President Museveni addresses the nation on forthcoming referendum
2005-07-13

Dear Countrymen and women,

I have come here, today, to address you on the question of the Referendum that is due on the 28th of July 2005.

Before I talk about the Referendum, let me give you a brief history of the peoples of Uganda, their fortunes and misfortunes in governance over the Centuries and the recent minimum recovery, superintended over by the NRM.

Even before 900 AD, a number of areas that are now Uganda and parts of our sister neighbouring countries such as Tanzania, Congo, Rwanda, etc. were living under varying degrees of centralized administration. By centralized administration I mean having a government beyond the clan. Some of the earliest records have been recovered through archeological work at areas like Ntutsi and Bigobyamugyenyi in Sembabule District as well as areas like Hippos’ Bay, near Entebbe and Omuunsa, near Mubende.

The carbon-dating of cattle bones and pottery pieces (engusyo) recovered from some of these areas by archeologists from Britain shows that by 900 AD there was a very large settlement, bigger than the city of London at that time. Folklore confirms these archeological findings. If you take the whole of Western Uganda, including much of West Buganda as well as parts of Tanzania and Rwanda, the communities talk of 3 dynasties: Abatembuzi, Abachwezi and, then, the more recent dynasties such as the Kabakas of Buganda, the Babiito in Bunyoro, Tooro, Busoga, Bunia (DRC) and Kooki as well as Bahinda in Ankole, Karagwe, Buhaya, Bujiinja (in Tanzania), etc.

Our communities evolved a very sophisticated civilization in terms of language, culture and governance. Although the rulers could, in some instance, be despotic, nevertheless, some achievements in terms of stability were achieved at different stages.

The only great weakness of these traditional rulers was their inability to get together to confront the foreign invaders when they came to this area after 1850 AD. The coming of the foreigners was prophesied or predicted, especially by a sage from Karagwe, Tanzania, known as Kakara-ka-Shagama, Kamango, Katondagira ka-Rukunyu. He, for instance, said that this area would be invaded by Abatetondeerwa (people who cannot recognize your ancestry – in other words foreigners or strangers). Since he was coming from the Bahinda controlled area of Ankole – Karagwe – Buhaya (in Tanzania), he asked the Princesses of that area (Bahindakazi) the following question: “enyuungu kwerisya yatukura akabunu, muryagiteruzaki? – How will you remove a red-hot cooking-pot from the fire-stones since you are not used to working with your own hands?”

There were also other wise-men who made very wise exhortations. One such wise-man was called Jejere from Buha (the area of Tanzania near Kigoma). Unfortunately our rulers did not get together when the time came for the foreigners to, actually, invade our land. Mwanga and Kabalega tried to form a common front but belatedly. It was too late. They were all taken into captivity in the Seychelles. Mwanga died there and Kabalega only came back to Uganda in 1923 only to die in Jinja before he got back to Bunyoro.

Once the foreigners had taken over this area, they planted a new seed of poison. Our people had been in touch with the East African Coast for millennia through long distance traders known as Balungaanwa (Waungwana – freed slaves). Apparently, these were, mainly, Wanyamwezi from Tabora in Tanzania. They would bring merchandize from the East African Coast and take back ivory.

The first non-black person to come to Uganda was an Arab, Ahmed Bin Ibrahim, in 1844, during the reign of Kabaka Suuna in Buganda. The first European to come to Uganda was Hannington Speke in 1862. The Church Missionary Society (CMS) came to Uganda in 1877 and the Roman Catholic Society (RCS) came in 1879.

As you can see, both Islam and Christianity were introduced into Uganda in the second half of the 1800s. What is amazing, therefore, is that by 1890, Ugandans were killing each other on behalf of the new concepts of looking at God. One God was not a new concept to the Ugandans. Our Baganda people called God “Katonda” wobutonde owe Namakwa, Kyaggwe. Apart from one God, there were the spiritual mediums of oru ancestors that interceded for us with Katonda. This spiritual mediums were specialized in terms of roles. The spiritual mediums were called Lubales – Balubale. There would be Lubale of the lake (enyanza), the one of war, etc. The Banyankore, Banyoro, etc. called God “Ruhanga” – the Creator. The Acholis adopted the Runyakitara version with a slight variation by calling God – “Rubanga” (Ruhanga).

