End of an Era: LRA's final showdown with Museveni

Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) is in the final stages of its dead end, after staging a 20-years brutal warfare against the Government of Uganda (GoU). It is just a matter of time and LRA will be vanquished. Indeed, the signing ceremony slated for February will just be a formality to endorse and celebrate the end of an era of brutality and the triumph of good over evil.
In his trademark shrewdness, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni managed to buy time while engaging (military) diplomacy, seriously weakening the Joseph Kony-led militia. Museveni, himself a former guerilla leader and a retired military officer, could have resolved the conflict in early 1990’s. But he has overtime used the LRA issue and by extension the situation in Northern Uganda as his election agenda to buy voter loyalty and maintain grip on the country’s leadership. Throughout the terrifying period, the Ugandan head would start peace talks with LRA only to break them midway by accusing either his Sudan neighbor President Omar el-Bashir or the late Southern Sudan leader Dr. John Garang de Mabior of supporting Kony.
By prolonging the conflict, Museveni eventually rendered the LRA army weak. Similarly, he employed his diplomacy skills and made use of his rising regional influence to engage the Government’s Sudan, Kenya and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to make life unbearable for Kony’s men and their dependants. LRA has on several occasions used the three countries together with the semi-autonomous region of Southern Sudan to wage war against Museveni’s Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).
A clear perusal of documents of LRA refugees in Nairobi sheds some light. Museveni or his men have directly of indirectly influenced UNHCR office in Nairobi to frustrate the immigrants’ attempts to secure permits that would take them to more hospitable destinations like Canada, Australia, Norway or Sweden. Of the 3,000 LRA refugees in Kenya, none has been granted asylum status and instead they have been directed to go back to Uganda “now that peace has been restored”.
The delay tactics have worked for Museveni. After two decades in the bush, Kony is sickly and short of financial resources to keep him and his militia afloat. By so doing, it is quite easy to entice battle-weary LRA fighters to surrender in exchange of amnesty and “just a few coins” for daily family upkeep. He has also proved to Northerners that Kony’s spiritual-based warfare was a charade and that only his Government holds answers to the problems facing their impoverished region. In essence, he will communicating to them that Kony is a liar who took them to a futile journey of struggle, promising “eternal” liberation but in the end left them poor, illiterate, under-developed, wounded and sick.
The miserable state of affairs within LRA has triggered a serious rift among its rank and file. Only recently that a delegation of LRA officials for the first time in 20 years went to Kampala to meet Museveni and a delegation of LRA is slated to address a rally in Kampala’s Nakivubo Stadium next month. This could be Museveni’s strategy to whip LRA into making a public declaration of surrender, technically sideling Kony.
Meanwhile, word has been going round that Kony’s deputy Vincent Otti is dead. He is said to have been killed following instructions from Kony himself. However, other reports say Otti is still alive but under house arrest courtesy of LRA soldiers with direct instructions from Kony. The authenticity of such claims remains varied. It is said Kony is no longer in control of the militia he established and is said to be in poor health. Nevertheless, aides to Dr. Riek Machar, Southern Sudan’s VP say he is alive. Actually, Machar claims to be in frequent touch with him via satellite phone. Top envoy at the Ugandan peace talks in Juba, Southern Sudan and former Mozambique President Joachim Chissano is send to have met Kony during the initial stages of the talks. Kampala, on the other hand, is categorical that Otti is dead and the remaining mission is how to deal with Kony.
The matter is still a subject of discussion even among members of the international community. On their part, Kony’s men are determined to get a fair deal out of the peace talks. They want their leader pardoned for alleged crimes against humanity and a warrant of arrest against him by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague lifted, a request Museveni won’t listen to. Surrender first and amnesty thereafter, has been Museveni’s message.
Word has it that Ugandan authorities are just waiting for February signing ceremony after which the clock would start ticking for Kony to make a formal surrender. And if he doesn’t, they say, “We will launch the last and final offensive for the liberation of northern Uganda”. Analysts doubt Museveni’s commitment to a lasting peace agreement. In fact his side started the talks from a level of advantage. He has experienced negotiators while Kony’s men seem to have little knowledge about diplomacy and have on several occasions relied on International Consultancy groups, who sometimes are biased and prone to manipulation by Kampala.
In the end, LRA most probably will get a very raw deal and will be the ultimate loser. In case of such a scenario, Museveni will have killed two birds with same stone. He will have vanquished the might of the only military rebellion against his administration and he will have endeared himself to the hearts of Ugandans, who have been living in the daily fear of rebel attacks, thereby consolidated his grip on power.
In essence, Museveni is just playing politics.
He knows his ultimate prize: President of the yet-to-be East Africa Federation (EAF). During the disputed 2005 General Election, he vowed not to relinquish Ugandan leadership until the dream of a united East Africa is realized in which he claimed to be a frontrunner for the regional presidency. His opponents, however, argue that for him to realize his political ambitions, he would have to convince voters from other regional states that he is strong enough to deal with internal conflicts within his country before he could lead a united and stable East Africa in a volatile region known for its recurrent armed conflicts.
Ends…

ODM's PRESS RELEASE ON LIVONDO

It has come to our attention that the Government is involved in massive irregularities to rig the coming elections.

