Argentina striker Lionel Messi will leave Barcelona despite both parties having reached an agreement over a new contract, the La Liga club said on Thursday, citing economic and structural obstacles to the renewal of deal.
Messi is Leaving Barcelona
“Although an agreement has been reached between FC Barcelona and Leo Messi it cannot be formalised due to economic and structural obstacles,” said a statement from the club.
“Faced with this situation, Lionel Messi will not remain linked to Barcelona. Both sides deeply regret that the wishes of both the player and the club cannot come true.”
LATEST NEWS | Leo #Messi will not continue with FC Barcelona
Messi, who joined Barca’s youth setup aged 13, is the club’s all-time top scorer with 672 in a record 778 appearances.
The Argentinian has been named world’s best player a record six times.
Messi was free to negotiate a transfer with other clubs after his deal ran out at the end of June but Barcelona had always maintained he wanted to stay with the club.
Messi had tried to leave Barcelona in August 2020, making a formal request for an exit after a break down in his relationship with then-president Josep Maria Bartomeu.
But his successor Joan Laporta, who presided over the Argentine’s rise to stardom, convinced him to stay.
image captionStreaks of light are seen as Israel’s Iron Dome system intercepts rockets launched from Gaza
Some of the worst violence seen in years in Israel and Gaza has led to dramatic images of confrontation across the region’s skies.
More than 3,000 rockets have been fired towards Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in the past week.
But about 90% of the rockets have been intercepted by its flagship Iron Dome missile defence system, according to the Israeli military.
The Iron Dome was specially designed to protect against a range of incoming short-range threats.
The system has its roots in the war Israel fought with Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah movement in 2006, when thousands of rockets were launched into Israel – causing huge damage, mass evacuations and dozens of deaths.
After that Israel said a new missile defence shield would be developed.
Created by Israeli firms Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries with some US support, the Iron Dome became operational in 2011.
Considered among the most advanced defence systems in the word, the Iron Dome uses radar to identify and destroy incoming threats before they can cause damage.
The all-weather system was specially designed to help combat shorter-range rudimentary weapons like the rockets fired from Gaza.
The Iron Dome was expensive to develop but manufacturers say it is cost-effective because of technology it uses to differentiate between missiles likely to hit built-up areas and those that won’t. Static and mobile units only launch interceptor missiles to shoot-down anything interpreted as dangerous.https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.42.4/iframe.htmlmedia caption(November 2012) The BBC’s Ben Brown describes how Israel’s Iron Dome works
A decade since the Iron Dome became operational, Israel now has 10 batteries deployed across the country, each with three to four launchers that can fire 20 interceptor missiles.
“The number of Israelis killed and wounded would be far higher if it had not been for the Iron Dome system, which has been a life saver as it always is,” Israeli military spokesman Lt Col Jonathan Conricus said this week.
But some analysts say the intensity of recent barrages from Gaza suggests militant groups are attempting to overwhelm the Iron Dome – raising concerns about the system’s possible limitations.
SPEAKING OUT: Princess Diana being interviewed about palace life in 1995. Meghan Markle doing the same on Sunday.Credit…Tim Graham/Corbis, via Getty Images; Harpo Productions, via Reuters
Anyone who remembers the funeral of Diana, the Princess of Wales, in 1997 can’t help being haunted by the wrenching sight of her two young sons, Princes William and Harry, walking slowly behind her coffin as it made its way to Westminster Abbey. Their hands were clasped in front; their heads were bowed. Harry looked so small in his suit.
That image has reverberated down the years, a ghostly reminder of the princes’ traumatic childhood, and it hovered again in the background as Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, spoke to Oprah Winfrey on Sunday night.
While the British tabloids like to cast Meghan in the villainous role of the Duchess of Windsor — the American divorcée who lured away their king in 1936 and lived with him in bitter exile, causing an irreparable family rift — Harry and Meghan seem determined to position her instead as a latter-day Diana, a woman mistreated by her in-laws, more sinned against than sinning.
