Ssemujju reveals Nandala, Amuriat plot to eliminate him 

IBRAHIM SSEMUJJU NGANDA, the Kira municipality member of parliament, clarified that holding the roles of the Forum for Democratic Change party whip and spokesperson isn’t a critical issue for him.

In an interview with The Observer, Ssemujju said that he would have stepped down from these roles if it weren’t for his commitment to challenging the party’s leadership, specifically its president Patrick Oboi Amurit and secretary general Nathan Nandala-Mafabi.

Recently, the FDC, once a leading opposition party, has been in turmoil. Some party leaders have accused Amuriat and Nandala of accepting significant funds from President Museveni for the 2021 general election. Both Nandala and Amuriat, however, have denied these allegations and claim they are attempts to sully their reputations

What was your response upon receiving Nathan Nandala-Mafabi’s letter relieving you of your role as the FDC party whip in parliament?

During a NEC meeting, Amuriat warned us of a potential split if elections proceeded. We pondered how best to address this. Not to boast, but it became apparent that I was their primary concern. They recognized that if I ran for a position, they would face challenges. I’ve consistently championed FDC’s causes with fervor. Starting with (Go Forward candidate) Amama Mbabazi, I actively defended the FDC and Kizza Besigye on various radio stations.

My dedication remained unwavering, and I have no regrets. Following Mbabazi, (NUP’s Robert) Kyagulanyi emerged, and I defended the party once more. To this day, I believe the FDC was unjustly criticized by those pushing for Kyagulanyi’s prominence. The politics they played wasn’t fair.

Many within the FDC, including Amuriat, appreciated my efforts, especially during the party’s challenging times. Consequently, I was seen as the most significant obstacle to their continuity, especially with Besigye not running again. Even before the controversy over funds arose, there were internal preparations against me. When the financial issue came to the forefront, I became the primary subject of attention.

Considering you spearheaded the campaign against the “dirty money,” do you believe you became a justified target?

There were 10 MPs and other senior party leaders present at the Nsambya Sharing hall meeting. They could have also targeted some of them. However, the primary focus was on Ssemujju, Lukwago, and Besigye. This is a strategic move because my credibility was placing me on a moral high ground.

To level the playing field, they had to target me. I don’t view myself as the chief opponent of the “dirty money.” I’m merely another leader voicing concerns about our party’s mismanagement. Frankly, I wasn’t eager to be the spokesperson, but many implored me to do so. Following our press conference at Fairway hotel, they convened a meeting, deciding they needed to shift the narrative away from them.

That led to my removal as the whip and spokesperson, followed by Amuriat’s decision to refer us to the disciplinary committee. Nandala also suggested that the MPs were hesitant to back them, hence the need to relieve me of my whip role. Besides [Isaiah] Sasaga, I haven’t heard of any MPs rallying behind them. I doubt any rational individual today would defend Nandala and Amuriat.

When the letter announcing your dismissal was released, you initially expressed willingness to step down from the role of party whip, stating that there wasn’t much left to advocate for. Why did your stance change?

I have a distinct position among those with whom I’m striving to save the FDC. Both Lukwago and I had contemplated resigning — him from the deputy president role and myself as the spokesperson. I questioned the legitimacy of representing the FDC, especially when there were allegations of the party accepting Museveni’s money.

However, fellow members argued that our resignations would be tantamount to conceding to those perceived as Museveni’s agents, despite these agents having no hand in our initial appointments. Thus, we persisted in our efforts to salvage the party. Upon receiving the news of my supposed dismissal, I saw little reason to retain the title of FDC whip.

The primary role of a whip is to rally MPs for parliamentary attendance and delegate them to committees. By the existing regulations, every MP is guaranteed a committee assignment. Given my longstanding relationship with the parliament, even before my tenure as an MP, I’m confident in stating that all parliamentary committees are valuable. While I had assigned MPs to certain committees, much to their initial discontent, many expressed gratitude for their placements a year later.

However, Nandala and [Yusuf] Nsibambi seem to believe that my involvement in the Budget committee has granted me undue publicity. I anticipate their first move will be to displace me from this committee. Yet, my commitment isn’t solely to the Budget committee, a nuance seemingly lost on some.