A Sunday paper reported that one Stanley Livondo did not have the right documents to qualify as a candidate for the Langata seat on any ticket since his documents were incorrect. The ID number and name were of dubious origin having been issued only in July this year.

It is now established beyond doubt from ECK voters’ database that Livondo's ID is a forged document! The National ID. No. 10694331 which Livindo crookedly presented to ECK belongs to a Ms. Shikuku Naliaka Rhoda who is a voter at Mavusi Primary School polling station in Malava constituency. Her voter’s card is number 155/036/0560838269. Kenyans must now understand why the law enforcement agencies have not found it prudent to interrogate Livondo over the killing in Hamisi.

These facts reveal that Livondo is an imposter who presented papers to ECK under false pretences.

Further, there is enough proof that the said Livondo is not a registered voter in the Republic of Kenya and should hence be disqualified as a candidate for the Langata seat. ODM calls on ECK to disqualify the imposter and prosecute him for criminal fraud. The ODM also calls for censure of PNU for facilitating this crime by presenting a dubious candidate to ECK.
ODM is anxious that if the Government can go to such an extent as to facilitate criminal acts by one of its candidates, what more is it ding it its designs to rig the elections?
Ends…

CRISIS: Great Lakes Region on Fire

The Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa regions have over the decades been synonymous to civil conflicts, poverty, hunger, disease and dictatorial regimes. From Mogadishu to Kinshasa, lawlessness prompted by bad Governance and greed for power by political leaders have served to isolate the region from the community of nations and cast its population to a bottomless pit of abject poverty. Rivalry for resources and struggle for power have often been the major points of conflicts.

The Great Lakes region covers the area around Lake Victoria, Tanganyika (Tanzania), Lake Kivu (DRC), Lake Malawi, Lake Turkana (Kenya), Lake Edward and Lake Albert (both in Uganda/DRC border). It comprises of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Burundi, Rwanda, and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Horn of Africa, on the other hand, comprises of Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

This grim picture was reversed few years ago when several peace conferences were initiated with a view to end these regional conflicts. The quest for regional peace and security is challenging taking into account the imperative need to address the root causes of these perennial conflicts. Memorable among them include, Peace Processes for Sudan, Somalia, Burundi and DRC. The January 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) for Sudan formally ended war - Africa's longest civil conflict - between the Khartoum Government and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The DRC process ended a decade-long conflict that saw an estimated 5.3 million people die since war broke out in 1998. The Arusha Accord for Burundi ended a civil conflict that could be traced way back to 1950’s just before the tiny African nation got independence from Belgium. The Somali peace conference in Nairobi brought to an end over a decade of statelessness since the fall of Marxist dictator Siad Barre in early 1990.

But just a few years after, the blunt of civil war seem headed for a comeback. The return of the infamous wars could set the entire region on fire, threatening the lives of millions of people. An elaborate network of armament industry is still intact backed by international arms merchants with direct or indirect support from Governments that use or support arms trade, which have been critical in fueling conflict within the region.

In Somalia, a failed state for close two decades is struggling to establish a national Government. Known to be a fertile ground for international terrorists, the fledgling transitional Government is fighting daily attacks from radical Islamic insurgents. Somali’s top Islamic leaders are in Asmara, Eritrea from where they have been mobilizing military and financial support to frustrate and if possible overthrow the TFG. The Islamists want to establish a Taliban-like administration which could pose a great threat to regional peace. The Islamists have teamed up with Eritrea to declare a jihad against Addis Ababa. They have likewise threatened to strike foreign embassies based in Kenya, top among them being US and Britain.

The CPA for Sudan is almost in its final stages of death as a result of mistrust between Southern leaders and their counterparts in the North. Southern Sudan leaders have declared intention to take up arms against Khartoum in response to what they see as President Omar Bashir’s unwillingness to implement the CPA. The vast nation is also struggling to contain a full scale conflict in Darfur Region which has been termed by the UN as a “slow genocide” in the making with the full support by Bashir administration.

