Federo issue requires a constitutional approach, Uganda

Writing in the New Vision of August 5, Patrick Kayongo raised pertinent issues regarding Buganda’s demands for federo  (“Can Uganda document ebyaffe” and “Is federo relevant?”) by suggesting that Mengo should make a list of Buganda’s properties she is demanding from the government and also explain what federo means and what we stand to benefit from it.

Many people have given the impression that “federo” represents a quantum of things which are special to Buganda alone. 

However, the term “federo” is just a Luganda corruption of the English word “federal” which is an adverb designating a union of two or more autonomous states to form a federation in which members agree to subordinate their powers to that of the central authority or central government but retaining their pre-existing autonomy and sovereignty.

For such a union to exist there must be a compact or constitution in which executive, legislative and judicial powers and functions are shared equitably between members of the union. 

The powers and functions which are not surrendered to the central government remain within the competence of the member states to the exclusion of the centre. 

However, a federal constitution also provides for concurrent functions and powers, which can be exercised jointly by the three tiers of the government.

The existence of two or more autonomous states is a pre-requisite to a federal arrangement. 

That is why in 1962, Buganda was granted her independence by the British parliament, a day before Uganda got hers so that the two independent states would unite in a federal arrangement on October 9, under the 1962 constitution. 

Today if a federal arrangement were to be introduced, our parliament would have to grant Buganda independence first to enable her to join with Uganda in a federal arrangement. The impossibility of this becoming a reality has not been addressed by those who demand for federo for Buganda.

In order to overcome this impossibility, a number of people have settled for a half-way house in which executive and legislative functions can be shared excluding from the arrangement the elements of independence and sovereignty and the sharing of judicial power along the lines of Scotland in Britain and other similar arrangements in Spain, Belgium and Italy, where cultural autonomy was achieved for those who wanted it without doing violence to the integrity of the state sovereignty through the process of devolution. 

Apart from saving the sovereignty of the state this process enables functions and power to be returned to the regions from the centre in an incremental fashion.

In this way, Kayongo’s questions can be answered through a comparison of the present constitution with the 1962 constitution in order to determine the extent to which executive, legislative functions as well as Buganda’s properties have been restored.  

According to article 1(2) of the 1962 Constitution, Uganda consisted of four federal states and 10 districts. Legislative power was shared between the Parliament of Uganda and the legislatures of the federal states. 

Under article 73, the Parliament had power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Uganda (other than the federal states) with respect to any matter. 
In the case of Buganda, its legislature (the lukiiko) had power to the exclusion of Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government with respect to matters which were specified in Part 1 Schedule 7 to the Constitution.

As for executive authority, article 77 provided that the executive authority of Uganda would extend to the maintenance and execution of the Constitution of Uganda and to all matters with respect to which Parliament had power to make laws. Buganda’s executive authority extended to the maintenance and execution of the constitution of Buganda, maintenance of public order and public safety in the kingdom and to all matters with respect to which the lukiiko had power to make laws.  

Article 79 also provided that the Government of Uganda could enter into arrangements with a federal state for the administration by the state for services within the state of the executive authority of Uganda.

In the judicial sphere, the country had two high courts one for Uganda and the other for Buganda. The constitution provided that the high court for Uganda exercised such jurisdiction throughout Uganda as might be conferred on it by the constitution or any other law whereas the high court of Buganda had within Buganda the same jurisdiction as the high court of Uganda had within Buganda under the constitution or any other law. The high court of Buganda administered justice in the name of the Kabaka.

Other matters which were provided for in the national constitution (“ebyaffe”) as far as Buganda was concerned were the financial arrangements, public land and boundaries. Buganda did not have power to tax but payments were made from the central government to the Kabaka’s government as determined in accordance with the provisions of an agreement which was set out in Schedule 9 to the Constitution. 

As for land, three types of land boards existed namely the Uganda Land Commission, the federal and district land boards. The boundaries of Buganda were set out in Schedule 11 to the Constitution.

How far does the present constitutional arrangements approximate to the 1962 arrangements? 
According to the Fifth Schedule Section 8 of the Constitution, the Kabaka is recognised as the constitutional head of the Buganda government and the regional assembly namely the Lukiiko as was the case in 1962. 

