Fake story doesn’t make me a liar â€" Kakooza Mutale
Feb 23, 2004
My attention was drawn to the news you carried as your second lead story Tuesday February 10, 2004, saying: Kategaya, Besigye wanted coup says Kakooza Mutale.†Then came Wednesday February 11 2004, you carried a rebuttal of Mr. Eriya Kategaya describing me as “Kakooza Mutale a blatant liar†fo
My attention was drawn to the news you carried as your second lead story Tuesday February 10, 2004, saying: Kategaya, Besigye wanted coup says Kakooza Mutale.†Then came Wednesday February 11 2004, you carried a rebuttal of Mr. Eriya Kategaya describing me as “Kakooza Mutale a blatant liar†followed by a reproduction of Eriya Kategaya’s letter on page 11 of the same edition and an opinion under your editorial column admonishing me that “Mutale should not re-write history.â€
My response will be divided into two parts. The first part will touch on the credibility and authenticity of the New Vision story of Tuesday February 10, 2004 and the second part will touch on the issues raised by Mr. Kategaya’s letter based on his own understanding of the New Vision story.
1. Credibility and authenticity
The first mistake committed by Mr. Eriya Kategaya is his apparent uncritical belief that the New Vision story was incorrect and untrue. Therefore Mr. Eriya Kategaya’s response to an incorrect and untruthful story is to say the least misguided and utterly misconceived.
The New Vision story is simply a collection of insinuations to make Kakooza Mutale odious and cause an exchange of diatribe with Mr. Eriya Kategaya.
Foremost I admit I went to Masindi accompanied by KAP cadres and CEDO members to meet our colleagues in Masindi in CEDO branch. It is also true that the cadres who accompanied me and those who gathered to welcome us at the precincts of Masindi town matched through Masindi town to demonstrate the Movement political power. This is in specific reference to the Movement system of governance still at the helm of Uganda government till 2006.
Having matched through Masindi town, we stopped just half a kilometre away from our venue of our scheduled meeting. So the large body of fellow Movement supporters who had joined us in the marching were cut off as the band and the cadres re-embarked onto the bus and we drove away to Kabalega S.S.
The New Vision story reported that “Mutale told the CEDO members at a rally organised at Kabalega S. S.†The general readers and speakers of the English language know the difference between a meeting and ‘rally.’ It is true we held a scheduled CEDO meeting of which non-CEDO persons were not permitted to attend in any capacity.
The attendance list of members was duly recorded. A scheduled meeting of people who share common interests in which members introduce themselves for purposes of record and recognition is not at all a rally. In this respect I wish to re-assure Mr. Eriya Kategaya that a meeting was held but a rally, was never held. If therefore, Mr. Eriya Kategaya wishes to know some real blatant liars he should turn to New Vision itself. A news reporter who is incapable of distinguishing a meeting from a rally casts doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the news report.
Minutes taken
In the meeting of this nature, normally minutes are taken and unless specifically arranged, such minutes are not readily turned into press releases. I wish again to allay Mr. Kategaya’s fears that I never spoke to any journalist or issued any press release of any kind.
Indeed I agree with Mr. Kategaya’s observation that New Vision sequence of events in the story is out of place. This again throws more doubts as to the credibility and authenticity of the New Vision story. The New Vision reporters clearly got mixed up with the genesis and chronological order of events and matters which were unethically procured and later maliciously published. Towards this effort I recall that after our scheduled meeting with KAP-CEDO members I received a note which contained an invitation by Bunyoro Broadcasting Service to appear that evening at their talk show.
Declined
I politely declined this invitation stressing that my visit was purely private and did not wish to be overshadowed by the common FM radio altercations. This is true and can be verified if Mr. Kategaya so wishes. Now my key question emerges: Who provided New Vision the alleged direct speeches and appraisal of our private discussion? The answer is simple.