Kenya has been a close associate of Southern Sudan administration since the dark days of civil war and thus would almost obviously stand with the Southern leaders in the event of a fall out with Khartoum. This would trigger a diplomatic row pitting Nairobi against Khartoum.


A contigent of Rwandan troops leaving the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) town of Kindu. Rwanda has been accused of sponsoring Tutsi militants in DRC.


Uganda and Rwanda's interest
Matters are no better in DRC as the fate of the fragile peace treaty hangs in the balance. Pockets of influential militia groups in the East still pose a big threat to the national Government in Kinshasa. But the crisis is more complicated by the fact that Kampala and Kigali have a strong influence in internal issues about DRC. President Paul Kagame, a Tutsi by tribe, has been giving military support to reneged General Laurent Nkunda, a Tutsi, with a view to contain rebel Hutu militias operating inside DRC. Hutu extremists were responsible for the infamous 1994 Rwanda genocide that left over 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead.

President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is keen on Eastern DRC as rebel Lords Resistance Army (LRA) has bases inside the dense Congo forest. They have waged a two decades war against his Government with a view to overthrow it and replace it with a theocratic one based on the Ten Commandments.

Museveni is not new to meddling into the affairs of his immediate neighbors. Early in 1990’s he crafted Rwandan exiles into his national army in preparation for an overthrow of then President Juvenile Habyarimana. Led by Kagame (now Rwandan President) Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) rebels waged guerilla warfare from inside Uganda until they overrun Kigali with the direct help of Museveni’s army following the 1994 genocide that marked the end of a long period of political and military dominance by Hutu ethnic group. The genocide took place after a plane carrying President Habyarimana (Rwanda) and President Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi) was shot down over Kigali airport as the two were coming from attending a regional meeting in Tanzania.

In 1995, diplomatic relations between Sudan and Uganda went to the lowest after Museveni cut-off diplomatic link with Bashir in protest at Khartoum's support for the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group active in northern Uganda. By then Sudan alleged that Uganda was providing support to the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) who were fighting to secede from the larger Sudan. In fact, word has it that the late SPLA leader Dr John Garang’s death was a conspiracy by Kampala authorities who felt that might be difficult to deal with in negotiating on the military offensive against LRA militia who were by then operating deep inside Southern Sudan.

Refugees/IDP and Implications
According to UN reports, the region has over 5 million displaced persons living in makeshift settlements and refugee’s camp. The continued influx of displaced persons continues to impact negatively to host states. In Kenya for instance, the Somali community is blamed for the proliferation of arms and general insecurity. The community is said to ferry illegal arms from their war-ravaged country as they enter the Kenyan border. The arms are then illegally sold and transported to Nairobi through a well coordinated racket that is alleged to involve top police officers.

Fear of the unknown has equally griped regional entrepreneurs, leading many foreign investors to shy away from local market. In Southern Sudan, word has been spreading that the SPLA/M could return to the bush following a fallout with the Khartoum Government. This has brought matters to a standstill as businessmen contemplate on the next move.

In DRC, the Eastern part of the vast nation remains a no-go zone for investors as rival militia jostle for supremacy. Thousands of people have been reported to have fled their homes a week ago in the wake of renewed clashes between Nkunda’s militia and a combined force of UN peacekeepers and DRC national army.

Despite a functioning Government, Somalia remains a pariah state. The Ethiopia-Eritrea stand off over Somalia has heightened speculation that the two nations could go to another round of war in a decade. Though the earlier war was over a border dispute, the impending war could be over foreign policy towards Somalia.
Renewed conflict in Bujumbura is casting a shadow of doubt on the future of the Burundi’s Arusha Peace Agreement. Infighting within the country’s last rebel group, Front for National Liberation (FNL) has prompted locals to flee their homes fearing that the curse of civil war could be back.
Burundi and Rwanda were recently admitted to the EAC. But critics say the two would add nothing of value to the economy of the other already established states. Pointing at their past record of instability, they say, the tiny nations would only serve to extend the insecurity in their countries to other members stable states. However, the argument stand challenged on the ground that Uganda has had warm relations with its neighbors, Kenyan and Tanzania, despite the war in the North.
Ends…

Federalism in Kenya popularly known as “Majimbo”

