Uganda: Makunika – “Re: Disciplinary Action on Dr. Stella Nyanzi” (31.03.2017)

Ethiopian State of Emergency continues!

As of 29. March 2017 the continued State of Emergency from 2016 continues, as the oppression and military enterprise into Amhara and Oromia continues. The speed of this proves the neglect and little care for the civilians, as the military, Agazi squad and other battalions has been stationed in the provinces that clearly are tired of the rulers and their regime in Addis Ababa.

As stated in Parliament in Addis on the 29th March:

“Ethiopia’s House of Peoples’ Representatives voted to extend the State of Emergency by four months on Wednesday (March 29), passing a bill entitled “State of Emergency Proclamation for the Maintenance of Public Peace and Security Renewal” (…) “This extends the proclamation decreed in October last year. The Minister of Defense and Secretary of the Command Post responsible for enforcing the State of Emergency, Siraj Fegessa, told Parliament that the Command Post, chaired by Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn, wanted to see the emergency decree extended to reinforce “the peace and stability which has been gained since Parliament declared the State of the Emergency” (…) “The State of Emergency has been amended twice since October, with the lifting of the curfews imposed on areas close to industrial sites and major development projects. More recently, it has also ended the arrest of suspects without court warrants, and lifted travel restrictions for diplomats” (…) “The vote this week follows the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament two weeks ago that “the majority of people surveyed by the government wanted to see the emergency law extended.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ethiopia, 31.03.2017).

So even if this is a softer ban and less limiting of the public will and public opinion, still the clear picture is that the dissidents of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), will certainly get into arrests, detained or even taken away. The amount of citizens arrested during the period has amounted to 20,000 by some estimation. That is the size of decent town put into camps to silence their disobedient selves.

Good that somebody reacts to the measure:

“The Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Ethiopia (CAHDE) is considering to mount a legal challenge against the legality of the state of emergency and its extension before the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and other relevant international human rights forums” (…) “We believe that the emergency did not meet the requirements of Ethiopian law and applicable international legal standards. Even if one assumes that there were reasonable grounds to believe that exceptional measures were necessary to respond to the ‘threat’ represented by the protests, the continued enforcement and extension of emergency measures is totally unjustified and disproportionate to the exigencies of the circumstances” (CAHDE, 31.03.2017).

So even Human rights observers and NGOs are reacting to the measure made by the Central Government to silence the provinces and regions who are in turmoil, where the army has used force and the police has rounded up locals. Where the cellphone coverage, internet that has been for long time disconnected by the regime and the other needed infrastructure has dwindled away. This is happening while the citizens are scrambling to survive in the efforts of the government to destroy their livelihoods and will to stand-up against them. If the government we’re democratic than they would accept that Amhara and Oromia we’re addressing the misgivings and the maladministration of the regions, while trying to negotiate and even give way to civilians. Instead, they are sending weapons, soldiers and turning of the electricity, and phone-lines. Such noble creatures in the EPRDF.

However, we do know now that the EPRDF now fears demonstrations and dissidents so much that would kill their own, create lack of food and use the extended drought to see who will be loyal subjects, as the oppression and extended security operation inside the regions has not stopped and doesn’t seem to have an idea of when to stop. The reality is that the false flag of wishful peace, when they themselves pick up the guns or the bracelets to detain or kill fellow citizens. That is the end game of the Ethiopian tragedy, where to many lives are lost for wanting a government that cares about more than their own pockets. As seen repeatedly, that they do not care and surely the citizens wants someone govern with accountability and transparency in Amhara and Oromia. That is surely not happening now! Peace.

Opinion: Dear Swedes stick to IKEA, please forget the talks between Museveni and Besigye!

I don’t know if I should laugh or cry, but what sort of discussion should be from people who gave us IKEA, Volvo and tiny meatballs. We know that the Swedish needs to prove their worth in the world on other venues, than the Eurovision and hair-styles of Zlatan Ibrahamovic. Still, the recent of willingly sending Pro Bono people to mediate between the long serving, self reliance and thief in chief, the National Resistance Movement wizard, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the Opposition leader, creator of Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) Dr. Kizza Besigye are supposed to talk between cups of tea and biscuits provided with Swedish hospitality.