Harry has often spoken with anguish and bitterness about what happened to Diana all those years ago when she was cast out of the royal family after her divorce from Prince Charles and later died in a car wreck in a Parisian underpass, the paparazzi in hot pursuit. He raised the subject again on Sunday, drawing parallels between the experiences of his mother and his wife and saying, of Diana, that he has “felt her presence through this whole process.”
Prince Harry, second from right, after his mother’s funeral in 1997. He was 12.Credit…Kieran Doherty/Reuters
It felt Shakespearean, the sense of history repeating itself through the immutable structure of a royal lineage and an ancient institution — while a prince spoke of breaking free from the old patterns and finding a new way forward.
Harry made the comparison explicit on Sunday when he referred to the “constant barrage” of criticism and racist attacks on his wife.
“What I was seeing was history repeating itself,” he said, though he described the treatment of Meghan as “far more dangerous” because of the ubiquity of social media and the corrosive element of racism.
Meghan’s discussion in the interview of her mental health struggles as a royal wife, of loneliness and desolation and thoughts of suicide, was reminiscent of Diana’s account of the bulimia and depression that consumed her during her own marriage. Both women said they had desperately sought help from the family, only to be ignored and rebuffed.
Editors’ Picks
“When I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my mother,” Harry said. “When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help.”
But just as with his mother, when Meghan pleaded for help, he said, none was forthcoming. Instead, the family dismissed her concerns and told her, essentially, to keep her head down.
The couple was repeatedly told: “This is how it is. This is just how it is,” Harry said.
Prince Harry and Meghan on their wedding day in 2018.Credit…Pool photo by Ben Stansall
There are many parallels between Meghan and Diana.
Like Diana, Meghan married into a family that did not understand her and believed she would conform, without complaint, to royal customs and protocol. As with Diana, when Meghan proved unable or unwilling to toe the family line, she said, the palace did nothing to dispel the emerging public narrative that she was demanding, petulant, entitled. And like Diana, Meghan found herself hounded by the tabloids, which accused her of constantly seeking attention while happily filling their pages with stories about her.
But there are differences, too, beyond the fact that Diana was white and Meghan is biracial, and the fact that Diana’s marriage fell apart, while Meghan has a strong marriage and a fierce champion in Harry.
Diana was just 20, and very sheltered and naïve, when she and Charles married; Meghan was 36 and worldly, having made her own living for years, when she married Harry. She was also divorced, with a high-profile job as an actress.
And Meghan is American, with an American sensibility.
Diana came from a culture of reticence in which tradition is venerated; Meghan comes from one where it is normal to ask for help, to discuss your feelings and to suggest that there might be better, newer ways of doing things.
Still there were more than a few hints of Diana when Meghan sat down with Oprah for the interview. Meghan wore a diamond bracelet that had once been Diana’s. (Diana’s most famous piece of jewelry, her sapphire-and-diamond engagement ring, can now be found on the finger of Prince William’s wife, Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge.)
Meghan offered a grueling portrait of palace life in the interview Sunday.Credit…CBS
Then there was the interview itself.
The bold decision of a royal wife to level criticisms against her husband’s family in a televised special was reminiscent of Diana’s 1995 interview with the BBC. That was the one in which, in somber tones, she revealed that her marriage had always been doomed because there were “three of us” in it: her, Charles, and Camilla Parker Bowles, his longtime lover and later his wife.
But it was Harry who most pointedly invoked his mother on Sunday. He said he believed Diana would have been angry and sad at the couple’s treatment. And he said she would have supported their decision to leave Britain and seek a new life away from the constraints of the royal family.
Given her experience, he said, his own plight had an air of inevitability to it.
“Touching back on what you asked me — what my mum would think of this — I think she saw it coming,” he told Oprah. “But ultimately, all she’d ever want is for us to be happy.”
For Harry, there is the added element of knowing that his father caused his mother pain, and that Charles knew how unhappy she was as a royal wife. Now, he told Oprah, he and Charles have had a falling-out over Meghan, with his father at one point refusing to take his calls.
“There’s a lot to work through here,” Harry said. “I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar. He knows what pain feels like, and Archie’s his grandson. At the same time, of course, I will always love him. But there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened.”