In the last few months, debate has been raging on whether or not Kenya should do away with its current Central system of Government in favor of a Federal one. As Kenyans head towards the ballot, it seems, the Majimbo debate could be the determining issue on who carries the day among the three top presidential candidates. The incumbent, President Kibaki and his team, is opposed to Majimbo system and has on as many occasions dismissed it as a “recipe for chaos by politicians bent on advancing tribal politics with the sole purpose of acquiring power”. Instead, Kibaki is for a unitary system with lesser powers vested on the Executive and “appropriate institutions of administration” at the grassroots. His main challenger at the poll, Raila Odinga, is fronting for Majimbo arguing it is the best for Kenyans to ensure equitable distribution of resources countrywide. Kalonzo Musyoka, another contender for State House job, is for Majimbo in what he calls, Economic Federalism. Kalonzo promises to build institutions and structures to the grassroots to ensure national resources trickle down to the ordinary Kenyan. Raila’s version, many analysts say, encompasses both a Political and Economic Federalism where Federal States will be based on tribes with each State being under the political headship of a Governor who, with the assistance of a selected team of regional leaders, will likewise oversee the economic affairs of the state.


Raila Odinga, ODM Presidential Candidate, has been the chief proponent for "Federalism" or "Majimbo". His flamboyant party has made the issue its main agenda in this year's election.


Opponents of the system, locally, see it as ethnic relativism/Puritanism. Others look at it as a sort of messianic revival of ethnic apartheid aimed at creating ideal conditions for ethnic exclusiveness. Its chief proponents claim to be nationalists though scholars seem unanimous that nationalism and tribalism can never be one at the same time. Proponents of the same say it is the best system to divide power between the Central Government and constituent units/states to give people at the grassroots say in decision-making.

Genesis
The issue first rose in early 1950’s as Kenyans prepared for independence. It cropped up soon after the declaration of a state of emergency in 1952 following a widespread insurgency by Africans, popularly known as the Mau Mau rebellion, against British colonial rule. The outbreak of the Mau Mau paved the way for constitutional reforms and development in subsequent years. In 1955, a myriad of political parties were formed all over the country after the colonial Government yielded to their formation. Elections were held in March 1957, after which racial barriers in the Government began to be lifted. By 1960, Legislative Council (LEGCO) – equivalent of today’s Parliament - had an African majority. In the same year, Kenya African National Union (KANU), which advocated for a unitary government was formed. In 1961, Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU) which advocated for Majimbo was also formed.

Just as today, the two emerged as the dominant political parties that would eventually shape the destiny of post-independence Kenya. As a political phrase, since it does not exist in the Swahili dictionary, Majimbo was introduced into the country following the Lancaster House (London) Constitutional Conference of 1962. In Uganda it is called federo while Nigerians simply call it federalism.

Majimboism envisaged a system of government where executive, legislative and financial powers were shared between central and regional governments. The bulk of the power, however, still remained with the central government. The regional boundaries were loosely based on ethnic boundaries carved up by the British.

The Majimbo issue had split the African leadership down the middle in the run-up to independence in 1963. To a large extent the system was predicated on the fear by the leaders of “smaller” ethnic groups that their communities would be dominated by the “larger” groups on national matters – economical or political.

KADU drew its major support from communities in Western, Rift Valley and Coast. In its leadership were Daniel Moi (Rift valley), the late Ronald Ngala (Coast) and the late Masinde Muliro (Western). Kanu, on the other hand, commanded the support of the “larger” ethnic groups. It was the party of influential tri of Jomo Kenyatta, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga (Raila’s father) and Tom Mboya (assassinated in 1967 and was among those tipped to succeed Kenyatta as President). Muliro and Jaramogi were later in history to be instrumental in agitating for a return to pluralism in 1992.

Majimbo was scrapped before it was properly implemented, according to many observers. Kanu, which won the first full franchise General Elections held in May 1963, never really wanted the system as it considered it expensive and a threat to national unity in a country of 42 tribes. In June 1963, Kenya attained internal self-government. On December 12th of the same year, independence was achieved with a complex Majimbo constitution which conceded much autonomy to the regions. There were to be 6 Jimbos (regions) constituted along ethnic lines. Tribes with close similarities were put under one region e.g Coast and North Eastern provinces were put under one state as the two are predominantly Muslim while Kikuyus, Embu, Meru were put in Central State.

The Majimbo debate died after President Kenyatta coerced parliamentarians to reject multipartyism. The first Vice-President, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, resigned on April 14, 1966 and formed the Kenya People’s Union (KPU) re-introducing multiparty politics. Joseph Murumbi, then Minister for Foreign Affairs succeeded Odinga as VP on May 13, 1966. Six months after Odinga resignation, the Upper House (Senate), and the Lower House (House of Representatives), were amalgamated to form the National Assembly, technically ending federalism.