The Swedish Government has confirmed that it has been approached and, has accepted, to mediate planned talks between President Museveni and former presidential candidate, Dr Kizza Besigye” (…) “The government of Sweden is involved in supporting and promoting dialogue in many parts of the world, as part of its policy of conflict prevention and support to peace processes. Sweden has been asked to facilitate a possible dialogue in Uganda,” Swedish Foreign ministry spokeswoman Katarina Byrenius Roslund, noted in reply to email inquiries from this newspaper. The “discussions are still at an early stage”, she noted, adding: “When there is concrete progress to communicate, we will do so” (…) “Ms Annika Söder, the Swedish state secretary, has been agreed on by the principals as the mediator for the expected talks. She flew into the country last week and held separate back-to-back meetings with the President and Dr Besigye on Thursday and Friday, respectively, in what knowledgeable sources described as “exploratory” (Butagira, 2017).

First and foremost, can the Swedes explain the content of tear-gas into public meetings, police blocking, detaining of FDC Youths, falsified charges against the FDC leadership, the Public Order Management Bill who is created to stop meeting of anyone else, than the loyal men of Museveni. How can there be talks between the parties?

Secondly, when every travel and meeting of FDC and Besigye is met with heavy police force, blocking of main roads and tear-gas when they congregate. What is there to discuss? What perimeter of Kasangati he is allowed to leave before it is an issue? What sort of ideas do the Swedes have in mind, except selling Volvo and SAAB to Uganda, instead of Isuzu and Toyota!

Seriously, that the Government of Sweden must either be blind or ill-minded if they think this will give way. If they know the history of Nairobi Talks of 1980s. When the National Resistance Army and the other parties gathered to iron out the differences. Than that was used to forge more way for the NRA agenda and silence the others with guns and ammo. Not generate peace without knowledge of Museveni landing on top. So this is in his blood and the blood that is shed for him to gain all power.

Global IDP Database wrote this about his negotiations:

In July 1985, conflict between some Langi and Acholi soldiers led to the overthrow of the Obote regime. The coup, which brought General Tito Okello to power, shattered the military alliance between the Acholi and Langi and escalated ethnic violence. The Okello regime invited all fighting groups and political parties to join the military government. Every armed group and political party, with the exception of the NRA, joined the administration. The NRA, however, engaged the regime in protracted peace negotiations held in Nairobi. In December 1985, the Nairobi Agreement was signed under the chairmanship of President Moi of Kenya. However, the Agreement was never implemented and Museveni seized power on the 25th January 1986” (Global IDP Database, P: 18, 2004).

So will the Swedish buy into the mantra that everything can be reassembled and rebuilt? Since they want to forge a relationship between Besigye and Museveni. Museveni, who rather take up guns and get rid of opposition and vowed last year to destroy the opposition. Well, I am sure the Swedish we’re busy finding ways to export designer materials, than following the post-election dogma of Museveni. Since a man who only believes “he is the only man with a vision”. That is the man who is supposed to co-operate and negotiate with an advisory! Really?

A man who doesn’t want to talk about succession and doesn’t want to speak about his lingering in charge. A man who has run a country and nation since 1986, has nothing more to win or to gain by playing soft. If he does so and the Swedish is dumb enough to buy into the fake wood and think they get mahogany, than they will offer donor-funding and possible other prices for the so-called negotiations between the NRM and FDC. Even as the FDC Headquarter we’re a year ago a crime scene and many members and leaders we’re detained on manufactured charges.

There shouldn’t be these sort of talks at this point, if so, than the Swedish are legitimizing the thieving of Museveni and his NRM elite. Does the Swedish government want that on their plate? Is that the Swedish people’s prideful mission to support and trust in a corrupt and militarized government, while they at the same time is using Besigye as pawn?

The Swedish government, if they care should back-off, go home to Stockholm. Cut their aid and stop the talks. As they will only give more way to dictator and his clientele at the Okello House. There aren’t anything else to give.

