MASSIVE: FDC party President Eng. Amuriat carried to the podium by a supporter during one of his countrywide political tour
NEWS EDITOR MEDIA
THE two warring factions in Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) an opposition political party in Uganda which gave President Museveni sleepless nights for about 15 years until 2021 are set to reconcile and embark on the frontline to dislodge from power President Museveni and end 38 years of his regime. The Katonga faction headed by Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye is planing to return home at Najjanankumbi and our sources at the Party headquater say, Party President Eng. Patrick Amuriat the villager and SG Nandala Mafabi are ready to welcome back home the prodigal sons and daughters!
PHOTO: Eng. Patrick Oboi Amuriat addessing FDC supotters recently
This comes after a top FDC MP wrote to Dr. Besigye and advising him never to allow his Katonga faction be annexed to National Unity Platform calling NUP, “A party that was born today, not even yesterday, and crystal clearly, a Regional political grouping”. In a leaked dossier from Hon. Atkins Katusabe, Member of Parliament for Bukonzo County West, Kasese district, which is the FDC stronghold, the MP who was until recently a member of Katonga faction before returning home told Dr. Besigye and the entire Katonga faction FDC Party officials that, “Let this be known; we only subscribe to Katonga under the condition that FDC is not gonna be annexed to NUP. We shall never allow to become an addendum for NUP. Not now; not ever.” Hon. Atkins Katusabe said FDC identity is extremely vital. There are no concessions and as a result, they can’t entertain tradeoffs. “It is either FDC or FDC; nothing below and nothing above – ultimate resolve!”
FDC MAN: MP Atkins Katusabe
Without mincing words, Hon. Atkins revealed how it is an indescribable political insult for a nationally adored political party FDC to desperately seek for political shelter under and in NUP, a young party said to be a Buganda political grouping. He warned that the Katonga faction shall pretty soon head back to Najjanankumbi, “Our political home, especially when it occurs to us that some of our FDC Katonga leaders are hell-bent on co-opting FDC into NUP. Hell no; not at my watch and not at our watch, my esteemed FDC Leader.” For starters, Besigye and his Katonga team, a few months ago were seen at Kavule, NUP headquaters a development analysts say, the two wanted to form an aliance. This might have instead angered FDC leaders.
This is a developing story!
For views/comments on this story, Whatsapp editor on +256 701 523 039
PHOTO: From right; Counsel Barnabas Ndawula with Buganda Kingdom former Katikkiros Owek. Dan Muliika, Owek. JB Walusimbi and Owek. Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere
● Names Top Officials Led By Bashir Kizito Who Intimididated Him From Giving Evidence In A Court Case Against BLB Which Kizito’s Side Lost ● Denies Ever Forging Kabaka’s Signature, Challenging BLB To Produce Evidence ● Shows Letter From Kabaka Saluting Him For Perfrctly Serving Buganda Kingdom
NEWS EDITOR MEDIA
COUNSEL BARNABAS Ndawula, former Head Legal Services at Buganda Land Board (BLB) has finally broken silence about his sacking rumour at the Kingdom’s Land board. He says that was blackmail and malice spread by BLB official Bashir Kizito to taint his name, never was he sacked! Ndawula has revealed to us how he willingly resigned the job in 2018 and His Majesty Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II thanked him for deligently serving the Kingdom, in a letter this leading investigative news website has seen! Speaking to The News Editor Media, counsel Ndawula denied allegations made about him by a clique in BLB that he forged Kabaka’s signature to con BLB client challenging Bashir Kizito and group to produce proof of the signature he forged. “Fact is, Bashir Kizito was afraid of me giving evidence in a court case Civil Suit NO. 557 of 2014 between Zee Properties Ltd and Kamal Lalani (Plaintiffs) Vs Adam Kirumira and Wycliff Kalema (Defendants). Kizito connived with the defendants in that case to malign me and be intimidated not to give evidence. Kizito and group even purpoted to file criminal charges against me just to derail me from telling the truth in court. However, their side lost and court ordered them to pay over UGX 300M in cost.” Said Counsel Barnabas Ndawula in his message to The News Editor.
ACCUSED: Kizito Juma Bashir
He said, in return, Bashir Kizito Juma chose to lead a blackmail campaign against him to the extent of his group telling lies how Ndawula was sacked yet he willingly resigned his juicy job at BLB. For starters, we published a story in 2020 about BLB notifying Kabaka’s subjects in Uganda and in the Diaspora not to deal with Barnabas Ndawula son to late Beatrice and Kato of Kaliisizo in Kooki, on matters concerning BLB because he was sacked and nolonger representing them. BLB said, Barnabas Ndawula was sacked two years ago (2018) after high court found him guilty of forging Kabaka Mutebi’s signature in connivance with one Herbert Musiitwa to steal land worth billions which belonged to John Mulindwa. “We had to put the general public on notice to desist from dealing with Barnabas Ndawula on issues concerning Buganda Kindgom land. He is no longer at BLB, deal with him at your own risk.” Read official statement from BLB to The News Editor Media in 2020.
Lawyer Ndawula and his wife
Ndawula however calls this nonsense saying, the news paper notice came in 2020, two years after he resigned and left BLB, pinning the orchestrators for having a hidden agenda probably to tarnish his name. “Bashir Kizito wanted to intimidate me but lost it. I am that kind of man who you can’t be easily scared. So i proceeded to give evidence and Kizito’s side lost!” Revealed counsel Barnabas Ndawula. Also click this and read; THE NAKED TRUTH: HOW SACKED LAWYER BARNABAS NDAWULA FORGED KABAKA’S SIGNATURE TO CON BLB CLIENT
HERE IS COUNSEL BARNABAS NDAWULA’S RESIGNATION FROM BLB JOB IN 2018 In a Resignation mail on Monday August 2018 at 10:12 am to Mr. Martin Kasekende, BLB Chairman which was copied to David Mpanga, Premier Mayiga, then BLB MD Kyewalabye Male and a one Bukenya, Counsel Barnabas Ndawula wrote, “This is to formally tender in my resignation from the position of Head Legal services Buganda Land Board. I thank you and your entire Board for the opportunity you gave me to serve our Kingdom in such an esteemed position.” Ndawula’s mail continues to say, “I am sincerely grateful for the guidance and kindness and maturity that the Board has shown me in my stay at Buganda Land Board. I joined Kingdom service at a time when it had been mooted that the land arm of the Kingdom be incorporated. I am happy to say that I leave BLB as a fully incorporated legal entity in total compliance with most of the regimes of Corporate governance.” Ndawula revealed to his bosses how BLB emerged as a corporate entity of some renown with a cosmopolitan footprint.
Counsel Barnabas Ndawula
“Iam glad that in some small way I played a part in this and in establishing a legal department that has managed to see us through myriad legal hiccups.” Wrote Barnabas Ndawula He noted that “I am eternally glad for your choice at that time and of giving me an opportunity to not only witness but also contribute to this march to the top.” Giving his reasons for leaving BLB, Mr. Ndawula said, “It has come to my reckoning that perhaps it is for me to move on and release myself to be able to serve the Kingdom in some other ways.” He thanked the entire Board, Management, the MD and staff of Buganda Land Board for the rich and rewarding experience that he had lived at the company.
