Interviewed by Muhammad Kakembo, the Nyendo Mukungwe member of parliament said he will do his work the best way he knows. He said if he allows the people he leads to determine the direction he should take, he will have absconded from his duties.
Excerpts
Why did the National Unity Platform opt out of the EALA elections?
Ugandans can now understand why we opted out of this exercise even when other parties decided to participate; it was as botched as all elections have been in this country. But we didn’t participate because we believe that the entire exercise lost meaning when the ruling party decides who goes to EALA as opposed to what the treaty says.
The treaty talks about shades of opinion and as the leading opposition party, we can’t be a shade of opinion that plays second fiddle to other shades. The only shade of opinion that can outshadow us probably is the ruling party because it has a majority. But that doesn’t allocate you the responsibility of deciding for others.
The fact that the ruling party chose to disregard the law, we said we can never be part of an exercise in futility. As we warned, the outcome speaks to what we had warned about. You cannot speak about independents when individual parties have not been represented. The law says as much as feasible. So, is it not feasible in the minds of the NRM people that NUP, FDC, DP, and
UPC can get representation other than greed?
Even Jeema with a single MP; is a big shade of opinion than independents because it is a national party. Independents are independent of each other and you can’t think of them before you think about each of the parties that are represented.
According to the rules, EALA MPs are elected by all members of parliament. Why didn’t you convince NRM, which has the majority, to vote for you like you reach out to all electorates during your elections regardless of their parties?
For one to say that would presuppose that we don’t know who is who in parliament. When I address an audience in Masaka, I can’t point out which individual belongs to which party. In parliament, I’m addressing a brazenly partisan audience and the lines are well drawn. That’s why the law doesn’t say that all parties must be represented in parliament but the EALA treaty says that representation should be as much as feasible.
There are four court opinions in the East African Court of Justice; three of which were a result of cases filed by Ugandans including the current speaker of parliament where the court said it’s not a must that all parties should be represented…
We should first define what shades are and then see whether those shades are feasible enough to represent all of them. So, for EALA to represent the true opinion of each member state, national parliaments must ensure that the shades in parliament are represented. The rules in Uganda must be domesticated to represent what the rule says. I contend that it’s just greed on the part of the NRM.
You recently presented a statement in parliament where you complained about the resumption of abductions; what is the latest?
By the time I made the statement I had heard complaints from many citizens who lodged complaints with the party headquarters because the majority are NUP members. The complaints were also in the media; so, we were following up on these complaints.
We had the names of the abducted people. So, I had to inform the country about the resumption of these unfortunate incidents. Why the abductions resumed; I think the culprits should explain.
The people abducting our people are men and women in uniform and there is no denial by the state that they are doing it; implying that they are alive to these abductions and they should explain why they are doing so. The opposition to the regime grows by the day and the target is those individuals who are vocal. They are trying to cow them into submission. This wasn’t the first time you were presenting a statement and the abductions have not stopped.
Why would you think this time it will be different?
Some of the things we need to do in our time as leaders are to hold people on record for what they do. The Hansard captures all these names and the government doesn’t come out to explain, not even the indignity of denying.
That’s why I put it to the prime minister that while she is prime minister, Ugandans are being abducted and the names are here. As long as the citizens are not being accounted for, the individuals in government are accountable. So, it’s very important that these don’t remain newspaper complaints but are put on an institutional record of parliament.
When I did that, the speaker asked that we have a meeting with the prime minister, the minister of Internal Affairs, and the minister of Security. The meeting took place in the speaker’s house. We presented the same names and they asked for time to come and respond. Parliament is resuming in two weeks; we shall wait for that response.
Do you put a timeline for these requests?
You can’t do that at my level. You can never issue threats over matters that are not in your hands. If you do that, probably you are a grandstander and I’m not one. When I raise a matter and press the government to act on it; if they don’t, then I must advise the families to go through the courts.
However, the families and other leaders also have to take matters into their hands and demand immediate action from the government to stop abductions and produce those who have been abducted. It’s not the question of the LoP making pronouncements that if this doesn’t happen, this will happen. I don’t work like that.
Can that be reassuring to a person whose relative has been lost for years?
It’s not just an assurance but a statement that we have not forgotten you. All you need to know is that some families have taken matters to court and are demanding that people are produced. Of course, this is not a democracy where you can make demands.
One reason I go and meet ministers and the speaker is about families that are suffering. When you go to these meetings, you want to see whether you can hear something that can give you a lead that can give a family comfort or assurance. When you go there and you don’t hear anything, then you tell the family what is happening.
Doing politics at a higher level, you go in and listen and you can even by accident hear the truth. So, we cannot stop using these places to find a remedy or even understand who is responsible.
I have heard some families say they think leaders have not done what it takes to ensure their people are released…
Have they pointed out what the leaders should do that they have not done or they are just speaking? I would love to have the last person released yesterday. The president the other day
said he was the man behind the coffee deal with Enrica Pinetti.
How does this revelation shape the fight?
He didn’t say anything new. From the onset, we knew he was the black Pinetti which is why we resisted that agreement. We still maintain our position. He is free to insist that he will do what he wants but if he has his coffee, it is okay. But as long as we are the people representing the farmers and some of us are coffee farmers, Pinetti will not have coffee anywhere at least not in the terms that were underlined in the so-called agreement.
Recently the European Union Parliament passed a resolution to the effect that the construction of the East African Crude Pipeline should be halted. What is your view?