“There’s a lot of hurt that’s happened,” Prince Harry told Oprah.Credit…Harpo Productions, via Reuters
Toward the end of the interview, Harry spoke of his son, Archie, and his new life in California. He sounded both loving — and wistful. For a moment, he seemed to be recalling how it felt to be without a mother at the age of 12.
The High court led by Judge Musa Ssekaana has dismissed a case in which three members of Former NURP party that was rebranded to NUP changed leadership……HERE IS THE FINAL AND FULL JUDGEMENT…
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISC CAUSE NO.226 OF 2020
BASILE DIFASI TWALA HASSAN NKONGE MOSES KIBALAMA
SSIMBWA PAUL KAGOMBE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL UNITY PLATFORM KYAGULANYI SSENTAMU ROBERT DAVID LEWIS RUBONGOYA AISHA KABANDA JOEL SSENYONYI FLAVIA KALULE NABAGABE NYANZI FRED SSENTAMU ELECTORAL COMMISSION
This is an Application brought under Articles 8A together with the National objective II(v), 29(1)(e), 71(1)(c), and 139 of the Constitution; Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 33 Judicature Act; Section 19, 21 and 4th Schedule to the Political Parties and Organisations Act as Amended; Order 52 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following Declarations and Orders;
A Declaration that the Resolution dated 5/12/2017 nominating someone described as the Ghetto President H.E. Bobi Wine Kyadondo East MP Hon. Kyagulanyi Robert as the NURP Party’s Presidential Flag Bearer in the 2021 general elections is illegal and in contravention of the Party Constitution. A Declaration that the change of the Party name by the 8th respondent (Electoral Commission) from National Unity, Reconciliation and Development Party (NURP) as per its certificate of registration dated 28/12/2004 to The National Unity Platform (NUP) as published under General Notice No. 838 of 2019 in Uganda Gazette dated 12/8/2019 and the Certificate of Registration issued on 28/8/2019 in the name of The National Unity Platform (NUP) are illegal , null and void as they are not supported by the requisite resolutions under the NURP Party Constitution.
A Declaration that the change of NURP Party colours and symbols as gazetted under General Notice No. 379 of 2004 in the Uganda Gazette dated 13/12/2004 and maintained under General Notice No. 838 of 2019 in the Uganda Gazette dated 12/8/2019 by the 3rd to 9th Respondents is illegal, null and void as it is not supported by the requisite resolutions under the NURP Party Constitution and it infringes on sections 7(5), 8(a) and 11 of the Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005. A Declaration that the extra ordinary Delegates Conference allegedly held on 14/7/2020 to elect new political leaders of the NURP/NUP party was illegal and infringement of the Party Constitution, Articles 8A and National Objective II (v) and 29(1)(e) and 71(1)(c) of the National Constitution 1995 and Sections 19, 21 and the 4th Schedule of the Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005. A Declaration that the purported election of the 2nd respondent as Party President, 3rd Respondent as Secretary General, 4th Respondent as Deputy Secretary General, 5th Respondent as Secretary for Information/Spokesperson, 6th Respondent as Secretary for Women Affairs, 7th Respondent as Secretary for National Mobilization the said extra ordinary delegates conference was itself illegal, null and void. A Declaration that the alteration of the list of Founder Members/Subscribers in the NURP Party Constitution 2004 was fraudulent and illegal. A Declaration that by condoning the aforesaid illegalities, the 10th Respondent (Electoral Commission) is in breach of its statutory duty to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Political Parties and Organisations Act 2005. An Order that the 10th Respondent should de-gazette the change of the party name appearing under General Notice Notice No. 838 of 2019, de- register the name of The National Unity Platform (NUP), and re-instate NURP as the legally recognized Party name and the gazette NURP Party Colours and symbols. A Permanent Injunction restraining the 2nd 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th ,7th Respondents, their servants, agents and any person deriving authority from them from holding themselves out as the elected political leaders of the NURP/NUP Party whereas not, from transacting any business in the name of or on behalf of or on behalf of the Party or exercising the functions, powers and duties attached to the party offices they illegally claim and occupy by virtue of the elections allegedly held on 14/7/2020. A Permanent Injunction restraining the 8th & 9th Respondents, their servants and agents from recognizing NUP as a registered political party or organization, receiving any returns in the name of and/ or on behalf of NUP, or nominating any candidates for election on the NUP ticket. An Order for general damages to the Applicants. Costs of the Application. The grounds of the application are specifically set out Notice of Motion and also in detail in the affidavits of Basile Difasi and Twala Hassan the Applicants herein, which shall be read and relied on at the hearing but briefly are that;
