Who will live in independent Buganda kingdom?

In December 1960 Buganda declared itself an independent kingdom. It did not happen because it had no means of implementation. In 1966 the Lukiiko hurriedly ordered the central government to vacate Buganda. This contributed to the sad events of that year. The issue of Buganda independence from Uganda is up again in full force.

I listen to radio munansi every Saturday and Sunday. The common theme is that Baganda want a Baganda alone independent kingdom. Reason: They have been impoverished, dispossessed and devalued culturally by non-Baganda in Buganda.

Buganda is politically, economically and socially strategic. It is the heart, lungs and brain of Uganda. Since the 1920s, millions of people from within Uganda and without have flocked to Buganda to work; study and as refugees.

Many of them stayed and intermarried, adopted Baganda culture including dress, language and names. Some became more Baganda than native Baganda. The most common names they adopted are Kapere and Musoke. They “memorized the genealogies of Ganda clans in order to pass themselves off as clan members … [and Baganda]… had difficulties telling newcomers from natives”. By 1948, 34 percent of the people living in Buganda were immigrants, mostly from Rwanda and southern Uganda (Derek R. Petterson 2012).

Around independence time Banyarwanda (Hutu and Tutsi) constituted some 40 percent of the population in Buganda (Aristide R. Zolberg et al., 1989).

When you add on other non-Baganda from within Uganda and outside now living in Buganda, you are basically talking about non-Baganda being more than 50 percent of the population in Buganda. They have accumulated properties, raised their families in Buganda and have nowhere else to go. Then there is the challenge of dealing with Kampala and Entebbe the seat of the central government.

It is also important to note that there are many Baganda who live in other parts of Uganda. Many don’t know another home except where they are living today. What would happen to Baganda outside Buganda should in the unlikely event Baganda succeed in kicking non-Baganda out of Buganda?

This is the magnitude of the challenge should Baganda insist on creating Baganda alone independent kingdom.

I am providing this information purely to encourage debate so that we don’t rush into a potentially bloody and regrettable situation. Many politicians don’t want to touch this hot potato for fear of disfiguring their political plans. We need to take a look and draw lessons at the human suffering that followed the political split between Pakistan and India in 1947.



By dividing up the opposition, we are inadvertently strengthening NRM

After the stolen elections of 2011, opposition groups embarked on serious consultations and debate including on radio munansi and resolved to create an umbrella organization of political parties and organizations at home and abroad to present a common challenge to NRM through common messages and one spokesperson especially at the diplomatic level.

In July 2011 United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) was created in Los Angeles, USA. The committee chaired by Mubiru Musoke was instructed to prepare a National Recovery Plan that was presented and endorsed at the Boston, USA conference in October 2011. Eric Kashambuzi was elected Secretary General at the Los Angeles meeting and mandated to coordinate diplomatic networking, among other functions. The Boston conference additionally mandated the UDU committee to begin civic education as many issues raised in the National Recovery Plan were not well understood.

Both conferences were represented by members of FDC, UPC and DP. FDC was officially represented at both meetings. In subsequent consultations UPC officially agreed to work with UDU. Contacts with DP indicated discussions to formally join UDU were ongoing. Meanwhile DP supporters were encouraged to work closely with UDU. Contacts were also made with UFA and agreed to work together on various matters including federalism.

UDU conducted its work mostly through the English program of radio munansi, Ugandans at Heart Forum and UDU blog The success of these programs led to the convening of The Hague meeting in November 2013 that brought together participants from Uganda and the Diaspora. Given UDU recognized success, the plan was to expand it into The Hague Process (THP) but a decision was taken that participants should do so in their individual capacity.

The Hague conference adopted a non-violent strategy to unseat NRM and form a broad-based transitional government led by a presidential team/council (this idea was first proposed at the Los Angeles conference of 2011). It was also resolved that leadership should rotate to permit flexibility in leadership changes and give participants a chance to demonstrate their leadership qualities. The first chairperson was Mr. Kyeswa Ssebweze and the current one is Dr. Henry Gombya. The chairpersons are working closely with focal points at home and in the Diaspora.