The pipeline has no problem, but the people who are implementing the construction are violating the rights of the people and the environment. There is no other way of getting the oil other than using the pipeline. But Ugandans should enjoy their natural resources.
This should be done by people in the right frame of mind with a better view of society in its entirety and with a sensitivity to the environment. It’s common sense that if these issues are obtaining, they should be sorted. If you think you must partake of our oil, then you must commit to the respect of human rights and the sustainability of the environment.
We saw police arrest a group that marched in support of the EU Parliament resolution yet it had earlier protected those who were against the resolution…
You can just describe the police as a common nuisance; nothing more, nothing less. There was nothing shocking.
At the beginning of your tenure, you introduced what you called a legislative agenda. How far have you gone with its implementation?
We are progressing very well, challenges notwithstanding. I think this agenda is the most misunderstood thing; either the people are not able to read, they are lazy, they are ignorant or they are used to mediocrity.
If you don’t know where to go, every road takes you. I set out how I want to do my work with my team and that’s what I’m doing. I said we should work in a structured manner and that we don’t simply wake up in the morning to respond to what the government is doing. If we have work to do in terms of policy announcements, we have done it in terms of policy statements we have authored. If it’s about bills, we have so far tabled three bills. It’s a record.
If it’s about offering alternatives, we have done so smartly and the government has taken on our proposals many times. If you follow the bills that have been tabled and how we influence them, you will see that we had a lot of input. When you are in the opposition and a law is brought, you will not say I will jump on the table. You must research and then get prepared and we have been very prepared on every legislation.
As the leader of the opposition, I have undertaken community outreaches; I have travelled to Bunyoro, and I was in Northern Uganda and Western Uganda. I met people who represent those communities to hear them. Most of the issues are not new, they all need validation. I have made contact with political parties to hear their views on how to push this agenda.
At the start of your term, other opposition political parties were indifferent. How is the current working relationship?
I don’t have any complaints; when I call for meetings, all the parties are represented. The shadow cabinet, they all attend. Those are the two platforms you can test the parties whether they are responsive. And so far, I’m content. But certainly, you can never get everyone entirely on board; that’s how human nature is and it can’t get us off track. But we must make sure that as
leaders, we are understood and that we seek the understanding of our colleagues.
On the issues we get to know about like EALA, you disagree; how do we know you ever agree on anything?
I think EALA is a very minute component of our engagement and I say very clearly that being the leading opposition party, it doesn’t take away the right of parties to take individual positions on particular matters. The platform of the leader of the opposition is congregatory where parties meet to either agree to have a common position or to have a different position. We cannot herd them like animals.
There seems to be a big group in your party and outside who would want you to practice the politics you earlier talked about of jumping on the tables. They say this soft politics can’t work in a regime that they have termed as dictatorial…
They want to see me jump on the table when the speaker enters the chambers; is that their view? I think jumping on the table is a vulgar analogy. But what I can say, is if you intend to
protest, the smarter way is to first make your issue understood.
If you have no brains to explain the matter, actually you shouldn’t have the energy to jump on the table. Because when you jump on the table and then walk in the corridor and confront the media, you should be able to explain why you chose to protest. So, protestation and decency are not in conflict. They are a complementary approach to politics. But let me say this, I can’t take any lessons from anyone on protests.
But I will support anybody who harbors an interest to protest on a matter that has not been understood, has not been heard, or feels aggrieved that the only way is to protest. I have done it before not once, not twice.
How do you respond to those who accuse you of not using both?
Have they not seen me protesting and walking out of parliament? Are they genuine or pretenders? Or they are carrying other messages and are not honest enough to declare their intentions. Can they point out a matter they thought should have ended in a certain way and it didn’t?
One of the things most talked about is the arrest of MPs Muhammad Ssegirinya and Allan Ssewanyana…They say you have not done enough to demand their release…
I want to know the members of parliament who are complaining. Whatever we do, we dialogue either in the shadow cabinet or in the opposition caucus or the NUP caucus; where are the complaints coming from? We are leaders and we shouldn’t be led by the people. If you want the people to lead you, then cede space and go to the back. But when you still have the space, you must be able to discern what to do because you are confronted with the issue every day.
Do you think there is a genuine human being who can accuse the LoP of having the two members of parliament in prison? If there is any person, that person is an apologist of the person who arrested them because he wants LoP to look bad. Otherwise, why don’t they complain about the system that has denied them bail and a space to be prosecuted freely and fairly?
There are some members of your caucus who think you should indefinitely walk out of parliament until such a time the state buckles and frees your colleagues…
If I walk out and I’m your leader, I’m the same leader to tell you that let’s go back. If you can’t listen to me, then you want to lead me. However, for some members to disagree with a decision
we have taken, it’s normal. But they are not the same as the majority. But can I also ask, if we had refused to go back, would the two members have been released?
But do you agree that members of your caucus agree on a decision yet they are opposed?
They agree because they fear being misunderstood, they vote with you. I have been in meetings with colleagues and I put across my position; if my position is not accepted, I go with the majority. It’s indecent and dishonest for anybody to go in the corridor and make that kind of irresponsible noise and they can’t speak at the forum we are as leaders.
But these people have a duty to listen; they have to accept to be led, and they must accept to be spoken to but they have no right to complain when there is a forum to speak and they don’t speak. I’m not a person that wants to follow up on people simply because they disagreed with me. I disagree with colleagues on one matter and agree with others. That’s how leadership is exercised.
inarticle} inarticle}