The subject of the application is the National Unity, Reconciliation and Development Party (NURP) which was gazette as a political party in the Uganda gazette of 13th/13/2004 and issued with a certificate of registration on 28th -12-2004. In 2019, without any colour of right and in breach of the Party’s Constitution, the 2nd and 10th respondents illegally changed its party’s name of the National Unity Platform and on 14/7/2020, the 2nd respondent illegally handed over it political leadership to the 3rd to 9th respondents. The applicants are founder members of the said party and the 1st applicant doubles as a founding members of the party, its National Youth Secretary and member of the Party’s National Executive Committee whose consent and participation is necessary to amend the Constitution, elect new office bearers, nominate flag bearers and general running of the party. In 2019, the 10th respondent-Electoral Commission acting on application by the 2nd respondent changed the party name from NURP to National Unity Platform under General Notice No. 838 of 2019 published in the Uganda Gazette dated 12/8/2019 illegally as the relevant Party organs were not consulted and did not pass the requisite resolution to change the party name under the NURP Party Constitution 2004. On the 14th/7/2020 the 2nd respondent handed over the political leadership of the Party to the 3rd,4th, 5th 6th , 7th & 8th in an alleged extra ordinary Party Delegates Conference attended by 51 members who allegedly elected the 3rd-9th respondent as the new party leaders unopposed during the COVID- 19 such alleged extra-ordinary delegates conference if it ever occurred, was illegal, null and void for being in breach of the Party Constitution. The 2nd to 7th respondents have taken over the party’s leadership and arrogated unto themselves political powers illegally without consulting party members or the supporting resolutions of the relevant party organs. The applicants wrote a complaint to the 10 respondent against the above named illegalities on 3/8/2020 but the Electoral Commission has failed or refused to take action thereby breaching its statutory duties. The respondents filed several affidavits in reply sworn by the parties themselves and Electoral Commission’s affidavit was deposed by Kiyingi Samuel-Principal Election Officer and Wanyama Kodoli from the Attorney General chambers opposing the application whose grounds are briefly that;
That on 22nd November, 2012, a request to change the party name to National Unity Party was made to the Electoral Commission but it was rejected due to failure by the party to adhere to the law. That on 4th February 2013, the party made another attempt at change of name to Independent’s National Unity Party and the same was also rejected. That on 11th March, 2019, a re-submission of the earlier request to change from National Unity Reconciliation and Development Party (NURP) to Independent National Unity Party was rejected by the 10th respondent. On 11th March, 2019, the party held its 3rd Extra-Ordinary meeting at which a resolution to change its name was passed.
That on 14th June, 2019 a Notification of Intention to change the name was published in the gazette by the 10th respondent. On 12th August 2019 a Notice of Approval of change of Party name to National Unity Party was published in the gazette by the 10th respondent. That upon publication of the Notification of Intention to change the name and Notice of Approval thereof in the Gazette, the 10th Respondent on 28th August, 2019, issued a Certificate of Registration to the 1st respondent. That on 18th January 2020, a Notice of Meeting for the central Executive Committee was issued by the 1st respondent. On 29th June, 2020, the 1st respondent notified the 10th respondent about holding an extra ordinary National Delegates Conference on 14th July, 2020. That on 13th July 2020, the 1st respondent requested to change the party symbol, however it was rejected. That on 21st July 2020, the 1st respondent presented a list of its elected party leaders together with the minutes of the Delegates Conference held on 14th July 2020. That there is no record on file to demonstrate that the applicants are among the founder members. ISSUES Whether or not the Applicants have locus standi to bring the Application; Whether or not the change of the Party name from NURP to NUP was in breach of the Party Constitution and or any other legal provisions regulating political parties; Whether or not the election and assumption of party offices by the 3rd to 9th Respondents was in breach of the Party Constitution and or any other legal provisions regulating political parties; Available Remedies. Preliminary Considerations
The 2nd and 9th respondent had been joined as respondent in the matter and later during the proceedings they changed their affidavit evidence and indeed sought to agree with the original applicants. Secondly, they also appeared now to be aggrieved since they never received what had been promised to them as a consideration for surrendering the party. Since in the testimony/cross examination, they wanted the promised 5,000,000$. This court in exercise of its inherent powers, has joined the said respondents to become part of the applicants.