WHEN KABAKA THANKED NDAWULA FOR PERFECTLY SERVING THE KINGDOM A bout a year to his resignation, on November 8, 2017, Peter Mpanga the Kabaka Private Press Secretary wrote to Barnabas Ndawula extending Kabaka’s gratefulness for his legal abilities in handling controversial lawyer Male Mabirizi case against His Majesty the Kabaka. Mpanga’s letter reads, “I have been instructed by The Kabaka to extend his gratitude to you and your legal team for the victory you achieved in Male Mabirizi case against Kabaka.”
Kabaka’s letter thanking counsel Ndawula for serving the Kingdom “Kabaka is hopeful that this court victory will be pivotal in unlocking all that was locked and to cause shame to Mabirizi against Kabaka of Buganda.” Reads Mpanga’s letter congratulating Counsel Barnabas Ndawula for the job welldone.
ON FORGING KABAKA’S SIGNATURE & CONNIVING WITH A LAND GRABBER Sources in BLB told this news website that, while still serving as BLB Head legal, Barnabas Ndawula reached an extent of forgery and misrepresentation when he entered a consent agreement on behalf of the Kabaka. In Civil Suit No. 2464, Ndawula connived with one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa and signed a consent agreement despite not being one of Kabaka’s Attorneys. This agreement was later set aside through The Kabaka of Buganda vs Musiitwa (Miscellaneous Application No.729 of 2019) UGHCLD 67 (26th November 2019) because he Barnabas Ndawula had no right to do so.
How did it come about?
In 2015, a one Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa sought to steal land which belonged to John Mulindwa. He went to Buganda Land Board and connived with Barnabas Ndawula to form a scheme which included Musiitwa Herbert Mulasa going to court to force the Kabaka to give him a lease on Kyadondo Block 273 plot 4849, land which was already leased to John Mulindwa. After Musiitwa going to court, Barnabas Ndawula together with lawyers from M/s Kasumba, Kugonza advocates without consent of the Kabaka or BLB went ahead and entered the Kabaka into a consent judgment on July 8th July 2016 agreeing to give Musiitwa a lease on part of this land measuring approximately 0.097 hectares and in the process depriving John Mulindwa of his land. Because he wasn’t an attorney of the Kabaka and therefore could not sign on behalf of the Kabaka, (At that time only Katikkiro Mayiga and Owek. David Mpanga could) Barnabas Ndawula illegally signed for Kabaka and informed court that the Kabaka had agreed to Musiitwa’s land grabbing and that the Kabaka was to fund Musiitwa’s lease application. The Insider club allege that, the deal end had, “Musiitwa paying Ndawula a bribe in the region of Shs. 700m. To Musiitwa, the bribe was worth it because the said piece of land is valued in billions.” All seemed well till Musiitwa went to execute the consent judgment and Buganda Land Board refused saying it was a fraudulent consent judgment. It is then that Ndawula’s fraud was unearthed. In his November 2019 ruling, Justice Henry I. Kawesa put aside the consent agreement. But this came at a cost to BLB in terms of time and legal costs. In his wise ruling, justice Kawesa said, “It was evident that the persons who had the Applicant’s power of entering the consent judgment were the Katikkiro of Buganda (Charles Peter Mayiga) and the Attorney General of Buganda (David F.K Mpanga) vide Power of Attorney Registration No. 7934 of 2016 dated 2nd June 2016, and that neither the Applicant nor his Attorneys entered a consent as required by law.” Justice Kawesa said, the Applicant is aggrieved by the consent which obliges him to grant a lease on the land with multiple clients at no fee, that the suit land at the time of entering a consent had a running lease registered to John George Wamala Mulindwa for a term of 49 years with effect from 1969 and that he enjoys the right of first option to renew the said lease in accordance with the laws and policies of the Applicant. That the consent judgment was entered in total disregard to the law and policy which renders the same unenforceable. Finally, that the Applicant has a good viable defence to the respondent’s main suit and that he Applicant is interested in being heard. “In rejoinder, the Applicant maintains that the he has never entered into any consent with the respondent and that it was wrongly executed by a person who at the material time was not a holder of Powers of Attorney to bind the Applicant. That the signature purporting to be of the Applicant on the consent does not belong to the Applicant nor to his lawful attorneys and that the signatures of the Applicant is that contained on the Powers of Attorney so attached.” Reads the ruling. It continues to say, “The Applicant only learnt of the consent judgment when he was served with the respondent’s application for execution and notice to show cause why the execution should not issue against him and as such, that the application is not an after-thought.” “From the record, there was no agreement between the parties on what was signed, though the respondent submits that the Applicant’s lawyer was duly instructed, this instruction covered only representation as provided by Order 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, signing of consent is to be done by the parties or persons authorized to do the same. The consent judgment is hereby set-aside, as prayed.” Reads Justice Kawesa ruling which exposed lawyer Barnabas Ndawula’s fraud!
WHY BLB NOTIFIED PUBLIC NOT TO DEAL WITH NDAWULA ON BLB MATTERS The fact that his services were no longer wanted at Mengo, sources told us that he did not stop moving around claiming to still be their employee to the extent of attending BLB court cases. He appeared before court as Head Legal at BLB and gave evidence pinning BLB despite having left the organization for close to two years. BLB said, during his 3-year stint as the Head Legal, Ndawula created catalogue of misdemeanors that always left him at loggerheads with his former bosses. For instance, there was a time when he went to court as serving officer in BLB and squashed the organization’s surveyors report, calling it ‘hopeless’. At another instance, he contradicted the BLB MDs statement in the middle of court. He was asked to formally write an apology to the MD for his actions.
HERE IS THE JUDGEMENT IN A CASE BASHIR KIZITO NEVER WANTED NDAWULA TO BRING EVIDENCE AND HOW KIZITO’S SIDE LOST COURT BATTLE
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION)
JUDGMENT The Plaintiffs, Zee Properties Ltd and Mr. Kemal Lalani brought this suit against the Defendants jointly and severally seeking the remedies below: a) A declaration that the land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23 (herein referred to as the suit land) belongs to the Plaintiffs. b) The Defendants and/or their agents or any person claiming under them be restrained from interfering with the quiet possession of the suit land. c) The illegal structures be demolished at the expense of the Defendants. d) Punitive damages. e) General damages. f) Interest of 25% on (d) and (e) from the date of filing the suit. g) Costs of the suit.