The blue print for The Hague Process for peace, security and development in Uganda was adopted in June. It has been circulated to members with 198 methods to be employed according to local conditions to end NRM regime. The document has been posted on face book.

The UDU with its economic blueprint and the THP with its political blueprint have dovetailed in a political economy framework that is unique in Uganda’s current politics, combining economics and politics and Ugandans at home and abroad. This is the result of careful reflection on what Uganda opposition needs to unseat NRM regime. And a new national leadership with experience in domestic and external matters and impeccable record is emerging.

Sadly, instead of building on this solid foundation, other opposition organizations are springing up.

1. Within a month of The Hague conference, FUF was established in such a hurry as can be seen from its manifesto that it collapsed after six months.

2. Then out of the blue we heard of FADDU that had agreed to join with FUF which had just collapsed in London.

3. Some leaders of FADDU/FUF are also leaders of UDU without explaining the relationship.

4. Then we heard of the Amsterdam meeting prepared in secrecy and a week before the conference it was discovered that the leader was NRM supporter and dismissed abruptly so the meeting addressed by Dr. Kizza Besigye took place under a dark shadow, killing the Amsterdam Consensus immediately. Postings on face book about other members of the Amsterdam group are self-explanatory about their character.

5. Radio munansi which had developed into a truly national channel of communication with a strong English program made abrupt changes and terminated the English program without explanation, immediately turning a national radio station into a southern regional one. It now caters for those who know Luganda and Lutoro/Lukiga/Lunyankole and Lunyoro languages. As expected the number of listeners has dropped significantly.

6. What we are seeing is either greedy individuals in the opposition who are being sidelined by the new faces and are resisting by forming new organizations to stay in business or NRM has penetrated the opposition and is dividing it up.

Ipso facto, we need to review what has happened quickly and take corrective measures. Short of that you can be sure NRM will be around for a long time – however much and long we complain. Some individuals may be benefitting in prestige and possibly in money. But this is happening at the expense of national interests. Uganda and Ugandans must come first. Parochial and individual interests are undermining the interests of the nation and her people. It is these groups that are prolonging NRM in power.

Eric Kashambuzi

Political marriage of convenience hasn’t worked in Uganda

Pressure is building up for the opposition at home and abroad to come together and remove NRM from power and establish a new government. We are already witnessing a lot of travelling between Uganda and Europe and North America and groups being formed overnight in readiness to take up their seats in the new government. For some what is important and urgent is removal of the regime and the rest will follow.

This rush to form coalitions or political marriages of convenience reminds us of what happened in Uganda shortly before independence in 1962 with UNC (Obote branch) joining UPU to form UPC and then UPC forming a coalition with KY and in Moshi just before the overthrow of Amin regime in 1979.

In the latter case, Ugandans in the Diaspora who had nothing in common except to defeat and replace Amin administration gathered in Moshi and agreed to form a new government with nothing else in common. As expected trouble started immediately they arrived in Kampala: innocent people were killed and others fled. Lule’s government was overthrown after 68 days in office. A hurriedly organized election was rejected by those who lost and led to a bloody guerrilla war that left some 700,000 people dead in the Luwero Triangle alone.

In an attempt to unseat NRM government, opposition groups are rushing to form coalitions that may end up as temporary marriages of convenience. There are two major challenges at the moment that need to be addressed comprehensively.

The first one is about the method to apply in removing the current regime from power. One school wants armed violence in the first instance, reasoning that fire must be met with fire. This school is only focusing on mobilization for war. The second school is advocating civil disobedience or non-violent dissent in the first instance using a wide range of methods that have been circulated by The Hague Process that go beyond regime change, to be tailored to local circumstances. A meeting of the minds needs to be reached to avoid a winner-take-all situation that will destabilize the post-NRM regime period.

The second challenge is what to do the morning after a new government is formed. There are groups that have already produced blue prints on economic and political matters and there are those that are focusing on regime change and hope to do the rest after regime change. The third category includes those who are hoping that another occasion similar to the Moshi conference will develop and all groups with or without any mission and vision will be invited to form the next government. The Moshi model should not be repeated under any circumstances.

UDU that was founded in 2011 has prepared a National Recovery Plan (NRP) widely circulated and available at The Hague Process (THP) has prepared a political road map of non-violent resistance and formation of a broad-based transitional government led by a presidential council.

