Selective justice -when young men die for old men: The case of Chandi!

10 Mar

By Drew Ddembe

As usual, you lay it out quite clearly.

There is no problem at all with the way you feel about this. it’s what friends and family do. It is said, that to a mother will cry for her son even if he is a thief. And families visit their loved ones in jail even though they may be guilty.

While I read most of the details in the papers, I long ago arrived at the same conclusion as Justice Katutsi -that there was something suspect about the short selling of the bonds to Crane bank. Some of them simply could not be explained -and i do not have to be financially savvy or a genius to say so!

That shortselling a bond a few days to maturity when not under duress causing a loss of billions (and a profit of billions to the buyer) to your employer is really suspect. I really would have loved for this trial to go beyond this and look at any financial dealings with Crane Bank And Chandi!

There is also the matter of gambling in a Las Vegas casino and buying expensive jewellery using a company credit card.

Furthermore, there was the abuse of office and extending of credit to himself and Kagonyera his deputy to the tune of hundreds of millions of shillings without board approval!

There is also the little matter of a real estate transaction with Nzeyi at the same time as they were negotiating the Temangalo affair. The details of this remain fuzzy but this would constitute a clear conflict of interest!

What I find amazing is that a guy who had everything going for him and had such a good track record allowed himself to get into the situation he is in right now!

The only conclusion I can reach is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That he was suddenly elevated to this position where because he was sitting on the largest caboodle of cash in the country, powerful people who wanted to access it had to be nice to him and be “friends”.

Chandi and collegue at the hearings

That the presence of powerful “Godfathers” must have made him feel invincible and untouchable -and allowed him to act with seeming impunity!

But it all got unravelled when the proverbial chicken dung hit the fan and he panicked -trying to get out of Temangalo. he “confessed” forcing powerful men to fight for their political lives! Being a soft middle class kid, he had never heard of “kuffa ki offiisa” or cowboys never tell! Essentially for those hardened boys who grew up in hard boarding schools like Matale, if you are caught stealing or cheating, you “died” like ‘an officer” and took the punishment alone without outing your colleagues. Your social capital went up immensely if you protected your mates! But woe betide you if you refused to die alone! Jamwa refused to die alone -BUT at the end of the day ended up dying alone!

While his powerful partners in crime got off with the loot and still have not even handed over the land at the centre of the scandal, 3 years after receiving payment, he ended up coming under the spotlight in what is seeming revenge for having outed his bosses and partners in crime! You see they knew that in exchange for him allowing them to use workers money as a playground, he too had played around with some loose change! It is this loose change that got him!

Unfortunately for him, a lamb does not play with wolves without getting eaten! it so happens that Museveni badly needs a ‘pin up boy’ to send to jail right now on corruption charges! If that boy happens to be an outsider so much the better! Chandi was an outsider who deluded himself he was an insider -and got burned! In the recently concluded elections Museveni was running against a candidate called “corruption”! He was his most powerful opponent! All of the rest were trailing far behind. And even after winning, Museveni knows that this man corruption is going to eat him up if he doesn’t fix him soon!

There are a few other outsiders who thought themselves insiders and got burnt too. The most recent one being Teddy Sseezi Cheeye. Cheeye wrote a sycophantic article in his capacity as “advisor to the president on economic affairs”, one of those many useless people that cost the taxpayer money, arguing the retrospective merits of the Temangalo affair and trying to sweep all of the improprieties under the carpet on the grounds that it was still a viable and profitable deal for NSSF! I wonder how profitable a transaction you cannot take possession of three years later could be! the reality remains that the whole Temangalo deal was corrupt with all of the elements of corruption, insider trading, conflict of interest, cronyism, coercion, abuse of power/office, name it! It was powerful men leaning on a subordinate and coercing him to allow them to dip their hands into the caboodle of cash he was meant to be the guardian of! But they got away with no consequences!