The alleged quotations of direct speeches were configured by speculative armchair editors or New Vision offices. Putting quotation marks on statements of lies is not a big deal for such editors.
What I can outright guess is that New Vision will hide itself behind the renowned journalist excuse of “not disclosing sources.†Mr. Kategaya may not be amused by such but certainly he will never know the truth of the matter, whether I really said what was reported and the way it was reported. The New Vision story will always remain a question of conjectures. And apparently the law has of recent legitimised the publication of conjectures as news. No cause for alarm!
So Mr. Kategaya’s apprehensions are unfortunately and erroneously aroused with little foreseeable consequences. The burden of proof should be born by that who alleges.
Turning to ‘New Vision - Opinion’ in which New Vision accuses me of “peddling unsubstantiated allegations,†I wish to turn the swords of the pen to the New Vision itself. It is New Vision who published unsubstantiated news reports, how do you turn around and accuse me of your own unethical journalistic practices?
Do you have a copy of an authentic record of my speeches to CEDO members at Masindi district CEDO?
How can a self respecting news editor factualise a hearsay.
I therefore state unequivocally that the sources of your news report were delinquent, ignoble and completely hopeless. CEDO executives have no money to spend on trips whose aim and objectives is to discuss Mr. Kategaya and Besigye. You see your news report is a malicious attempt to provoke Mr. Kategaya hence resort to Kakooza Mutale, to write and publish the usual insults against me. This is typical of mafios press New Vision is currently running. You editors/ reporters, write not to inform but to blackmail your predetermined victims.
2. Mr. Kategaya’s Diatribe
The foregoing rebuttal in my opinion would have settled the matter — but then Mr. Kategaya’s apprehensions overwhelmed his judicious temperament and caused him to indulge his pretentious appraisal of my character. To this end Mr. Kategaya made a grave error.
The paragraph which betrayed Mr. Kategyaya is as follows:-
“In the first place I was not surprised that such a blatant and naked lie is coming from Mr. Kakooza Mutale knowing him as I do for a long time.
The paragraph points to among others, that Mr. Kategaya has long known me as a habitual expositor of “blatant lies and falsehoods†which perhaps I exude lavishly without reserve. His long time (Kategaya) knowledge of Kakooza Mutale seems to either surmise or to allude to that effect.
According to the discipline of psychology, people who indulge in psyching the personal character of others get trapped in pitfalls which lead them quite often to suffer from unnecessary delusions. For example, there in a common pitfall of esteeming one’s perceptions in direct disparagement of the perceptions of others that is, the condescension syndrome. This often leads to intellectual egoism and arrogancy.
Some Uganda intellectuals (Mr. Kategaya inclusive) hype this kind of behaviour towards Kakooza Mutale. This recurrent distribution and recycling of viabage about the character of Kakooza Mutale is self-defeating. The more this type of viabage is spoken and published, the more the sayers get exposed as endemic ineptitudes.
I don’t know well Kategaya
I for one confess that don’t know well Mr. Kategaya as I don’t voluntarily interact with him because it is my nature to know when how to save myself from uncalled for embarrassments. So I feel sorry that I don’t have a standard perception of Mr. Kategaya’s character and possibly his traits.
However, there is a common factor between Mr. Kategaya and myself that at one time, in Uganda’s history, both of us served under an able president Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. I hesitate (somewhat) to describe this purely as an accident of history but rather a fortuitous situation which categorised us as such.
The little I got to know about Mr. Kategaya did not encourage me to know more about him. I am sure this may strike surprise to Mr. Kategaya but honestly I have never got any profound reason to compel me to know Mr. Kategaya.
The sentiments expressed here are not at all derogatory but must be understood in the widest context of the schemes of politics as it appears in Uganda. For example I am an ally and an ardent compatriot of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni but not all Mr. Museveni’s political( or otherwise) friends are my allies and compatriots. This distinction must be always recognised by those who invest interest in Kakooza Mutale.