We urge groups that have not done so to begin without delay. In this regard, we suggest that for the sake of coherence and coordination for efficiency and effectiveness they use as a base what UDU and THP have already produced, enrich them as appropriate instead of re-inventing the wheel so that in the end we have one common document.

Failure to address these two challenges and to stick to agreements among various groups might lead to political chaos and possibly a civil war that followed revolutions including in France, Mexico, Russia, Ethiopia and Iran.

As a reminder of what could go wrong if the advice is not heeded we shall look at Mexico in and after 1910 and Somalia in 1991 and after when a promise was broken.

In Mexico three men got together in a hurry and ousted the repressive government of Porfirio Diaz who had been in power for thirty-five years and then disagreed about how to work together in the new government, plunging the country into a bitter civil war.

We shall also outline how three opposition groups in Somalia agreed in a hurry to work together, overthrow the repressive government of Siad Barre and form a new government after all three had consulted but one of them chose to form the government alone and triggered a political crisis. These lessons should help Uganda opposition groups to forge a common platform and stick to promises or decisions taken.

Three Mexicans – with different perspectives – namely Francisco Madero a conservative who presented himself as a liberal and called for a revolution against Diaz was joined by Francisco “Pancho” Villa a bandit believed to have killed somebody, became a fugitive and survived by robbing the rich and Emeliano Zapata whose main interest was to get land and liberty back to the peasants. The revolution was successful and Madero became president. Diaz fled the country. Sadly, the revolution was followed by a civil war because the three men had no common strategy.

Madero stalled on land reform which he had promised Zapata as a condition for joining him. Zapata who had no patience demanded that land reform be initiated without further delay. When that did not materialize he left the government and formed anti-Madero army.

In the political chaos that followed, Pascual Orozco, the army commander mounted a counter-revolution. Pancho Villa joined General Victoriano Huerta and defeated Orozco. Huerta got Madero murdered and became president.

Huerta was hated by both Villa and Zapata who joined Alvaro Obregon and Venustiano Carranza against him. Huerta was defeated and fled into exile to Spain. In turn, Obregon and Carranza hated and feared Villa, the bandit-revolutionary. Zapata refused to recognize Carranza as the new head of state. Zapata, the socialist land reformer and Villa arranged to join forces and oust Carranza but disagreed on how to run the country after they captured power.

Before capturing state power, Villa had suggested that he become commander in chief of the forces of the two men. Zapata refused to go along. Two days later both men leading their separate forces entered Mexico City and proceeded to the presidential palace that had earlier been vacated by Carranza. Villa and Zapata disagreed the second time over sitting in the presidential chair. Villa who was apparently more interested in power than Zapata sat in the presidential chair first and then called on Zapata to take his turn. Zapata refused arguing that “I did not fight for that. I fought to get the land back”. He added “We should burn that chair to end all ambitions”.

Notwithstanding these differences, the two men complemented each other. Villa had a stronger army but no coherent political goals while Zapata had a clear political vision and a weaker army. If the two had been able to come together, “Mexico would have been spared much bloodshed”(Joseph Cummins 2008) during the civil war.

The lesson for Uganda here is that we should come together and utilize our talents for the common good according to our comparative advantages, not fight for positions we may not be qualified for and then start learning on the job. To test the quality of leadership in The Hague Process, we have arranged to rotate the post of chairperson.

Somalia presents an illustration where three opposition groups: Somali National Movement (SNM), Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) and United Somali Congress (USC) came together and agreed to fight and remove the repressive government of Siad Barre. They also agreed they would consult one another before the new government is formed. When the government fell, there were no consultations. Instead, Mohammed Ali Mahdi, leader of one of USC factions formed the government alone. “The USC, a Hawiye-based movement began ruthlessly killing all non-Hawiye living in Mogadishu in an attempt at ‘clan cleansing’…. For the northerners, who already disliked their southern brethren’s behavior during the war, this was the last straw. In February and March 1991, a shir (assembly) was held in Berbera in which the Issaq, the major northern clan family, decided that union with the south was a bad idea”(Current History May 1998). A second shir held in May 1991 proclaimed the independence of Somaliland, a former British colony.