Cheeye a ‘mulebeesi’ who pretended to be an insider ended up in jail for eating GAVI funds making him one of a very small minority! Interestingly there were never any charges of causing financial loss to his employer against the boss of GAVI! An unknown woman also went to jail! If she is not out she would be the only one that has gone to jail on corruption charges and stayed there in the 25 years of Museveni’s rule! The other outsiders who have gone to jail include Ekemu who ended up his career by going to jail on corruption charges. He received a ‘pardon’. While Ekemu was a minster, he was one of those beneficiaries of ‘regional balancing’ in the movement government but not an NRM cadre! Cheeye somehow ended up back on the street after a few short weeks! All of the other thieves who belong to the right party remain on the street with president Museveni claiming they are innocent!  Kiggundo of Greenland bank who together with Salim Saleh brother to president Museveni ended up facing the music alone and actually ent to jail for a few months still ended up on the street! Between the two of them, they virtually managed to bring down the whole banking industry in Kampala! Katto who brokered the junk helicopter scandal and paid a bribe of 800k USD to again Salim Saleh was too charged alone with irony of ironies, Salim Saleh as a witness against him!!! Saleh was ‘forgiven’ by his brother without being subjected to the courts!

Chandi stays alone to face the music! He goes off to jail like a common thief. but who am i to complain. Am one of those who have always found it unfair that a common chicken thief gets killed by a mob or sent off to jail for several year while big thieves who steal billions get away scott free! i should be happy but instead am sad that such a promising young man has while taking his own punishment as he should also taken the punishment of powerful and vengeful old men!

As you can Chandi joins a very small list of people who have faced corruption charges in 25 years of the NRM and part of an even smaller number who have been convicted. If he manages to stay in jail for 12 years or any significant part of that, he would have broken a record for being probably the first person to whom the charges stuck and he actually served out a custodial sentence. if he does manage to stay in jail, it will only be because this government so badly needs someone to stay in jail so they can claim to have ever convicted someone on corruption charges!

Without wishing to influence events, I pray that Chandi in future rejoins society and contributes to the development of our society! As for those who sacrificed a young man, while they went scot-free, shame on them!


Posted by on March 10, 2011 in Stephen Twinoburyo's blogs


7 responses to “Selective justice -when young men die for old men: The case of Chandi!

  1. nsajja

    March 10, 2011 at 19:41

    I initially approached this Chandi saga from a personal perspective as a man pained by seeing a friend thrown under the bus…a yellow one at that!

    I had this discussion with my Father in September 2009 and he concluded (prophetically I must add), that Chandi would be hang out to dry mostly because he didn’t know his rightful place; that he was over-reaching! He is now paying dearly for it. We all hope for a country where people put in an honest day’s work and are rewarded for what they accomplish without any undue pressure or temptation. But in the mine-filled cesspool that Uganda is, it’s a seemingly impossible juggling act. How does one reconcile ambition and the desire to succeed, with integrity in the relentless pursuit of excellence, without succumbing to greed and getting bitten in the process?

    It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there and as we’re now realizing, some people are actually little Poodles and Chihuahuas. They will always be devoured by the seemingly invincible big dogs and then spat out.

    • Peter

      March 11, 2011 at 11:06

      Nsajja, I am glad for you that you concluded your post as you did. Remember the infamous utterance that went along the lines of “I will eat Besigye and spit him out like a samosa”. My friend, they now devour and spit out. Welcome to the new lingua franca of the ruling elite. Should you as much as blink, you will surely be between the jaws of the sharks..

  2. James Onen

    March 11, 2011 at 05:15

    Fantastic article. I enjoyed it very much 🙂

  3. Olugna-angulO

    March 11, 2011 at 07:16

    Very nice write… i was feeling sorry for Jamwa …but the thing is, he is guilty. It is irrelevant as to what the degree of guilt this is.This write has made me realise that the appeal he has filed is only bound to raffle more feathers. Interesting times ahead.

  4. Fiona

    March 11, 2011 at 08:09

    Twino…thanks for this article; die like a man, you say?

  5. Maggie

    March 11, 2011 at 09:39

    The cases sighted above are a clear indication of political sacrifice. It also shows a weakness in the systems in the IGG and DPP offices. How could Jamwa have acted singly?? Not realistic.
    Way ahead for the victims. They should meet up in jail, share experiences and write books about thier experiences or keep journals that they can sell to leading newspapers and tabloids.
    that will help un-cover some of the un-told stories.

