It makes no sense to ban NTV from covering Parliament.
Creating an environment where journalism thrives works in everyone’s favour.
Parliament must do the right thing..
Uganda Wants A $500Bn Economy But Works Overtime To Sabotage Its Own Goal
Uganda says it aims to become a US$500 billion economy by 2040. It needs an aggressive 15% annual compounding growth rate to get there, but it currently hovers around 6% to 7%. Yet its political and security system is working overtime to sabotage even the remote chance of reaching that target.
Political violence and state crackdowns (which are rampant and heightened in Uganda right now) usually act as a direct handbrake, subtracting an estimated 2% to 3% from potential GDP growth each year.
According to various studies, this economic drag stems from three main areas:
-The Institute for Economics and Peace notes that violence-related costs consume roughly 11% of GDP, diverting critical public funds from infrastructure to internal security.
-A World Bank study reveals that atmospheric insecurity and risk aversion stifle domestic investment and consumption by nearly 1% of GDP (call it the cost of fear).
-Political instability triggers international travel advisories and halts capital. A prolonged 20% drop in Uganda’s $1.5 billion tourism sector risks over $300 million annually, while frozen international development funds cripple major infrastructure projects.
Compounded over 15 years, the structural friction of political instability would rob the country of an extra $53 billion in real-world wealth from its target. We could get this back just by not letting the dogs out, though it is also easy to see how failure helps the violent extremist factions in the state gain power in future, and demobilises the residual moderate/centrist forces in the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM).
🚨 Senegal captain Kalidou Koulibaly speaking facts:
"Africans can’t have their people" at the World Cup because of US travel bans.
Every other team gets their fans. But Global South teams like Senegal get blocked while the West lectures everyone about "inclusion" and "human rights".
This is the same empire that bombs, exploits, and restricts — then cries when others resist.
Football should unite people, not separate them with racist visa policies and double standards.
Stand with Koulibaly. Stand with the fans. Stand with the Global South.
No bows. Just raw truth. 💪🏿🇸🇳
Friends, the nation we call Uganda is no more. In its place is some other land mass - a place where lawlessness, impunity & disregard for human rights is the order of the day.
There is no functional constitution & there is no rule of law anymore. The Executive, Judiciary & Legislature have conspired to hand over our country to a power-hungry junta that will abduct & torture you if you so much as breathe in a manner they don't deem fit.
It is as clear as daylight that we are on our own.
Cry the Beloved Country!
Dear Maj. Gen. (Rtd) @mugishamuntu,
I recently watched you on TikTok telling that sharp satirical story of a man who hated his neighbour. When God appeared to him and asked him to name his heart’s desire, God added that whatever the man asked for would be given twice to the neighbour he hated. The man thought carefully, then asked to lose sight in one eye — knowing very well that his neighbour would lose sight in both.
It was painful, funny, and intelligent in the way good satire often is. You made people laugh, but the laughter carried a serious warning: hatred can make a man accept his own loss, as long as the person he resents suffers more. As I laughed, admiring your wit, I remembered another man from our own folklore: Ishekatabazi of Ntungamo.
There is an old tale about this cunning man. Ishekatabazi had spent two weeks in Karagwe, Tanzania, visiting a friend. But when he returned to the village and people asked where he had been, he did not tell them the truth. He claimed he had been at Kamukuzi, staying at the palace of the Omugabe of Nkore. And from that borrowed authority, he delivered his warning: an anthrax outbreak was coming, and it would kill the cows. The only way to save them, he said, was to cut out their tongues.
The villagers did not believe him at first. They knew him and suspected a trick. So, before dawn, Ishekatabazi drew blood from one of his healthy cows, as elders sometimes did when harvesting blood for food, smeared it around the mouths of his own cattle, and waited. By morning, his neighbours saw what looked like proof. Fear did the rest. One by one, they followed his advice and cut out the tongues of their cows.
By midday, all the cows in the village — except Ishekatabazi’s — were dead. And so, the story says, Ishekatabazi became the richest man in a ruined village.
That is where many people laugh and end the story. They call him clever. They admire the trick. They celebrate the man who outsmarted everyone else. But when I place Ishekatabazi next to the man in your story, the laughter becomes uncomfortable.
The man who asked to lose one eye was not wise; he was consumed by envy. Ishekatabazi was not wise either; he was consumed by the need to dominate others, even if domination meant destroying the village that sustained him. His neighbours had lost their cows, but the village had also lost milk, bride wealth, food security, savings, dignity, and trust. The local economy had shrunk. The people who might have bought his milk were now poorer. The community that might have traded with him was now wounded. The neighbours who might have trusted him now had reason to fear him.
So what exactly had he won? He had become the richest man in a village he had made poorer. That is not wisdom. It is short-sightedness dressed up as intelligence.
And this is where the story becomes deeply political. Fear has always been a tempting instrument for weak leadership because it works quickly. It can silence questions, scatter rivals, divide communities, and make people appear obedient. But fear is a poor foundation for nation-building. It produces compliance, not confidence. It produces silence, not trust. It produces subjects, not citizens.
