Someone on the podcast compared England's World Cup record to Uganda's...
I wasn't ready for that. πβ½
Watch the full conversation on my YouTube channel.
GUYS LET US ATTACK THIS Before 8pm
ODD 43 β οΈβ οΈβ οΈ
Code : ZRTJK3R
We are recovering with this πͺ
Always Repost please!! Others shouldn't miss
Did you know that despite his popularity in the Democratic Party, Zohran Mamdani can never run for President of the United States? Neither could the legendary Henry Kissinger, one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy.
The reason is simple: neither was a natural-born citizen of the United States.
In other words, countries place restrictions on who can occupy certain high offices, not because they dislike immigrants or dual nationals, but because they consider those offices uniquely tied to questions of sovereignty, allegiance, and national security.
Most arguments being advanced in defence of Prof. Muganga's nomination miss this critical point, albeit deliberately, and choose to ride the tribal horse. They know (or ought to know) very well that this is not merely a political debate. It is a legal question, and one grounded in constitutional principles that Uganda deliberately adopted after extensive national reflection. (Read CA debates).
Indeed, Ugandaβs constitution provides for dual citizenship (but have you wondered why it took almost 20 years to realise it?). Article 15 permits Ugandans to retain citizenship of another country. However, Article 15(7) specifically empowers Parliament to prescribe offices that canβt be held by dual citizens. Parliament subsequently did exactly that, listing among the restricted offices the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Cabinet Ministers.
Certain positions at the apex of state power require undivided legal allegiance to the country. This is not unique to Uganda. Many countries impose restrictions in one form or another. Imagine having a minister who swore an oath of allegiance to a different/another country. What happens when the time to stand by that oath comes?
Those attempting to turn this into a tribal contest are avoiding the real issue. The question before us is not whether Prof. Muganga is accomplished, intelligent, or capable. It is whether he met the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointment to the office for which he had been nominated.
And lastly, what NUP is saying to Prof Muganga and others who were illegally passed today is that itβs not enough to write a letter stating that you renounce a certain countryβs citizenship, the process has to be complete, there has to be evidence of acknowledgment or grant of renunciation from that country, the same way you donβt write a letter asking for citizenship and automatically become a citizen of country, there has to be evidence that you have been granted that citizenship.