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM The Plaintiffs are the undisputed registered proprietors of the suit land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23. To be specific they hold a leasehold interest, by way of purchase, over the land. Their landlord is His Royal Highness the Kabaka of Buganda. Around December 2006, they were approached by the vendor Mr. Sunder Kaka who was interested in selling his interest to the Plaintiffs. On 18th January 2007 the Kabaka, through his lawful Attorneys; Mr. Apollo Nelson Makubuya and A.B.K Ntale granted Mr. Kaka the consent, Exb. P.1, to transfer the property into the names of the Plaintiffs. This consent was copied to the Commissioner for Land Registration at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. Prior to the transfer of the land by Mr. Kaka to the Plaintiffs, the 1st Plaintiff’s Director, Mr. Daudani, made several visits to the suit land and was able to ascertain that there was no development on the land. And further, as Director and/or Shareholder of the 1st Plaintiff, he carried out a search at the Land Registry offices and ascertained that the land was free from any encumbrances. Following the due diligence conducted and after all the necessary consents were obtained, the Plaintiffs paid full consideration for the suit land which was transferred to them in accordance with the memorandum of sale. The Plaintiffs obtained the certificate of title to the suit land, free of any encumbrances and thereafter the 1st Plaintiff’s Director started to mobilize financial resources to develop it. In or around late July 2014, the 1st Plaintiff’s Director was surprised, when during their routine visits, they found the Defendants developing the suit land without any colour of right. They immediately instructed their lawyers M/s Katuntu & Co. Advocates to demand that the Defendants stop their illegal actions on the suit which both Defendants declined to do. The Defendants continued day and night to construct an illegal structure, without an approved plan, which is going to be very expensive on the part of the Plaintiffs to demolish. A copy of a survey report, a letter from KCCA and a Physical Planning Enforcement Notice from Wakiso District Local Government confirming the existence of the developments on the suit land was admitted into evidence. The 1st Plaintiff’s Director testified that through their lawyers they wrote and sought the intervention of the Kabaka of Buganda on whether they had knowledge of the Defendants to which they confirmed that the Defendants are trespassers and have no claim of right. Mr. Kemal Lalani, the 2nd Plaintiff, added that he spoke to several neighbours who knew Mr. Kaka very well and they had no objection whatsoever to their purchase of the land,but unfortunately Mr. Kaka passed away in or about July 2013. To prove the nature and duration of their lease, the Plaintiffs relied on the evidence of Mr. Ndawula Barnabas, the former Head Legal Department of Buganda Land Board. He commissioned a report on the extension of a lease for the Plaintiffs on the suit land upon which he made several findings. The suit land was originally in the name of Kaka Sunder, who opened up files with Buganda Land on 4th September 1998, having acquired a 3-year lease from Kampala City Council on 1st October 1992. A lease extension for a period of five years was offered to Mr. Kaka and it further was extended on the 1st March 2006, for a period of 10 years, with effect from 1st October
On the18th January 2007, Buganda Land Board consented to transfer the land from Mr. Kaka to the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, a 10- year lease extension was offered to the Plaintiffs with effect from 2010. Mr. Ndawula therefore confirmed that the Plaintiffs own a lease with Buganda Land Board although other parties had gone ahead to illegally put up developments thereon. Mr. Mujuni Milton, PW4, testified as a former permanent resident of Badongo Zone, Salama Parish in Makindye Division where the suit land is located. He knew Mr. Kaka before he died and that he owned a kibanja in the suit land’s neighbourhood since 1993 which he was in occupation of until 2016. Mr. Mujuni got to know the Plaintiffs around 2007 when Mr. Kaka, introduced them to him as prospective buyers of the suit land. Prior to the introduction he knew that Mr. Kaka owned the land and possessed a title which he later learnt he had sold to the Plaintiffs. After the introduction of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Kaka stopped his routine inspections of the suit land and they became occasional. Instead, the 2nd Plaintiff made routine inspections of the land which Mr. Mujuni remembered since they spoke to each other sometimes. Around 2014, Mr. Mujuni saw some people carrying out developments on the suit land after Mr. Kaka’s death. He asked the 2nd Plaintiff if they had sold their land which he denied. He added that the Defendants never talked to him as a neighbour about their purported purchase. The Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land and their prayer is that this court grants them the remedies as prayed for in the Plaint.
THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE Both Defendants denied all the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Defendants contend that they acquired interest in the suit land from the lawful owner Mr. Walugembe Tadeo, a Kibanja holder, by way of purchase at a consideration of UGX 110,000,000/=. On the 31st March 2014, they paid UGX 90,000,000/= to the vendor. An agreement to that effect was executed and witnessed by both the Area LC.1 Chairman and the Mutongole. A copy of the sale agreement, its translation, a receipt from Buganda Land Board and letter from the Kabaka’s agent in relation to the sale were admitted into evidence. Before they bought the land, they inspected it and ascertained its neighbours. Even the area local council members confirmed that the Kibanja belonged to Mr. Walugembe who had inherited it from his late father, Mr. Maganda Yozefu. The Defendants also visited the Kabaka’s area representative (Mutongole), a one Rachel Bulya Kiribata who confirmed the said information. A copy of her letter of appointment, letter of responsibilities and certificate of recognition were admitted into evidence. The 1st Defendant testified that the kibanja was measured and was found to be 97 feet wide and 178 feet long. It was neighboured by a mango tree on the upper side, Tenywa on the left, Nalongo Kyakuwa on the lower side and on the right side there was an access road. Thereafter, the Defendants took possession and started developing it. A copy of the approved building plan was admitted into evidence. The 1st Defendant explained that he is in physical possession of the land with a residential house thereon where he lives with his family. On the 31st July 2014, the Defendants received a letter from M/s Katuntu & Co. Advocates claiming criminal trespass to which they responded on 1st August 2014. The 2nd Defendant clarified that he relinquished his interest to the 1st Defendant when the latter purchased his share of the Kibanja. Mr. Kizito Juma Bashir, DW3 testified that he is one of the three people officially appointed by Board resolution to testify on behalf of Buganda Land Board Limited in Court matters. A copy of the board resolution was admitted. He further testified that the Plaintiffs are not personally known to him, but that he is aware that they have a land file at Buganda Land Board. He also added that he saw a document from them authorising sale by a one Walugembe Tadeo to the Defendants which was issued by their then manager of Makindye. This was in addition to other documents introducing the Defendants as kibanja holders on the suit land. It was also his testimony that in a letter dated 28th August 2020, Buganda Land Board responded to a request from Counsel for the Defendants to be availed with the report commissioned by Mr. Ndawula, PW3, in respect of the 1st Plaintiff’s existence on the suit land. In their response, the Board stated that there is no report known to them which was commissioned by PW3 in respect to a lease extension in respect of the 1st Plaintiff on the suit land. Furthermore, they stated that as of 14th July 2020, PW3 did not have the authority to represent Buganda Land Board in Court therefore his witness statement did not represent their position. A copy of the request letter and the response were admitted. DW3 further explained that the file for Plot 2334 Block 273 from their offices contains documents relating to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. He thus maintained that they both have interests in the land according to their records, a position they made clear to the Criminal Investigations Directorate. This was in a letter dated 7th August 2014 by their manager at the time when requested to during Police investigations of trespass on the said land. Mr. Mayanja Mutale the elected treasurer LC Badongo Zone, DW4, testified that being a resident of the area since 1992, he knows the Defendants as people who bought a Kibanja from Walugembe Tadeo in 2014 and that Joseph Maganda was the previous owner of the Kibanja where the suit land is. He also learnt that the said Maganda had distributed part of his kibanja to his children Walugembe Tadeo and Nakayenga. And as one of the local authority officials, he was contacted by the Defendants who were inquiring about Walugembe’s ownership of the kibanja which he confirmed. DW5, Mr. Lubega Mustafa testified that the 1st Defendant is his neighbour in Kyamula village and that the Plaintiffs are unknown to him. He added that he acquired his kibanja from Kibazo Aloysious on 13th October 2008 who had in turn purchased it from the late Joseph Maganda in 2003. Both copies of the Kibanja sales agreements were tendered into evidence. He explained that his home boarders with the 1st Defendant’s home and in 2014, he saw the 1st Defendant developing it with a residential house. The Defendants therefore prayed that the court dismiss the suit with costs. The following issues were formulated for Court’s consideration.
