Picture 1: (1977) Idi Amin walking with Janan Luwum. By this time, Luwum
was already plotting to kill Idi Amin.
Picture 2: (1980) Journalist Dan Wooding pointing at non-existent
crocodiles at Karuma bridge.
Dear Editor.
I found it amazing when I read the New Vision story (Luwum Murder: What
Witnesses Said, published February 12th) about the late Archbishop Janan
Luwum (RIP).
It appears that the story was based on the Commission of Inquiry instituted
by the government in 1987.
The first witness in the report is one Daniel Mulemezi, purportedly a
police officer who claims to have been privy to events. In another article
from the Daily Monitor (How Amin killed Ben Kiwanuka), the same Daniel
Mulemezi claims to have also saw what happened there as well.
To me, Mr. Mulemezi seemed to be everywhere to so as to expediate the
process and satisfy a kangaroo court but provides no shred of evidence, nor
any police investigation report, no mention of colleagues, nor meetings
with superiors who sanctioned/supervized his investigations. Something very
unlikely in any police force especially for major cases.
In his testimony he appears as some lone element just telling stories to
satisfy the government of the day.
I also say Kangaroo court because this commission of inquiry actually
failed to include crimes committed by the geurilla NRA who according to a
confession by a Col. Kahinda Otafiire in 1994, was involved in possible war
crimes against civilian populations. Actions that they would then make sure
were blamed on the UPC government by wearing UPC T-shirts during their
attacks on villages.
Such atrocities are surprisingly not included in the commissions report yet
they were committed in the time frame covered by the commission, and Mr.
Kahinda Otafiire was and still is part of the goverment that set up that
commission of inquiry. Why then isn't such testimony included in the
commissions proceedings? Was their a deliberate effort to blame others
while sweeping their own dirt under the rag?
A kangaroo court is one set up to satisfy political ends. And more
importantly, it helps to validate false claims made against political foes.
After the Amin regime, the survival formula for all was: Blame Amin and
survive, or praise him and die at the hands of wakombozi.
So every Ugandan prepared a horrendous story in case they needed to use it.
Many European journalists have fallen prey to this, including Dan Wooding
whose picture shows him standing on Karuma bridge pointing at non-existent
crocodiles that Amin had alledgedly thrown his foes at. Some Ugandan took
the journalist there and the mzungu swallowed the story evrn without seeing
a crocodile.
Those of us who have always used that bridge on our way to and from West
Nile, know that there have never been crocodiles in that place. The simple
reason is that the waters are so tremendously rough that nothing can live
in those waters. It is so dangerous that even a sport like rafting is
impossible. Nobody has ever seen any crocodiles at Karuma. Period.
So this survival formula explains Mustafa Adrisi's testimony in the
inquiry. He was a detainee possibly seeking a way out of his predicament
when he faced the inquiry. Following his damning testimonies, he has lived
freely with the goverment until his recent death where he was even accorded
a State funeral. We are talking about Idi Amins Vice President here. There
was no way that could happen if he had stuck to the official narrative of
the government he had previously served.
The late Mustapha Adrisi says that the guns Janan Luwum was found with were
brought from Amins State Research armoury. But those who have read the book
Sowing the mustard seed, have heard Museveni talk about the subversive
operation he organized at the time from Tanzania with the help of a
reluctant Nyerere. Museveni actually mentions by name the people who drove
the very vehicles that were carrying the weapons. He explains that the plan
was to have guns inside the country ready to start a popular uprising.
So to say that the Archbishop was an innocent lamb is either wishful
thinking, a cover up, or selective amnesia at work. Because Luwum was part
of a real plan to topple the government.
The Archbishop knelt down in front of the whole diplomatic community at
Nile Mansions and confessed to the plot. Incredibly, he is the one who
actually pointed at Erinayo Oryema and Oboth Ofumbi (RIP) as his
accomplices?
That is first hand testimony from soldiers who were present, and some still
alive.
As for the actual death of Janan Luwum, the commission of inquiry seems to
say that he was killed in two different places.
At first the report says the Archbishops death occured at Makindye Military
Police barracks where he was alledgedly taken. Then the same report changes
the story towards the end and says he was also killed at State Research
Bureau, Nakasero.
Which one is it?
I have discussed my own research findings surrounding the death of Janan
Luwum. It tells a