Article 178 sub-articles 6-11 re-establishes the Buganda government as the highest political authority within Buganda with legislative and administrative powers. With these powers, the Buganda government can even make a constitution for Buganda as was the case in 1962. 
Under the Fifth Schedule section 10 regional (read Buganda) land boards have been re-established with power to control public land within their areas which is presently vested in district land boards. 

As for finance, it is provided in the Fifth Schedule that government will work out a formula of granting unconditional grants to regional governments as was the case in 1962. The boundaries of Buganda have been defined according to its districts. 

The county headquarters have not been returned because they can only be returned to holders of the relevant offices (saza chiefs) since the land is registered in the official names of those offices.

With the exception of sovereignty and judicial power the present constitution allows Buganda to return to the 1962 constitutional position and provides avenues to get what has not been returned. 

Adopting a constitutional approach will therefore solve the federo issue without the rancour being caused by political demands which in any case are misguided.

The writer is a Lawyer

Quest for federalism must be principled

Opinions February 23, 2008
Politics: Morris Komakech

Buganda is usually very presumptive when it comes to advancing its interests. Take for instance, the agitation for federo. A feature article by J. K. Kavuma Kagwa entitled Create four federal states (Daily Monitor, February 13) is one such passionate appeal for what the Baganda have conceptualised as a utopian state of their existence.

Mr Kavuma in his article, made some interesting proposals such as creating four federal states namely; Buganda, Rwenzori, Masaba and Nile respectively. In the same article, he marvelled at the upfront approach undertaken by Acholi leaders towards embracing a federal system of governance as a viable alternative to the current unitary system that has fermented military dictatorship and tribal conflicts.

There are several discrepancies with Mr Kavuma’s attitude which subsequently presents underlying contradictions within the Buganda mainstream ideology. Mr Kavuma, for instance, assumes that the Acholi people are newcomers in this matter of federalism. From a historical perspective, the Acholi have always supported a federal system and that position was eloquently presented to the Odoki Commission in 1993. However, what has left Ugandans of same mindset unsure about Buganda’s own position, is the uncompromising preference for “federo” instead of federalism.

Most Ugandans perceive Buganda’s fervent agitation for federo as the step toward cessation. During the Baganda Annual Convention dubbed “Tabamiruka” at New Brunswick in New Jersey last September, the issue of federo and Buganda secession came up for debate.

It was Kabaka Ronald Mutebi who clearly scorned the latter idea. The Kabaka argued that such a move would alienate Buganda from the rest of Uganda and generate contempt for its other interests. Mutebi argued intelligently that Buganda should engage in the war of ideas and strive relentlessly to work with other regions like Acholi to achieve “federo.”

Kabaka Mutebi’s position is a comfortable position indeed. Buganda must endeavour to address, urgently, this misunderstanding of their “federo” which sounds loaded with sinister intentions. Ugandans must know whether federo is synonymous with general principles of federalism that their potential allies- the Acholi - and others may agree with.

Other striking contradictions preside within the very nature of Buganda and its intrinsic objectives. It is reasonable to argue that while northerners may wish to strike an alliance with Buganda in the struggle for federalism, Buganda itself, is not precisely organised enough to front its own case, consistently.

Besides, there is no guarantee that Buganda can stand the heat of controversy without flip flopping and reneging on its alliances in the face of state resistance or corruption. The recent attempt to reach an agreement for regional tier presents an interesting read to reaffirm my case here.

Another contradiction is the unexploited might of Buganda both in terms of having access to power and a potentially huge voter population. Majority of power brokers in Uganda in the last half century have been largely a composite of Baganda elites in cahoots with those in power.
If “federo” is at the heart of some of the wishes of Buganda, how come it is the Baganda who are constantly sabotaging it? For instance, in the current NRM government, half of the cabinet ministers are from Buganda and are NRM.

Buganda also enjoys a big number in parliament where federalism could be debated and passed since it is a national issue. How come the electorates who are mainstream Baganda are not pressing their MPs and ministers to prioritise the advancement of Buganda’s interest?
Another glaring contradiction is the excessive political loyalty Buganda has committed to the ruling NRM. The Baganda voters have persistently supported the NRM government while crying foul about the same government that it has marginalised Mengo and deprived it of its properties. Buganda must consider divorcing the NRM if it wants to reclaim its glory.

