Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
Onegi, I'm not trying to convince anyone what a brilliant historian I am. I'm not even sure if you have read the whole thread on this subject, but it would be advisable for you to go to my first posting for an explanation of my intention instead of relying on guesswork and phantasies. If you have nothing to say about the content, I'm not expecting you to respond. What is not useful to me is someone trying to misrepresent my motives and pretending that actual quotes of what happened are my wishes and expectations. It is people like you who don't want to face facts about our history and learn from them, who are taking Uganda astray by striving to come back and continue where you left off. With hindsight, I had thought of withdrawing my last remark in the previous posting, as it is atypical of my way of communication. But I guess it has to remain standing. Kasangwawo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net To: ugandanet@kym.net Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 04:48:09 GMT Kasangwawo If all your reasoning and explanation end up in What an asshole ! how do you think this is going to convince people to see what a brilliant historian you are? Tell us what you think about the constitution as it affects the current people in Uganda and what you will do to protect it and how you will do it. Also tell us what you expect from us your listeners so we can respond approriately. What you claim to be history or facts seem to be your wishes and expectations. It does not absolve you from being an ordinary Ugandan subject to the constitution. History may be good but now is better. Are you trying to relive history? If so, how can your reader or contributors to your message become assholes? It is because of such people like you that Uganda is going astray! You have the guns and you can not talk development but history and everymorning your are borrowing money from overseas to prevent Obote from returning to Uganda. Yours is too much Kasangwawo. Onegi pa obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Onegi pa Obol, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my intention is to create grounds for great upheavals in the country ! All I am attempting to do is to give you the facts of our History, so we can all learn from it. I am not encouraging dictators to use the same mean tricks Obote used then, on the contrary I abhor them. But as the situation stands today, it seems we haven't learnt from that History. You may think that Obote is infallible but the fact is that he set the example for taking over power using the military which was the beginning of the troubles we are still experiencing today. If you can't see the glaring similarities - Congo, messing with the Constitution, etc. - I'm sorry I can't simplify for you farther than that. What an asshole ! Kasangwawo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net To: ugandanet@kym.net Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 04:41:07 GMT I must thank all those learned or educated or informed persons who have lead us to believe that Uganda is about Obote and Mutesa. Thank you for having a mind that allows other dictators to emerge in Uganda using the same protocol and procedures. And thank you for creating grounds for great upheavals in the country. Onegi pa Obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part
Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
Onegi pa Obol, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my intention is to create grounds for great upheavals in the country ! All I am attempting to do is to give you the facts of our History, so we can all learn from it. I am not encouraging dictators to use the same mean tricks Obote used then, on the contrary I abhor them. But as the situation stands today, it seems we haven't learnt from that History. You may think that Obote is infallible but the fact is that he set the example for taking over power using the military which was the beginning of the troubles we are still experiencing today. If you can't see the glaring similarities - Congo, messing with the Constitution, etc. - I'm sorry I can't simplify for you farther than that. What an asshole ! Kasangwawo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net To: ugandanet@kym.net Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 04:41:07 GMT I must thank all those learned or educated or informed persons who have lead us to believe that Uganda is about Obote and Mutesa. Thank you for having a mind that allows other dictators to emerge in Uganda using the same protocol and procedures. And thank you for creating grounds for great upheavals in the country. Onegi pa Obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part, that if the President declines to perform an act as required by the Constitution, the Prime Minister may himself perform that act. In his capacity as Kabaka of Buganda and President of Uganda, Sir Edward Mutesa was put in a most invidious position over the question of the Referendum. The two Counties, the subject of the Referendum, formed part of the Kingdom of Buganda. The Prime Minister was quite aware of this quandary himself and he agreed to follow the procedures laid down in section 67 and signed the Acts. The section envisaged such a situation. It was constitutional for the President to have declined as he did. The same was true for the official opening of the session of Parliament. The Constitution did not provide that