Therefore, the concept of one God was not new. What was new to our people was that God had sent his son Jesus Christ to come and intercede for the human race and that a Prophet known as Mohammed had brought a message from God. Since these events had taken place in the Middle East in the previous two millennia, the Africans in our area had not heard about them. They, however, independently, had developed the concept of one God – Katoonda, Ruhaanga, Rubaanga, etc.

What was new, however, was the narrow-mindedness of the new preachers (the Christians and the Moslems). Their intolerance and narrow-mindedness was not only in conflict with the teachings of their own religions as written in the Bible and Koran, but were in marked contrast with the practices of these areas of ours. As can be seen from the fraternal and sisterly tribes of this area, these communities are both close and different. Many of the dialects are not only close but mutually intelligible. However, the customs, the foods, etc. are quite different. The peoples of the Lakes eat fish, chicken, bananas, some forest animals, etc. Some of the Savannah peoples such as the Banyankore would have nothing of most of those. They would not eat fish, chicken, many of the wild animals, etc. Instead, they would drink milk, eat meat, eat co-agulated blood meal (enjuba, oburingiri), eat cow-ghee, etc.

Some of the Banyankore would, in addition, eat millet and bananas apart from greens and pulses. Some of the highland people like Bakiga would eat sorghum and peas. Others, like the Acholis, would eat simsim, millet, wild animals, etc. What was remarkable, however, was the symbiosis. While a Munyankore would not touch fish (they called it ekijongoma – something wriggling) or chicken, they would, gladly, keep the chicken in case his Muganda friend came by to eat it; nor would he mind if his Muganda friend fished in the nearby swamp for enshoonzi (mud-fish). On the other hand, if a Muganda had cattle and a poor Munyankore came along, hewould gladly relinquish the cattle to the latter for safe-keeping knowing he had more skills and interest in relation to the livestock. That was the spirit. Live and let live. It is, therefore, totally alien to the heritage of this area to see intolerance in relation to other groups. In fact the intolerance was more within respective groups but never between the groups.

Wars, where they occurred, were being caused by the rulers on account of greed. Otherwise, the societies were inclined to a symbiotic existence. They would conduct barter trade (okuchurika) among themselves. They would specialize in different trades: textiles (engoye, emyeenda, etc) from the Coast by Balungaanwa; embugo, ebitooma (bark cloth) by Bakooki; medicine would come from the Bahaya; good hoes from Bunyoro; canoe-making was a speciality of the Baganda, etc.

However, this system of tolerance and symbiosis was replaced by intolerance. Within 13 years following the arrival of the first Christian faction (CMS), there was a religious war with Ugandans killing each other on behalf of God. These religious wars were as follows:

Religious Wars in Buganda (1888 – 1893)
When Mwanga II ascended the throne in October 1884, he found the Baganda already divided into four distinct religious-political groups:-

i. Traditionalists, composed of the old chiefs inherited from Mutesa 1, together with the traditional religious leaders and the majority of the ordinary Baganda who were still practicing their traditional religion in Buganda.

ii. Muslims were, apparently, the strongest foreign religious group. Mutesa
I, had embraced Islam and observed Ramadan for 10 years (1874 –1884) during which period Islam had become more or less the state religion.

iii. Protestants whose CMS missionaries worked hard to convert Mutesa 1, as well as members of his court. They began to teach their followers reading and writing and to impart technical skills.

iv. Roman Catholics who also wanted the king and his court to embrace
Catholicism and created a lot of confusion because they claimed to be different from the Protestants but they followed the same Jesus Christ.

All the parties worked very hard to have the young Kabaka Mwanga II on their side. The group, which Mwanga alienated first, was the traditionalists and he took every opportunity to plunder and humiliate its leaders. He developed a close relationship with the young pages at his court, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants alike.

These young pages soon divided their loyalty between their devotion to their king and to their religious leaders and divided their time between the capital and the mission headquarters at Rubaga (Catholics) and Nateete (Protestants). Mwanga was unhappy about this. He resented the growing influence of the missionaries in Buganda and moved quickly to punish the pages.

