Uganda�s history in court of public opinion
By Charles Ochen Okwir
Jan 1, 2004
|
Just like a contestant on the highly intellectual quiz show called Mastermind here in the UK, my chosen subject of discussion today is �The History of Uganda Vs the People of Uganda in the court of public opinion�. I have always been and continue to be fascinated by the subject that is History. Unlike us mere mortal human beings, our history, in theory should be immortal if well preserved. Politicians, in particular, have realised this and are investing much time and resources to secure a favourable place in history. While questioning the rationale for going to war in the last gulf war, Clare Short MP, once said that Premier Tony Blair�s obsession with his legacy and place in history appears to be blurring his better judgement. Our own leaders seem to have become as vulnerable except that in our case, it appears to be for want of honesty and selflessness. This has been particularly evident in the various missives emanating from State House directed at erstwhile comrades who have fallen out of favour owing to their principled stands against the party line. But these missives, whatever their other purposes including the obvious attempt at re-writing Uganda�s history, were bound to be counter productive. The reason is that, even in the court of public opinion, just like in the real courts of law, when you call into question your adversary�s past record to strengthen your own, you automatically expose your own to cross examination. It is one of those trite rules of evidence, which amazingly transcend professional boundaries. Not surprisingly politicians like Ms Anne Mugisha, Dr Muniini Mulera, Professors Ogenga Latigo and Dani W. Nabudere, among others have picked out some of the contradictions in these missives and produced strong prima facie cases for onward transmission to the State Attorney for sanctioning in our case before the court of public opinion. This is consistent with what Malcom Davis, a respected Professor of Criminal Justice put to us years ago, that crime, in the end turns out to be smarter than the criminal and that this was one crucial factor that works in favour of police detectives in crime detection. It is that tiny detail that a criminal often forgets to conceal that in the end turns out to be the most damning evidence against him. The prognosis coming out of committal proceedings does not look good for those who thought they could re-write the history of Uganda in their favour, and to the detriment of past leaders. In an interview with the BBC�s �Focus on Africa� magazine, excerpts of which were published in the October - December edition, I argued that because Idi Amin preferred to talk only about sports and Islam after his fall from power, he lost out on the opportunity to present his side of the story. Now that he is dead, the truth about the allegations like cannibalism labelled against him will forever remain unresolved. It is a great tragedy that our children will never have access to such vital information. But I am glad Dr A. Milton Obote, whose record has been negatively �sexed up� to vilify him in our history has began to give his side of the story in The Monitor. It would even be better if he was facilitated to write his memoirs. Such intellectual property could then be acquired by the state and listed as a national treasure, complete with statutory protection. Mr Yoweri Museveni�s Sowing The Mustard Seed would also fall in this category. It is a minimum requirement of any judicial process that every party be accorded the opportunity to present their side of the story. It is what the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under our constitution, is all about and must never be subjected to disproportionate considerations of political convenience. It is the only way that we, the Jury as lay judges of fact, will be presented with a balanced case to adjudicate. To attempt to do otherwise, as appears to be the case, is a heinous crime against our posterity which should be treated with the same contempt reserved for convicted child killers who refuse to reveal where they buried their victims � thus denying them even the opportunity for a decent burial. That level of contempt is justifiable against anyone who attempts to fraudulently deny an entire people something as important as an accurate account of their history. It was claimed by a deceased friend, John Mugisha (RIP) who participated in the NRA bush war that it was precisely for this reason that the official �liberation� date of 1986 was adopted as January 26 and not January 25 to avoid coincidence with the date when Amin captured power in 1971. Alas, Mugisha died without documenting details of his side of the story. The people of Uganda who participated in the making of, and have facts about our history, but whose contributions are now being rubbished must not allow it to settle as it is portrayed in Sowing The Mustard Seed and the avalanche of missives that we are being treated to. Our past is far too important to be left to a single source. Some of the descendants of African slaves have never recovered from this crime and the inability to establish with certainty which particular country in Africa their forefathers came from. Even if this serves only as an analogical example, please think about it. Happy New year to you all fellow citizens. Mr Okwir is Legal & Regulatory Affairs Officer of the UK-based International Lobby for Reform in Uganda. |
� 2003 The Monitor Publications
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now
