Dear Observer team, thank you for your reportage of the story titled Makerere’s Mamdani accused of ‘personalising’ MISR in fresh row.

However, allow me to make some clarifications on aspects of the memo which were inaccurately captured and Prof Mamdani’s rebuttals which are erroneous and misleading.

First, contrary to the inference drawn by your reporter, I was not referring to the April 2016 altercation between Prof Mamdani and Dr Stella Nyanzi.

I was referring to fresh cases of victimization of MISR students and general mismanagement, which seems to vindicate the complaints of the students and irregularities against which, as a unit, were vehemently dismissed as Prof Mamdani is doing in the current rebuttal.

Second, I did not say my being critical of a number of Mamdani’s decisions on many things ‘could have ultimately cost [me my] long-term tenure at the institute.

My memo does not warrant that inference. You must have got this from Prof Mamdani, who, I have learnt, has been saying, yet again erroneously, that my contract in MISR expired in December 2016. I will not get into the details.

What actually happened was that I resigned only my administrative position at MISR with effect from August 30, 2016. I had amicably notified Prof Mamdani as early as May (at the start of MISR’s second semester).

In my resignation, I stated that I would focus my time and efforts on teaching and research and continue to support the unit in whatever way I could. But Prof Mamdani seems to have taken my decision to resign as a personal affront and interpreted it as an indictment of his administration of MISR.

And finally, contrary to what Prof Mamdani raised in his response as reported in your article, the issues I raised are similar to the those addressed by the Hajjati Sharifah Buzeki committee, but what should concern us is the fact that the cases are different.

This is an indication of MISR having learnt nothing from the committee. The bigger picture is the fact that new cases are emerging, that most recommendations of that committee are yet to be implemented and, more significantly, that Prof Mamdani and MISR never seem to have learnt from the problems and students’ concerns that the committee investigated.

The subject of my memo, and what is really on trial, is the current set up at MISR and its director, Prof Mamdani, not the Buzeki committee. In fact, MISR should show that they appreciate the time that all of us put in to ensure that the problems and concerns that the committee investigated never reoccur.

James Ocita,
jocita01@gmail.com.

Museveni right on encroachers

The president recently cautioned people occupying land within water sources such as lakes, rivers, wetlands and forests to vacate them before the month of July or face eviction.

Of late, Uganda’s wetlands have been encroached on unabated.  We complain about climate change when we don’t know that the problem starts with us. The current dry spell that threatens to result in hunger is partly because of wetland encroachment. 

Wetlands provide water for domestic use and watering of livestock; they support dry-season agriculture; they are a source of raw materials for handicrafts; they have building materials; and are a habitat for very many species.

Therefore, it is commendable for the president to put in much effort to stop environment depletion.

Hope Abonit,
Kampala.

Why is the IMF boss in Uganda?

Many Ugandans, like other people in most African countries, know that the policies of the International Monetary Fund failed us and we are all victims at one level or the other.

It is only a few corrupt leaders, their relatives and political cadres that have benefited. Incidentally, in Uganda, even the president who presided over the giveaway and/or sharing of public properties and goods now accepts that these policies were bogus.

At least in some of Uganda’s neighbours, they resisted and refused to give away everything for the public good. I am also one of the few lucky Ugandans to have been to France, where the current IMF chief comes from and I have seen many public utilities there although they forced us to sell ours.

So, what is Christine Lagarde coming to Uganda for? To dance on the graves of our relatives who have died as a result of the IMF policies; and will Ugandans make a point to her?

John Kamufu,
bidk2002@yahoo.co.uk

Political appointees a diplomacy threat

Increasingly, we are steadily moving towards politically-appointed ambassadors. 

At a time when global politics seems to be very dynamic and sophisticated, we, instead, as a country should be looking more at seconding technical foreign service officers for ambassadorial roles, not political appointees. 

As we speak now, we have more than 70 per cent of our heads of missions politically-appointed – this does not portend well for Uganda’s foreign policy.

It takes a career diplomat about eighteen years of technical service to rise to the level of ambassador.  How would an 18-year experienced career diplomat compare with someone who has no experience in foreign service? 

Some of our appointees are political rejects; should we then set our hopes high on such people to protect Uganda’s interests abroad?

We need to let the institutions of public service function effectively.  Government needs to deploy career ambassadors, with expertise, knowledge and experience to protect and oversee Uganda’s foreign policy.

It is not a matter of sending representative figureheads but, rather, professionals who, by virtue of their outstanding career qualities, can bring a contribution to diplomacy and to the mission that they head.

Crispin Kaheru
Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (Ccedu).

letters@observer.ug