In January 1885 he had 4 of them, led by Yusufu Lugalama, burnt at the stake in Busega and followed this up by ordering the execution of Bishop Hannington who was coming to Buganda through Buganda’s backdoor (Busoga) which was not allowed by the superstitions of the Baganda. The real reason, however, Hannington was executed was the fear that the missionaries were intent on strengthening their grip on Buganda possibly to the detriment of her sovereignty.

In spite of the executions, the pages continued to read, (okusoma) and Mwanga had 46 of them rounded up in June 1884 to be executed. Some of them perished at the pyres of Namugongo; others like Henry Nyonyintono were castrated and forgiven; others like Apolo Kagwa were severely beaten up and wounded with spears; others like Ham Mukasa run away and lived in hiding in the remote parts of the country.

These young men who had embraced new foreign faiths, emboldened by the support of the missionaries, who were privy to whatever they were planning, decided to take on their king if and when he tried to kill them again. Mwanga who was increasingly becoming fearful of Europeans for their anticipated retribution for the death of Bishop Hannington became increasingly uneasy about the relationship between his pages and the missionaries. He, therefore, decided to move against then and planned to maroon then on Nsazi Island in Lake Victoria. The plan was leaked and when they were gathered at Entebbe they refused to sail, rebelled against their king who fled to Magu, Kiziba in Tanzania.

The three parties, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants then rallied around Prince Kiwewa and made him their King. The Muslims, who were by far the strongest party, attempted to have Kiwewa circumcised to embrace their faith; but when he refused, he was dismissed within 30 days; Catholics and Protestants were driven out and power taken over by the Muslims on their own account with a Muslim Prince Kalema as their King. Both Catholics and Protestants sought refuge in Nkore. They were given asylum by king Ntare V of Ankole when they reported to his capital at Nyakakoni near Mbarara (1888). Kabaka Kalema threatened to invade Ankole, but Ntare dared him to do so.

From Kabula, the Christian fugitives established contacts with Mwanga, after Kalema had killed Prince Bamweyana who they attempted to smuggle to Kabula so that they may rally around him and fight their way back to Buganda and to power. In Kiziba (in Tanzania), Mwanga fell under the influence of the Catholics and although both Catholic and Protestants fought together to restore Mwanga to the throne in October 1889, there was a lot of mistrust between them, each party wishing Mwanga to embrace their faith. It is at this time that the Catholics party assumed the Bafalansa (French) and the Protestants the Bangeleza (English) labels; a reference to the countries where their religious leaders came from.

This polarization was deepened by the arrival of the real colonialists Jackson, Dr. Karl Peters and, later on, towards the end of 1890, Capt. Lugard. The British declared Buganda to be within the British sphere of influence and Karl Peters, a German, declared Buganda to be under Germany and signed a treaty with Mwanga to that effect. However, the spheres of influence were defined by the two countries, Germany and Britain, in the Anglo-German Treaty of 1890, putting Buganda within the British sphere of influence.

In spite of the Anglo-German Treaty, the Catholic missionaries preferred either Germany or France to take charge of Buganda and influenced their followers in that direction. Protestant missionaries coming from Britain wanted Buganda to belong to Britain and all were caught up in the sticky web of colonialism. So, politics and religion were now fused.

It is not clear who fired the first shot at the Battle of Mengo on 24th January 1892, but the British used the Maxim gun against the Catholics and were clearly on the side of the Protestants who drove away Mwanga and his mainly Catholic supporters from the capital. They made a last stand on Bulingugwe Island where they were defeated and fled to Kiziba (in Tanzania) and Buddu.

Apolo Kaggwa took charge in Buganda, assisted by British officers of the Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEAC). Buganda was without a King for 66 days. In the meantime the Muslims tried to make a come back from their bases in Bulemezi and Singo; but were unable to take advantage of the void to restore Kalema to the throne.

Kaggwa was unable to declare a Republic because the Baganda could not countenance non-monarchical leadership and, therefore, negotiations went ahead to restore Mwanga II to the throne, once more.