While proclamation of independent Somaliland may have solved one problem, it created another one. In Somaliland, the Issaq make up 70 percent of the population, meaning that the new state would be dominated by them. The four smaller clans (Issa, Gadabursi, Dolbahante and Warsangeli) had fought with Siad Barre because they feared that if Siad Barre’s government were defeated and Somaliland seceded, they would be dominated by Issaq. The proclamation of Somaliland independence was therefore greeted by dissent and armed rebellion by different clans and sub-clans. The sub-clan controlling Berbera area refused to share port revenues with other clans. The dominant Habr Garhadjis group attacked Berbera “in the interest of the state”(Current History May 1998). All this would not have happened if the three parties had stuck to the promise of consultation before a new government was formed.

One lesson is pertinent: in whatever we do we must respect human rights and fundamental freedoms of Ugandans wherever they reside in the country. There must be no room whatsoever for ethnic cleansing in Uganda during and after regime change as happened in Mogadishu.

To recap the two illustrations have demonstrated that political marriages of convenience have not worked most of the time, undermining security of persons and properties. It happened in Uganda in 1966 and 1969. The four lessons (two from Uganda, one from Mexico and one from Somalia) should guide us in designing a common platform for regime change and what to do the morning after in a transitional phase.

Guided by these and other lessons of history, The Hague Process (THP) has adopted a road map to unseat NRM regime by peaceful means in the first instance and to create a broad-based transitional government led by a presidential council with each region represented.

This arrangement if embraced by all has a better chance of delivering better results in a more secure environment than if we rush individually to capture power, leaving many behind. UDU and THP are prepared to enter into a constructive engagement with those interested in the messages contained in these pages, resulting in the formation of a governing structure to lead the process to the formation of a transitional government.

Eric Kashambuzi


Equality, justice and rule of law must prevail in Uganda

People who have followed my debates and publications consistently and impartially know that I am flexible within the confines of my principles. I believe all human beings are born free and equal in rights and dignity as specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I believe in democracy and good governance. Democracy means people must decide freely who should govern them on the basis of promises made by the leaders. When leaders fail to deliver they should be recalled or rejected at the next elections.

Good governance means that public officials must act in a transparent manner, must include all citizens in decisions that affect their lives and must be held accountable for their commissions or omissions.

Nobody should escape accountability on account of resigning from government after they have participated in criminal activities. Therefore Musevenism designed to hold Museveni and his family alone for all wrongs in Uganda since 1981 and possibly earlier should be rejected forthwith. This is a matter of justice, not apologizing for Museveni and his family.

Since I joined Uganda politics, I have been driven by the same mission, same vision and same values.

1. The mission is to unseat NRM government by civil disobedience or non-violent dissent in the first instance. Please note that “in the first instance” means that if excessive force is applied against civil dissent, the people of Uganda reserves the right to invoke other means in self-defense.

2. The vision is to create a broad-based transitional government run by a presidential team/council; organize comprehensive population census to give us an idea about how many and who exactly we are after which we should organize a national convention so that Ugandans decide how they want to be governed.

3. The values I cherish include transparency, inclusiveness, compassion, liberty, justice, innovation, accountability, peace, security, prosperity and rule of law.

In July 2011, meeting in Los Angeles, USA, Ugandans from different parties and organizations at home and abroad formed United Democratic Ugandans (UDU). The Committee to run the affairs of UDU includes Mubiru Musoke as Chairperson; Eric Kashambuzi as Secretary General; Dorothy Lubowa as Director of gender and Fred Ssali as Director of youth.

The committee was instructed to prepare a National Recovery Plan (NRP). The draft that had been circulated a month in advance to allow time for adequate consultations was presented at a meeting in Boston, USA in October 2011 and was unanimously approved after a day’s debate.

The Committee on account of its excellent performance that went beyond expectations was mandated to continue to serve. To keep members and others fully and regularly informed we created a UDU blog

UDU is an umbrella organization of opposition parties and organizations at home and abroad. We have been in constant touch with the leaders of FDC and UPC. DP members are actively engaged in UDU’s work although no formal arrangements have been made but we are constantly in touch with DP leadership. We are also working closely with UFA officials.