  6. Karwamutemba David

    March 13, 2011 at 11:09

    These theories do influence many actors, values, issues and power arrangements.
    The theory of neo-realism emphasizes the importance of the structure of the international system and its role as the primary determinant of state behaviour.
    It also used to describe a recent and updated version of what is happening and what will happen.
    It focuses on issues of military security and war and the core research question is how to survive in this system.
    States and other actors interact in an anarchic environment. This means that there is no central authority to enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global community.
    Therefore, the structure of the system is a major determinant of actor behaviour.
    According to neo-realism states are self interest oriented and an anarchic and competitive system pushes them to favour self-help over cooperative behaviour.
    States are also rational actors, selecting strategies to maximise benefits and minimise losses. The most critical problem presented by anarchy is survival.
    States see all other actors as potential enemies and threats to their national security.
    This distrust and fear creates a security dilemma, and this motivates policies of most states.
    A neo-liberal foreign policy promotes free trade or open markets and democratic values and institutions
    In neo-liberalism, foreign policies, national interests take precedence over morality and universal ideas much to the dismay of traditional realists, economic interests are given priority of geopolitical ones.
    These are problem solving theories and system maintainer theories and neither of the two advances prescriptions for major reform or radical transformation of the international system.
    For neo-liberalism focus is on issues of cooperation, international political economy and the environment. The core question of research is how to promote and support cooperation in an anarchic system and competitive international system.

    Lammy in Smith and Baylis 2005:206 states that neo-realists dominate the world of security studies and neo realists focus on the political economy and more recently on issues like human rights and the environment.
    Both are normative theories of a sort, biased towards the state, the capitalist market, and the status quo.
    The processes of globalisation have forced neo-realists and neo-liberals to consider similar issues and address new challenges to the international order. The debate between neo-realists and neo-liberals has dominated main stream international relations since the mid 1980s.
    Baylis and Smith 2005:215.
    They both agree that the international system is anarchic. Neo-realists say that anarchy puts more constraints on foreign policy and that neo-liberals minimise the importance of survival as the goal of each state. Neo-liberals claim that neo-realists minimise the importance of international interdependence, globalisation and the regimes created to manage these interactions.

    Neo-realists state that anarchy requires states to be pre-occupied with relative power, security and survival in a competitive international system. Neo-liberals are more concerned with economic welfare or international political economy issues and other non-military issue areas such as international environmental concerns.
    Neo-realists emphasize the capabilities (power) of state over intentions and interests of states. Capabilities are essential for security and independence. Neo-realists claim that uncertainty about intentions of other states forces states to focus on their capabilities. Neo-liberals emphasize intentions and preferences.
    Neo-liberals see institutions and regimes as significant forces in international relations. Neo-realists state that neo-liberals exaggerate the impact of regimes and institutions on state behaviour (Ruling party). Neo-liberals (Opposition) claim that they facilitate cooperation and neo-realists say that they do not mitigate the constraining effects of anarchy on cooperation.
    Neo-liberals think that actors with common interests try to maximise absolute gains. Neo-realists claim that neo-liberals overlook the importance of relative gains. Neo-liberals want to maximise the total amount of gains for all parties involved, whereas the neo-realists believe that the fundamental goal of states in cooperative relationships is to prevent others from gaining more.
    Neo-realists believe that international cooperation will not happen unless states make it happen. They feel that it is hard to achieve, difficult to maintain and dependent on state power. Neo-liberals believe that cooperation is easy to achieve in areas where states have mutual interests. This debate revolves around the relevant actors and issues in global politics.
    Neo-realists believe that there is no natural harmony of interests among people and that power and security are the central elements of global politics. Actors are naturally competitive and conflict is and always will be the norm.
    Neo-realists emphasize the structure of the international system, anarchy, as the source of conflict and all global activity. They are even more pessimistic regarding change.
    Neo-liberals believe actors can cooperate to overcome conflict and poverty. They are optimistic such change can occur.
    Neo-liberals emphasize the linked fates of actors, otherwise known as interdependence.

    The root cause for what is wrong lies in the ideas or beliefs that people have about themselves and circumstances. These include ideas on one hand and questions about identity on the other, questions about who we are and what groups we belong to and to which groups we belong to and what our expectations are about the roles that these groups are supposed to play. These ideas include questions about the fundamental nature and dynamics of the world.

    Very often society employs these associations consciously or unconsciously to justify aggressive or discriminatory behaviour towards others.
    An example here includes the roles that women play in society that are limited to their gender because they are portrayed as being weak and not capable of standing up and being counted in the hard world of public life.
    Through ideas about people, society is able to create or construct the way the world should operate. Ideas structure, the life world and encourage certain behaviour and constrain people from going outside of a prescribed pattern.

    One of the most influential critical theories regarding ideas is the gender theory which emphasises that men and women the world over are caught up in socially constructed gender roles of masculinity and femininity and this leads to a wide range of social pathological behaviour.
    Gender theory’s main line of argument is the distribution of privileges according to gender which makes men end up in all influential public offices while women are by large relegated to the private sphere of house-hold and the family.
    This paradigm suggests that this structure of society alienates women to becoming invisible actors in international relations. The argument here further states that it is men who fight wars and win wars and who parade on the forum of world politics.
    Although women provide crucial services in terms of looking after children, and their homes while men fight and women often keep the domestic economy going in terms of international relations they have been ignored until recently.
    In recognition of the role played by women in society, gender theorists have been able to reveal the hidden roles of women in an international context.
    This brings the line of argument of the feminist theory as apart of this assignment.
    What about feminist theory?.
    Feminists are concerned with gender as opposed to the position of women as such and the socially constructed roles that women occupy in world politics.
    They look into ways in which masculinity and femininity get constructed and are especially interested in how world politics constructs certain types of men and women.
    In discussing feminist theory, the focus will be on analysing how gender affects world politics and how concepts such as state or sovereignty are gendered and how gender relates to constructivism.
    Feminist theory in international relations originally developed in work on the politics of development and peace research. A question on the role of women in world politics was phrased.
    One of the strongest arguments of feminism is that all rights should be granted to women equally as they are granted to men. Taking women seriously in society has improved their standing in world politics eg Uganda
    Women in history have played central active roles in either as cheap factory workers, prostitutes around military bases and as wives of diplomats.
    The conventional picture painted by international relations theory ignored these contributions and designated them as less important.
    Feminist theory seeks to explore and expose the importance of women in international economic and political systems.
    In post modern times women now hold key positions in governments the world over and also are head of states and chief executive officers of big multinational companies and organisations.
    Examples include Condoleezza Rice, former American secretary of state, Hilary Clinton current US secretary of state. Women are now also able to serve as presidents and examples include in the Philippines and Liberia.

    Feminists argue that gender is a principle way of signifying power relationships and that gender relations affect every aspect of human relations, including global politics. In its analysis of global politics, feminist theory views the world from the perspective of the disadvantaged and takes greater account of economic inequality, ecological dangers, and human rights in defining security than conventional (male) international relations theory, which emphasizes military issues.
    However some scholars critical of feminist theory assert that, by focusing on traditional women’s roles as victims or being used by men, feminist theory may exclude those women participating as diplomats or soldiers as well as ignoring men’s issue such as why it is generally men forced to fight in wars.
    Furthermore, as with criticisms with feminism in general feminism almost always treats women as the subject of analysis at the exclusion of men whether as agents or victims.
    In defence, some arguments by feminist theorists do consider men although still often they make the assumption that due to patriarchy certain rational men are privileged.
    As Constructivists reject neorealism’s conclusions about the determining effect of anarchy on the behavior of international actors and move away from neorealism’s underlying materialism, they create the necessary room for the identities and interests of international actors to take a central place in theorizing international relations.
    Now that actors are not simply governed by the imperatives of a self help system, their identities and interests become important in analyzing how they behave.
    Like the nature of the international system, constructivists see such identities and interests as not objectively grounded in material forces such as dictates of the human nature that underpins classical realism but the result of ideas and the social construction of such ideas.
    Martha Finnemore has been influential in examining the way in which international organizations are involved in these processes of the social construction of actor’s perceptions of their interests.
    Finnemore attempts to develop a systemic approach to understanding state interests and state behavior by investigating an international structure, not of power but of meaning and social value.
    All theories are necessarily socially constructed based on communication among the agents in international politics and these constructions of shared meanings through social learning provide states and other actors with the mental models of international politics on which they act. This method of viewing international politics represents a welcome theoretical departure because it reminds scholars that shared images influence the way actors in the global arena view international politics and how they behave.
    Interests she explains are not just out there waiting to be discovered but they are constructed through social interaction. She further provides three examples of such construction which include the creation of Science Bureaucracies in states due to the influence of international organizations such as UNESCO, the role of the Red Cross in the Geneva Conventions and the World Bank’s influence of attitudes to poverty.
    Studies of such processes are examples of the constructivist attitude towards state interests and identities. Such interests and identities are central determinants of state behavior, as such studying their nature and their formation is integral in constructivist methodology to explaining the international system.
    But it is important to note that despite this refocus onto identities and interests, constructivists are not necessarily wedded to focusing their analysis at the unit level of international politics.
    Constructivists both emphasize that while ideas and processes tend to explain the social construction of identities and interests, such ideas and processes form a structure of their own which impact upon international actors. Their central difference from neo-realists is to see that the structure of international politics in primarily ideational, rather than material terms (Finnemore and Wendt).