And at the most dire need for empathy during times when people were dying in the northern and eastern parts of Uganda, the Baganda rallied behind President Museveni’s regime and never spoke out for the innocent villagers who were being killed. Twenty years of bloodbath in Acholi went unnoticed. Buganda needs to cultivate a culture of internal consistency and develop internal mechanism to understand that in the game of politics, one cannot hold grudges forever, to that blinding point.

The search for identity by northerners within Uganda stems from being utterly rejected and subsequently alienated by the rest of the country for two full decades. The conceptualisation of semi-independent Nile Republic in the North is borne out of discontent in line with facts that northerners have been and continue to be treated like second hand citizens nationally. Their quest for federalism is a genuine cause that must be pursued swiftly with principled alliances.

The author is the founding member of Federal Review Commission Uganda. He is resident in Canada. May be contacted on mordust_26@yahoo.ca

Federalism does not mean tribalism

Opinion GOVERNANCE November 7, 2007
Tajudeen Abdul Raheem

Kenya is gripped by election fever. In the frenzied atmosphere everything has become extremely partisan operating essentially as ‘if you are not for me’ then you are against me!

Last Saturday, November 3 at the famous Ufungamano Hall in Nairobi, I walked straight into the brawling ring of Kenya’s ongoing ‘do or die’ political campaigns. I was a keynote speaker at a public lecture on ‘the Great Majimbo debate’ organised by the Young Professionals for Raila. It was obviously a partisan platform but the matter being discussed was of a very public nature.

We may not yet have votes in other African states but we should not collaborate in our silencing by also refusing to contribute to public spaces. What gives foreign diplomats, NGOs and so called ‘experts’ the right to lecture our leaders on all things under the sun and beyond the skies but require other Africans ‘to stay quiet’? I had made it clear to my hosts that I was not coming to speak as a UN staff but rather as a concerned Pan Africanist and a political scientist with some insight into the subjecxt matter.

That entire caveat was of no use in the ensuing reports of the meeting in the Kenyan papers. I do not usually blame the media for ‘misrepresentation’ or ‘misquoting’ but on this occasion my colleagues in the fourth estate of the realm really undersold themselves. Sample these headlines: ‘UN envoy defends Majimbo system’ (Sunday Nation, November 4); ‘ UN official backs controversial Majimbo system’ (Sunday Standard November 4); or ‘Majimbo system : ODM now brings in an expert’ (The People on Sunday, November 4 ) including claims that I was specifically flown in by ODM for the event!

Even in their preoccupation with my UN status they did not even bother to be accurate. All the reports got my position and particular UN affiliation wrong. But this should not deflect us from the political significance of the debate that is wrongly termed Majimbo by Kenyans and Ugandans will know as Federo.

For me it is about wider issues of political and economic governance, devolution of power and the degree to which people of Kenya should have control over their destiny and the accountability of their leaders to them at various levels. It is about how to stop our presidents from monopolising power at the centre and reducing representative institutions like parliaments to personal choir groups.

In the current charged competition for votes the Kenya debate is couched in exclusive terms. President Kibaki’s side have succeeded in wrong footing the pro-devolution group as Majimboists (code word for tribalists just as Federo is seen as another word for Buganda hegemony in Uganda) and their supporters as enemies of national unity. Whereas in Uganda it is the majority nationality that has historically championed Federo, in Kenya it is minority groups with majority Kikuyu elite being opposed to.

The opposition has reacted defensively to say that it is not the old divisive Majimbo of the 1960s that they are clamouring for rather it is a limited political devolution that will give Kenya back to every Kenyan. What is clear is that both sides agree on devolution but cannot agree on by how much.

The government thinks the Constituency Development Fund which came under this regime (even though it was from a Private Members Bill instead of government or opposition legislative agenda) is enough. The opposition thinks it should be extended to regional levels. I think if devolution is so good why is it being limited to 2. 5 %? Who controls the rest? Both government and opposition have to give clear answers to the voters.

Whether you call it Majimbo or devolution the consensus means that everyone is not happy with the status quo. This is where my defence of Federalism begins and the substance of my contribution to the debate last Saturday. One, the response to an overbearing centralised state is devolution of power and clamouring for same by the constituent units in that system. They could be districts, provinces, regions or other administrative areas. Two, in the specific case of Kenya it is clear the Bomas consensus was to have a very weak federalism which shares powers and resources between the constituent units on a more equitable way but retaining substantial and especially the power to levy taxes at the centre.

While there may be many challenges with establishing a federal system including threats of narrow nationalism, regionalism or statism, the solution is not to continue to defend the unsatisfactory status quo but to agree on rights of all Kenyans wherever they may be and the commitment to the rule of law to defend them.

The opportunities of a federal system are just too many for fear to intimidate supporters from articulating it. It offers greater opportunities for wider political recruitment of leadership instead of the current situation of being limited to national cabinet level.

The author works with the UN
tajudeen.abdulraheem@gmail.com

Is federo non-developmental, really?


Kibirige blasts Baganda over federo debates
Tuesday, 18th September, 2007
By Ronald Kalyango and Chris Ahimbisibwe

Kibirige Ssebunya
THE Agriculture state minister has blasted Baganda who spend most of their time discussing federo, leaving little time for agricultural production.
Speaking during field trips in Bushenyi and Masaka districts last week, Kibirige Ssebunya commended the youth who participated in the cultivation of bananas and the rearing of pigs and poultry.
“I have little time to listen to FM radio stations because they are basically engaged in non-developmental issues,” noted Ssebunya.
Beatrice Wabudeya, the Minister for the Presidency, while addressing residents of Ruharo parish in Bumbeire sub-county, asked the Government and non-governmental charities to help homesteads identify farming projects that generate daily income.
She also asked agricultural workers to teach farmers improved farming methods that will lead to poverty alleviation.
Ruharo parish is a model area that is implementing the Poverty Alleviation Project launched by President Yoweri Museveni in 2004.
She added that Museveni would be happy if everybody in the country was in good health and free from poverty. Wabudeya said that was the reason why the President was introducing poverty alleviation and the universal secondary and primary education programmes.
She appealed to farmers to leave subsistence farming by looking beyond their consumption needs.
“The President wanted every homestead to have an activity that generates income daily. That is why he asked me to oversee the implementation of the programme in this parish,” noted Joan Kakwenzire, the senior presidential adviser on poverty alleviation.
Kakwenzire said 950 households had been given 77 heifers, 452 piglets, and 3,000 chickens.

Peter Mulira lied about federo

Mulira article was confusing

In his convoluted article: Ugandans Must Be Told The Plain Truth About Federo (Sunday Monitor September 16), Peter Mulira did not tell the truth. He made federo sound like rocket science. You cannot have a federal system inside a unitary state.

A situation where power is shared and retained at the same time by the central government cannot exist. Federalism is sharing power between the central government and the regions. The power the central government keeps and the power it devolves to regions must be spelt out in the constitution.

F.N. Lugemwa,
Kampala

Republicanism vs. Federo

Opinion GOVERNANCE September 19, 2007
Put federo in the Constitution
Benjamin Wacha

Buganda secession debate preceded our independence. Buganda was hastily granted independence, a day before Uganda’s national independence. The colonial government did not resolve the issue. Five years later, Uganda became a republic, setting the post colonial landscape of Uganda. With a republic, therefore, 'we' invariably gave birth to instrument of governance that again Ugandans now take so dearly with great pride in protecting and defending.

The instrument is envisaged to provide us not only with a legal and constructive remedy, but also a constitutional power to operate in an orderly manner to ensure the fulfilment of our national duty with aptitude and respect for one another for the benefit of Uganda. This is a constitutionally enshrined contract with the clear mission to preserve Uganda for future generations if the constitution is not tampered with.

Suffice, therefore, to quickly add that the last time I checked, the 1995 constitution it had not annulled the republican revolution that we all strive to defend to death today. Although many citizens have had disputes over the conducts of the governments since independence, the republic has largely remained unscathed. Thanks to nationalism.

Our constitutional requirement, therefore, would call upon us all to rededication to do all that is within our powers to ensure that 'we', including Baganda, do not only get the full benefits of our God-given rights and inalienable citizenship, but also that our democratic governance dispensation is realised and bestowed upon all citizens without any undue regards.

There is, thus, need for a political structure which would provide us all with a remedy to resolve such a debate. In Buganda as it currently stands, and notwithstanding the controversy over the political credibility of our democracy, 'we' have a constitutional political environment which allows our participation to determine the fate of Uganda.

I would urge Buganda to use their strength to democratically vindicate the spirit of Ugandan Republic and use the ballot to constitutionally accede to governance, and defend their rights. If indeed their cause is legitimate which, like many other Ugandans, I strongly believe it is, their active involvement in this process is what Buganda needs to champion their cause to Ugandans.
Buganda must strive to attain the ultimate national political power and prowess needed to constitutionalise the Ebyaffe thing and terminally resolve it without spilling blood. Buganda should waste no time to nationalise the essence of their ideology. In short, Buganda doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the national order of things.

Everybody becomes a winner here, and we will all match along to the sounds of drums and horns at the Constitution Square to then formally and truly d├ębut a permanent dedication to the people and Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and all that it should stand for.

Benjamin M. Wacha bmwacha@yahoo.com

Scottish Federo Model for Uganda?!



Ugandans must be told the plain truth about federo
Peter Mulira
As one of the staunch supporters of the federo idea in the sense of regional self-government I am becoming rather distressed by the way most people are going about the issue. Politics has replaced constitutionalism in the way most people address the issue and no attempt is made to articulate or explain what is involved in the term “federo.”
Constitutional issues should always be considered in a bipartisan atmosphere with a view to reaching consensual agreement and in this case efforts should be made to bring arguments within the constitutional framework.
FOCUS: Buganda’s Kabaka Mutebi
CENTRAL: President Museveni
Federo is not a scientific term but is a generic word which was coined in the early nineties by a newspaper columnist, Mr Patrick Kiggundu, to describe Buganda’s demands for the return of her assets and other things (“ebyaffe”) which were abolished or expropriated under the Obote 1 government in the wake of the 1967 constitution. These things included the monarchy itself and the assets of the former Buganda government as well as its constitutional status.
The present public outcry concerns mostly the return of the system of self-government which Buganda enjoyed before and the restoration of the former crown or public land to the trusteeship of Mengo. Although a lot of confusion shrouds the demand for the reintroduction of self-government, the issue was clarified in Buganda’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Commission at page 72, which makes it clear that Buganda does not want to return to the 1962 federal status.
The federal debate should therefore be about self-government and not independence.This new position means that the bogey of Buganda’s separatism is now a thing of the past and the issue should be how to introduce regional autonomy or self-governance for those areas which want it. In this regard there are only two models in the world which can be followed namely; that of the United States or Scottish one.
The 1962 constitution followed the United States model which presupposes prior independence and which Buganda has now rejected and leaves us to concentrate on the Scottish model in which power is devolved from the centre to the periphery thus preserving the unitary nature of the country.
It is interesting to note that our Constitution under the chapter on ‘National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’ directs that: “The state shall be guided by the principle of decentralisation and devolution of governmental functions and powers to the people at appropriate levels where they can best manage and direct their own affairs.” This means that the country can save itself a lot of distress if the “federo” issue was argued by our leaders within the spirit and confines of this provision, which in effect sanctions the creation of self-governing units on the Scottish model.
The essence of internal autonomy or self-government is captured first and foremost in three things namely; a recognised region, a regional government which can variously be called a “state” as in the United States or “ provincial” as in Canada and thirdly, the region, state or province normally has its own constitution to govern its internal affairs subject to the national constitution.
Where autonomy precedes union as in the United States of America, the relationship with the centre is federal or a state within a state which does not exist in a unitary state.Apart from providing for decentralisation and devolution of governmental functions and powers our Constitution contains all the ingredients normally found in constitutions of a federal nature namely “entrenchment” (Article 261) which means that devolved powers cannot easily be withdrawn, reservation in the periphery powers and functions which are not given to the centre (Articles 178 and 189(3)), and providing for a three-layered system of government (Article 189).
In fact, the only thing the Constitution does not allow from this perspective is a horizontal relationship between the centre and the periphery as was the case in 1962. Our leaders; both national and local, have a heavy responsibility to tell the public the truth. It is untruthful, for example, to promise Buganda “full federo” because this would mean first giving her independence as was the case on October 8, 1962, before she entered into a full federal relationship with Uganda the following day. The only federo which is possible is the one which has so far been offered which is an impossibility — through decentralisation and devolution. It is important to note that the Constitution has recognised the principle of regions, regional governments and division of functions. What is lacking is the freedom of the regions to have their own constitutions and sharing of finances and resources.
It is unfortunate that the constitutional amendments which introduced the regional tier did not provide for regional constitutions. Most of the objections which were expressed against the tier system in Buganda, for example,, are matters which should have been contained in a regional constitution.
Mr Mulira is an advocate and social commentator

New definition of secession


OPINIONS & COMMENTARIES
EAR TO THE GROUND Charles Onyango-Obbo

...

