A recent contentious meeting of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) held last Friday has unfortunately divided the party more than before.
The primary objective of the NEC gathering was to address the deep-rooted disagreements among senior party members regarding the controversial funds spent during the 2021 general elections. The party leaders had hoped that this meeting would bridge the gaps and foster harmony within the FDC.
However, the outcome proved disappointing, and the chances of an amicable resolution to the internal impasse seemed to have diminished. At the heart of the issue was the Elder’s Reconciliation Committee report, which was expected to be presented during the meeting and act as a foundation for finding a way forward.
But, according to Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, the member of parliament for Kira Municipality and the party’s spokesperson, who spearheaded the charge against party president Patrick Amuriat Oboi and Secretary General Nathan Nandala-Mafabi, the conduct of the meeting obstructed the prospects of achieving reconciliation within the party.
Ssemujju expressed his profound dismay at the party’s actions, questioning how a party that prides itself on upholding the rule of law could resort to using “Kifeesi” thugs to intimidate and assault its own members. He further lamented the increasing difficulty for those not allied with Nandala and Amuriat to access the party headquarters.
“How can a party that prides in the rule of law bring Kifeesi to beat up its own members? It has now become almost impossible to access the party headquarters if you are not allied to Nandala and Amuriat. I represent a town constituency, and I have capacity to mobilize my people to take over that headquarters in minutes but, I can’t do that because it is not worth it,” Ssemujju said.
As a key figure in the FDC parliamentary caucus, Ssemujju voiced his lack of surprise at the report produced by the Elder’s Reconciliation Committee, led by Dr Frank Nabwiso. He expressed disappointment, believing that the report missed an essential opportunity to guide the party towards resolving its current troubles.
Ssemujju questioned the objectivity of the report, as it was commissioned and facilitated by Amuriat, thereby raising concerns about its credibility and impartiality. He criticized the Amuriat faction, suggesting that they have lost any sense of shame and are willing to resort to any means, even illegitimate ones, to maintain a stranglehold on the party’s leadership.
The NEC meeting itself was marked by a notably diminished attendance, with only 66 out of over 230 members present. Ssemujju attributed this low turnout to intimidation and instances of violence perpetrated against dissenting members, which he claimed the attendees had witnessed.
Out of those present, 58 voted in favor of adopting the report, leading to jubilation among the Amuriat group. Ssemujju accused this faction of being eager to align the FDC with Museveni’s government and pointed out instances where the police arrested those who opposed them while protecting the “Kifeesi” thugs who resorted to violence.
WHAT TO DO NEXT
In light of the recent acceptance of the party’s grassroots elections by the NEC as legitimate, Ssemujju was asked about the next course of action. He responded that he would sit down with colleagues to decide on their collective approach.
While he emphasized his commitment to fight- ing against Museveni’s government, he remained uncertain about engaging in the unnecessary internal conflicts within the FDC. He mentioned that FDC leaders would convene during the week to determine the party’s future direction, and he and others would consider whether to follow their guidance or make personal decisions.
“All my energies are geared towards fighting Museveni and I’m not sure I want to get involved in these unnecessary fights in the FDC. However, this week FDC leaders are going to sit to determine what to do next. Let’s first see what they are going to decide and then some of us will determine whether to follow their guidance or we take a personal decision,” Ssemujju said.
Turning to the Nabwiso report, which was conducted by a six-member committee appointed by the party president, it identified the core issue behind the FDC’s disagreements. The report revealed that Nandala had asked Dr Besigye to hold Shs 300 million for polling agents, and in return, Besigye allegedly received information from State House about money given to some FDC party leaders.
Besigye then organized a meeting with the concerned leaders, but this and subsequent meetings failed to yield any results. Besigye informed the committee that the money had been released from the Bank of Uganda and that the serial numbers on the notes pointed to State House.
The report acknowledged that seek- ing clarification on the sources of money to promote transparency in the party was not wrong on Besigye’s part. While he had also raised the matter in Busabala meetings, the failure to resolve it in those meetings led to its discussion in the National Council meeting.
Amuriat, Nandala, and Geoffrey Ekanya, the party treasurer, all denied receiving money from State House in their statements to the committee. Nevertheless, the report did confirm that the FDC had received funds from an anonymous lender. However, it did not specify the amount received or how it was allocated.
The report further highlighted a long-standing practice within the FDC of not disclosing all sources of its funds, a common practice in many political parties worldwide due to the limited income raised from party members.
SHAM REPORT
The criticism of the Elders’ Reconciliation Committee report, similar to Ssemujju’s standpoint, was also voiced by Doreen Nyanjura, the Kampala City deputy lord mayor. Nyanjura expressed her belief that the Elders had failed spectacularly in carrying out their responsibilities, opting instead to align with the Amuriat-Nandala axis, leading to a report that she considers a sham.
One of the primary issues Nyanjura raised was related to the financial matters discussed in the report. She questioned the accuracy of the committee’s calculations regarding the repayment of funds owed by Dr Besigye.
According to her, the report erroneously presented a balance of Shs 670,000 after several repayments, whereas a proper calculation shows a balance of Shs 75,730,000. Nyanjura wondered why such inaccurate figures were allowed to stand and why the committee did not verify whether Besigye was listed as a debtor in the party’s official debtors’ list.
The report’s lack of clarity regarding the Shs 280 million that Amuriat claimed to have received was another concern raised by Nyanjura. The report did not investigate when and how this money was disbursed, its purpose, or whether it was part of the borrowed funds.
Moreover, Nyanjura expressed dissatisfaction with the committee’s failure to ask Nandala for a comprehensive list of all recipients of the money he had lent to the party, whether for campaign support or personal use. This lack of thoroughness in the committee’s work led Nyanjura to question its integrity.
Nyanjura also criticized the facilitation of the committee’s work, highlighting the fact that the committee was aided by staff at the party’s headquarters, who are under the supervision of the secretary general— a subject of the investigation. This created a clear conflict of interest that, in her opinion, compromised the credibility and objectivity of the committee’s findings.
Additionally, Nyanjura raised concerns about the way the committee handled Besigye’s case. She stated that, apart from Besigye and Wycliff Bakandodnda, all other individuals who appeared before the committee made unsubstantiated allegations and accusations against Besigye, yet he was not given the opportunity to respond. This apparent bias further tainted the committee’s investigative process.
Considering the committee’s recommendations for tolerance and reconciliation, Nyanjura argued that such positive changes cannot occur in an environment rife with intimidation, mistrust, evasion of accountability, connivance, violence, and deceit perpetuated by the party leadership.
She believes that addressing these issues is crucial for the party’s survival, but since the opportunity to tackle them through the Elders’ Committee has been lost, it now falls on the party members to urgently address these concerns before the next delegates conference.
The Observer