the President MUST (emphasis mine) perform the opening of each and every session. It envisaged occasions where the Vice-President could perform functions should the President be unable to do so. This was one such occasion. All of this shows that Obote was just trying to find petty reasons for carrying out his unconstitutional acts. Another problem was that the President had no access to the mass media which was a monopoly of Obote and his government. So while Obote could reach a lot of people, Sir Edward could only depend on the mercy of the press which was also not quite free. But on 4th March 1966 the President managed to break his silence and published two letters he had written to the Prime Minister on 28th February 1966 and 3rd March 1966. The first one read in part: This is to inform you that your public statements of 22nd and 24th February, 1966, have caused me much anxiety especially as you have not informed me of them as you are required by the Constitution. He goes on to inform Obote that his taking over of all powers of the Government of Uganda was contrary to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and that the suspension of the Constitution was unconstitutional. I'll quote the rest of it in full in order to do full justice to the message: I have allowed plenty of time to elapse before writing to you in the hope that after careful
Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
Yup The federalists use abusive language too if attacked face to face by glaring facts. Add in Chakamuchaka training and you have a disaster in building. Em Toronto The Mulindwas Communication Group With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in anarchy Groupe de communication Mulindwas avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans l'anarchie - Original Message - From: jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ugandanet@kym.net Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Onegi pa Obol, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my intention is to create grounds for great upheavals in the country ! All I am attempting to do is to give you the facts of our History, so we can all learn from it. I am not encouraging dictators to use the same mean tricks Obote used then, on the contrary I abhor them. But as the situation stands today, it seems we haven't learnt from that History. You may think that Obote is infallible but the fact is that he set the example for taking over power using the military which was the beginning of the troubles we are still experiencing today. If you can't see the glaring similarities - Congo, messing with the Constitution, etc. - I'm sorry I can't simplify for you farther than that. What an asshole ! Kasangwawo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net To: ugandanet@kym.net Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 04:41:07 GMT I must thank all those learned or educated or informed persons who have lead us to believe that Uganda is about Obote and Mutesa. Thank you for having a mind that allows other dictators to emerge in Uganda using the same protocol and procedures. And thank you for creating grounds for great upheavals in the country. Onegi pa Obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part, that if the President declines to perform an act as required by the Constitution, the Prime Minister may himself perform that act. In his capacity as Kabaka of Buganda and President of Uganda, Sir Edward Mutesa was put in a most invidious position over the question of the Referendum. The two Counties, the subject of the Referendum, formed part of the Kingdom of Buganda. The Prime Minister was quite aware of this quandary himself and he agreed to follow the procedures laid down in section 67 and signed the Acts. The section envisaged such a situation. It was constitutional for the President to have declined as he did. The same was true for the official opening of the session of Parliament. The Constitution did not provide that the President MUST (emphasis mine) perform the opening of each and every session. It envisaged occasions where the Vice-President could perform functions should the President be unable to do so. This was one such occasion. All of this shows that Obote was just trying to find petty reasons for carrying out his unconstitutional acts. Another problem was that the President had no access to the mass media which was a monopoly of Obote and his government. So while Obote could reach a lot of people, Sir Edward could only depend on the mercy of the press which was also not quite free. But on 4th March 1966 the President managed to break his silence and published two letters he had written to the Prime Minister on 28th February 1966 and 3rd March 1966. The first one read in part: This is to inform you
Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
