
The SPLM/SPLA IO Position on Joint Communique between SPLM/SPLA-IG and the UNSC Members who visited Juba



The original Leadership Code of Uganda where commencement 26th June 1992 in the early years of the National Resistance Movement; so the Government of Uganda need more to revised and amended as the Minister for Ethics Reverend Simon Lodoko has ideas to make the Leaders and Civil servants more ethical inspired. This done with amending a new law and making it stricter and giving the Ministry a strong Authority with a legal power as the law propose to change a very subtle committee who discuss proposed leadership breaches with Parliament and Minister; the Tribunal are having more ability to actually following the breaching and unethical behavior from leaders and their snitching ways. That is why the Tribunal gets revised from a measly Committee towards a powerful Tribunal!
Take a look at important issues that are wished revised and changed to make the 1992 law better and more control from the Central Government!
In the original –
Section 10:
(1): “A leader shall not put himself or herself in a position in which his or her personal interest conflicts with his or her duties and responsibilities”
In the new Amendment:
(1)“A gift or donation to a leader at any public or governmental occasion shall be treated as a gift or donation to the Government or the institution represented by the leader and shall be declared so to the Inspector General; but the Government or the institution shall keep an inventory of the gift”.
There is a giant different between putting himself in a conflict and getting a gift. The Conflict is by approaching an offer that might substantially discredit the decisions alters the judgement done by the leader of government or in any government institutions. That is different from becoming somebody who get gift and has to give it to the government and institution who the leader works for. The gifts system is normal in many states as the leader and civil servants represent the states and cannot take bribes of gifts and such therefore these laws exist to make sure gifts and donations doesn’t become an issue to secure the vote/regulation/license or use the government institution to gain more than the competitor that doesn’t give or donate to the government leader.
Therefore the rule change is healthy, but will it just be lawful text and followed up the current leadership and only done as PR stunt as the NRM Regime hasn’t really been showing talent for accountability and transparency other than stern warnings and when donor aid has been cut. Then the government has swallowed a few bloody court cases and showing grand-corruption to prove their ability to honest budgeting; while going back to office when the court are gone and the questions from donors are silent. Therefore I have doubt that this law has affect as the Auditor General and Inspector General of Government (IGG) doesn’t even dig deep into the current corruption; so this seem like beautiful words, but will they acted upon?
Create a Tribunal:
Other key ones are adding a Tribunal that the leaders and representatives for government institutions report to and follow the ethics of their actions. They will have a chairperson that is elected by the Parliament and the ones in Parliament cannot appoint a chairperson, unless they can appoint a High Judge of the High Court. Which is part of the new 19 Section in 19A and 19B; this Tribunal will be elected by the President and Public Service Commission; with approval of the Parliament (19C).
This Tribunal will follow the case if non-else party is available to fetch evidence and collect affidavits as long as they believe it is “subject cause”. They can even interrogate needed persons even “abroad”. New in 19R (5): “The Tribunal may make an order in to costs against any party, and the order shall be enforceable in the same manner as an order of the High Court”. So the Tribunal will get the same value as a Court Order to follow the cases and follow the alleged breaches of the Leadership Code.
The strictest clear rules on the Tribunal is in the 19Z:
“A Person who –
Another change is the total replacement of this part of the law:
“20. Report of the committee.
Upon the completion of an inquiry conducted by the committee or upon receipt of a report of findings submitted by the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General under section 19, the committee shall make a report to the authorised person; and in a case where the committee or the Inspector General of Government or the Inspector General of Police or the Auditor General has found that the leader whose conduct was inquired into is in breach of this Code, the committee shall make such recommendations as it considers appropriate as to action to be taken against the leader.
The committee’s report under subsection (1) shall be made public and shall state whether the leader is or is not in breach of this Code in respect of the specific matters inquired into by the committee and, in the case of a breach, shall set out—
the nature of the breach which the leader has been found to have committed;
the circumstances of the breach;
a brief summary of the evidence received during the inquiry into the breach; and
its findings and recommendations.”
This with the amendment changes to this:
“(1) The Registrar of the Tribunal shall inform the authorised person in writing, of the decision of the Tribunal, within thirty days after the date of the decision.
(2) The authorised person shall upon receipt of the decision under subsection(1) take actions within thirty days.
(3) The authorised person shall report to the Tribunal in writing within fourteen days after the explaination of the thirty days referred to in subsection (2) of the action taken by him or her”.
Here the Tribunal doesn’t need to go public as they needed before, because this section is changed and amended with the new Leadership Code of 2016, this proves the writing happens between authorised person and the Tribunal and not to commit it public. It means within 30 days actions against a person will happen, but not publicly. So the Tribunal compared to the Committee of old can work in silence and act against somebody without common knowledge.
As the Section 23 original law says this:
“23. Procedure of the committee.
Subject to this Code, the committee may, after consultation with the Minister, make rules regulating its procedure under this Code”.
The newly amendment says this:
“Procuring information and attendance of witnesses.
Subject to this Act, the inspectorate may –
With this substantial change together with the others, the powers of the Tribunal is to inspect and get witness report or an affidavit as the summons of a person who might have information has to answer to the Inspectorate for the Tribunal under oath. The relevancy of this is the powers that the law might give the Tribunal as they can investigate and summon. Not only consult with minister after the code has been followed by the Committee. So the powers of following breaches of the set the law gets more ability to sanctions citizens. While the Tribunal get more power than a Committee that ask the Parliament for ability to act like the Leadership Code of 1992 does. Peace.





