{UAH} The follies of my old good friend John Nagenda - People & Power

http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/PeoplePower/The-follies-of-my-old-good-friend-John-Nagenda/-/689844/3162024/-/cl1bt9/-/index.html

The follies of my old good friend John Nagenda

A friend alerted me to a scribble attributed to my good old friend New Vision columnist John Nagenda, apparently attempting to criticise me for observing that the Supreme Court did not inquire into Amama Mbabazi's petition as required by the Constitution and judicial wisdom.

Nagenda is fond of relying on ancient historical utterances to comment on modern ethics and methods of work. I will therefore pay him a compliment by citing the words of the late former cabinet minister of the United Kingdom, Dennis Healey: To be attacked by John Nagenda is "like being savaged by a dead sheep."
Previously, Nagenda provoked me with an illogical utterance and I compared it to the fallacy which translates, "All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog."

To old Nagenda, the result justifies all means. Nagenda is a long suffering and grieving scribbler who is sustained by rude and offensive language. I will, however, spare him in this column and let sleeping dogs lie. As Nagenda meandered helplessly in the intricacies of the law and adjudication with little knowledge, he reminded the reader of the old adage "fools rush where angels fear to tread".

Constitutional experts and election law jurists have commended my observations on what happened in the 2016 elections and thereafter. I still maintain that the Supreme Court did not comply with the provisions of the Uganda Constitution and laws when determining the Amama Mbabazi petition.

Nagenda prides himself as knowledgeable in the English language. I challenge him to read and internalise how English dictionaries define and describe the terms, "enquire" and "findings". Only then can Nagenda acquire some rudimentary knowledge to understand the reasons why so many experts in the field of constitutional and electoral laws, politics and governance have equally criticised the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court on Mbabazi's petition.

I equally share Nagenda's loss of our dear mutual friend, Eriya Kategaya. However, let it be known that the values and interests I shared with Kategaya are totally different from those he shared with Nagenda.

Trickling results
My friend John may not have watched NBS TV on February 19 when the provisional results of the presidential elections started being broadcast. As results came in, presidential candidate Museveni was in the lead closely followed by presidential candidate Kizza Besigye.

At this stage, the two candidates were so close to one another that they were separated by a small margin of percentage. Dr Besigye was climbing up to 50 per cent while President Museveni was perilously going down to 50 per.

The TV showed Museveni having gone down to just more than 50 per cent and Besigye having climbed to more than 45 per cent. Suddenly the process was interrupted by an invisible hand. Later, Museveni was shown to have suddenly gone up to 63.9 per cent but Besigye had gone down to 32.5 per cent.

Was it by magic or the powers of gods! Many Ugandans who watched that episode will testify to the phenomenon. It is just possible that Nagenda did not see this spectacle or read this column the following Sunday where the article was headed "fact or fiction". Nagenda, instead of quarrelling with your friend George, be humble and patriotic enough to call for that broadcast from NBS TV.

Then there was an episode witnessed and reported in all the media where candidate Besigye suddenly appeared at Naguru and pointed at a house where he claimed rigging of the 2016 elections was in progress!

Instead of welcoming and asking him to lead them to the suspects and scene of the crime of electoral malpractices, the police became agitated and very angry and forced him into their own vehicle and drove him back to his Kasangati home. There ended the episode.

Ugandans are not as blind and dumb as some people think of them. I also noted that in the issues framed by the Supreme Court to enquire into, compliance with the Constitution was conspicuously omitted.

People who are knowledgeable in the law and who recall the issues the Supreme Court listed as essential for their inquiry and findings in 2001 and 2006 will always wonder why in 2016 compliance with the supreme law of the country was not regarded as important in the alleged malpractices.

Prof Kanyeihamba is a retired Supreme Court judge. gwkany@yahoo.com

Sent from Gook's iPatch!

"What you are we once were, what we are   you shall be!"

An inscription on the walls of a Roman catacomb.