There were no eligible princes at this time because Kalema had killed almost all of them, including princesses as well because he feared that since the British monarch was a woman the Baganda could also take on this custom and crown a woman king. Hence, Kaggwa and his victorious Protestants Party invited Mwanga back to the throne.

The Catholics, under Stanislaus Mugwanya, now bargained for the office of Katikkiro and won. For the first time in history of Buganda she had 2 Prime ministers, Apolo Kaggwa and Stanislaus Mugwanya. They also added Mawokota County on to their domain of Buddu and a passage was arranged for them to the capital, Mengo. These compromises ended their rebellion.

The Muslims were not yet done. They solicited the support of their co-religionists, the Sudanese soldiers, brought along from Tooro by Captain Lugard under the leadership of Afende Salim Bey. However, Captain Macdonald successfully disarmed the Sudanese soldiers and dispersed the ringleaders in June 1893. Prince Nuhu Mbogo was banished to Zanzibar, Salim Bey to Egypt (but died on the way) and other Muslim leaders to Kikuyu (Kenya). That ended the Muslim rebellion and marked the end of the religious wars in Buganda.

These so called “religious” wars were, in fact, not religious at all. They were colonial. The British were manipulating the newly converted Church of Uganda; the French were manipulating the new converts in the Catholic Church; and the Moslems were being manipulated by Turkey through Egypt and Zanzibar. The effect was to plant seeds of Northern Ireland-like-sectarianism involving Catholics, Protestants and Moslems so much that when the Political Parties started in the 1950s, they automatically took on the character of that sectarianism. DP was for the Catholics, UPC for the Protestants and KY for only Baganda. This sectarianism was, partly, responsible for the coming into power of Amin and for his stay in power for 8 years.

The British, before they left in 1962, organized the first multi-party elections in 1961 and 1962, which were badly organized. These elections and the parties vying for power were sectarian. By 1966, this regime had collapsed. That was the brief experiment in multi-party elections. It only lasted 4 years. By 1966, Obote had to resort to the Army to maintain control. He could not wait for the elections of 1967 to arbitrate on his disagreements with Sse-Kabaka Mutesa. In 1971, Idi Amin, further, involved the Army into partisan politics not to mention the usurpation of people’s authority. All these violent changes caused great heammorhage of human lives. In the 1966 crisis a lot of people in Buganda were killed in cold blood. Following Amin’s coup, a lot of soldiers from Acholi and Lango, as well as a large number of elements from the elite, were killed. The economy was destroyed completely. By 1979, there was no sugar, no soap, no paraffin, etc. in the shops; nor could you get transport on the roads; black market in foreign currency (kibanda); smuggling (magendo); speculation (okusamura); disappearances (okubuzaawo); kuteeka mu boot (putting people in car boots like luggage); etc were the order of the day.

We, together with other Ugandan groups, waged an 8 year struggle against Idi Amin. Finally, we were joined by the Tanzanian Defence Forces and we got rid of Idi Amin in 1979.

Our chance for salvation was in 1979, just before the collapse of Idi Amin.

Ever since 1879 when the arrival of the different Christian factions in Uganda ignited sectarianism, the Ugandans had only had a brief chance of forming a national Uganda political force. This was the Uganda National Congress (UNC) in 1953. That one had, eventually, collapsed. After 100 years, exactly, following the ignition of sectarianism, we had a fresh chance of creating a broad-based, all inclusive, national political force.
This is when we formed the (Uganda National Liberation Front UNLF) in Moshi on March 23rd, 1979. Everybody who had belonged to any of the old factions (UPC, DP, KY) or had been independent was welcome into the UNLF. UNLF, however, lasted only about one and a-half years. In 1980, May, it was co-murdered by the leaders of DP and UPC. Our Tanzania brothers could not, of course, detect the danger. It is very difficult for outsiders, even brothers, to accurately understand an issue. The Banyankore have got a saying that: “entsiinda ya kyeeri, tekuzibira kugwejegyera” – a sick person in the neighbouring house does not prevent one from sleeping with his groanings; in other words, it is only the people in the house where there is a sick man that do not sleep. There is another proverb: “obusaasi bumanywa akakumu” – the pain is felt most by the injured finger. In other words, while the whole body may be aware that there is injury on one of its parts, it is only the injured part that will feel the pain most.

