NSSF to receive sh7bn from Ugandan companies.

By Estella Jones

Savers could receive higher interest on their savings.
The National Social Security Fund (NSSF) is set to receive dividends amounting to Shs 7.13b for its stake in the Ugandan listed companies.

From its equities spread in different firms, the Fund generates returns of between 40 per cent and 50 per cent.

NSSF is a top investor in Bank of Baroda, Dfcu, Stanbic, New Vision, Uganda Clays and Umeme, it has also invested widely across East Africa.

In Kenya, it has stakes in Safaricom, Centum, Equity Bank and KCB.

NSSF Managing Director, Mr. Richard Byarugaba said that such returns on investment could push members into receiving higher interest on their savings at the end of the year. 

“Increasing our exposure to equities offer us an opportunity for diversification, hence enabling us to get a good return from the fast-growing companies, and Umeme has been a great example of this kind of investment,” Mr. Byarugaba said.

NSSF early this year, increased its stake in Equity Bank to 2.44%, pitting it in the top 10 of the companies.

Burundi general seeks to oust president he accuses of dividing nation

By Wesley Spartan

A Burundi general who was part of a failed coup attempt in May said his group was still working to oust President Pierre Nkurunziza, accusing him of stoking ethnic divisions in a country still trying to recover from civil war.

At that time (in May), we just failed to remove Nkurunziza from power," General Leonard Ngendakumana told Reuters in an interview on Thursday outside Burundi. "The aim is still there."

The president, whom Ngendakumana served as a senior intelligence officer in government and during the civil war as a rebel fighter, has plunged Burundi into its deepest political crisis for a decade by seeking a third five-year term.

Opponents say the president's re-election bid violates the constitution and a peace deal that in 2005 ended the civil war, which had pitted majority Hutu rebel groups, like the one led by Nkurunziza, against the army, then led by minority Tutsis.

Nkurunziza cites a court ruling saying he can run again.

Government officials dismiss charges that Nkurunziza, who has Hutu and Tutsi parents, has divided the nation on ethnic lines and say his opponents are stirring trouble because they fear defeat in a presidential vote, set for next week.

Ngendakumana, 46, who asked that his precise location was not disclosed, said the president and his allies were behind stoking ethnic tensions and were arming the ruling CNDD-FDD's youth-wing Imbonerakure, widely seen as a Hutu force.

"This situation can lead to a genocide," he said.

Next door Rwanda, with the same ethnic mix, suffered a genocide in 1994 that killed 800,000, mostly Tutsis as well as moderate Hutus.

The United Nations, African states and Western nations have also expressed alarm about the arming of Imbonerakure.

More than 140,000 Burundians have fled the country. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said on Thursday that many refugees had cited "Imbonerakure militia as the main threat".

CNDD-FDD officials deny charges its youths have been armed. They say it is a mixed ethnic group that is devoted to political campaigns and other party activities.

Ngendakumana, a Hutu who was fired from his intelligence post in February after helping write a report for the president advising him not to run again, said international pressure on the president had failed.

The only way to reach this objective is to use force," he said, adding that he was working with coup leader General Godefroid Niyombare and in "organizing ourselves in military units" to help protect people from police or Imbonerakure.

Protesters have regularly clashed with police.

Presidential spokesman Gervais Abayeho said anyone threatening Burundi's security "will meet the full force of our defense and security forces."

Ngendakumana said the international community could ratchet up the pressure by delivering on threats to impose sanctions.

"If political pressure has failed, the international community should jump to another stage," he said.

The United States and the European Union have threatened sanctions against those it blames for stoking violence.

How police blocked, arrested Besigye on campaign launch

By Joan Pounds

Hours to the launch of his campaigns for Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party presidential flag-bearer yesterday, police arrested and detained presidential hopeful Kizza Besigye, attracting protests from his supporters. 

At around 9am, Dr Besigye set off from his home in the company of his aide, Mr Francis Mwijukye, and a few others.

But just a few metres away from his home, Kasangati Division field force operations commander Fred Ahimbisibwe emerged and gave 
Dr Besigye two options; to either go back to his house or get arrested.
He chose the latter, observing that his home “is not a prison”. 

I am a law abiding citizen, my home cannot be a prison. I have work to do and if I have broken any law, you (police) take me to prison,” Dr Besigye told the police officers who had barricaded the road to his home.