Sessional Paper No. 10
Written in 1963 by the planning minister, the late Tom Mboya - arguably Kenya’s most intelligent and charismatic leader of all times – was aimed at addressing then growing economic inequality in the emerging nation. The paper gave birth to a divergent of views as to what was best strategy to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. The paper, though widely backed by political leaders across the divide, some felt federalism was the “ideal” answer. Former powerful Cabinet minister, late Peter Habenga Okondo dismissed the contents of the paper, arguing that the “rich would continue being rich at the expense of the poor” as development was only centered around Nairobi and Mombasa. He advocated for “African Socialism”. Okondo, a native of Western Kenya, said Majimbo was the way to discourage people from crowding in the two cities to look for jobs. “What is produced by a certain region should be able to provide employment to the region’s residents,” he stated.

It resurfaced in 1980’s during Moi regime. But contrary to 1963, it was being advanced for political expediency by the ruling elite to elicit ethnic conflicts across the country, thereby creating the right environment to crackdown on perceived dissidents. The issue later emerged in early 1990 ahead of the 1992 General Election and the subsequent 1997 polls. The debate, sponsored by the state was aimed at triggering tribal clashes in opposition strongholds to discourage voters turning out for the polls. Appellate Judge, Akilano Akiwumi (now retired), was later appointed to head a commission of inquiry into the tribal clashes though none of the commission’s recommendations were implemented.

Come 1997, and the debate re-emerged at the height for clamor for new reforms that later gave birth to the constitution of Kenya review process. During then, Raila Odinga’s National Development Party (NDP) - now defunct - started courting its nemesis Kanu, which culminated with a merger in 2002, months to the General Election. During the time, both parties came up with a joint draft for a Majimbo constitution.

They proposed that Kenya be led by a ceremonial President while a Government headed by a Prime Minister. In the draft, they proposed regional governments would have their own legislatures and boundaries. The President and the PM would head a 3-tier federal system of national government, regional authorities (provinces) in the middle and counties (districts) at the base. The regions, with their own legislatures, would roughly follow the current provincial boundaries, although new regions could be created. They would be in charge of their own Judiciary, police force and civil service. Kanu and NDP suggested that the President should be a non-executive Head of State, elected by MPs from among three candidates presented by the PM. He would remain the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, sign Bills passed by Parliament in consultation with the PM. Other duties would be ceremonial. It is said that Raila had by then been promised the Premier’s post on condition that he dissolved his NDP party and crossed over to Kanu.

The document, said to have been the brainchild of Raila, was modeled on KADU’s 1962 Majimbo. The only difference was in that while Raila proposed that each region to have its own Judiciary, KADU had proposed that it would be branch of the national Government.

Draft constitution
According to the draft document, rejected by Kenyans at a National Referendum in 2005, the word “devolution” was used instead of “federalism”. In the Swahili version, “ugatuzi” was used instead of “Majimbo”. The clause elicited heated debate at the conference held at Bomas of Kenya (BoK) in Karen. Government representatives wanted the clause deleted or amended, a request delegates would not listen to. At the end, a compromise was reached. In the arrangement regions/districts would be the chief point of devolution, a 6-tier federal system. The 1963 system was 3-tier – National, Regional/States and Local Authorities.

But the most disturbing clause has been the one touching on “permanent residence”. Just as then, none of the proponents of the system has clearly come out to state the meaning of the phrase. To an ordinary Kenyan, one would be restricted to his own native region and would require a pass to move into or operate from a region other than his/hers. Within such understanding, Majimbo would outrightly interfere or obstruct free movement of labor – disenfranchising people in their own country – at least within the confines of such understanding.

Why majimbo?
As seen from history, the debate has always risen during an electioneering period. It is quite evident that the burning desire to introduce the system has been to settle political scores among the ruling elite rather than address salient economic matters affecting the nation. Prior to independence, it was felt that KANU, the party that enjoyed widest following, was dominated by two tribes, Luos (Nyanza) and Kikuyus (Central). The Western, Rift Valley and Coast leaders thus regrouped to agitate for Majimbo with a view to accommodate the interests of other tribes and in the end isolate the two from the heart of national leadership. They formed KADU to counter the rising KANU wave.

Just as then, today, the desire to have a Majimbo Kenya is moved by the desire to isolate a particular ethnic group – Kikuyus and their Meru, Embu kinsmen – seen to have economically benefited at the expense of other tribes by being at the heart of national leadership. Raila is attempting to use the idea to antagonize the three (them) against other tribes in order to win national-wide support for Majimbo.
Ends…