Selfishness killing NRA bush war objectives, says Col. Mwesigye

You are one of the National Resistance Army fighters who launched the war against Obote to bring democracy, the rule of law and justice. Do you think the group has diverted from these original ideals to selfish interests like accumulation of wealth?

You are right that I’m one of the NRA historicals. First of all, NRM as an institution has not diverted from the original mission. But some individuals have not measured to the task. They have decided to pursue personal interests. But as a party, we are still pursuing the ideals that took us to the bush.

Who are those individuals that have moved away from the correct line that took you to the bush?

No, no. I can’t name them. It’s not my duty to mention them.

What kind of punishment do you think such individuals deserve?

You see a revolution is like eating food. When you eat it, the body digests it and assimilates what is useful to the body and excretes the useless part. This is a long time-tested method. Those who get diverted from the revolution, either because of pursuance of selfish interests or any other reason, get out and the revolution continues.

You may not mention them but we have seen some individuals who participated in the NRA struggle and have been consistently mentioned whenever there is a corruption scandal. Are these the individuals you are talking about?

There are laws in place but I have a bit of a quarrel with some of them. When somebody is accused of being corrupt or committing a crime, he is subjected to the courts of law after investigations have been carried out. But during this process, there is a lot of maneuvering and that’s how some of these individuals manipulate the process and get away. I think if we could strengthen the laws against corruption, especially investigations, may be it could help to reduce or minimise the manipulation.

The ministers accused of taking bribes from oil companies have not resigned despite strong recommendations by Parliament. Do you see this as contempt of Parliament?

We have not, as Members of Parliament, obtained vivid evidence implicating these ministers that they actually took bribes. Parliament in its wisdom instituted a committee to do the investigations. Let’s wait for the committee to finish its work and Parliament will take it from there. It would be unfair to force these people to resign. They are not guilty until proven guilty. At the moment, there is no concrete evidence to pin them down that they actually took bribes. On contempt of Parliament, we are still looking at our rules and procedures to define what contempt of Parliament is. Our rules of procedure are silent on contempt of Parliament. But morally and politically and I have said this before that I find it hurting to see my party being bashed, demonised and condemned in the eyes and minds of the public because of these individuals.

Won’t it be good for them to step aside and allow the investigations to take place and if they are exonerated they go back to their offices?
That was our wish. But they said there is no law that compels them to step aside. They say you are not guilty until proven guilty. Let’s wait for the committee to finish its investigations.

You recently took a strong position saying these ministers should “swallow their pride” and step aside to allow investigations to take place. Have you backtracked?
That was my position at that time because I have said it before that if they had stepped aside it would have reduced the accusations and damage it has caused to our party and our leaders. This would have reduced pressure on the party.

Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi said if he left, government programmes would collapse. Does this mean that ‘he is the government and the government is him’ as some people interpreted his statement?

No, no. I don’t think he said that. He knows the government is bigger than individuals and of course programmes cannot be paralysed because the government work is not done by one individual.

Are you satisfied with government’s effort to fight corruption?
If you put a weighing scale and measured the NRM efforts to fight corruption against efforts by the past governments to fight the same vice, I think NRM has distinguished itself in the fight against corruption. The NRM leadership has been strong and clear on the fight because it has put institutions and laws in place though they are sometimes manipulated. There is a law on the Leadership Code of conduct which requires public officials to declare their wealth and some of them have seen the wrath of it for failure to declare their wealth. We have the Inspectorate General of Government which has prosecuted several senior government officials.
The Directorate of Criminal Investigations and police as the bigger institution have been strengthened to carry out investigations whenever corruption allegations come up. Currently, the media can publish any story - something that never used to happen in the past. If you total all these, the government has really put in place mechanisms to fight corruption though there might be some weaknesses.
In the past, you wouldn’t talk about the ministers or the President. Writing a story on a powerful leader meant signing your death warrant but today you publish critical stories and nothing happens. I think the setting up of all these institutions and the instruments in place demonstrates that the government is willing to fight corruption. But like I said, some individuals use the loopholes in the laws to commit crimes.
It’s true there is CID and IGG but the problem is that people say there is no political will to fight corruption even when these institutions have evidence on senior government officials and in the end some of these same institutions set up by the government become toothless.
If the political will wasn’t there, these institutions wouldn’t have been formed. Sometimes the general public confuses the government because when the former Vice President was arrested and charged, for alleged misuse of Chogm funds the public condemned government. We even saw a big number of people visiting him in prison including the Archbishop of the Catholic Church. Were they sending signals that the former Vice President was not guilty? I don’t know.
I think such visits to such people bog down the efforts to fight corruption because they bring sympathy. Nobody condemned these visits. We didn’t see major media houses condemning the visits in their editorials. They instead condemned the IGG. They condemned the government. I think even the media should come out and condemn such acts. Yes, the media is not supposed to take positions but through editorials they can raise questions.