Having torn up the UNLF, we went through the rigged elections of December 1980. When I addressed the Movement Caucus in Parliament at Munyonyo, on the 14th of March 2005, I addressed this issue, of how the elections of 1980 were rigged. I do not want to repeat that story. It is, however, available in that speech.

FRONASA, our anti-Amin Resistance Movement, could not accept this. We launched a new phase of resistance. UPC committed horrendous criminalities in the Luwero Triangle. We stood almost alone, without any international solidarity, except for brother Gaddaffi sending us a small consignment of weapons in August 1981, another slightly bigger one in 1985 and the late Mwalimu Nyerere giving us a sizeable consignment in September 1985.

Right from the time we ignited the war of resistance in 1981, we insisted on a non-sectarian effort. We welcomed all people that had belonged to DP, CP, UPM and, even, UPC. We formed the NRM. We did not look at somebody’s religion, tribe, gender or race. We looked at an individual’s goodness; at his merit. One of our supporters, Kanoonya, tried to opportunistically highlight UPM. We told him to stop it. When he did not, we punished him.

Eventually, we won the war in 1986. We had won the civil war, not only because we used a correct military strategy and correct tactics, but because we had applied the correct political medicine – anti-sectarianism (non-sectarianism).

We captured Kampala on the 26th of January 1986. Immediately, we presented to the entirety of the people of Uganda the political medicine that we had successfully used in the bush – the medicine of non-sectarianism. The vast majority of the people of Uganda were relieved to receive this medicine.

They could see that this medicine would save them from disharmony in the villages. It would save them from oburyaane (eating each other literary interpreted); enkwe in Luganda; kyame kenwa in Acholi; ebele in Ateso – Karimojong, etc. The people got healed and united. A Catholic Bishop from Eastern Uganda, Bishop Wandera, once told me that “although you are the leader of the NRM, you do not know much about it”. I asked him: “What do you mean Bishop?” He said that whenever he visits his Catholic parishes and churches, he is pleasantly surprised to find Moslem men or women with their caps or head-scarves sitting in the front pews of the churches because they are LC officials that had come to welcome him in the area. This, of course, was unprecedented in the more than 100 years ever since the outsiders introduced the poison of sectarianism in the name of religion. Another very clever Moslem Cleric, Sheikh Semakula, once thanked NRM because it had reconstructed the Ugandan Society back into the shape God had originally created it – “ensi wagizaayo nga Katoonda bweyagitoonda”.

The economy recovered; between 1986 and now, it has more than tripled. In
1986 GDP was 3.5 trillion shillings as opposed to the current 14.0 trillion shillings. Health has improved. Education has expanded. Democracy has been firmly rooted into the society. Freedom of speech is so abundant that it is verging on chaos and anarchy. The need now is not to ensure freedom of speech; but to ensure the protection of individuals’ rights against the anarchic use of freedom of speech by the irresponsible elements in society.

Therefore, our bush medicine of non-sectarianism had worked well in the whole of Uganda. However, like all medicines, it started creating harmful side-effects for the patient’s body. Medicines always face two problems: the microbes becoming resistant to the medicine or creating harmful side-effects for the body. The NRM medicine had cured the body but had also started having side-effects for the body.

What were these side-effects? There were, in particular, three problems arising out of the extended use of the Movement medicine:

1. Lack of cohesion within the Movement
Although we have been electing leaders, ever since 1986, on the basis of individual merit, it was always clear that the electorate would judge the contending candidates on the basis of whether they appreciated the efficacy of the Movement medicine or not. In much of Uganda, you could not be elected if you were suspected or known to be against the Movement medicine of non-sectarianism. This is how prominent multi-partyists were rejected by the electorate: Dr. Semwogerere, the late Dr. Adonia Tiberondwa, Mr. Robert Kitariko, etc. Others could not even dare to present themselves. However, in some parts of the country, such as Lango and Acholi, this medicine was not appreciated at all. The Movement candidates would not fare well in those areas.