The 2nd respondent and 9th respondent through their recanting affidavits were deemed to have crossed over to being applicants. Although, they tried to disguise but the information on court record shows that the applicants lawyer were their lawyers and indeed one of the purported lawyers of Kibalama Moses Nkonge and Ssimbwa Paul Kagombe wrote a letter to court disowning documents(affidavits) drawn in their law firm and have contended that it was drawn by applicants lawyers.
WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS COMPETENT AND PROPERLY BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT? The respondent’s counsel submitted that the applicants brought this application under Article 8A together with National Objective Principles II (v), 29 (i) (e), 71 (1)
and Article 139 (1) of the Constitution, section 98 of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 33 of the Judicature Act; section 19, 21 and 4th Schedule to the Political Parties and Organizations Act, 2005 as amended; Order 52 rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Clearly there is no set procedure governing the nature of this application. It is an amorphous document placed before court in exploration and hope of chancing on a remedy. It is not clear whether it is an application for constitutional interpretation or for enforcement of rights. But it can be deduced from the nature of remedies sought that this application seeks from this court judicial review remedies.
The application should have been an application for judicial review since the applicants seek for declarations, orders and injunctions on the activities of the Respondents.
They submitted that submit that the applicants have opted to run away from the strict rules of procedure after they realised that this application was well beyond the 3 months period prescribed for any application for judicial review.
The applicants counsel submitted that the Constitution, Political Parties and Organisations Act and Party Constitution out of which the matter arose do not by themselves provide a specific procedure, hence invoking section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Determination
It can be deduced from the pleadings and provisions cited that the applicants’ counsel are not aware that there is legal regime that governs the procedure of
challenging decisions of political parties. It is trite law, that inherent powers of court cannot be invoked where there is specific law governing a subject matter.
In the case of Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 237 OF 2019) this court found that the applicants have opted to run away from the strict rules of procedure after he realised that his application was well beyond the 3 months period prescribed for any application for judicial review.
Rule 5 (1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 provides that;
An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of the application FIRST arose, unless the court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.(Emphasis added) This court will not allow such a litigant to devise alternative procedure in order to circumvent the set procedure. He is only trying to access court through the window instead of the door that has been prescribed by the Constitution.
Justice is to be rendered in accordance with the law and set principles and procedure. The Constitution is silent as to the procedure to be followed or how to access courts to seek redress outside constitutional interpretation and enforcement of human rights.
The necessary procedure must be followed from the existing legislation like the Judicature Act or Civil Procedure Act and not to invent any procedure the applicant finds convenient or comes to his imagination.
The nature of judicial review procedure is based on some clear policy consideration such that the state machinery or administrators are not bogged down with endless litigation over their actions. Judicial review thus is a fundamental mechanism for keeping public authorities within the due bounds and for upholding the rule of law. See Wade & Forsyth Administrative Law 10th Edition
Excessive interference by the judiciary in the functions of the executive is not proper. The machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed some free play in its joints.
This therefore means that if the applicants wanted to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, they should have come to court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the application for judicial review will indeed be a ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction.
The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where rights of 3rd parties have accrued in the meantime.
There is no proper limit and there is a lower limit of 3 months when a person can come to court. The court is allowed to exercise discretion depending on the facts to determine whether to extend the time to file/apply for judicial review. It will depend on how the delay arose.