Mr Ahimbisibwe told Dr Besigye that police had information he planned to incite violence in the city.
We have information that you plan to cause mayhem in the city, so go back home.

Dr Besigye asked police to escort him to the American Embassy where he said he had a scheduled meeting but this fell on deaf ears.

The Force also presented a letter to Dr Besigye, blocking his planned rallies at Kasangati Saza Headquarters and Kawempe Growers Ground.

In the letter signed by Mr Erasmus Twaruhukwa on behalf of the IGP, police said they did not know if Dr Besigye was endorsed by FDC to convene any meetings.

From the letter, it is not clear whether the FDC party has endorsed Besigye as the party flag bearer and there is no communication from FDC that Besigye has been sponsored or endorsed to convene the meetings.”

However, Dan Mugarura, the FDC electoral commission chairperson, laughed off the excuse presented by police.

We wrote to the police and attached the campaign programmes of both candidates. They received and even signed in our book. They can’t use that as an excuse.” 
Police also said Dr Besigye violated Section 5(1) of the Public Order Management Act 2013.

Mr Ahimbisibwe then arrested Dr Besigye and took him to Nagalama Police Station in Mukono District where he remained detained until around 8pm when he was released.

Protests break out
After Dr Besigye’s detention, his campaign team and supporters led by Ms Ingrid Turinawe moved on with the planned rally at Kasangati Saza Headquarters but police fired tear gas and arrested them. 

Two MPs Roland Mugume Kaginda (Rukungiri Municipality) and William Nzoghu (Busongora North) were also arrested.

The arrest of Dr Besigye infuriated his supporters who also took to Kampala-Gayaza road and burnt tyres and logs. Police arrested more than 10 of the youth. 

A host of politicians, including Maj Gen Mugisha Muntu and former coordinator of Intelligence Services David Sejusa, visited Dr Besigye at Nagalama Police Station. 
Gen Muntu also suspended his campaign launch, scheduled for tomorrow in Kigezi sub-region, in a show of solidarity with Dr Besigye. 

In another show of solidarity, Kenyans and Ugandans launched a hashtag on social media platform Twitter, calling for Besigye’s release. By press time, ‪#‎FreeBesigye‬ was trending on the platform.

The Untold Stories: M7’s Dilemma of overstaying in Power

By Wesley Spartan

The Ugandan Head of State is known for his famous speech in 1986 when swearing in as the new Head of State of the country that had been devastated by conflicts for many years. “The problem of Africa in general and Uganda in particular, is not the people but leaders who want to overstay in power.”

However, in an infamous U-turn in 2005, he secured a change to the constitution allowing himself a third term. He argued that he is more experienced than the rest of Ugandans and according to him, he is the only Ugandan with the vision for Uganda, unfortunately his party is now torn apart with the departure of his former comrade and one of the founders of the NRM Party. President Museveni is now, at the age of 71, serving a fourth. But recently his party nominated him as the sole candidate and flag bearer of NRM for the next presidential.

Burundi’s situation is just another latest example of the chaos caused by presidents wanting to over stay in power by using crook methods; they have changed the constitution and cling on to power.

Pierre Nkurunziza was supposed to be the answer to Burundi’s problem of decades of disastrous leadership.

A former university lecturer, he became Burundi’s “Minister for Good Governance” and was elected president in 2005. His country had been wracked by civil war and unrest since independence from Belgium in 1962. In 1972 sectarian violence between Hutus and Tutsis saw up to 210,000 people killed, then in 1993 the first Hutu president, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated – triggering the loss of a further 25,000 lives through tribal warfare.

For the next ten years peace talks continued, with the mediation of Nelson Mandela. And Mr Nkurunziza’s election was supposed to cement the ceasefire, and mark a new era of calm under the 2000 Arusha peace agreement.

Initially it worked, but in April Mr Nkurunziza said he was going to run for a third term – contravening the Arusha agreement, which specifically states that no president can be elected three times. Mr Nkurunziza’s argument was that he had not been actually elected the first time – he said he was elected by parliament, so it didn’t count.

In the ensuing violence, 300,000 people fled to neighbouring Rwanda and Tanzania, and generals attempted a coup – which quickly failed. Elections were due on June 26, but they were postponed, despite all the chaos that has engulfed Burundi, Mr Nkurunziza is still vowing to run.