What was most annoying, however, was that quite a number of MPs that had been elected clearly and solely on account of their perceived loyalty to the Movement would, once in Parliament, act openly or covertly against the decisions of the Movement organs. There is supposed to be a process of recalling an MP in case he was acting against the mandate of the electorate.

This was, of course, sabotaged by the same elements. Therefore, in effect, these indisciplined and self serving elements were trying to overthrow the authority of the people. They were repeating what had happened in the 1960s. Many MPs had been elected as DP or KY. Once in Parliament, they changed sides and joined UPC without the authority of the people who had elected them. This betrayal by the DP and KY MPs was one of the factors that emboldened Obote to make the mistakes he made in the false belief that, that would be the end of the story. They did not know that betraying the people is an unforgivable sin; it is sacrilege (sacuruleego).

This betrayal caused material loss to Uganda as a country and to the Movement programmes to deliver services to the people and transform society.

In particular, there were three mistakes caused by this betrayal: the delay of the Bujagali hydro – power project for 7 years; the killing of the Uganda Airlines; and the sabotage of the National Enterprises Corporation pharmaceuticals (NEC). The power-shortages (load-shedding) we have been facing recently were caused by this internal betrayal. Constitutionally, you had no easy way to get rid of such a turn-coat. This internal disharmony also caused Movement leaders to waste a lot of time trying to ensure harmony. I remember, I had to spend a lot of hours begging MPs to rescind the wrong law they had passed demanding that all LC3 chairmen must have completed A-level. I refused to sign that law. Eventually, they rescinded it. I had to spend many hours resisting the efforts by the pro-landlord elements trying to push busulu, which would have put our Movement supporters in the villages at a great disadvantage.

Therefore, some inconsiderate elements were misusing the broad-based character of the Movement to fight the Movement and frustrate its objectives. Indeed, they succeeded in respect of the Bujagali project and others mentioned above. This was harmful side-effect number one of the NRM medicine.

2. Conscripted members
Although the NRM medicine was welcomed by the over-whelming majority of Ugandans (those who voted for me in the 1996 Presidential elections were 76%), there was a minority (24%) who rejected this medicine consistently (in the Constituent Assembly, 1996 Presidential elections, during local Government elections, 2001 Presidential elections, etc). What do you do with such people? Remember, they are also Ugandans. One of my Movement sons (what a pleasure to see these young boys and girls defending the Movement!!) told me that, according to democracy, the minority must submit to the majority. My view is that the principle cannot apply in all circumstances. Yes, when we go into a Presidential, Parliamentary or local Government election, the one who wins must be upheld and the one who loses must accept. Similarly, the majority can legislate, either through Parliament or by Referendum, to control the quality and manner of electoral competition. The majority can, for instance, make it illegal, by legislation, to seek support from the electorate on the basis of tribe, religion, gender discrimination or race. We can put it in the law that if somebody is elected, having used those sectarian sentiments, his/her election is null and void. In these circumstances, the majority can prescribe the way political actors should behave.

However, the majority cannot and should not, persistently, deprive a Ugandan of his/her right to, if necessary, organize independently and differently. The minority, for instance, may feel that the majority are not doing enough to fight corruption; they are handling education in a wrong way; etc. These are not sectarian issues. They are performance issues; service delivery issues. If the majority, persistently, stops the minority from doing this, then the majority are making a mistake also. The Movement had wanted everybody to be under one political roof. It would have been the best. However, if somebody refuses to come along with us, it is correct that we give him/her peace and we get our own peace.

3. Misrepresenting Uganda abroad
The minority that refused to accept the Movement medicine were, mainly, linked with the past criminal regimes (UPC, Amin, etc) or were part of the sectarian politics of DP. While the Movement has been using her non-sectarian medicine to repair Uganda, these elements (linked with past criminal regimes or opportunist politics) would go outside Uganda and pretend that they are oppressed in Uganda. “How are you oppressed?” the outsiders would ask. “I am oppressed because I am not allowed to organize independently”, these dishonest persons would answer. They say nothing about their past crimes or crimes of the regimes they served. There is what we call akasikirize in Luganda, akashaka in Runyankore, where wrong-doers can hide in the village so as to advance their ill-intentioned plans. You may even have some abandoned home in the village known as omushaka in one of

our languages. That house can harbour wrong-doers. Such houses are, normally, broken down to deny cover to wrong-doers. We need to deny these wrong-doers the cover they have been utilizing.