Indeed, I had initially expressed my readiness to depart. However, my comrades, united in our fight against this perceived injustice, submitted a petition to the parliament’s speaker, urging resilience in the face of adversity. The heightened focus on my predicament was unexpected. In hindsight, I might have declined their request to avoid diverting attention from the main issue at hand — Museveni’s alleged financial influence.

My quarrel shouldn’t be with Nsibambi but, rather, with Nandala and Amuriat.

Many were surprised at the speaker’s involvement, suggesting she’s aiding you…

The misconception likely stems from Hon. Anita Among’s past. Given her intense recruitment efforts for Museveni, she garnered a considerable amount of resentment. Additionally, transitioning from the opposition to the NRM is perceived as a grave misstep in our politics. Such hostility results in unwarranted criticism towards Anita Among, regardless of her actions being right or wrong. For critics implying that the speaker is assisting me, it raises the question: why did they reach out to her in the first place, rather than the chief justice? It’s evident they recognized her authority on the matter.

Reflecting on my tenure as chief opposition whip, I recall instances where my decisions were overruled by the speaker. For example, when I nominated Moses Kasibante to replace [Anita Among] as the vice-chairperson of Cosase, the then speaker [Rebecca] Kadaga obstructed the appointment. Similarly, my replacement suggestions in other roles faced opposition from Kadaga. In [Henry] Tumukunde’s case, the court emphasized the speaker’s responsibility to scrutinize decisions affecting MPs’ statuses.

In [Theodore] Ssekikubo’s situation, Kadaga was praised for her defiance against party orders. The current Speaker has this precedent to guide her decisions. It’s vital to understand that, as a member of parliament, the speaker is my direct supervisor. If I wish to address the parliament, I seek her permission, not Amuriat’s.

Disregarding the speaker’s authority would be an oversight. A functional relationship with the speaker is crucial for an MP’s effective operations. However, some mistakenly believe that opposing Museveni should be synonymous with opposing the speaker. I interact with the speaker daily, and it’s impractical to constantly be at odds. My incarceration taught me the importance of strategic alliances; in jail, building rapport with guards meant my wife could visit on typically restricted days (Saturday).

It’s crucial to differentiate between animosity towards Museveni and our interactions with others. Directing anger universally is a misstep. For survival, I’ve built a relationship with the speaker and the deputy speaker, essential for my role as an MP. If I didn’t view parliament as a platform, my approach would differ.

My interactions with Museveni have been sparse, while I engage with the speaker almost daily.

You were always very bitter with Kadaga every time she disallowed your appointments; you would say she was abusing her powers…

In response, it’s vital to note that those appointments had followed the FDC’s due procedures. For instance, when former FDC president Mugisha Muntu opted to replace Nandala-Mafabi as the leader of opposition, he not only presented his case to the Working Committee but also to the National Executive Committee (NEC).

Similarly, during Amuriat’s tenure, when he transitioned from Winnie Kiiza to Betty Aol Achan, retaining me as chief opposition whip, the changes were discussed in a working committee and later taken to the NEC. The FDC has a structured process for these appointments. The current hesitation to convene the NEC seems rooted in recent challenges. The last time the NEC met, they halted elections. It appears Amuriat has lost his grasp on the committee.

If instructed by the parliament to convene the NEC, any leader’s logical step would be immediate compliance. Instead of writing to the speaker, I’d swiftly process my appointment and provide the necessary documentation. The concerning trend here is the seeming reluctance by Nandala and Amuriat to convene the NEC. Their potential objective might be to sidestep this body, potentially replacing it with a more pliant one that aligns with their objectives.

But they provided minutes as evidence, suggesting that the very working committee that selected you also chose Nsibambi…

To clarify, I am a member of all FDC organs. In a particular instance, Amuriat had proposed the name of Betty Aol, which was declined by the working committee. He then escalated it to the NEC, which similarly rejected the recommendation and subsequently chose me. The working committee is not the primary decision-making body.

All FDC appointments are finalized by the National Executive Committee (NEC), not by the working committee. To put it simply, the working committee is a subset of the NEC, not a standalone party organ. Hence, one can’t claim that a decision made by the working committee of the NEC is final.