UDU has participated in meetings either in person or submitting statements. UDU was represented at the very successful London 2012 conference on federalism that was addressed as keynote speaker by Hon. Peter Mayiga, now the Katikiro of Buganda.

UDU has since championed a campaign for a federal system of government through publications and debates; presenting cases that have included Indonesia, Belgium, United Kingdom, Nigeria and Switzerland.

UDU has also facilitated harmonization of diplomatic networking to as much as possible speak the same language and through one voice. Results including decline in ODA to Uganda are there for all to see.

UDU’s analytical work on Uganda and Great Lakes region political economy issues and history has been well publicized including on Ugandans at Heart Forum, Face Book, twitter and Dennis Nyondo whom we incorporated as publicity Secretary has done an excellent job in disseminating UDU work.

In November 2013 a meeting was held in The Hague, Netherlands. Participants from Uganda and in the Diaspora representing all regions and demographics attended the meeting in their personal capacity. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Kyeswa Ssebweze who remained chairperson and organized preparations for the meeting in June 2014. Dr. Henry Gombya is currently the chairperson and will work with focal points in Uganda and abroad until the next meeting scheduled to be held in New York at an appropriate time.

We decided to have flexible organizational arrangements with office holders serving a short time to avoid constraints of refusing to hand over power to others. The rotational arrangement we adopted offers an opportunity to test leadership qualities including especially character of members and determine who is capable of doing what that will make it easy to allocate posts in the post-NRM transitional government. Merit, not connections, will determine who does what.

The Hague Process (THP) has adopted a road map, a strategy and a methodology with 198 means that should be applied according to local circumstances to unseat NRM by peaceful means in the first instance. The methodology has begun to work already as one reported recently “we are working methodically”. Demonstrations are one of the 198 methods and will be applied when it is absolutely necessary.

The success of UDU and THP thanks to The London Evening Post and Black Star News that are publishing our work among others through whom we are mobilizing Ugandans at home and abroad like never before have triggered fear and reaction in the ruling NRM.

Upon the success of The Hague conference, David Sejusa and Amii Otunnu hurriedly formed Freedom and Unity Front (FUF) by a few hand-picked individuals in what was supposed to be a secret meeting – had Monique not attended the meeting and thrown out for asking the “wrong” questions, a development that reporters disclosed to the public – to counter THP.

FUF manifesto lacked in-depth analysis of Uganda, was drafted on ecumenical principles thus restricting mobilization largely to Christians; had no clear mission, vision and values (later it was admitted it was drawn up in a hurry and needed to be revised). It was designed like a plane taking off on a dirt runway without a landing plan.

The subsequent so-called situation analysis of Uganda coming a few months after FUF was formed gave a rather fuzzy history of Uganda, not a situation analysis confined to the defined period.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that technical, political and administrative problems choked FUF to death within six months of its birth.

David Sejusa who declared the infant ‘death’ of FUF announced at the same time that he had instructed Amii Otunnu to create another organization. Within a fortnight FADDU/FUF was announced as successor to FUF, raising serious questions about FADDU: when it was formed, by whom, its location and office holders. The second question is how FADDU, legitimate or not can form a coalition with FUF that died and was buried in London? No answers have been given.

Faced with this problem, a new organization called Uganda in the Diaspora Europe (UDE) was hurriedly formed in Amsterdam, Netherlands and organized a meeting to challenge and hopefully overshadow The Hague Process. Invitations were selective leaving out UDU. A week before the meeting took place, it was discovered that the chairperson was a staunch supporter of NRM and was summarily dismissed. Dr. Kizza Besigye addressed the meeting perhaps without knowing UDE scandals and the implications of his visit. Face book has damaging information about other organizers of the conference. In these circumstances, one can safely conclude that UDE is already dead or terminally ill.

To counter what Eric Kashambuzi, secretary general of UDU and active participant in THP, is saying about these new organizations, the forces behind them and their failures, a body that was dormant called Wakeup Uganda sprang up to active life and began hurling dirt at the secretary general of UDU as you are reading on face book.