Did the Swedish government do any research and care about the track-record of the Museveni regime? Have they seen how many mysterious deaths and men who has worked close who has either had to flee or been detained by his regime? Have the Swedish considered their implications in establishing legitimacy of the current leadership? Who doesn’t care if they bankrupt their country? While they are driving expensive cars on the State coffers?

Does the Swedish government need this win or this talks to gain international recognition, and not only sell IKEA furniture? Time to take the dozens pieces and assemble that the chairs in Umeå, and step away from Kampala.

Or do the Swedish government and their team no problem with losing their credibility for helping a fellow dictator? Peace.

Reference:

Butagira, Tabu – ‘Sweden to mediate Museveni, Besigye talks’ (29.03.2017) link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Sweden-to-mediate-Museveni–Besigye-talks/688334-3868674-b3fqil/index.html

Global IDP Database – ‘PROFILE OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT : UGANDA’ (17.06.2004)

PM Theresa May letter notifying that the United Kingdom are today triggering the Article 50 to the EU Council President Donald Tusk (29.03.2017)

European Parliament – Draft Motion for a Resolution for Brexit (29.03.2017)

Opinion: The ghost of the tyrant Henry VIII’s laws surface as Brexit looms and Tories seeks more power to become sovereign!

The ways of the Tories government to notify and to become independent from Europe and European Union, opens up the doors into the darkest alleys of their history. They are re-entering the darkest hours of the United Kingdoms history, when they are thinking of using the legislation of the tyrant and king Henry the VIIIs, the Tudor reign and most famous king. Who used all sorts of laws to oppress and silence the ones who wasn’t follow his orders. Therefore, that the modern day Parliamentarians and the Cabinet under Prime Minister Theresa May thinking of unleashing the tyrants powers and extend their power. Show’s the lack of democratic flexibility of the current leadership in White Hall. When they cannot through consensus and through procedure, and parliamentary sessions with the elected leadership of the kingdom.

That seems hard as the Brexit, makes hurdles and ways the Government and Conservative Party didn’t anticipate, as they are continuing to postpone and unleash uncertainty on the public. Together with the extended use of time, as well as the government doesn’t reveal their ideal scenarios. So there isn’t public knowledge of how the current leadership and cabinet wants to succeed in their Brexit negotiations. The White Paper on the Brexit earlier this year, was more a wish-list, than an initial document saying what could be interfering and could be problematic. The interesting is that the House of Lords comes with better work and stronger paper assessing their legality and use of laws to become sovereign from European Union. Though, with warning effect if the Conservative Party plans to use the legislation of the tyrant Henry VIII. If anyone would have heard that Angela Merkel thought of using draconian laws of Nazi-Germany, it would have created havoc inside Germany and also abroad. The same should be happening, when the United Kingdom thinks of using Tudor Dynasty worst laws to break from Europe. There should be other ways to regain freedom and make it in a transparent and accountable way. Just take a look at what the House of Lords wrote!

What the Minister needs to do before Brexit:

The Minister sign a declaration in the Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument amending the body of EU law stating whether the instrument does no more than necessary to ensure that the relevant aspect of EU law will continue to make sense in the UK following the UK’s exit from the EU, or that it does no more than necessary to implement the outcome of negotiations with the EU” (…) “The Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument sets out clearly what the EU law in question currently does (before Brexit); what effect the amendments made by the statutory instrument will have on the law (as it will apply after Brexit) or what changes were made in the process of conversion; and why those amendments or changes were necessary” (HL Paper 123, P: 4, 2017).

Henry VIIIs legislation:

in the context of environmental legislation … it is particularly important that, where existing EU laws have been implemented into UK laws (either by way of primary or secondary legislation), these are in the main amended or repealed only by Parliament, or only after sufficient parliamentary scrutiny has been provided. It must only be in exceptional and limited circumstances that Henry VIII clauses are used to amend existing environmental legislation or that transposed by way of the GRB in secondary legislation” (HL Paper 123, P:15, 2017).