ISSUES
Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land?
Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?
RESOLUTION
Issue 1 Whether the Defendants are trespassers on the suit land? In the case of Justine E.M.N Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company SCCA No. 11 of 2002, Mulenga, JSC held; ‘Trespass to land occurs when a person makes an unauthorised entry upon land, and thereby interferes, or portends to interfere, with another person’s lawful possession of that land. Needless to say, the tort of trespass to land is committed, not against the land, but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession of the land. At common law, the cardinal rule is that only a person in possession of the land has capacity to sue in trespass. Thus, the owner of an unencumbered land has such capacity to sue, but a landowner who grants a lease of his land, does not have the capacity to sue, because he parts with possession of the land. During the subsistence of the lease, it is the lessee in possession, who has the capacity to sue in respect of trespass to that land.’ Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiffs are registered lessees of the suit property with an uncontested title obtained in 2010 for 10 years and extended for another term for 20 years in 2020. The Statutory Consent was duly obtained from the Kabaka through his lawful attorneys to wit, A.B K Ntale and A.N Makubuya. The ownership of the Kabaka is not in dispute. The defendants’ case is that they acquired a ‘kibanja’ in 2014. This was eight (8) years after the registered lessees (plaintiffs) had acquired title. According to Counsel for the Plaintiff, the occupancy and purported acquisition of the ‘kibanja’ in 2014 was contrary to sections 29 and 34 of the Land Act Cap 227. Section 25 29 of the Land Act defines lawful occupants to include a person who enters the land with the consent of the registered owner and section 34 provides for the prescribed mode of the transaction. Counsel for Defendant submitted that the requisite consent was obtained by the Defendants from the Kabaka’s representatives as demonstrated by the ‘Ebbaluwa Entongole’/ Sale Agreement dated 31st March 2014, Exb. D2. Counsel acknowledged the Plaintiffs’ interest in the suit property but maintained that it was subject to the Defendants’ interest in the land. The facts and evidence before me reveal that the Defendants entered into the transaction with the untraceable Walugembe Tadewo on the 31st March 2014 when the Plaintiffs were the registered proprietors on the suit land as lessees thereof. A quick search of the registry could have established that, as the 1st Defendant admitted. It was not a secret but a public fact that at the material time, HRH the Kabaka had parted with the possession of suit land. The Plaintiffs were therefore the only persons from whom the elusive Walugembe Tadewo and the Defendants could have obtained consent to enter into a transaction for the sale of the suit land. No such consent was sought or given, making the Defendants nothing but trespassers within the meaning of the law. Further, the available evidence adduced by the Defendants demonstrates that they paid UGX 110,000,000/= for the suit land. And yet Exb. D.2 clearly states that a sum of UGX 50,000,000/= was received by the vendor, being the purchase price. I do not believe at all that the 1st Defendant made a mistake in writing the amount as he claimed under cross examination. Documentary evidence is far more difficult to tamper with than oral evidence which can change at any time depending on the motives of the witnesses. The 1st Plaintiff’s Director described the Defendants act of purchase and swift development of the suit land as illegal, wanton and callous and I must agree. Issue 1 is resolved in the affirmative.
Issue 2 Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought? It is my view that the circumstances of this suit dictate that the Plaintiffs be granted all remedies sought. I hardly award punitive damages but I find them justified in this matter. The Defendants, as officers of court were in the best position to do the right thing after acquainting themselves with the undeniable position of the law but they chose to drag this matter along for several years. However, it is the 1st Defendant who has been at the forefront. He stubbornly maintained a stance steeped in illegality by living with his family on land he admits was illicitly acquired. The house they now call home should never have been built since the 1st Defendant did not own the land and he knew it. I award a sum of UGX 100,000,000/= in punitive damages to be singularly borne by the 1st Defendant. Turning to the prayer for general damages, I take into consideration the grave inconvenience occasioned to the Plaintiffs, since 2014 and I award a sum of UGX 200,000,000/= to be borne by the Defendants jointly. In conclusion, I enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and order as follows;
A declaration that the land comprised in Block 273 Kyadondo Plots 2334 Konge LRV 3549 Folio 23 (herein referred to as the suit land) belongs to the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants and/or their agents or any person claiming under them be restrained from interfering with the quiet possession of the suit land.
All illegal structures on the suit land to be demolished at the expense of the Defendants.
Punitive damages of UGX 100,000,000/= to be borne by the 1st Defendant.
General damages of UGX 200,000,000/= to be borne by both Defendants.
Interest of 15% on (4) and (5) from the date of filing the suit to payment in full.
Costs of the suit.
Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya JUDGE On the 30 January 2023
WAIT FOR PART II: For views/comments on this story, send an email to newseditor.info@gmail.com
IN a facebook post shortly after court hearing today in Masaka, City leader Hon. Alice Nannungi asked her supporters to keep eyes on the ball saying, ‘All oppression will come to an end one day.’ “I am for truth, no matter who tells it. I am for justice, no matter who it is for or against.” Nannungi cited NUP President Robert Ssentamu Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine quoting Malcolm X.
IRON LADY: NUP’s Nannungi eyeing Nyendo-Mukungwe MP seat in 2026
Nannungi was sued alongside Masaka City Speaker on allegations that Speaker forged minutes where she was appointed Works and Building Committee Chairperson. She calls it a political case cooked by her opponents.
Nannungi and co-acussed in the dock today
Her camp accuses Nannungi’s opponents for bankrolling this case intending to disorganise her and sabotage their 2026 plans. Nannungi posted, “I am still battling with this bogus case which is indirectly sponsored by our scared opponents, using our own people aided by the rotten regime. But I am not intimidated, we are ready and we shall defeat you all.”
Photos taken after court hearing today
A determined Nannungi, without mincing words revealed how her camp is aware of the opponents’ evil plan vowing that, “We don’t fear you at all, we shall win or die trying, you will not intimidate us with your bad intentions against the struggle as we fight to liberate our country. Soon we will expose you for the public to know the real enemy.”
Hon. Nannungi on a microphone a day Principal Kyagulanyi visted Masaka
Asking why would someone continue pretending to be, ‘Part of us yet not’, a youthful and fearless Nannungi assured her supporters that, “No one can fight nature, the time is on our side, whoever dreams of fighting our generation is a day dreamer, we are in better position to address and work on the challenges facing our generation. We are ready to take on you together with the forces of the regime from where you get backing.” Hearing adjourned to Monday 8, July 2024 as Nannungi lawyers continue to cross examine the applicant.
For views/comments on this story, email the editor at newseditor.info@gmail.com
AT a mega function organised by St. Charles Lwanga Mutundwe Catholic Parish on Sunday May 26, 2026 to mark 10th Anniversary and fundraise for the construction of the Parish School, the Head of laity Vincent Kawunde had no kind words for struggling politician Eugenia Nassolo!
MAIN CELEBRANT: Kampala Archbishop Paul Ssemwogerere
Without mincing words, Mr. Kawunde told off Eugenia Nassolo and asked her not to bother them for votes as Member of Parliament for Rubaga South in 2026 because they are returning their son Hon. Aloysius Mukasa! MP Mukasa contributed UGX 4M in cash while Nassolo pleged UGX 1M. In 2021, Mukasa contested against DP’s Nassolo and other 12 candidates defeating them hands down with a percentage of 70%. Nassolo has ben heard talking about contesting again in 2026.