We have demanded to know when Wake up Uganda was formed, by whom, where it is located and the office bearers. Under pressure, Wake up Uganda has confessed it is a collection of four individuals: three males and one female who have declined to give their names and therefore continue to act illegitimately.

It is increasingly becoming a requirement that if you want to engage in public debate you must give your real full names, address and the organization you work for so that there is accountability for commissions or omissions.

It is perhaps these same individuals that are posing as FADDU and voice of radio Uganda members criticizing Kashambuzi because the message and style are more or less the same and without substance. And they do it in turns. When Wake up Uganda takes a break, radio voice of Uganda takes over. In all cases, no names are given.

One of them promised to give evidence that Kashambuzi is working for Museveni in return for some money and a job in his administration. I can’t wait to see the evidence.

NRM has taken a further step to damage the opposition in the Diaspora according to some stories. It has crippled the once credible, popular and vibrant radio munansi. The English program, the most popular and substantive with a wider reach in geography and diversity of listeners was abolished abruptly and unceremoniously without explaining to the anchor of the program before and after it was terminated. What has baffled them those who closed down the English program is that we have continued to reach our people through other media. There are stories that listeners are demanding restoration of the English program or to rebroadcast previous programs. This might require prior consent of the anchor of the program.

Out of frustration because of my resilience I was challenged to produce yet again my resume or CV – which I did – because some Ugandans felt that what I was saying about my record can’t be true.

Even with the resume out, Bobby Musoke has insisted that I have not produced proof of citizenship and therefore I am not a Ugandan and can’t play a leadership role. Some who have been impressed with my resume but don’t want to see me as leader of Uganda have concluded that I am too qualified to become president without defining the criteria for that office. Others have said that I prepared the resume wrongly and it can’t be accepted; yet others want a more detailed one. I have directed the latter to visit or www.kashambuzi for details. The good news is that the vast majority who responded were impressed.

Then there is Dezire Desire Mawa – who claims to come from Rwenzururu without realizing that we know the location of that place vis-a-vis DRC – has emerged out of nowhere and is discrediting his character in an attempt to pull me down.

Others have respectively used my short stature and seniority to disqualify me from Uganda leadership. They are now confused because I have given names of short and senior people that provided quality leadership to their citizens and the rest of the international community.

For easy reference, here are very successful short leaders that include James Madison, Deng Xiaoping of China, Shastri second prime minister of India, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Caesar and Kambona as foreign minister of Tanzania.

The very successful senior leaders that presided at a very difficult time include Deng Xiaoping; Rao of India; Mandela of South Africa; Reagan of USA and Adenauer of West Germany.

I want fellow Ugandans to know that:

1. I will continue as a matter of justice to champion the elimination of Musevenism from the political discourse as presently formulated to focus condemnation on Museveni and his family for all the wrongs in Uganda;

2. I will continue to advocate as a matter of conviction the use of non-violent means in the first instance to unseat NRM regime;

3. I will continue to campaign as a believer in diversity and inclusiveness for a broad-based post-NRM transitional government led by presidential team;

4. I will continue to fight for equality of opportunity for all Ugandans and inclusiveness of all Ugandans at home and abroad in Uganda’s political, economic and social processes. The voiceless and powerless Ugandans need a shoulder to lean on.

Thank you for reading this message to the end.

Eric Kashambuzi

Brief resume of Eric Kashambuzi for easy reference

Full name: Eric Michael Kashambuzi

Place of birth:

Nyarurambi village, Rwentondo parish, Kagunga County, Rukungiri district in South West Uganda

Father: Rev/Canon Samwiri Kashambuzi served the Anglican Church of Uganda attaining the rank of Archdeacon;

Marital status;

I have been married to Gertrude Kashambuzi for over forty years.


