Mr. Dambisya,
If is not fair for you to be enganged in defending Kanyeihamba's writings, why is it somehow fair for me to be engaged in defend Ibingira's writings? And I thought that what is good for the goose is good for the gander!
Bannakampala have a saying these days -- "Lutalo lwa pilaawo na nyamma" ( it is a 'battle of rice pilaf and meat') i.e. it is all the same.
In this case both chaps are ex-UPC who had a falling out with their leader.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "YOSWA DAMBISYA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ugnet_: Re: [FedsNet] Kanyeihamba on the Phantom Armsofthe1960s
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:49:21 +0200
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.