The reason why people were condemning the arrest and remanding of the former Vice President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya was that it was selective prosecution by the IGG.
But they are all in court. We have seen all those who are accused being paraded in court. Why would you call that selective prosecution?

Why do you think President Museveni defends the Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi every time he is accused of corruption?
I don’t think he protects him. In fact he has defended everybody as long as he has enough ground and reason to do so. If CID comes up with evidence against Mr Mbabazi or any other person, I don’t think the President can stand on it’s way to block the arrest or leveling charges against whoever is accused. But sometimes he comments as a citizen and his comments do not mean exoneration of the accused. I think he is entitled to making his opinion as a Ugandan.

But isn’t it interference for him to give an opinion that contradicts the works of the institutions like the IGG and police which his government has set up to fight the vice?
He has been proved right sometimes. We have seen cases where he has come out to give his opinion and he has been vindicated. As the President when he sees something going wrong he gives his opinion.

There are those who say that the differences in NRM, for instance that between Mr Mbabazi one side and Gen. Jim Muhwezi and Gen. Kahinda Otafiire on the other, stem from the bush. Could these be just historical personal wars and not genuine concerns on corruption?
I don’t think they had differences. If there are any differences, they must have emerged after the bush. I would also have known. There were no differences in the bush. What is happening now is not related to what happened in the bush.

How were you handling corruption or indiscipline cases in the bush?
First of all, there were no resources for the fighters to steal. Yes, there were cases of drinking alcohol. But I don’t remember any corruption case when we were still in the bush. People become corrupt because of the fight over resources. What helped us in the bush was strong political education and mechanisms to solve differences. We would sit in meetings called Barazazas or Mukutano wa hadhara at all levels including the high command, army council, units and we would come out with solutions in case there was indiscipline. That’s how we managed to maintain cohesion during the struggle. These meetings were like a cleansing process. Those who killed people in the struggle were killed.
We had an established code of conduct and within this code; we had to recognise areas of subversion, sectarianism, tribalism and outlined them as evils. We made sure that everybody was aware that those were evils that could have disorganised our revolution. We really fought them. The main engine was political education because we constantly educated our soldiers and civilians in the areas we were operating in. But now, there is no more mchaka mchaka (political education). If there was intensified political education some of these cases would be minimised.

Do you think the spirit of togetherness and proficiency to solve sectarian, tribal and political differences which you had in the bush has died out?
The cohesion and spirit of togetherness has really been reduced because everyone is struggling on their own. They are trying to survive. Certainly cohesion and togetherness has greatly reduced. But we are aware and fighting to bring that unity back.
So, you are saying the need to survive and the struggle to make ends meet has killed cohesion and togetherness?
I believe so because at that time we had one common enemy and that brought us together. But now people seem to have different appreciation of who is the enemy and I believe that opening up of multiparty could have brought problems. When we were still in Movement, we all paid our allegiance to the Movement. But the opening up of the political space diluted some of our principles.

Do you want President Museveni to retire in 2016?
I really don’t personally believe in deadlines. To me, we should see his value and contribution. He is not an ordinary person. His versatility is unique. He can smartly discuss global economy with the best World Bank economists and then also mingle well with local people at the grassroots. That has been his strength and there are very few leaders with such qualities. We should really understand the gift within President Museveni and utilize it to build a stronger Uganda. But of course time will come when he will retire.

Where do you see Uganda after Museveni?
Uganda will continue stronger because we have a foundation. For the last 25 years, NRM has built more durable roads than any other government before. It has built more hospitals, schools, universities, created more jobs and provided good environment for growth of the media than any other previous government. But sometimes critics don’t see this. If you are to measure, NRM has more tangible achievements on one side and fewer mistakes on another. But NRM has spent more time in power than all the previous governments added together and some people say less has been achieved.

Why couldn’t those governments stay in power? What was the problem? It’s because they were incapable of delivering.

Where do you think this government has made mistakes?
Our leadership on top has made fewer mistakes but we have technocrats in governments who seem to have a different agenda.
They are the ones in charge of the implementation of government projects. But they seem to be stifling every government effort to deliver services to the people. The implementers of the good government policies are letting us down.

Who is Col. Fred Mwesigye?

He is RO27 in the UPDF, meaning he was one of the 27 NRA armed fighters who attacked Kabamba barracks on February 6, 1981. Born in September 1950 in Mbarara, col. Mwesigye attended Kazo Primary School in 1950s. He went to Makobore High school for Ordinary Level and later Kigezi High School for Advanced level in 1960s.

He joined Front for National Salvation in 1979. He joined Makerere Business School and graduated in 2003 with bachelors’ degree in Business Administration. While still in the bush he was second in command of 7th Battalion. When NRA captured power he was given the responsibility of receiving surrendering forces. He later appointed the general manager of Luweero industries.

In 1994, Col. Mwesigye, then a Major, was appointed managing director of the UPDF National Enterprise Corporation, the corporation he managed until last year when he resigned to join politics as Member of Parliament for Nyabushozi. He replaced Mary Mugyenyi after unsuccessfully standing against her in 1996.