ENDORSED FOR LUBAGA SOUTH MP 2026: Hon. Aloysius Mukasa
Mr. Kawunde who is known for being a money magnet received a standing ovation from the congregation when he openly told Nassolo how they can’t allow to lose Hon. Mukasa who he talked about as a staunch catholic, faithful, hardworking, very generous and supportive to all church projects. In the presence of Kampala Archbishop His Grace Paul Ssemwogerere and area MP Hon. Mukasa, the Head of laity Mr. Kawunde advised Nassolo to, “Go and contest for Female MP Kampala, we will give you full support. But if you are thinking about returning in the Lubaga South MP race in 2026, we are sorry, the Church will not support you because Hon. Mukasa is irreplaceable.”
HEAD OF LAITY: Mr. Kawunde on the microphone telling DP’s Nassolo not to waste time contesting against Hon. Mukasa in 2026
Speaking to hundreds of Parishioners who attended the function marking 10 years of St. Charles Lwanga Parish, the head of laity revelead how they will engage all would be contenders to leave the seat for Hon. Mukasa so that they don’t lose this seat. “Even if it is Hon. John Ken Lukyamuzi thinking of contesting again in 2026, we will send him a strong message to try his luck somewhere else, Lubaga South Consituency is already taken.” Said Mr. Kawunde, head of laity, Mutundwe Catholic Parish. The mass was celebrated by Archbishop Ssemwogere assisted by Parish Priest Rev. Fr. Ssemujju Remegius.
DOUBLE COLOUR: DP’s Nassolo got the message
The chief guest Dr. Silver Mugisha, the Managing Diector and CEO National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) was accompanied by wife Hon. Annet Katusiime Mugisha the Bushenyi district female Member of Parliament. The two were saluted by The Archbishop Ssemwogerere for their efforts geared at transforming St. Charles Lwanga Mutundwe Catholic Parish. Thanks to Dr. Mugisha the treasurer of the Parish for his wise leadership in the construction of a 1,000 seater church. He is talked about as a very good mobilizer if it comes to financing Parish development projects.
Dr. Mugisha addressing Parishioners. Standing next to him is his wife Hon. Annet Katusiime
He also single handedly bankrolled the construction of the church wall fence protecting the church premises from encroachment. The Inspector General of Government (IGG) Hon. Beti Olive Namisango Kamya graced the function and was among the selected speakers.
IGG Hon. Beti Kamya at the function
Charles Lwanga Mutundwe Catholic Parish was consecrated on January 26, 2014 by the late Archbishop Dr. Cyprian Kizito Lwanga.
For views/comments on this story, Whatsapp editor on 0772523039
● Justice Musa Sekaana Issues An Injuction Stopping All Atempts To Remove Hajjat Mpungu From Deputy Mayor Kampala Central
● Judge Also Restrains A Tribunal Constituted by Kampala Minister Minsa Kabanda From Commencing Its Duties Of Investigating Deputy Mayor Mpungu
● Shame As Mayor Uhuru Shoots His Foot Before The Judge, Says, He Was Subsequently Guided By The Executive Director Kampala Capital City Authority Dorothy Kisaja On 5/2/2024 That The Removal And Replacement Of The Deputy Mayor Hanipher Mpungu Had Been Done Irregularly Without Following The Right Procedure As Set Out By The Law
STORY BY: MOSES MUGALULA NEWS EDITOR MEDIA
WE TOLD U! Kampala Central urban Council Deputy Mayor Hajjat Hanipher Mpungu has also defeated Mayor Salim Saad Uhuru and group in the High Court who without authority and legal basis had removed her from office and illegaly appointed councilor Moureen Tumusiime as the new deputy mayor.
While giving a land mark ruling, the no nonsense Justice Musa Sekaana has ordered for a temporary injunction restraining and stopping Mayor Salim Saad Uhuru, Tumusiime Maureen Kabananura, Kampal Capital Authority and the Attorney General from implementing the decision of Mayor Salim Uhuru (1st respondent) in his letter dated 25th January, 2024 in which he talked about how his council had removed Hajjat Hanipher Mpungu nd appointed Tumusiime Maureen (2nd respondent) for Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division. “A further Injunction also issues to restrain the Constituted Tribunal from commencing its duties of investigating the applicant (Hanipher Mpuugu until the disposal of the main application for judicial review before this court or until further orders of this court. I so Order”, reads justice Ssekaana Musa’s ruling of May 17, 2024.
PHOTO: Mayor Uhuru and Deputy Hajjat Mpungu (extreme left) during their hey days
In a Miscelaneous Application no. 0199 of 2024 (arising from misc. Cause no. 012mof 2024) in the High Court of Uganda at Kampala (Civil Division), the Applicant Hannifer Mpungu applied for a temporary injunction brought under sections 33 and 38 of the Judicature Act and rule 3(2) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 against the respondents’ restraining the respondent or their agents or servants and any other public bodies, institutions and personalities from implementing and enforcing the impugned orders of the 1st respondent in the letter dated 25th January, 2024 by which the 1st respondent removed the applicant from the position of Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council and appointed the 2nd respondent as the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council.
DETAILS: The applicant, through her lawyers of Oluka James, Ben Ikilai & Illukor Emannuel filed the main cause seeking among others: To quash the decision of the1st respondent removing the applicant from the position of Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Urban Division embedded in his letter dated 25th January, 2024.
HAJJAT HANIPHER MPUNGU’S AFFIDAVIT
The application for temporary injunction was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant Mpungu Hanipher.
1.The applicant was elected as a woman councilor representing Old Kampala Parish in 2021 general elections and was subsequently appointed as the Deputy Mayor representing Kampala Central Division Urban Council by the 1st respondent with approval of the Division Urban Council.
2.That the 1st respondent did not observe the rules of natural justice before arriving at the decision by which he removed the applicant from the position of Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council and appointing the 2nd respondent as the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council in his letter dated 25th January, 2024.
3.That the 1st respondent acted with manifest of bias and extreme recklessness in the process of arriving at the decision dated 25th January, 2024 by which he removed the applicant from the position of the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council and appointed the 2nd respondent as the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council.
4.The 1st respondent had no legal authority and or mandate to remove the applicant from the position of the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council and appointing the 2nd respondent as the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council in his letter dated 25th January, 2024.
5.That the 1st respondent never offered the applicant any right to be heard before arriving at the impugned orders and acted ultra vires is as far as reaching the said decision dated 25th January, 2024.
6.That the Minister for Kampala Capital City Authority and Metropolitan Affairs wrote a letter dated 8 February 2024 seeking legal guidance. In the reply dated 23rd February, the Attorney General responded with an opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant on ground of misconduct and misbehavior for which the Minister should Constitute a tribunal to investigate and come up with a report.
7.That on 12th March, 2024 the 2nd respondent was immediately sworn in as the Deputy Mayor Kampala central Urban Council after holding a Special Council Meeting
8.That the 3rd and 4th respondents are in high gear trying to constitute a tribunal to investigate the applicant based on the impugned orders of the 1st respondent dated 25th January, 2024.