People were surprised when Nsibambi accepted the appointment; were you surprised?

In 2011, when I campaigned for elections, Nsibambi was among those who significantly contributed to my finances. I had always viewed him as a generous elder. But my recent interactions have revealed a different side of Nsibambi — one that is immensely self-centered, with a relentless quest for attention and recognition.

His jealousy, especially within the FDC, is palpable. The media’s praise for my performance in parliament has irked many, and to my astonishment, even Nsibambi seems perturbed by it. On numerous talk shows, he belittles our efforts, labeling us as mere attention-seekers. He has even questioned the value of my contributions in parliament, claiming they don’t lead to tangible resolutions.

Nsibambi boasts about his intelligence, citing his experience teaching law and representing the now-defunct Greenland bank. But it’s perplexing that he takes pride in representing a bank that eventually closed down. He once claimed that he had make significant contributions in parliament, leading to impactful resolutions. It’s been two years since he joined, and I’m still waiting to see those resolutions.

Sadly, some individuals can’t stomach seeing others vocalize their opinions in parliament. Nsibambi seems to believe that becoming the FDC whip will amplify his voice. I genuinely hope he finds that platform, but he’ll soon realize that to be heard in parliament, one doesn’t need a title.

What’s clear to me now is that Nsibambi is driven by envy and is quite self-absorbed. He’s convinced that being a party whip is a significant accomplishment. But just to put things into perspective, Asumani Basalirwa is the whip for JEEMA, and Santa Okot is the whip for PPP. Their roles are equivalent to the whip of FDC.

Yet, just being a whip doesn’t guarantee prominence in parliament, as evidenced by Santa Okot’s presence.

Nsibambi argues that when you disagree you have to fight within the party…

Nsibambi seems disingenuous. He’s aligning himself with a faction not well-received by the public, a group that has taken Museveni’s money. To deflect public displeasure, he claims to remain in that position to reform it from within. However, his logic is questionable.

On NBS, I heard him label Amuriat and Nandala as “bayaaye” [street urchins]. It’s perplexing that someone of his supposed intellect would willingly work under such individuals, only to later claim he’ll stand against them. He further contradicts himself by stating they’re his superiors, the ones who will endorse his candidacy. He even chided me for not aligning with them and hinted that they need someone more compliant.

Nsibambi hasn’t effectively utilized his experience or knowledge to make sound decisions or to clearly express his stance. This is evident when you compare his varying statements over time; they’re riddled with inconsistencies. I’m puzzled by his motivations. Nsibambi once held a significant position as the chairman of the FDC Electoral Commission, a role he was elected to by the National Delegates Conference. However, he resigned.

Throughout my eight years at FDC, he’s been mostly absent. In fact, Amuriat and Nandala once claimed to have ousted him from the party. Now, he’s abandoned a pivotal role that could influence the party’s direction. When comparing the roles, being the chairman of the EC, responsible for ushering in new leadership, holds more weight than being a whip, whose primary job is to ensure MP attendance in parliament.

Yet, Nsibambi seems to misunderstand even the basics. He recently mentioned his desire for a voice in the Budget committee, revealing his lack of knowledge about committee selection processes. His inconsistency and apparent dishonesty are concerning, as he often shifts his narrative depending on the time of day.

Don’t you think it’s important to fight within the party and defeat the Nandalas through elections?

Among those of us opposed to Museveni taking over the party, there are two distinct viewpoints. Personally, if Museveni were to take control of the FDC, instead of directing my efforts towards reclaiming the party, I would rather unite with like-minded individuals to combat Museveni’s rule. However, some individuals hold deep sentiments towards FDC and might choose to devote their lives to its recovery.

I want to be clear: I don’t intend to spend the next three to five years of my life and career solely trying to rescue FDC from Museveni’s grip. My primary objective is to challenge Museveni. I am prepared to do this independently or in collaboration with others. To solely focus on FDC’s internal politics would seem nonsensical to my family and those I represent.

While for some, capturing FDC might be their ultimate goal, mine remains to challenge Museveni’s reign. Whether we succeed as independents, with the support of the general population, religious institutions, or even if it means sidelining all these political parties, my endgame remains unchanged.

mmkakekembo@gmail.com