Kasangwawo If all your reasoning and explanation end up in What an asshole ! how do you think this is going to convince people to see what a brilliant historian you are? Tell us what you think about the constitution as it affects the current people in Uganda and what you will do to protect it and how you will do it. Also tell us what you expect from us your listeners so we can respond approriately. What you claim to be history or facts seem to be your wishes and expectations. It does not absolve you from being an ordinary Ugandan subject to the constitution. History may be good but now is better. Are you trying to relive history? If so, how can your reader or contributors to your message become assholes? It is because of such people like you that Uganda is going astray! You have the guns and you can not talk development but history and everymorning your are borrowing money from overseas to prevent Obote from returning to Uganda. Yours is too much Kasangwawo. Onegi pa obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Onegi pa Obol, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my intention is to create grounds for great upheavals in the country ! All I am attempting to do is to give you the facts of our History, so we can all learn from it. I am not encouraging dictators to use the same mean tricks Obote used then, on the contrary I abhor them. But as the situation stands today, it seems we haven't learnt from that History. You may think that Obote is infallible but the fact is that he set the example for taking over power using the military which was the beginning of the troubles we are still experiencing today. If you can't see the glaring similarities - Congo, messing with the Constitution, etc. - I'm sorry I can't simplify for you farther than that. What an asshole ! Kasangwawo From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net To: ugandanet@kym.net Subject: Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 04:41:07 GMT I must thank all those learned or educated or informed persons who have lead us to believe that Uganda is about Obote and Mutesa. Thank you for having a mind that allows other dictators to emerge in Uganda using the same protocol and procedures. And thank you for creating grounds for great upheavals in the country. Onegi pa Obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part, that if the President declines to perform an act as required by the Constitution, the Prime Minister may himself perform that act. In his capacity as Kabaka of Buganda and President of Uganda, Sir Edward Mutesa was put in a most invidious position over the question of the Referendum. The two Counties, the subject of the Referendum, formed part of the Kingdom of Buganda. The Prime Minister was quite aware of this quandary himself and he agreed to follow the procedures laid down in section 67 and signed the Acts. The section envisaged such a situation. It was constitutional for the President to have declined as he did. The same was true for the official opening of the session of Parliament. The Constitution did not provide that the President MUST (emphasis mine) perform the opening of each and every session. It envisaged occasions where the Vice-President could perform functions should the President be unable to do so. This was one such occasion. All of this shows that Obote was just trying to find petty reasons for carrying out his unconstitutional acts. Another problem
[Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part, that if the President declines to perform an act as required by the Constitution, the Prime Minister may himself perform that act. In his capacity as Kabaka of Buganda and President of Uganda, Sir Edward Mutesa was put in a most invidious position over the question of the Referendum. The two Counties, the subject of the Referendum, formed part of the Kingdom of Buganda. The Prime Minister was quite aware of this quandary himself and he agreed to follow the procedures laid down in section 67 and signed the Acts. The section envisaged such a situation. It was constitutional for the President to have declined as he did. The same was true for the official opening of the session of Parliament. The Constitution did not provide that the President MUST (emphasis mine) perform the opening of each and every session. It envisaged occasions where the Vice-President could perform functions should the President be unable to do so. This was one such occasion. All of this shows that Obote was just trying to find petty reasons for carrying out his unconstitutional acts. Another problem was that the President had no access to the mass media which was a monopoly of Obote and his government. So while Obote could reach a lot of people, Sir Edward could only depend on the mercy of the press which was also not quite free. But on 4th March 1966 the President managed to break his silence and published two letters he had written to the Prime Minister on 28th February 1966 and 3rd March 1966. The first one read in part: This is to inform you that your public statements of 22nd and 24th February, 1966, have caused me much anxiety especially as you have not informed me of them as you are required by the Constitution. He goes on to inform Obote that his taking over of all powers of the Government of Uganda was contrary to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and that the suspension of the Constitution was unconstitutional. I'll quote the rest of it in full in order to do full justice to the message: I have allowed plenty of time to elapse before writing to you in the hope that after careful thought you would find your way to retracting these unconstitutional acts. I had hoped that your advisers would point it out to you that the course you were pursuing might cause instability in the country, a situation which we are all striving to avoid. Now that the dark clouds continue to mount in the very lives of the people of this country, I feel I am in duty bound to ask you to stay your hand, and to desist from continuing with the procedures against Government personnel, especially those who are commissioned to serve me. Our first duty is to the people of this country. The people decided in their great wisdom that the best way to serve them is through the means laid down in the Constitution which they themselves made. Once again, I earnestly appeal to you to adhere strictly to the Constitution in order to remove this overhanging uneasiness which cannot be conducive to peace, good order and the counrty's prosperity. It is clear from the above that Sir Edward still thought he could be civil in his dealings with Obote. ..more later. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___