1. Nyakaina (Buyanja), Kashenyi (Ruhinda) primary school from grade 1 to grade 4 in Rukungiri district;

2. Kinyasano (Kagunga) primary school (grade 4 to grade 6) and secondary education from grade 7 to grade 8) in Rukungiri district;

3. Senior secondary (O Level) at Butobere School in Kigezi district and (A Level) at Ntare School in Ankole;

4. Undergraduate (University of East Africa: Nairobi campus) studied Geography, History and Economics in first year. Did Geography in second and third years (a 3:1:1 combination for honors students) and earned Upper Second Honors Degree;

5. Graduate (University of California, Berkeley campus) studied concurrently and graduated in Economics and Demography;

6. Post graduate (University of Lusaka Zambia) International Law and International Relations/Diplomacy

7. Self-trained in World History beyond first year as undergraduate student

Work experience:

1. Research and teaching Assistant in Geography at the University of East Africa, Nairobi campus. I drew up the population map for the 1969 Kenya census under the supervision of Prof. Simeon Ominde and Bill Martin Nairobi City District Commissioner and taught Cartography under the supervision of Prof. Richard Odingo;

2. Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Economics University of Nairobi, Kenya supervised by Profs. Bell and Hayer;

3. Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Economics at the University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (evening classes);

4. Advisor on population activities in Kenya and Ethiopia;

5. Economist in the first East African Community;

6. Senior Economist with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) for the Lome Convention negotiations with the European Economic Community (EEC) in Brussels, Belgium

7. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). I served in Ethiopia, Zambia and Swaziland country offices;

8. Since 1985 served UNDP in New York in the Africa Bureau covering West Africa; Eastern and Central Africa; Southern Africa and Regional Program working with African Union, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and African Development Bank;

9. In External Relations Bureau of UNDP I served as Focal Point and Liaison to the United Nations General Assembly Affairs, Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC) and Security Council Affairs;

10. I served in the Secretariat of the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board

11. I served in the Secretary General’s Millennium Project as the External Relations Officer and Liaison with the United Nations General Assembly and ECOSOC on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

12. I served in the Millennium Promise for MDGs as the External Relations and Liaison Officer with the United Nations General Assembly and ECOSOC;

13. I served as an expert on AU mission to DRC, Burundi and Rwanda;

14. Currently I am a consultant with the United Nations Foundation and Center on International Cooperation of New York University on Post-2015 Development Agenda (2016-2030).

Research and Publication:

I have written ten books.

1. Critical Issues in African Development;

2. The Paradox of Hunger and Abundance;

3. Africa’s Lost Century;

4. The Failure of Governance in Africa;

5. World Leaders at the United Nations;

6. Uganda’s Development Agenda;

7. Rethinking Africa’s Development Model;

8. Defying Poverty Through Struggle;

9. For Present and Future Generations;

10. Fifty Years Ago: Lessons from My Research and Writing.

Guest and Keynote speaker:

1. Guest Speaker to African students at Columbia University;

2. Guest Speaker to African students at MIT and Harvard;

3. Guest Speaker to African at McGill University;

4. Guest Speaker to African students at Mount Holyoke College;

5. Guest Speaker at UNAA Conference in New York;

6. Guest Speaker at the Uganda Federalism conference in London;

7. Guest Speaker at The Hague Conference in 2013

8. Keynote Speaker at the Banyakigezi Conference in New York;

9. Keynote Speaker at the Tropical African Conference in London;

10. Keynote Speaker at the U.S.- Africa Conference on Trade and Investment: Los Angeles, California, USA

Political Activities:

1. President of the African Students Association at Berkeley, California;

2. Secretary General United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) and principal author of UDU’s National Recovery Plan (NRP). We have a website on UDU activities:

3. Active participant in The Hague Process on Peace, Security and Development in Uganda and principal author of The Hague Process roadmap, strategy and methodology for non-violent resistance in Uganda;

4. I am actively engaged in diplomatic networking to unseat NRM regime by non-violent means in the first instance.

Mass media;

1. For three years I broadcasted in the English program on radio Munansi every Saturday and Sunday;

2. I created a blog:

Economic activities in Uganda:

1. Farming: crop cultivation and ranching;

2. Tree planting for multiple purposes including providing construction timber, fuel wood and reforestation to protect fragile water catchment areas and steep slope ecosystems;

3. Real estate.

Community service

1. Constructed spring wells in Nyarurambi to provide clean water to community members;

2. Built a Church for community members in Nyarurambi.

For God and My Country

Eric Kashambuzi

August 2014


Page 10 of 104


© 2011 United Democratic Ugandans. All Rights Reserved.