9.That the Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs wrote to the Chief Magistrate Buganda Road by letter dated 26th February, 2024 appointing 2 persons to constitute part of the tribunal.
DEFENCE: The respondents; Salim Saad Uhuru (Mayor Kampala Central Division Urban Council), Tumusime Maureen Kabananura (Woman Councillor Nakasero Parish, Kampala Central Division Urban Council), Kampala Capital City Authority and Attorney General, filed different affidavits in reply contending as follows;
1.The applicant (Hanipher Mpungu) assumed office of the Deputy Lord Mayor upon appointment but she subsequently failed to execute her duties with diligence, resulting into the Council of Kampala Central Division losing faith in her.
2.Whereas the applicant had been relieved of her duties, the letter dated 25th/01/2024 as the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division and appointing Hon. Tumusiime Maureen Kabananura with approval of council for the same position for which she was sworn in on the same day.
PHOTO: Mayor Uhuru and Tumusiime who was ilegally appointed Deputy mayor Kampala Central Urban Council
3.That 1st respondent (Salim Uhuru) was subsequently guided by the Executive Director Kampala Capital City Authority on 5/2/2024 that the removal and replacement of the Deputy Mayor had been done irregularly without following the right procedure as set out by the law.
4.That following the guidance of the Executive Director KCCA Dorothy Kisaka, on 6/2/2024 Mayor Salim Uhuru rescinded his earlier communication of 25/01/2024 and thus reversed the appointment of Hon. Tumusiime Maureen Kabananura as Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division and the communication was duly communicated to the Hon. Hannipher Mpungu, among others.
5.That all the issues relating to the applicant’s removal from office before and after 25/01/2024 and all allegations of unfairness made by the Applicant in this matter forming the basis of this application collapsed with the termination and rescission of the decision removing the applicant from office.
6.That on 6/2/2024, an entirely new, separate and fresh process of determining whether or not the applicant should be removed from office was initiated by the Council Committee of Kampala Central Division in the petition seeking to investigate the conduct of the applicant, which was forwarded to the Minister of Kampala and Metropolitan Affairs on 6/2/2024, in line with the advice of the Executive Director KCCA.
7.That the Minister of Kampala and Metropolitan Affairs Hon. Hajjat Minsa Kabanda forwarded a copy of the council petition to the Attorney General for evaluation and further management, in an entirely new process distinct and detached from the earlier aborted displacement of the applicant from office.
8.That on 26/02/2024, the Minister of Kampala and Metropolitan Affairs commenced the process of constituting a tribunal to investigate the conduct of the applicant by appointing Hon. Fredrick Ruhindi as Chairperson, Hon. Sarah Kanyike as member and also requested the Chief Magistrate to appoint a grade one Magistrate as a Member of the Tribunal.
9.That ever since the irregular process of relieving the applicant of her duties was rescinded on 6/2/2024, the applicant has been and is still ini office as the Deputy Mayor of Kampala Central Division with full rights and privileges and she draws a salary from the treasury.
10.That the applicant seeks to shield herself from the statutory processes i.e constituting a tribunal to investigate her, without any lawful justification. Uhuru and his partner in crime Tumusime Kabananura were. represented by Ambrose Tebyasa, KCCA was represented by Jackline Atugonza and the Attorney General was represented by Tuhangane Wilbrod (SA).
JUSTICE MUSA SSEKAANA’S RULING: The parties filed their respective submissions which I have considered in this ruling. Whether the court should issue a temporary injunction in this matter? The applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant is challenging the decision of the 1st respondent to removal her from the position of the Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division and specifically the legality of the process and legality of the decision contending that she was not afforded and accorded a hearing. The decision of the Minister of Kampala and Metropolitan Affairs to constitute a tribunal is an attempt to try and legitimize or ratify an illegality and that these acts are ultra vires since the allegations against the applicant are unfounded. The applicant denies ever receiving the rescindment of her dismissal and that the alleged notice of council was never communicated to her and that the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondent disprove the purported claims of rescindment and never assuming office as Deputy Mayor. She contends further that the 2nd respondent was indeed sworn in office on 12th March 2024 and not 25th January 2024. The respondent’s vehemently contended that the decision to remove the applicant from office of Deputy Mayor was rescinded and therefore there is no basis for the application for temporary injunction since the applicant is still in office as the Deputy Mayor. There is no prima facie case with probability of success upon which this application is founded. According to counsel for the respondent there is no decision to quash by this court since it was rescinded and her insistence of existence of a decision which does not exist makes her case frivolous and vexatious. The Council has lawfully taken the proper procedures for the removal of the applicant which has culminated into the establishment of the tribunal which is supposed to investigate the conduct of the applicant in the fresh investigations.
ANALYSIS The law on granting an Order of temporary injunction is set out in section 64(c) of the Civil Procedure Act which provides as follows; In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the court may, if it is so prescribed- (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty of it to prison and order that his or her property is attached and sold. Order 41 rule 2 of Civil Procedure Rules provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of any contract or other injury of any kind..apply to court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or any injury complained of… The jurisdictional and procedural principles governing interim injunctions or temporary injunctions must be sufficiently balanced and flexible to address the objectives of these remedies. The court’s discretionary powers should not be curtailed with hurried exercise of power with a view of changing the status quo to defeat the grant of appropriate remedies. If the court believes that there is a serious issue to be tried, it will prospectively consider the parties’ respective positions according to whether an injunction is granted or refused. In doing so, the court will gauge the hardship which would be caused to the applicant if he is refused relief and balance it against the hardship which would be caused to the respondent if the injunction is granted. If neither party would be adequately compensated, the court would ascertain where the balance of justice lies. The jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction is an exercise of discretion and the discretionary powers are to be exercised judiciously as was noted in the case of Yahaya Kariisa vs Attorney General & Another, S.C.C.A. No.7 of 1994 [1997] HCB 29. It should be noted that where there is a legal right either at law or in equity, the court has power to grant an injunction in protection of that right. Further to note, a party is entitled to apply for an injunction as soon as her legal right is invaded. See Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa Civil Appeal No.3 of 2009. In applications for a temporary injunction, the Applicant is required to show that there must be a prima facie case with a probability of success of the pending suit. The Court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. (See American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] ALL ER 504). A prima facie case with a probability of success is no more than that the Court must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried as was noted in Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority HCMA NO. 601of 2010. The applicant is challenging the decisions of the Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs constituting a tribunal on grounds that it is intended to validate the decision already taken of dismissing the applicant as the deputy Mayor Kampala and replacing her with the 2nd respondent. The applicant came to this court to vindicate her rights and stop an alleged illegal exercise of power by a Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs. This court has a duty to investigate and interrogate the allegations made by the applicant and this court cannot be outrun by hurried decisions in insuring that justice is done to a party before it. There are serious issues to be interrogated in the main application (Cause) and this court is satisfied that the case for the