At a time to recollect, facts and realities must be understood and differentiated from truth.
If we go by the Christian saying that is, am the way, the truth and the light. Then the guide into the light must be the truth. This not withstanding that you must be able to see the light.
The messiah claimed to be this light and he is this light according to Christians. However, his followers, disciples were mainly poor. Today I hear Christians jubilating that he died so that they should be rich. Ironical as that sounds it’s the present-day realty that the disciples of old never knew and envisaged.
President Museveni has claimed to have the vision for the country in essence he is a self-acclaimed guide of Ugandans into the promised land. The realty though is that he was elected to that position and as of today three times already.
The opposition in Uganda but herein called dissenting voices continues to claim that he president Museveni has failed the country. That the country needs new blood. This view has subscribers to it but as you go down this rabbit hole, these voices have tools of their own. This is a call to simply cripple this man from standing.
When echoes fly from one village that ‘enough is enough’ and other echoes fly from another village that ‘we want more of the same’. What is the perceived way that modern people settle such squabbles? But if this is not a squabble and it’s something bigger how do modern people handle this?
Tactics and strategies are drawn by either side and in parliament on a good day when it’s about increasing salaries, ratifying UN conventions, passing anti money laundering laws, Communication regulations, all are one team but when it’s a matter of leveling the playing ground either side claims unfair advantage is availed to another side or citations to technicalities are welcomed.
Uganda is at that juncture where the powers that show up with different tactics and strategies but do these decisions by politicians answered either way solve the issues people of Uganda meet daily.
Article 102 of the constitution is at center stage this time around, the Age limit bill and the Togikwatako campaign are the issues of the time. These issues and the effects they arouse need to be taken into perspective.
For starters, I do not subscribe to the minister of state for Finance, investment and privatization Ms Evelyn Anite Kajik’s delusion that NRM has the support of the army as she is not the spoken person of the army and the army is neither an institution to be preyed upon by individuals though in reality this actually happens.
So, what does article 102 in the Uganda constitution say,
A person to qualify for election as President must be—
(a) a citizen of Uganda by birth;
(b) not less than thirty-five and not more than seventy-five years of age; and
(c) qualified to be a member of Parliament.
These three items in Article 102 were accepted and adopted into the Ugandan constitution as fair and resonating with the aspirations of all Ugandans.
So let’s begin with Article 102 (a) citizen of Uganda by birth.
When you are said to be Ugandan by birth what does it actually mean. When was Uganda the realty many know of formed? Was Uganda as a land existent before it was tagged the name Uganda? What was it called for? The answers to these questions are as elusive as time itself.
Should we always make mention of foreign and Latin words like Jus Soli or Jus sanguinis as if we cannot equally discuss our own lives without using other people’s comprehension of the same.
Therefore, if somebody were to come to Uganda today and say the ancestors of Uganda forcefully remained on their land even when they true owners had returned so where forced to remain in the Congo jungles. Would this mean that Kintu the grandfather of the Buganda was a squatter of this land. Wouldn’t this mean that all Buganda all squatters on the 1000 and so square miles. What about the Basoga, Bamyankole, Acholi, Luo and other tribes?
So today we live under present day realities not knowing exactly how we got here but under the believe that because we are here this must be our home and therefore this is our birth right.
Realities elsewhere show us that this is very true. In America white people attacked killed the original inhabitants and now claim America as their birth right.
The stories written about Kintu and the other grandfathers of tribes in Uganda could be a façade they passed on to later generations but not the truth.
As such therefore you are a Uganda by birth and not an immigrant because there is an institution called the government of Uganda that is ready to protect you and fight against any one that claims to be having actual right to the soil where Uganda lies.
If this was not true then why do white and black Americans claim they are Americans by birth and yet the actual predecessors or the original natives of the Americas still exist. Answer, the American government makes this possible. It’s this government in whatever form it was that legitimized the stay, occupation and takeover of the land from the natives to the foreigners. Later the foreigners became the actual owners.
In Africa, much of the history is lost with only bits of “kintu came from the east” as if to mean there were no people where he came from and even where he later settled.
As we read from the constitution, to be president of Uganda, you must be a citizen by birth is still pathetic in the second instance. White people came to Africa, they partitioned the land and decided what is Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and others.
Where Africans ever given choice to exercise their inalienable right to choose where they want to be? If the defining line run through your compound one end was Uganda the other was Kenya. One end Kenya the other Tanzania.
If you were in Uganda you needed to subscribe to Ugandan law, the same with those in Kenya, Tanzania.
In this period of time what was the meaning of birth when a white man’s demarcation line decided where you belonged. These are the facts and realities but what is the truth here. Is a Ugandan truthfully when he says to a Kenya or Tanzania or other African that this is not your home and yet if that demarcation line had passed elsewhere that person could be a fellow countryman.
African homes and communities were broken and destroyed, the continued establishment of such phrases in our laws; citizen by birth is an insult to all Africans.
Thirdly, if an original native of the land where Uganda lies ran away because kintu and other grandparents of tribes in Uganda wanted to kill them. Is he/she free to come back to Uganda today and even stand for presidency?
Is a Kenyan of today who says his family was robbed when the European’s tore up Africa and that for him he loved to live by the Nile and that he wants to come back home and even lead as president be denied his right because the constitution says something contrary?
A black man living in the diaspora who discovers that his parents where from Uganda before the white man banged them onto ships and took them as slaves. Discovers this fact wants to run home and also engage in politics. Should he be denied his right because the constitution says something contrary?
If I left Uganda and went to Mars lived there and 200 years later my predecessors return to Uganda. Should they be treated as foreigners because their great grandfather left 200 years ago
Given that this section of the law is not fair and just why is it that we still uphold it. The rationale for why we uphold these unfair laws is simple.
The people that possess are always apprehensive of those that are coming to their land and as such they put up laws to defeat others from also possessing the same.
The realities of today, white people went to the Americas stole land from the natives and today put up laws restricting immigrants. Which law forbade them when they were entering the land? But today that doesn’t stop them from putting up laws against foreigners.
Again, from the Christian writings in the bible, when the prodigal son came home, his brother was not happy, why? Because his brother was believed to have come to take more of their father’s possession that remained.
As such therefore if you allow this brother of the prodigal son to make a law don’t be surprised when he re-enacts article 102 (a) to refrain his brother from inheriting part of his father’s possession. In this case he would say, if by this date you are not in and on the land of my father, you are not a citizen here and cannot therefore inherit from it.
Article written by a Guest writer Barter Trader
PART TWO WILL BE DROPPING TOMORROW ON 14th. October. 2017