Paul Kagame of Rwanda has effectively ruled his tiny nation since the genocide of 1994, which saw 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus massacred in 100 days. He was initially vice president, but accepted as de facto ruler; in 2000 he was elected president.

The 57-year-old has served the two seven-year terms permitted by the constitution, but has remained worryingly ambiguous about his intentions ahead of 2017 elections.

I belong to the group that doesn’t support change of the constitution,” he said in April. “But in a democratic society, debates are allowed and they are healthy. I’m open to going or not going depending on the interest and future of this country.”

This a big dilemma for many African leaders who don’t learn from History and always serve their interests, with simplistic arguments full of lies and selfishness, either they cannot leave power because their people love them or they are the only Citizens with the vision.

US ally of Kiir denounces South Sudan president

By Joan Pounds

United States National Security Advisor Susan Rice, long regarded as a key backer of the South Sudan government, denounced President Salva Kiir on Thursday and challenged the legitimacy of his rule.

The South Sudan head of state as well as rebel leader Riek Machar "and their cronies are personally responsible for this new war and self-inflicted disaster," Ms Rice declared on the occasion of the ravaged country's fourth anniversary of independence.

She was speaking via a video message released by the White House on the occasion of South Sudan's independence anniversary.

It breaks my heart to see what South Sudan has become today," Ms Rice lamented.

She recalled attending the 2011 independence celebrations in Juba with her 13-year-old son.

I remember the hope and unity of that day — the promise of a new beginning for you, who had suffered so much and persevered for so long," Ms Rice continued in comments directed to the people of South Sudan. "Four years later, those happy memories are a horrifying reminder of all that has been lost."

The key White House advisor to President Barack Obama had earlier acted as an influential outside advocate in pressing the Bush administration to support an independent South Sudan.

The United States did invest considerable diplomatic and financial resources in helping engineer the 2005 agreement that resulted in the breakup of Sudan and creation of a new state with its capital in Juba.

Appalling crimes

As a leading member of the Obama administration,Ms Rice had reportedly favoured a soft approach toward the government headed by Mr Kiir.

She resisted appeals from US allies as well as from Secretary of State John Kerry and Washington's UN Ambassador Samantha Power to support an arms embargo against South Sudan, according to a report last January in the online journal Foreign Policy.

That story added, "An arms embargo, Rice believes, would undermine a democratically elected government’s ability to defend itself against an insurgency led by Kiir’s former vice-president, Riek Machar."

But in her comments on Thursday, Ms Rice is unsparing in her criticisms of both belligerents.

The government and rebels are committing appalling crimes against innocent women, children, and the elderly," she declares. "And only leaders on both sides can end this violence. Yet, President Kiir and Riek Machar would rather haggle over personal power and wealth than agree on solutions."

Ms Rice also charged that "the government has abdicated its responsibilities, failed to protect its citizens and squandered its legitimacy.

Rather than negotiating an end to the 19-month-long civil war, Mr Kiir's administration "has subverted democracy and unilaterally extended its mandate," she said.

The statement also contained a warning that the conflict "threatens to destabilise the wider region."

Ms Rice pledged that "the United States will not abandon the people of South Sudan and their right to live freely and at peace in their own country. We will continue to stand with all those who dream of a better tomorrow.

US Envoy Warns Burundi Leaders Could Face Prosecution

By Estella Jones

The U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues said on Wednesday that those behind ongoing violence in Burundi could face prosecution.

In an interview with VOA’s Central Africa service, Stephen Rapp said peaceful demonstrators continue to be shot at in the streets of the capital, Bujumbura. He said the U.S. is particularly concerned with violence committed by the youth militia of the ruling CNDD-FDD party, the Imbonerakure.

“We are sending a strongest message we can that those that commit them [acts of violence] — in particular, those that incite them, order them, arm and deploy the forces that are committing these crimes — will be held to account," Rapp said.

The protests in Burundi were sparked by President Pierre Nkurunziza's decision to run for a third term in elections set for July 15. Critics say the president is violating term limits in the constitution and the Arusha accords that ended the country's civil war.

Rapp warned that those involved in violence and killings in Burundi would most likely end up at the International Criminal Court.

Burundi is a state party of the ICC, and this very much could be a situation in which individuals, even leaders, could be held to account for these crimes," he said. "And very clearly, that will happen if these levels of killing and incitement continue.

“It is important to stop the violence and to no longer shoot down people who are exercising their rights peacefully,” he said.