A leader who governs by fear may imagine he has secured power. A leader who keeps communities suspicious of one another may imagine he has mastered control. A leader who turns tribe against tribe, neighbour against neighbour, party against party, and citizen against citizen may even appear clever for a season. But he is only becoming Ishekatabazi. He is killing the cows of his own village.
People who are afraid do not plan boldly. They do not innovate freely. They do not collaborate honestly. They hide their thoughts, protect themselves, flatter power, and wait for danger to pass. A society ruled by fear may look stable from a distance, but underneath, its productive capacity is being drained. Trust dies first. Then initiative. Then institutions. Then the economy itself.
That is why fear is such a short-sighted tool of leadership. It may protect a leader from immediate challenge, but it weakens the people whose strength he ultimately depends on. He may remain with the last herd standing, but he will be standing in a ruined economy, surrounded by resentment, mistrust, and quiet withdrawal. He may control the people, but he will have weakened the nation.
That is why your story stayed with me. The man who chose to lose one eye and Ishekatabazi who ruined his village are cousins in the same moral family. Both remind us that hatred, envy, fear, and cunning can look like strategy, but only to the short-sighted.
True leadership cannot be built on the poverty and fear of one’s own people. It cannot survive by shrinking the economy, dividing communities, humiliating rivals, or making citizens afraid of one another. A leader who creates poverty and strife among his own people is not strengthening himself; he is weakening the very ground on which he stands.
For the first time, I am with President Suluhu on this. Why should she be forced to speak their language? Russia uses its own language, so she would need a translator anyway. Shouldn't she speak Swahili instead, forcing them to need a translator too?
I am in #Uganda, where the government has mounted a prompt and capable response to the outbreak of #Ebola.
Screening at the borders helped detect cases arriving from neighbouring #DRC, and the country’s surveillance, testing and case management systems are doing steady work. Of the 19 confirmed cases so far, 14 were among people who entered from DRC and five are Ugandan nationals. Sadly, two people from DRC have died, and our thoughts are with their families.
@WHO is supporting Uganda, alongside @AfricaCDC and partners across the region, as the country leads this response.
With continued collaboration, I am confident this outbreak can be brought under control.
When I watched this, I immediately knew she wasn't a Ugandan woman and I was right, this kind of minds are like only 2% among our women here, she is the real deal😭❤️
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus voiced concern over the speed and scale of the Ebola epidemic in Congo and Uganda, with over 500 suspected cases and 130 suspected deaths reported https://t.co/bDjXMIBmrd
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus voiced concern over the speed and scale of the Ebola epidemic in Congo and Uganda, with over 500 suspected cases and 130 suspected deaths reported https://t.co/bDjXMIBmrd
A Oxford PhD student got flagged for submitting AI-generated work.
His advisor called it the most sophisticated research process he had seen in 20 years.
The student had not used AI to write a single word.
Here is the workflow that got him reported.
He starts every essay with a diagnostic he calls brutal. He dumps his rough argument into Claude and asks one question: what are the three weakest logical jumps in this reasoning, and where would a hostile examiner attack first? The AI does not write his essay. It destroys his draft, and then he rebuilds from whatever survives.
Most students using AI are doing the opposite. They hand Claude a topic and ask it to write. He hands Claude his thinking and asks it to find every place where that thinking falls apart. The difference between those two approaches is the difference between outsourcing your brain and sharpening it.
The second step is the one that made his advisor go quiet. He uploads the five most important papers in his field alongside his draft and asks Claude what claims in his argument contradict or oversimplify what these authors actually found. Most PhD students cite papers they have skimmed once. He cites papers he has been forced to genuinely reckon with, because Claude keeps catching the places where he got them wrong.
The final move is almost unfair. Before he submits anything, he pastes his conclusion and runs one more prompt. He asks what a philosopher of science would say is missing from this argument and what assumptions he is making that he has not defended. His essays come back from reviewers with phrases like unusually rigorous and demonstrates rare critical depth, and his committee has no idea that the depth came from a machine asking him harder questions than any human in his department was willing to ask.
The academic integrity hearing lasted three hours. The panel asked him to rebuild his methodology from scratch in the room. He opened his laptop and showed them exactly how the workflow ran, prompt by prompt. They did not just clear him. They gave him the highest grade in the department's history and asked him to present the process to faculty.
Here is what that story actually means. What took most PhD candidates six months of back-and-forth with advisors, he was compressing into a single session because he had figured out something almost nobody else has. AI does not make your thinking better by replacing it. It makes your thinking better by attacking it faster than any human critic ever would.
He was not using AI to write. He was using it to think harder than he could alone.
The tool is the same one everyone has. The workflow is the part nobody is teaching.
I shall say one more thing today. The entire budget for roads in Kampala will be under my control (CDF). I will determine who builds and repairs roads.