So I consider it grossly prentetious by Mr. Kategaya’s attempt to evaluate and appraise my character as a blatant liar because the little we have interacted did not warrant us to exchange lies be it blatant or not. Both our social and intellectual predilections are neither comparable nor compatible. I have never, held myself to be subject to or under the domain of Mr. Kategaya’s presumed jurisdiction and direction. Not that I respect Mr. Kategaya less but for a simpler reason that it had never occasioned in my mind to consider Mr. Kategaya as essential in the execution of and accomplishment of my political duties and tasks to Uganda and particularly President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.
The longest intellectual engagement and when I stayed in the vicinity of Mr. Kategaya was my accidental membership to NEC ad-Hoc committee of which Mr. Kategaya was a member. Our views and dispositions in respect of the future Movement politics proved beyond doubt that Mr. Kategaya and myself tread different roads both parallel and irreconcilable.
This is not a “lie†let alone being “blatant.†I hold this view also to account for my future association with Mr. Kategaya. In my estimate Mr. Kategaya also reached this conclusion probably much earlier than I did . For those who need more clarification should remember that on the eve of the most recent presidential campaigns, Mr. Kategaya advised by then Candidate Yoweri Museveni to drop me from his campaign task force if Museveni wished to continue enjoying the support of Mr. Kategaya.
That now Mr. Kategaya knows well where he is in relation to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, history is to be the only arbiter of Museveni and Kategaya’s political predicaments. I think the current political impasse between President Museveni and Mr. Kategaya offers Ugandans an excellent opportunity to review Mr. Kategaya’s advice in the context of our contemporary politics. There is a Greek classic fable about this. I will one day retell the fable.
While I remain steadfast in the service and defence of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and wish to see him through his darkest hour of challenge, it seems Mr. Kategaya is clearly positioning himself to spearhead the front of those who crave for the quick and unceremonial political demise of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. I am sure Mr. Kategaya knows well that this is not a lie, but a real political predicament in which he must struggle to extricate himself. The odds are known and the stakes are high but I am prepared for both.
Mr. Kategaya walked himself into the political woods and he alone bears the testimony of the woes he finds there!
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the New Vision story was a piece of figment from the malignant brains of some New Vision editors.
The foregoing notwithstanding, Mr. Kategaya should not have prematurely reacted in that harsh and hastily manner which exposed his malevolent prejudices against Kakooza Mutale.
Kakooza Mutale
Chairman — CEDO KAP
My response will be divided into two parts. The first part will touch on the credibility and authenticity of the New Vision story of Tuesday February 10, 2004 and the second part will touch on the issues raised by Mr. Kategaya’s letter based on his own understanding of the New Vision story.
1. Credibility and authenticity
The first mistake committed by Mr. Eriya Kategaya is his apparent uncritical belief that the New Vision story was incorrect and untrue. Therefore Mr. Eriya Kategaya’s response to an incorrect and untruthful story is to say the least misguided and utterly misconceived.
The New Vision story is simply a collection of insinuations to make Kakooza Mutale odious and cause an exchange of diatribe with Mr. Eriya Kategaya.
Foremost I admit I went to Masindi accompanied by KAP cadres and CEDO members to meet our colleagues in Masindi in CEDO branch. It is also true that the cadres who accompanied me and those who gathered to welcome us at the precincts of Masindi town matched through Masindi town to demonstrate the Movement political power. This is in specific reference to the Movement system of governance still at the helm of Uganda government till 2006.
Having matched through Masindi town, we stopped just half a kilometre away from our venue of our scheduled meeting. So the large body of fellow Movement supporters who had joined us in the marching were cut off as the band and the cadres re-embarked onto the bus and we drove away to Kabalega S.S.
The New Vision story reported that “Mutale told the CEDO members at a rally organised at Kabalega S. S.†The general readers and speakers of the English language know the difference between a meeting and ‘rally.’ It is true we held a scheduled CEDO meeting of which non-CEDO persons were not permitted to attend in any capacity.