applicant is not frivolous or vexatious under the circumstances. The whole purpose of granting an injunction is to preserve the status quo as was noted in the case of Humphrey Nzeyi vs Bank of Uganda and Attorney General Constitutional Application No.01 of 2013. Honourable Justice Remmy Kasule noted that an order to maintain the status quo is intended to prevent any of the parties involved in a dispute from taking any action until the matter is resolved by court. It seeks to prevent harm or preserve the existing conditions so that a party’s position is not prejudiced in the meantime until a resolution by court of the issues in dispute is reached. It is the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. The court should not preserve a contested status quo which is under challenge for illegality and especially under judicial review. The court under the doctrine of separation of powers is enjoined to ensure that system of checks and balances is not casually defeated by not allowing aggrieved parties like the applicant to question decisions made by public office holders like the 1st applicant as the Mayor of Kampala Central Division and also the Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs. Any misuse or abuse of power should never be a ground to deem an action overtaken by events otherwise illegalities would be perpetuated through ensuring that the status quo is changed in a hurried manner without any justification or basis. This court has wide discretion at this stage to consider any factor which would have a bearing on the issue whether the injunction ought to be granted. It is for the court to determine the weight to be accorded to a particular factor weighed in balance and where they appear to be balanced the court ought to consider and strive to preserve the status quo. Other factors that may be taken into account in determining the balance of convenience include the importance in upholding the law of the land or rule of law and the duty placed on the authority to enforce the law in public interest. The actions of the respondent must be rooted in the law and any divergence and abuse of power must be restrained as the court investigates the circumstances surrounding the alleged decision made by the 1st applicant and later a decision made to constitute a tribunal by the Minister for Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs. This court in the exercise of its discretion ought to avoid any absurdity in application of the law since the damage the applicant will suffer if court rules in her favour will be greater and irreparable. It is a well settled preposition of the law that an interim injunction order can be granted only if the applicant will suffer irreparable injury or loss keeping in view the strength of the parties’ case. The courts when exercising power of judicial review have a duty of ensuring that the public body or officer has acted in accordance with the law or within the ‘four corners’ of the legislation or constitution and thus enforcing the rule of law. The court would be greatly inclined to granting interim remedies as it establishes the propriety of the decision in order not to render the application nugatory. The court’s power to grant a temporary injunction is extraordinary in nature and it can be exercised cautiously and with circumspection. A party is not entitled to this relief as a matter of right or course. Grant of temporary injunction being equitable remedy, it is in discretion of the court and such discretion must be exercised in favour of the applicant only if the court is satisfied that, unless the respondent is restrained by an order of injunction, irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the applicant. The court grants such relief ex debitio justitiae, i.e to meet the ends of justice. The court must keep in mind the principles of justice and fair play and should exercise its discretion only if the ends of justice require it. See Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act. In the result for the reasons stated herein above this application succeeds: A temporary injunction issues restraining and stopping the respondents from implementing the decision of the 1st respondent in the letter dated 25th January, 2024 removing the applicant from the position of Deputy Mayor Kampala Central Division. A further Injunction also issues to restrain the Constituted Tribunal from commencing its duties of investigating the applicant until the disposal of the main application for judicial review before this court or until further orders of this court. The costs shall be in the cause.
For views/remarks on this story, Whatsapp editor on 0772523039
PHOTO: Parade leader invites Chief guest Hon. Mukasa to inspect parade of Kabowa Church of Uganda Primary School students on Sataday
BY MARY KADDU RUBAGA SOUTH
MEMBER of Parliament for Rubaga South Hon. Mukasa Aloysius Talton Gold has offered to pay UGX 30000 for each stray dog killed in Rubaga after they attacked his constituents causing panic and fear in the area. The MP announced this offer when he was hosted on 107.9 fm Pearl fm. A worried Mukasa said as an area MP he has talked to the authorities like KCCA to prevail over the stray dogs in the constituency which bite his constituents, but in vain! “Now I have decided to put 30000 shillings to every stray dog killed, may be that is how we will manage to defeat them before killing our people.” NUP MP Mukasa told listeners of the Namwatulira show on Pearl fm. Yesterday, while officiating at Kabowa Church of Uganda Primary School Sports day, MP Mukasa cautioned parents and their children on their safety from stray dogs which invaded the area.
Hon. Mukasa who also, with some parents participated directly in the sports activities talked about the outbreak of red eye in schools and communities, , calling for isolation of those infected, avoid touching eyes, wash hands and always seek for medication If you get any symptoms.
The Mukasa also urged parents to always introduce the young ones earlier to the formal education system.
He pledged to level the School’s playing field to enable smooth sports activities for the learners.
For views, comments on this story, WhatsApp editor on 0772523039
PHOTO: Premier Mayiga, Deputy Speaker Tayebwa receives Speaker Anita Among at Bulange Mengo
STORY BY: MOSES MUGALULA
ON being given a thunderous welcome as she arrives at Bulange-Mengo, Buganda Kingdom Headquarters today morning, The Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament has hailed the royal family, Katikkiro Charles Peyer Mayiga and Kingdom officials.
PHOTO: Mayiga welcomes Speaker Among. Left is her deputy Thomas Tayebwa
PHOTO: Katikkiro, Speaker and Deputy Speaker first held a meeting
Powerful Anita Among who was received by her Deputy Thomas Tayebwa, Premier Charles Peter Mayiga, Commissioner of Parliament Owek. Mathias Mpuuga Nsamba among others said, “I am immensely honoured to pay this courtesy visit to the Royal Kingdom of Buganda and to be part of the Kabaka Royal Birthday Run, 2024.”
GIVE A HUG MY SPEAKER: Mayiga hugs Anita Among
Madam Speaker noted that, “Besides just registering for the Run, we are here to officially declare our support for the Kabaka Royal Birthday Run, 2024. As the Parliament of Uganda, we identify with this year’s theme; ‘Men are stars in the fight against HIV/AIDS to save the Girl Child. We are cognizant of the effect of HIV/AIDS on our population and we welcome the effort of the Buganda Kingdom in complementing Government’s effort in combating HIV/AIDS.”
PHOTO: Speaker and her deputy talking to the press
The 11th Parliament Speaker revealed that, this will certainly contribute to the UNAIDS target of eliminating HIV/AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have a common cross-cutting health theme. “May the unity exhibited here today be the spirit of confronting Uganda’s common challenges and paving way for sustainable growth and development.” Said Madam Soeaker calling all Members of the Public to register and participate in this run so as to support the noble cause.
Speaker Anita and her entourage left Mengo minutes ago after buying Kabaka’s birthday run kits worth UGX 50M. We are coming with meeting details
VALUED PHOTO: Queen Sylivia Nagginda and Speaker Anita Among in a jovial mood. The two are great friends
BY MOSES MUGALULA BULANGE-MENGO
OVER 100 Members of Parliament have accompanied The Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament Anita Annet Among and her deputy Rt. Hon. Thomas Tayebwa to Bulange Mengo to give a boost to The Kabaka’s birthday run due this Sunday on April 7, 2024. First to arrive was Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa and a number of MPs and by press time, Speaker Anita was enroute to Bulange Mengo, Buganda Kingdom Headquaters. Maama Bukedea will be received by the Royal family, Kingdom Premier Charles Peter Mayiga and a number of Kabaka’s Minister. Speaker and her deputy, will then have a meeting with Premier Mayiga and a few selected officials and then after, will join other members of Parliament. Madam Speaker is expected to address Kabaka’s subjects and then buy Kabaka’s birthday kits.
Security has been tightened at Bulange Mengo, army and police deployed as number three arrives. Kabaka birthday run is organised every year to see Aids end by 2030. “As you may be aware, the annual Kabaka Birthday run is slated for 7th April 2024. Proceeds from this run will aid interventions against HIV/AIDS. The Parliament of Uganda will support and participate at the Kabaka Birthday Run. Tomorrow morning , I will lead a team of Members of Parliament to Bulange, Mengo at the invitation of Katikkiro to formally submit our support.” Speaker Anita posted on her X platform, yesterday
This is a developing story, the mighty News Editor media will keep you posted.
LEAD PHOTO: Ms. Tatra Mary attended NUP gathering in Boston, MA, recently. She was dressed in a tshirt with Bobi Wine’s portrait having words, ‘Mr. President’. This puts her in NRM government’s bad books.
STORY BY: SHARON ASIO Senior Investigator
RENOWNED Human Rights defender and Political Activist Tatra Mary Musheshe finds herself in the crosshairs of Uganda’s political landscape, her family reveals. Fleeing the country in 2013 amidst escalating threats, Tatra’s advocacy for change alongside opposition leaders from Dr. Kizza Besigye’s Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and National Unity Platform (NUP) has incurred the wrath of the ruling NRM government.
STOP HARASSING OUR SUPPORTERS: Bobi Wine warns government
Central to the regime’s ire is Tatra’s collaboration with NUP Vice President Dr. Lina Zedriga Waru and the opposition leader in Uganda, Hon. Robert Ssentamu Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine. According to intelligence briefing, Ms. Tatra is one of the leading Bobi Wine’s trusted NUP Mobilizers in Diaspora. State operatives believes she is behind mobilising Diaspora with the backing of LGBT + Q to give the regime sleepless nights.
PHOTO: President Museveni accused opposition of being supported by foreigners and LGBT+Q to distablize his government. He threated to deal with them. He was officially opening Bukedea Teaching Hospital and Bukedea College of Health Sciences both established by the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Anita Annet Among. NUP is higlighted for being Pro LGBT+Q
Her concerted efforts to challenge the status quo has placed Tatra and her family under constant surveillance and intimidation by state operatives. Government officials, including the National Resistance Movement (NRM) chairman Haji Abudallah Kitatta and Mr. Kamuntu Majambere commonly known as ‘Empologoma ya Museveni (President Museveni’s Lion) have issued veiled threats against Tatra and her allies, vowing to quash dissent and maintain the current political order at any cost. Appearing on Dream televion, a Christian based tv station in Uganda owned by Pastor Dr. Joseph Serwadda of Victory Christian Centre Church in Uganda, Kitatta and Majembere warned Tatra and whoever is challenging the NRM regime that their days are counted, they will be arreted and pay for their sins.
PHOTO ABOVE: When Majambere (Museveni’s lion) appeared on Dream tv and sent a tough warning message to Ms. Tatra on supporting Bobi Wine to challenge NRM regime.
Opposition in Uganda says, such rhetoric underscores the precarious position faced bķy individuals daring to speak out against entrenched power structures. Recently, Leader of opposition in Parliament of Uganda tasked Prime minister Nabbanja to tell public the whereabout of opposition leaders and hundreds of their supporters accusing the State of persecuting oposition politicians.
ABOVE: Leader of Opposition in Parliament Rt. Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi gave Prime minister Robinah Nabbanja had time on mising Ugandans like Tatra Mary who allegedly fled the country over opposing the ruling NRM government
Despite the risks, Tatra like many other opposition politicians, remains undeterred, leveraging her legal background and activism to mobilize support for regime change. She continues to advocate for change in the diaspora through the Intellectual Property Rights Initiative (IPRI-Africa) an IP and Human Rights Advocacy organization she formed while in Uganda. Her association with IPRI-Africa underscores her commitment to holding the regime accountable for human rights abuses and political repression. No wonder, Tatra and political activist for Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) Preacher Doreen Nyanjura the current Deputy Lord Mayor of Kampala City linked again in 2022 in Boston, Massachusetts for the purpose of mobilization and advocating for change of the NRM government.
ABOVE; In 2022, Ms. Tatra (middle) was cited with ‘The FDC Preacher’ Deputy Lord Mayor of Kampala City Doreen Nyanjura (right). The two linked up again in Boston, Massachusetts USA for a strategic meeting.Left is Samuel Kiberu.
However, Tatra’s activism has come at a great personal cost. A colleague she advocated for change with through the FDC party, lawyer Nasser Mubonde, recounts a harrowing acid attack in 2014, a chilling reminder of the dangers inherent in challenging authority. His ordeal serves as a stark warning of the lengths to which the state will go to silence dissent.
HEARTTLESS! FDC Lawyer Nasser Mubonde who was attacked with acid a few days after Tatra had fled the country. The two were very close
PHOTO: NUP women protest over the continued arrest of their own Olivia Lutaaya.
As Tatra’s whereabouts remain shrouded in secrecy, the specter of state reprisal looms large. Will she evade capture and continue her advocacy from abroad, or will the long arm of the law reach her? The answers remain uncertain, but one thing is clear: the struggle for change in Uganda is far from over. Let’s watch the space!
For views/comments on this story, send us an email on newseditor.info@gmail.com
OVER 500 Members of the ruling NRM Party in Lubaga led by a one Kamuntu Majjambere commonly known as ‘Empologoma ya Museveni’, have petitioned Rt. Hon. Richard Todwong the NRM Secretary General requesting gor a meeting on Wednesday March 27, 2024 to present a case against Haji Abudallah Kitatta saying he is nolonger fit to be the Party Chairman for Rubaga District.
PHOTO: Kitatta addressing NRM leaders in Lubaga recently. A group of NRM members want him out of office over incompetence and abuse of office.
In a petition dated March 19, 2024 copied to legal Director NRM and the NRM EC boss, petitioners requested SG for a meeting with NRM concerned members in Rubaga District for discussions on Article 46 Section 1 (C) of the NRM Constitution Reprint 2015. Petition reads, “Whereas Article 9 of the NRM Constitution empowers us among many other things to take full and active part in discussions, formulations and implementation of policies of the NRM where we belong. Its from the above mandate that we seek for an appointment to meet you as the Secretary General of the Party with the mandate under Article 40, Section 9, Subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) of the NRM Party Constitution.” Rubaga NRM Members say, “We tend to discuss on the operationalization of the NRM Party Constitution within Rubaga among which are, Article 46 Section 1 subsection c, of the NRM Constitution Reprint 2015, it is within your discretionary powers that if you see it deemed fit to also invite Director Legal services of the NRM Party of the above meeting.” “We the undersigned five hundred members and leaders bellow intend to attend in person and we shall be at the NRM Party offices at plot 10, Kyadondo on Wednesday March 27, 2024 at 9am ready for a meeting.” Reads the petition. We are reliably informed, the petitioners are led by Mr. Kamuntu Majambere who already vowed to contest for the NRM Chairman Rubaga District in the forth coming elections. Kamuntu Majambere says, Kitatta isn’t fit to be the party leader in Lubaga, he has cases of abuse of office, Misconduct or Misbehaviour, Incompetence, mismanagement among others. “Such a person with that dirt can’t be our leader. The Party Constitution is very clear on this. We want to meet our party SG and we have a discussion about the legal implications.” Said Majambere Kamuntu commonly known as Empologoma ya Museveni. The petition attached with are the over 500 petitioners was received by the offices if top bosses at the Party headquarters. However Kitatta says, Majjambere and team are just logging a dead horse!