Rapp, who served as prosecutor of the special court for Sierra Leone and a senior trial attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, also urged Burundian political actors to avoid playing the "ethnic card."

Burundi, like neighboring Rwanda, experienced deep tensions between Hutus and Tutsis in the past.

One of the things that concerns us the most is people bringing back ethnic issues,” said Rapp, adding that one of the things that was accomplished in Arusha was ending ethnic division.

The opposition to the current government isn’t coming from an ethnic basis but on a political basis," he said. "Going back to the past is an effort to play an ethnic card. It is false, dangerous, and it is a crime of incitement to commit genocide, which is prosecutable in the ICC and in the laws of every state.”

Uganda’s Restrictive New NGO Bill

By Wesley Spartan

For the past decade, the Ugandan government has been at pains to amend its law on civil society groups, the Non-Governmental Organizations Act Cap. 113. The attempts have always aimed to stifle and restrict the operations of nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs), especially regarding the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression.

The latest such effort—the NGO Bill of 2015, introduced in April and set for a debate in parliament—is no different in its intention but is exacerbated by its timing in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Many NGOs in Uganda believe that this timing is no coincidence. In previous elections, NGOs have monitored adherence to electoral rules and publicly criticized the government for violations. Currently, they are spearheading proposals for electoral reforms, most of which have been ignored by government. 

To curtail the operations of NGOs through restrictive laws at this point in the electoral cycle would seriously damage the organizations’ ability to play a watchdog role before, during, and after the voting.

Although the draft legislation includes some “enabling” clauses, it has many more provisions aimed at “regulating,” “streamlining,” “coordinating,”and “monitoring” the work of NGOs, which raises concerns about the spirit of the bill. Given the restrictive language, the legislation should not be adopted in its current form.

Concerns about the bill raised by Ugandan civil society fall into the following general categories:

Broad powers for a new NGO regulator

Clause 5 of the bill establishes an NGO Board, which is granted expansive powers under clause 7. It can impose penalties including suspension of NGO permits, blacklisting, and any other disciplinary action that it deems fit. 

These discretionary and undefined powers are gravely concerning to NGOs. The board would be free to interpret the law subjectively and punish organizations for virtually any reason, such as criticism of the government. 

As a possible solution to these problems, the interpretation clause should be revised to define the permissible disciplinary actions, specify the circumstances under which they can be imposed, and provide for judicial oversight to review these actions.

Establishment of contentious monitoring committees

The bill also establishes a hierarchy of subnational bodies that would answer to the national board, including District NGOs Monitoring Committees and Sub-County NGOs Monitoring Committees. Although premised on the good intention of streamlining operations at the district and community levels, the constitution of these committees is contentious. 

Both types are chaired by the Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), which indicates that there will be limited transparency and credibility, especially when appeals need to be made to a higher level. Several NGOs have noted existing challenges posed by working with RDCs, who often restrict their work.

The committees also include security officers with no technical background that would enable them to understand NGO operations or make relevant recommendations on decisions regarding their work. 

Furthermore, the bill does not elaborate on the process of selecting an NGO representative to each committee, which calls into question the credibility of such representatives. Clear guidelines for selecting the NGO representative to the committee must be stipulated in the final bill. 

The government should also continue to hold thorough consultations with civil society to address concerns surrounding the committees’ composition and mandate.

Duplication and contradiction of existing laws, policies, and institutions

Uganda already has a robust set of laws and policies concerning NGOs, and some provisions of the new bill deal with issues that are addressed in existing legislation. For example, employment of noncitizens is governed by the Employment Act of 2006, while tax-exempt status and other immunities granted to nonprofit organizations are governed by tax laws and should not be the responsibility of an NGO Board.

The bill suggests that directors or officers in an organization can be held liable for offenses committed by that organization, which contravenes laws that hold a company liable as a legal entity and separate individuals from their company. 

In addition, the bill is unclear on who is responsible for investigation and prosecution when pursuing criminal penalties such as fines or imprisonment, meaning the NGO Board could usurp powers that are traditionally given to the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

If this bill is passed in its current form, the autonomy and fundamental rights of NGOs will be at risk, and if their work is disrupted, they will be unable to hold the government accountable to its citizens. 

This function is especially crucial during electoral periods, when NGOs carry out civic education, disseminate information to citizens on their right to vote, and encourage citizens to make informed decisions that are free from fear or intimidation.