The dynamic nature of the conflict has resulted in the constant movement of civilians as they attempt to escape shifting locations of insecurity.
JUBA, South Sudan, September 6, 2016 – Fighting between armed groups across parts of South Sudan continues to drive displacement, including in areas that had been relatively stable since the crisis broke out in December 2013. The dynamic nature of the conflict has resulted in the constant movement of civilians as they attempt to escape shifting locations of insecurity.
Current population movements are fluid in several areas, including Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, Unity, Western Bahr el Ghazal, Western Equatoria and Unity. In the past two months, over 80,000 people have been displaced in Wau and 12,000 in Juba alone.
In southern parts of Central Equatoria, which had previously remained fairly stable, an escalating number of security incidents has pushed large numbers of civilians to leave their homes to seek safety. The movements have been particularly significant from Yei, with multiple reports of targeted violence and harassment against civilians and disruptions in the delivery of aid supplies.
“At the same time as we see the needs continue to grow, access constraints are making it more difficult for humanitarians to access vulnerable people or even measure the scale of displacement and unfolding needs as violence spreads to new locations,” said John McCue, IOM South Sudan Head of Operations.
Many of the recent population movements from Central Equatoria have been across the southern borders to Uganda and Kenya, but increased insecurity in parts of Yei, Morobo and Magwi counties is making it increasingly dangerous for civilians to move and may be preventing people from reaching safer areas.
In Leer, Unity, insecurity has forced civilians to seek protection in nearby islands, while others have reportedly moved south or reached the UN protection of civilians site in Bentiu. These patterns of movement in central Unity may increase as insecurity persists.
On 4 September, IOM joined a UN Security Council delegation to witness first-hand the needs of displaced communities in Wau since heavy fighting in late June. While IOM and humanitarian agencies are providing lifesaving aid at displacement sites across Wau town, access constraints have limited efforts to reach thousands of displaced families in some areas south of town since early July.
IOM recently regained access to Ngisa in southern Wau to deliver essential medicines and evaluate health and water needs. IOM has received reports of people returning to parts of Wau town, which may be a response to improved security in the area or a result of limited access to relief services in areas outside of the town.
More than 1.6 million people are internally displaced across South Sudan, in addition to 786,000 people who have fled to neighbouring countries since December 2013. More than half of the country (6.1 million people) are in need of relief aid.

The Transitional Government of National Unity of South Sudan expressed its determination to implement the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan.
NEW YORK, United States of America, September 5, 2016 – The Transitional Government of National Unity of South Sudan expressed its determination to implement the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan, in particular the reform agenda, now that the Transitional National Legislative Assembly is in place.
The members of the United Nations Security Council and the Transitional Government of National Unity agreed to work in a fresh spirit of cooperation to advance the interests of the South Sudanese people, particularly their aspirations for justice, liberty, and prosperity. They agree that the humanitarian and security needs of the people are Paramount.
To improve the security situation, the Transitional Government of National Unity gave its consent to the deployment, as part of UNMISS, of the Regional Protection Force recently authorized by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2304. The United Nations Security Council agreed that troop contributors and UNMISS and the Transitional Government of National Unity will continue to work through the modalities of the deployment, building upon the consultations of August 25 and September 1 and anticipating further imminent discussions.
The Transitional Government of National Unity commits to permit free movement of UNMISS in conformity with its mandate, including to protect civilians. To this end, the Transitional Government of National Unity commits to devising a plan with UNMISS by the end of September 2016 on concrete steps to remove impediments to UNMISS’s ability to implement its mandate, including reviewing procedures related to movement of UNMISS and streamlining bureaucratic processes. UNMISS commits to inform the Transitional Government of National Unity of all movements and of other details as appropriate.
The Transitional Government of National Unity signals its readiness to implement Chapter V of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan, including to work with the African Union in setting up the Hybrid Court for South Sudan as soon as the African Union provides proposals for its work as provided in the Agreement.
The Transitional Government of National Unity commits to immediately improve humanitarian access, including by providing assistance in eliminating illegal checkpoints and by reviewing by the end of September 2016 with the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, modalities for streamlining bureaucratic processes and access to populations in need.