The attendance list of members was duly recorded. A scheduled meeting of people who share common interests in which members introduce themselves for purposes of record and recognition is not at all a rally. In this respect I wish to re-assure Mr. Eriya Kategaya that a meeting was held but a rally, was never held. If therefore, Mr. Eriya Kategaya wishes to know some real blatant liars he should turn to New Vision itself. A news reporter who is incapable of distinguishing a meeting from a rally casts doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the news report.
Minutes taken
In the meeting of this nature, normally minutes are taken and unless specifically arranged, such minutes are not readily turned into press releases. I wish again to allay Mr. Kategaya’s fears that I never spoke to any journalist or issued any press release of any kind.
Indeed I agree with Mr. Kategaya’s observation that New Vision sequence of events in the story is out of place. This again throws more doubts as to the credibility and authenticity of the New Vision story. The New Vision reporters clearly got mixed up with the genesis and chronological order of events and matters which were unethically procured and later maliciously published. Towards this effort I recall that after our scheduled meeting with KAP-CEDO members I received a note which contained an invitation by Bunyoro Broadcasting Service to appear that evening at their talk show.
Declined
I politely declined this invitation stressing that my visit was purely private and did not wish to be overshadowed by the common FM radio altercations. This is true and can be verified if Mr. Kategaya so wishes. Now my key question emerges: Who provided New Vision the alleged direct speeches and appraisal of our private discussion? The answer is simple.
The alleged quotations of direct speeches were configured by speculative armchair editors or New Vision offices. Putting quotation marks on statements of lies is not a big deal for such editors.
What I can outright guess is that New Vision will hide itself behind the renowned journalist excuse of “not disclosing sources.†Mr. Kategaya may not be amused by such but certainly he will never know the truth of the matter, whether I really said what was reported and the way it was reported. The New Vision story will always remain a question of conjectures. And apparently the law has of recent legitimised the publication of conjectures as news. No cause for alarm!
So Mr. Kategaya’s apprehensions are unfortunately and erroneously aroused with little foreseeable consequences. The burden of proof should be born by that who alleges.
Turning to ‘New Vision - Opinion’ in which New Vision accuses me of “peddling unsubstantiated allegations,†I wish to turn the swords of the pen to the New Vision itself. It is New Vision who published unsubstantiated news reports, how do you turn around and accuse me of your own unethical journalistic practices?
Do you have a copy of an authentic record of my speeches to CEDO members at Masindi district CEDO?
How can a self respecting news editor factualise a hearsay.
I therefore state unequivocally that the sources of your news report were delinquent, ignoble and completely hopeless. CEDO executives have no money to spend on trips whose aim and objectives is to discuss Mr. Kategaya and Besigye. You see your news report is a malicious attempt to provoke Mr. Kategaya hence resort to Kakooza Mutale, to write and publish the usual insults against me. This is typical of mafios press New Vision is currently running. You editors/ reporters, write not to inform but to blackmail your predetermined victims.
2. Mr. Kategaya’s Diatribe
The foregoing rebuttal in my opinion would have settled the matter — but then Mr. Kategaya’s apprehensions overwhelmed his judicious temperament and caused him to indulge his pretentious appraisal of my character. To this end Mr. Kategaya made a grave error.
The paragraph which betrayed Mr. Kategyaya is as follows:-
“In the first place I was not surprised that such a blatant and naked lie is coming from Mr. Kakooza Mutale knowing him as I do for a long time.
The paragraph points to among others, that Mr. Kategaya has long known me as a habitual expositor of “blatant lies and falsehoods†which perhaps I exude lavishly without reserve. His long time (Kategaya) knowledge of Kakooza Mutale seems to either surmise or to allude to that effect.
According to the discipline of psychology, people who indulge in psyching the personal character of others get trapped in pitfalls which lead them quite often to suffer from unnecessary delusions. For example, there in a common pitfall of esteeming one’s perceptions in direct disparagement of the perceptions of others that is, the condescension syndrome. This often leads to intellectual egoism and arrogancy.