The applicant in this case ought to have applied for judicial review within 3 months after the change of name of the party from NURP to NUP i.e by 6th June 2019 but instead the applicants filed this application on 24th August 2020 after over one year. This application was made with a view of making some money during the election season and the applicants have no genuine grievance but rather want to be relevant and make some quick cash.
The court is empowered to refuse relief and deny access to the judicial review reliefs on ground of laches because of several considerations e.g it is not desirable to allow stale claims to be canvassed before the court; there should be finality to ligation.
It cannot be argued that the Constitution intended to disregard all procedural rules in relation to access to justice or grant of reliefs and allow applications filed after inordinate delay. Constitutional provisions are not intended to supersede the available modes of obtaining relief before a civil court or deny the defences legitimately open in such actions.
The applicants like all other litigants should not be encouraged to circumvent the provisions made by a Statute providing a mechanism and procedure to challenge administrative action. Every potential litigant would rush to the court in any manner they deem fit and thus rendering the statutory provisions meaningless and non existing.
Constitutional provisions are not intended to short circuit or circumvent established procedures and statutory provisions for accessing courts. See Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Every litigant who approaches the court, must come forward not only with clean hands but with clean mind, clean heart and with clean objective.
The court must come with a very heavy hand on a litigant who seeks to abuse the process of the court; as the Supreme Court of India has observed;
“No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions”. Budhi Kota Subbarao v K. Parasarab, AIR 1996 SC 2687;(1996) 5 SCC 530.
It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of justice and the Constitution and rule of law to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.
This court declines to entertain the application since it was not brought under any known procedure and secondly it was made to avoid the time limit of 3 months within which an application for judicial review should have been brought. The judicial review guidelines or rules equally provide for locus standi and this would have been the threshold before the applicants would seek to challenge actions of a party. It is an abuse of court process.
This application is dismissed with costs to the respondents I so order
Ssemayobwe ajja kuzuzumba ne minisita Betty ne Sipiika wa KCCA Kawalya
OMUVUBUKA Nicholas Ssemayobwe ow’emyaka 22 y’omu ku beewandiisizza okuvuganya ku kifo ky’Omubaka akiikirira Lubaga North mu Kalulu ka 2021. Ono okwewandiisa yawerekeddwako maama we,taata we ne baganda be bakira obwedda essanyu lye balina lya mwoki wa gonja.
Ssemayobwe ng’asoma bya kukanika nnyonyi e Soroti yagambye nti mukakafu nti akalulu k’agendamu agenda kukawuuta buva.Agenda kufaafaagana ne Minisita Betty Olive Namisango Kamya Turwomye,Moses Kasibante nga ye MP aliyo ne Abu Baker Kawalya sipiika w’olukiiko lwa KCCA owa NUP.
Ssemayobwe azze talina kibiina ng’agamba nti emibuyo egiri mu bibiina by’obufuzi tasobola kugiguminkiriza.
Ssemayobwe alabudde abo abamunyooma n’agamba nti ye obumanyirivu abulina engeri gye kiri nti y’omu ku bakulira ffaamu yaabwe.Ssemayobwe mutuuze w’e Kawaala
OYO OMWANA YALI AMPEEKA OKUBEERA MP
Maama wa Ssemayobwe nga ye Robinah Lutaaya yategeezezza ab’amawulire ku kitebe ky’akakiiko k’ebyokulonda e Ntinda nti mutabani we yava dda ng’amupeeka nga bw’ayagala okwesimbawo olw’obusosoze ku bavubuka mu ofiisi za gavumenti n’ebitongole ebirala.
President M7 who changed name to Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni and his former spy Mr. Charles Rwomushana
PRESIDENTIAL hopeful and former Muveni’s spy Mr.Charles Rwomushana has disclosed how the long waited 2021 Uganda General election is going to be a ‘silly’ one,he also claims that the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) and it’s Chairman Presdient Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Kaguta Museveni have already rigged the election. Rwomushana says that Museveni acts as a player and the referee when it comes to elections in Uganda,he fires and hires Electoral Commission staff.
‘PLAN B’ MEANS DEATH
Rwomushana has equated the coming election to the recently concluded Ssembabule election between his brother Sodo Aine Kaguta,Shartsi Kuesa and Salim Kisekka.
