{UAH} NRM money in UNAA

In a previous post, I promised to share my views on how the NRM is using its money to dominate UNAA. In 2013, I run for UNAA president and got lists of folks that had attended past convention.  I called about 5,000 people and I keep a spreadsheet of each person's response. 80% of those that did not want to return to UNAA, told me the NRM had taken over UNAA. I asked why and I got 2 responses:     In the interest of time and space, I'll present facts as I see them.  Each person can draw their own conclusions.  

1.the NRM donates slightly over $100,000 to UNAA. $50,000 is for UNAA and $50,000 for UNAA affiliates.  No one can tell you what the money does. In the past, unsubstantiated claims were made that NRM money subsidizes the convention costs but see 2 & 3 below.

2.  the  UNAA convention costs about $120 per person. 

3. On average, each delegate to the convention pays about $230. i.e delegates pay more than enough to cover their convention costs without the NRM money.

4. Since the NRM money does NOT cover convention costs, you'd think that it sitting in UNAA's accounts.  However, each year, UNAA shows that it is used up ALL the money collected, including the NRM money!

5. UNAA used to be apolitical. Then in the late 90s, Mengo and the NRM had contentious talks that broke down just before that year's UNAA convention. This coincided with UNAA's dream to seek money from the NRM. The NRM promised to give UNAA money...but it came at a price: NRM was given a platform (main speaker) to castigate Mengo for the failed talks.  Mengo was NOT allowed to give its view. Several pro-Mengo members of UNAA were upset and refused to come back to UNAA.  NRM also used the main speech to attack other opposition groups (this still happens every year) NRM also demanded for a list of all delegates (this still happens today and in London too).  To protect its investment, NRM worked to ensure that its members were in charge of UNAA (e.g ambassador Kamunanwire said he'd not give UNAA the check if Frank Musisi won). Seeing the danger, in 2007, I suggested that Kla voters should not vote. My views were rejected.  In a certain year, a senior NRM minister asked "NRM candidates" for UNAA president to unite so that the NRM votes are not split (he claimed that about 150 voters from Kla would get behind one person).  Both refused and said NRM should back whoever did well in the debates. One of them did well in debates and all NRM voters run to him and he won. I renewed my pleas that we should not allow voters from Kla to determine UNAA's leadership.  It was put in the 2010 Constitution.  But the NRM was not lazy...they also included a clause that membership would be separate from convention fees.  They also included a clause that the EC would charge candidates any amount it wanted for standing! 

the EC set exorbitant fees for candidates e.g my candidate fees were far higher than what I had paid to attend the convnetion (the NRM was said the get funds from the embassy to pay the exorbitant fees for its candidates).  Then they set very high fees for membership (again the NRM covered membership fees fir its members...eg in 2013, almost 90% of NRM members that registered from Dallas paid on the SAME day).  Then they placed their members in strategic positions in leadership...eg though we'd been told that membership lists would be public, a members' list was hidden during the weeks when the 90% paid membership). 95% of the NRM members were not eligible to vote in 2013 but the constitution was amended illegally to allow to vote (Massachusetts law does NOT allow amending bylaws in a meeting where they changes are first introduced). At this time, one of the NRM folks bragged that UNAA demographics had changed for good. 

Then they tried to illegal smuggle one of their own onto the Council (as per the Board and EC).  After 2013, all non-NRM members were purged from leadership and blocked from access to UNAA's listserv (except 2 who moved to UNAACauses). 

In 2015, the NRM folks in charge refused to give a list of members to the EC until a few days before the elections. They also refused to give evidence of payment for membership. The EC decided to resign. The NRM USA quickly sent its leadership to man the UNAA elections!  Many of the NRM-USA leaders were not even UNAA members but they were given the responsibility of conducting UNAA elections! Through a combination of high membership fees, exorbitant candidate fees, purging of non-NRM members (that left for UNAACauses or stayed at home), and hiding members' lists, ALL elective positions were UNOPPOSED...and there there just 55 voters...i.e 18 EC members, about 15 outgoing UNAA leaders and their spouses, and the in-coming UNAA leaders and their spouses.  In effect, 20 or so NRM members had completed the takeover of UNAA. Interestingly, they had also unilaterally changed the Constitution so that in 2015, membership run for TWO years instead of one year!  

To be clear, I am NOT opposed to NRM members being in UNAA.  I have always said that members of all political parties should be welcome in UNAA but UNAA should not favor any party. 

thanks