Forgive Rukutana, Museveni has okayed the dialogue

We spent April 2018 running around the country searching for people’s views on the idea of holding a national dialogue. We did Masaka, Mbarara, Kabale, Gisoro, Rukungiri, Bushenyi, Kasese and Fort Portal. The second leg took us to Jinja, Iganga, Mbale, Nakapiririt, Moroto, Lira, Gulu and Arua.
In all these areas, most Ugandans didn’t seem to appreciate the material possibility of a Uganda without Mr Museveni at the summit of state power. In Kasese, the DISO took me aside and challenged me: Is this a social revolution effort aimed at regime change clothed as a national dialogue? I laughed him away…
Mr Museveni’s people should not complicate the idea of a national dialogue and make it sound as if it is about regime change. My idea and understanding of a national dialogue is to renew and rededicate our patriotic calling to Mother Uganda. Review our achievements, reflect on our current situation and seek new horizons to conquer.
I have a strong feeling that if Ugandans could just talk to each other, they could formulate the Uganda they want. A Uganda that owns her dirty past, accepts her not-so-clean present and a future shaped by her people

********************
Mr Rukutana (the abrasive deputy attorney general of Uganda) was a few days ago quoted as making uncharitable remarks about the national dialogue.
The remarks attributed to Mr Rukutana hurt me; and it was very clear the said Rukutana didn’t know the consequence of annoying a witch. Dear reader, my information is that the said Rukutana was ordered to withdraw his negative remarks and apologise.
A fly on the wall in a meeting hosted by Sommet du Pouvoir de l’Etat (Summit of State Power) has told me that Mr Rukutana apologised and expressed regret over his earlier negative remarks on the national dialogue. Witchcraft works, you know…
And as is always the wont of such people (need I call them politicians?), he blamed his negative remarks on the media; mbu they quoted him out of context. Hmmm!
Mr Rukutana scandalised the nation when he challenged the rationale of holding the national dialogue. But I would like to share a story from neighbouring climes.
‘We’ announced the capture of power in Rwanda on Monday, July 4, 1994. At that time, it was untenable to refer to the constitution of Rwanda as a guiding document.
‘We’ designed a document titled ‘The RPF Declaration of 1994’ as an instrument that gave the RPF the power to manage the affairs of the state. But ‘The RPF Declaration of 1994’ needed legitimacy: As you may know, it is one thing to have state power and quite another for that power to enjoy legitimacy. So, the ‘The RPF Declaration’ sought legitimacy in other documents. And that was Le Loi Fundamentale (the Constitution) and ‘the 1993 Arusha Peace Accords’. These two documents constituted the constitutional regime of Rwanda as at Sunday, January 1, 1994 (when Maj Gen Jovenale Habyarimana was sworn in as the president of the Government of National Unity).
Why am I bringing all this? Because the possibility of state collapse in Africa is always real. ‘We’ Rwandans had the our Arusha Peace Accords. What will ‘you’ Ugandans have in the unlikely event that you have ‘the Rwanda of 1994’ on your hands?
I will answer that question: A guiding document birthed through the Uganda National Dialogue and signed on by a multiplicity of interest groups would be a good place from which to seek help.
As former principal judge James Ogoola said, the dialogue is about Ugandans talking ‘to’ each other as opposed to talking ‘at’ each other.