Should this occur, the UK will need to have a version of EU law, amended to fit the circumstances of a non-negotiated Brexit, put in place by the date of the UK’s exit from the EU. The Government must give careful consideration to what kind of contingency plan would be needed in order to deal with any rejection of the Brexit deal by either side” (HL Paper 123, P: 19, 2017).

We note, in addition, that the DPRRC has already considered the possibility of expanding the use of these strengthened scrutiny procedures. In the same report it states that “We have considered whether the strengthened scrutiny procedures covered in this Report might appropriately be made available in respect of delegated powers which, while they are not Henry VIII powers, nonetheless give Ministers discretion to legislate widely across important areas of public policy. This could provide Parliament with an enhanced scrutiny role over significant statutory instruments that would otherwise be subject only to the affirmative procedure. We draw this possibility to the attention of the House.” The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ would seem a suitable candidate for such an expanded use of a strengthened scrutiny procedure” (HL Paper 123, P: 32, 2017).

So if you thought the House of Lords reports devastating enough. There are enough of articles and words on the legislation that the Conservatives thinks of using. That the HM Government should not think again of using it. As the legacy of the king and his rule wasn’t in an hour of peace or justice. It was more of tyranny and devastation in the will of one man. Now the same could open as the altering of power from the chambers of Westminster, could easily damage the will of people to support the cabinet and the parliament. When they know that they can take the power without hesitation and without thinking vetoing the rule, as they continue to control the kingdom. Certainly, the people of United Kingdom, did not vote for the supremacy of the cabinet and parliament over the people. They have voted for the Parliament and their members to represent them and their interests. That is not withhold to take control and overrule the public, as the laws of Henry VIII does!

What Henry VIII did:

Yet, contrary to the popular perception, it was the Statute of Proclamations itself which demonstrated that in Tudor England there were at least perceived to be some limitations on royal power. The statutory programme of the Reformation Parliament changed England. Maybe it did give Henry VIII everything he wanted, but he needed Parliamentary consent. In the 1539 Parliament itself, the Act of Six Articles defined doctrinal matters as the king wished. Literally. His own handwriting covers the draft manuscript. In brief it was Catholicism, with the King replacing the Pope. And how did the Merrie Monarch, as Head of the Church, exercise his new powers? Shortly afterwards three Catholics were hanged drawn and quartered for treason: three Protestants were burnt alive for heresy. And they were dragged to their deaths, two by two along the filthy road; one martyr of each faith was carried on the hurdle side-by-side with the martyr of another” (Rt. Hon. Lord Judge, 2016).

Against use of Henry VIII:

Moreover, it hardly needs stressing that the proposed use of Henry VIII powers in legislating for Brexit would dramatically undercut the very basis on which its supporters sought this momentous change. The sovereignty of Parliament was central to the case of those campaigning to leave the EU. The use of Henry VIII powers attacks the foundations of this principle, strengthening the executive and weakening Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty demands real Parliamentary scrutiny” (Liberty, 2017).

So when you have a King like Henry VIII and his legacy, that the a modern day Parliament wants to use his legislation and his use of powers. Proves the lost democratic values within the Parliament and White Hall. That they are revising their place in Europe, by going back in time to a King and his legislation, seems preposterous, still in our day and age. The Theresa May government doesn’t care about how and why, instead of the result. They don’t care if their ways of battling the uncertain with tools of tyrants, make them open the ways of tyranny.

Since this sort legislation and laws should have been turned away and only remembered for their aggressively attacks on society and giving powers to the king. That this is sort of function the Cabinet and Conservative Government seeks before notifying European Union and the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Certainly, is this the legacy the parliament and Conservative Party of our day want to leave behind? That they resurfaced ghost draconian legislation to regain more power and give them ability to overpower and control the laws as they leave the European Union. So, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, should have the common sense and stop the laws and the applications made by the rule of Henry VIII time. That they are in the minds and considered proves the lacking trust they have in consensus and modern democratic values, as the Conservative Government thinks these sort of laws is in place when they repeal the EU legislation that is part of the UK laws of modern day Britain. Peace.