There are two Ugandas; the 1st and 2nd republics
September 12, 2007
Recently MP Hussein Kyanjo got very many people, from the fattest political cats at the top, to small time village NRM officials, very agitated when he suggested that it might be better for Uganda to secede, because it has got a very raw deal under the government of President Yoweri Museveni.
Funny thing is, Kyanjo is right. The surprise is his failure to note that various selected parts and groups of people have been seceding from the main Uganda for years. The secession that has been happening in Uganda, is not the type that was attempted between 1967 and 1970 when mainly the Igbo southeastern provinces of Nigeria tried to break away from the rest of the country as the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra.In Uganda, it is the various governments and leaders who have been leading “their people” in secession movements against the rest of the country.
Consider this. Many, many years ago, our father used to work in Fort Portal. Naturally, we travelled a lot between Fort Portal and Tororo.As soon as we left Kampala to head westward, things changed. We encountered roadblocks manned by heavily armed Special Force police and soldiers. We only used to see machine guns in movies, so the sight of the real thing really fascinated us.
Nearly every time we would ask our parents why there were guns only in Buganda. And they would reply that it was because there was a “state of emergency” there. I didn’t understand what “state of emergency” meant until several years later when I went to secondary school. Anyhow, because of the “troubles” in Buganda, which led to the storming of Kabaka Mutesa’s palace and his exile, and eventually, the abolition of the 1962 constitution, the government suspended a wide range of civil liberties in the region.
Some republicans argue that when Mengo passed a resolution ordering the “government of Uganda” to “leave Buganda’s soil”, it declared secession, and sought to return to the “special status” the region enjoyed before independence.
If that were the case, then the ultimate irony is that Buganda got a “special status” in Uganda, though not the type it was looking for. Rather it was the government of Uganda that sealed off Buganda, and ruled it as a mini police state, denying citizens there rights other Ugandans enjoyed.
Things have remained the same since then. Governments don’t want to hear talk of secession, while on the other hand it is seceding.There was the Field Marshall Idi Amin era. Amin and his circle created a small country and seceded from Uganda. In that that “state within Uganda”, call it “First Republic”, they would fly in planeloads of the finest whisky, wine, designer clothes and condiments to bake up a cake worthy of an emperor, for their weddings.
Meanwhile in the “Second Republic” shops were empty. No salt, no soap, no milk, no toothpaste, no cooking fat. Nothing. In the Second Republic most families went without sugar, and couldn’t find soda or beer for their weddings.
Every Ugandan regime has maintained this separate First Republic. When their wives and daughters are ready to deliver their babies, they are flown to Europe at taxpayers’ expense. Meanwhile, there is no medicine to treat malaria in the “Second Republic” hospitals. A captain with First Republic connections will be flown to Germany for treatment if he is wounded in battle, while another captain from the “Second Republic” struggles for his life in some rundown military hospital.
Then the groups and families in the First Republic get most of the top public jobs and lucrative state tenders, while those from the Second Republic grass. In other words, there are groups that are ‘eating’, that have seceded from the “non-eating” ones.In politics too there was secession. The government created a separated world of the Movement. This was the First Republic. Here you could campaign for office without harassment, and get money from state coffers to buy votes.
The Second Republic that had been left behind, was occupied by multipartyists and other “misguided” elements. Police broke up their seminars, and helicopter gunships were deployed to scatter their rallies. And they couldn’t even use their own money to buy votes.
Then we had the infamous “Karuma Line”, the secession line that carved northern Uganda from the rest of the country. The rest of us lived in the First Republic, where life was normal. In the northern Second Republic, the “other Uganda” lived in terror, abject poverty. In short, in the Stone Age.
In fact, for quite a while, government (and some international finance organisations’) economic statistics excluded the Second Republic, because things were so bad that if you added the poverty levels there to the national count, the standard of living of Uganda dropped sharply.
In Uganda, a ruling class and government can secede. But Kyanjo cannot do so from the Opposition benches. He must wait until he is in power.
cobbo@nation.co.ke