So says Uganda’s Daily Monitor:
The First Lady Ms Janet Museveni, was behind the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, US Ambassador to Uganda, Jerry Lanier, said in a leaked diplomatic cable.
The revelation was made by Senior Presidential Adviser John Nagenda, during a discussion with a US embassy political officer.
In Mr Lanier’s comments which were leaked on September 1, by whistleblower Wikileaks, Mr Nagenda is quoted to have told the US embassy that President Museveni is “quite intemperate” when it comes to homosexuality, but the First Lady, who he described as ‘a very extreme woman,’ “is ultimately behind the bill.”
Mr Nagenda further told the US government that the bill’s most vociferous public supporter, the ex-Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo, was responsible for a campaign of mass arrests – known by the Swahili term ‘panda gari’ – during the Obote II regime.
Mr Nagenda said Buturo is using the anti-homosexuality legislation to redefine himself and “will do anything in his power to be a populist.” He advised the US and other donors to refrain from publicly condemning the Bill as this fuels the anti-homosexual and anti-western rhetoric of the Bill’s proponents.
When contacted, Mr Nagenda agreed to the contents in the Wikileaks report saying it is a well representation of what he discussed with the US embassy political officer.
“There must be a word here and there which is inaccurate but the overall all spirit of what I said is well represented,” he said. “I had a conversation with the political officer who came to my house and we discussed issues about the homosexuality bill.”
Reading the rest of the article, it appears that President and Mrs. Museveni were at odds on the issue. The President was assuring the U.S. that the bill would be derailed or weakened and Mrs. Museveni was pushing the matter forward.
If these leaks represent reality, it appears that there are powerful forces in Uganda who will work against the bill but do not want to be viewed as favoring gays. Recent Cabinet actions to quash the bill seem to be extensions of Museveni’s promise to the US. The Parliament’s reaction was to declare the bill to be off limits to the Executive branch. With this back drop, it will be interesting to watch who steps up to advocate for and against the bill.
Just seen this: http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/09/ugandan-presidents-wife-behind-kill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SaveMehdiKazemi+%28LGBT+asylum+news%29&utm_content=FaceBook
The Buturo angle is interesting. I didn’t realize he was quite so involved with Obote’s savagery (though I did know he was an ‘Obote boy’, and was in the UK in the early 1990s – i.e. in the early M7 years).
Saying that aid might be reallocated is not ‘blackmail’. How Washington or London or Berlin or Stockholm or Ottawa or Oslo or The Hague or … decides how to allocate aid is a matter for Washington or London or Berlin …
If giving aid to country Y is deemed more effective and appropriate than giving aid to country X, then the diversion of funds from country X to country Y follows as a logical policy decision. Such determinations are ultimately matters for the countries making them – an ‘internal matter’ if you like. Other countries are of course free to criticize any such decisions if they choose to do so.
Just seen this: http://madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/09/ugandan-presidents-wife-behind-kill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SaveMehdiKazemi+%28LGBT+asylum+news%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Saying that aid might be reallocated is not ‘blackmail’. How Washington or London or Berlin or Stockholm or Ottawa or Oslo or The Hague or … decides how to allocate aid is a matter for Washington or London or Berlin …
If giving aid to country Y is deemed more effective and appropriate than giving aid to country X, then the diversion of funds from country X to country Y follows as a logical policy decision. Such determinations are ultimately matters for the countries making them – an ‘internal matter’ if you like. Other countries are of course free to criticize any such decisions if they choose to do so.
Actually, John Nagenda’s statement is inaccurate. I would rather say that Mrs Museveni supported the 2009 version of the Bahati Bill. She was definitely not behind it. Her support for the bill was a well-known fact and was always in the public domain.
This is just conjecture on the part of John Nagenda. I have never seen Buturo as anything, but a light weight politician. His vociferous rejection of gayism is no different from that of an average Ugandan. I doubt it had anything to do with being populist per se. He genuinely dislikes gayism and was not afraid to say so publicly even when his colleagues were scared to offend the donor blackmailers.
Donors are too arrogant to remain silent publicly on such matters. I am sure the US embassy officials stared at John Nagenda with the contempt he deserves before continuing with their public blackmail of the Ugandan people.
Actually, John Nagenda’s statement is inaccurate. I would rather say that Mrs Museveni supported the 2009 version of the Bahati Bill. She was definitely not behind it. Her support for the bill was a well-known fact and was always in the public domain.
This is just conjecture on the part of John Nagenda. I have never seen Buturo as anything, but a light weight politician. His vociferous rejection of gayism is no different from that of an average Ugandan. I doubt it had anything to do with being populist per se. He genuinely dislikes gayism and was not afraid to say so publicly even when his colleagues were scared to offend the donor blackmailers.
Donors are too arrogant to remain silent publicly on such matters. I am sure the US embassy officials stared at John Nagenda with the contempt he deserves before continuing with their public blackmail of the Ugandan people.
The Buturo angle is interesting. I didn’t realize he was quite so involved with Obote’s savagery (though I did know he was an ‘Obote boy’, and was in the UK in the early 1990s – i.e. in the early M7 years).