How Gen.
Sejusa has, through a series of letters, proven to be much less than what I
always expected of him
I read with
disappointment a letter allegedly written by Uganda’s former coordinator of
intelligence services, Gen. David Sejusa aka Tinyefuza, in late August in which
he alleges that President Yoweri Museveni killed many of his political
“enemies” – real and suspected – James Kazini, Andrew Kayiira, James
Wapakhabulo and Noble Mayombo.
Initially I
thought the letter was a fake because the Tinyefuza I know is so much more
intelligent to write such a crappy piece of nonsense. However, that he has not
come out openly to deny it makes me suspect he could have authored the letter.
This is
because I think governments kill to protect what rulers call “national
security” even when it is their whims and fancies. So the allegations
themselves are not surprising. But if Tinyefuza felt this is an important
national issue, he needed to present evidence rather than make assertions.
He may be
addressing emotional and not substantive issues. They may make news headlines
but they do not fundamentally address the core problems of Uganda.
I don’t think
a head of the CIA can flee America and begin “revealing” how the government
killed Patrice Lumumba in Congo or overthrew El Salvador Allende in Chile and
is taken seriously. Since Sejusa fled Uganda, I have been waiting for him to
write an account of his disagreement with the government that he served for
many years – even though he at times disagreed with it – on matters of policy.
This is in
fact what he did in 1996 when he appeared before a parliamentary committee to
testify on the war in northern Uganda. He gave a sound analysis of the ills
that bedeviled the army, the weaknesses this had endangered and proposed what
was necessary to solve them.
But the
Tinyefuza of 2013 is angry, emotional and abusive. His letters and interviews
now are a litany of personal attacks on Museveni for killing or theft which
seem to be inspired by only one overriding concern, the welfare of David
Tinyefuza. There is very little reflection on the problems facing Uganda and
proposals on how he thinks they can be addressed.
I have many
disagreements with Kizza Besigye but I respect (most especially initially) his
motivations. When he first penned his criticism of “the Movement” in 1999 in a
document to parliament, he was focused.
He refrained
from making it personal to Museveni although the president responded by making
it so. He made it clear that there was growing and unabated corruption,
nepotism, privilege and dictatorial tendencies and proceeded to demonstrate
how. He ended his critique of the system by suggesting how the “revolution”
could be “re-directed” to exhibit greater reform.
I have always
considered Sejusa one of the most thoughtful persons in Africa. During our many
conversations in private meetings, telephone conversations and radio talk
shows, Sejusa struck me as a man of exceptional intelligence and insight on the
problems of Africa and their geo-political dynamics.
I used to
spend hours listening to this great man and even more telling everyone who
cared to listen how smart he is and how lucky Uganda is to have him. But the
Sejusa from London, if he is the one writing these letters, comes across as
petty, parochial, angry and unintelligent.
It is
apparent that through his interviews and letters, Sejusa may have been able to
irritate and embarrass Museveni deeply at a personal level. But I do not think
that such positioning he has adopted builds a political base to effectively
oppose the president and the NRM.
His rants and
recriminations may appeal to the extremist fringe of Uganda’s opposition but
they cannot win over the vast majority of people in the country who are
searching for an alternative to NRM’s increasingly tired, corrupt and
incompetent rule.
From the word
go, Sejusa began his campaign on the wrong foot. Instead of positioning his
struggle as one against poor governance, he has positioned it as a struggle
against Museveni and family. He may appeal to a loud group of some Ugandan
elites who mistake their personal obsessions with popular feelings.
But these are
a small constituency. Secondly, rather than his struggle being one to liberate
Uganda from all the ills it faces, Sejusa appears to be looking at it as one
aimed at liberating Sejusa from the clutches of Museveni. I have not confronted
such a parochial approach to politics from him before.
When he
authored his first letter to the Director General of ISO, I was willing to give
him some limited benefit of the doubt. Sejusa argued that Museveni has a plan
to install his son, Brig. Muhoozi Keinerugaba, as president of Uganda.
I felt (or
hoped) that that was not his major point since Museveni has a right (and I
think a parental obligation) to help his son win the presidency. The real point
I felt Sejusa had brought to the table was that Museveni wants to achieve this
objective by unconstitutional means. He alleged this involved plans to
assassinate the Prime Minister, Amama Mbabazi, the Chief of Defense Forces,
Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, and him – Sejusa.
Of course the
assassination allegations were wild and not backed by any evidence. It was
unclear why Sejusa felt they were substantial enough to merit his attention.
They had previously appeared on Facebook as one of the many rumours in Kampala.
I was
therefore surprised that he, a senior general in the army, a presidential
advisor and coordinator of intelligence services would take them seriously
enough as to recommend to his subordinates – in writing – to investigate them.
Even when he
appeared on BBC and VOA, Sejusa failed to make a strong case for need for
reform. This shows he needs to address national questions Uganda is facing now;
like how do we organise politically to fight for improved governance away from
the current politics that is increasingly corrupt, nepotistic, incompetent and
protects the privileges of a few over the many?
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment