KaMuDuDu

....entrepreneurial....Speculators...

[Matt From Cultivate Elevate @CultivateElevat]

Secret to the Iran war? Take a listen to Lindsey williams in 1991 author of the energy non-crisis (a book @QuiteFranklyTV mentioned)

↗️↗️Iran was going to break the petrodollar and show oil is unlimited.

https://t.co/tOmlNopk4M

https://t.co/6QdfvGwlCe

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@SKapkwomu @KakwenzaRukira 🤔🤣🤣🤣

[TumukundeTonny(TT) @TumukundeTT]

THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM IN YOUR STATEMENTS, THEY WILL TEAR THE KINGDOM. LET ME TELL YOU WHY;
Your statement is long, but its central weakness is remarkably simple: it assumes the very authority that the Queen Mother is challenging.

You tell us that over 100 Babiito met at Karuziika, selected 21 people, and that this became the “Royal Succession Committee.” But where, precisely, did those 100 Babiito derive the legal or customary authority to constitute a body whose decision would determine the next Omukama?

Calling it a “Royal Succession Committee” does not answer that question. A committee does not become legitimate merely because it gives itself a name, holds a meeting and votes.

If the Queen Mother’s objection is that this was a “self-appointed group,” the answer cannot simply be: more than 100 people attended. The real question is whether those people had the recognised mandate under Tooro custom to constitute the body that Mwenda now treats as the supreme electoral authority. That is the answer 'Best' is looking for.

There is another serious problem.

You say Oyo’s son was excluded because there was no photograph, there were questions about his mother, different names had been used, and some Babiito had never heard of him.
But since when does not having a photograph at a meeting become a customary test of dynastic legitimacy? As, you claim to be an 'old man of the clan', do you think the absence of the above, delegitimise the young boy (if any) of his royalty? Be fair Andrew!!!

If the existence of a possible heir was genuinely in dispute, the rational course would have been to verify the claim—identity, parentage, birth records, DNA where appropriate, testimony, and the applicable customary requirements. Instead, the committee allegedly moved from uncertainty to exclusion.
That is not the same thing as disproving the claim.

You also make a revealing rhetorical move by repeatedly calling the child “Oyo’s purported son.” That is a conclusion masquerading as neutral description. If paternity is disputed, then say it is disputed. Do not use the language of uncertainty to create the impression that the claim has already been discredited.

You say the Queen Mother was represented on the committee by her brother Patrick Kawamara. But if the Queen Mother herself is an institutionally significant actor in the succession of her deceased son, why should her participation be reduced to being represented by a relative on a committee whose mandate she disputes? Would you expect a sober mother like 'Best' to be in such a contested meeting with her son lying unburied??
Representation is not the same thing as consent. Nor does the fact that a person attends a meeting necessarily mean that they accept the legitimacy of the process taking place at that meeting.

The argument about the will is equally problematic. You say the will contains only a “hypothetical heir” and therefore does not resolve succession. Fine.
But if the will does not resolve succession, why is it being deployed as part of the argument against the Queen Mother’s position?

A will may answer questions concerning property and personal wishes. Succession to a traditional throne is a different question governed by the applicable constitutional, statutory and customary framework.

So the real issue is not whether Oyo’s will magically names a successor. The real issue is whether the succession process being undertaken is lawful, customary, legitimate and inclusive of the institutions entitled to participate in it.

And this is where your statement becomes politically interesting. You spend enormous energy explaining why Oyo’s possible son should not automatically inherit. But who is arguing that a son automatically inherits? That is a straw man!!!

The more difficult question is whether the existence of a son and the circumstances of his birth must first be conclusively established before the kingdom closes the succession question. Those are completely different propositions.

Your statement also says the kingdom was “time barred” and therefore moved to the next candidate after George Kamurasi allegedly asked for time to consult his wife and business partners. Time-barred by what rule? What customary provision imposes that deadline? Who set it? Why was the deadline necessary? And why should the urgency of filling the throne override unresolved questions concerning a possible direct descendant of the deceased Omukama? These are not minor procedural questions. They go to the legitimacy of the entire process.

But there is an even deeper issue that your statement does not confront. Why is there such extraordinary urgency to determine the next King?

If the real objective is simply to identify the most legitimate successor, there should be no fear of a transparent process that establishes the facts first. The controversy therefore appears to be about more than the identity of the next Omukama. It is about who will have influence over the next Omukama.

The Queen Mother is not merely another relative of the late King. She occupies a distinct cultural position and has been closely associated with the young King and the institution of the Tooro monarchy.

Therefore, a succession struggle in which the Queen Mother’s influence is diminished, her preferred position is challenged, and a new succession structure is rapidly constructed around her is inevitably going to raise questions about the political future of the institution itself.

This is why the debate should not be reduced to:

“Did Oyo introduce his son?”

“Was there a photograph?”

“What did the will say?”

“Did 100 Babiito meet?”

Those are pieces of the puzzle—not the puzzle itself.

The fundamental questions are:

Who has the authority to determine succession?

What customary rules confer that authority?

Was the Queen Mother’s institutional role properly recognised?

Why was the possible heir excluded rather than subjected to a transparent verification process?

What exactly made the succession process “time barred”?

And, ultimately:

Who benefits from determining the next Omukama through this particular process, at this particular moment, and with the Queen Mother’s influence reduced?

Until those questions are answered, your statement does not settle the succession dispute.

It merely gives us one side’s explanation of why it believes it should control the process.

And that is precisely the issue in dispute.

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@TumukundeTT Wonderful...

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@brunolukyamuzi4 This is brilliant...thank you

[𝕱𝖗𝖊𝖊𝖑𝖆𝖓𝖈𝖊 𝕯𝖎𝖕𝖑𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖙 @brunolukyamuzi4]

𝑨𝒏𝒅𝒓𝒆𝒘 𝑴𝒘𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂, 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒖𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅. 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑸𝒖𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝑴𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑩𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑲𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒔𝒂 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑶𝒚𝒐’𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒂 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒓, 𝒅𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈.

𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, a conditional heir is not an imaginary heir. The reported will provides that a lawfully recognised biological son surviving Oyo should succeed him. That condition requires verification. Calling the heir “hypothetical” does not establish that the condition was unmet. It also names Prince Nyaika Solomon as alternatives under specified circumstances. Why does your explanation omit how those provisions were considered?

𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱, the committee’s lack of knowledge is not proof that no child exists. Conflicting names, missing photographs and withheld family details justify questions. They do not, by themselves, establish false parentage. A photograph cannot prove paternity. What opportunity was provided to produce reliable records, confidential family testimony or, if necessary and appropriately authorised, scientific verification?

Supporting the Queen Mother requires allowing that claim to be properly tested before exclusion.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱, explain the committee’s procedure. You rely on a secret ballot, yet the Musuuga was publicly reported as saying the next king would be determined through tradition without voting. Was this ballot merely advisory, or did it determine succession? Which customary authority governed it?

Your account also says the preferred candidate requested time to consult, after which the committee moved to another candidate because the kingdom was “time barred.” What established that deadline, and what procedure authorised the replacement? Tooro deserves a clear explanation.

𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵, demonstrate the custom you invoke. If eligibility requires birth to an officially married Mutoro queen, identify the recognised customary authority and relevant precedents. Your assertion is central to excluding the child and therefore deserves scrutiny. The will’s authority must likewise be examined alongside established custom; neither side should assume its interpretation settles everything.

𝗙𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔. 𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑟, 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. 𝐴 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛’𝑠 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑’𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒.

𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆
The Queen Mother has asked for space to mourn and bury her son. The kingdom’s prime minister has also urged the rival camps to pause the contest until after the burial. That appeal deserves serious consideration. Prime minister’s appeal⁠..