Rwomushana told confirmed to kiss media that the coming elections have already been rigged and that the Electoral commission has declaration forms for Presidential Candidate Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni,although the commissions Spokesperson Mr.Paul Bukenya has trashed such allegations.
HO..HO..POLIISI EKUTTE ABABADDE BANYUMYA AKABOOZI MU KIRINDI E KIREKA
Abamu ku bawala abaakwatiddwa
BYA DAN MUGULA
POLIISI ekiro ekyakeesezza Olwassande yakutte abantu okuli abakazi n’absajja 21 e Kireka nga baabadde beekuba amatooke,okwenyewegera n’okwegandanga mu kirindi ate nga tebataddeeko kondomu ekintu ekibadde kiyinza okusaasanya akawuka ka siriimu ne COVID19.
Bano baasangiddwa nga bamazeemu akagoba nga bali mu buleega ate abalala nga bali bukunya nga bwe baazaalibwa nga ebintu byonna bitambulira bweru.
Akabaga akookwegadanga kaategekeddwa abasajja Poliisi beekyasirikidde amannya gaabwe,kati abakwate bakuumirwa ku Poliisi y’e Kireka nga bwe balinda kkooti okubasomera emisango omuli okujeemera ebiragiro bya covid19,obuteewa mabanga,okweyisa ng’ebimpemempeme (public nuisance ) n’emirala.
TWESUNZE OKUTUKUBA AMATOOKE
Bakira obwedda abakazi abamu abazze ku kabaga kano bawulirwa nga beewaana nti ‘Bannange nze nneesunze okunkuba amatooke,omusajja wange abadde takyammazisa bulungi”
POLIISI EYOGEDDE
Okusinziira ku mwogezi wa Poliisi mu Kampala n’emirirwano Patrick Onyango,agamba nti waliwo abatuuze abaabagulizzaako Poliisi nti waliwo abantu abateekateeka akabaga k’okunyumya akaboozi nabo kwe kusindika bambega baabwe abaasoose okuja ng’abagenda okwetaba ku kabaga akano era ,ekyaddiridde kwe kubakwata.
KINO KY’EKIWANDIIKO KYA POLIISI KU NSONGA ENO
Press Release
Police in Kampala Metropolitan Area have raided and arrested 21 suspects who participated in a sex party.
The party was taking place in a private house located in Kireka, Kira Municipality.
Intelligence got information about the party and planted informants to monitor and inform the police when the party has started.
Towards midnight, the police was notified that the sex gamse had started and we swung in action.
We got the participants red handed.
They have been arrested and detained at Kira Division Police Station on charges of disobedience of lawful orders and doing acts that are likely to cause the spread of infectious disease, which is coronavirus.
Their files are being prepared and they will appear in court tomorrow.
Some of the Muslim Women at Hotel Africana in Kampala
Muslim women under the umbrella of Uganda Muslim Women’s Vision (UMWV) have petitioned the government of Uganda over the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act; Schedule 3 – Form G, under which they are forced to remove their veils before having their pictures taken for the National IDs, Driving Permits, Passports and when going through immigration at international border posts. This was during a Press Conference held yesterday 8th October 2020 at Hotel Africana in Kampala.
Unless the act is done away with, Muslim Women contend that their constitutional right to freely practice their religion is grossly violated.
“The dress code is the first aspect of identity and the head dress (veil) is very characteristic and definitive” said the UMWN Chairperson Namukwaya Aisha.
“For a very long time, we have been suffering immensely and silently with the way we have been forced to remove our veils in public yet they are part and parcel of our religious obligations” Namukwaya told journalists.
The Muslim women dress code is clearly stated in the Holy Quran Verse 33; chapter 59.
While addressing journalists during the Press Conference, Hadijah Namyalo, a Lecturer at the School of Law Makerere University said a petition has been submitted to the Rt. Hon Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda and a copy to the Equal Opportunities Commission.
“It should be clearly noted that while veiled, all facial features that identify a person are well displayed, so why are Muslim women forced to unveil? Namyalo wondered.