Re: [Ugnet] RE: [FedsNet] Re: the 1966 crisis II
I must thank all those learned or educated or informed persons who have lead us to believe that Uganda is about Obote and Mutesa. Thank you for having a mind that allows other dictators to emerge in Uganda using the same protocol and procedures. And thank you for creating grounds for great upheavals in the country. Onegi pa Obol -- jonah kasangwawo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: contd. The President's Secretary responded to Obote's accusations on 4th March 1966 and questioned why the Prime Minister did not specify which foreign diplomats had been asked to send troops. He reminded the Prime Minister that while on his Northern tour, serious allegations concerning plans to overthrow the Constitution had been made in Parliament and that on his return, the Prime Minister himself had acknowledged the great alarm, especially in Kampala, caused by the movement of troops which Obote himself had authorized earlier without informing the President. Connection was made between this illegal training of troops and the truck loads of arms and ammunition impounded by the Kenyan government the year before. The response further stated that In the circumstances, precautionary requests had to be made should the situation get out of hand. The safety of the nation was at stake. The President did not invite foreign troops to invade this country. The precautionary requests were conditional and did not precipitate anything. The answer further reminded the Prime Minister that during the army mutiny in 1964, he had called in British troops without informing the President who was both Head of State and Commander-in-Chief until Sir Edward demanded to be given the necessary information. Concerning the dereliction of duty accusations, the Secretary to the President stated, and I quote: As to failure to sign the two Acts, section 67 of the Constitution provides, in part, that if the President declines to perform an act as required by the Constitution, the Prime Minister may himself perform that act. In his capacity as Kabaka of Buganda and President of Uganda, Sir Edward Mutesa was put in a most invidious position over the question of the Referendum. The two Counties, the subject of the Referendum, formed part of the Kingdom of Buganda. The Prime Minister was quite aware of this quandary himself and he agreed to follow the procedures laid down in section 67 and signed the Acts. The section envisaged such a situation. It was constitutional for the President to have declined as he did. The same was true for the official opening of the session of Parliament. The Constitution did not provide that the President MUST (emphasis mine) perform the opening of each and every session. It envisaged occasions where the Vice-President could perform functions should the President be unable to do so. This was one such occasion. All of this shows that Obote was just trying to find petty reasons for carrying out his unconstitutional acts. Another problem was that the President had no access to the mass media which was a monopoly of Obote and his government. So while Obote could reach a lot of people, Sir Edward could only depend on the mercy of the press which was also not quite free. But on 4th March 1966 the President managed to break his silence and published two letters he had written to the Prime Minister on 28th February 1966 and 3rd March 1966. The first one read in part: This is to inform you that your public statements of 22nd and 24th February, 1966, have caused me much anxiety especially as you have not informed me of them as you are required by the Constitution. He goes on to inform Obote that his taking over of all powers of the Government of Uganda was contrary to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land and that the suspension of the Constitution was unconstitutional. I'll quote the rest of it in full in order to do full justice to the message: I have allowed plenty of time to elapse before writing to you in the hope that after careful thought you would find your way to retracting these unconstitutional acts. I had hoped that your advisers would point it out to you that the course you were pursuing might cause instability in the country, a situation which we are all striving to avoid. Now that the dark clouds continue to mount in the very lives of the people of this country, I feel I am in duty bound to ask you to stay your hand, and to desist from continuing with the procedures against Government personnel, especially those who are commissioned to serve me. Our first duty is to the people of this country. The people decided in their great wisdom that the best way to serve them is through the means laid down in the Constitution which they themselves made. Once again, I earnestly appeal to you to adhere strictly to the Constitution in order to remove this overhanging uneasiness which cannot be conducive to peace, good order and the counrty's prosperity. It is