“6000 men from the SPLA – IO join to Support TGONU government in the implementation of the peace agreement in South Sudan. it is the second video of my assignment to the rebel held territory to extend government support to the initiatives of the former rebel comanda that was fighting alongside Dr riek machar to join Taban Deng in the implementation of the peace agreement designed to end nearly three years of conflict” (Arusi James, 2016)

“I want to pledge that in 2021, you will get 80% in Kampala. The little problems we inherited will be solved. Museveni is still energetic. There is no one in Uganda who has more stamina than President Museveni” – Beti Kamya.
Well, there certainly someone who says she has been mole for a long time, like the other ones in Opposition who has been “undercover” agents or needed opposition to the regime to make the National Resistance Movement look good. Therefore the articles earlier now are contradicting her actions.
There even been stories of her ways of trying to stop the Reform Agenda Youth from doing their activities in 2003 as they we’re thinking of applying to become a Political Party. Something that never happen even if she tried to facilitate it to become a working force, as she told the NRM regime at the time; which is the same or much of the same as today.
It is a reason why Uganda Federal Alliance really isn’t a viable party or a party that has been under siege, that is because it is a front for democracy and inclusive government that even not-so Honorable Ofwono Opondo would portray on NBS Frontline. Something that is not true.
Even if Hon. Opondo and Hon. Frank Tumwebaze speaks the direct words of their master, that doesn’t make that a fact. So now that the former Opposition is sounding more like the National Resistance Movement Secretary General Justine Kasule Lumumba. Beti Kamya could just her double. If not she has been a double agent trying to get involved with opposition movement to tell tales to the regime. As I told before, I never believed that President Museveni wanted to have Multi-Party System. He only released because of popular uprising and donors who he wanted their monies. There we’re two elections for releasing it so, it wasn’t like he didn’t try to avoid it after becoming the President. We can all remember the same kind of attitude with suspending parties in the beginning of his reign, if people have forgotten that as well?
So that Beti Kamya and her Uganda Federal Alliance (UFA) is nearly non-existence, the newly created party in 19th July of 2010. The party has had issues with ghost-members right after the creation because the founder wanted to look popular enough to carry an opposition party. I am sure many have forgot that tale of faking numbers to look wise and smart. Time is a wasting…
So with that in mind and with the stories from the past; you kind of can have the feeling that her aggression and words against President Museveni is more a populist approach gone wrong or she did it on accord with the donors of the so-called honest-to-God federalism party that had no apparent impact. Therefore when she had walked the water for the President she got offered a Cabinet Position, to be the voice of the NRM and hammer the voice of the President to the people of Kampala.
Therefore that she promise a President that for the moment is not edible to stand as a candidate in the next election; promise that leader and man that he will get 80% of the votes is scamming and promising to rig the coming election. But hey the NRM party is busy bribing MPs and such to secure the abolishment of 75 Years limit to the Presidency. Because in the great nation, there are partly still not anybody else who has the right or can justify taking over for the grand-old-man-with-the-hat.
That is why the political player and tease of Beti Kamya seems like she been playing opposition, but might been a smidge undercover agent. So the wolfs in sheep’s clothes exists as the President wants to have ears to ground everywhere. That’s why he wanted the centralized government to control the Resistance Councils and the now Local Government from the State House. So that Kamya been a useful tool, but now her true character is out. So who is more like her is something we can question and wonder.
That being the likes of Major General Benon Biraaro who just surface towards the campaigning of Presidential elections, but after that goes back to the bush and works in silence after his duty is done. You can question if people like him is pawns on the chess-set for the almighty master of Uganda.
Now that President Museveni has hired and surely paid back for service rendered to Beti Kamya, what is his next move and who else has tried to infiltrate other parties to control the nation from the inside of his chambers? Peace.