My position is clear: authenticate the will, examine its succession provisions, verify the child’s claim confidentially, and explain the applicable customs through a credible process. Respect King Oyo’s wishes, hear the Queen Mother, and give Tooro a succession its people can trust.

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@DRindoh @CanaryMugume @EddiePages @KagutaMuseveni 🤔🙌😆😆😆😆

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@Baffergoon @QMasterPool1 Why?

[Muhoozi Kainerugaba @mkainerugaba]

From today and forever more ALL Ugandan Police Officers will wear their name tags on their right chest pocket. They must also wear their police badge and number on their left chest pocket. Finally, all Ugandan citizens have the right to demand the name and badge number of any arresting officer. If they do not respond, you have the right to resist arrest.

[David Sejusa, DM. @sejudav]

So, how idi Amin was perceived was/is a CLASS THING, then? The COLONIAL ELITES: Intelligencia, and the Bureaucratic NYAMPARAS(colonial HEADMEN) VILIFIED him and went after him, while the COMMON UGANDANS: Rural Peasantry, Working class& all the marginalised subaltern population EXALTED HIM? That is a song by one of the leading composers/singers of that time; SSEBADDUKA CHRISTOPHER, exalting Idi Amin for liberating the common man..
@FGoloobaMutebi can help have it sang in English, by say, SYLIVER KYAGULANYI.... for those who dont understand Luganda....

[Russia X 🇷🇺 @Rusia_HD]

🚨The Israeli ambassador to Denmark is protesting the spread of this video. Let's make this go viral all around the world..

[Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil @ivan_8848]

💯🚨‼️AMERICA AND ISRAEL CREATED TERRORISM

🚨‼️Professor John Mearsheimer: From 1971 to 2021, the 🇺🇸US murdered 38 million people.

🚨‼️Its Been Proven that CIA and Israel Lobby Created ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

🚨 ‼️Hillary Clinton, 2011: We created Al-Qaida

[ThePatrioticBlonde™🇺🇸 @ImBreckWorsham]

October 7th was funded and planned by Netanyahu. Excellent job, @BenSwann_ at putting it all together.

[Iran Army Media @IranArmyMedia]

Never forget how Israel murdered a girl carrying water for her family.

Never forgive. Never forget.

[Samwise Gamgee @Sambannz]

Gov't had "No" capacity of purchasing a software of Ugx 5,000,000,000 to start collecting toll fees on the Entebbe expressway.

So, through UNRA/Ministry of Works, Gov't contracted Egis at a contract fee of Ugx 122,000,000,000 to collect toll fees on behalf of Gov't.

😭😭😭

[Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 @jacksonhinkle]

How is this not genocide?

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@ColinCwashaki1 @sejudav @rwomchechen Iran’s logic: survival = victory. Even if economy wrecked, navy sunk, industry shattered, keeping the regime intact is resistance. To Tehran, endurance itself is winning — showing the rest of the world that even a “god can bleed.” kanyamunyu akatera iguru omujeere.

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@ColinCwashaki1 @sejudav Iranz deep bunkers ain't invincible.They rely on layered defenses:extremedepth,reinforced concrete,mountainshielding,decoy sites,&redundant underground tunnels.These measures slow destruction n't guarantee survival.Iran can delay or complicate strikes,can't fully stop B busters

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@ColinCwashaki1 @sejudav USA hasn’t used its full military might vs Iran — no ground invasion or nukes, but massive air/naval strikes crippled Iran’s forces.
2️⃣ Iran has successfully neutralized key U.S. assets: bases (Kuwait/Jordan), radar systems (THAAD, AN/FPS‑132), and aircraft (E‑3 AWACS).

[KaMuDuDu @KaMuDuDu3]

@ColinCwashaki1 @sejudav Iran’s fallback C2 under U.S. blackout:Fiber‑optic & landlinesEncrypted radio channelsDecentralized IRGC commandCouriers(vehicles/drones)Hardened bunkersCivil defense redundancyMosque/clerical networks👉 Doctrine: redundancy + decentralization = slower but survivable coordination