By 2003 when the Kyankwanzi Conference took place, I was already aware of these problems. I, therefore, recommended to the Kiyonga Committee, NEC and the National Conference that we should do one thing that will kill the three birds with one stone. What are the three ‘birds’ we need to kill?

The three problems: okujegyembya (warbling, i.e. lack of cohesion) Movement caused by internal traitors; so that we consolidate ourselves to give freedom to the 24% that have consistently refused to accept the medicine of the Movement to seek their preferred medicine; and to terminate the package of lies told abroad by those that are linked with the past crime or opportunistic politics regarding the freedom the people of Uganda have enjoyed ever since 1986.

What is the single stone that we shall use to solve the three problems?
Mubaleke bagende – let them go. Tubejjeko – let us rid ourselves of the uncommitted. Then we shall be able to consolidate ourselves. As you may have noticed, this approach has already paid dividends in Parliament. The Movement Caucus is now more cohesive. This is how they have been able to pass three important measures with big majorities: referring the opening of the political space to the Referendum; the regional tier; and the 2nd Reading of opening up Article 105 (2) – ekisanja. These successes in Parliament have been as a consequence of okwejjako (ridding ourselves of) the uncommitted.

These are the three reasons why we recommend that mubaleke bagende.

Some people are confusing issues. Especially some of our very committed Movement supporters think that the coming Referendum is a contest between Movement and Multi- partyism. They think that the Referendum is designed to find out what the people prefer: Movement or Multi-partyism. This, in fact, is not the issue. There is no doubt that the Movement is much better than the Parties that we have ever known here in Uganda – past and present.

That is why the Movement does not want to call itself “a party”. On account of both philosophical and political reasons, the Movement supporters and leaders would feel offended if you were to refer to their Organization as “a party”. We are not “a party” (ekibiina); we are Movement (omugeendo). The issue, therefore, is not what is preferred: Movement or Parties. The issue, for the millions of our Movement supporters throughout Uganda and in the Diaspora, is okwejjako (rid ourselves of) the uncommitted. This is what our mobilizers should tell our supporters. There is nothing wrong with the Movement. It is the best. The question, then, is: “How long should we go on with trying to wrestle (okumegana) with the uncommitted who are forced to stay with us in the Movement because of the Ssemateeka (Constitution)? Do you want us to continue with this lack of cohesion – kujegyemba in our Movement? My answer is: No, mubaleke bageende”.

Some unclear people have been making the following point: “it is good” they say, “that the Movement which has been telling lies to the people for 19 years, have now decided to come out and tell the truth to the people”. This is nonsense! We have not been telling lies to the people on this issue. Our anti-sectarianism medicine has cured those who wanted to be cured. However, our patience with those who do not want to be cured has run out.
That is why we say: “mubaleke bageende”.

Statements by people like Kakooza Mutale that he fears UPC should be dismissed. How can we fear UPC? According to the 1962 elections, UPC, at the height of its power, only got about 50% of the votes outside Buganda. They were, then, helped by the mistake of Mengo of giving 21 free Parliamentary seats to help Obote get a total 55 seats that enabled him to form the first independence Government UPC had got 34 seats outside Buganda while DP had got 24 seats. Soon UPC suffered defections by important areas such as Busoga, parts of the West, etc. They, then, started relying on the Army. It is this Army that NRA crushed, eventually, in 1986. How, then, can UPC be a threat? Kakooza’s interpretation is wrong.

Therefore, I would like to ask our Movement supporters to vote “Yes” in the coming Referendum so that twejjeko the uncommitted. Our slogan is mubaleke bageende – let them go. We shall, then, kwenyweeza (consolidate ourselves).

You should tell all our supporters to vote for the Tree. If you vote for the house, it will mean that we shall continue to be saddled with the uncommitted and, we shall, therefore, not be able to kwenyweeza (consolidate

ourselves).

Thank you.
PRESIDENT YOWERI MUSEVENI ..End.