    In the twenty first century it has become increasingly popular to interpret world politics from a constructivist approach that focuses on collective norms, culture of people and state actors. In addition constructivism opens a window to insightful analysis and brings to inquiry the possibility of learning through analysis from which policy makers can construct more accurate pictures of international realities and use them to engineer c THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS……………………..CONTINUES.

    The recognition that the world is socially constructed means that constructivists can investigate global change and transformation and a key issue in any study of global change is diffusion captured by the concern with institutional isomorphism and the life cycle of norms.
    Constructivism criticizes neo-realism and neo-liberalism for their failure to explain global change transformations. Diffusion also draws attention to the internationalisation of norms. Norms are generally understood as standards of appropriate behaviour for actors with in a given identity.
    The global gender equality regime has emerged and it is identifiable by its norms, principles, legal instruments and compliance mechanisms. Neo-liberal theories of international regimes provide insights into the identification of this concept of global change and the conditions for its emergence. They acknowledge the role of transnational networks, international institutions and epistemic communities of experts in shaping state choices.
    Global women’s networks together with multilateral and bilateral development organizations such as have been instrumental in shaping these global norms on gender equality by engaging in a learning process, framing issues, influencing negotiations by the information they provide and monitoring progress.
    But the neo-liberal theories tell nothing about the norms themselves, their contestation in different contexts and the structures that support them and give them meaning.

    Constructivism when viewed in terms of global change opens the way to a crucial appreciation of gender as an analytical category, demonstrating how gender norms and identities are constructed, contested and reconstructed in historical, and socio-political contexts.
    It thus potentially allows us to examine how a gender equality regime as defined by its principles, norms and decision making mechanisms need to be further deconstructed and analyzed to reveal how global norms get interpreted, reinterpreted, filled in and contested on a continuing basis within different and sometimes competing institutions.
    Otherwise, such norms are bound to remain superficial and may obfuscate rather than clarify. In support of the above statement global change has impacted on different societies by influencing their culture and norms. Examples include the role that now women play in Middle East politics in previously Islamised countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiti. Women are now allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia and also hold key government positions such as being ministers.
    In other Middle East countries such as Syria and in Europe, Muslim women have been banned from wearing the veil or covering their faces in public places.
    This is a clear manifestation of constructivism’ main arguments that include the role of norms and culture in the international system and how it relates to global change.
    While discussing and analysing global change it is important to include and note that one of the most important developments over the years has been the spread of liberal economic ideas and policies throughout the world. These policies have affected the lives of millions of people yet most sophisticated political economy models do not adequately capture influences on these policy choices.
    Evidence suggests that the adoption of liberal economic practices is highly clustered both temporally and spatially. It is assumed that this clustering might be due to processes of policy diffusion. It is further suggested that diffusion results from one of two broad sets of forces one in which mounting adoptions of a policy alter the benefits of adopting for others and another in which adoptions provide policy relevant information about the benefits of adopting.
    Arguments within these broad classes of mechanisms construct appropriate measures of the relevant concepts and test their effects on liberalization and restriction of the current account, the capital account, and the exchange rate regime. Findings suggest that domestic models of foreign economic policy making are insufficient.
    Evidence also shows that policy and political transitions are influenced by international economic competition as well as the policies of a country’s socio-cultural peers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: