Nina Mbabazi and her treacherous 2 faces, fact to fact combat in response to her article
”Police Have No Right to Stop Besigye or people from Demonstrating”, Nina Mbabazi
http://ugandansatheart.Nina starts off with a tender subject of children being hurt in the walk to work fracas. Children are close to our emotions and it is understandable why it is her preferred opening topic. It clearly attracts attention.
The simple and clear factor is that there was no intention from the police to harm the little ones, as to whether there was and operational recklessness? yes the battle field must and should have been evacuated long before or in the alternative the point of engagement should have been deferred/extended, but there is no way of addressing this issue without recourse to the source of the problem and I will come back to this point later in the text.
Crimes against humanity ignorantly levelled against Kayihura is out of Nina’s knowledge and the elements of the offence are not applicable in these circumstances, however is there civil responsibility? YES. What is happening in Uganda and the role Kayihura plays is way below the threshold of crimes against humanity even if Nina would like to charge him with a crime, but in as far as Nina is concerned at this moment everything goes.
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. (only a lawyer can understand the interpretation of this article as it is so wide)
The second issue that Nina raises is that Odonga and Co walked without a following, This is vague and irrelevant, predictable at the best. Odonga is not as popular as Besigye indeed I could pass him and I would not recognise him. This is Ninas other shot in the dark for the purposes of extracting maximum self righteousness.
Nina and The Law.
Nina has recently embarked on an embarrassing interpretation of the law. She is talks about the ruling in Muwanga v Attorney General. The police is not accusing KB of not having sought permission but that his procession is likely to attract violence if not planned and coordinated by the police. The overriding objective here being that he has got to co-operate with the police to ensure safety for the public and the protestors. She further mockingly and or sarcastically refers to it as NRM’s law and opposed to Uganda law, this demonstrates her desperate attempt to malign NRM.
Doubt on Nina’s intellect.
This really causes concern in that she is firmly ready to violate the centuries of a legal principle that ‘NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW’ she says that Besigye has attained the status of a ‘Rock Star’ subsequently elevating him to above the Ugandan law in that even if he was required by law to seek permission to demonstrate, by his ‘Rock Star’ status he should not.
Now this is either low intellect or some notion that is not fit for intellectually astute persons. Literally in Nina’s eyes Chameleon or Rihanna can choose to hold a concert at the city square at 12pm on a Monday. This to me raises concerns and it is an early indicator of the person you are dealing with, if she is serious with this then she is either irretrievably retarded or she is seeking cheap popularity by presuming critical ignorance in her audience indeed Ugandans but not me.
NINAS TREACHEROUS INTENTIONS
Ninas intentions initially were unclear but by passage of time we now get a clear picture, she has been a Trojan in NRM all along, her presence in NRM is for the sole purposes of furthering her dads political career conversely continuing her lavish livelihood.
This provides a hint as to what might or might not be transpiring within NRM.
Nina misleading Museveni
We were informed that Nina commissioned a study of NRM’s support before the recently concluded elections at a cost of 100 million shillings. Results were then that Ugandans were willing to vote NRM the party but are not happy with Museveni the person. This is utter nonsense, in my view Museveni has always single handedly been consistently able to solicit for votes even where there is no visible or tangible attributes to NRM in terms of development or projects. It is not my call but this is the beginning of the fishy trend.
Wiki leaks
She apparently had earlier informed a US diplomat that Museveni was tired and that there was an internal power struggle between her father and Minister Kutesa (Kutesa has since made it clear that he will not seek presidency), to the contrary Ninas father has said nothing other than that he is in the queue. Nina of course admits the conversation but not the content, but again we all know that the diplomats don’t lie since there is absolutely no benefit to the US. Again this is not my call but then there is no smoke without fire.
Ninas perceived Reverse Psychology.
I challenged her on her tone and public dissent and this is what she had to inbox me.......
‘’They all just want to be heard so that they feel there is light at the end of the tunnel so no need for defensive tactics.
This is my opinion, you may choose to defer as is your right, but try and put yourself in their shoes and then bring them over to you. Never give up trying, just pick where you can score and where they are wasting your time you ignore or hit delete button before it becomes personal.’’
‘’ Have you tried using reverse psychology? Have you noticed, that I don't take an extremely enthusiastic approach? You are able to get people to pull down the high walls they have built.’’
There are a few more but the above 2 stand out as persuasive evidence of the Ninas 2 faces and creates grave doubts on her credibility and trustworthiness.
Double Standards
A person and or persons were shot and killed at her residence. We know that these persons were not armed, no investigations, nothing at all. Nina has labelled them intruders and that they were killed in defence of the Mbabazis. We also know that one of the bodies had bullet wounds in the back, which suggests that they were fleeing. There are reasonable responses in the way police deals with unarmed persons, in high walls or on the street. On the other side of reality the majority of Ugandans don’t live in high perimeter walls and yet the police has a duty to protect these people, the public and their property, the ones who don’t enjoy the luxury of body guards. If one destroys their shop and that will be the end of their livelihood but clearly Nina is not concerned.
Nina never at any point criticised the police and or helped or revealed the details of this so called intruder, we don’t know whether he left a family and young children, neither did Nina find out, dead men don’t speak so technically we will never know anything.
My opinion
My opinion is that Nina Mbabazi has got intentions, ulterior motives to the best but what is becoming increasingly clear is the fact that she is not supporting President Museveni and she is working with the opposition to create an impression that all is not well inside NRM since she in her capacity is considered by many as an insider she will seem plausible.
In the alternative at a probable worst case scenario is that as a Trojan, she is splitting the party from inside, she is allying with the opposition by reigniting the hima, mwairu wars with the bairu spear heading Mbabazi as a takeover from Museveni with a government that incorporates FDC. Either way your opinion swings, Nina is not to be trusted.
Family influence in our country’s politics.
There is nothing illegal, nothing wrong with having Nina meddle with our minds and politics but what you should be asking yourself is....is it politically correct that we have to harbour continuance of family influence at a time where the majority of the countries are clearly saying no.
Mugerwa James
London
No comments:
Post a Comment