Some Uganda intellectuals (Mr. Kategaya inclusive) hype this kind of behaviour towards Kakooza Mutale. This recurrent distribution and recycling of viabage about the character of Kakooza Mutale is self-defeating. The more this type of viabage is spoken and published, the more the sayers get exposed as endemic ineptitudes.
I don’t know well Kategaya
I for one confess that don’t know well Mr. Kategaya as I don’t voluntarily interact with him because it is my nature to know when how to save myself from uncalled for embarrassments. So I feel sorry that I don’t have a standard perception of Mr. Kategaya’s character and possibly his traits.
However, there is a common factor between Mr. Kategaya and myself that at one time, in Uganda’s history, both of us served under an able president Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. I hesitate (somewhat) to describe this purely as an accident of history but rather a fortuitous situation which categorised us as such.
The little I got to know about Mr. Kategaya did not encourage me to know more about him. I am sure this may strike surprise to Mr. Kategaya but honestly I have never got any profound reason to compel me to know Mr. Kategaya.
The sentiments expressed here are not at all derogatory but must be understood in the widest context of the schemes of politics as it appears in Uganda. For example I am an ally and an ardent compatriot of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni but not all Mr. Museveni’s political( or otherwise) friends are my allies and compatriots. This distinction must be always recognised by those who invest interest in Kakooza Mutale.
So I consider it grossly prentetious by Mr. Kategaya’s attempt to evaluate and appraise my character as a blatant liar because the little we have interacted did not warrant us to exchange lies be it blatant or not. Both our social and intellectual predilections are neither comparable nor compatible. I have never, held myself to be subject to or under the domain of Mr. Kategaya’s presumed jurisdiction and direction. Not that I respect Mr. Kategaya less but for a simpler reason that it had never occasioned in my mind to consider Mr. Kategaya as essential in the execution of and accomplishment of my political duties and tasks to Uganda and particularly President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni.
The longest intellectual engagement and when I stayed in the vicinity of Mr. Kategaya was my accidental membership to NEC ad-Hoc committee of which Mr. Kategaya was a member. Our views and dispositions in respect of the future Movement politics proved beyond doubt that Mr. Kategaya and myself tread different roads both parallel and irreconcilable.
This is not a “lie†let alone being “blatant.†I hold this view also to account for my future association with Mr. Kategaya. In my estimate Mr. Kategaya also reached this conclusion probably much earlier than I did . For those who need more clarification should remember that on the eve of the most recent presidential campaigns, Mr. Kategaya advised by then Candidate Yoweri Museveni to drop me from his campaign task force if Museveni wished to continue enjoying the support of Mr. Kategaya.
That now Mr. Kategaya knows well where he is in relation to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, history is to be the only arbiter of Museveni and Kategaya’s political predicaments. I think the current political impasse between President Museveni and Mr. Kategaya offers Ugandans an excellent opportunity to review Mr. Kategaya’s advice in the context of our contemporary politics. There is a Greek classic fable about this. I will one day retell the fable.
While I remain steadfast in the service and defence of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and wish to see him through his darkest hour of challenge, it seems Mr. Kategaya is clearly positioning himself to spearhead the front of those who crave for the quick and unceremonial political demise of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. I am sure Mr. Kategaya knows well that this is not a lie, but a real political predicament in which he must struggle to extricate himself. The odds are known and the stakes are high but I am prepared for both.
Mr. Kategaya walked himself into the political woods and he alone bears the testimony of the woes he finds there!
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the New Vision story was a piece of figment from the malignant brains of some New Vision editors.
The foregoing notwithstanding, Mr. Kategaya should not have prematurely reacted in that harsh and hastily manner which exposed his malevolent prejudices against Kakooza Mutale.
Kakooza Mutale
Chairman — CEDO KAP