In the era of modern technologies Namyalo said a person’s true identity can be revealed using biometrics.
She gave the example of countries like USA and UK where Muslims women have their photos for official documents taken with their veils on.
“Our prayer therefore is that government should allow Muslim women in Uganda to keep their veils intact while moving through immigration points and while having their photos taken for official documents like National Identity Cards, Driving Permits and other related procedures” Muslim Women stated in a Press release.
Ssaazi (left) and Kabaka’s daughter Ssangalyambogo (right)
AT the age of 18,Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi’s daughter Katrina Sarah Ssangalyambogo has started eating Adam’s forbidden fruit! The Princess is in Love with a well off boyfriend who has been dating her ever since she was 16 years of age.
Katrina has been traversing almost all countries under the globe including Germany,England,South Africa,United Arab Emirates (UAE),Nairobi in Kenya among others.
WHO IS DATING KABAKA’S DAUGHTER?
Clive Ssaazi is the ‘boy’ and the guy who is dating Kabaka’s daughter according to our sources close to Ssangalyambogo.Ssaazi is a son of a well off Muganda man in Muyenga.He is also rumored to be one of those who have been travelling with Ssangalyambogo around the world. It’s with this chance that Ssaazi got a chance and has been chewing the Princes’ sumbie.A relationship ring is also noticed on Katrina’s finger.
US PRESIDENT TRUMP WEARRING A MASK,HE HAD BEEN NEGATIVE ON PEOPLE PUTTING ON MASKS
President Donald Trump credited Regeneron Pharmaceutical Inc.’s experimental monoclonal antibody treatment with his apparent recovery from the coronavirus, and announced Wednesday his intention to authorize emergency use of the therapeutic and provide it free to Americans.
Trump added that he believed his brush with the virus was “a blessing from God” because it gave him first-hand experience with the Regeneron monoclonal antibodies, which he described as “key” to his recovery.
Trump took the experimental treatment alongside remdesivir, the Gilead Sciences antiviral therapy, as well as the steroid dexamethasone. But the president said he specifically asked doctors to give him the Regeneron treatment.
Regeneron shares jumped 2.7% in late trading on the president’s remarks. Eli Lilly & Co., which makes a competing antibody treatment also mentioned by Trump, jumped 1.7%.
Trump asserted once again that he believed the U.S. would have a vaccine “very, very shortly” but said for the first time that it was not likely to come until after the Nov. 3 presidential election. The president blamed “politics” after the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday released new standards that could delay authorization of a coronavirus vaccine until after the election.
Trump also claimed in the video, shot on the South Lawn of the White House, that he did not believe he needed to be hospitalized over the weekend at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, but that doctors insisted because of his office.
“I walked in, I didn’t feel good,” Trump said. “A short 24 hours later, I was feeling great I wanted to get out of the hospital. And that’s what I want for everybody.
Trump’s doctors said Wednesday they were able to detect antibodies in his bloodstream in a test taken Monday. Regeneron said in an email that its drug is probably responsible for the antibodies, rather than Trump producing them on his own.
The company said Wednesday night that it had made a formal request to the FDA for an emergency use authorization. The company added that if the authorization were approved, it had doses available for about 50,000 patients at no cost.
Yet it’s impossible to know whether he’s feeling better because of that drug, Trump’s course of remdesivir or the dexamethasone. It’s also unclear whether he’s “cured,” since people with the virus sometimes take a turn for the worse a week or more after first showing symptoms.
Democratic nominee Joe Biden appeared to react with skepticism to Trump’s decision to proclaim the antibody treatment a “cure,” telling a reporter who asked about the declaration, “I hope you stay healthy.”
Biden also criticized Trump for calling his brush with coronavirus a blessing.
“I think it’s a tragedy the president deals with Covid like it is something not to be worried about when already 210,000 people have died,” the former vice president told reporters in Wilmington. “I think it’s a tragedy.”
© Photographer: Win McNamee/Getty Images North America WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 05: U.S. President Donald Trump stands on the Truman Balcony after returning to the White House from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on October 05, 2020 in Washington, DC. Trump spent three days hospitalized for coronavirus. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
KISS NEWS 