Donors gave frivolous reasons for cutting aid
Dec 26, 2005
<b>By Moses Byaruhanga</b><br><br>Some donors have either cut or redirected their budget support. Some of the reasons given by Britain were that there had been delays in the road map, continued funding of the Movement Secretariat and the arrest of Besigye.
By Moses Byaruhanga
Some donors have either cut or redirected their budget support. Some of the reasons given by Britain were that there had been delays in the road map, continued funding of the Movement Secretariat and the arrest of Besigye.
These reasons are frivolous to say the least. Take the issue of delays in the road map. All is set for national elections to take place before March 12, 2006, which is the deadline.
All the necessary laws for the transition have been passed. Surprisingly, our prefects are judging us for delays in the road map well aware that the ultimate road map was ending with elections whose dates are already set.
On continued funding of the Movement Secretariat, donors need to understand that transition is a process, not an event. The outcome of the referendum did not mean that the Movement Secretariat had to close the following day.
There are only 14 directors and their deputies at the Secretariat. The rest of the staff are public servants seconded to it by the public service. These must be redeployed in the public service in an organised manner.
At the moment there are no programmes being carried out by the Secretariat. They are in a process of winding up after elections because that is when the transition from Movement to multiparty will finally come to an end. As of now we still have a government under the Movement system.
On Besigye, the donors know that he is being tried under the courts of law as established by the Constitution of Uganda.
The donors cannot say who should be charged or not. Otherwise they would have to bring their police to do investigations, their DPP to determine which case to prosecute, their judges, their parliaments to make for us laws in good time and their presidents to preside over Uganda. In short re-colonise Uganda and Africa at large.
Anybody with an interest in the Besigye case should be urging for a speedy trial to determine his innocence or guilt. When the DPP asked for a hearing date about three weeks ago, his lawyers wanted more time.
Probably they don’t want hearing to commence because the evidence against their client will be made public through the hearing.
Ugandans are eagerly waiting for the truth to come out in court.
There are allegations of his links with PRA and LRA. The earlier that evidence is produced the better for justice. The British in realigning their budget support said that they want to fund relief in northern Uganda through UN agencies.
It is good that they are showing concern for northern Uganda. Part of the problem in northern Uganda as government had always said was the support of LRA by Sudan. All this happened while the donors were watching and they kept quiet.
So while it is appreciated to give support to the suffering people in northern Uganda, why didn’t donors become tough on Sudan and LRA? The second problem in the north has been donor pressure to the government not to increase defence budget. For a long time they insisted that the defence budget shouldn’t exceed 2% of GDP.
It is only three years ago that government defied donors and increased defence expenditure that we are now seeing the northern conflict coming to an end because of the increased capacity of UPDF.
So in apportioning blame we should be realistic. On relying on UN agencies, questions of accountability will likely arise as the people of northern Uganda have no powers over these agencies. Bypassing government especially at district level is responsible for the mess in the Global Fund.
The writer is special
presidential assistant for
political affairs/mobilisation
Some donors have either cut or redirected their budget support. Some of the reasons given by Britain were that there had been delays in the road map, continued funding of the Movement Secretariat and the arrest of Besigye.
These reasons are frivolous to say the least. Take the issue of delays in the road map. All is set for national elections to take place before March 12, 2006, which is the deadline.
All the necessary laws for the transition have been passed. Surprisingly, our prefects are judging us for delays in the road map well aware that the ultimate road map was ending with elections whose dates are already set.
On continued funding of the Movement Secretariat, donors need to understand that transition is a process, not an event. The outcome of the referendum did not mean that the Movement Secretariat had to close the following day.
There are only 14 directors and their deputies at the Secretariat. The rest of the staff are public servants seconded to it by the public service. These must be redeployed in the public service in an organised manner.
At the moment there are no programmes being carried out by the Secretariat. They are in a process of winding up after elections because that is when the transition from Movement to multiparty will finally come to an end. As of now we still have a government under the Movement system.
On Besigye, the donors know that he is being tried under the courts of law as established by the Constitution of Uganda.
The donors cannot say who should be charged or not. Otherwise they would have to bring their police to do investigations, their DPP to determine which case to prosecute, their judges, their parliaments to make for us laws in good time and their presidents to preside over Uganda. In short re-colonise Uganda and Africa at large.
Anybody with an interest in the Besigye case should be urging for a speedy trial to determine his innocence or guilt. When the DPP asked for a hearing date about three weeks ago, his lawyers wanted more time.
Probably they don’t want hearing to commence because the evidence against their client will be made public through the hearing.
Ugandans are eagerly waiting for the truth to come out in court.
There are allegations of his links with PRA and LRA. The earlier that evidence is produced the better for justice. The British in realigning their budget support said that they want to fund relief in northern Uganda through UN agencies.
It is good that they are showing concern for northern Uganda. Part of the problem in northern Uganda as government had always said was the support of LRA by Sudan. All this happened while the donors were watching and they kept quiet.
So while it is appreciated to give support to the suffering people in northern Uganda, why didn’t donors become tough on Sudan and LRA? The second problem in the north has been donor pressure to the government not to increase defence budget. For a long time they insisted that the defence budget shouldn’t exceed 2% of GDP.
It is only three years ago that government defied donors and increased defence expenditure that we are now seeing the northern conflict coming to an end because of the increased capacity of UPDF.
So in apportioning blame we should be realistic. On relying on UN agencies, questions of accountability will likely arise as the people of northern Uganda have no powers over these agencies. Bypassing government especially at district level is responsible for the mess in the Global Fund.
The writer is special
presidential assistant for
political affairs/mobilisation