Reference:

HL Paper 123 – ‘The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and delegated powers’ (07.03.2017), House of Lords, United Kingdom

Rt. Hon. Lord Judge – ‘Ceding Power to the Executive; the Resurrection of Henry VIII’ (12.04.2016)

Liberty – ‘Liberty’s Written Submissions to the House of Lords Constitution Committee Inquiry into the Legislative Process: Delegated Powers’ (January 2017)

IGAD: Nairobi Declaration on Durable Solutions for Somali Refugees and Reintegration of Returnees in Somalia (25.03.2017)

 

European Commission registers two European Citizens’ Initiatives on the rights of Union citizens after Brexit and rejects one on preventing Brexit (22.03.2017)

Brussels, 22 March 2017

The European Commission has today registered two European Citizens’ Initiatives concerning the rights of Union citizens in the context of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU and rejected a third proposal entitled ‘Stop Brexit’.

The first invites the Commission to separate Union citizenship from Member State nationality in light of the UK withdrawal from the EU (“EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis”), and the second calls on the Commission to uphold the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the European Union (“Retaining European Citizenship”). At the same time, the Commission has rejected as inadmissible a third proposal calling on the Commission to prevent the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (“Stop Brexit”).

The Commission’s decisions concern the legal admissibility of the proposed initiatives. At this stage, the Commission has not examined the substance of the initiatives.

The Commission found that the “EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis” and the “Retaining European Citizenship” initiatives meet the conditions necessary for registration under the Regulation on European Citizens’ Initiatives. Both European initiatives call on the Commission to protect the status and rights of EU citizenship, in the context of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Commission attaches great importance to the underlying issue of providing certainty and security to the 4 million citizens (3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.2 million UK citizens in the EU) who are unsure of their future as a result of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the EU. While the Commission cannot propose secondary legislation aiming at granting EU citizenship to natural persons who do not hold the nationality of a Member State of the Union, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the rights of UK citizens in the EU after the withdrawal of the UK will be at the core of the upcoming Article 50 negotiations. The Commission will do its upmost to prevent EU citizens from being used as bargaining chips in the negotiations with the UK.

In the case of the “Stop Brexit” initiative, the Commission found that the conditions for registration were not met. Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly allows any Member State to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. While the Commission regrets the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, it respects the outcome of the referendum.

Next steps

The formal registration of the “Retaining European Citizenship initiative” will take place on 2 May and the registration of the “EU Citizenship for Europeans” initiative will take place on 27 March. In both cases, this will start a one-year process of collection of signatures in support of the proposed European Citizens’ Initiative by their organisers.

Background

European Citizens’ Initiatives were introduced with the Lisbon Treaty and launched as an agenda-setting tool in the hands of citizens in April 2012, upon the entry into force of the European Citizens’ Initiatives Regulation which implements the Treaty provisions. Under the Treaty, every citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European Citizens’ Initiative. The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple and user-friendly. The commitment of empowering citizens to deliver a better Europe was reiterated by President Juncker in his State of the Union address in September 2016.

The conditions for admissibility, as foreseen by the Regulation n° 211/2011 on the European Citizens’ Initiative, are that the proposed action does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, that it is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union.

Once formally registered, a European Citizens’ Initiative allows one million citizens from at least one quarter of EU Member States to invite the European Commission to propose a legal act in areas where the Commission has the power to do so.

If – and only if – a registered European Citizens’ Initiative receives the signatures of one million validated statements of support from at least seven Member States within a period of one year from the time it was registered, the Commission must decide whether or not it would act, and explain the reasons for that choice.

Ewan Mawarire: “Zimbabwe is like a dumped baby, orphaned and abused” (Footage) – (20.03.2017) #ThisFlag

“Zimbabwe is like a dumped baby, orphaned and abused. Because of the abuse we find it hard to trust. Don’t make us promises you can’t keep, all we need is genuine care. #ThisFlag” (Evan Mawarire, 20.03.2017)

Statement of IGAD Council of Ministers’ Consultation on the Current Situation in the Region (17.03.2017)