no capacity to
be anything else? For starters, the President of FDC is Gen. Mugisha Muntu, a
liberation war hero and former Army Commander of the UPDF. So why is Gen. Sejusa
using the BBC platform to mislead the world? Why can’t he show respect for his
former colleagues in the struggle? Perhaps Gen. Sejusa may need to clarify what
he meant by no capacity to do something else. It’s also a falsehood that people
who go in the army have no route to get out. What is true, is that there are
clear procedures of entry and exit. The UPDF is not Kabetemere nko rutokye rwomushazi,
a Banyankole proverb literally translated to mean a madman’s banana
plantation where people go and harvest matooke
and get out at will while the madman is looking on. Indeed former Supreme Court
Justice George Kanyeihamba recently explained why he ruled against Gen. Sejusa
by making a similar argument. Kanyeihamba argued that the principle of not
allowing soldiers’ to retire as and when they feel like is a good thing. The
retired judge further asks an intriguing and poignant question; Do you want
soldiers’ to run away from UPDF under the guise of retiring? Your guess is as
good as mine.
Morrison Rwakakamba
Coffee farmer – Rukungiri District
mrwakakamba@gmail.com
I have been checking on the International Code of Military service, They all seem to be clear that soldiers can serve mandatory 9years and another 3 years before they may choose to retire willingly or otherwise. I have talked to many top UPDF Officers who seem to agree with this position and they tell me many have benefited from this provision although they say it is not as automatic as it seems. CAN SOMEBODY COMPETENT IN THIS SUBJECT GUIDE US HERE? As many of you may know Im a layman when it comes to this subject ut Im entitled to information, so tell me the truth about this provision incase of UPDF.
ReplyDelete