By CHANGE OF GUARDS
The Banyarwanda community in Uganda, under its umbrella organization, the Council of the Abavandimwe, delivered a petition to Parliament on April 16, 2024. The petition, read by Kalungu East M.P. Joseph Sewungu, seeks a probe into alleged segregation and violations of their rights in the country. It points out the denial of passports and national Identity Cards by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and its Directorate of Immigration and Citizenship on grounds of their ethnic background. Furthermore, they claim that since becoming an indigenous tribe after the annexation of Rwanda’s border territories of Kisoro, Kigezi, and Ndorwa, they have faced serious citizenship rights violations at the hands of Ugandan authorities. The Speaker of Parliament forwarded it to the parliamentary committee of Defense and Internal Affairs for scrutiny.
However, the petition is deemed baseless for several reasons:
Firstly, it is inaccurate to claim that Rwanda’s border territories were annexed into Uganda. Instead, the Heligoland Treaty between the then colonial powers of Germany and Great Britain adjusted their borders to include parts of German East Africa (Tanzania, Rwanda-Urundi, parts of Rutshuru in DRC, and Kigezi in Uganda) into what came to be known as Uganda. Consequently, the transferred region became known as the Kigezi region and later became one of the regions of Uganda. Although they trace their ancestry from the Banyarwanda, the people of Kigezi have historically been the Bafumbira of Kisoro and the Bakiga of Kabale. They are listed in the Third Schedule of the 1995 Constitution as part of the indigenous communities as numbers 6 and 15 respectively. Throughout history, the Banyarwanda in Uganda have been identified as either immigrant laborers or refugees from Rwanda. It is for this reason that, unlike other ethnic groups in Uganda, the Banyarwanda have never had any specific geographic region. Instead, they have settled in all regions of the country, especially in the western and central regions. Their current well-coordinated attempts to find settlements in the northern and eastern regions are being resisted by the locals.
Since their arrival in Uganda, they have enjoyed their rights, freedoms, and liberties fully, sometimes even more so than indigenous Ugandans. This was recently affirmed by Rwanda’s President, Paul Kagame, during the commemoration of the Rwanda Genocide. In his address, he emphatically pointed out that Uganda has historically borne the burden of Rwanda’s problems. He referred not only to Uganda under Museveni’s 38-year rule but also to a period stretching back over a century. It was in this context that in 1990, the Banyarwanda in Uganda leveraged their privileged position to forcefully return to Rwanda. In 1994, they succeeded in capturing power and returning to Rwanda.
However, for sinister motives, some Banyarwanda have never liked to be publicly identified as such. Upon coming to power in 1986, Museveni enacted the so-called anti-Sectarianism law specifically to criminalize the identification of a Munyarwanda as such. Even when given the opportunity to return to their country, this category opted to stay in Uganda but pledged their loyalty to Rwanda. Once again, Museveni granted them citizenship in 1995, listing them as number 20 in the Third Schedule of the Uganda Constitution. This move was opportunistic and driven by grave and dangerous mistakes. The development granted every Munyarwanda in the world Ugandan citizenship, leading to difficulties in distinguishing between Ugandan Munyarwanda and those from Rwanda. This challenge becomes more pronounced during occasional diplomatic fallouts between the two countries. Rwanda holds a significant advantage in compromising Uganda’s security, while Uganda resorts to a wild hunt for those perceived to be Rwandan spies. The resulting desperation, characterized by arbitrary arrests, detentions, deportations, denial of passports, and national IDs, is perceived by some Banyarwanda as discrimination. Interestingly, a significant portion of Banyarwanda fully understands the situation and strongly opposes the petition.
The prevailing perception among the majority of Ugandans is that the Banyarwanda community in Uganda is enjoying more than their fair share of influence and presence within the country. They are prominently represented in the highest echelons of society, spanning across social, economic, and political spheres. This presence extends to leadership positions within government ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs), the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the private sector. Indeed, the disclosure of a brief list of Banyarwanda individuals strategically occupying top positions in the country would likely astonish many. Even within the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, they are represented by a team led by Col. Steven Kwiringira.
Consider, for instance, the immunity from criminal prosecution enjoyed by Frank Gashumba, the Chairman of the Council of the Abavandimwe. Ugandans vividly recall recent incidents where Gashumba was repeatedly arrested for high-profile criminal fraud involving foreign investors. In one such incident, he was found in possession of three passports under different names. However, these matters seemed to have been brushed aside, allegedly due to his influential role as a key figure in Museveni’s succession plan, aimed at securing the presidency for his son. It is widely known that under Gashumba’s leadership, the Banyarwanda community in Uganda holds a significant stake, estimated at 95%, in this succession scheme.
Another striking example is that of an individual named Kananura, who has been granted an extraordinary tax waiver worth billions of shillings. Such instances are not isolated, and the list of similar cases is extensive.
Following the broad grant of citizenship, Banyarwanda from various parts of the world have systematically migrated to Uganda for settlement. With significant facilitation, they have successfully established themselves and wielded social, economic, and political influence in regions such as Ankole, Tooro, Bunyoro, and Buganda. However, their recent attempts to expand into the northern and eastern regions faced vehement opposition from indigenous populations, backed by their national leaders.
In response to the escalating tensions, President Museveni swiftly intervened, tactfully ordering the newcomers to vacate those regions. He acknowledged that some of the immigrants originated from as far as Tanzania, Congo, and Rwanda. Furthermore, he issued an Executive Order for their forceful eviction, despite being aware of the constitutional provision guaranteeing every citizen the right to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of the country.
Although some individuals petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the directive, the case was surprisingly dismissed four months later on the grounds that the applicant had lost interest. This dismissal raised suspicions of compromise by powerful interests to avoid embarrassing President Museveni. Interestingly, a week later, the same Banyarwanda community petitioned Parliament alleging segregation. Notably, they chose not to mention their eviction from the northern and eastern regions in their petition.
Hence, the underlying motive behind the petition is to gauge the feasibility of advancing a broader agenda akin to the Banyamulenge Crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This historical context serves as a reference point for those familiar with Uganda’s political history. Notably, the Banyamulenge community in the DRC initially sought a special status through similar means.
It is worth noting that Uganda is home to several ethnic communities that span across its borders with almost all neighboring countries. However, it is only the Banyarwanda who are claiming segregation. This observation raises suspicions of an invisible hand orchestrating the baseless petition, with potentially dangerous and sinister motives at play.
INFORMATION IS POWER AND THE PROBLEM OF UGANDA IS MUSEVENISM
Discussion about this post