Mathias Mpuuga’s dilemma on Ssewanyana-Ssegirinya release

So, the question is here with us: Did members of the opposition negotiate the release of their colleagues, Hons. Allan Ssewanyana and Muhammad Ssegirinya—and the courts only rubberstamped a politically-negotiated settlement? Or the courts finally came clean after 15 months?

If negotiations actually happened, why then should they not negotiate the release of the other more than 500 small-profile political prisoners—as MP Abed Bwanika has framed the contention?

For challenges of transparency in politics (which are worse in banana republics), we can only connect the dots, work historically- theoretically as we follow previous precedents. (Unless the only believable source on these matters, Mr Museveni, takes the risk and speaks—it is also risky for him—all others will be dismissed).

On this specific contention, (a) it is difficult to have concrete evidence on what really happened as clandestine negotiators tend to spend 95 per cent of their time discussing and crafting ways of hiding evidence of these negotiations. (It is like high-level corruption; to ask for evidence is to ask the wrong question — there is always no evidence except if idiots are involved).

And this is understandable because, (b) affirming to the negotiation dents the Museveni-Owiny Dollo claim of independence of the judiciary, on the one hand, and dents the opposition’s promise of Delta Force politics (i.e., we do not negotiate with the dictator), on the other. Thus, secrecy is a mutually-agreed core component of whatever transpired.

This is why Abed Bwanika, Minister Norbert Mao, journalist Remmy Bahati, and the newspaper Daily Monitor have come under intense pressure—from either side of the political divide—for claiming and affirming that negotiations actually happened.

In a bizarre twist, Leader of Opposition, comrade brother, Hon Mathias Mpuuga, through his lawyers, Lukwago and Company Advocates, wrote to Daily Monitor threatening to sue them for alleging that he was part of the negotiations. Later in a radio broadcast—perhaps toning down his stance—Mpuuga threatened to resign if the newspaper presented evidence of their allegations.

(Of course, there is never concrete-enough evidence for these things, and in well-known journalistic ethic, no media house will expose their sources just to prove a point—and comrade Mpuuga is aware of this and thus simply grandstanding).

KYAGULANYI-MPUUGA DILEMMA

Mpuuga’s dilemma is Robert Kyagulanyi’s dilemma too. It is the dilemma of opposition politics in Uganda, especially where the Museveni brand of autocracy—a more sophisticated one—has its teeth firmly in the skin. Negotiating with Museveni is the only option left if opposition politicians want to get anything going.

The results are immediate such as the release of political prisoners, getting sick elders treated—as MP Abed Bwanika insists on his colleague, Betty Nambooze’s treatment in the United States of America, et cetera.

But any negotiations with Museveni also means making major compromises (including silence, overlooking corruption, nepotism, long-stay, and all other Museveni crimes). This significantly dents the promise of Delta Force politics, upon which folks in NUP got elected and prefer to be identified with.

But here is the difficult part that has forced NUP legislators into a pickle: while NUP rode on the magic charms of the People Power movement, whose most potent promise was Delta Force politics—captured in some really bombastic slogans—they have done absolutely nothing to show that they actually meant their slogans.

On this one, it is not only Mpuuga that is guilty of short-changing his constituents, but the entirety of NUP including its principal, brother Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu. Thus, insisting on “not negotiating with the dictator” whilst doing nothing about anything is still short-changing your voters.

WHAT IS PLAUSIBLE?

Why did court, out of own independence, fail to grant bail to these politicians — for over 15 months? Why did they get re- arrested several times upon release from court? Why not this time?

One possibility is that MP Allan Ssewanyana was so sick that it raised the possibility of the man dying in their prisons. They thus had to find an easy exit—and the opposition lawyers went to court upon learning “we are giving you your me 
this time.” This would still be a political settlement.

The other, more plausible, possibility is that negotiations actually happened. For those who care and follow Ugandan politics, many things, which ought to be executed through the legally-proscribed means have tended to be negotiated outside the purview of the law: procurement deals, job appointments, parliamentary bills, court decisions, arrests, accountabilities, et cetera.

So, negotiations are not far-fetched. In fact, they have become the law. But why then does NUP vigorously deny the negotiations? Because one would imagine that at this point of victory — release of incarcerated high-profile political prisoners — the negotiating team would be keen on celebrating their negotiation genius.

They would say, they had to get them out by whatever means necessary, including sitting or collaborating with the devil. Why would a man who crafted an alternative “legislative agenda” be unkeen to embracing the idea that he is a wonderful negotiator?

It is confusing for someone not to pride in this absolute accomplishment, which has been the country’s yearning ever since. In all fairness — negotiations or no negotiations — what we are witnessing, on the one hand, is the pain of politics under Yoweri Museveni: everyone is dishonest, deceitful, and rightly suspicious.

On the other, it is lack of identity on the part of opposition politicians (they are neither here nor there), and the abundance of broken promises. Consider this; if Mpuuga executed his politics with the fire and symbolism of Francis Zaake (maybe not his youthful recklessness), he would be beyond this confusion.

yusufkajura@gmail.com

The author is a political theorist based at Makerere University.