Omw Ssemakula, Thanx for forwarding your response to Dr Kigongo's response to the quoted part of Kanyeihamba's book. I believe the starting point of this engagement was whether or not Ibingira's view of the events of that time should be taken as gospel truth, notwithstanding his subsequent traetment by Obote, in consequence of his alleged involvement. I therefore took the trouble to quote at length a section of Kanyeihamba's book, only the one relevant to the issue under discussion. Your point was: there were no arms because Ibingira said there were no arms. Others, such as Akena Adoko said there were arms, now even Kanyeihamba says there were arms. Where does the truth lie?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/03 03:18AM wrote>>> Mr. Kigongo, Thank you for your note. It is because of the attitude of African rulers like Obote, that whose who seek to remove them from power through lawful means are 'enemies of the state', 'consipirators', etc, that we are in so much trouble in Africa. Kanyeihamba, being a lawyer, ought to know better! He should know that changing leaders is the very essence of politics and one of >>>>its features, and that there is absolutely nothing untoward in this. It s unfair for me to get engaged in defending Kanyeihamba for what he wrote, all I can say is that the story is much more involved than what I cited. He develops the issue of the conspiracies right from the pre-independence period up to those "dramatic years". As to Dr Kigongo's submission: >>>Prof Kanyeihamba, if he was quoted correctly, seems to have an unusual usage of words. I have cross-checked what I posted against the copy of the book that I have and I am satisfied that I quoted him correctly. >>>First, he uses the word "conspiracy" to describe actions that are not only legal but normal in politics. The "third conspiracy" (Obote planning to change the constition) as he himself admits, was not a conspiracy at all because it was an openly discussed political plan. Changing the constituion by lawful means is not a crime, changing it by force is treason. I believe that is what he says too in dismissing the "third conspiracy". >>>The second conspiracy was a plan by Obote's opponents within the UPC to change the party leadership. This is a normal part of the democratic process, but the Obote wing of the UPC has never accepted that notion, to this day they still believe in life Presidencies. Obote, Amin and Museveni have all been in consensus on this matter. It is my understanding that it s the way the anti-Obote elements of the time went about their attempts that made them conspirators, and that's the view he seems to have upheld in his final analysis. >>>Kanyheihamba refers to "traditionalists" supposedly "penetrating the UPC" to undermine Obote from within. Again his usage of English is idiosyncratic. The opponents of Obote wer founding members of the UPC (Ngobi, Ibingira, Magezi, Lumu, Kirya). A founder cannot by any logic be said to penetrate the organisation. The traditionalists referred to were not those members, but rather the "people from Mengo", for instance, who were thought to be the ones pulling the strings. I believe some other writer referred to the Kabaka as the puppetmaster for the Ibingiras, but I cannot recall who made the characterisation, so don't ask me for the "bwino". >>Finally, the "first conspiracy", Mutesa's ordering of arms. No citations or other primary evidence is offered to prove that this is not a rumor. The facts cited themselves are bizarre enough to suggest that it is indeed a rumor. Mutesa, an officer in a British regiment who knew the British system well and had many friends in England, would hardly take the farcical step of writing to the Queen as part of a conspiracy. Daktari, sources were cited for the various claims made in that piece. For the statement: "......were carefully selected and recruited int the armed forces and arms and ammunitions began to arrive in the country without the knowledge of the Governement. There can be no doubt that these were the acts in a cosnpiracy" he gives Cabinet minutes, Cabinet Papers, State House Entebbe as the reference. The writing is heavily referenced with footnotes and there is a bibliography at the end of the each chapter. Ultimately, of course, we each can make up our minds as who is giving an objective account of the whole saga. I thought I should include the following by way of signing off: "....In my capacity as president, talked with the Chief Justice and with the Brigadier about the growing danger of the situation, and it was at this stage that I sounded out the British Commissioner and some African ambassadors as to whether it would be possible to fly in troops if the situation got out of hand. I did not invite a foreign force to invade Uganda. I had in mind something similar to the successful intervention by the British which Obote had authorised two years before....................... (Pg 186) "...On 2 March I was accused on television and radio of asking ambassadors to give me troops to invade Uganda. This had been hinted often enough to come as no surprise.....(Pg 189) The Kabaka of Buganda: Desecration of My Kingdom. There was, obviously, a lot of smoke, the question is: Was that smoke without fire? Best regards, Yoswa.
